I'm wonding if most posting here can agree that, even if it was possible to build a "super receiver", from which to build your audiophile "hi-end" system around - given the ever changing digital landscape these days - it makes little sense to throw thousands(?) into a piece that will be outdated in a year ot two at best!
I think it makes far far more sense to simpy pick up a good multichannel amp (or combo's), which you know mates well and properly drives your speaker setup, from which to build your foundation upon (speakers and amp). Then, you can simply add an otherwise very good clean sounding AV receiver on the budget end as a pre/pro for the system, which does all the most up to date digital process and such! (I think you can pick up something a used AVR354, for instance, for like $200 on the net).
Let's face it, anything that even remotely approaches "hi-end" sound for an AV receiver would have to be thousands, retail! And, typically, as discussed, the amp sections in these AV receivers are typically the weakest point. Just makes much more sense to me to be able to toss a $100 to $200 range receiver, offering otherwise state of the art digital processing and feature-set wise. And then you can simply replace it ever year or two, with whatevers' new, er from the year before, for cheap! - of course still using your tried and tru amp to drive it all.
I've always said it, and I'll say it again. I'll NEVER spend $1000 for an AV receiver ever, period! What for? When I can have the same receiver for 10 to 20 cents on the dollar in a year or two, and just use it as a pre-pro if I want!
This of course is all concerned with using "receivers" in a system, basically. Otherwise, uhem...go pure separates, yeeeah.
