Answered Denon AVR-X3500H - Would it make sense to bi-amp?

Next day delivery is surely to be expected these days :)

As I work for Amazon, I totally agree ;-)

And yes, they should have replaced straight away, but there were some complication in the beginning which made it look out of date which were my fault (I accidentally shipped it to my old address and then had it re-directed which took a while). As soon as I pointed the actual delivery date out at my correct address then they jumped straight away.

@gibbsy - Thank you, that helps alleviate my upgraditis. :-D
 
Hi all,

Sadly, my trusty Onkyo NR-808 has died in the move over to the UK. However, I am fortunate in that it will be covered by my insurance. With that, I am currently looking at the Denon AVR-X3500H as it's replacement.

Previously, I used to bi-amp my mains off the Onkyo (my mains are the DLS R55 found here), but given that the Denon is 180w per channel at 6ohm:
1. Is it still necessary to bi-amp or would the power from the Denon be sufficient?
2. Am I buying more power then I need? Should I look at the X2500H instead?
3. Given that my budget is around £500, should I be looking at other options as well when doing my research?

Thanks all. :)

First of all, if your amp RMS far exceeds your speaker power handling, dont bother bi-amping since bi-amping is an optimisation step which seeks to improving the power handing of the amp, or improve on a less than optimal passive X-over. The latter is an unlikely scenario in a quality set of speakers, the former is best when your amp RMS is in the same ball park as the speaker your driving (or lower than the speaker). If your amp has much more power than the speakers RMS, then you stand to gain very little.

I would think It depends on how well Dennon designed their Amp stages. In theory, if you have front speakers which can be bi-amped, you benefit from driving your tweeters and mid's separately. A mid range driver will request much more power from an amp than the tweeter will. Typically a key audio quality metric regards amplifiers is in how it handles clipping and damping. If your running both speakers on a single amp, mid range clip harmonics might interfere with the tweeter output. By isolating each speaker so it connects to its own amplifier, you can limit the affect of clipping and harmonic destruction to the speaker causing it, rather than allowing it to colour the full spectrum. This can improve the overall sound quality. The alternative is it ensure your amp is of a higher power handling capacity so your ears give up before the amp enters clipping and associated side affects - but this is at the risk of over driving your speakers,... just know those limits and this can possibly be the best solution, or at least rule out amp related SQ issues related to power handling.

Bi-amping needs you to understand the Thiele-Small parameters of your speakers to ensure you pick the correct crossover frequency and slope. Passive x-overs inside high end speakers do many things to ensure the speakers are time aligned and ensure the frequency response fits the characteristics of the speaker and enclosure. This is a bit of a creative art form that quality speaker manufactures take very seriously within their x-over designs.

Sometimes its not as simple as setting the x-over frequency and slope in the DSP, since the analogue domain being truly an art form is hard to replicate with low end DSP equipment and it can be futile.

Replicating what the creator of the speaker intended can therefore be difficult without a full understanding of what's going on inside a given x-over or a very good self equalising solution.

In theory, as long as the slope and the frequency are set to the spec of the speaker, a powerful EQ should be able to compensate to ensure the speaker delivers the same frequency and time alignment such that you attain the desired response. However, the basic EQ you get within many domestic amps might not have the resolution to compensate for odd peculiarities in the two speakers that the manufacture of the speaker accounted for in their x-over - so your mileage may vary.

Typicality speakers these days suffer less peculiarities due to better manufacturing tolerances, speaker resonance and x-over point harmonic management should be less of an issue. This is good since it should place less demands on your DSP to compensate.

Bottom line is there are quite a few variables so best thing is try it and listen at YOUR volume levels. Then make your own mind up. The difference might be unnoticeable, in which case It might be better to step back to bi-wire, and free up your amp for more speakers since the only affect of your bi-amp is to lose a set of speaker terminals, in other cases you might be jumping for joy.

Just set the right x-over frequency and slope in the amp setup and see how Audyssey gets on :)

If it sounds the same at -20DB, up it to 0DB and see if the sound is 'less bright' smoother and less fatiguing. Try music to movies, get a full feel for the sound. You will only be able to do this if your tonally familiar with a particular track at a particular volume and your sound memory is good enough, save for any obvious differences of course.

If right now on a bi-wire standard setup your squinting at the high notes, that's often a sign of distortion OR the need for much more sound deadening in your room to kill the destructive harmonics caused by reflections. But bi-amping in theory allows for better power handing, since each speaker is not only better isolated, but by having its own dedicated amp the power that each amp needs to deliver is reduced since your reducing the number of speakers the amp needs to drive and the frequency band that each amp is having to output similarly. Maybe bi-amp just the one speaker, then drive the second speaker on the rear channel. Then use a suitable input source that is able to toggle between them and output the same signal across each of the 5 channels ensuring that you set the correct speaker settings for the rear speaker.

 
Last edited:
Maybe bi-amp just the one speaker, then drive the second speaker on the rear channel. Then use a suitable input source that is able to toggle between them and output the same signal across each of the 5 channels ensuring that you set the correct speaker settings for the rear speaker.
On a Denon X3500 you can only bi-amp by using both the rear surround channels and configuring the unit for bi-amping. You cannot do as you suggest as only the front channels can be bi-amped. There is absolutely no point in [passive] bi-amping a receiver that takes all it's power from a single PSU.

You would have to sacrifice two channels bringing you down to a 5.1 bi-amped speaker layout thus sacrificing either the rear surround channel, 7.1 or the Atmos channels 5.1.2. That, to me, is pretty pointless as you would only want, or need, bi-amping for an improved stereo music performance. All you succeed in doing is diluting the power available, basically you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

With any receiver is power is perceived to be lacking then the best way is to introduce a power amp or stereo amp with HT by-pass thus saving the speaker layout at it's maximum.
 
On a Denon X3500 you can only bi-amp by using both the rear surround channels and configuring the unit for bi-amping. You cannot do as you suggest as only the front channels can be bi-amped. There is absolutely no point in [passive] bi-amping a receiver that takes all it's power from a single PSU.

You would have to sacrifice two channels bringing you down to a 5.1 bi-amped speaker layout thus sacrificing either the rear surround channel, 7.1 or the Atmos channels 5.1.2. That, to me, is pretty pointless as you would only want, or need, bi-amping for an improved stereo music performance. All you succeed in doing is diluting the power available, basically you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

With any receiver is power is perceived to be lacking then the best way is to introduce a power amp or stereo amp with HT by-pass thus saving the speaker layout at it's maximum.

To simplify that analogy, your suggestion is akin to saying there is no point putting light bulbs in the other light sockets of your home since you already have one in your hallway so they wont work. That's not quite how it works, use of a single PSU in a decent amp wont rob Peter to pay Paul in terms of power handling, in fact the opposite due to back EMF gains which can produce better sound quality.

To keep things simple, other than an indiscernible increase in harmonic distortion in the DAC due to internal amplifier stressing the power supply (as all amps suffer vs pre-out only DSPs), the primary power stage of an amp is quite simple, its rated to provide X amount of watts into Y number of channels, each of which then produce sound at said rated watts at Z THD%.

Using less of the discreet amplifier channels on a well designed amp does not result in extra power "reserves", nor should it improve the subjective quality of the sound.

To change the power handling characteristic of a given channel, you either change the impedance of the speaker or bridge channels together. Both are features available to amplifiers that have been designed to offer that. Unused channels on a 7 channel amplifier are just that, unused channels that could otherwise be put to good use, nothing more, nothing less. The PSU is thus underutilised and has the spare capacity to power those extra channels. Channels are not dynamic in their power delivery unless the amp has been designed to offer that as a feature.

I grant you that rubbish amps which are not that well designed / budget, might suffer with side affects which increase the clipping and distortion characteristics the more channels you use, but the Denon does not indicate this in testing. In fact, it seems if you dont configure all the channels of some amps, it can result in strange bugs / worse performance. Denon AVR-X4700 AVR Review (Updated)

So a bi-amp setup on a good amp that has the channels to spare, for someone who has only the speakers for a 5.1 setup, but does have bi-amp feature in their speakers, this could very well be a way to improve the performance. Not withstanding, Denon hopefully know what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
The active sub would or should be dealing with the harder to amplify lower end frequencies anyway so why would using an AV receiver to bi-amp with be better than using an AV receiver's inbuilt bass management?

There's also the fact that it would be passive bi-amping which has matginal benefits associated with it. I can think of better things to do with the additional channels of amplification need to fascilitate bi=amping.

Passive bi-amping simply reproduce the full range signal to drive separate high and low frequency networks. The benefits of passive bi-amping are much less pronounced than you'd experience relative to active bi=amping and even lesss beneficial if engaging the receiver's integral bass management in conjunction with an active sub.

Using the receiver's bass management is closer to r"real"active bi-amping than the passive bi=amping AV receivers facilitate. The frequencies are redirected post amplification and the amplification associated witgh amplifying the lower end frequencies is off board and onboard the active sub.
 
To simplify that analogy, your suggestion is akin to saying there is no point putting light bulbs in the other light sockets of your home since you already have one in your hallway so they wont work. That's not quite how it works, use of a single PSU in a decent amp wont rob Peter to pay Paul in terms of power handling, in fact the opposite due to back EMF gains which can produce better sound quality.

To keep things simple, other than an indiscernible increase in harmonic distortion in the DAC due to internal amplifier stressing the power supply (as all amps suffer vs pre-out only DSPs), the primary power stage of an amp is quite simple, its rated to provide X amount of watts into Y number of channels, each of which then produce sound at said rated watts at Z THD%.

Using less of the discreet amplifier channels on a well designed amp does not result in extra power "reserves", nor should it improve the subjective quality of the sound.

To change the power handling characteristic of a given channel, you either change the impedance of the speaker or bridge channels together. Both are features available to amplifiers that have been designed to offer that. Unused channels on a 7 channel amplifier are just that, unused channels that could otherwise be put to good use, nothing more, nothing less. The PSU is thus underutilised and has the spare capacity to power those extra channels. Channels are not dynamic in their power delivery unless the amp has been designed to offer that as a feature.

I grant you that rubbish amps which are not that well designed / budget, might suffer with side affects which increase the clipping and distortion characteristics the more channels you use, but the Denon does not indicate this in testing. In fact, it seems if you dont configure all the channels of some amps, it can result in strange bugs / worse performance. Denon AVR-X4700 AVR Review (Updated)

So a bi-amp setup on a good amp that has the channels to spare, for someone who has only the speakers for a 5.1 setup, but does have bi-amp feature in their speakers, this could very well be a way to improve the performance. Not withstanding, Denon hopefully know what they are doing.
So, why are the specifications of power amps and AVR's different according to the number of channels being simultaneously driven?

For example, my Arcam AVR550 is specified as:

2 channels driven, 1kHz, 0.2% THD - 125W
7 channels driven, 1kHz, 0.2% THD - 90W

And when AVR's are bench tested, the output power per channel is significantly reduced the more channels that are being driven.

For example the Denon 3400 bench test here:


2 channels @ 123 watts
5 channels @ 97 watts
7 channels @ 72 watts

Your light bulb analogy doesn't work, because in that scenario the power draw will never reach the limits of power available. In a multi channel amplifier, there is an absolute limit how much power is available, ie that is the size of the power supply in the amp. That single power supply has to power the pre-amp, the HDMI boards, the DSP's, etc, as well as all of the speakers attached to it.

During the dynamic peaks in soundtracks, the amount of power requested from the power supply could far exceed the amount of power available (run out of headroom) and hence the audio 'clips' (distorts).

So, less channels being used on an AVR / multi channel power amp, does equal more power available to those channels that are being used.
 
@dante01 .
So in summary, bi-amping is unnecessary. That brings me back to the research phase. Should I be considering any other options that will compete with the Denon?

Sadly, at home I am only running with a 2.1 setup. I have the centre and surrounds, but as I am in a rented house, I am not planning on mounting the surrounds. Hence, this will remain as a 2.1 setup.
I 100% agree that normally bi-amping with an AV receiver is pointless, however I also have a 2.1 system running on a 7.1 older Denon amp and found in those circumstances I though bi-amping did make a slight improvement with my equally old in-wall Linn Sekrit speakers
 
o simplify that analogy, your suggestion is akin to saying there is no point putting light bulbs in the other light sockets of your home since you already have one in your hallway so they wont work.
The light bulb will draw it's power from the National Grid not the confines of a single power unit which is limited by it's very design and manufacture. You can turn on dozens of light bulbs in your house and the performance or luminance of them will not drop because of the power available. That's is totally unlike the power available to the speakers when all are connected, the power and performance drops.
 
So, why are the specifications of power amps and AVR's different according to the number of channels being simultaneously driven?

For example, my Arcam AVR550 is specified as:

2 channels driven, 1kHz, 0.2% THD - 125W
7 channels driven, 1kHz, 0.2% THD - 90W

And when AVR's are bench tested, the output power per channel is significantly reduced the more channels that are being driven.

For example the Denon 3400 bench test here:


2 channels @ 123 watts
5 channels @ 97 watts
7 channels @ 72 watts

Your light bulb analogy doesn't work, because in that scenario the power draw will never reach the limits of power available. In a multi channel amplifier, there is an absolute limit how much power is available, ie that is the size of the power supply in the amp. That single power supply has to power the pre-amp, the HDMI boards, the DSP's, etc, as well as all of the speakers attached to it.

During the dynamic peaks in soundtracks, the amount of power requested from the power supply could far exceed the amount of power available (run out of headroom) and hence the audio 'clips' (distorts).

So, less channels being used on an AVR / multi channel power amp, does equal more power available to those channels that are being used.
I did mention, poorly designed amplifiers do suffer this side affect.

A sensible amplifier will ensure the PSU is capable of providing the same rated power across the modules regardless of the number used, synergistic with the modules themselves to ensure all are driven to their maximum capability at all times.

Sadly the subterfuge of compromising power capabilities the more channels are used is entrenched in the departments responsible for marketing and lies, who ensure the corners are cut and customers conned. Culminating in these kinds of shenanigans, it permeates the industry.

Avoid boxes that peddle this promulgation.

[EDIT]
If you want a proper amp, possibly better to assemble your own.


Since the op question references the use of an all in one box solution for AV, it's a common issue. It might be better to power the surrounds off the weaker inbox amp in that scenario, and power the centre and two front speakers via dedicated amps which can be configured in a bi-amp configuration without the compromise. Hypex are sensibly priced and fantastic SQ. You can sometimes achieve more for less, without the badge.

[EDIT]
Fixed clarity on the last point.
 
Last edited:
I did mention, poorly designed amplifiers do suffer this side affect.

A sensible amplifier will ensure the PSU is capable of providing the same rated power across the modules regardless of the number used, synergistic with the modules themselves to ensure all are driven to their maximum capability at all times.

Sadly the subterfuge of compromising power capabilities the more channels are used is entrenched in the departments responsible for marketing and lies, who ensure the corners are cut and customers conned. Culminating in these kinds of shenanigans, it permeates the industry.

Avoid boxes that peddle this promulgation.

[EDIT]
If you want a proper amp, possibly better to assemble your own.


Since the op is using an all in one solution box, they might be able to power the surrounds off the weaker inbox amp, and power the centre and two front speakers via dedicated amps. Hypex are sensibly priced and fantastic SQ. You can sometimes achieve more for less, without the badge.
But this thread is specifically about the Denon AVR-X3500, and is a year old. I am not sure that your comments are relevant or helpful for the OP?
 
But this thread is specifically about the Denon AVR-X3500, and is a year old. I am not sure that your comments are relevant or helpful for the OP?
The thinking is this being a forum which is viewed by thousands of individuals, anything we can discuss witch gives others food for thought is likely helpful.
Better not to focus on the original poster these days which as you say, has most likely resolved their individual dilemma, but need to think of the wider community.

This thread is the first thread that arrives during a google search so it seems many others will be directed this way and indeed have been, its popular for such a subject.
Generally, this dilemma is of increasing confusion today since more people are taking up the pursuit of obtaining quality home AV ailed with a considerable amount of marketing which distorts the truth - as ever.

It makes it unclear as to why bi-amping is useful or indeed why it might not be useful if you have a market which seeks to capitalise on the ignorance of newcomers.

Instead we have a number of relevant predicaments which serve to skew the logic around bi-amping, chief of which are the intellectual liberties the industry takes perpetuating poor amp designs within the all-in one box AV solutions, then marketing them as something they are not.

With bi-amping featuring prominently on commercial speakers, I find many customers confused as to what it means and why its a value add feature. It is clear it's not made straightforward and certainly a component of the marking mirage - indeed the elephant in the room is around amplifier ACD vs 2Ch advertised ratings. My last point about using separate amps for bi-amping is relevant since it addresses the limitation of cheap and compromised amplifier designs. Which brings me back to my original premise, a well designed amplifier will not compromise on the power stages and the PSU will be rated to drive all the included amplification modules comfortably to their respective RMS power rating. Irrespective of price I grant you, but the principle around bi-amping is then quite viable and indeed preferred over passive x-overs if you have the DSP capable of controlling each individual speaker response.
 
Last edited:
I see where you misunderstood. This is a forum which is viewed by thousands of individuals, anything we can discuss witch gives others food for thought is likely helpful.
Better not to focus on the original poster these days which as you say, has most likely resolved their individual dilemma, but you need to think of the wider community.

This thread is the first thread that arrives during a google search so it seems many others will be directed this way and indeed have been, its popular for such a subject.
Generally, this dilemma is of increasing confusion today since more people are taking up the pursuit of obtaining quality home AV ailed with a considerable amount of marketing which distorts the truth - as ever.

It makes it unclear as to why bi-amping is useful or indeed why it might not be useful if you have a market which seeks to capitalise on the ignorance of newcomers.

Instead we have a number of relevant predicaments which serve to skew the logic around bi-amping, chief of which are the intellectual liberties the industry takes perpetuating poor amp designs within the all-in one box AV solutions, then marketing them as something they are not.

With bi-amping featuring prominently on the commercial speakers, I find many customers confused as to what it means and why its a value add feature. It is clear its not straightforward and certainly a component of the marking mirage and indeed the elephant in the room is around amplifier ACD vs 2Ch advertised ratings. My last point about using separate amps for bi-amping is relevant since it addresses the limitation of cheap and compromised amplifier designs. Which brings me back to my original premise, a well designed amplifier will not compromise on the power stages and the PSU will be rated according to the amplification modals and their true power handling. Irrespective of price I grant you, but the principle around bi-amping is then totally viable and indeed preferred over passive x-overs if you have the DSP capable of controlling each individual speakers response.
No, I haven't misunderstood. I think the mods will have something to say about you hijacking other people's threads and going off topic.

If you want to discuss bi-amping, simply start your own thread :)

EDIT: And, in terms of the OP's question. The Denon 3600 would supply less power per channel exponentially, the more channels that are driven. So I fear that your answer if somewhat misleading?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I haven't misunderstood. I think the mods will have something to say about you hijacking other people's threads and going off topic.

If you want to discuss bi-amping, simply start your own thread :)

EDIT: And, in terms of the OP's question. The Denon 3600 would supply less power per channel exponentially, the more channels that are driven. So I fear that your answer if somewhat misleading?
It is important not to leave threads with incorrect conclusions is it not ? Those who come here to resolve their query are often seeking conclusions to bi-amping and google seems to rank this thread as highly relevant.

Again, I think your now off topic as it were, but note that a thread jacking occurs when comments go 'off topic, creating a separate conversation'. We are talking about bi-amping and the factors and considerations around bi-amping relevant to the all in one AV box solutions - such as the Denon 3600 since the Denon is not exclusive in the ambit of bi-amping. It's an issue relevant across most AV amplifiers and to lie though omission is not ethical.

Better to keep on track than enter into a rant.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom