AV Receiver good enough for high end audio?

I also think if your going to try this,(an A/V system for all), why not go with separates?If you have a separate processor,and amps,at least the amps will have a lot more years of usage ahead of them,at least from the view of not being outdated so soon. This way,you could replace the processor,and keep the still serviceable amps.

For the record, pertaining to all PHD's or credentials of any kind...THIS KIND OF DOCUMENTATION CAN BE BOUGHT OVER THE WEEKEND!!! (Canpick up/purchase anything over the internet these days...it's amazing, really. Has happened at few universities in the past. Just Google it). I'm not impressed.
Hey, I'm pretty certain that all those double PHD's and world renouned physicists that Albert Einstein associated with from his era thought they knew something too! Reality was Einstein figured it out all for them, and proved that the rest of them knew very little of real importance! -Their dregrees meant very little ("education is what begins when you've forgotten everything you've learned in school" - A.E) ...that's all I'm trying to say.
I, for one, like Hifihvn's position that the terminology SUPER RECEIVER is an oxymoron! Considering that any AV receiver is obsolete the following year, it's foolish to invest in such an endevor. Separates is only logical path. That and the fact that receivers will never replace hi-end gear, regardless of what PHD posers and turn of the century retiree's have to say on the matter.
Oh, and Dbphd? For the record, I didn't lose my hearing in the Second World War. So I got that goin for me...which is nice.

Queefee, I don't know where some of the points in your post come from, e.g. purchased degrees/credentials, hearing loss in the Second World War. I just don't get the relevance of your first or third paragraphs, nor the last clause of the final sentence of your second paragraph.

I agree there is a major advantage of a separate processor and amp, because processor technology does change frequently whereas amp technology tends to be very stable. I also think there are circuit design issues that favor the simplicity of an amp over the complexities of a receiver. As an undergraduate -- before I purchased my degrees and post-doc, I built a number of Dynakit amps but only one preamp; that one preamp was enough.

db

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz, I'm bored.

Never provided a model number? What planet R U on? It's not as if I wrote it in Paruski! Vwee gavarite PaEngliski? Do you read English?

But I have to give it to you Hifi, that's an ingenious cover to suggest you didn't understand my constant referrals to the Ultimate were the only receiver I was referring to.

Something you don't know is the Sunfire gear was produced 6 miles from my home. I've met Bob, he's been in my home. Bob believes his amps excel at driving ML's. It's not a big deal, he's a normal guy like all of us. I stand by my statement. The Ultimate is good enuf to stand alone for anyone who desires a quality receiver to do it all. It even has a phono input. Case closed, except for naysayers that don't know the product.