Just Curious - About using a AV Receiver as main unit


Just curious about something.

I know it is preferable to use a Integrated Amp or Pre-Amp+Amp combo as your main unit in the system but sometimes I see used AV's receivers see from manufacturers who make really good high end 2 channel equipment and these receivers sell for less then say a 2 channel component from the same manufacturer (units from say Rotel, Anthem, Arcam, Marantz, etc). Also, since we are talking about AV Receivers, I guess it's fair to compare them to SS Amps. If your into Tubes, then that is whole different story.

I wonder sometimes if you start a build using one of the AV receivers instead of the 2 channel component, would that be a good system to build off of.

I will say for myself, I started with a Denon AVR-5700 (which I still have and was a beast in it's day) and I think it was an excellent piece of equipment and had a great 2 channel section.

Last year I bought a Integrated amp but honestly, I could have easily stayed with the Denon and build off of that.

Sure, these AV's receivers wont compare to components that are way up there in the thousands but if your budget is bit tight I think these components would be great to start with and I am not talking about your $400 dealer receiver from best buy, I mean AV's receivers that were top of the line in their day and now can be had for much cheaper. 

Well just curious and my opinion.

Thanks
128x128jay73
https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_4/denon-avr-4806-receiver-12-2005-part-5.html

This is the benchmark test from Stereophile showing the 4806 does everything well and puts out 181 per channel in 2 channel mode.

This is the model below the flagship the original poster referenced. with even more power and better dacs. A great benefit is there are complete multi hundred page forums and reviews dedicated to the performance and operation of these AVRs because they were so well regarded and popular. You can peruse this info to see if it meets your needs. 

The sheer amount of switching you can do is incredible. I can have the album of a track playing on one channel, cd on another, sacd on another, hi res streaming version on another, blue ray 5.1 on another and switch back and forth between all of these to compare.

As I mentioned before you are not limited to using the dacs in the AV which is stlll some of the best sound you'll probably hear anywhere when letting dsd pass undecoded for the AVR to decode or optionally let your player decode and play through the analog inputs. I'm not knocking separates but most 2 channel systems don't need more than 180 watts per channel. Having a high end AVR switcher in you system provides alot of flexibility and you can always add a tube preamp or outboard tube dac such as I did for two channel. I don't doubt if you spend enough money, separates don't sound superior but where exactly is that line and is it worth it? By definition I suppose an AVR is a compromise, but to me the higher end ones can seem like the best of both worlds.My guess is I'd need to go from mid fi to high end reference speakers to really need separates and I've seen plenty of lower priced high end speakers like Dyna audio etc. being powered by these large AVRs to great effect.
By definition I suppose an AVR is a compromise, but to me the higher end ones can seem like the best of both worlds.My guess is I'd need to go from mid fi to high end reference speakers to really need separates
The only correct part of this statement is “an AVR is a compromise.”  As for the rest, well, not so much.  You really need to go hear even some decent, modestly-priced 2-channel setups to hear what’s possible.  Most any relatively cheap stereo integrated will outperform the priciest AVRs for 2-channel.  

Actually no not even that part is correct. An AVR is not a compromise. An AVR is abject surrender. Total fail.   

Most any relatively cheap stereo integrated will outperform the priciest AVRs for 2-channel.   

Correctamundo. Absolutely. Without a doubt.
Post removed 
Post removed