Denon AVR-4520CI A/V Receiver Specs

Power Output: 9 x 150 watts (8 ohms, 2 channels driven)
Auto Setup/Room EQ: Audyssey MultEQ XT32
Video Processing: Analog Devices NatureVue 4K scaling/passthrough
Dimemsions (WxHxD, Inches): 17.1 x 7.66 x 16.64
Weight (Pounds): 36.38
Video Inputs: HDMI 1.4a (6), MHL-enabled HDMI (1), component video (3), composite video (4)
Audio Inputs: Coaxial digital (2), optical digital (2), Denon Link digital (1), 7.1-channel analog (1), stereo analog (7), phono (1)
Additional: USB (2), Ethernet (4), IR remote (in/out), AM (1), FM (1)
Video Outputs: HDMI 1.4a (3), component video (2), composite video (3)
Audio Outputs: Stereo analog (3), 11.2-channel preout (1), ¼-inch headphone (1)
Additional: RS-232 (1), 12-volt trigger (2)

Company Info


6311's picture

Get serious invest in receiver without DisplayPort 1.2 or hdmi 2.0 Not serious

miller68ny's picture

I've read reviewers, possibly you, comment on how these room correction software improve on the sound of a receiver and I couldn't agree more. I purchased an Onkyo AVR after reading many reviews but wasn't thrilled with the way my Paradigms sounded. The old Sony AVR was much richer in the midrange and better integrated with my subwoofer. Only after I ran it through the Audyssey EQ did it approach the sound of the Sony. The manual even recommended running the MultEQ as the first step of the speaker set up so this begs the question, why did I just upgrade? If the sound of my old clunker sounded better with my speakers right out of the box, why did the Onkyo need all this processing to sound close to an AVR that clearly was it's inferior? Can we just make do with a middling AVR just as long as it has killer room correction?

Mark Fleischmann's picture
I once asked the Audyssey people whether their room correction systems would compensate for flaws in amplifier design -- in other words, would it flatten out an amp that didn't measure flat? They said yes. However, in practice, I still find that room correction interacts with amp design in unpredictable ways. In this case, the amp needed room correction to provide adequate detail and imaging. In other cases, I've found that room correction firmed up detail but at the expense of comfort, especially with music. My best advice is to buy a receiver based on a good-sounding amp -- that is, one that sounds good when all the enhancements are stripped away. Your room may respond to correction differently than mine. And you may want to use it only with certain content or not at all.
biaubill's picture

I have an Integra DHC-80.3. Setting up my speakers (which are full range) with the XT32, it set cross-overs at 40hz (L,R), 45hz (C), and 45 (LS, RS). Why did you set your crossover to 80hz?? I read the same thing on various forums about setting the cross-over to 80hz to utilize better bass management, but I just don't get it why. Isn't setting it to where the XT32 wanted it appropriate? I understand you used bookshelf speakers for your demo, so would it be appropriate to set the crossover to 80hz for full range speakers? Also, what other tweaks did you do on the receiver? Thank you the excellent review! I look forward to you reply.

Mark Fleischmann's picture
80Hz is the crossover recommended by THX though that's not the reason I stick with it. I use it because my speakers have limited bass response (which is not the same as no bass response) and they begin rolling off below that point. Most room correction systems detect them as "large" speakers, but that leaves a notch in bass response where the rolloff begins, so I reset to "small" and 80Hz. To determine whether this is right for you, find some reviews of your speakers with measurements (if possible) and determine where they roll off bass. If your speakers have more bass than mine, you might prefer a lower crossover; if they have more bass than mine, you might prefer a higher crossover. The other consideration is how much bass your receiver can handle before it goes into clipping. If a low crossover makes your receiver clip, you may need to use a higher crossover to give it an easier workload, avoid clipping, and improve dynamics.
mnc's picture

Mark, I'm very curious how this sounds compared to the Marantz 7008?

Mark Fleischmann's picture
While I didn't have them in the room for a direct comparison, in general Marantz had a better-sounding amp once all the room correction and other digital enhancements were stripped away.
palmharbor's picture

Since the Japan Nuclear issue...production for both units are in the same factory using the same parts. I know this for a fact.

palmharbor's picture

I have owned the AVR 4310 CI for a year now and I am totally pleased with it...its easy to set up, telephone support is great, you do not wade through 10 different selections. I used to have Emotiva separates but had problems with getting the subwoofer to work and they were not able to fix it. I would recommend this unit highly.

PeterC's picture

Wouldn't the AVR 4520CI be a better comparison to the Marantz AV8801 which also has XT32 processing ( I realize that it would require a separate amp)?
I have been considering the AV8801 based on the great review by S and V.
How would the 4520CI compare to this Marantz?

Macahan's picture

Mark, I have a pair of PSB Stratus Silver speakers that I bought in the 90's which are bi-wired with a Definitive Tech Supercube 8000 sub, just a simple 5.1 system. When I run the Audyssey program it wants to set the PSB's as large and full band. I called up a local installer and said if you have a sub are you not supposed to run them as small? He said not if they are bi-wired and also said that audyssey made the right call. What do you think?