Anthem vs Arcam

My experience dates back a few years, but I was a dealer for Marantz, Denon, Sony ES, Pioneer Elite and ARCAM.  I decided to do a shootout one evening involving the "premium" AV receivers we had on hand in the $2,000-$3,000 price range.  The group of "high brand awareness" receivers faired well, and in my view the Marantz edged out the others in this group in SQ.  We were also aware that the sonic signature of these pieces was quite different from the better  examples of the 2-channel separates we had on hand. Having set higher expectations, we saved the ARCAM for last.  After a short audition, it was clear something was very different.  So much more ease in the presentation, with more dynamic contrast, darker backgrounds and space between the notes.  It had distinquished itself as being in another performance class altogether, more in tune (literally) with the better 2-channel gear than AV receivers. To me, it was a bit like spending a few hours in work boots, than going home and slilpping into a pair of comfortable slippers.  Yes, it was THAT different.

Time has passed, and things have probably changed.  I haven't spent quality time with Anthem, and it does appear they take SQ seriously.  I decided to keep an ARCAM AVR600 around for a "rainy day" or to pass on to one of my grandkids. 

I've run an Arcam AV40 as my HT receiver for two years now. I also tried various Denon and Marantz models prior. To me, it's one of the better if not best receivers for sound quality both for HT and also for music. The challenge with the AV40 is it's a pure processor, so requires external amplification which adds significant cost.

I did have a few bugs early on but after some updates, it's been extremely stable and reliable. More features than I'd ever use but better to have it and not need it. While it's nowhere near the level of my 2-channel setup, it's actually not bad at all in that function. Certainly better than most HT receivers.

I wouldn’t necessarily set a limit at 7 channels. Nine channels with front wides is well worth considering. They are not in your face like some prefer, but they add an extra dimension between fronts and surrounds.

9.2.4 is worth planning for and considering. Maybe even 9.2.6, although 2 front and 2 rear highs are probably sufficient.

PS I wouldn't necessarily ignore Audio Science Review. It's always worth visiting to eliminate those with poor test results as they are never going to reveal intricate details.

Hi Chris,

I have done the exact journey you are about to start and am now on the other side 😀.

My progression was Marantz to Arcam to Anthem and then back to Arcam.

What got me back to Arcam was its richer, more lush, and midrange denser sound. More bloom and presence for voice and instruments. More airy dense sound field when in surround.

The Anthem was also good in details and surround but I found it have a cooler and less rich sound. Not bad by any means and I don't mean this as a negative. If one prefers a clean impactful sound then this would be the preferred avr.

For my tastes the richer sound field of the Arcam won out.

btw... the "review" you added (link) is useless.

The dude is using a used unit and never listened to it. Maybe he had a defective unit or had a faulty connection for his measurements, dunno.

Dude didn’t read correctly what Athem literature says and then gripes about it at the end of his measurements post (there is no review 🤨).