Really? What about the Denon impressed you more than the DRZ? I had a Denford 8250ti once and while it had a pretty face, it didn't offer much else. It was on par feature-wise with the DRX but impossible to compare to a DRZ...since you get so much tuning capability with the DRZ and the SQ is as good or better. I even preferred the SQ of the DRX over the 8250ti. Plus more flexible source selection with the DRZ...but all IMHO //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
The DCT-A100 is superior to the "Denford" unit.
The difference between swapping out the DRX and the DRZ for the DCT-A100 was outstanding to say the least.
The vocals were more well-pronounced, the low-end was more taut, and let's not forget the looks of the Denon are far superior as well.
The thing about units without processing is that the pride themselves on a superior signal path, and a superior cd transport. The cd transport is one of the more important parts of a head unit as far as I'm concerned.
That's one thing I don't get about the Mc units. They look cool but offer no tuning so you still have to add a processor. So whatever they do offer is getting overwriten anyway.
I highly disagree, the cd transport on units like the DRZ, panasonic tube deck, Denon head units, and the 7909 are fantastic. After that is where the clear signal path comes into play.
I would much rather export all of my tuning functions to a processor that will do a better job than any head unit out there, and add very little noise to the signal path.
I would easily argue that what you gain from having a headunit like the ones I mentioned, is not voided by adding a processor into the mix.