Did we spend more for the Anthem MRX500 than we need or can appreciate? Asking for guidance and comm (1 Viewer)

[zimmer]

Sold a Yamaha AV receiver (RX-V?? around $550 new) and wanted to upgrade to a receiver that might possibly our last, so went to buy a Marantz. The dealer showed us the Anthem 300 and 500 and we read the few reviews that we could find and decided to "invest" the money in the Anthem. The dealer told us we could not go wrong and would see and hear a huge difference. We thought the ARC would set everything well as all the reviews indicated. Unfortunately, when they arrived to set up the receiver, we realized we couldn't use the ARC because we don't have a Windows compatible computer. They also said they seem to set them up better than the ARC.
We noticed some difference but weren't "blown away" as the dealer had suggested. When we bought a new TV, they came out and made sure the settings were correct and made a few other adjustments. By the way setup without the ARC is not easy!
In the past years, we often commented on the surround effect from the Yamaha coming from nowhere but really didn't find the same in the Anthem. We wren't getting much rear channel with the last setup and they added a digital audio cable between the cable box and the Anthem which helped some and all they did was increase the volume in the center, and the two rear speakers.
Everything is connected with an HDMI cable. I am an ex musician and music is what we use through a Sirius Radio Receiver or ITunes through our Mac mini connected directly to the receiver. We watch tv and movies all in HD on our new Sony KDL-850.
I have read too many reviews and about brain dead. We are thinking about a Marantz SR6007, Denon AVR2313CI or something else , perhaps Yamaha that will provide the sound we are accustomed to. We have only had Yamaha in the past.
Is it possible that the Anthem is too clean and perhaps much more than what we need? Is there a better choice, that we could try, that we would notice a difference?
The dealer told us, if we get a Marantz, which he sells, we would notice a huge difference - but he told us that when we bough the Anthem.
We have the tv, Sony PS3 for DVD movies, SiriusXM receiver and Cox cable box.
Do we have more than we can appreciate or need and is there some suggestions of things we can look at or other models that might help us make a decision?? ALL comments /suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
zimmer

 

[schan1269]

Anthem makes good stuff, there is no way around that.
But...so does NAD. So does Onkyo/Integra...as well as Denon/Marantz. Same with Yamaha.
My guess is the Anthem might be "too clean"...which you alluded to. Yamaha has a sound...just like Onkyo/Integra has their own.
Marantz isn't what it used to be. It is a "slightly better featured" Denon.
I would try another Yamaha. The RX-A series is terrific. The only issue I've got with Yamaha(which is shared with Pioneer/Elite) is the singular crossover.

 

[gene c]

I almost bought an MRX-500 a couple of months ago. Kinda wish I had but it would probably be too much for me as well. As I have said in the past, and most others around here, people usually buy way more receiver than they really need. So have I. Several times . I am currently trying to decide between an Integra 70.2, a Marantz 5005 and a Pioneer Elite 23txh. Just can't justify keeping the Integra. The money could be better spent elsewhere (like a new interior for my old 450 SL :yum: ). As Sam said, Marantz just doesn't seem to be what it once was. I'll probably keep the Pioneer.
You can't truely evaluate the MXR-500 without using ARC. If you can't beg, borrow or...a Windows based computer then return the Anthem and get another Yamaha., something in the same $500-$600 range as the one you had. If you really listen to a lot of two channel music then also consider getting a stereo pre-amp like an Emotiva USP-1 or Parasound 2100.
BTW, what speakers do you have?

 

[Jason Charlton]

Yes - tell us what speakers you're running. All things being equal, the speakers themselves will have much more of an impact on how a system will sound than anything else - including the amplifier/receiver. As Gene alluded to, it's very easy to overspend on receivers.

In terms of longevity of A/V components, speakers are the only pieces you should "invest" in to last a lifetime (perhaps add standalone amplifiers in a separates system to that list if you go that way). Everything else will become outdated and it becomes only a matter of time until you replace/upgrade.

 

[zimmer]

I am using 5 Speakercraft in-ceiling speakers (either Aim or Profile Aim) with a Definitive Technologies ProSub 1000.
Is the new Adventage line from Yamaha worth considering or shall I stay with the RSX mid-upper lines? I was looking at the Pioneer Elite (which I've never owned) and the VSX-60 and SC61 look interesting as well.
Thoughts or comments??

 

[gene c]

In-Ceiling speakers? Well, scratch the stereo pre-amp idea.
Yamaha is the one main-stream brand I haven't owned yet. I also haven't had any of the premium brands like Anthem Rotel, NAD or Arcam except for an old Arcam AVR-100 which I got for next to nuthin'. Pioneers are very clean and detailed sounding, Kind of the opposite of "musical" whatever that means. Anyway, the two main drawbacks to Pioneer are the single crossover setting Sam mentioned and Pioneer's MCACC doesn't eq the sub like Audyssey MultEQ does. I think Yamaha suffers from these two things as well. Not deal-breakers for me since all my speakers can handle the same crossover setting and I've never cared for what Audyssey did with my sub (I prefer to leave it un-eq'ed).
With in-ceilings I wouldn't bother with either the Elite 60 or 61. The regular Pioneer 1122 and 1222 are almost identicle to them anyway. Same with the higher-end Yamaha's. In-ceiling speakers just aren't going to be able to take advantage of any improvement in sound quality a higher priced receiver might offer. Along with the Elite 23txh I also had an Elite SC-27 ($2200 msrp) last year and I couldn't tell the difference in SQ between them. And I'm one of those knuckleheads who thinks he can hear the slightest differences between speakers/receivers/electronics. Look at the Yamaha 573/673, Pioneer 822/1022/1122 and Denon 1713/1913/2113. In the $500-$600 range you base your decision on features and perceived reliability than performance or sound quality. All three are fairly trouble-free, for consumer level electronics.
Oh. one more thing...find another dealer.

 

[zimmer]

Have a new dealer. One quick question - how would you rate a 90 watt Yamaha (2 channels driven) in a 5.1 setup? Is there some kind of formula or???
Thanksy

 

[zimmer]

Have a new dealer. One quick question - how would you rate a 90 watt Yamaha (2 channels driven) in a 5.1 setup? Is there some kind of formula or???
Thanksy

 

[gene c]

There really isn't any formula that I know of. Some places like S&V magazine, Home Theater Magazine and Home Theater Hifi actually bench test the receivers when doing a review. Here's a bench test of a Yamaha 463 http://www.hometheater.com/content/yamaha-rx-v463-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures
Another thing to look at is the receivers power consumption, usually found on the specification page of the owners manual. The 473/573 consume a maximum of 270 watts. Allowing for some power loss due to heat and running the other sections of the receiver you can devide the consumption by the number of channels driven. Say 50 watts for the audio and video section (a total guess on my part) and say 80% effeciency (another blind guess) that would leave 35 watts X 5, about what HT Hifi came up with. This is about average for a $400-$500 receiver (those 110 wpc ratings are meaningless). Some brands are more honust about their ratings. By comparison, a 65 watt per channel H/K 435 I had several years ago pulled over 1000 watts from the wall. It put out a real 65 watts X 7. Probably a lot more.
Those Speakercrafts are fairly effecient at about 89 db so they won't require a lot of power to drive them to very loud levels. More iomportant is having a real good subwoofer to take the strain off the receivers internal amplifier. If you aren't using a subwoofer and you want to rattle the windows then maybe you do need a more powerfull receiver. If you are looking for a lot of volume you may want to spend a bit more and get a stronger amp section. But a 90 wpc rated receiver is more than enough for most people.

 

[zimmer]

We are using a Definitive Technlogy Pro Sub 1000. What do you think?

 

[gene c]

I'm not a sub expert but it certainly looks good enough. Better than most things you would find at the local big box stores.

 

[zimmer]

one last thing. I suppose any of the mid range receivers such as the Yamaha Adventege , RX series, Denon AVR2313, AVR2113 and some Marantz, Pioneer Elite in the $600 - $800 range would work well with the speaker setup we have - correct?
Is there any brand I am missing or does anyone have a suggestion for a receiver brand that would work well for tv, movie and music listening?
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. This has really helped!

 

[gene c]

The two that are missing are Onkyo and Harman kardon. I like Pioneer because there's a lot of settings on them to play around with. H/K is the exact opposite. Denon/Marantz are probably the best over-all brands but again, I don't have any real experience with Yamaha. But in reality, they should all be fine.
You can save a lot of money by buying last years model on close-out or a factory refurbished model from an authorized dealer. Ac4l.com handles Marantz, Denon and Onkyo. Ecost and Dakmart also carry Denon. H/K sells their own through their ebay store. There's a seller on ebay that sells Pioneer refurbs from time to time but I'm not sure if there's a warranty or not. Not sure who handles Yamaha's refurbs/overstocks.
Check these out http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/category/AVReceiver/Home-Audio/Home-Theater-Receivers/1.html
A Denon 2312 for $430 + sh and a 5 year extended warranty from Warrantech is only $50.
Feel Lucky? A NEW Sherwood Newcastle R-972 for $599 shipped for free and a 3 year warranty.
Also look at Vanns.com Newegg.com jr.com electronicsexpo.com tigerdirect.com and Onecall.com.

 

[zimmer]

I noticed a difference in the video of the Yamaha RX-A2010. It was sharper and my assumption it is the new HQV chip. I am interested in the RX-A810 which has been replaced with the 820 with fewer needed features. Have not been able to find an 810 to watch - would I notice that same difference that I say in the 2010?
I read specs on the Onkyo TX-NR818. It has the same HQV vida chip that Yamaha is using plus the Marvel QDEO, THX, sounds like a great value! I have never owned an Onkyo and wonder if something that should looked at? There may be other models out their from Onkyo that would work - of course looking for something that works well with the speakers I own.
Pioneer Elite SC61 is something I have read good things about - also the Denon AVR2313 but not sure about the sound in my home.
Definitely brain-dead about everything and wondering if I am going overboard on this search??
Thanks for any input, again.

 

[Type A]

Kinda a late entry but my take is room correction should be at the top of your list. If you want some the finest room correction around then the Sherwood Gene mentioned above is a killer processor and amazes me daily. However, thats where the good news ends. I would not recommend it for anything other than as an audio processor as its an extremely twitchy avr with lots of annoying quirks; hdmi handshake is terrible, no onscreen display, it has a Reon video processor but its a terrible implementation that will probably cost you pq, sub thumps when power is off, awful remote, speaker trim levels very low, the list of quirks goes on and on.... all that having been said I wouldnt trade my Sherwood R972 for anything. Its a killer deal at $600 brand new...
I was never impressed with my Onkyo 3007's sound quality but Audyssey multieqXT handled my 5.2 system like nobody's business. I loved the sound of my Marantz 8002 but it had a lower version of Audyssey than the Onkyo it replaced and it was very noticable. But when it came to detail and an uncolored sound both the 7001 and 8002 Marantz were awesome. Ironically enough Ive heard (but never actually heard) that Anthem's ARC is an awesome room correction system but can be a pain because it requires a computer. From what ive heard Yamaha's room correction isnt strong, nor is Pioneer's. So I guess my choice would be Trinnov (bias anyone?) found only in the Sherwood R972 or a Audyssey multieqxt (or xt32 if its in your budget) found in marantz onkyo and denon. Since you might get floor speakers in a later system the only other consideration I would have is to make sure the avr has preouts to drive an external amplifier if you ever decide more power is needed. Otherwise I wouldnt worry too much about power unless you know your speakers are demanding.

 

[zimmer]

Looking at the Yamaha RX-A820 and the Onkyo TX-NR818 or 717. Do you think there will be a difference in the video (like I saw with the Yamaha RX-A2010) between these? I have never listened to an Onkyo but someone told me it has a "dirty" sound, whatever that means.
How would you compare these as far as my ceiling speakers and Definitive Technology sub? Remember we listen to a lot of music, and watch movies and tv. I would appreciate any comments , thoughts or suggestions for what might sound best based on my speakers and our use.
Thanks!
One more thing. Is there a Marantz that I should include in this? I was originally looking at the SR6006 or 6007 - any comments??

 

[Number1AVdork]

NAD has the best bang for the buck performance. I saw Anthem at the dealers and was not impressed with the prices...they sounded good but I think I could easily be just as happy with the NAD. I greatly prefer NAD to other mainstream brands because the amplifier selection is built with true high current capability.
The other brands of receivers do not deliver comfortable power into 4 ohm loads. The other manufactures grossly over estimate the power ratings to lure consumers. 40watts of NAD power is 40 watts of power that will play just as loud as the 110watt competitor.
I just ordered an NAD 748 from Crutchfield for 699 out the door. Sadly my local hifi dealer was going to sell me the same amp for 50$ cheaper but I already ordered it...But I did give the dealer a good amount of money for speakers/power supplies etc...
I highly recommend trying the NAD. They cut out all the bloated features and put the most amount of energy into building a very stable clean and powerful circuit. I think NAD gives the most musical sound for the money. If you don't want all the modern digital features added to your system there is no better receiver for the money.
Zimmer it's true Onkyo amps don't sound all that great unless you get the separate power amps or vintage Onkyo receivers from the golden age of Japanese highfi. What your friend means by "dirty" sound is not actually a characteristic of tone but a way of describing a weak amplifier. Push the Onkyo to it's limits to get the volume you need and it will clip and sound harsh.
That's why I like NAD...They can be pushed and they still sound good. Your dealer is full of hot air. Why would he sell you an Anthem and then push you toward a Marantz....
Do you want features or do you want performance? If you want features go with any top brand. If you want better musical sound go with NAD.

 

[Type A]

Since the video processor in the Onkyo is front-and-center in the specs, and Yamaha doesnt even mention what video processor they use, its hard to say how these two will compare in the video processing department. I think you would be happy with either in that regard.

 

[schan1269]

Onkyo sounds like mud?
Since when?
Proud user of...
TX SR707
DTR 5.8
TX NR1008(fresh out of recall work...sounds as good as ever)
DTR 7.9
By the way, didn't buy any of them new. I just bought the 7.9. The guy was selling it to get HDMI 1.4.

 

[gene c]

The Marantz 6006 and 6007 should be very similar to the Denon 2312 and 2313.
It's hard for me to comment on the video sections of receivers because I never really noticed a difference between them. Most likely it's because I didn't look hard enough. I did have a Pioneer receiver a while back with the marvel Qdeo processor in it that seemed to look real good when I through some low resolution sources it's way. I currently have a Marantz 5005 (bought from ac4l.com) and it's a more than capable receiver. My biggest complaints are the display is too small and OSD for volume changes doesn't work through HDMI (the 6005 was needed for that). I sit too far from it and can't see what I'm doing! The 6006 and 6007 should have OSD via HDMI.
You can find fanboys and critics of any brand out there. I've never had a receiver that I didn't like. But there are some that I seemed to like more than others. I'd love to try that Sherwood 972 :yum: but all those reported issues have scared me away. Maybe someday...