I haven’t posted much about budgeting for receivers as they change so quickly. The general rule is the model that is about one level down from the flagship is usually the best bang for the buck. I think if you are more into movies a receiver is fine. There are some really high priced receivers that are billed as being able to do two channel very well. Personally I prefer active speakers and a good processor. I do have a man cave outfitted with nice 9 channel Onkyo receiver and some JBL speakers. It is nice for movies and casual listening actually very good and for the money it cost fantastic bang for the buck. But I can’t see it as more than a good "entertainment" system and I prefer to do critical listening in my media room.

As for these new separate 9 and 11 channel amps, they might be great but it makes you wonder how a single power supply can swing all those channels. With 2 or 5 channel amps you need a rack of them. With active speakers that are internally biamped, active crossovers, and an all in one system designed by the engineer has so many advantages from a SQ perspective as well as a price advantage.

@britamerican

ATMOS and other spatial audio is already taking off. It costs them nothing and can provide a better experience. Of course they are going to use and listen to it. As the mastering gets better, they won’t go back to flat 2-channel.

The mad irony of your astute observation are the people who are complaining the most (at least in this thread) are the people who spent a LOT of money for that flat 2-channel. Rather than embrace the change and the mad rush of new adopters of atmos/spatial audio (over 80% of all apple music subscribers have tried it and its growing according to AAPL) and finally getting better quality audio they condemn it. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they properly auditioned it in their own system.

 I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they properly auditioned it in their own system.

Gosh, your benevolence is overwhelming. What a thankless burden your superior audio wisdom must be.

"More than 80% of Apple Music subscribers listen to spatial audio"

While I applaud the OP’s enthusiasm and positive demeanor, I’m still scratching my head. A few points I would like to make ...

Being an audiophile has never been about winning the popularity contest. Whether it’s our choice of music, equipment, or room setup, audiophiles always have and always will be a niche group that does not represent the broader music industry in any shape or form. Throwing around metrics about apple, etc. is kinda useless and not relevant to this crowd.

Unlike what the OP thinks, many of us started with multi-channel systems and have come to prefer two-channel audio, despite its supposed weaknesses. Not everyone is looking for an immersive experience where you’re in the middle of all the action. So the assumption that most audiophiles don’t know what they’re missing vis-a-vis multi-channel (with or without atmos) is rather naive. We tried it, many of us still have it in our home theater systems ... and we still prefer two-channel. My nephew is big into spatial audio (headphones) and I’ve tried listening to it several times. Yes, it is different and enjoyable but not something I would like to listen to for hours at a stretch. Perhaps that might change as more artists convert their recordings to spatial.

As far as allocating budget goes, it is a very personal decision. Some of us want to invest in one system and take it as far as we can. For example, if I have $1000, I will build the best 2-channel system for $1000. If I have $50,000, I will build the best $50,000 2-channel system I can for $50,000. It’s all about your priorities. Telling people how they should allocate their budgets will always make you look like a pushy know-it-all, hence the pushback from some members.