Anthem vs Arcam

The new model processors offer features that you don’t need (no more than 7 channels, no need for 8K, no need for XLR). I would not recommend the AVM 70 as you don’t need all of those features. The Arcam processors also offer features you don’t need. Would you consider getting a 5-7 channel receiver with pre-outs and not using the included amps? Another option would be to get an older processor that includes 4K HDMI but is limited to 7 channels. Here is a receiver with preouts:

@kota1 thank you for the recommendation. I started looking at that model and then was scared off after looking at this review:
 

I am no audio expert so I cant tell if this review is looking at things so far down in the weeds that its "splitting hairs" between various processors or is something to make you weary of any amp that does not rate really high. 

The guy at that website tests equipment in a bare walled room that would sound bad no matter what. I posted that as an example. You have many receivers like this, try Anthem, Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, etc. Here is a link to compare:

we sell both brands the arcam is made by audio control

the audio control sounds the best and has the best service the anthem 70 is far superior to the older 60

we have a demo avm 70 if you are interested

Dave and Troy

Audio intellect NJ

@audiotroy 

I appreciate the effort, have you posted pics and measurements of your personal system yet? Otherwise this just seems like spam, no offense.

@chris_lansman : you seem to quote and link ASR "reviews" every chance you get. Have you tried asking THEM what processor they would recommend for you?

@thyname thanks for that great advise. 

@kota1,

Perhaps he is still using a Walkman😂 like our esteemed former member Jeff Kait?

I like the sound of Arcam, just never thought of them seriously as a HT vendor.

Perhaps others can enlighten me, but to my memory many stereo companies have made half-hearted attempts to get into HT processing and AVRs but few have stuck it out or really developed a broad portfolio of products that makes me feel really comfortable about their HT line.

For instance, if Audio Research suddenly developed a HT processor.... just one... I probably would avoid it thinking they don't have the engineering chops to keep it up to date. 

I haven't kept up with Arcam in forever though, so not sure how much of this applies.

ASR reviews garbage. I would not care for anything they say.  I owned an AVM60 for 4 years.  I traded in for Marantz AV7706.  About 2800 from local dealer. Before the price went up I think.  It had a hum in my system where Anthem did not. Went back and paid another 600 and got AVM70. Hum gone. Both sounded about same in my system.  The Marantz gui is faaaaar better than anthem.  I think I prefer arc sound in the end.  Also the cardboard rocket to hold mic for a $3000 processor is ridiculously cheapo move on Marantz. Anthem gives real mic with calibration file and tripod.  Comes with toroidal transformer. Hence no hum.  Go for the 70. Search for a deal and grab it. 
 

I have never heard Arcam but historically very good stuff. 

I have never tried the ARCAM, but I have had 4 different ANTHEMS - Sound MUCH better than Denon (which I had), Marantz (which I have had), Onkyo (which I have had - sounds better than Denon or Marantz in my opinion) BUT:

My 1120 the volume got jumpy - traded for AVM 70 (just a total s**t show), they replaced it with a new one, works except one of the outputs for a subwoofer.  I have a 520, intermittently performs the HDMI handshake with TV - it is 3 years old.  Anthem has good service, and my dealer handles the freight, so I really do not want to try ARCAM because the dealer who sells ARCAM charges to send things in under warranty - I think that is s****y - so check the policy of your dealer.  The bottom line - as compared to Onkyo, Denon, and Marantz - there is just no contest.  The sound is absolutely incredible - they just are not the most durable things on the planet.

You might want to look into getting an Anthem MRX 720, or the MRX 520 A/V receiver, they both come with the ARC room correction and you can hook up anything you need with these, they have pre outs for all the channels and you can even hook up 2 subs.

I’ve had the MRX520 since it came out and I’ve never had any problems, once it was set up I just plug in my components and it works seamlessly with what i plug in. since it is the previous edition you can still find great deals on new old stock if you look.

Can I offer some advise.

If you want people to help you and offer actual advice, delete Audio Science Review from your life.

ASR does not actually review audio components. They measure them and base everything on the numbers. Kind of like reviewing a restaurant by counting the calories.

OP, ASR doesn’t like ANY HT receivers using HDMI. In his reviews, he segments them from the rest of the audio component world. He generally will show how a reviewed item stacks up against other of this type.  Since they are, as a class more noisy with higher distortion, he’s pretty hard on them.  (I’ll note that not all that long ago, those SINAD and THD specs looked pretty good.) ASR has a very good post up explaining how HDMI works and why it’s inherently problematic. 
 

FWIW, I use a Marantz AV 7701 purchased used on eBay at an incredible price. Great reviews in its day. Hits all your points, although it does offer balanced input/output. 

I can only add my experience with Anthem, I had a D2v that I sold and bought a Marantz 8805. I am not sure if you are using this for 2 channel or not, but the Marantz is much more musical and warmer in sound than the Anthem. I mainly use my Processor as multichannel but when my 2 channel was in the shop, I tried listening to the Anthem and decided I would do without music till my pre amp came back. I can’t speak to the Arcam, but the dealer told me that the Marantz fit my needs better. Why aren’t you looking at Marantz, you’d have some traction on the GUI already. Just my opinion of course.

@erik_squires 

Arcam has been acquired by Harman so the they have shared research and resources now. The JBL and Arcam flagship processors are very similar.

The Marantz 8805 would be worth a look. Great reviews. Good luck !

Do exactly what Kota1 suggested.  It is exactly what I did - bought an Arcam AVR10.  I was impressed with how well it works.  The streaming is really nice on it.  The sound is better than all the Japanese receivers and better than NAD.  Ive owned all of them but never owned Anthem.  I just purchased a slightly used hegel 590 as the amplifier for the main 2 channels.  That is where I chose to sink my $$$.  The avr10 has pre outs for everything.  Only thing it didn't have is a second zone.

OP, Crutchfield offers 60 day returns and @greenngoldcheesehead confirms its a great piece. Probably worth an audition.

I have an Arcam AVR 11 I use with their PA 720 power amp, bi-amping ATC SCM19 speakers. I usually use the front 2 speakers only for music but with the additional channels I power a 9.1 HT system for TV and movies.

I like the sound - clean, accurate and musical.

I got the electronics from Crutchfield, who offer great service, and sometimes have returned items available at a discount

Arcam are owned by Harman Kardon who are owned by Samsung. Neverthes you can get through to their support team and they do answer questions. Most of the design engineers from the A&R Cambridge days are long gone though, I was told.

Why not look at a newer Marantz?

I own an ARCAM 850 and think this to be a better choice.  If you can swing it, buy the ARCAM with the G Class amplification.  First 50 watts is pure A.  Great for two channel.  This would be the best of two worlds.  I have  Murantz in our family room and the ARCAM is far more musical.

My experience dates back a few years, but I was a dealer for Marantz, Denon, Sony ES, Pioneer Elite and ARCAM.  I decided to do a shootout one evening involving the "premium" AV receivers we had on hand in the $2,000-$3,000 price range.  The group of "high brand awareness" receivers faired well, and in my view the Marantz edged out the others in this group in SQ.  We were also aware that the sonic signature of these pieces was quite different from the better  examples of the 2-channel separates we had on hand. Having set higher expectations, we saved the ARCAM for last.  After a short audition, it was clear something was very different.  So much more ease in the presentation, with more dynamic contrast, darker backgrounds and space between the notes.  It had distinquished itself as being in another performance class altogether, more in tune (literally) with the better 2-channel gear than AV receivers. To me, it was a bit like spending a few hours in work boots, than going home and slilpping into a pair of comfortable slippers.  Yes, it was THAT different.

Time has passed, and things have probably changed.  I haven't spent quality time with Anthem, and it does appear they take SQ seriously.  I decided to keep an ARCAM AVR600 around for a "rainy day" or to pass on to one of my grandkids. 

I've run an Arcam AV40 as my HT receiver for two years now. I also tried various Denon and Marantz models prior. To me, it's one of the better if not best receivers for sound quality both for HT and also for music. The challenge with the AV40 is it's a pure processor, so requires external amplification which adds significant cost.

I did have a few bugs early on but after some updates, it's been extremely stable and reliable. More features than I'd ever use but better to have it and not need it. While it's nowhere near the level of my 2-channel setup, it's actually not bad at all in that function. Certainly better than most HT receivers.

I wouldn’t necessarily set a limit at 7 channels. Nine channels with front wides is well worth considering. They are not in your face like some prefer, but they add an extra dimension between fronts and surrounds.

9.2.4 is worth planning for and considering. Maybe even 9.2.6, although 2 front and 2 rear highs are probably sufficient.

PS I wouldn't necessarily ignore Audio Science Review. It's always worth visiting to eliminate those with poor test results as they are never going to reveal intricate details.

Hi Chris,

I have done the exact journey you are about to start and am now on the other side 😀.

My progression was Marantz to Arcam to Anthem and then back to Arcam.

What got me back to Arcam was its richer, more lush, and midrange denser sound. More bloom and presence for voice and instruments. More airy dense sound field when in surround.

The Anthem was also good in details and surround but I found it have a cooler and less rich sound. Not bad by any means and I don't mean this as a negative. If one prefers a clean impactful sound then this would be the preferred avr.

For my tastes the richer sound field of the Arcam won out.

btw... the "review" you added (link) is useless.

The dude is using a used unit and never listened to it. Maybe he had a defective unit or had a faulty connection for his measurements, dunno.

Dude didn’t read correctly what Athem literature says and then gripes about it at the end of his measurements post (there is no review 🤨).

Looks like you've already gotten plenty of good advice, but I'll chip my 2¢ in nonetheless.  I've had both brands albeit in two different systems.  I had an Arcam SA20 integrated amp driving a pair of Vandersteen 1Ci speakers.  I bought the SA20 because it has the G class amp, which is reputed for being nice and warm sounding.  That is not what I heard at home at all.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  The upper midrange was very edgy and shouty; i.e., super fatiguing.  So I sold it.  Obviously, this is anectodal, so take it with plenty of salt.  For the record, I didn't replace it with anything.  Instead I re-did that whole system altogether.  In my main system, I was using a Marantz AV7705.  I liked it just fine, but upgraditis is a real disease.  I upgraded to an Anthem AVM70.  I like it a lot for surround.  ARC is the real deal.  I was never really impressed with Atmos until I swapped the Marantz for the Anthem.  However, I agree with the other comment elsewhere in this thread saying that the person's Marantz is more musical than the Anthem.  Couldn't agree more.  It comes down to personal taste, but the Anthem sounds quite a bit more analytical than the Marantz in my system.  I liked how warm and forgiving the Marantz was.  But this is really a non-issue when using either processor's EQ.  My only complaint with the Anthem is with CEC control via HDMI.  I don't experience any handshake issues or switching issues.  It's just that none of my HDMI devices can cycle the Anthem's power on and off or vice versa.  Small niggle - I just have to sort through the stack of remotes next to me when powering up and powering down.  Best of luck to you and happy listening!

Thank you for all the help and recommendations everyone. I ended up finding a really good deal on a Anthem MRX540. It arrives tomorrow. :)

Good luck Chris,

I think you will happy with the Anthem, plenty of power and you can still hook up external amps with the preouts, and also 2 subs if needed.

I also have a separate tube amp hooked up to zone 2 for my headphones, you just have to mute the speakers in the main system if you do this type of hook up so you don't have the speakers playing in the main system while trying to listen to the headphones in zone 2.

Congrats on the Anthem. Use the preouts for atmos height channels instead of surround back when you get around to it. You will like ARC room correction.

Picked up this little number for amplification..