Denon 2803 vs 3803

Okii, I would go with the 3803 and then later on down the raod, add a 5 or 7 channel amp. Years ago I would have agreed with exertfluffer as separates being the way to go. A lot has changed since then and to be honest with you I don't think that the Outlaw combo can hold a candle to todays receiver monsters, ie: Yamaha RXZ9, Denon 5803, and Pioneer Elite 59txi. Of course we're talking more than twice the money for one of these receivers, also. Dollar for dollar there are no separates that can out-perform the Denon 3803.

Although separates are superior, I would agree with Mborner that current receivers have improved tremendously over the years. One fine example is the Denon AVR-5803 and although it may not be comparable to the best separates out there but it comes quite close at a fraction of the cost.

Fraction of the cost?(Denon 5803) Were talking about a $4800 receiver!!! There is no "fraction of the cost" in volved with $4800, I beg to differ.
Personally, I don't think any receiver is worth paying even $2k for what you get! $2k is a lot of money. I find it's much much better spent on even modest separates....case in point, the Outlaw separates at $1600!!...enough money left over to buy a compete Pardigm refernence speaker system no less!!!(if that's what you like).
I'd own those anytime before I ever owned a $5k receiver, you bet!!!!
Heck, even a $1k reciver with a good multichannel amp is much much cheaper, and sounds far better most every time, by far. Then when you go up to a pre/pro, it gets even better.
Shoot for $4800 you could get a deal on a number of super quality pre/pro and amp combo's if you shop around for good pricing NEW!!!...not even considering used.
You could get all the way up to a Krell Showcase and a good ATI 5-7 channel amp for darn near that if you shop arround! This smokes any receiver, and there's lot's of other options and combo's if you are spending that kind of cash.
Heck I could put together a complete killer High end sounding high performance HT system for $4800!...including speakers and sub! No receiver is going to do anything special to warrant that kind of money. I just find there's much better way's to spend/blow your money.
Let's see, I pick up a used Krell HTS for $1400, a used Parasound HCA1205 for $700, find some B&W 805 matrix's at $300/$350 each(x5=$1500 to $1750), and some left over for a good $500 used sub, and I'm at that money!!!!!
Personally, people who are so happy, and anxious, to go plop down $5000 for a receiver no less, I just don't get it!
Do they really think some sort of "sonic nirvana" is going to exist inside that overpriced box!?! Surely they don't think they're going to have some sort of superb audio experience from a receiver, do they?..because it's not going to happen. Receiver is another word for "BIG SONIC COMPROMISE"!...with a bunch of bells and whistles thrown in.
I guess I'm much more intersted in ACTUALL SOUND QUALITY, than some "all in one, do it all box!". But, to each his own.
As I sit here, I'm thinking of what all I could buy for $4800 that I could put together. And I'm coming up with A LOT!
Personally, I find people who do end up spending a small fortune on "A RECEIVER!!!!" end up using some cheep Polk Audio or Energy speakers, and really think they "got the shiznit!" Funny. Oh well, it's all good...knock yourselves out...peace

Wow, Exertfluffer!! Nobody really wanted to offend you but you are still obviously living the old school theory of receivers vs. separates. The old school being that, yes, receivers WERE a very poor compromise compared to separates. Today’s top shelf receivers are a true statement of technology at it's best. AVR Receivers have literally closed the performance gap of even some of the best separates. Although it can be done, it is getting increasingly difficult to find separates that will out-perform a Flagship receiver. Krell? Maybe... but not in my typical room set up. If I'm going to waste my money on separates I'm going to make darn sure that I have a dedicated room to put it all in. It used to be an embarrassment to connect high-end speakers to a receiver. Not any more. Look at how many people have woken up and seen the light and realized that they can get the same performance, sometimes better, without spending thousands on separates.

Do yourself a favor, flip through the recent archives of Audio/Video Interiors. Ever wonder why most of these 1/2 million dollar custom home theaters are using receivers? If you don't maybe you need to ask yourself why. Or, The next time you visit your local "separates" dealer, ask the owner of the store what he has in his own home. You'll be surprised at the answer, again, ask yourself why. Could it be that they know something that you don't? Perhaps they realize that the laws of diminishing returns for separates are absolutely ridiculous.

Ok, time to get the facts straight! The Denon is not $5,000 as you stated, nor is it $4,800 but actually $4,400 NEW. The processing power in the Big Denon is staggering! There are no entry level or even mid level processors that can even come close, processing wise. To repeat what Ryder is saying, these big receivers can and sometimes do outperform some of even the best separates.

Now, I am by no means bashing separates but give credit where credit is due. I'm simply stating that receivers have made incredible strides in the performance/value arena, so much so, that they've become the component of choice for even the most discriminating critic. In the next 5 years you will see pre/pro tecnology take off like never before at prices that will be line with receivers. Why? because receivers give these guys a run for their money. I've stated once before, "Rip out my receiver and install a rack full of Bryston monoblocks and a Lexicon
MC-12 and I doubt very seriously that I would hear a difference in my room".

Okay maybe I'm slightly off with my statement of the Denon coming close at a "fraction of the cost".

The main point that I was trying to put through is that top-of-the-line receivers have improved tremendously and offer almost comparable(if not better) performance compared to good separates. I used to have the idea that receivers are crap when it comes to sound quality in both HT and music and have always disregarded them since my main objective is getting the stereo part right. That was about 7 years ago when I owned the Yamaha DSP-990. The Yamaha was my first introduction to HT as well as my stereo rig. Since my main priority has always been music, I got rid of it and started to build my system slowly throughout the years from the modest Arcam Alpha 10 and several other amps before I ended up with the Plinius SA-100Mk3 today. Although I would like to have the best HT but the relatively high cost have deterred me from owning separates(still with the old school theory that receivers suck).

Not until I've listened to the Denon AVR-5803. This unit really changed my perception of the quality of today's receivers. I'm very much with Mborner and his write-up tells it all, although discriminating critics would beg to differ.

Just my 2 cents.