[rmg1973]

Increasingly frustrated with music on my system.
Toyed with moving to an Arcam AVR 500 to use with my B&W MT30 speaker package.

But figure for cost of this amp I could put together a pretty good cd / stereo amp / full range speaker package.

Question is to others who've made the moce(back) to hifi - how much better can music be this way?

Bit of a vague question i realise but any answers appreciated.

[Dazzor]

Check out my old thread.

Basically I opted for adding a true music amp and use the pre-outs on my Z7 as I wanted/needed to share the front-2 speakers from my 5.1 set-up.

General consensus appears to be that you really have got to spend a small fortune on an AVR if you want to up the SQ for 2-channel music. Adding a true stereo amp will invariably yield a better return for your money.

This was my finding anyway.

All the best
D

[Mr Pig]

I think the whole million-channel idea is a waste of time.

The best thing about a home cinema system is that it gives you bigger speakers than come bolted to the TV but the problem is that you've got to spend a lot of money to get even close to the sound quality of relatively modest stereo equipment.

So what's the answer? Bin the home cinema and just play the TV through a stereo Hi-Fi system maybe? Years ago some of us used to do that, put the sound through our stereos, before surround sound was even invented. Most of the benefit of home cinema sound comes from the extra sound quality, not the daft extra channels all over the place.

Don't get me wrong, a good home cinema system is great fun, but it's hard to get working well and is not cheap. Most of us have our TVs is poxy little rooms that are hard enough to get stereos working properly in let alone five or even seven speakers. Give me a break. I've got a little home cinema system in the TV room, I put the cables in the walls and everything, sounds terrible! Waste of time.

Some people genuinely don't seem to give a stuff about sound quality, it's just about flashy toys and buttons to push. You are not one of those people.

[Dazzor]

Originally Posted by Mr Pig

I think the whole million-channel idea is a waste of time.

The best thing about a home cinema system is that it gives you bigger speakers than come bolted to the TV but the problem is that you've got to spend a lot of money to get even close to the sound quality of relatively modest stereo equipment.

So what's the answer? Bin the home cinema and just play the TV through a stereo Hi-Fi system maybe? Years ago some of us used to do that, put the sound through our stereos, before surround sound was even invented. Most of the benefit of home cinema sound comes from the extra sound quality, not the daft extra channels all over the place.

Don't get me wrong, a good home cinema system is great fun, but it's hard to get working well and is not cheap. Most of us have our TVs is poxy little rooms that are hard enough to get stereos working properly in let alone five or even seven speakers. Give me a break. I've got a little home cinema system in the TV room, I put the cables in the walls and everything, sounds terrible! Waste of time.

Blimey! Bit harsh isn't?

Out of interest, what kit makes up your cinema system?

[Mr Pig]

Originally Posted by Dazzor

what kit makes up your cinema system?

It's a cheap Yamaha AV amp and a bunch of budget speakers. I've heard the speakers with other amps and they sound ok but the Yamaha amp sounds terrible. One day I'll replace it but it's a very low priority. Do you have any recommendations for punchy-sounding AV amps that arn't too expensive?

[Don Dadda]

Originally Posted by Dazzor

Blimey! Bit harsh isn't?

Isn't it just!!.

There's quite alot of truth in what Mr Pig says but i wouldn't say its a waste of time. If done right, it is great for films, but the mistake that most people make when aquiring an av is that it will also sound just as good with music, possibly from the sales hype they were told this, but clearly it does not if equally price and well above that. If it does, i bet the av cost a mortgage.

Also, as nice as they are, the B&W speakers are sats/ sub which are not really designed for music and even though may sound decent with a proper stereo amp, proper hifi speakers will sound better and can be had for alot less. Maybe you need to start looking at the speakers first before the amp - just a thought

As has been asked - what is the av you are currently using?
The B&W package is around £1.5k so i'm thinking the av is not far from that.

For the price of the AVR500, you can have a whole stereo setup - cd, amp, speakers and other kit which will knock the pants of the AVR500 and still keep your existing av for film duties.

OK, maybe not knock the pants off the arcam but will definitely have it beat.

Dazzor's Z7 was around £2k when new and is no slouch and he still wasn't 100% happy with its music performance - see his thread that he linked to.

[Andy8421]

There is no fundamental reason why a 5.1 cinema set up should not be excellent for two channel stereo.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a 5.1 system has 5 passive speakers, an active sub, an AVR which contains 5 amplifiers, a processor, and a 6 channel DAC.

For a fair £ for functional block comaprison, if your two channel stereo set up cost (say) £X, then you need to be thinking in the region of £3X to £5X to have a cinema system that is comparable.

So I am with Dazzor, it is quite possible to have a system that is great at both 2 channel stereo and 5.1 cinema, but it is probably not the most cost effective way to achieve it.

[BlueWizard]

Well, I'm another stereo guy chiming in.

As has been pointed out, if you have the money, certainly you can find a very musical AV amp.

But even if you find such an amp, and the Arcam would probably be one of those amps, you are still stuck with 'style' Satellite speakers. How much sound do you expect to come out of a 4" (100mm) speaker in a tiny plastic cabinet?

I mean as 4" speakers go, the B&W M1 is probably pretty well engineered, but in the end it is still a small 4" speaker in a very small cabinet.

The woofer that comes with the MT-30 system (PV1) has an 8" bass driver. The rated amp power of this sub is 500w, yet somehow it manages to accomplish this miracle with a 100w power supply.

Again, as satellite speakers go, the B&W MT30 are among the best for the money. And that is fine if you want tiny speakers. However, that same money will buy you bigger and better speakers. But, of course, bigger speakers are ...well... you know ... Bigger.

I would suggest you at least consider upgrading your front three speakers plus the subwoofer with something more substantial; minimum B&W bookshelf, though preferably floorstanding speakers. In the end, if you want big sound, with an extremely few exceptions, you need big speakers.

Based on a review I read, the Arcam 500 is an extremely musical amp, with lot of real power, but somewhat lean on fancy features, and certainly with unquestioned quality.

However, as I've said, you only get just so much from a tiny speaker, so even with a good amp, you are somewhat limited by your speakers, at least for music. I'm sure the MT-30 are great for special effect surround sound. I mean even cheap cheap cheap surround sound sounds impressive in terms of being ... impressive. But impressive does not necessarily equal quality of sound. From another perspective it is the surround effects that impresses you, not necessarily the pure sound quality. Which is why so many Surround systems sound fantastic for movies, but fall short for pure quality music.

Now, everything I said is just my not so humble, highly biased, and limited opinion. Others are free to disagree, but you will notice that no one really is.

It would help if you told us what your current amp is, and also any other related equipment like CD players, DVD player, BluRay player? What format is your music in - MP3, ACC, ACC Lossless, FLAC, WAV, CDs, vinyl albums, etc...?

So, you need at least a 10" to 12" subwoofer with some real power behind it. When I say real power, I mean an amp that at least has a power supply equal to the rated amp power. Then you need minimum quality bookshelf, or my preference, some quality substantial floorstanders. And then you need a center to match your front speakers.

If you buy all B&W, they might reasonably match with your rear MT-30/M1 satellites. If not B&W, then it depends on what your new speaker are, and how sensitive you are to tonal irregularities or inconsistencies in your speakers.

Again, I'm not out and out criticizing the B&W MT-30 speaker system, as tiny speaker systems go, it is one of the better ones, but that doesn't change the fact that when all is said and done, it is a tiny speaker system.

So, in the end, it gets down to space available, the tolerance of your significant other, and how much money you want to spend. Then of course, that is all defined by the decision you make.

But as I said -

"...everything I said is just my not so humble, highly biased, and limited opinion.

Steve/bluewizard

[Mark.Yudkin]

And as a contrast to the "stereo fans", I'll just add that we went from stereo to multichannel, with multichannel SACD as an important factor for classical music, and will not be going back to a pure stereo solution. Nor will we be adding a stereo pre-amp to "improve" the pre-amp/processor. With separate power amplification, everything else is anyway the same, whether stereo or multichannel.

The question that arises however is cost. Going multichannel is going to cost 4x as much as staying with stereo as far as the electronics are concerned, although surround speakers tend to be less expensive, if only because space constraints prohibit using decent full-size speakers all-round. For those who are satisfied with a lower quality multichannel peformance so as to reduce the expense, combining a budget multichannel setup with a stereo amplifier having a processor mode (or a functionally equivalent preamp / power amp combination) and speakers can yield a useful compromise at a rather lower cost.

The biggest problem incidentally is not the electronics. It's the speakers. And specifically the centre speaker. What's worse, the problem is intrinsically unsolveable without projection, as its caused by the conflict for the same physical space by the audio and the video reproduction devices. So when looking for a multichannel solution, you first need to find the best solution / compromise you can for that problem. And that is orthogonal to the stereo vs multichannel consideration.

[tvdavid]

I was happy with the sound on my Pioneer VSX 817 but now use a NAD C370 which gives so much more detail in stereo music.

But the VSX 817 is still better than most other amps I have tried over Sony and Kenwood.

[Rich9600]

I'm in the use both camp, as advocated by Dazzor. I have two boxes of similar cost, the stereo amp £ for £ eclipses the AV-R. See sig for details of kit.

Musically my stereo amp pulls out far more detail all across the range and gives a fuller sound than my AV-R. I chose my AV-R as the best sounding, for stereo, I could get a listen of in my price range. Latter adding the stereo amp and using the AV-R's pre outs to this, switched to its power amp mode for AV duties. For the about £1K spent on the two I don't think you could get a better sounding, in stereo, AV-R.

I will freely admit this is my soap box. However, it is in my humble opinion the most cost effective way to get surround and decent stereo.

[sounddog]

As (I think) others have said, one of the big "problems" with your current system is the M1 speakers.

You don't say what your AV amp is, but as a first step I would try replacing the M1s used for your left and right with another speaker, either floor-standing or stand-mount. My personal preference is for B&W and either the 600 or CM lines would suit you well.

Moving beyond that, look at a good stereo amp. As you were thinking of looking at the Arcam AVR500, then something like the Musical Fidelity M3 should fit in your budget with a pair of B&W 683 (floor stand) or CM5 (stand mount) speakers. The front channels of your AVR would then plug into the HT bypass function of the M3 for an integrated system.

You'd also need to be looking at adding a good analogue output source to a stereo amp, either CD player or a DAC would suit you well.

Eloise

[Dazzor]

Originally Posted by Mr Pig

It's a cheap Yamaha AV amp and a bunch of budget speakers. I've heard the speakers with other amps and they sound ok but the Yamaha amp sounds terrible. One day I'll replace it but it's a very low priority. Do you have any recommendations for punchy-sounding AV amps that arn't too expensive?

Well there's lots of nice AVR's out there IMO...Thing is...and I'm sure you know this already; a better AVR will still not sound great if it's driving below-par speakers. Also, it is my ever so humble opinion that any decent HT set-up really does need a good sub if it's going to pack any sort of punch...I like my SVS as it has room-tuning adjustment options (And I like sealed subs for music)

As far as a decent AVR for sensible money goes....Check out the classifieds is my suggestion...At the moment there's lots happening as 1.4 HDMI hits the shops.


All the best and go easy on us surrond-sound bods...some of us like Hifi too you know

D

[Mr Pig]

Originally Posted by Dazzor

it is my ever so humble opinion that any decent HT set-up really does need a good sub if it's going to pack any sort of punch.

No, I actively don't want one. Our TV room is through the wall from next doors house, albeit just their back hallway, so I don't want to dump too much bass energy into that room. The room with the Hi-Fi is the other side of the house so I can have as much bass as I like in there ;0)

Before I got the Yamaha amp I used these speakers with a little £100 all-in-one cinema system and was very pleased with how they sounded. I was quite exited about getting the Yamaha amp, but it sounded much worse! It sounds terrible, that's all there is to it. It is definitely the weakest link.

[Dazzor]

Originally Posted by Mr Pig

No, I actively don't want one. Our TV room is through the wall from next doors house, albeit just their back hallway, so I don't want to dump too much bass energy into that room. The room with the Hi-Fi is the other side of the house so I can have as much bass as I like in there ;0)

Before I got the Yamaha amp I used these speakers with a little £100 all-in-one cinema system and was very pleased with how they sounded. I was quite exited about getting the Yamaha amp, but it sounded much worse! It sounds terrible, that's all there is to it. It is definitely the weakest link.

Right, gottcha, no sub... That's understandable. It does limit the whole HT experience...IMO anyway. For me, a decent sub is not just about adding loads of overwhelming bass; for me it's more about control and the way other frequencies behave more cohesively when authoritative bass is present....If that makes sense...Still, that is just my take on it

TBH I am a little surprised that an all-in-one faired better than a Yamaha AVR. Which particular Yamaha model is it? Did it come with a set-up mic (YPAO)?

Anyhow, sounds like you're fairly happy with using good old stereo/hifi for adding SQ and depth to TV listening....and like you rightly say, a lot of the sonic improvement really does come from running bigger speakers with decent amplification.

All the best
D

[rmg1973]

Many thanks for all the responses to my original post.
My other kit is getting on a bit - hence the post to be honest - amp is a Pioneer 2011 and player (film and music) is a Denon 2900.

One cheaper option is obviously a dedicated cd player - but not if upgrade won't really achieve a lot.

[Mr Pig]

Originally Posted by Dazzor

For me, a decent sub is not just about adding loads of overwhelming bass; it's more about control and the way other frequencies behave more cohesively when authoritative bass is present....If that makes sense.

Yes. I agree with you. Unfortunately good bass is the hardest and most expensive thing to get right in an audio system. I'm happy with the bass from my Hi-Fi but, apart from the neighbour issue, I can't justify the cost and effort of getting good bass from the TV.

TBH I am a little surprised that an all-in-one faired better than a Yamaha AVR

To be honest, I was gutted! The all-in-one was a cheapy system with little plastic speakers and passive sub. Adding the bigger speakers sounded much better so I was really looking forward to getting a 'proper' AV amp. At first I thought there must be something wrong with the way it was set up or something, I went through it all a hundred times, but the thing just sounds poor.

It's a Yamaha RX-X361. It got good reviews but I should have known better. Most of the Yamaha Hi-Fi I've hear has been uninspiring, although I once had a little A320 amp that was quite nice.

One day, when I've got the cash floating around and it's annoying me enough, I'll get another amp. Could do with more inputs too to be honest. Looked like a lot in the shop! ;0)

[Don Dadda]

Originally Posted by Mr Pig

... recommendations for punchy-sounding AV amps that arn't too expensive?

As has been said, check out the classifieds or look for s/h marantz AV's as they are reported be very musical. SR7002 or newer SR6003 are possibles but i'm not sure how much they go for s/h but they're worth a look see .

[BlueWizard]

We've sort of engaged in a discussion of home cinema vs home Stereo.

But it would help if you gave us your goals and needs? What balance of music and movies do you listen to? Which is more important - music or moives?

Next, if and when you change or upgrade, how much money would you have to spend, and what would you expect that money to buy you.

Yes, for a given amount of money, stereo will most commonly sound better than Surround Sound, but with enough money, Surround Sound can sound pretty spectacular for music. So, budget is important. We will try to help you get the best you can, and a system that most serves your needs, but before we can do that, we need to know you needs and priorities and budget.

I recent tests in, I think, Home Theater magazine (Home Theater: Home Page) they tested the Cambridge Audio 650A/V and the Arcam AVR500, and the conclusion was that both these amps had stunning stereo music quality. These are both amps that have concentrated on the amps themselves, rather than the latest bells&whistles features. And apparently it shows in the sound quality you get.

As am example from the review of the Cambridge 650A/V -

"I listened to the Azur 650R through three different sets of speakers over the course of several weeks, and it made me a believer in the AVR again. Think of all the superlative adjectives you would normally use with a fantastically engineered (from a sonic standpoint) piece of audio gear: natural, open, sweet, stunning, awesome, astounding, ear-fondling, and “connects your brain directly to the music.” Really, none of those terms is quite good enough."

I'm not trying to sell this particular amps, just pointing out that is it possible for an AV amp to sound pretty good.

While neither amp is cheap, neither is insanely expensive when you consider the quality you get.

If you have no interest in 3D, and I really don't, then these amps and similar can do a pretty stunning job for both pure audio and also video playback. You are free to read the reviews and judge for yourself.

So, yes, an AV amp can be pretty impressive for music playback, if you are willing to pay for it. But you can't judge equal priced Stereo and AV systems. At equal price, the AV will always fall short.

Steve/bluewizard

[Don Dadda]

BW mentioning of Cambridge Audio just prompt my brain.

I had a CA 540Rv3 which was surprisingly dam good with music and 640R was reported be much better which they seem to carry on into the 650R. The only draw back was that they didn't have audio over hdmi and couldn't decode True HD, DTS MA, etc where others could for the same price at the time. But their concentration was more towards the music side which showed in abundance.

Mr Pig - If you don't mind not having HD Audio you may want to check either of those out - If you can find any.

rmg1973 - Have a look at the 650R, while it may not beat a equally priced stereo amp, I don't beleive CA would of dropped the ball with this and it maybe one of the best musical av in its price range and above.

Just my Opinion

[S Bibby]

Question is to others who've made the move (back) to hifi - how much better can music be this way?

It's funny because back in 1995 The Audio Critic claimed that by 2005 stereo would be dead and most people would be listening to DTS surround mixes. Technology and new media formats have something to do with consumer preferences but there isn't much in the way of a qualitative improvement - in some respects the opposite. I got involved with surround equipment solely to improve my TV equipment and films, most other TV programmes, Radio etc. are in Stereo. Perhaps Blu Ray will offer more opportunities but it hasn't exactly made much headway in Video.

[Mr Pig]

Originally Posted by Bibby_83

back in 1995 The Audio Critic claimed that by 2005 stereo would be dead

In 1984 they said that vinyl would soon be dead too. Looks like it will outlive CD!

Technology and new media formats have something to do with consumer preferences but there isn't much in the way of a qualitative improvement - in some respects the opposite.

In most respects I'd say. I reckon that the sound quality from the music system in the average home today is worse than it was in the eighties. Even music centres had decent sized, full-sounding speakers. Today people are more concerned with compactness, style and convenience.

[Rich9600]

Originally Posted by Bibby_83

It's funny because back in 1995 The Audio Critic claimed that by 2005 stereo would be dead and most people would be listening to DTS surround mixes. Technology and new media formats have something to do with consumer preferences but there isn't much in the way of a qualitative improvement - in some respects the opposite.

This could easily have been the case, but for the cost and relative ease of set up of decent quality surround sound.

The cost of equivalent quality surround is higher simply because of the cost of the components, 2.5x at least. There is also the space that you need to accommodate 5+ full size full range speakers.

Giving up the first 3' or so of you room to equipment and speakers is one thing, but having speakers set up for full range musical performance on the rear channels could be quite demanding on your space and budget. Particularly if your speakers of choice need plenty of breathing space.

Set up would be a nightmare in most rooms!

I got into surround by mistake as an old sherwood AV-R was the best cheap powerhouse amp (for D&B back then) available from Richer Sounds 10+ years ago. Some interesting listens to music in surround sound in those days...

Years later and plenty of AV-Rs on I went for a proper stereo amp. No going back for me!

[BlueWizard]

One of the problems for people is that they do not buy based on the job at hand, they buy based on the budget at hand. So, if you have £500 to spend, then the options become -

- £500 for two amps (stereo) and two speaker?

or -

- £500 for five amps (surround sound) and 6 speakers?

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that the value of each amp and each speaker is less in the Surround Sound system. But when you consider that the Subwoofer is pretty close to half the cost of the complete speaker system, the individual speakers REALLY are worth substantially less.

Ideally, we should compare a £500 stereo system to something like a +£2000 Surround system. But most budgets don't work that way.

In my case, I might add a surround sound system (though not any time soon), but I would never get rid of my stereo system. So for a purist, it is best to have two systems, each dedicated to a specific purpose. But again, that in not financially practical for most people, nor is it practical in terms of available space.

Now there are schemes to try to blend Stereo and AV together. The simplest, is to have the AV amp and the Stereo amp share the front speakers. There are manual and automatic switching boxes that will switch the speaker outputs from two devices (amps) and direct them to your speakers. So, the front speakers, usually large floorstanding models, will preform double duty, connected to the stereo amp for music, and automatically (or manually) switched to the AV amp for movies.

The other alternative is to use the Pre-amp outputs of the AV amp to drive the inputs of a stereo amp. In this case, the stereo is always On and in the system, and the front AV amp channels go unused. Though they could be re-directed to some other purpose, like music in another room.

For myself, I'm very happy with stereo for movies. But if I had the money and the room, I think I would have a good bookshelf/Sub/AV-amp system for movies, and a good floorstanding system for music. So, two completely independent systems.

Now, as mentioned, if you have the money, you can certainly put together a all AV system that serves music very very well. And you need not spend a fortune, though exactly what constitutes a fortune varies from person to person. For someone willing to spend about £3000 total (amp+Speakers), I think you could do pretty well. £1500 to £2000, roughly, for a floorstanding or good bookshelf system, plus another £1000 to £1500 an a AV amp, would probably be close enough. Though, £2000 to £2500 on the AV amp would be better.

Now, there is a huge subjective element here. There are people who have mid-priced AV system, and they don't see the big deal. They play a CD on the AV systems, and they hear the CD, and they like what they hear. It depends on whether you are in a position to hear other systems to compare your mid-priced AV too, and to some extent how discerning and how critical you are of what you hear. Remember, the current music revolution (or the once music revolution) was based around AM radio. AM radio worked despite having terrible specs.

Now, let's be fair, an AV system is a MASSIVE step above AM radio, but the point is, how satisfied you are with an AV system for music, depends on how demanding you are. If you just want the music to play, then a budget AV should be fine.

It is next to impossible to make one statement that includes all people. In discussion I've read here, there are people who are very happy with their basic AV amps and their very small Jamo A102 (palm of your hand) speakers. They've done the best they can with the money they had.

But, if you've got some serious money to spend, I'm sure you can do a lot better.

Most who are using the blended Stereo/AV amp schemes are doing so because they don't have £5000 to spend on a system.

Just a few random thoughts.

Steve/bluewizard

[a8ch]

This is pretty close to my heart as I have spent most of my life as a dedicated audio enthusiast, and since the inception of avr's, I have been too'ing and fro'ing between two and multi channel, including running both at the same time.

I fear from my personal experience, the arguament that av amps are inferior to stereo is a historic one, which I have no intention to argue either way. One thing though some av amps do a much better job than others in the `musicality' dept which is at the heart of hifi replay.

I do admit though you have to spend a lot more to acquire an av amp with proven hifi amp construction i.e. discrete components, decent psu etc, to get it. Personally Ive cracked it, in as much I enjoy one system for all my needs, but its taken a while.

[softsorter]

My setup is as Bluewizard has touched on above, Wharfedale 9.1 fronts shared between my stereo Nad 325bee and the Onkyo Surround Sound amp, and I just manually switch the speaker connections to try and keep the speaker connections to a minimum to keep the 2ch stereo at its best. This is backed up with a BK XLS 200 sub fed low line input on the Onkyo and high level inputs from the Nad for stereo duty.

Centre and surround speakers are Yamaha ones and do a fair job as the bulk of the sound is handled by the fronts and the sub.

I did try and use the onkyo which was only £300 as a all in one inc stereo, and although it was acceptable the 2ch stereo amp was a big improvement.

[Osamede]

Originally Posted by Don Dadda

BW mentioning of Cambridge Audio just prompt my brain.

I had a CA 540Rv3 which was surprisingly dam good with music and 640R was reported be much better which they seem to carry on into the 650R. The only draw back was that they didn't have audio over hdmi and couldn't decode True HD, DTS MA, etc where others could for the same price at the time. But their concentration was more towards the music side which showed in abundance.

Mr Pig - If you don't mind not having HD Audio you may want to check either of those out - If you can find any.

rmg1973 - Have a look at the 650R, while it may not beat a equally priced stereo amp, I don't beleive CA would of dropped the ball with this and it maybe one of the best musical av in its price range and above.

Just my Opinion

This IMO is all the more reason why NOT to get those two receivers. Considering that one can cost-effectively add a good quality dedicated power amp/s to the setup , what's the point of getting a reciever that doesnt have the bellls and whistles?

At the moment I am looking to upgrade from a 540R V2 and I find myself uninterested in the 650R: it doesnt have the DLNA networking capaility, iphone app control etc, which these days you want in an receiver. Clean power is not that expensive to add to a mid range AV receiver. Oh, and the stone-age remote control does not sit any better with the lack of up to current day networking and app controls.

I applaud Cambridge and Arcam for providing the quality amplification but Cambridge in particular have shot themselves in the foot by forgetting the rest of the job. I see NAD doing the same to a lesser degree.


The stereo fans are still here, if these manufacturers want to get the purchases they will have to step up their game.

[a8ch]

Originally Posted by Osamede

This IMO is all the more reason why NOT to get those two receivers. Considering that one can cost-effectively add a good quality dedicated power amp/s to the setup , what's the point of getting a reciever that doesnt have the bellls and whistles?

At the moment I am looking to upgrade from a 540R V2 and I find myself uninterested in the 650R: it doesnt have the DLNA networking capaility, iphone app control etc, which these days you want in an receiver. Clean power is not that expensive to add to a mid range AV receiver. Oh, and the stone-age remote control does not sit any better with the lack of up to current day networking and app controls.

I applaud Cambridge and Arcam for providing the quality amplification but Cambridge in particular have shot themselves in the foot by forgetting the rest of the job. I see NAD doing the same to a lesser degree.


The stereo fans are still here, if these manufacturers want to get the purchases they will have to step up their game.

I see it from another angle. I think from my purist point of view the simpler the better. I remember many years ago components such as graphic equalisers and such like were frowned upon from a SQ perspective.

I for one would be very interested in a basic featured avr in the future, that offered all the latest digital decoding, and pure direct options and the rest of the money spent in high quality amps, components, and psu. I think there is too much unneccessary bloat-ware built in to avrs. Im amazed no one is manufacturing a hifi/avr hybrid in this way?

[Osamede]

But isnt that exactly why Cambridge for example is failing. They're not even meeting your need.

You might look at the NAD AV receivers, might be what you want. That said, I have never liked the NAD sound myself, right from the days when I was purely a 2-channel customer.

[surayne]

From what I've listened to, very few AV receivers are ever going to match dedicated stereo components. While I enjoy surround sound for movies (and wouldn't have a 2-channel system for them), I think if you really want a decent music experience you have to go for dedicated stereo components and build a passable surround system around them. How much better can it be? MUCH better! Night and day if you ask me.

The nice thing about AV is that it moves along pretty quickly compared to stereo gear, so there are a lot of bargains to be had if you're willing to sacrifice some features (but not quality). I've spent a stupid amount on my stereo setup, but adding an AVR with LPCM over HDMI, a centre speaker (that tonally matched my fronts) and some rears cost me all of about £325 (ex-dem and second-hand). It's very good for movies and outstanding for music, IMHO.

Stereo system is: Squeezebox -> Abrahamsen V6 DAC -> Electrocompaniet ECI-5 -> Linn Majik 109 (until I can afford a pair of 805s or decent Martin Logans)
AV components are: Marantz SR6001, Linn Komponent 140 centre, Mission M5DS surrounds (replacing Mordaunt Short 902i), Kef PSW3500 sub (with XTZ Sub amp)

Things you can and can't skimp on: Your centre MUST match the fronts - you'll really notice it otherwise. If you really can't find / afford a matching centre, it's probably better to run a phantom centre.
I'm not convinced that there's much advantage in having on-board decoding in an AV amp (SQ-wise), and I much prefer to set up speakers manually rather than use automatic EQs.
And for me rear speakers are just for ambience and effects, so while they have to be reasonable, I don't think they need to break the bank.

So in short, if music is your priority, build your system around it - I think you'll be far more satisfied that way.