What Surround Receiver Also Has Amazing Stereo

Denon has worked for me for the last 15 years. I had the AVR 3808CI which was later replaced by the AVR 4310CI I have now...it does everything I need and does it well (for 275 bucks I paid for 3 years ago I can't complain)...it does have a couple of audio settings that may prove beneficial for stereo purposes such Direct, Pure Direct....it even has a 7CH Stereo

 

I like Pioneer Elite A/V receivers. My SC LX-76 from 2012 features Class D amplification that sounds like a charm and the option (which I use) to biamp, actually what I call an "active biwiring" that uses two power stages to feed each one of three main front speakers, so each speaker has around 240 Watts available which helps to increase dinamic,speaker never fell short of power, and lower distorsion.

 

Answer, none of them. Surround receivers do surround first, Stereo is an afterthought.

 

That’s the conventional wisdom. But I think Arcam makes a $6000 receiver. I’ve never heard it but you have to figure it’s damn good. I’d like to hear one.

 

I had my MRX-710 filling in for amp/pre duty in my stereo room downstairs for almost a year. It was surprisingly capable. As good as seperates or a very good integrated? No, but one has to think in terms of relative value and relatively speaking, Anthems are close to if not the definite top value in "surround receivers" that also do stereo very well.

 

My 1967 McIntosh MA 5100, my 1969 Sansui 4000 receiver, my 1970 Allied 395 receiver (Pioneer SX 1500 TW under an assumed name) say no way can any Surround outperform either of the 3 in real Stereo life.

 

I’d like to hear that top of the line Arcam.

 

Not to challenge, but can you point to any specific modern ('flagship') AVRs that you've compared firsthand to the vintage stereos?

 

What does "outperform" mean?

None the less, I don't have any expectations that an Arcam in stereo will rival a PrimaLuna (which I own), nor has anyone here suggested as much.

I'm running a demo on Friday with both The Arcam AVR850 and Anthem MRX 720. By all indications they look like finely designed kit. Should be fun.

 

Maybe. Yes. Not sure. No. Maybe...

 

I have the Arcam AVR450 - not quite top of their line, but an excellent HT receiver nonetheless, and I've auditioned equivalent Anthems (also excellent HT performance). The performance of those HT receivers for stereo music playback is not a patch on what you get from a similarly priced integrated stereo amp. Compromised for many years, and finally bought a decent integrated amp with HT bypass, so now we have great stereo and great HT in one integrated system.

 

Absolutely loved my Onkyo TX-NR818 when I had it a few years ago. Terrific sound quality.

 

Beg to differ. I opted for the aforementioned Onkyo TX-NR818 on the basis of its stereo sound quality. And that was up against three £1000 stereo amps at the time: Leema Pulse, Exposure 3010S and Harman's HK990.

Kept it for two or three years before going down the active route, but in that time it convinced me that form and function were not mutually exclusive options for the consumer.

 

I have the 4308ci but I was never pleased with its 2CH performances. I think it's because the 4308ci was a product designed and sold during the big boom in HT system sales and 2CH sound quality wasn't a consideration for most of the buyers. What I did was to buy an 2CH dedicated integrated amplifier with a HT bypass and connect it to the pre-out of the Denon. The 4308ci is showing it's age but I'll replace it only when it will go tits up because it's good enough for what I need.

 

My 3 examples excel at sound quality, reliability, with music, driving efficient speakers. Arcam is excellent, Anthem makes very fine equipment. Those are worthy options for something which should sound nice in Stereo too.

 

Pioneer, Onkyo, Yamaha, Marantz, Rotel, NAD.

 

Me too. I stopped messing around with trying to get AVRs and AVRs + dedicated power amp to sound good with stereo listening. My lowly Musical Fidelity M2si beats all the previous combinations, including an almost top of the line Denon AVR-3805. Moreover, the OCD in me could not let go of the fact that all my analogue inputs were undergoing an ADC conversion:

Is your AVR digitizing your analogue signals? It probably is!

 

Listen to a 1974-1980 middle of the line or higher Onkyo in proper working order for Stereo, you won't want the AVR back for music unless surround music. And this is an Onkyo to Onkyo comparison here. I like early Onkyo just fine.

 

I would go with a good new/used preamp and separate amp. The amps in the vast majority of receivers are weak at best. I'd go with something like..

https://www.amazon.com/Marantz-AV77...heater+preamp&qid=1565805228&s=gateway&sr=8-4

https://www.amazon.com/Outlaw-Model...QV11HHSEKKZP5&qid=1565805524&s=gateway&sr=8-7

These 2 paired would likely beat any receiver under $3500-$4000.

 

I use the mighty Yamaha RX-Z9. Weighs over 60 lbs. Was about $5000 in the early 2000's. Can be had for between 10-20% of that today. Tough to beat for cost vs value.

 

I know we're talking far above my pay grade, but...I'm at a loss as to what it is about a unit that does excellent surround, that would be compromised in quality when it comes to two-channel reproduction.

I mean, we are aware that a 5.1 system is also utilizing two of its' own channels to produce stereo, right? This is like saying a 5-door hatchback is somehow better quality than the same model in a 4-door sedan version, when it's all the same parts other than the tailgate.

The more obvious discussion would be, who on earth makes a surround receiver whose front two channels are only superior when used in tandem with the rears, center and sub; if the stereo is that substandard, how are the front pair all that good in the surround mode in the first place? That's quite a unicorn.

 

I've thought that for over two decades. If an AVR is well designed its preamp section should perform well in both 5.1 and 2 channel stereo, moreso, the 2 channel stereo part may have a more direct path so stereo sound gets better and regarding the power stages I don't know why these on a 2500 $ AVR should be worse than those of a 1000 $ stereo amp.
I think integrated stereo amps are starting to look and feel more like an AVR with digital inputs, integrated D/A conversion and preamplified subwoofer outputs, and on the case of one of those new stereo amps how is this subwoofer output filtered, in the analogue or the digital domain?

 

I once had an Anthem receiver( 2012 model) and I would never ever buy one again for 2 channel listening.
Once I replaced it with a clas a/b stereo amp at half the price I newer looked back.

 

So, what you're really saying is, an amp you feel has superior 5.1 ability but not so in stereo...you really don't know what you're listening to in 5.1, because you're fooled by the rears, center and sub?

That's like a place setting including a china plate, silver tablewear, teacup and saucer, salad plate plus crystal is a good setting...but, if you only put out the original plate and a fork, suddenly the quality of these is suddenly diminished?
They were already not as good a quality when you laid it all out the first time...only you didn't notice that somehow.

 

Loved my NAD receivers but my two had very bad reliability issues. Both lasted about 2 years each if that much.