Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Denon Set to Roll Out AirPlay on Existing Home Stereo Equipment
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Frick. Back in the day you could buy a high end receiver and it would last you 10-15 years easy. I've had to upgrade my receivers 3 times in the past 12 years because of planned obsolescence. I understand technology is quickly changing these days, but c'mon its a fricking receiver. To spend another $1500 just because the one you bought 3 years ago isn't HDMI 4 or Airplay compatible is nuts.
My current receiver is a Denon 4308ci. It's 3 years old. Cost me $1500 -- on sale. It's a rock solid like all my Denon receivers have been and sounds awesome. If I wanted 3D I'd have to junk this one. If I wanted Airplay I'd have to junk this one. What a waste that would be b/c unlike Macs, 3 y.o. receivers have little resale value.
If these companies are really serious about being environmentally friendly they need to start making upgradable products. How hard would it be for them to just put HDMI in a removable card. New HDMI version, remove the old one, slip in the new. Upload new firmware. Same for something like Airplay. My receiver has built-in WiFi. I'm sure they could update it to be Airplay compat., b/c they had no prob issuing firmware that changed the built-in XM to Sirius.
My current receiver is a Denon 4308ci. It's 3 years old. Cost me $1500 -- on sale. It's a rock solid like all my Denon receivers have been and sounds awesome. If I wanted 3D I'd have to junk this one. If I wanted Airplay I'd have to junk this one. What a waste that would be b/c unlike Macs, 3 y.o. receivers have little resale value.
If these companies are really serious about being environmentally friendly they need to start making upgradable products. How hard would it be for them to just put HDMI in a removable card. New HDMI version, remove the old one, slip in the new. Upload new firmware. Same for something like Airplay. My receiver has built-in WiFi. I'm sure they could update it to be Airplay compat., b/c they had no prob issuing firmware that changed the built-in XM to Sirius.
They may *claim* to be environmentally conscious, but in all actuality, their quest for profit trumps everything. Unless you're willing to pay $1500 for that new HDMI card...
I saw this coming when TV went digital. It's the new paradigm, and nothing's gonna change it.
"Designed by Denon in Japan. Assembled in China".
sound familiar?
Actually that is not the case for all Denon product. Higher up models are still assembled in japan. The lower end models are assembled in China.
Don't forget the $2 chunk of lead in there to make it weigh 38.2 lbs.
Clueless noob!
Denon is not the be-all, end-all of audiophile gear, but it is pretty good stuff. And to integrate with yet another input format via a firmware upgrade is very convenient.
And, it is way better in quality than the Sony or Pioneer that he bought at BB for 179$ ( it was on sale) and the speaker package for $149.
And, unlike his BOSE, the Denon plays the highs and lows (industry joke about BOSE products not clearly playing the full sound spectrum)
So a ridiculously high-end receiver will incorporate this technology?
From one extreme to the other.
iHome is still over-priced at what is normally charged. That's why their products are offered at half off when Kohl's wants to attract customers. (Of course, finding that advertised come-on is rare.)
From one extreme to the other.
iHome is still over-priced at what is normally charged. That's why their products are offered at half off when Kohl's wants to attract customers. (Of course, finding that advertised come-on is rare.)
i forgot if it was Denon, but i read on engadget a few months ago about some premium blu ray player that was like $1000 or some other ridiculous price. it was taken apart and they found that it had the exact same components as the company's cheaper model costing 1/3 as much. it was just being marketed as a "premium" product
back around 1998 i bought a DD 5.1 Pioneer receiver that had THX for $800. i junked a few months ago in perfect working order. only because i was moving and didn't plan on having the whole 5-6 speaker stereo set up again
OOPS! You just ran yourself over with your own school bus. THX Certification has certain requirements to be certified in the first place as in true RMS power output hence the 800 and not 200 you paid. I do know of the bottom rung THX unit you speak of. To put into perspective the Pioneer Elite series would be in line of the Denon in question, and this particular unit is not the Flagship unit. that would be the AVP&POA A1, (the AVP part weighs in a a hefty 59 Lbs. and does NOT have any amplification, the POA half is the amp & weighs in at a light weight 132 Lbs.) MSRP is $15,000 for the combo.
ANd we are not even getting into the esoteric hand built weird stuff and/or class a tube amps
I suppose the odd thing in this concept is that being able to stream what is on someone's iTunes to their receiver will not make it sound better. If you have the song in a less than superior format on your computer, a $2000 receiver can't make up for the lack of quality.
I have been wondering about the quality of the songs one can purchase on iTunes. Is it worthwhile? I have only ever purchased CDs and stored them in .wav, or just recently started using .aiff (which I know is theoretically the same but I appreciate my Apple products).
This stuff has been possible to do with UPnP for almost 10 years. Hopefully Apple putting its Halo around its proprietary version of it will help it spread, but color me skeptical.
It said it supports Rhapsody and other internet radio already.
Well, as to the quality not being better on a 2000 receiver, many receivers have dozens of DSP modes to massage the sound you hear. I have a Yamaha that has some kind of dynamic range restoration mode that is supposed to undo the damage of both dynamic range compression and digital psychoacoustic compression. Of course other than for the novelty factor I don't use DSP processing when listening to music, I prefer the "direct" mode that bypasses all that wizardry. Also receivers, especially expensive ones, are likely to have better audio paths and better components, such as better DACs, that will indeed make things sound better than a computer would, and since the electronics aren't packed so tight there's less chance of RF interference as you get with a computer. That's without mentioning the speakers.
As for the quality, I personally still buy CDs but only to rip directly to Apple Lossless or FLAC. The stuff on iTunes now can be had, I think, up to 160kb AAC, which isn't bad as far as download quality goes, but I still prefer lossless.
Ironically Apple FAILed to do this itself
Let's not get too excited that Apple jumped on a bandwagon - with one foot, after the wagon has been rusting in the junkyard.
Let's not get too excited that Apple jumped on a bandwagon - with one foot, after the wagon has been rusting in the junkyard.
Don't you know the answer is to simply have a stand-alone decoder and 4 amps, one for each stereo pair? (People actually do that -- no idea how they link the volume across all of them).
There is a world of surround music you should explore. Surround and high-res. Quite a few music releases on Blu-Ray.
I do not think UPnP means what you think it means.
256kbit AAC is the format of all music on iTunes.
I know exactly what it means, I worked for one of the two leading UPnP companies in the US (Digital5) from 2002-2006. You would know it as "DLNA" but that's just a 3rd party certification house wrapped around the standard, whose function is to run plugfests and hand out overpriced interoperability certifications.
That's good news, indeed. Admittedly I don't buy much if any music on iTunes but the last thing I did buy was 160kbps AAC, that was after the 'iTunes Plus' switch.
I agree with your reasoning. The direct modes reduce electricity flow through the panel, reduce the interference the receiver itself has with the signal, and gives you the best sound possible.
What is the thought on FLAC? I have only seen it one place. The Beatles released their entire collection on an Apple shaped flash drive that held every song, and a good handful of videos, on a FLAC format. From what I read on wikipedia, it sounds good, but does it?
I have a hard time even accepting a "lossless" format in regards to music. I understand, and accept it, in movies, but music? I am not sold as of yet.
It would be nice if Denon did an update for the older network receivers like my 3808 but I won't hold my breath and I certainly won't pay for the upgrade. I would put this in the interesting but not essential category. As others have said, an AppleTV for $99 and you are all set.
Let me answer in reverse.
Why lossless? It's the same as having the CD. When you make an MP3, did you ever wonder why the file size is so small? It does a bunch of tricks to eliminate things you aren't supposed to notice are gone, and it has to "quantize" down to the bitrate you choose -- that's why yes you can have a 96kbps MP3 and it doesn't sound as good as a 320kbps MP3 -- it's a tradeoff, and it's always lossy. What you get is not the same as the original source.
Given you can verify bit-perfectness of the rip (eac, etc.) then having the lossless version is equal to having the original CD bit for bit. Lossless codecs such as FLAC and ALAC work somewhat like ZIP does, it compresses but doesn't throw any information away. File sizes are bigger, but the original material is 100% preserved.
I would agrue that lossless sound in movies is close to irrelevant. Even the theatrical versions of Dolby, DTS, and SDDS are lossy (I'm not even sure the lossless versions of these codecs are in use in the average theater as we speak). I'm not even sure theatrically what the bitrate is, but I know in home theater applications the bitrate is poor (max 640kbps for Dolby, 1.4mbps for DTS). I'll definitely take the lossless 48-24 home versions, regardless.
As for the various lossless codecs (most popular are FLAC, Apple Lossless, and WavePack):
- ALAC is good because Apple devices support it. It's bad because it is proprietary and slightly worse performing than FLAC.
- FLAC is good because it's open and a wide variety of non-Apple devices support it.
The Beatles USB release that you are speaking of is even better than all of this, because not only is it lossless FLAC it is higher than CD quality. CDs quality is 44.1kHz sampling rate and 16-bit sample size. The Beatles USB has 24-bit samples instead of the normal 16-bit samples you get from a CD rip, and the result is -- it's the best the Beatles have ever sounded. I collect a lot of high resolution (greater than CD) music and the 24-bit sampling is what makes the biggest difference.
When (if) lossless music becomes in demand instead of iTunes, aside from the iTMS it will no doubt be delivered in FLAC. Some other places I've seen FLAC used commercially:
- I bought the Tom Petty Mojo music Blu-Ray. It had a code for a free 48-24 stereo download of the album, in FLAC.
- There are various high-resolution music stores such as HDtracks that sell high-res music and they use FLAC.
Now that the bottle has been opened on the subject of Apple Lossless. I have an embarrassing question.
How do I pull content from my CDs in Apple Lossless format? I can't find the option anywhere, and threads on all the forums I am a member of (including AVS) provide advice.
If you are using iTunes. Do the following:
Open up iTunes and go to: Preference>>General Tab>>Import Settings>>Import using Apple Lossless Encoder. Set the settings to automatic hit ok. That is it.
If you are using a third party piece of software like XLD. Do the following:
Open up XLD>>>Preferences
At the top there is a Output format. In the drop down select "Apple Lossless" format.
There you go!
I really wish iTunes supported FLAC thou.
Open up iTunes and go to: Preference>>General Tab>>Import Settings>>Import using Apple Lossless Encoder. Set the settings to automatic hit ok. That is it.
If you are using a third party piece of software like XLD. Do the following:
Open up XLD>>>Preferences
At the top there is a Output format. In the drop down select "Apple Lossless" format.
There you go!
I really wish iTunes supported FLAC thou.
I get the higher bit rate making a difference, especially when we refer to the Beatles catalog. My next question would be, how can a compressed version, be it lossless or not, be just as good as a CD? I only use wav or aiff files for my songs as they all are copied from CDs. Am I taking a wrong direction by not converting them? I can't see how it can be any more beneficial except by taking up less space. I am willing to pay for the extra space unless there is a specified benefit.