I was over at AVS the other day and saw a new post. This guy was a newbe and said he had $1500 to spend on new gear. He said he wanted to do a 5.1 system and power 2 speakers in a separate room. I recommended the 950/7100 and told him how satisfied I was with mine. I was shocked at the several post that followed. I was told I was trying to push him to buy Outlaw just because I own it, when he could do so much better with a new Receiver and used amp. I started looking around and this seems to be the new “thing to do”. No one even recommends Pre/Pro’s anymore? For that matter they don’t even recommend Receivers by themselves anymore. It’s all the same in every thread. Receiver with a separate power amp is the way to go. Am I the only one seeing this? I’ll be the first to admit today's receivers have came a long way and usually get the newest features first but I still don’t believe even with a separate amp that they compare to a dedicated Pre/Pro for sound quality. Not to my ears anyway. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Lasher

Probably just the fad of the moment at AVS.

In the several years of trolling home theater and audio forums online, I've discovered that a lot of the folks who think they're experts on these sites really don't know as much as they think they do.

My presumptuous guess (without going over there to check it out) is that some of the folks promoting receiver + amp are doing so to get the latest/bestest Dolby decoding scheme/scam which isn't yet available on a dedicated pre/pro.

Fine. Let them.

My take is that bob's guess is close. gonk kind of summed it up nicely in another thread. Many of the more mainstream companies (such as Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic, etc...) have much shorter product cycles so they have new stuff coming out more often. These same companies also don't really do much with pre/pros, if they do anything at all. They'll have things like USB and firewire added in too. Other little knicknacks like that.

What really gets me is the amp recommendation on top of the receiver. I don't fully get that. Are those little extra features worth the extra cost of the receiver plus the extra $800+ for the amp? This really comes into play when speakers are not 8 ohms. Not all these receivers can play below 8 ohms, so they are in trouble. That is a LOT of extra money we're talking about. I just don't feel the need.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I'm far more interested in the pure sound of the unit. I just don't get why all those other little trinkets are so important.

Yeah, I've seen this lately as well. It's very prevelant on the web especially because of one particular website. I'm not going to name anyone but they've been recomending for awhile that for the price range; an entry-level receiver with pre-outs is a better deal than the lower level pre/pros. They also complain about the poor software design of the 950 among other things.

I think it's a little sad for them to advise this as it turns people away from even looking at a product that may fit their needs. Almost any 950 user on this board would agree that although it has its quirks, it does what it's asked to do quickly and cleanly. That should more than suit most people's home theater needs.

Ah well, it's Bose for everyone.

Using a receiver for it's front end only does seem like a huge waste. I guess if somebody just has to have the DSP-scheme-of-the-week, it's their money. Frankly, just setting up the room correctly and eliminating all the clutter around the speakers that effects dispersion and imaging would yield more improvement than most people think.

I can understand the recommendations. You can buy the latest Yamaha RX-V750 for the street price of $450. I has all of the new whirly-gigs including 7.1, IIx, video conversion to component and a auto speaker setup, with microphone included. It is an easy way to get into separates, using a high quality power amp, while waiting for pre/pros to catch up. A pre/pro must be easily upgradeable to compete with this receiver phenom, IMO. Another side benefit is to use the receiver amp section for other zones. I would be suprised if the majority of people could tell the difference in sound between rx-amp and prepro-amp in a blind test. At $450, the receiver is throw-away when the next "fad" comes along.

I'm glad I'm not alone in this When I finished reading those responses at AVS I was left with the feeling I had told the guy to go out and buy a Bose Lifestyle system........OUCH!!! I think Outlaw should get a little more respect than that

Lasher

Calling the 950's technology dated is ridiculous. The model is older, but that in no way means the sound is diminished. If you do something right it will last a long time. How old is Dolby Digital and DTS format? I'm under the impression that the newer 6.1, 7.1, (etc...) formats are spins of those.

I recently purchased a brand new CD receiver for my car that has a model year begining with "19", IIRC. It has no bells and whistles, but you would have to do quite a bit of searching around to find something better as far as clean sound is concerned.

Audio should be hearing is believing, not seeing.

I can at least understand why some would opt for a receiver over separates, since I almost make that choice myself a few years ago. I was looking for features at the time (including a large number of inputs etc.) to step up from a Denon Pro Logic integrated amp that I was using. What I really wanted was all of the features that the new receivers of the day were offering - without the power amp sections, since I already had enough channels of power amps kicking around. I contacted Denon and Yamaha and others and none of them had any plans for a pre-pro matching their receivers - with but few exceptions. Since I also liked what Marantz' receivers had to offer, and because they did sell a fully-loaded pre-pro with features to match, I went that route. A couple of years later I bought a 950 (again based on its additional features) - and have never regretted it. But I was at least tempted to go the other way, way back when.

Mind you having both a receiver AND separate power amps would be just plain goofy. Either - or. Not both.

Jeff Mackwood

if you cannot seriously look at the differences between a receiver and a pre/pro and make decisions on to what is more important to you, then you shouldnt be buying anything at all. i, for one, read avs sometimes, but i dont really care for its setup. plus WAY too many idiots. coincidentally enough i just got the denon avr-3805 and use it as a pre/pro for my main theatre and use its multiroom outs for others. i have talked about this before... technology is what is driving audio right now, so to jump on board with a product that is already one or two steps behind is disappointing and unfulfilling, especially when it turns into one or two steps into the grave and you want to upgrade again. i dont proport that a pre/pro or a receiver is better than the other just in general terms. each one should be evaluated on its own qualities and attributes. to say that one is always better than the other is absurd, and just foolish. everyone shouldnt run out and get a receiver (to use as pre/pro), nor should they a pre/pro just to say that that is what they have. look around, see what is available and pick what best fits your needs. i personally really like the idea of having my processing seperated from my power completely, but i couldnt find any pre/pro that i felt had qualities that outweighed the 3805s. not in its price range at least. some people get stuck on the logic that it has been this way forever and it is going to remain this way forever, but times they are a changing and so you should always be willing to reconsider your perspective. i think a lot of audio people get stuck on what THEY like and expect others to like the same thing, i probably dont drive the same kind of car as you, have the same kind of clothes, listen to the same music, walk the same way, or smell the same as you, so to think i want what you want in audio is presumptous. i value opinions of everyone, but i take it all with a grain of salt because if im not happy with something for myself, just because you are means nothing. you all need to be open minded enough to respect people for challenging the way people perceive audio, i mean this is OUTLAW AUDIO which in and of itself is form breaking. it is good that people are touting receivers, because it will wake up all the processor makers and force them to reevaluate their strategy. which will equal a better solution for consumers. it is arrogant to think that your product will dominate forever, and ignorant to try and let it. processors need to be on a shorter cycle life OR completely upgradeable (i prefer the latter, but that will never happen). i have more to say on this topic, but ill wait to get some responses first. :-)

Why? Is it too much to get the best of both worlds or exactly what you want? Jeff, i would expect a more sensible statement from you than that one. One other thing it is WAYYYYYYYYYYY easier to resell your used receiver than a used pre/pro when you upgrade.

curegeorg,

Sorry to have veered away from expectations. But it's still the way I feel. I did not mean to be judgemental, but since you asked, here's why I said so.

It's goofy because it's a waste to pay for something, or to use energy to produce something, or to use energy to power something up - and then never use it. That's what the unused sections in a receiver that relies totally on separate external amps is: a waste. And wasting is goofy in my mind.

Better to at least remove the heat sinks and use them for paperweights, or doorstops, or something else, than to not use them at all.

Re-sale is not really an issue. I tend to give my used stuff away to charities, students, or friends. It gives me much more personal satisfaction than selling it for a fraction of its original purchase price.

I set out three nice components at a garage sale last Fall, with a price tag of $1.00 on each - just to make someone's day. It did and I felt good about it.

If you feel that that's a waste, then I guess you could say that I'm just plain goofy as well.

Jeff Mackwood

not if that is what you are forced to do because there are no other products that meet your needs. like i said if i found a processor/preamp with what i wanted i would have gotten it. for me, i use the amps for other rooms (receivers amps). i agree its a waste and it is unfortunate, but for the same processing power a pre/pro would always cost more anyway, and that is a waste in my mind. paying extra for the title of pre/pro, when you could pay less for better technology, better processing, and better features is a waste to me. a waste of money. if you were spending 10gs on a receiver with awesome amps it would be a shame, but that is not likely. you cant find many if any pre/pros at the same price points as a receiver when they both have comparable hardware, and that is only because of one reason, this stupid notion that pre/pros are always superior. if denon offered a 3805 minus amps, i would buy it even for the same price as the receiver, but according to normal audio logic taking out the amps doubles the price. ironic that you spend more and get less, a waste perhaps? we should both go into waste management, you could give away all the US's garbage to someone and i could charge the people who make the waste. oh and jeff, if you decide to give away some gear, let me know, ill fax you a copy of a dollar (coin not bill, gotta watch the piglets). that way wed both get satisfaction. for me i get satisfaction out of getting a little money and still hooking someone up with nice stuff, albeit older, that way you dont make them feel inferior for not being able to pay for it. not everyone likes taking handouts.

i didnt realize that amplifiers used copious amounts of energy when they werent on...

Jeff and Soundhound:

I really think you both blew your reply on this one. First there are numerous HT cases where using a receiver with a separate power amp can make sense and can be an acceptable alternative to a separate pre-pro. As an example close to home, even after the 950 came out, the Outlaws still promoted using the 1050 as a prepro for the 750. They continued to do so until the 1050 was proven to be unable to fully support DD-EX.

Whether the 950 is superior to a given receiver in this configuration is a question for a listening test. It shouldn't be treated as dogma.

On the personal side, I found having a receiver with pre-outs was an easy way to implement HT as I already had a high quality 2ch amp to power my mains. Currently, I use the 1050 (with its 65 wpc 3ch driven) as a pre-pro and center, surround speaker amp. I have considered getting another used power amp or a 200m to off load the center channel. If I found a great deal on a used 5 or 7 ch amp, I would have no reluctance to stop using the 1050's amp section entirely.

When it comes time to upgrade, I plan on looking at the total cost, and my speaker configuration. I may once again make the decision that it is preferrable to go with a receiver over complete separates. I am certainly open to the possibity that I might find a receiver whose sound quality/function set is superior to a 3 or 4 year old pre-pro (especially a quirky one).

so maybe this "trend" is nothing new, not that i give a darn about what is popular at the moment or not. i will get the best product that i can afford that meets my needs, period. if it turns out to be a pre/pro in the future, ill be happy, if its a receiver, ill be happy, if its some weird looking little ball of matter, ill be happy. everyone on here tends to be pretty negative towards things they dont do, but if they do it, then ohhhhhhh wait its a good idea. like making interconnects, great idea for you, bad idea for some, seeing as OUTLAW REMOVED IT because people were messing stuff up! that doesnt mean making ics is retarded, but as i posted then, you should be careful and exact doing so in order to not mess them up and in turn your equipment. you guys raved about how i was stupid; low and behold what happened, exactly what i warned about. muhahhahahahahha

73 Bruin, the disturbing trend is those buying a receiver with a full 5 or 7 channel amp at the same time. That can be baffling. It's not those like you who have a stereo amp and will upgrade in the future. They fully support that. I have a receiver and a pair of M200s and I'm confused about some of the purchases people make with receivers and amps. But like georg said, buy the product(s) that best fits your needs for the best price.

The distrubing trend I was posting about wasn't people using a reciever as a pre/pro(thats their choice) but the fact that they are dismissing the pre/pro or reciever by itself options and acting like they were insulted that you would even consider such a thing.

Lasher

oh, i see what you are saying lasher. yes, that is dumb. there definitely is not one perfect product for everyone. damn i wish i could come up with it though, something that everyone in the world MUST HAVE.

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited May 17, 2004).]

I understand the trend you are talking about Lasher, but honestly in my position I would not recommend a new 950 to someone in the market right now. It is too old and quite frankly, I don't feel as secure about Outlaw's long term future as I once did. For some reason, this company has done its best to try and alienate its fan base starting with cutting us out of the loop over the backlash over the 950's delay. Over the last two years, this forum has slowly lost the sense of camaraderie it enjoyed in the past and to me that's a shame. I am sure I will get a few people to argue with me over this, but 2 years ago it would have been a hailstorm of bullets by dozens of people, including myself, telling me why I was wrong. That feeling is just not here anymore. I do not wish anything bad for the Outlaws (I still have 3 years on my warranty), but thats just the way I see it. Sorry for straying off topic a bit.

[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited May 17, 2004).]

Outlaw usually has some product announcements in May and/or June. Let’s be patient and see what announcements there may be.

As far as the 950 being outdated, it would seem silly, in some ways, to try and defend a product that has had the same design for as long as the 950 has. On the other hand, a product is not truly obsolete until it can no longer perform the tasks you require. With the features present and at its current price point, there is still an argument to be made for the 950 as the pre/pro part of a separates duo. What will you get for twice the money? Will you genuinely use the additional features or note a difference if you do? Which of the features added deliver real benefits and which are dubious? I’m not being critical with my questions, I’m genuinely asking questions. Here’s one more: is the built-in parametric EQ in some of the newer receivers merely the latest must-have that the industry is beginning to include just to remain leading edge, or is the built-in parametric EQ implemented in such a fashion to be a real and genuine benefit? The same can be said of some other newer features. I don’t have a receiver with parametric EQ built in, so I’m not going to say either way. But I’m leery of a purported solution that would lull people into believing that a very simplified solution will be the answer to a more complex situation, and that I should be happy to pay more, or more often, for something that may be of no real help at all.

We know that in the high-end audio market, there can be a lot of snake oil out there. Such oil usually doesn’t serve to improve products; it does serve to lubricate marketing and sales.

In a wider scope, the consumer market is strongly driven by “New, New, New!” Isn’t it a marketer’s dream to have a new model to replace their company’s last “most advanced ever” product every year or even more often? (Why are some 2005 model vehicles already being sold, hmmm?)

I applaud the Outlaws for not falling into a new-for-the-sake-of-new pattern. When the Outlaws have something genuinely new above and beyond the 950, not just incremental changes every so often, I’ll be glad to consider it. For now, I’m still happy with my 950!


[This message has been edited by bestbang4thebuck (edited May 17, 2004).]

if they were "for the people", they would have made the 950 upgradeable, that way those little incremental changes wouldnt sum into a big difference. when something major needed to be addressed, then produce a new model. i realize upgradeability is not everything, but it sure is nice to know that your product has the potential to stay pretty current. if audio companies had the balls they could look at computers as an example, (well onkyo txnr1000 is an exception) and devise more modular driven machines. granted computers are cheap as dirt these days, but everyone has one. my last processor for my computer was a 800mhz overclocked to 950mhz, and i waited until i got a superb deal on a 2.53ghz pentium to upgrade. i needed a new motherboard, new ram, new power supply, BUT i could use everything else i had. so it was win win, i got a better computer, and companies made money. above all the upgrade cost me like $250 total (told you it was a great deal) and that is not counting selling my old mboard,ram,processor for $100!. it just cost me 10x to change my processor in my ht.
i think (hope) that audio companies start valuing their customers more, because their are so many of them; loyalty is low, and they need to be willing to accept slightly lower margins, because they have been ripping off people for years.

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited May 17, 2004).]

I think that the ability to upgrade a computer is only half the reason the components are largely modular. The other has to do with making a choice between many possible components for the same job, i.e. how many types of video cards are available, and the ability to replace one component only if a problem occurs. These abilities would be nice in audio gear also. How many different processor components will be offered by different competitors in the audio market that will all fit and function within the same box? However …

When I upgraded my computer, I found it not only more convenient and monetarily efficient to replace the ‘whole box,’ it was necessary. The upgrade required a whole new bus architecture, no old components, save the monitor, were usable. My next upgrade will likely be a similar process. Similarly, audio components that can be upgraded can only change so much before one needs a ‘whole new box.’ I’m just a person that will plunk down $750 to $1000 once while someone else may spend $250 two, three or four times in the meanwhile.

Another advantage to the ‘whole new box’ approach is that the ‘whole old box’ is still quite usable – a big plus in my view.

curegeorg, can I say this with a friendly smile and a wink, no criticism intended?: so after your computer upgrade, you were still living with ‘outdated’ video and audio cards? Or did you consider them not to be too outdated because they could still perform the tasks you require of them? Or, if you had replaced them, might you have just as easily replaced the whole thing?

When there is enough material being distributed in a format my 950 can’t handle, then I’ll be thinking, “upgrade.” Simply put, I do not consider my 950 obsolete because it still performs all the tasks I need it to do.


[This message has been edited by bestbang4thebuck (edited May 17, 2004).]

Nevertheless, with the increasing role of software in audio processing there is tremendous benefit to having at least some things that can be upgraded via a flash or a module swap out.

And its not just a customer benefit. For example, lets suppose that the DAC chips were on a swapable module. I can't believe that Outlaw couldn't make a nice profit on an "optional DAC module" that offered substantially better performance then their standard components. Locating the main processor chip and its memory on another module could allow them to sell upgrades and additional functionality that might require more processing power then their first choice processor had (e.g. entering the the exact distance for each speaker for surround sound).

The 950 was supposed to be very cost effective, as with everything Outlaw does. At the time it was made I'd guess Outlaw felt the upgradability feature was too expensive to be on that model. I don't remember hearing that much of a demand for it back then. I'm sure they'll be making a new model in the near future and will probably consider it. Is the 950 really the only unit that's missing this feature? Things have changed in the last year since I've been frequenting the forum more, but I don't recall much of any model having upgradability like what's desired now, save for a few very high level models. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 950 is near 2 years old. Are the all that many products 2 years old or more that can do this?

I honestly don't really care about all these newer formats, not much anyway. I want 5.1 processing as a minimum and I want it done really well. Anything above that is nice, but IMO it's really not needed. There is so much marketing about having so many extra channels it's ridiculous. How are people going to figure out where (and how) to fit 9 speakers (and subs) when many already have trouble with 5?

Sorry for the rant, but it just gets old hearing complaints about a product that was made when some of these things just weren't in that big of a demand.

What I meant when I said old, I mean the processing chip. I don't care about 11.7 channels either. As it is with technology I would expect the chips receivers are using today to be better and more affordable than the chips Outlaw was buying 2 years ago but that is only speculation. I just think its odd that some of you shrug off the notion that newer receivers with improved processing chips may now be able to best the Outlaw for the same price.

I don't know if so many of us doubt that. What gets to us is the "it's newer, so it has to be better" mentality. That just sounds immature and very ignorant. I'm sure guys like soundhound and maybe a few others have (or know of) some items which are a decade old or more that would still sound as good as a lot of stuff today.

I don't remember where I posted it, but I purchased a new CD player for my car that's about 4-5 years old (brand new, but the design is that old) which can play more clearly than most anything (not everything) you'll find today.

My last post was really from a collection of posts all over the board. No one thing or person really set it off.

There are an army of marketeers out there eager to shake your hand, Jed. Your statement embodies the true spirit of planned obsolescence.

Everything that just came out is undoubtedly better than something that came out a year ago. Amen.

(I'm now putting away my cynicism with a partial -- but only a partial -- apology to Jed for my rudeness.)

My vacuum tube power amplifiers are between 25 and 35 years old. My Altec Lansing "Voice of the Theater" main speakers were bought in 1968 (the drivers were updated 24 years ago). I would put this stuff up against anything that was manufactured yesterday, today, or tomorrow.

The basic technology of audio reproduction has not changed as much as some would like us to believe.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited May 17, 2004).]

Bob, as a long time Outlaw supporter who is familiar with your posts, your last post took me by surprise in that you would twist my words so you could make me look ignorant or naive, but your "partial" apology is not needed.

My statement was simple. I never guaranteed something would sound better, I just simply stated that the price of chips have dropped and therefore it is possible to do what was not just two years ago. Since you earlier dismissed people who upgrade to get more features and then you claim I am a marketing shill because I said people may want something newer if it sounds better, I was just wondering what made you buy the 950 and not just keep what you had? Not trying to be rude either but twisting my words and then calling me out publicly as a pawn to prove your rant in my opinion is a bit over the top.


[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited May 17, 2004).]

No offense Jed, but it almost seemed like you were calling out the entire forum yourself. I bet that's what irritated bob. I said "almost" because I didn't fully believe that was what you were doing, or wanted to do. Which is why I said things the way I did. To give you a chance to possibly explain yourself if you felt it necessary.

This is getting strange, but how did I call out the forum?

Maybe this would help the situation. bob all the sudden seemed to make a dramatic change in the way he responded. Now ask why would he do that?

[This message has been edited by JT Clark (edited May 18, 2004).]

I take it you are asking Bob?

I just don't see how giving my opinion can be seen as calling out anybody, whether it be you, Bob or the entire forum. If you don't like my opinion, that's fine but for someone to try to paint me as an idiot by putting words in my mouth just because they disagree is wrong. I'll just drop the issue. I think what I said was stated clearly enough. If some people were upset by it I apologize but please keep in mind that I myself own Outlaw and have been a supporter of theirs for years, I just thought I could be candid about how I felt.

[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited May 18, 2004).]

I think this is a forum where many a philosophy can be shared. This can be done in a friendly way, even with people who hold to a different way of thinking and a different way of doing things. I feel I can question others here, regardless of whether I agree at the time or not, without accusation but rather in earnest.

I agree in theory regarding software upgrade and/or module upgrade. Often the trouble comes in that new software or a new module will have to conform to perhaps an older system. In order to accommodate future changes, the platform for those changes must be built into the product now = more cost now. If generally new software relies on a new chipset or architecture, then either it will not be available for an ‘old box’ at all or it will require that the code be specifically developed for the ‘old box,’ because it is not needed for any of the ‘new boxes,’ which will then loose economy of scale and hence = more cost later. Of course this is not based in any specifically verifiable scenario, but I suppose I’ve taken the route of buying an $800 box now with the idea that I might buy another whole box later rather than buying a $1400 box now that I can upgrade for $200 later.

Oh, look … Outlaw will have new product information in just a two or three weeks! Some GREAT deals on systems for newcomers and recent newcomers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by curegeorg:
[B]if you cannot seriously look at the differences between a receiver and a pre/pro and make decisions on to what is more important to you, then you shouldnt be buying anything at all. i, for one, read avs sometimes, but i dont really care for its setup. plus WAY too many idiots. coincidentally enough i just got the denon avr-3805 and use it as a pre/pro for my main theatre and use its multiroom outs for others.... i personally really like the idea of having my processing seperated from my power completely, but i couldnt find any pre/pro that i felt had qualities that outweighed the 3805s. not in its price range at least.

Curegeorg,
This may be a little off-topic, but if you don't mind my asking, how much did you pay for your 3805 and where did you get it? I am mulling over several different purchases and paths, including the 950/7100 combo vs. receiver (with the 3805 on my short list). How do you like it? Have you used the auto-calibration feature?

Thanks!
Sammy73

audio was integrated into my new motherboard, and my videocard is still fine for that i do. (new cost didnt outweigh benefit). exactly my point in upgrading audio, some parts useful, some not. i still had to get new stuff, just not ENTIRELY new stuff. upgradeability is not an end all, because the way it is implement now sucks. modular manufacturing could change that, the reason why audio companies don't do it, is COST. they are scared to lose control of their over inflated price structure.

I live in North Carolina and got if from a local authorized denon dealer, who beat the price of a FRIEND (former coworker) of mine at NowAudioVideo. they are the only two places around that sell denon. PLUS the local guy had the 3805 in stock, the mic in stock, and the dvd910 (got it at same time), which Now had none of and couldnt even get a 910 at all.
i paid less for the 3805, 910, and mic than it would have cost to buy the 3805 alone at retail. i could have worked a better deal, but the dealer came across as a genuine guy so i didnt want to take advantage of that just to save a few bucks. a good deal is a good deal; id rather make a good connection than be a jerk and save a few bucks. the guy was going to loan me a mic instead of me buying one, but i wont be in this area forever, so i decided to get it. plus i could always sell it online since they were in high demand at the time i got my 3805.
as far as liking it, yes i do like it very much. if i hadnt been working like a dog, i could evaluate it more critically and post some observations. i have not had a chance to use the auto-eq either (same reason as above, and we have a commercial cooler in the bar beside my theatre that is noisy, so i have to pull it (500lbs plus) out to cut it off, which i dont look forward to), and i want to a/b compare my current speaker wire vs my speaker wire that i am making using the auto-eq and evaluating any changes it makes with either wire. i have yet to make the wire, so i will be doing it all in one day, that way i dont have to move that damn cooler twice, and when i do i can post about my wire and my receiver.
i use the 3805 as a pre/pro for my theatre, using power amps for amplification there rather than the 3805s, and use it for multirooms. i did try it out using its own amps and they sounded fine for the brief time i used them. id be crazy to store my amps just to use the denon though, so im gonna continue using them.
the remote is pretty easy to use (not yet condensed all down to it, but it works the dvd player perfectly (denon dvd910)), and intuitively designed.
the pure direct mode is impressive for audio (defeats other circuitry and gangs up 4 more dacs on the fronts for a total of 8 dacs on the fronts); i was pleasantly surprised by it.
well let me know if you live near north carolina, and i can give you the guys email. it is just one guy, but surprisingly he is pretty available. his shop is more of a make an appointment style, as he is out on installs a lot.
honestly i was impressed with the guy a lot, he knew what he was talking about, he didnt bullshit, and he didnt pressure me into getting anything other than what i wanted. oh and he gave me a good price, which was key.

Good for you Jed, ill give you an oar so you can help paddle the boat we're both in.

I share your concerns about the true value of some features included in the latest and greatest A/V gear. When effective and well-developed audio technologies such as parametric EQ are included in a receiver, it is worth taking a look.

The Denon AVR 3805 promotes it's 8 band PEQ as part of it's Auto Setup/Room EQ function (see below). The detail specs describe frequency centers, which are not adjustable, and that each set frequency is one octave apart. I don't see anything in the specs that indicate an adjustable Q value (boost/cut bandwidth), so my guess is that is not part of Denon's PEQ feature set. If so, this is really nothing more than an 8 band graphic equalizer, and of little or no value in room correction. In fact, this feature would likely do more harm than good when used for Room EQ. And it cannot be used to remedy bass response issues (room/speaker interaction) which is one of the principal uses of PEQ's. Fortunately, according to Denon, it can be disabled in favor of "traditional equalization methods".

A watered down version of EQ that is so far from what most would expect from something described as a "parametric equalizer" is something to be leery of. This is the sort of "feature marketing scheme" that the Outlaws wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. The "spin" machine keeps going round and round.

The Denon Description of AVR3805
Auto Setup/Room EQ: The receiver is equipped with an Auto Setup and Room Equalization function, to achieve the most ideal sound field for your room. With the optional DM-S305 microphone (item # 033DMS305) placed at the listening position, the 32-point DSP automatically and accurately analyzes, adjusts and sets the speaker configurations of your system. The receiver also analyzes and adjusts the frequency response of the speakers to the room with an 8-band parametric equalizer. You can also manually adjust the 8-band equalizer from -6dB to +6dB in 0.5dB steps at 63Hz, 125Hz, 250Hz, 500Hz, 1kHz, 2kHz, 4kHz and 8kHz.

once i try it out, ill see how it works. seeing as you dont have a clue how well it works, how about you stop criticizing based on some limited specs you read. the parametric eq is not why i got the 3805, but it will be interesting to see what i think is right compared to what it thinks. having the ability to equalize all channels is something i have never had before, so that in and of itself is an improvement. anyway.

Wonderful. Please let us know the improvements that your new EQ feature has on your system. And I agree with you; specifications don't count as much as how it sounds. Good quality circuit design and construction can't be quantified in the specifications, which are too often relied on by consumers with tin ears. With all those DAC's working (at least 2 per channel Burr-Brown's) who needs a dedicated separate box for equalization anyway.

I will wager that 7 months from now the new hot topic will be using Outlaw's new receiver with one of their amps.