Denon AVC A1D or Yamaha A1
William Codd
I currently own a Yamaha A1092 and would like to upgrade to the next level.
I am looking for more power, AC3- DTS, Upgradablity, test tone for Sub & EQ
setup for speaker matching.
I have been looking at the Yamaha for serveral months but then Denon brings
along the A1D.
Reading HCC gave it a very good but left it open as to which one to buy (I
know its only a guide).
With only £300 between them it is now a very close, but £300 will but a
Pronto.
So has anyone heard these two units side by side and purchased based on
their experience. Also what price have you paid & service from suppliers.
Also I have been told that most of the cheap prices you see in Magazines
(HCC) are Grey Imports (this was a dealer selling the A1D at £2000), again
any comments.
Example company pricing SDB A1D £1599.00
A1 (gold) £1299.00
P.S How much do you think the 1092 is worth S/H.
Many Thanks
Bill
Jamie Dickson
I have a Yammy DSP-A1 but if I had the choice now I would go for an A1D.
Why:
1) More power.
2) THX.
3) Ability to route digital inputs to whatever video input required.
(Minor gripe as I want to connect my PC with it's SB Live soundcard
via the A1 but I don't have a spare S-Video/digital connection
free).
Don't get me wrong. The A1 is a superb bit of kit but as usual
something better always pops up.
Jamie.
Bardo
decoder? The DSP-A1, on the other hand, can only handle 5.1 inputs....
Jamie Dickson <ja...@jdnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.122b7f93f...@news.globalnet.co.uk...
David Linsley
<Willia...@tesco.net> wrote:
>I currently own a Yamaha A1092 and would like to upgrade to the next level.
Same situation as me!
>I am looking for more power, AC3- DTS, Upgradablity, test tone for Sub & EQ
>setup for speaker matching.
>I have been looking at the Yamaha for serveral months but then Denon brings
>along the A1D.
I have been looking at the Denon, got a brief audition in Ipswich
Seven Oaks shop. Nice sound with Dolby Digital, but I never heard it
on plain stereo replay from CDs etc.
However, I am really looking at the next level beyond (I've had the
Yamaha DSP-590 for a year, then the 1092 for 2 years, and now I want
to go for a separate processor/amplifier that will last a while, but
is really special. I'm looking at the TagMclaren AV32R, Meridian 561
and Lexicon DC-1).
>So has anyone heard these two units side by side and purchased based on
>their experience. Also what price have you paid & service from suppliers.
If you can afford to, then I'd recommend you buy it from a decent
dealer. They will usually offer much better service (local companies
will often deliver to home, let you try it for a few days and then
return it for a refund etc), longer guarantess, and trade-in on your
old equipment.
>Also I have been told that most of the cheap prices you see in Magazines
>(HCC) are Grey Imports (this was a dealer selling the A1D at £2000), again
>any comments.
Touchy area, as a machine imported from Germany (for example) isn't a
'grey' import in the sense of it. But it wasn't destined for the UK so
Denon UK probably wont honour the guarantee, but the SHOP HAS to give
you at least a 12month guarantee.
> P.S How much do you think the 1092 is worth S/H.
If the dealer (or an individual) gives me 300quid for it I'd be happy.
Although it doesnt have DTS, the amplification in the 1092 is much
better than the Sony 925 or the Sherwood 945 etc.
Dave L.
Max Christoffersen
>Isn't the A1D also able to handle input from a future Dolby Digital EX 6.1 decoder? The DSP-A1, on the other hand, can only handle 5.1 inputs....<
NO. Both can handle 5.1 only.
The Denon does have extra side speakers.
THX is a non-issue.
The price between the two units is quite significant.
Any choice between one and or the other would depend on what your
priorities are for the future. DVD Audio etc etc etc
The new Millenium Yamaha flagship is reputed to be 6.1 capable.
It's a great time to be in home theatre.
Max Christoffersen
Peter Petley
and pre out only. I've heard both but the Denon it the better but best
advise is try them your self
Max Christoffersen
>Denon has 5.1 and 7.1 inputs and pre outs for both the yam has 5.1 inputs and pre out only. I've heard both but the Denon it the better but best advise is try them your self
>
It does NOT have 7.1 outputs.
The capacity for 7 sepakers should never be described as 7.1.The
additonal channels are not discrete and this is NOT an encode-decode
format.
The Denon has the capability to drive additional side surround speakers,
that's all.
If it is indeed more than that show me the 7.1 encoded software.
Max Christoffersen
Mark Webb
Codd) wrote:
> I have been looking at the Yamaha for serveral months but then Denon
> brings
> along the A1D.
I wouldn't buy either of them now. I'm far from convinced that Dolby
Digital EX is more than a marketing gimmick, but if I were blowing 1500+
on an amp today, I'd want to have the capability for this on board. Both
Yamaha and Denon (allegedly) have such a unit just around the corner.
I personally have a soft spot for Denon due to the quality (or should
that be quantity?) of their engineering. Certainly the old AVC-A1 could
withstand a pre-preemptive nuclear strike, and then fry the opposition
with five channels of 140W at 20Hz.
Mark W.
Mark Webb
Christoffersen) wrote:
> THX is a non-issue.
That is a matter of opinion.
Mark W.
Max Christoffersen
So is that.
What tangible advantage is THX?
Max Christoffersen
Adam Hill
> "Peter Petley" <ppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Denon has 5.1 and 7.1 inputs and pre outs for both the yam has 5.1 inputs and pre out only. I've heard both but the Denon it the better but best advise is try them your self
> >
>
> It does NOT have 7.1 outputs.
>
Um, the A1D has 7.1 inputs and 7.1 outputs, but pre-amp only. What this means is that you can hook up an extra decoder and a stereo power amp to get true 7.1 output. It would
be fairly simple to hook up a matrix decoder to the rear channel pre-outs, feed it back in to the extra effects in, and hook a power amp up to the effects out. You would then
have a Dolby EX system without having to fork out for a complete new system.
Adam
Adam Hill
> I have a Yammy DSP-A1 but if I had the choice now I would go for an A1D
I listened to both side by side, and bought the Denon.... but then I
wanted a system that could handle Hi-Fi well and to me the Denon was much
better in that department - the Yamaha still has the better DSP modes so if
you are after a home cinema only system and like DSPs then the Yammy is
definitely still the one to have.
>
> Why:
>
> 1) More power.
Yep - and providing that you have the surroundings to use it it is
awesome in the power department......
>
> 2) THX.
It is debatable as to whether this is much to shout about... all it
really means is that Yamaha have not paid the THX license. The Denon will
process 5.1 audio via its THX circuitry though, which is nice.
>
> 3) Ability to route digital inputs to whatever video input required.
> (Minor gripe as I want to connect my PC with it's SB Live soundcard
> via the A1 but I don't have a spare S-Video/digital connection
> free)
This is useful - there are three optical and 2 coaxial ( from memory,
not round the back of it at the mo! ) digital inputs which are not tied to
any particular source.... it is selectable via the remote setup.
> Don't get me wrong. The A1 is a superb bit of kit but as usual
> something better always pops up.
The A1 is very good - but I *suspect* that Yamaha may be about to
superceed it - its probably about due....
Adam
Max Christoffersen
Adam this is a debate about nomenclature.
7.1 it is not.
Max Christoffersen
William Codd
Dolby EX is a marketing gimmick, most homes have enough problems fitting 5
large boxes into their living room (and getting it past the better half).
Dolby EX does not interest me.
My home cinema has taken over the living room already, it has to stop
somewhere and Dolby EX is it.
According to reviews of the Yamaha the two extra channels for the effects
speakers have Pre Amp outputs. This means with a suitable decoder you could
utilise the power amps onboard the Yamaha to use an extra rear speaker. Not
the same but I don't think that the Denon has 2 sets of outputs for the 2
sets of rears.
Is THX important ! THX has two main advantages that I can see,
1 Gives you another DSP Option
2 Is a quality mark to say that the amp is built to a high
standard and able to handle the power required by
the THX Spec for prolonged duration's
Anyway THX is not designed for a 15 x 12" room with non THX speakers
although may bring advantages.
I know this is going to start another flaming session, but that's my view.
Separates: I have looked and I can't justify the cost (starting around
£2500). The other main thing is ease of use, separates do make things harder
to use (and yes I know they sound much better).
I am trying to arrange demos for the next few weeks.
I have look at trade-in with two "DECENT" dealer and one offered me £100 for
the 1092 without even seeing it (he was told where to go) and the other was
not interested. I will try and sell privately for around £300, and yes your
right it blows away the Sony, Arcam and Sherwood I have heard (sorry JW &
AA) although could be better at music (like the Arcam).
The thing to remember about most dealer (and I used to work for one) is that
they have to add VAT and guarantees and still make a profit on equipment
which is coming down in price - this still does not give then the right to
screw people.
To off set the loss on the 1092 I have to try and get the best price, this
will not be possible from a decent dealer (although I will be using them to
demo the kit).
One dealer said they would price match but as soon as you show them the Mags
they throw their arms up screaming grey import and then will not budge on
price - stale mate!
The dealer I have shown in my original post also offers 5 year extended
guarantees , has anyone purchased from them.
Interesting that no one has suggested the Sony !
As the new Dolby EX units become available this will drive the old units
down in price (Yamaha did it with the 3090 - A1).
I think that's enough for the time being.
Bill
Mark Webb <mw...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.19990824...@mwebb.compulink.co.uk...
Max Christoffersen
>According to reviews of the Yamaha the two extra channels for the effects speakers have Pre Amp outputs. This means with a suitable decoder you could utilise the power amps onboard the Yamaha to use an extra rear speaker. Not the same but I don't think that the Denon has 2 sets of outputs for the 2 sets of rears.<
Incorrect. The A-1 has pre-outs on all channels but you can not 'recover'
the front (additional) effects channels. (Through re-routing). You can
only recover the main channels and centre channel inputs.
The new Denon does have outputs for two sets of rear speakers.
This does not in any way imply that either the Yamaha or the Denon offer
7.1 processing.
They don't.
Max Christoffersen
Mark Webb
Christoffersen) wrote:
> >That is a matter of opinion.
>
> So is that.
I never suggested it wasn't an opinion.
> What tangible advantage is THX?
Not all exclusive to THX processing and in my opinion:
Roll off of accentuated high frequencies to industry accepted standard.
Improved tonal continuity in front to back pans.
'Stiff' amplification with plenty of head room.
Improved spaciousness in the surround channel(s) without making it sound
like you're listening in Westminster Abbey.
Mark W.
William Codd
But at no point did I imply that the Yamaha or Denon has 7.1 processing only
that IF a Dolby EX decoder without amplicfication decame available then this
route may save the cost of an additional amp.
When you say outputs do you mean Pre-amp outputs or just speaker outputs?
Bill
Max Christoffersen <max...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:7ptr5m$d6t$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
Max Christoffersen
>Many thanks for correcting on the Yamaha Pre-Outs.
>
>But at no point did I imply that the Yamaha or Denon has 7.1 processing only that IF a Dolby EX decoder without amplicfication decame available then this route may save the cost of an additional amp.<
Sorry this is a hobby-horse for me. Many are using 7.1 as a way to
describe a 7 speaker set-up..however to me and others 7.1 suggests the
same as 5.1 - 7 discrete channels and dedicated sub...however this is not
what is being described (even though Lexicon refers to a discrete
7.1 system on their Logic 7 processing)...7 speakers is not 7.1. Period.
>When you say outputs do you mean Pre-amp outputs or just speaker outputs?
Sorry - the Denon has speaker outputs for 4 rear speakers - unsure about
pre-out.
Max Christoffersen
Max Christoffersen
(Max >Christoffersen) wrote:
>> What tangible advantage is THX?
>
>Not all exclusive to THX processing and in my opinion:
>Roll off of accentuated high frequencies to industry accepted standard.
Bogus. The industry does not accept a standard frequency roll off when
the domestic room will have profound effect on the actual
high-frequency performance in a typical lounge.
>Improved tonal continuity in front to back pans.
Bogus. Speaker positioning will have a greater impact on the perceived
(and actual) 'tonal continuity' (don't you mean consistency?..) than any
arbitrary processing algorythm...don't even start me on THX timbre
matching...
>'Stiff' amplification with plenty of head room.
Bogus. THX have never publically stated what the actual specifications
are; but it is documented that high levels of negative feedback will
reduce distortion figures to low levels while making a terrible sounding
amp. The THX specs are just bizarre...eg the NAD 218 is THX certified in
stereo..but not in bridged mono when using the balanced line inputs. It
is well known that balanced lines are superior to standard RCA's in
reducing noise..(which is why the pros use them and the music you are
listening to was recorded using them).
>Improved spaciousness in the surround channel(s) without making it sound
>like you're listening in Westminster Abbey.
Only on Pro-Logic.
THX is a bogus standard that can not achieve what it says it will because
it does not measure and custome calibrate the room to the performance of
the equipment being used.
The room is the most impoprtant component in any audio system.
They calibrate the room in theatres they don't at home. Case closed.
Max Christoffersen
Mark Webb
Christoffersen) wrote:
> Case closed.
This is a matter of opinion and lets agree to differ. It's just not fair
to try to make less experienced individuals think that there is "only the
one way". The answer, as with everything, is to listen and make your own
mind up.
Mark W.
Max Christoffersen
Well there are technical grounds to be debated..I've put forward reasons
as to why THX is bogus..I'm happy to let others make their own decision.
This is a discussion forum I was hoping for some discussion.
Max Christoffersen
Adrian Jenkins
Hello all.
This for me is a rather interesting thread as I too am wanting to go
DOlby Digital/DTS.
My current system consists of Marantz CD player, Pioneer CLD 515 (LD
PLAYER) and a &!& DVD Player. Main amplification is the Audiolab 8000s
(2 yrs old) and the Audiolab 8000PX (12 months old). Current Surround
sound is the Yamaha E1000 processor, which I have had for some ~6 years
with no complaints what so ever although it cost me ~£700 at the time
:((
Here is my shilling's worth.
I have been offered a 6 month old Gold A1 with known history for £950
which after several months I have said yes, here are the reasons:
1. Due to work commitments; I am not able to watch movies as often as I
like, so although the Denon or Tag Maclaren etc is excellent; I cannot
justify the kit sitting there not being routinely used (as in several
times a week)at a cost of ~£2,000 plus.
2. Dolby Ex, as some one has already pointed out, it is really aimed at
large theatres. My average size living room of my Flat(Approx 5x4
metres)is already top heavy with speakers and black/gold boxes :) and I
feel that the sound at the rear is sufficient. Perhaps when I get a
DD/DTS system, my mind will change, but I suspect not.
3. THX would be nice, but not essential. My speakers are not THX, and
nor will they become so as they are expensive, which leads to the same
argument as in point 1. So is it worth having a THX amp with Non THX
speakers.
4. Power output. From my experience mainly with HI Fi amplifiers, after
a certain wattage, the advantage between 100W or 140 watts for many
people who live in Suburbia is not an issue, since the nieghbours will
complain before that point. I am aware that higher power outputs means
that at normal listening volumes, the amps are not struggling, there
fore lower distortion etc, but IMHO there is not much difference between
the two for most people. Those who live in the country or have
Completely Detachted houses with large rooms for loud systems can
normally afford the higher end any way. Perhaps a slight over
generalisation, but for those folks, price is not such an issue.
>In article <7ptptf$67s$1...@epos.tesco.net>,
> "William Codd" <Willia...@tesco.net> wrote:
> Some interesting points.
>
> Dolby EX is a marketing gimmick, most homes have enough problems
> fitting 5
> large boxes into their living room (and getting it past the better
> half).
I agree here!
> Dolby EX does not interest me.
> My home cinema has taken over the living room already, it has to stop
> somewhere and Dolby EX is it.
>
> According to reviews of the Yamaha the two extra channels for the
> effects
> speakers have Pre Amp outputs. This means with a suitable decoder you
> could
> utilise the power amps onboard the Yamaha to use an extra rear
> speaker. Not
> the same but I don't think that the Denon has 2 sets of outputs for
> the 2
> sets of rears.
>
> Is THX important ! THX has two main advantages that I can see,
>
> 1 Gives you another DSP Option
> 2 Is a quality mark to say that the amp is built to a
>high standard and able to handle the power required by the THX Spec
>for prolonged duration's
>
> Anyway THX is not designed for a 15 x 12" room with non THX speakers
> although may bring advantages.
>
> I know this is going to start another flaming session, but that's my
view.
>
> Separates: I have looked and I can't justify the cost (starting around
> £2500). The other main thing is ease of use, separates do make things
harder
> to use (and yes I know they sound much better).
>
Again, I have similar sentiments. Hence my CD/Audiolab set up for my
main hi fi rather than a 'Midi' style system.
> I am trying to arrange demos for the next few weeks.
>
> I have look at trade-in with two "DECENT" dealer and one offered me
£100 for
> the 1092 without even seeing it (he was told where to go) and the
other was
> not interested. I will try and sell privately for around £300, and yes
your
> right it blows away the Sony, Arcam and Sherwood I have heard (sorry
JW &
> AA) although could be better at music (like the Arcam).
>
Reminder deleted!
Adrian
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Max Christoffersen
>
>3. THX would be nice, but not essential. My speakers are not THX, and
>nor will they become so as they are expensive, which leads to the same
>argument as in point 1. So is it worth having a THX amp with Non THX
>speakers.
It's not woth having THX at all. It's bougus. It's the room that matters
and your room isn't THX either.
Max Christoffersen
Mark Webb
Christoffersen) wrote:
> It's not woth having THX at all. It's bougus. It's the room that
> matters and your room isn't THX either.
Max, what do you use to cut down the high frequency boost on the front
channels? Just turn down the treble a bit?
Mark W.
Max Christoffersen
Mark it's bogus. There is no artificially high treble..not all transfers
suffer from the THX claim of extended high-end because they are
remastered for the domestic environment and are not direct transfers of
the film score.
But in asnwer..the room dictates how bright your system will sound.
Change the room furnishings and that will dictate how live and bright
your actual performance is.
Are you telling me that all non-THX systems are artificially
bright?..because there are very well reviewed and respected non-THX
brands that would debate the point.
THX is bogus. The fact THX calibrates real cinemas but not domestic
environments points to a profound flaw in the THX approach to 'accurate
to the source' and 'ultimate' HT performance. (Thier words).
It's bogus.
Max Christoffersen
Mark Webb
Christoffersen) wrote:
> Mark it's bogus. There is no artificially high treble..not all
> transfers suffer from the THX claim of extended high-end because they
> are remastered for the domestic environment and are not direct
> transfers of the film score.
Well some of the transfers I've got just about take the top of your head
off at home. Listening is almost painful. To ease the pain you have to
slacken of the volume, but then you can't hear the dialog properly. I
certainly don't remember this being the case at the cinema (in most
cases). Are you saying this is the fault of my room? No room in my house
is *ever* going to be like the local Odeon.
Mark W.
Max Christoffersen
I'm saying there are many factors that can contribute to the perceived
brightness of a soundtrack and that THX is not the solution for the
problem you describe. What is your system comprised of (including
cables)?
Max Christoffersen
Adam Hill
> Sorry - the Denon has speaker outputs for 4 rear speakers - unsure about
> pre-out.
The Denon has 8 descrete channel inputs and outputs, all controlled by an 8 channel volume control - hence the "7.1 upgradable" claim. Anyone who wants to find out can download the user manual from
www.denon.com ( well, definitely for the version with the receiver - unsure about the A1D ).I am unsure, however, if it is possible to use just the "extra" pre in and power out channels to add just a
matrix decoder and external steareo power amp, but at the very least you can use the main 5.1 channels as power amps in a 7.1 system, and control them with the volume control on the A1D.
The A1D ALSO has outputs for two sets of surround speakers, which I think is confusing the issue here a bit. The two sets of surrounds are not descrete but are driven by the same amplifiers.... the
outputs are just there for convenience so that you can select between dipoles and standard surrounds for different types of music. Denon themselves have never claimed that the two sets of surrounds equate
to 7.1... only that the 8 channel pre in and power out connections amount to "future upgradability"... which seems reasonable to me.
Adam.
Mark Webb
Christoffersen) wrote:
For the record:
AVC-A1
Kef Ref 100/Q10's across the front
Maudaunt Short CS1's for surround
QED 79(?) strand speaker wire
Digital interconnects to amplifier from DVD & LD
I accept that THX is inappropriate for a soundtrack that has been remixed
for the domestic environment. If that is the case, I'd like to know about
it. It would be like having the aspect ratio fiddled with.
If, on the other hand, the soundtrack is provided in the full cinema
version, I find it implausible that the sound engineer would have mixed
the movie in a comparable environment to my living room. This is getting
close to a debate on "what is high fidelity". In the cinema sound arena,
there is no "live" version of the soundtrack for comparison. So what
should we reproduce? What the sound engineer heard as he was mixing, or
what was recorded on the soundtrack master tape?
Mark W.
ViNNY
7.1 it is not.
The Denon AVC-1D has 7.1 pre-in and pre-out sockets. It can't do anything
with them, but it does have em :-)
-Vin
Max Christoffersen
>> I'm saying there are many factors that can contribute to the perceived
>> brightness of a soundtrack and that THX is not the solution for the
>> problem you describe. What is your system comprised of (including
>> cables)?
>>
>> Max Christoffersen
>>
>For the record:
>AVC-A1
>Kef Ref 100/Q10's across the front
>Maudaunt Short CS1's for surround
>QED 79(?) strand speaker wire
>Digital interconnects to amplifier from DVD & LD
>
>I accept that THX is inappropriate for a soundtrack that has been remixed for the domestic environment. If that is the case, I'd like to know about it. It would be like having the aspect ratio fiddled with.
No what is like having the aspect ratio fiddled with is hearing a DD 5.1
soundtrack of a film which was orginally DS only. And there are plenty of
those..what is further fiddling is using dipoles.
And what is REALLY like fiddling with something is watching a letterbox
film which was created for a cinema screen on a 24"TV tube and claiming
integrity.
>If, on the other hand, the soundtrack is provided in the full cinema
>version, I find it implausible that the sound engineer would have mixed
>the movie in a comparable environment to my living room. This is getting close to a debate on "what is high fidelity". In the cinema sound arena, there is no "live" version of the soundtrack for comparison.<
This is always the debate. Always. We have come so far from the origins
of Hi-Fi that almost anything goes. I don't subscribe to that - I don't
subscribe to bogus arbitrary processing (THX decorrelation, Timbre
Matching and RE'EQ) as fixes for mastering problems when transferring a
film score intended for a large venue to a domestic one.
>So what should we reproduce? What the sound engineer heard as he was mixing, or what was recorded on the soundtrack master tape?<
What is on the master tape. For me the guideline is simple; the producer
wants to place you at the scene of the event - they DON'T want you at a
movie theatre..as I have already said; if you have a sound system that
sounds like a theatre you've got it wrong. The producer doesn't want you
to be aware you're at the theatre it isn't where the scenes are taking
place.
Max Christoffersen
Mark Webb
Christoffersen) wrote:
> >So what should we reproduce? What the sound engineer heard as he was
> mixing, or what was recorded on the soundtrack master tape?<
>
> What is on the master tape. For me the guideline is simple; the
> producer wants to place you at the scene of the event - they DON'T want
> you at a movie theatre..as I have already said; if you have a sound
> system that sounds like a theatre you've got it wrong. The producer
> doesn't want you to be aware you're at the theatre it isn't where the
> scenes are taking place.
I'm not suggesting it should sound as if it were in a theatre. I *am*
suggesting that the mixing engineer attains the desired sonic image when
his soundtrack is reproduced in a theatre. Do we agree on that?
Mark W.
Gordon Fraser
mw...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Mark Webb) writes:
>
>> What about you two meeting in a pub and thrashing it out
>
>Fine. As I'm not planning to be in NZ any time soon, so I'll call it a
>day. Sorry to have been a bore.
>
Mark,
Neither you nor Max are boring. I find it interesting to hear how two people
with opposing views go about vindicating their beliefs, to themselves and
others.
It is entertaining and educational and that is the reason I participate in
these forums.
Gordon
Gordon
StereoStereo: Intelligent Solutions for Intelligent Homes
260 Saint Vincent St
Glasgow 0141 248 4079
10-6.00pm Closed Tuesday and Sunday
Max Christoffersen
>
>I'm not suggesting it should sound as if it were in a theatre. I *am*
>suggesting that the mixing engineer attains the desired sonic image when
>his soundtrack is reproduced in a theatre. Do we agree on that?
>
>Mark W.
Not quite.
There is too much compromise to suggest a soundtrack is reproduced to
attain 'the desired sonic image' in EVERY seat in the house.
The theatre sweet spot is where it works best and that is what can be
achieved in the home because we do not have the compromise of multiple
speaker arrays in a large venue ( amongst other things). There is
considerable research going on to widen the sweet spot and provide
greater discrete and localised effects to more of the audience (ala DD EX
6.1).
It is no coincidence that many claim their systems currently sounds
superior to their local cinemas; more immediacy, firmer imaging, greater
dynamics and better soundstaing.
The reason is that the domestic environment is easier to control and
desired sonic image can be recreated (with some compromises ala the
centre channel) which can transport the viewer to the scene of the
action.
There is however a need for synergy between sound and image and that is
harder to attrain at home - but that is the stuff of another thread.
Max Christoffersen
Mark Walker
Max Christoffersen wrote in message <7q6hqj$7fj$1...@news.wave.co.nz>...
Mark Webb
dav...@waverider.co.uk (Mark Walker) wrote:
> What about you two meeting in a pub and thrashing it out
Fine. As I'm not planning to be in NZ any time soon, so I'll call it a
day. Sorry to have been a bore.
Mark W.
Tennant
<Willia...@tesco.net> wrote:
>This should start something!
>
>I currently own a Yamaha A1092 and would like to upgrade to the next level.
>
>I am looking for more power, AC3- DTS, Upgradablity, test tone for Sub & EQ
>setup for speaker matching.
>
>I have been looking at the Yamaha for serveral months but then Denon brings
>along the A1D.
>
>Reading HCC gave it a very good but left it open as to which one to buy (I
>know its only a guide).
>
A very interesting debate is ensuing with regard to the merits (or
not) of THX, but back to the original posting. I'm on the verge of
buying a Denon A1D, since the general opinion of this group (and my
ears) is that it has the edge on the A1, both in terms of sound and
features.
However I would like to throw into the equation the new Tag McLaren AV
amp. I've heard most of the McLaren range (although not the AV amp),
and it's very impressive. But I haven't had the opportunity to do a
side by side comparison with the Denon.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the comparative performance of these
two, and is it worth saving those extra pennies for the McLaren (after
all it looks the dog's bits too!)
Tennant
Phil Harris
to believe that it can't be bettered and I'm quite happy to believe that the
A1D is a reasonable step up from the DSP-A1. (I haven't heard an A1D to see
what they are like but I will sometime...)
Having said that, once you throw in the TAG McLaren kit then you're getting
into a whole new ball game. It's logical to assume that the TAG will be
better since it's power supplies aren't feeding huge power amps as well as
sensitive circuitry ... plus of course you're paying way more for just the
decoding circuitry and not getting the power amps.
Phil
Tennant <tenn...@theforge.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37d4fa60.9177771@mailgate...