am i bottlenecked ? upgrade needed ?

If you are focusing on UHD/HDR content, the projection system is limiting your image quality very significantly. Projectors output so little light, they can't make HDR look like HDR. So you end up with something close to 2160 SDR when you use a projector for UHD/HDR content. This is a huge conundrum for movie theaters. Studios wanted to get rid of distributing movies on film and Studios helped to pay for digital projection equipment in movie theaters just to get rid of the logistics and cost of duplicating movies 1000s of times for exhibition in theaters. But there's nobody but theaters trying to get theaters to move away from projection to direct-view LED displays. These cinema-size video screens aren't cheap and with revenue dropping because people get better images at home with "better" flat screen TVs (an 85-inch direct view LCD/LED TV can be less than $3000 and embarass any projector at any price. I have a $25,000 laser-phosphor projector and a $6500 reference quality projection screen. They sit unused almost constantly because the images from the 85-inch flat screen TV (Dolby Vision, HDR10+, less than 1 year old and less than $3000) are so much better than the projector's images. Dolby Surround and DTS Neural:X make everything they are applied to sound worse. Dolby Surround is ESPECIALLY bad-sounding. Neural:X is a little less bad-sounding, but is still worse than not using it. Only Auro-3D upconversion of stereo, 4.0, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 sources sounds better than the original source. As pointed out, Audyssey can do measurements that make the sound worse. Often, re-running Audyssey, can produce a better sounding result. But sometimes it takes more than 1 re-run to get a really good Audyssey correction.

Here's why projectors can't touch flat screen TVs for UHD/HDR content playback: First, understand that UHD/HDR doesn't work like SDR video. With UHD/HDR content, images are made with light from 0% to 50% of peak (red, green, blue, or white). Yes, only the light from 0-to-50% is used to make images... any more than that, and the images would be uncomfortably bright. The light from 51% to 100% is used for 2 things: to increase the range of colors the TV can produce and to make specular highlights look real. You will NEVER see a screen-full of peak white (100% white) in properly produced UHD/HDR content. An all white screen will likely measure somewhere between 45% and 50% white. All that brightness capability above 50% is for enhancing images in ways conventional TV cannot. Projectors that produce 50 fL or more light for 100% white will be displaying images within the range of 0-20 fL. (nits are commonly used units of light with UHD/HDR content, 3.42 nits = 1 fL. So a 50 fL projector (very very bright, brighter than my $25,000 laser-phosphor projector) is 170 nits. The 85 inch TV can produce up to 3000 nits with calibration. Nearly 20 times brighter than the projector. If the projector can only reach 30 fL, that's only 103 nits or so. So the 85-inch TV is around 30 times brighter than a projector that peaks at 30 fL for 100% white. The projector will use around 0-16 fL to make UHD/HDR images and 16-30 fL or 16 to 50 fL for a super-bright projector (Sony's $60,000 laser-phosphor projector measured less than 80 fL for 100% white) is used for specular highlights and expanding the color space. So the projector has only a relatively tiny bit of "extra" light to work with to make UHD/HDR images as good as they can be.

I apologize for suggesting a significant outlay of money yet I see you have been spending on this fine system so this would be the breakthrough to the next level. A separate surround processor. I've had the flagship Marantz and it kicked sand in the face of my previous flagship Marantz receiver. Next step, I ditched the Marantz and bought the flagship Yamaha pre/pro. Sound-wise it is in a different league to my ears. Also, it's flawless in its function. I had three Marantz total and they all struggled with their network modules. I would get stupid messages that they couldn't find my network server. It was the last straw so I switched to the Yamaha. It's been running flawlessly for three years now. No STUPID loss of periodic network control. Perhaps Marantz could have stayed if only they EVER responded to tech emails. Anyways, a separate processor will break through for your sound.

I have a Denon AVR-X4400H receiver and have owned Denon receivers for the last 15 to 20 years. I have been mostly pleased with their performance. When a friend of mine who also bought Denon exclusively told me that he bought a Marantz receiver (a division of Denon), I expressed my surprise. He took me to a Best Buy home theater showroom and asked the sales person to A, B the Denon X4500 with a comparable Marantz receiver. At the same sound level, played through different speaker systems, the Marantz had a noticeable improvement in sound quality and clarity to our ears. I was surprised and a little disappointed with the performance of the Denon receiver. I hope this isn't a continuing trend. As to variable performance with content, different producers use different equipment and production staff for different movies and audio. I notice a difference between one movie and another. It is annoying but the end product is only as good as it's production quality.

Nobody can make comparisons of 2 processing/audio devices when using DIFFERENT speakers. Speakers sound MORE DIFFERENT than ANY electronic component. As for AVR versus the audio processors various brands sell. I can guarantee you that the Processor uses the same components/devices as the AVR without amplifiers and without a power supply suitable for amplifiers. Now, that doesn't mean a $1500 AVR has the same circuits as the $3000 processor. More than likely, the $3000 processor uses the same circuits as the company's $2500 to $3000 AVR. The only thing that processor versions of AVRs bring are balanced audio jacks for the 9 or 11 (or more) channels. Those aren't necessarily true balanced connections but they do require balanced interconnects. I have a next-to-top-model Denon AVR and a Marantz processor here with 12 amplifier channels. When I use the Denon AVR with the outboard amplifiers, bypassing the amplifiers in the Denon AVR, the Denon AVR doesn't sound obviously different than the Marantz processor that costs considerably more than the Denon AVR. What are the factory impedance specs for each speaker being used? AVRs really do not like 4 Ohms or less. And sound quality can be bad if the speakers are 4 ohms or less impedance. Even AVRs that specify they are compatible with 4 Ohm speakers are kind of lying because mostly, they all put a big resistor in series with the output of the on-board amplifiers. This big 2-Ohm resistor simply raises 4 Ohm speakers to 6 Ohms, but there's a considerable loss of power at the same time. Enough of a loss to make the amplifier channel sound congested and uninteresting. The only AVRs I've come across that can drive 4 Ohm speakers effectively are AVRs with fewer channels and far more expensive amp circuits than the circuits in AVRs. Those few AVRs have had prices of $10,000 or more. Outboard amps can have power transformers that weigh more than an entire AVR. That allows the outboard amps to deliver the extra currrent needed by speakers with 4 Ohms impedance or less. So... if your speakers are rated at 4 Ohms or less, you need something beefier to drive. If I was building a system around an AVR, I would intentionally use 8 Ohm speakers if I was committed to using the amps in the AVR. Putting 4 Ohm or less speakers on an AVR is a lot like wearing a 100 pound lead boot on each foot. The entire system will be "dragged down" by the demand for current that the AVR can't produce due to the smallish power transformer they have to have to be economical to build and own.

Personally, I don’t know that one can reliably A/B different AVRs in a store anymore, as they are so complicated now. For instance, in order for that to be done properly, you’d have to be listening to them “straight” with all internal processing bypassed.

If one sounded like it had a “noticeably improvement in clarity,” I’d suspect that there is some EQ applied in the menu giving a slight rise in the appropriate frequency range. Or conversely, the one that doesn’t sound as good could have EQ to de-emphasize the same frequency range.

I suspect this because I'd normally expect virtually no audible difference, if any, between two units in the same price range, especially from the same "house" like Denon and Marantz Perhaps something subtle, but not as drastic as "noticeable."

Or, if they ran Audyssey or similar room correction on both AVRs, they could be getting different results, audibly-speaking, especially if the two have different versions.

And naturally, if one actually wants to compare the auto EQ system of one unit vs. another, that a whole 'nother can of worms.

Regards,
Wayne

Wayne, your point is well made. The only thing is that there is not retail outlet that will "hold your hand" through all the variations employed by the newer AVRs these days. There are so many variables that it would take weeks maybe even months to exhaust testing all of them to their potential. The other factor is our human bias. What sounds "better" to us is more inline with what we like to hear but isn't that the reason we select one receiver over another? That is probably why there are so many receivers to choose from. The amazement for both of us is that we considered Marantz to be a lesser part of the Denon line yet to our ears, it sounded better with the same settings for both receivers when compared over 3 different speaker systems. In the end, I think it comes down to our preferred listening enjoyment, after all, we are the one paying the money and having to live with that decision for a few years anyway. gewiz44

You have a beautiful looking theater, and very fine equipment. A few things jump out for me as far as the sound is concerned: Before investing to much, just try experimenting with placement of those L/R Revels. Just viewing your image, they seem to be toed in a bit to much, and they appear to be to close to the side and front walls.) Experiment with moving them away from the walls and toeing them out. (4 feet from the walls is ideal but not always achievable) Just small increments can make a huge difference in the overall sound, especially at the main seating area. Do you have any acoustic treatments that we cannot see in the photo. If not, you will need some panels at the 1st reflection points, at a minimum. That Denon 4500. is a very fine AVR, but if your budget allows, those Revels would prefer a little more robust separate stereo amplifier of their own. As long as you are not using some of your channels for other rooms, you could still use your Denon 4500 and configure it using a Pre-out connector on the back of the 4500 for use with a separate amp for just the L/R speakers. In my set-up I use an AVR to power just my back surrounds and height channels and use separate amps for my front stage and side surrounds, all with using my AVR. Even though the Revels are 8 Ohm, it still makes a huge difference driving very well made speakers like yours with their own amplification. Even without a seperate amplifier, once you are satisfied with placement go ahead and run Audyssey again, and be sure to check the calculations for distance, volume, and crossover settings, Audyssey doesn't always get it right.

mandtra said:

I would like some opinions on my home theater setup . esp is the Denon 4500 AV bottle necking any audio or visual performance . At times i feel the video and audio should be a little bit better than it is

setup:

sound
revel F208 fronts
revel c center
RBH sides and rears
subs x2 SVS 2000 & 4000
denon 4500 AVX
panasonic 820 hd bluray player

projector
Jvc NZ7

screen
Stewart 145"

Click to expand...

I've got good news for you. You have a great system and room.

There are a couple of relatively easy things you should consider to really make it magical.

1). Acoustic treatment.

If you want to go super exact, you can learn how to use REW with a UMIK1 measurment microphone, and dial in your RT60 (reverberation time) to be close to .3 second across the audio band.

But you don't need to go that far, if you don't want to. Just head on over to Acoustimac, and GIK Acoustics, and pick up 12 of the 244 panels (which are 2' x 4' x about 4" deep), place three along each side wall, three at the back of the room, and three on the ceiling. This will vastly improve the clarity of the audio in the room.

2). Consider adding an amplifier. This is a controversial step and sometimes not needed. But those REVELS are very revealing speakers, and adding a nice three channel amp to power the front three speakers would assure you of being able to handle dynamic peaks in a graceful way.

If you need to prioritize steps, #1 is by far the most important.

3). Consider hiring a professional to come in and tune your system, both audio and video. Don't do this until AFTER you have acquired and hung the acoustic panels, since you want them to tune the system in its final configuration. And don't just hire any old person, a Best Buy service, or similar. Rather, insist on seeing their credentials from CEDIA, THX, and their portfolio of systems they have worked on. There are a handful of traveling calibrators that are tops in their field that can wring every last inch of performance out of your system.