I've read the Peter Moncrieff review. Is this receiver really better than the upper tier of high end separates? I really don't know whether to believe what I am reading? I'm not interested in home theater - only 2 channel high end.
Owned the AVR600 for about 6 months. 2ch was better than the krell S1000 it replaced. The Arcam 2ch is actually decent and the AV888 is a smidge better. Is it better than the upper tier high end separates? No way!!!
conceptually, there's no reason that a well-designed avr won't sound as good as seperates utilizing substantially the same components, and a high end avr like the arcam should outperform more modest separates. to me, tho, it makes little sense to consider a $6000 avr if you're only interested in 2 channel--you'd be paying for a lot of video, dsp, connectivity and other gimmickry you don't need and won't use (sorta like buying a mega buck viking range to use as a toaster).
Seriously considering selling my mega-buck SET monoblocks and tube pre-amp, now that I have a month on the Arcam.
Tubes still provide that sweet liquidity and dimensionality that SS will never touch, but what you gain in bass definition, transient speed, and dynamics perhaps makes up for that, without losing out on accurate harmonic portrayal and timbre. And that's just for two-channel...
This Arcam is far more impressive with multichannel. It will seriously make you re-think the antiquated and relatively flat-sounding "two-channel superiority" thing...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
