You might consider B&K. I've heard the AVR 200 and I like my upgraded 307 better. More power, better bass mangement.
8 responses Add your response
You cant do SACD digitally except through proprietary connections like the Pioneer, Denon, or Sony solutions. Cheap digital receivers process everything through their dacs and would degrade the sound of SACD and DVDA. If you are only going to do DVD and music get a good 5 channel passive pre and a good 5 channel power amp. Use the DVD players decoders and your set.
I suggest you audition the Arcam AVR300, which is quite an improvement over the AVR200 (which is a nice enough receiver BTW, but the 300 is in another league altogether - much much better).
I have heard the B& K, and owned various Marantzes and Denons.
The AVR300 is the best solution I've heard for both HT & music by a large margin without investing $$$$ in separates. I'd try one and check out the feature set - this receiver deserves its rave reviews.
I own the b&k 507 and am going to try the arcam 300 in a few days at home. These are the two best non-seperate solutions without ANY doubt. SACD and DVDA deserve a high dollar transport and high quality dacs with good power supplies driving them to really here what they can do.None of this comes cheap. Spend the bucks on a descent universal (7-800 min), forget the computer idea, forget the digital amp idea, and you will have much more fullfillng sound.
"...Don't want to spend the money on separates as in a HT system get 80-90% of sound with a receiver much cheaper"
Yeah, for the record, this is way off!!! figure more like 80-90% better sound from separates easy!!!!
I've worked in 6 audio stores over 15 years, to know of which I speak here...trust me. Receivers are a large sonic compromise indeed.
I bought an upgraded Acurus ACT 3(basically same processing as Aragon Stage One at 24/192) With analog volume control, and Acurus 125x5 (plus 2 channel amp) at less than $2k used.
The sound cannot be touched by any receiver by a long margine.
Make no mistake about it...receivers are a convenience for those that don't like to connect a few pair of interconnects and have to have two power cords instead of one (like this takes more than two minutes longer to set up, if that).
Sound quality is EVERYTHING in audio. Besides that, separates are way better, and I would not go back personally. I don't understand the "receiver mentality/crazy/mania/whatever thing".
I have a a $6000.00 integrated amp and wanted to go to an HT setup. I bought an Arcam AVR300 and enjoy the the two channel sound as well as the HT part. The AVR300 does not sound quite as good as the $6K integrated amp, using the same speakers (Merlin VSM-M), but it is very close. I went from $8K separates to a $6K integrated to a $2K receiver. I believe separates could sound better depending on your tastes, but not always. There are very well designed integrated amps and receivers.
Shriramosu... I have to agree with some of the other posters that you are going to get much better sound from seperates. Another thing to consider is going back to two channel and sink your money into higher quality components. I found surround sound to be over-rated, and have sold off all of my 5.1 gear in favor of 2-channel, and upset that I ever attemped "home theater". Just my personal opinion.
P.S. I bought an old Arcam 9 integrated from you about 2 years ago for a bedroom system... it still works great!