• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Meridian 565/562 vs 561


Standard Member
Any thoughts on which is better?

The 565 is the predecessor to the 568 as far as I know which was more expensive than the 561 so was it better, and if the difference between the 565 with Z3 and 568 is marginal, is 565 better than 561?

I could do with the extra inputs of the 561 as opposed to the 565 but 562 would solve that. On the 561's side, it still has updates available, while the 565 was stopped ages ago. I currently have 565 on loan and it is awesome, but I have niggling feeling that I might be missing something by not spending a bit extra for the 561. Both are used, and I would need to hunt for a 562.

Sorry if this is a bit long-winded. I just can't seem to find anyone who's tried both side by side.

Will be looking to get a decent 5ch power amp to match.

Speakers are JM Lab Electra 905 fronts / JM Cobolt CC800 Centre / KEF Rears (just som crappy ones from Richers's to tide me over - considering K4s or Xenon Surround 25s).



Distinguished Member
I've never heard the 561, but I can say the 568 is leaps and bounds ahead of the 565, which I really wasn't impressed with...


Hi Jake,

From memory the 565 has slightly better processing than the 561 being an all digital unit, however the 565 was fiddly to setup and had to be configured with the 562 or 562V for analogue components (this being a setup task in itself).

The 561 was a later model and was more user friendly.

For absolute quality or if using digital speakers then the 565 will be better, if working with more analogue components, power amps then the 561 is a good compromise.

Of course if your budget allows then the newer processors 568 and onwards have much better software and can be setup via a window app.


Established Member
Quality wise, the 561 was probably very similar to the 565Z3, better then the non Z3 565 but none are as good as the 568 by quite some margin. However, the 561 was supported longer than the 565 so as a consequence did get the benefit of better DSP software such as PLII which I believe the 565 never got.

The 562 however is a very useful piece of kit, especially in the V2 and V3 versions. As a result, a 565/562 is ultimately more versatile than a 561.

As for configuration, I think the 561 added a PC interface for SW updates and configuration. Setting up the 562/565 is actually quite quick and easy from the front panel although more fiddly with the 565 and 562 since you need to reach the power switch to put it in config mode.

Neither unit lock you into either the digital or analogue domain for input or output and can't think why one would be better at one than the other - I don't think that either support 96/24, certainly not on the ADC side of things which is important since both work in the fully digital domain for processing - even bypass. They both have atleast one analogue input and two digital inputs plus options for both analogue and digital speakers.



Standard Member
Thanks people. Useful advice.

I found someone willing to lend me a 561 to try side by side with the 565 to see if I can hear a difference. Don't think I can really stretch to a 568. Both the 565 and 561 are at rediculous prices (or so they seem, but I guess given the age...).

I think that with a good power amp, either will be a far better solution than a current do-it-all AV receiver like the Denon 3805 or Arcam AVR300, good though these are.

Will think on it some more ...


The 565 is nice, but that's all I had one with the 562V and in the end I decided I prefered a new Rotel.

It was very solid etc... but it just lacked the sparkle a more modern surround sound processing chip could supply.


The latest video from AVForums

Spielberg, Shyamalan, Aronofsky, Chazelle, Eddie Murphy and Mel Gibson - all the latest movies
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom