Component recommendations: best bang for buck.

This is likely to get a huge amount of different opinions as everyone here has a different idea of perfect equipment.  It is also difficult because you have such an open ended question -- the recommendations could be anything! lol.

I would start looking at your room.  Are you intending on using the entire 45' x 35' area? (that's a HUGE area!!)  Or are you going to build walls?  One thing that you definitely do not want to do is build a perfectly square room. 

The other part is acoustics.  With so much hardwood floor, you are not going to get sound that is well defined.  There is going to be a lot of slap echo, unless you cover major amounts with area rugs and look at acoustic panels.

The Marantz 8802a is a great starting point.  This is a very well engineered HT processor for the money.  It is voiced on the warm side.  There are other choices that will be more detailed (such as Anthem or Krell).

As far as the McIntosh stuff, it is generally advisable to use standard amplifiers instead of "integrated" when connecting to an HT Processor (unless you want to build a dedicated 2-channel rig and wrap that into a home theater).

Both the Marantz and the McIntosh are going to be on the warm and laid back side.  If this is what you're looking for, then great!

There are so many different possible suggestions, as I said.

I know avlee said that you can ignore 4K processing and run all your sources to the TV (I'm assuming that you would just use a digital coax or toslink connected to a AVR/processor for the audio).  The problem here is that you will NOT get any of the hi-res bluray audio formats (TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, Dolby Digital Plus).  Audio through coax/toslink will automatically be down-converted to the old school compressed Dolby Digital / DTS formats.  If you want hi-res bluray audio, you are going to have to connect everything through your AVR/processor using HDMI cables.

Second question, before I move on.  You keep brining up "integrated amplifier" options.  This leads me to believe that you want to connect some analog audio sources (such as turntable or DAC) directly to the integrated amp to use as a dedicated 2-channel audio system.  Please let us know if this is your intention.  This is fine if you want to do this.  It would mean that any AVR or HT Processor would NOT be used for regular 2 channel audio.  You can still merge the two together (using the integrated amp as the "amplifier" for left and right channels).

If you are intending on running all audio sources (both analog and digital)through the AVR/processor, then you are better off getting a regular amp and NOT an "integrated amplifier".

HT Processors:

Marantz 8802a - (if you choose this, make sure to get the 8802a model. The original 8802 does not support HDCP2.2). Based on your budget and everything you need to get (speakers, etc.), I would probably recommend this. It is an excellent internal architecture design with a very large power supply. The DAC I/V stage is op amps, but has fully discrete audio output stages. It supports all the latest standards (4K, etc.) and is the most cost effective of your selection. The sonic signature is slightly on the warm side and just a little bit laid back, but all the detail is still there. It’s typically $2500 used, but there are some new ones on ebay for around $3k.

Krell Foundation 4K - This is another excellent choice, but completely different than the Marantz. The Krell is going to have very high resolution with a lot of detail and impact (for HT it is an excellent choice, but also excellent for music). Krell is still doing updates to this product. Typically runs for about $4,000 to $5,000 used. I own the Krell S1200U, which is awesome and better than the Foundation (S1200 has fully discrete Class A audio stages where Foundation uses op amps), but the S1200 does not support 4K.

McIntosh MX122/160 - (I’m assuming you mean the 122/160 because these are the only models that support 4K). Many love the McIntosh processors. They have the "McIntosh" warm sonic signature and the front panel is just beautiful. The internal architecture is excellent. I looked at the Mac and it was on my list, but I did not want a warm sound and I was concerned about all the bugs that appear in the processors which McIntosh never fixes (just start searching in the Audio Aficionado forum). The 122/160 are going to be in the $6,000-10,000 range as well. The older 121/150 models are cheaper used, but they do not support 4K. If you wanted this type of sonic signature, I would just go with the Marantz 8802a as it is an excellent product. Marantz continues to support this model.

ARCAM - I don’t know much about them, but I have read a little bit. They seem to be excellent with a highly detailed sound and a huge amount of impact (great for home theater). You should research more if you are serious about this choice. Personally, I would probably go with the Krell unless you wanted all the extra Dolby Atmos channels. For me, a high-end 5.1 channel system is better than an average 11.1 channel system.

My one question (among many others) is would my TV/display benefit from the "additional" video processing of the AVR unit vs. plugging the HDMI directly into the TV (I have the latest 4k TV from LG)

It depends.  Sometimes the video processor in the AVR / HR Processor is better than what is in the TV.  Sometimes it is not.  Usually, there is an option to disable any "video processing" in the AVR/Processor and just "pass-through" the video.  I would not worry about this question that much.

I would not say that the Krell is "better" than the Marantz.  They are different.  The Marantz is priced lower because of economy of scale.  It has a huge retail network and will be able to sell significantly more units than the Krell Foundation because of this huge network, hence a lower price that is more accessible to people.

The Marantz is an excellent unit with excellent design.  It has a huge power supply for an HT Processor (40,000uf if I remember right, I think it was 4 x 10,000uf capacitors).  It also has a significant amount of power supply capacitors directly on the analog circuits.  That being said, it is voiced to be on the warm side (like a McIntosh in a way).

The Krell, on the other hand, is very fast, high resolution, lots of fast attack.  This is great if you want a lot of excitement during movies (action scenes, etc.).  I will say that the Krell power supply is sized decent, but not great.  This means that the Krell is not going to be as full in the sound as the Marantz (bass / midbass / midrange).

At this point, it becomes a matter of matching equipment.  If you were going after a warm/full Integrated Amp like the McIntosh MA8000, then the Krell would be a very good match to provide a little more kick for HT purposes.  The warm/full McIntosh would round out the leanness of the Krell sound.  The Krell would not match well with a very fast/detailed amp.  The sound would just be too lean/thin/bright in the end.

-------

Another note.  These are HT Processors we are talking about, which means they do not have built in amplifiers.  You will have to get an external amplifier to power the center/surround speakers.  This is, ultimately, the better way to go in my opinion because you are not going to get the quality of sound from a AV receiver (AVR) that you are from a good processor and amplifier combination.  This will also allow you to choose an amplifier that is very similar to the 2-channel integrated.  I believe this is very important because matching the "voice" of the front 3 speakers is most critical in HT.  If the amp is very different for center channel, you will definitely hear a change in sound when sounds pan from left to right (which happens a lot in movies).  Some companies will have a 3 or 5 channel amplifier available.

Going with the Krell Foundation option, I've read that I can either go with  a power amp or an integrated amp.  Whats the benefit of one vs. the other?

An integrated amp is just an amplifier has a "preamp" built into it.  This is, essentially, another analog stage that is meant to help shape the sound more and allow you to select from multiple sources as well as control volume.

Since you want a "hybrid" system, you would use your 2-channel integrated as the "amplifier" for the left and right speakers.  You would just connect the left/right outputs of the HT Processor to one of the source inputs of the Integrated Amp.  Some integrateds have a "HT Bypass" or "passthrough" mode that you can use for a specific source.  This will either set the volume at a static point (such as 100%) or bypass the preamp completely.  This way, the HT Processor takes over control of overall volume.  If the integrated does not have a bypass mode, you will just have to set the volume at a specific spot and make sure its the same whenever you want to watch movie/tv.

With the Krell Foundation or Marantz AV8802a, you will need a 3-channel or 5-channel amplifier to power the center/surrounds.  The 2-channel integrated will power the left/right, as I have described above.

I read your other thread. For what it’s worth, I have heard from two sources that McIntosh works very well with Martin Logan speakers.

Sorry, can’t stop thinking about possibilities. Here’s a radical idea. Get the following and pair them together:

- Krell Foundation 4K

- McIntosh MC303 - 3 channel amplifier.

You might be surprised. The MC303 retails for about $11k I think, but it has come up for sale for about $6-8k used (though rarely). There’s actually one on ebay right now with starting bid of $5800 (plus freight shipping, the thing is 188lbs in the box!!). You can get a nice, but low cost amp for surrounds (for now). The surrounds don’t have to match exactly, but they need to be in the same "ballpark" as far as sonic signature goes. The front 3 channels are the most critical to match sonic signature.

There have been several revisions of the Krell Foundation. Krell has already made a new hardware board to support 4K, and there could be other revisions as well. Definitely several firmware versions. I would look for the latest version on the used market, the "4K’ version for sure.

If the Krell didn’t give you what you want as a 2-channel DAC/preamp, you can always add an external 2-channel preamp in the future to create a "hybrid" system, such as a McIntosh C50 for about $4k, and still be somewhat within your $15k budget.

The Marantz 8802A is NOT a receiver.  It is an HT processor (as I have said earlier).  This means it requires an external amplifier for every speaker you want to connect.

There are Marantz AVR receivers that do have amplifiers built in, such as the SR7012.  While these are okay, they are not going to have the sound quality of the 8802A processor.  They will also not have balanced XLR outputs (which are better than RCA outputs).

The MC402 is a 2-channel amplifier. Just keep that in mind.

My own preferences are probably different from yours.  I care mainly about sound quality.  I do not care about 4K.  I do not care about Dolby Atmos / DTS:X.  I do not care about room correction (I did not like Dirac room correction when I tested it).  After testing several HT Processors,  I went with a Krell S1200U 3D, which was the best quality sound for my tastes.  As I said, the power supply is somewhat undersized at 13,200uf for the analog section (4 x 3300uf).  I soldered in another 2 x 15,000uf to these sections.  This gave me much more fully and powerful bass, fuller midrange and less brightness/leanness.  The Krell Foundation may not have this problem because it only uses op amps.  The discrete Class A analog circuits of the S1200 are very demanding on the power supply current.

The Krell Foundation would be missing these features compared to the Marantz 8802a.  They are what I call "bells and whistles" features:

- 11.1 channels output (Krell only has 7.1 channels)

- Dolby Atmos surround decoding (not required for 5.1 channels)

- DTS:X surround decoding (not required for 5.1 channels)

- Auro-3D decoding upgrade

- Bluetooth and wireless networking, for DLNA and streaming audio, including Apple Airplay, internet radio, Spotify, Pandora, SiriusXM.

- 4K video processing and upscaling (Krell just passes through video)

For my own personal preferences, I like the high resolution, high detailed, high impact sound for both music and home theater, so I would be choosing the Krell Foundation for myself if I was in your shoes.  I think that MC303 is an awesome choice for your future and I think it would match well with the Krell Foundation.  For the surround channels, it looks like there is a McIntosh MC152 on audiogon for $3k.  I understand if you didn't want to spend this much right now for surround amp.  You don't have to.  For example, you could throw in something like a low cost Parasound A23 for around $650 for now.

There are other people who like a very laid back warm sound (they don't like the "in your face" detail and impact of the Krell sound).  In these situations, the Marantz 8802a would be a better choice for them.  It's all about personal preference.

On the AV Receive discussion.  You could go ahead and get a Marantz SR7012 AV receiver for about $2k or an Anthem MRX 720 for $2500.  This would save you money in the end because you would only need to get an external 2-channel preamp+amplifier or integrated amplifier for your music.  The 40% of your home theater listening would not be as good.  It depends on how much you really want to invest.

Oh, I just saw you changed your post.  The original post said you were about to bid on the MC303.

I can only theorize on what the sound of the Krell 7200 vs MC303 is going to be.

Based on what I have read and what I know about Krell, the Krell 7200 is --probably-- going to be a lot more detailed and fast when compared to the MC303.

The MC303 is going to have a lot more brute force which means stronger bass and midbass -- as well as fuller midrange.  It will probably be more laid back than the Krell, but as I have not heard either amp I cannot be sure.

It would actually be a hard choice for me.  It's strange, but I might actually lean towards the MC303 because of the size of the power supply and the overall capability of the amp.  The Krell actually runs out of power and can't drive all channels at 200 watts.  You only get about 150 watts with all channels driven.

I currently use the Emotiva XPR-1 monoblock amplifiers for my front three channels. If I had to look at upgrading, I would be going after the Parasound JC1 monoblocks for left/center/right.  Maybe a Parasound A21 for the surround channels.

Since you are ultimately wanting to get Martin Logon electrostatic speakers, I would probably look at a higher power amplifier.  The MC303 is a good "future" choice if you are after that sonic signature.  The Parasound JC1 would be different.  I think it would have a lot more detail and slam and punch when compared to the MC303.  I'm sure the MC303 will sound beautiful though.  It might still be a better match to a Krell Foundation and the Martin Logans.

I would say that it is up to you on whether HDR is more important or if sonic signature / sound quality is more important.  These are definitely factors that will affect your decision.

I did take a quick look at NAD.  They have a good "generic platform" for keeping current via upgrade cards.  Based on what I have read, the NAD sonic signature is on the warm side, like Marantz.

Here's a post I made back in April with more detailed information on the Marantz 8802a:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/help-w-preamp/post?postid=1411370#1411370

I haven't heard the Arcam.  Based on what I've read, it's a very good option for just about the best AVR you can get (though very expensive).  Are you looking at the ones listed on ebay?

I would be very careful about listening to vendor opinions.  They do sometimes have their own agenda and they also do not necessarily know exactly what they are talking about.

It is possible that the Arcam may be better than the Krell.  I would hesitate to believe that because the Arcam is an AVR (with built in amplifiers).  It also does not have balanced XLR outputs.  I will believe that the Arcam sounds very good, however.

The cost of Arcam AVR is very close to cost of Krell Foundation.  The economy of scale tells me that better components would be used in the Krell (krell does not have any internal amplifiers).

I don't know the "sonic signature" of the Arcam, so I can't comment on how it would match up with MC303.  I do think that the Marantz would be too warm/slow for the MC303, but that might be what you want.

At this point, you will have to make a decision on whether you are chasing the latest digital formats / standards or if you are chasing sound quality.  The two do not always go hand-in-hand.  The HDMI 2.0b standard for HDR is so new that hardly anybody has implemented it.  You will always be behind the curve within a year of getting a device because they will always be bring new technology to market so that people will "buy more".

The Yamaha is a good choice for that price point, but I would pick the Arcam AVR 850 over the Yamaha unless the price was an issue.  I believe the Arcam will just have a more refined sound (even if used as just a preamp).

There could be a benefit of getting a 2-channel amp over a 3-channel amp in some cases.  If the manufacturer used the same power supply in both the 2-channel and 3-channel models, the 3-channel would have less power distributed for each channel.  Some manufacturers will increase power supply for the 3-channel model. Some will not.  In the case of the MC303, I would not worry because McIntosh has definitely increased the power supply for 3-channel.  The watts/specs also match.  Look

MC302 - 2 channel - 98 lbs

MC303 - 3 channel - 155 lbs

There is one benefit of getting a 3-channel amplifier and that is that the sonic signature for left/center/right speakers would match exactly.  If you get a 2-channel, then the center channel speaker would have to be powered by the AVR, which could/would have a different sound.  This would be noticeable when sounds in a movie pan from left to right (such as a motorcycle driving across the screen).