Anthem MRX 700 vs Arcam FMJ AVR400

IT has been a while since I paid attention to the Arcam offerings, but if you were going to use the Arcam to do room correction (assuming it can do room correction on analog inputs), it would have to take your analog inputs and convert them to digital, perform the correction in the digital domain and then re-convert to analog using the Arcam's DACs. So on balance going digital in is cleaner, in that it saves an AD-DA step and you'd be using the Arcam DACs either way.

I have not heard ARC in a setting where I could say how it performs, but it's well reviewed and well liked around here.

I suspect under the skin they're both riffs on the same Chinese OEM platform, but with tweaks to incorporate their respective firm's own preferences, and in Anthem's case intellectual property.

The main relevant difference between the two seems to be whether one values legacy inputs (analog multichannel in, S-video) or superior room correction software more highly.

Also, cost. The MRX-700 is cheaper, right? Also, Anthem's lower line AVR's don't seem to give up much (just a smidgen of power, along with internet and HD radio features) but reduce costs quite a bit.

My choice would be the Anthem (depending on whether HD radio is important to you, probably the MRX500 or MRX300) with the cheaper Oppo player. Don't think you'd lose anything, but you'd gain ARC.

I vaguely remember from the Hometheater.com reviews that the characteristics distortion curves on the amplification were rather different when one reviewed the measured performance (MRX 300 vs MRX 700. Was a little more to it than just sheer power.

^^They're clearly wrong. The first MRX 700 review's all-channel measurements are very much out of line with any test anywhere else including in the same magazine. There's no way the MRX 300 puts out more power than the MRX 700 - it's the same amp circuit with a smaller power supply. Distortion has nothing to do with it because all measurements were made at the same clipping level.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/a...-labs-measures

http://www.hometheater.com/content/a...-labs-measures

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...eiver?page=0,3

eta: distortion characteristic between the graphs in the two top reviews looks identical to me other than the 300's running out of power sooner. Much has been made on the internet over the MRX 700's all-channel power but it's all based on one erroneous measurement in what just happened to be the first MRX review. There is nothing to support it, not even the possibility of a bad sample since its overall performance would have also suffered. But wait there's more - at the very end the S&V review reports significant rolloff above 5 kHz when using the USB input. We re-checked performance after that but have never seen or heard of anything like what's reported from anywhere else. I can only guess that ARC was left on when USB-in frequency response was measured.

Unfortunately many don't realise that these magazines aren't scientific journals and therefore not subject to the vigorous standards of scrutiny and peer-review process before acceptance for publication. And when the rare mistake or even fraud is found journals would retract the paper. Some take what's said in these lay mags too seriously. When I said something similar before here (on another section) it didn't go down well at all for one such magazine's editor.

I think the B&W speakers are of power-huguary type and wonder if the MRX-700 can provide enough juice. Just hear for yourself to decide if you need separate power amp.

I've got CM9/CMC2/CM5 combo powered by Anthem MRX700. Check out my speaker comparison between B&W 804, CM9 and Paradigm Studio 100.

B&W CM9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwtJmI3YjIc

Paradigm Studio 100 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7qDZ...eature=related

B&W N804 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KORkO...eature=related