Agree with others that if sound quality, and 2-channel in particular, is a priority you don’t want any AVR (unless you can connect up a good integrated amp thru preamp outs on the AVR). That said, I compared several AVRs and Marantz is warmer and fuller sounding but lacks detail up in the treble region. I much preferred the Yamaha sound wise to Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, and Arcam as it most resembled the sound of my much pricier separate stereo amp and preamp. And along with Anthem, Yammy is the most reliable, which is not a small consideration. I don’t recommend Rotel, Cambridge, or NAD as their reliability is subpar, and who wants to deal with that? Hope this helps a little.
HT Receivers Compared
Simple Question: Are any really better than the others - Marantz, Yamaha, Arcam, NAD, Rotel, et al in sound quality? They all seem to get 5 star (or close) Performance reviews in Sound and Vision. The local high fi shop even said they're all about the same. What do you guys think? I almost tend to believe them. I bought into the hype a time ago in buying a Anthem receiver that ended up being supremely overrated IMHO.