Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners Arcam AVR600

Read a review of Arcam's AVR600 A/V receiver today in the new issue of Widescreen Review magazine.

Must say, after years of reading all the HiFi and A/V magazines, have never read a more glowing review. The writer says it is "the finest sound I have heard in my life, from any system. Ever. Anywhere. Regardless of price." He includes separates.

Wow. OK, you got me. Am officially intrigued.

Currently using a Denon 3808 in a 5.1 setup using M22's, VP150, QS4's and EP175. Sources are an Oppo BD-83 for Blu Ray and SACD, and a network drive for cd's (all ripped to FLAC). Am very happy with my home theater performance, but am looking for more performance with 2-channel music. The room is 12x17x8.

Am thinking of replacing the M22's with M80's and upgrading to the AVR600. Any advice on how you think they would match up?

The other option I am looking at is a Bel Canto stack. Would then keep the Denon for multichannel (and use the Bel Canto's HT Bypass input).

Thanks very much in advance for your replies!

Hooky

Glenn, welcome. I wouldn't believe nonsense about the "sound" of a receiver, such as appeared in the Widescreen Review, for even a nanosecond. If an amplifier, such as the one in your 3808, amplifies the full 20Hz-20KHz range with flat response and inaudibly low noise and distortion(as it does)that's all that any amplifier can do: make the sound louder without adding any audible sonic coloration. If an amplifier was found that did in fact sound different, there'd have to be something wrong with it. The editor of The Audio Critic summarises this very basic point of audio technology very briefly in "Electronic Signal Paths Do Not Have a Personality!" .

Your 3808 is certainly equal sonically to the Arcam and superior to it in features, and at a lower price. No "upgrade" of it is necessary.

You might consider a more powerful sub if you want more bass output or extension. In that size room and supported by a good sub, the M22s should be excellent and I'd have no idea otherwise of how to achieve "more performance with 2-channel music". Relax.

Hi John -

Thank you for the welcome, and for your fascinating reply.

First I must admit, regardless of where the line between science and voodoo falls, I am entertained by the writing in the HiFi magazines (the British, in particular). They seem to make an earnest attempt to use words so I can try and see what they think they can hear.

I also enjoy reading British murder mysteries while listening to music, but that is perhaps a little off topic....

You are correct in that smoother base response is my goal. My challenge is that my listening room is also my living room. The only two places I have for subwoofer placement are midway along a side wall (17 feet long) between two chairs, or in a back corner behind a sectional couch. Tried the latter with my EP175, and it was boomy at 12 o'clock. Side wall placement sounded smoother, but still not optimal.

Note that the EP175 is the largest physical cabinet I have room for in either location.

Also, fyi, when I listen to stereo, I place Denon in "direct" mode and set my 2ch Subwoofer mode to "LFE+Main" (else I get no sound from my subwoofer).

One thought I had was to daisy chain a second EP175 to the back corner, and keep it turned down pretty low. More recently I have been thinking about moving the M22's to my 12x13 office, and replacing them with M80s so that I would either a) not need a subwoofer at all for 2ch listening, or b) have 3 sources for low range (keeping the Denon set to "LFE+Main").

Would love to hear your thoughts on the relative merits of these approaches. And I hear you loud and clear on the science of signal paths. But like so many music lovers, I find new electronics irresistible. Perhaps I also have hole in my pocket. Someday, I would love to own a McIntosh stack. Attended way too many Grateful Dead concerts in the 70's, and once had a backstage pass and tour of their "wall of sound". Unforgettable.

Anyway, thanks very much for your advice. Really appreciate it!

Glenn

I couldn't agree with JohnK more. Widescreen Review has always had a bias in their equipment reporting which still holds on to the outdated notion one must spend thousands to get superior performance. You must always remember they have their advertisers and really must not bite the hand that feeds them. The Arcam at $5000? At this price you are well in to the Pre-Pro/power amp category which will give you much more versatility and longevity. That is the why these companies never sell many of these flagship receivers. They are just NOT good value.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the internet-only companies like Axiom, Oppo, Emotiva and Outlaw, among others have blown the price/performance ratio out of the water so you no longer have to spend a ton of money to get "audiophile" performance. Publications like "Widescreen Review" and a few others, unfortunately, either refuse or are unaware of this reality.

I'd be looking at an EP400 for better bass before I'd be looking at an amp--consider: the amp isn't pushing out bass to the mains if you're using a sub! (OK, fine, if you've got M80s crossed at 40 or 60Hz, like I do, it is, but...) I think the EP400 is smaller than the 175, so you'd be good there. Certainly you could buy about 3 of them for the price of an Arcam!

Glenn, some comments on your reply: yes, stronger and smoother bass output on music is a frequent goal, and if you're limited as to sub size I'd suggest adding a second small but powerful sub which wouldn't have to be identical to the EP175. If you could then place the two in accordance with the findings of Dr. Toole's colleagues at Harman in their paper you should notice a significant improvement even staying with the M22s. Basically this would be opposite each other at the midpoints of the sidewalls or front and back walls or in diagonally opposite corners.

As to listening to 2-channel material, I never listen to the music only in stereo, but apply processing such as DPLII to extract the natural surround ambience found in the front channels(there was no place else to put it)and send it to the surrounds where it belongs, making the home listening experience a bit more realistic.

You're correct, of course, that the "+" subwoofer setting has to be used for sub output with 2-channel material if a "direct" type mode has been set. However, I've found that the slightly lower noise level present in a direct mode as compared to one of the modes involving some processing is of no audible significance at the listening position(a slight difference in levels between the modes may lead to the incorrect conclusion that one is inherently superior)and never use direct or the "+" type sub setting.

Thank you folks for your replies -- lots to think about here.

Casey - I think this would be an interesting thread idea. A comprehensive list of all the A/V companies that adhere to this new business model and which are, as a result, typically shunned by the A/V magazines. I love my new Oppo BDP-83, and have now started to look at Outlaw and Emotiva per your mentions. And I really do love my Axioms -- I just can't seem resist the urge to tinker.

KCarlile - I was of two minds after reading your reply. One - a second sub is starting to feel like a really good idea. Two - I think I am jealous of your 40hz crossover....

John - No way I am going to be able to get two subs into opposite middle side walls or opposite corners. We just invested in new furniture (including a large leather sectional) that makes this impossible. Was hoping that having one sub at middle side wall and another in the corner opposite would suffice. I know there are a lot of factors at work here, but do you think that is worth trying? Or would a single sub (perhaps even upgrading my EP175 to an EP400) be a better idea?

As far as Dolby PLII, I have never really give this technology a fair shot before this evening. Just discovered that there are settings for center image, width, dimension, etc. After playing around with it for the last couple of hours, I must admit, it sounds shockingly good! This really does come as a surprise to me. Perhaps I have been paying to much attention to the HiFi magazines, most of which have a bias towards full-range 2ch setups.

Regards,

Glenn

If you decide to go with the EP400, I can say that it is an amazing little sub, great for music. I had a chance to try one out in my house and at Mojo's, that little sub can put out some great, tight, clean, bass, just like the other dsp subs, just it lacks the size to effectively be used for serious HT, I wish it wasn't priced as high as it is or I would have at least one by now.

I'd probably have three!

Hi Hooky,

Like Peter Aczel (an old friend), the editor of The Audio Critic, who wrote the essay on signal paths not having a personality, I also come from an audio tweak background (in the 1970s) and did an about-face (like Peter Aczel did), when presented with scientific double-blind testing of loudspeakers and electronics (in my case, my mentor was Dr. Floyd Toole, the acoustical scientist at Canada's National Research Council). While Arcam builds very nice stuff, it, like many other British brands (Naim, Linn, etc) are wildly overpriced and sold with a mixture of mystique, hype and hokum.

This isn't to say that I don't enjoy the witty and literate writing to be found in many British hi-fi magazines, but as for reliable testing, forget it.

Your room isn't very big (about the size of my own living room) and as several have pointed out, for the price of the Arcam, you could get a couple of EP400s, which would not only be superb for music but would also give you lots of impact for home theater and more evenly distributed and smoother bass throughout the room.

If you'd like to look at a more reasoned explanation of why 2-channel recording and playback is intrinsically compromised, there is a feature I wrote in the Axiom Articles archive that goes into the subject in detail (Sorry I don't have the link handy). It's odd that there is such a bias towards 2-channel setups in Britain, because some of the more interesting multi-channel recording techniques were first explored and developed there, the SoundField microphone for one (used by David Chesky on some of his best multichannel recordings).

Regards,

Alan