Marantz SR5008 vs Cambridge Audio AZUR 650R

Hi...I just purchased a pair of Anthony Gallo reference 3.5's. I also purchased a Reference 3 SA amp to drive the 3.5's. In addition, I purchased the TR-1 sub and strada 2 centers and rear speakers. I am in a fix between the Marantz SR5008 (more bells and whistles, more modern) versus the older Cambridge Audio AZUR 650R. Any thoughts about what I ought to go in for would be much appreciated.
I hope you don't mean you're using the Gallo SA amp as the main amplifier. It's a subwoofer amp, intended to drive only the second pair of inputs (which affect only the second voice coil of the 3.5 speakers' woofers). Ifs you don't have the operating manuals for the Gallo components, you need to find them. Good luck.
Thanks, so much Dopogue!

I'm using the Gallo SA amp just to drive the Reference 3.5's. I'm just confused as far as the choice between the Marantz SR5008 and Cambridge Audio AZUR 650R (Model launched 4 years ago???) are concerned. Would it be better to go for something more modern with better bells/whistles, considering the setup I'll have or go for something not as well connected, but a solid performer all the same?
To repeat, the Gallo SA is just a SUBWOOFER amp (that's what the SA stands for) and is not designed to drive the Reference 3.5s full-range. The woofers in the 3.5s have two voice coils. The primary voice coil is driven along with the mid-range and tweeter by an appropriate amp or receiver. The second voice coil is the only thing intended to be driven by the SA amplifier. Clear?

I can't help you as to the Marantz and Cambridge Audio units. Don't even know what they are. But I did have the earlier version of your main speakers and an SA amp and currently have Stradas and TR3 subs.
My mistake. I meant I'm using the Reg 3A to drive the second voice could on the 3.5s, but will use the receiver to drive 5.1 channels. Just wanted inputs on which receiver would be a better bet. Thanks so much though.
Personally I would not power speakers of that caliber with a receiver. Are you doing any 2-channel listening as well?
Thanks for the advice soix. Yes, I will be doing a lot of 2 channel listening for music.
Ooh. That changes thing pretty significantly IMHO. As much as the amp section could be limiting the performance of your speakers, the preamp section of even a decent AVR can be just as detrimental and likely worse than the amps. If 2-channel audio is a priority I'd highly recommend getting either an integrated amp or separate stereo pre and amp to run the 3.5s for two channel, and then pick up a decent AVR that you can use for HT processing and for powering the center/rear channels. You simply run the front L/R preamp outs from the AVR to an unused or HT bypass input on the stereo pre or integrated amp. When you're doing HT you select that input on the stereo pre/integrated and match the volume to work with the other channels (happens automatically if your pre/integrated has a dedicated HT pass through input, but no big deal either way). This way you can have a dedicated 2-channel system within an HT setup without having any of the HT circuitry involved in stereo playback. Another benefit of going this route is you put more of your $$$ into where it matters most and can spend less on the AVR if you're not as critical about HT. Also, when technologies/connections change going forward you can swap out the relatively affordable AVR for a more current model and just keep using the stereo components as usual.

Incidentally, there were a few threads on this topic fairly recently where someone was looking to add a separate multichannel or stereo amp to replace the amp section of their AVR. What they found was that getting the AVR's preamp section out of the stereo picture was hugely impactful in the performance of their system -- even moreso than the amps. Sorry for being a little long winded, but given the quality of your speakers and interest in stereo I'd strongly recommend going this route. Best of luck.