Cheap receiver + amp vs Expensive receiver

Think about this: whenever you've purchased something/anything, how many times have you said to yourself "I wish I had spent a little more for better quality"?
Then think about how many times you've said "I wish I had bought the cheaper lower quality model instead"?

The bitterness of a poor quality purchase remains long after the satisfaction of low price has been forgotten.
You get what you pay for.

I'm with Bob_B. you usually do get what you pay for.

I'm hard pressed to believe one can make up for some lack in the processed or preamped signal by adding better amplification downstream.

My preffs in HT are different than my preffs in 2 ch. as well. For HT I look towards the upper half of the line up. usually settling for a step or two below the top O line receiver/processor. Same with HT amps more often than not. Mostly due to the price/cost of HT than anything else. Multiple speakers, sub (s) cables, amps, etc.

Given that, once I get used to it all, I tend to look to upgrading things, so some flexibility must be attained early on in the reciever or processor, or that road is a cul de sac

AS much as I'll want to continue to upgrade my HT deal, it carries far less priority for me. So very good there is good enough for me. Very good IMO starts up front. Regardless if it's HT or 2ch.

Think we need more info....regarding your needs and what is "cheap"

If you do not need 7.1/hdmi/extensive bass mgt etc....an older 5.1 AVR from BK/Arcam/etc (around 500) along with a nice older amp (forte, CJ etc @ 600)...probably will sound pretty good when compared to a new Denon or Onkyo AVR at around +1,000.

But you will miss out on the latest HT features and do not have to spend $$$ on the rca cable.

Hi,
I am a retired EE background and advanced amateur musician(low brass, still active) but never possess natural musical talent. When I purchase something, I get prosumer model. The quality of a product improves on linear curve until it hits the plateau where the improvement starts to crawl compared to the cost. That's where I quit spending $$$. I stop at best bang for the buck. As an amateur that is good enough for me. I still work on tube amps and will build one if some one asks me to his specs. but at almost 70, my eyes bother me now for good soldering job. I am Mil-spec./SMT soldering certified.

This is impossible to answer due to too many variables, but keeping it general...

If you're using this setup strictly for HT (where sound quality is not the only focus) I would tend to doubt the preamp section of a $1500 receiver will make a huge difference over that of a $500 receiver when paired with a good amp. That said, using the pre/pro section of a cheap receiver (or even a more expensive one) in front of a good amp is a bit of a waste since you likely won't hear all the benefits that amp can bring. I think it's all about balance, and in audio the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you care enough about sound to invest in a decent amplifier then your long-term goal should be to pair it with a decent pre/pro, so starting with a cheap receiver as a pre/pro could make sense if upgrading to a better pre/pro when funds allow is the ultimate goal.

The problem with a more expensive receiver is a lack of flexibility. You're stuck with the amp and pre/pro packaged together, and using the pre ins/outs when you upgrade to a better amp or pre/pro seems kinda silly to me if you're spending a good amount of money on the whole unit. At least with separates you can sell off the piece you're looking to upgrade, which can be a nice benefit especially on the pre/pro end since formats/connections/DSP will undoubtedly continue to evolve.

Anyway, I don't think I answered your question but I'd be careful about spending a lot on a HT receiver because you start to run up against the cost of decent quality separates and their inherent advantages (separate/beefier power supplies, better shielding, flexibility, etc.). Best of luck.