HT Receivers Compared

The software and hardware included to aid in setup can definitely make a difference, you might want to make a short list based on that, then search for any ’sound differences’.

Physical features also make a difference, and processing features: you need to do some research on things we tend to skip over because of lack of experience, i.e. seems like you would never use ......

Front L/R Preamp Outputs, for a current or future separate ’better’ preamp/amp pair/combo with HT Pass Thru (simply an input/pass thru) allows the AVR to control the volume with the other speakers, transmit the processing choices you/it makes, then the Preamp passes the Front L and Front R to your better amp.

And, I always try to remember: resale? i.e. includes features you might not care about but will increase the amount of people who would consider buying it.

I had the Cambridge Audio CXR200 and replaced it with an Anthem MXR 520 in order to implement a home theatre bypass setup.

Both were good for what they did, but if you are thinking they will work as the centrepiece of a high quality two channel system, you are delusional.

i just auditioned a bunch of avrs to replace my ancient (but good-sounding) pioneer elite. my thoughts at large:

1. i didn't hear a ton of difference between mid-priced ($1k) yamaha, denon, onkyo and sony ( i didn't try marantz)--they all had a ton of bells and whistles and that sort of brightish tone that sounds detailed but a bit processed when compared to my two channel gear.

2. i was not impressed by the build quality of the above (yamaha being a bit better than the others)--plasticy, lightweight and somewhat shoddy

3. my buddy's arcam avr5 was  better built and sounded better than the mass market stuff--fuller, warmer, less digital sounding and seemed to have a more robust power supply, but i've had bad luck with arcam reliability. i have also heard nad, which seems a cut above, but have the same reliability concerns.

4. i ended up with a used anthem mrx 720, which doesn't have the latest codecs and gizmos but good power and a nice, analogish tonality.

@tony1954

“… I had the Cambridge Audio CXR200 and replaced it with an Anthem MXR 520 in order to implement a home theatre bypass setup.

Both were good for what they did, but if you are thinking they will work as the centrepiece of a high quality two channel system, you are delusional…”

MY TAKE: = +1000 …. BIG TIME! Point, set, and match in tennis jargon

That is precisely why my 7.1 HT system is just a “C” system sequestered in the basement HT arena used strictly for selected multichannel BluRay movies and multichannel BluRay music concerts .Let’s not forget that these 5.1+ and up multichannel performances are artificially mastered and manufactured sound tracks in a designated channel point source recording and point source only manufactured soundstage .

Contrast that to the Holy Grail in 2-channel audio wherein it’s a recorded and mastered performance in an endeavour to get a “live performance” experience to whatever degree possible. High end 2-channel creates an ethereal 3-dimensional sound stage wherein the speakers “disappear” in a holographic soundstage stretching L to R , and also Front  to Back,

My HT setup cannot compete with my 2-channel “A” critical listening high-end system

It also falls short of my “B” TV & audio 2.1 system audio performance, that is used 90% of the time for both TV and casual background audio performance.