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

John, I read the above link, then clicked on 'next' page. This article declaring that the Xbox 5.1 system has as good a sound quality as any high end system, or VERY close. Do you believe this to be true?

Thanks for the reply, Alan.

Had an interesting chat with the local Arcam distributor today. Very nice guy. Works out of his home and does it mostly, he says, for fun.

He has an AVR600 in his basement listening room. At Arcam training, they told him to emphasize two main selling points: 1) class g amp (he explained it as class a below 35 watts, then switched to class d above) and 2) extremely low jitter over hdmi. He said it was his new reference, replacing an Anthem. His only criticism of the Arcam was that its automated setup was not as good as his Anthem's.

I see jitter specs measured in picoseconds for lots of devices, but have never seen any definitive statement about what threshold constitutes audible jitter (only that less is good). Do you by any chance have a number in mind?

Also, just read two of your articles ("Loosen Up, Stereo Devotees—You Just Might Prefer Music in 5.1!", and "Stereo's Intrinsic Flaw: Why Multiple Channels Are Better"). Am still trying to picture a 10.2 setup! Anyway, thanks for the explanations, and for whetting my appetite to learn more. Towards that end, I just ordered Dr. Toole's "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers and Rooms" from Amazon.

As far as subwoofers go, am hoping to order at least one EP400 to go with my EP175 (or perhaps two, in which case I have an office I can relocate the EP175 to). Am first going to play around with positioning the EP175 and my old Def Tech ProSub 80 to see if my less-than-optimal location choices have any chance of working.

Thanks again!

Glenn

Have no idea how good that speaker system is, Dave, and of course its quality has nothing to do with the basic principles of audio electronics.

Glenn, sure two widely separated subs result in a 3dB level increase. The best results with respect to evening out bass response by way of minimizing/cancelling room modes do however require positioning the subs at opposite mid-wall positions which are at the minimum position for some modes and partially cancel others because of being located where those modes are opposite in phase. Diagonally opposite corners result in partial cancellation of both width and length modes.

As Alan has pointed out, stereo reproduction doesn't reproduce the actual recording as realistically as well-implemented surround processing does. The majority of the sound at a concert reaches us as reflections from directions other than the front. When the microphones pick this up there's nothing else to do in 2-channel source material(it isn't a matter of "intent") but mix it into the front channels. Analysing the phase differences that the mixed-in surround content exhibits, extracting it from the front and sending it to the surrounds where it belongs is more realistic, with the improvement varying depending on how much ambient content is present in each recording.

Nodding and grinning ... backing out of the room ... still nodding and grinning.

Hooky, you really stepped into the consensus delusion around here.

I own a sufficient number of receivers to know based on experience that not all receivers have the same sound qualities.

I'd like to hear one of those Arcam 600s.

Notwithstanding the above, I sure agree with JohnK when it comes to more and better subs. The more the better.

Hooky, it's up to you who you believe.

On the one hand, there's 2x6, who does indeed have (and has had) quite a number of receivers, placed in different rooms throughout his home. He unabashedly derives great pleasure from his audio hobby, as we all should -- or else why bother? He believes you can easily distinguish one amp from another, but he has not subjected this belief to any real (and by real, I mean scientific) tests.

On the other hand, there's Alan, Axiom's resident audio expert, who has been in the audio industry for decades, who once believed that different amplifiers sounded different, and who reversed his stance on the matter after subjecting his belief to a battery of blind listening tests. They were proven false, beyond doubt.

We travel this road often around here.

Well, that was civilized.

Receivers are more than their amplifier sections and the front ends (processor/pre-amps) clearly contribute to the sound quality of different receivers.

I don't think the differences between amplifiers are always obvious. For me, the ultimate test is not an A/B test, but the long term living with it test. When a set up grows on you, makes you love to listen to it, then it gets the thumbs up. When you find yourself not listening to a system as often, or if it grows on you the wrong way ... then it gets the thumbs down.

I owned that system. It doesn't have the clarity of my Axioms, and it can't compete at higher volume levels, but at moderate levels it was very pleasant to listen to. It did much better when I had it in a smaller room. I ended up listening to certain music on it quite a lot, probably because of its softer presentation.

I'd probably say Peter Aczel's thumbs-up was a bit too emphasized, but at the price, it did very well. It would be nice if there was a system with similar technologies but higher component quality at not an unreasonable cost. I think there's a lot of potential for fully-integrated systems, where every piece was designed to work with every other piece.

Wow. This is turning out to be a lot more fun than I thought it was going to be....

Have not done any a/b, or long-term comparisons, myself. The last two refresh cycles I did included all A/V gear (TV, source, receiver and speakers). I know that my current Denon/Axiom/Pio 141/Oppo combo looks and sounds a lot better than the integrated Yamaha sound bar that proceeded it. By a lot. And that sound bar was a big upgrade over my old Yamaha receiver and Bose satellites. By a lot. The only constant has been the room. So, am 100% positive that I have upgraded how things look and sound for the same 12x17x8 room.

One thing I'm pretty sure of: I do hear an audible difference before/after the application of Audyssey MultiEQ setup on the Denon 3808. For me, in my room, multi-channel sound sounds different (to my ears better) in more listening locations after I run the setup.

So my current thinking, for what it's worth, is that for a given receiver it is certainly possible to make it sound better or worse in a given room through some form of equalization (software, physical treatments, whatever).

It is sounding to me, therefore, that the real debate here is not whether or not one receiver actually sounds better than another, but rather whether one receiver can *tuned* to sound better than another in a given room. That, I would think, has to be a function of a receiver's feature set, and gives us some parameters for differentiation.

Or maybe I'm being delusional. Fun to think about though. Will give it some more thought over popcorn and beer tonight....

Glenn

I was intrigued by Arcam while I was shopping for a receiver. Back then there were the AVR 200 and 300, I believe. The local hifi store guy recommended them highly, but I listened and was not wowed like I thought I would be. I'm now seeing the point Alan and JohnK make.

Glenn:
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, no one is arguing that there will be huge differences in changes such as you made above. The argument is that the changes were due to the speakers being different, not the electronics (at least once you are using "reasonably good" electronics).

FWIW, I think you make an excellent point regarding the featureset of different electronics affecting the sound through audysey and the like...

Says he of the room that sucketh.

Mark, we'll ready the pool house for ya.

I've been practicing.

Hi Mark -

We are on the same page.

The thing I keep thinking about is what, from a scientifically measured point of view, constitutes "reasonably good" electronics.

If you buy this argument (and I am pretty close to doing so), then I think there should be a generally agreed upon set of minimum measurable requirements for power, frequency response, separation, noise, distortion, dynamic range, sensitivity, etc.

Would love to be able to flip through my snooty British HiFi mags, look at a box review, and say "it meets or exceeds".

Perhaps it is different for analog versus digital. I've read a lot about the efforts to reduce jitter in the latter categories, so there are clearly a lot of people who think it is a big deal. I do not know what audible jitter sounds like. I do not hear any pops or sizzles in my current setup. The sound coming from my speakers does not strike my ears as harsh or fatiguing. And yet I've got to believe that the jitter rates coming out of my HTPC sound card's hdmi port are very high.

I asked earlier, and would love to hear others opinions about what constitutes an audible level of jitter, and whether investing in a new sound card or an external DAC or the like would make any sonic difference.

Would also love to hear comments like "never buy a receiver when it generates more than .0005% distortion measured at -6db, because higher levels distortion were audible at this volume level to 72% of listeners in a blind sound test", etc.

In the meantime, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Am having fun playing around with Dolby PLII settings. Have not found a single group of settings that sound universally good. Am particularly fiddling a lot with the front/rear balance on each recording, but have not found a cd that makes me want to punt back to stereo...yet.

Regards,

Glenn

Glenn, you partially missed the point: of course tone controls, ambience processing, and similar features which are specifically designed to change the sound will do so so when they're selected. There's no argument about that. The basic pre-amplification and amplification stages(with controls set flat)are supposed to amplify without adding audible sonic colorations, and well-designed units do so.

Hi John -

Honestly do understand your point, and agree with it.

The only thing I do not understand is what constitutes "well-designed" (your words) or "reasonably good" (Mark's words).

That's why I asked if there was any way to add some science to those descriptions. Would be great to know what to key in on when looking at A/V receiver spec sheets.

If my Denon 3808 was to die tomorrow, and I were to go shopping for a new A/V receiver, would certainly look at the feature list for all the right logos (Dolby TrueHD, DTS Master, etc.). But have no idea how to judge its technical specifications to make sure it meets your description of "well-designed".

And FYI, have decided to move my EP175 to my office and match it up with some new Audiobytes I am getting. Also going to order two EP400s for my main room.

Thanks a lot -- really do appreciate your advice, and that of other forum members!

Glenn

I would venture to say that ALL modern receivers and separates made by well known manufacturers would fall into the "well-designed" and "reasonably good" categories. In my opinion, the specs you mention would have more significance with lesser known companies that offer "budget" systems, or "theater in a box" products, in which case the specs are sometimes incorrectly or deceptively stated.

That's easy. The ones that I like are the "reasonably good" ones!

Actually, Spoiler's post above sounds right-on to me!

Hi Mark -

I hear you, Spoiler and JohnK loud and clear: there is a ridiculous amount of overkill in modern audio electronics.

The levels of distortion being compared matter only to an audio analyzer, and not to any sane person's ears.

With that, I'll let it rest. Thanks again for the advice.

Glenn

Yeah, Glenn; we buy speakers for sound quality. Sound quality with modern receivers is a given, and those should be bought from a features/price standpoint.

But, but, but John, how can you so easily blow of all that expensive marketing hype? We're paying for that too!

Having recently added a pro amp for two channel listening I will toss my opinion in. I think JohnK is 100% correct, up to a volume level. Having read those blind test, I can't tell if volume was ever made part of the test. I have found over the last few weeks (perhaps 20 hr of critical listening) that that level is much lower than I originally thought. Compared to my Denon 3300's internal amp (110 w/p FTC), the pro amp is capable of offering over 3 times the power (500+ w/c). While top end volume is clearly different [well, I have not found the "TOP"], there is more mid-bass even at the upper end of the normal (for me) volume range; before you get to really loud, 100 db constant.

To try to put this into context, I'm getting better mid-bass and bass at 93 - 97dbs than I was getting at the same volume from the Denon. [Heck, I'm even getting some driver over-extension at my normal volumes, which never happened before!] I think the dynamic peaks at this volume just jumped higher than the Denon could reach while driving the other frequencies, so it clipped them and thus reduced the power hunger bass notes. BUT - the newer Denon's seem to have stronger amp sections than my 3300, maybe this is not an issue now?
So I agree all well designed amps sound the same, but that extra power is more handy than I thought as dynamic peaks must be more demanding than I gave them credit for. Alan has a good article on the amounts of power needed to reach dynamic peaks, and that seems to be what I am experiencing. If you never see 95 on the meter, a new amp would likely go unnoticed as the amps will sound the same until you exceed the current amp's unclipped range.

Hi Zimm -

Interesting take. Matches up well with what Axiom is saying about clipping. I looked at the A1400-8, which would seem to have more than enough power for my setup (M22s, VP150, QS4s and EP175 -- soon to be replaced by 2 EP400s), but am a little spooked by reports of its interaction with Audyssey:

http://www.merakspeakers.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=200093

Perhaps there is such a thing as two much power?

Mind sharing which amp you picked, along with any particular features you found interesting? If/when I do get a new amp, would like to continue to use my Denon 3808 as a processor only via its pre-outs. I really like what Audyssey EQ does for my room, and Audyssey Volume Control is the best tool ever invented for selling a spouse on getting new a/v equipment.

Thanks!

Glenn

Hooky, you might want to read Ian's answer to the whole "Audyssey issue".
http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=14792&Number=212789#Post212789

With the A1400-8 you won't need to use Audyssey anyway. When I ran the A1400 with my M22s it made them sound like Audyssey does, more open and airy, YMMV.

So audyssey is psychosomatic too, huh?

<runs away>

Who you you calling psycho?

I dunno. I have a bunch of amps ranging from 5 wpc in Single End Triode mode into 8 ohms, to my Big Mammie Yammie, the Yamaha M-80 rated at 250 watts continuous power per channel 20Hz-20kHz at 0.003% THD (380 watts dynamic power (1kHz 8ohm)). Some of my other favorites are the wonderful Kenwood flagship KA-9100 rated at 90 or 100 wpc (and if you think your Sony AVR rated at 100 wpc pushes the same kind of watts, well... you're wrong. The KA-9100's watts are BIG WATTS.)

As much mid bass as the M22s can produce the Kenwood gets. The Kenwood driving the Michaura M66s (2 x 6.5" Axiom drivers and 1 3/4" axiom titanium tweeter) produces drop to your knees and weep for the beautiful mid bass. The Yamaha M80s drive the Thiel CS 3.6s (M80s put out 330 continuous wpc into 4ohm, 480 wpc dynamic and are stable driving 2 ohm loads) . Can't ask for better mid bass than that combo produces.

I had a Kenwood MX1000 amplifier, but got rid of that because I didn't like the sound quality it produced.

Of course, my $20 T-Amp (modded of course, hooked to a big Pyramid 3 ampere power supply) does excellent work, but lacks a bit in the mid bass.

Anyway, best mid bass? The 5 watt per channel Single end triode tube amplifier. Of course, I don't ask them to drive any load more difficult than my Dahlquist DQM 905's which are 87db efficient, 8 ohm loads.

But then, you've always been one for hyperbole.

Not at all. I bought a Crown XLS 402, but swapped it for a QSC GX5. The GX5 is a Class H amp , and makes over 500 watts (850 on one channel at 4 ohms ) at less than 0.05% THD for under $500. I am still waiting for the big "surprise" where it fails my needs miserably because it is not an audiophile amp - but so far it is more than I could have ever hoped for in my modest HT.

It is hard to figure why "audiophile" amps cost thousands more while "professional" amps often cost much less when comparing watts to watts. Companies like QSC, Crown, and others, crank out more amps per hour than many audiophile companies build in a year, so all the R&D and reliability issues are well covered. (And they operate happily at 2 ohms, so no worries of crashes with a near-4 ohm load. )

The major difference I can see is that pro amps use loud fans and audiophile amps use large, but silent, fins for heat dissipation. Some cost certainly goes there and bigger boxes become needed. (The GX5 is thinner than my CD player! But I had to crack the top and unplug the internal fan. ) The other difference is lower THD and other figures. Many informed souls on this cite say those numbers are virtually meaningless once you get below a certain threshold - I think Alan's articles says .2% is about the max to look for in THD. The Crown XLS I tried had higher THD and lower S/N and you could tell in quiet spots.

New amps, like the Axiom, take things to a whole new level where heat is not an issue, power is out of this world, and distortion and other anomalies to the signal are all but nonexistent. Given the competition, the Axiom is a bargain watt for watt. If a $4,000 amp was in my shopping cart it would be an easy pick.

As for the pro amps, I like the QSC because: (1)high, high, high power; (2) clean enough for me; (3) QSC is well respected and builds THX certified amps for real Theaters; (4) 4 ohms is no problem (5) unbalanced inputs, which is rare on pro amps; (6) a 6 year warranty; (7) nice enough looks for my HT Gx5; (8) wide availability and easy repair locations; (9) wider market if I want to sell it - good for live bands, DJs, or budding audiophiles; and (10) walked out the store with it for $350 on sale! I guess No. 10 should be No. 1 as it is the real driver.

I'd be a little concerned about unplugging that fan, but I assume you've been monitoring temps.

Your concern is well placed. The amp runs ice cold with the internal fan on - but it is annoying. And since I was not using it the way it was designed - i.e., large venue outdoor performances - I figured I could get by with the fan unplugged. That worked for moderate listening and low HT use. (I think the Class H switches to a low voltage "rail" for low intensity use.)

BUT...when I cranked it up a bit and really ran it for critical listening, it got over 150 degrees fast. I guess that was the high voltage rail. So pulled out the trusty cooling fan I had and put it in front of the pro amp to suck out the heat. Works great, ice cold again, but not a permanent solution. I unplug it for most HT and light listening and fire it up for critical listen. Working on a better solution, which may include putting all the stuff in a closed rack so the noise wont bother me.

[Edit: I may buy the Deaf Monk's new cooling gel for amp innards, but I think it would void my warranty. I'll let you know.]

You could go all high tech and wire in a thermal switch that turns on the fan when the temp reaches 100 or so.

I was thinking about that. But for the cost, I'm leaning towards finding a very quiet fan to run all the time. If i buy a projector soon, I may go ahead and do an in-wall rack which would solve all my concerns. Well, all my concerns about fan noise anyway. Not sure it will help that monster under my bed!

The deaf monk will look after the monster

Hello!

Im too very interested in getting the Arcam. I think it will be an excellent unit once the bugs are sorted out with newer firmware.

I know there is alot of talk about different sounding recivers, and eventhough I dont have much experince I certainly belive there is a difference. Exactly the technical aspects that create them I dont know, but considering all the engineering that goes into these things I would think its a very complicated matter concerning everything from signal paths to DSPs, power etc.

If all recievers sounded the same then whats the point of developing new ones? More features and power only? I dont see all new recivers being more and more powerful and with more features only.

To say that the 3808 is as good as the Arcam sonically I dont belive for one second. Especially for music, recievers are known for not being able to deliver the goods. Just a couple of hours ago I did a comparison between the Denon 4308 and the NAD T775 on the same set of speakers, using CD fed over HDMI in direct mode/pure stereo whatever.
The difference is obviuos and the NAD is clearly superior.
Anyone who couldnt hear this must either be lacking some ability to hear certain things other people can, like being color blind only its affected your hearing rather than your vision. Or, just have made up their mind before hand and be too stubborn to even care.
I was originally set on buying the 3808 as many people here use them with their Axioms. But, I get the impression that most folks here are more orientated towards movies rather than music. Me, Im about 50/50, and eventhough the Denon has great features and a nice OSD I simply could not live with the knowledge of the musical wonders available elsewhere.
People are raving on about this AVR600 everywhere, and I cant believe that they are all wrong, and JohnK is right. One guy even switched from a 3808 to a AVR600, and described the difference as night and day. That cant all be just because of more power, or that its all in his head can it? I admit though that the guy writing that review seemed a little tripped up on something.

I will get that Arcam, I think it will be better than the Denon AVCA1HD, or 5308 as you call it. I only have to save some cash first for a (long) while.

I'd say that's an incorrect impression.

Ditto. There are many music fans here, but there is a strong voice of the group that believes there is almost no difference between budget AVRs and high-end AVRs. I'm not sure yet. But I do note that the Arcam lacks many of the features of the Denon 4310 - Dolby modes, Audyssey, name-brand upscaler, etc. If the Arcam sounds better, then it does, but for the price gap it better sound noticeably better, not just a touch better at certain places. And the Denon 4810 should be available for $3000 whenever it is ready. Wonder if it will "sound" better than the 4310.

I am not sure what the split is on this forum, but I certainly listen to music more than movies. Probably 90% music for me.

I just received my Widescreen magazine and read the review of the Arcam. The review is much too glorious for me to believe there is no sponsor bias, but the AVR does have my interest. It’s the first one that’s came out in the past couple years that has grabbed my interest. Ignoring the rubbish and praise of the reviewer, and looking at the receiver’s specs, functionality, video processing chip and user interface, it does look like one hell of a receiver at a price point that isn’t really out of line. MSRP of 5K, so figure a street price of around $3500. Not too bad considering what you get. My only reservation at this point, is how well it works. Most, if not all receivers that have HDMI come plagued with bugs. The 3808 has been bug free and that, to me, means more than some perceived or real idea of sound quality. If the thing doesn’t work correctly, or has a bunch of bugs, it really doesn’t matter to me how well it “sounds” because the damn thing will find itself being thrown out a window in an uncontrollable fit of rage after a few buggy hiccups. – I’m sticking with my 3808 till it blows up. And when it does blow up, I’ll most like by another one. It’s been a nice treat to simply hit the go button on my remote and have all my stuff work right……….

Ffffffffftttt........ssssssssssssssssss.....fffft.... "Boom"...

I was gonna say, something tells me to head up to Mike's house for July 4th.

Totally tempting fate, for sure.

Mike, great observation. Sound quality doesn't matter if there is no sound.

Or does it? Different thread, I suppose.

Ha ha, very audiophilosophical.