2. home-theater
  3. 1125555613

Changing receiver from Arcam to?

Hi

I have a Vandy HT system, Hsu VTF 2 sub. (2Ce, VCC-1, VSM-1) with Toshiba DVD as source, and Arcam AVR 200 receiver. Interconnects is MIT Terminator. Speaker cables is AQ Type 4.

My buddy is taking my receiver as he needed a good 220V receiver and I have to replace my receiver.

I am also thinking of setting up my computer as my transport and hopefully also play SACD and DVD A on it (not sure if that is possible).

Receiver wise

1. I can replace with another Arcam 200 or upgrade to a 250 or 300. I am not sold on Arcam, like the sound but don't like that I cant input SACD, DVD A digitally plus not sure it will handle bass.

2. Buy a receiver like the Pioneer Elite with iLink and either get Pioneer Universal or try to to link with my computer with Firewire.

3. Buy a cheap receiver with digital power amplification (think its the way of the future and has gotten increasingly better reviews) hopefully with a way to input SACD/DVA digitally but even if not I can sell and upgrade easily in a year or two.

Given all of these, which of these, or other options should I consider. Don't want to spend the money on separates as in a HT system get 80-90% of sound with a receiver much cheaper.

Thanks a lot for advice

Shriram
shriramosu
flrnlamb
508 posts
 
"...Don't want to spend the money on separates as in a HT system get 80-90% of sound with a receiver much cheaper"

Yeah, for the record, this is way off!!! figure more like 80-90% better sound from separates easy!!!!
I've worked in 6 audio stores over 15 years, to know of which I speak here...trust me. Receivers are a large sonic compromise indeed.
I bought an upgraded Acurus ACT 3(basically same processing as Aragon Stage One at 24/192) With analog volume control, and Acurus 125x5 (plus 2 channel amp) at less than $2k used.
The sound cannot be touched by any receiver by a long margine.
Make no mistake about it...receivers are a convenience for those that don't like to connect a few pair of interconnects and have to have two power cords instead of one (like this takes more than two minutes longer to set up, if that).
Sound quality is EVERYTHING in audio. Besides that, separates are way better, and I would not go back personally. I don't understand the "receiver mentality/crazy/mania/whatever thing".
stereo
147 posts
 
I have a a $6000.00 integrated amp and wanted to go to an HT setup. I bought an Arcam AVR300 and enjoy the the two channel sound as well as the HT part. The AVR300 does not sound quite as good as the $6K integrated amp, using the same speakers (Merlin VSM-M), but it is very close. I went from $8K separates to a $6K integrated to a $2K receiver. I believe separates could sound better depending on your tastes, but not always. There are very well designed integrated amps and receivers.
pdreher's avatar
pdreher
1,191 posts
 
Shriramosu... I have to agree with some of the other posters that you are going to get much better sound from seperates. Another thing to consider is going back to two channel and sink your money into higher quality components. I found surround sound to be over-rated, and have sold off all of my 5.1 gear in favor of 2-channel, and upset that I ever attemped "home theater". Just my personal opinion.

P.S. I bought an old Arcam 9 integrated from you about 2 years ago for a bedroom system... it still works great!
More to discover