For several years I've been happily using a Denon 3808CI AVR, but ever since the MRX 700 from Anthem came out, my favorite AV store has been singing the praises of this new receiver. Does anyone out there have one or any opinions of them? I've been told by several Denon converts that the Anthem adds dimensionality to the sound stage.

I'm starting to feel the symptoms of upgrade-itus coming on.

Bayne, I don't have any personal knowledge of the Anthem, but I can comment on what you've been told. Amplifiers simply increase the incoming voltage so that it's enough to drive the speakers at a loud level. At a given loudness level there's no way that an amplifier can add "dimensionality to the sound stage". Special processing such as DPLII, etc., is designed to have such effects by way of surround sound.

Despite the MRX 700 being an Anthem, it is still just another Chinese made AVR with the only real difference from many of the others is that it features its own "ARC" proprietary Room EQ system(same system that is in the Statement D2 Pre-Pro) which, up until now, the reviewers have been raving about. When it comes to any perceived sound stage superiority, this is probably what they may be referring to.

I did strongly consider purchasing it in the spring, however, at an MSRP of $1900, compared to the competition, it is lacking in a number of common features including a minimal amount of inputs and outputs along with a noticeable surprising absence of 8 channel analog inputs. For those who own a high-end BR player like an Oppo BDP 95 who might prefer to use the analog outs from the player as opposed to the HDMI connection in the AVR, this unit wouldn't be an option.

I can remember some one on here having the MRX500 and raving about it as well, I can't imagine it does anything to the SQ worth that much money over what the 3808 can already do. I would spend that kind of money on a separate amp before buying into another avr.

contrary to popular opinion, good amps don't have anything to do with depth in reproduction.
once i was at a friend's house and she had a 300$ system-in-a-box.
i rearranged the speaker positions and turned up the volume to something realistic and, Bingo!
she said she had never heard sound so good before.
what made the difference is that the system now had depth.

I upgraded a Marantz sr4002 last summer to the entry level MRX 300 and it was meh when I first connected everything. I loved my old Marantz and was feeling a little buyer's remorse, however once I ran ARC I quickly changed my mind - ARC is so cool, much better than the surround processing of the Marantz or the Pioneer before it.

Why you ask :)well because both the Marantz and Pioneer and many other surround processing programs focus on a "sweet spot" with ARC there is no "one" sweet spot. To calibrate ARC you must position your mic a minimum of 5 different spots (you can add more if you want) then your computer uses the ARC program to calculate the best sound for all 5 locations - in essence there is no longer a "sweet spot" since no matter where you sit in your area you will receive optimum audio.

Hope that makes sense - bottom line ARC is awesome

I've been told by a few people that the ARC is the real reason why these receivers are being praised. I might wait and see if Anthem brings out a second generation MRX700 to make a move. MY Denon 3808 is great now, but maybe by Christmas...

I bet these praises would quickly disappear in a double blind test.