2. home-theater
  3. 131566-98821

Component recommendations: best bang for buck.

Hello all. My first post for had very little traffic so I figure I try again. I plan on getting a pair of Martin Logans classics down the line. For now I’m looking for recommendations on the best set up for my budget of around 10-15K. My preference: HT and Audio is about 40%/60% respectively. Looking for a scalable system for future upgrades and future home/space addition. My current space is an open concept that measures about 45’x35’, 10 foot ceilings and hardwood floors with area rugsx3.

From my research, mostly reading reviews, I’ve narrowed it down to starting place:

Marantz 8802
McIntosh integrated amp: MA 8900 OR 9000

No specific brand loyalties, however I’ve read that the McIntosh equipment maintains its resale value. Open to suggestions for new or used items and going with separates as well.  Located in Oakland. Thanks very much.
128x128redphu72
auxinput
2,920 posts
 

I would be very careful about listening to vendor opinions.  They do sometimes have their own agenda and they also do not necessarily know exactly what they are talking about.

It is possible that the Arcam may be better than the Krell.  I would hesitate to believe that because the Arcam is an AVR (with built in amplifiers).  It also does not have balanced XLR outputs.  I will believe that the Arcam sounds very good, however.

The cost of Arcam AVR is very close to cost of Krell Foundation.  The economy of scale tells me that better components would be used in the Krell (krell does not have any internal amplifiers).

I don't know the "sonic signature" of the Arcam, so I can't comment on how it would match up with MC303.  I do think that the Marantz would be too warm/slow for the MC303, but that might be what you want.

redphu72's avatar
redphu72 OP
78 posts
 
Thanks for the word of caution. It’s seems like an AVR is the easy option for now; the Yamaha Aventage RX 3070 seems to be getting high praises and supports the latest digital formats. I could mate this with a separate amp to handle the audio function. My question is would there be any benefit to getting a two channel vs a three channel power amp. Also with a three channel amp, can I use the channels separately, for example using the L and R only.
auxinput
2,920 posts
 

At this point, you will have to make a decision on whether you are chasing the latest digital formats / standards or if you are chasing sound quality.  The two do not always go hand-in-hand.  The HDMI 2.0b standard for HDR is so new that hardly anybody has implemented it.  You will always be behind the curve within a year of getting a device because they will always be bring new technology to market so that people will "buy more".

The Yamaha is a good choice for that price point, but I would pick the Arcam AVR 850 over the Yamaha unless the price was an issue.  I believe the Arcam will just have a more refined sound (even if used as just a preamp).

There could be a benefit of getting a 2-channel amp over a 3-channel amp in some cases.  If the manufacturer used the same power supply in both the 2-channel and 3-channel models, the 3-channel would have less power distributed for each channel.  Some manufacturers will increase power supply for the 3-channel model. Some will not.  In the case of the MC303, I would not worry because McIntosh has definitely increased the power supply for 3-channel.  The watts/specs also match.  Look

MC302 - 2 channel - 98 lbs

MC303 - 3 channel - 155 lbs

There is one benefit of getting a 3-channel amplifier and that is that the sonic signature for left/center/right speakers would match exactly.  If you get a 2-channel, then the center channel speaker would have to be powered by the AVR, which could/would have a different sound.  This would be noticeable when sounds in a movie pan from left to right (such as a motorcycle driving across the screen).

auxinput
2,920 posts
 
Be aware that praise in forums is always relative. Emotiva has a serious amount of praise and reputation in forums when Emotiva lovers constantly say that "Emotiva is the best thing in the world". In reality, Emotiva is excellent for the price point (which is cheaper). However, they achieve that price point by using the cheapest quality components. If you put Emotiva up to something like a Parasound (which would be 4 times the cost), you would see a significant difference.
auxinput
2,920 posts
 
As a relative reference, I used a very old Krell HTS 7.1 processor for many many many years until it finally died in 2015. I continued to use it because the sound quality continued to stomp all over the competition, even though the competition did the newer digital formats. Listening to old-school compressed Dolby Digital and DTS through Krell still sounded much better than listening to the new hi-res bluray formats "Dolby TrueHD" and "DTS-HD MA" through a brand new Emotiva processor.  Emotiva processor still did not sound as good even using hi-res 24/96 and 24/192 audio (compared to Krell that automatically down-coverted to 24/48).  In the end, newer digital formats doesn’t necessarily mean it will sound better.
More to discover