I need to choose a receiver worthy of my Klipsch speakers!

[snacky]

Hello all you audiophiles out there!

 

Here's the deal: I love my Klipsch speakers, but I'm running them off of Denon's low end receiver, the AVR-S500BT.

My speakers are:

2) RP-260F

1) RP-450C

2) RP-240S (wish I had gotten the 250S's)

1) R-112SW

 

A buddy of mine brought over a 2 channel Benchmark AHB2 amp. We connected it to my 260F's and holy crap! I could not believe the difference! The highs were so much more crisp and detailed, the base was rich and clean. So much more was there... I don't know how else to describe it. At first, I thought he had hooked up my sub too somehow but nope, it was just the two fronts.

 

So now I am convinced its time to spring for a high end receiver (but nothing crazy).

 

Here's a kicker... I may have an opportunity to get a good deal on a pair of RF-7's and a R-115SW.

 

So here's a few questions:

In the audiophile world, which is preferred more: 5.1 or 7.1... maybe a dumb question, I'm not sure.

Would my 260Fs make good side speakers if I did end up scoring those RF-7's?

 

Lets assume for a minute that I don't get those other speakers.

I want to get at least a 7.2 unit so I can biamp my fronts and have the option for adding a sub.

I'm not against buying a 9.2 unit so I can biamp my fronts and have the option for expanding and having a 7.2 system while still biamping the fronts.

 

So with the tax return coming, I'm going to need to get something for $1K or under out the door.

I've been eyeballing the Marantz SR7008. I wondered how you guys feel about that one for my application?...

And/or, If there's any others you guys think I should look in to?

 

I look forward to hearing some opinions! 

 

Thanks!

 

 

[Ski Bum]

That Marantz is a fine receiver and should serve your purposes.

 

Forget about bi-amping.  Just put it out of your mind.  No benefit from doing so from an AVR as you propose at all.

 

5.1 should suffice unless you're setting up a theater with multiple row seating.

[nitrofan]

+1

[japosey]

The Marantz is nice and the upper level Denon as well. In fact, Denon and Marantz are owned by the same company and do share designs in some of their receivers.

[ClintonH]

I agree with all posted, the Marantz or Denon are more than enough to make em sound great. I run my full 5.3.4 system from a Denon X4100 and I don't feel it is lacking at all, never had it past 75 and most of the time listen at maybe 40-45 ( Max is 98)

[Scrappydue]

First bi amping is a big fat waste of time. Don't read into it much. Trust me. I'm sure you'll hear the same thing from others on here besides me and the one guy who already pointed it out.

Second let's not forget you hooked up a 3,000 amplifier who's job was to power 2 speakers and your wanting a 1000 amplifier to power 7 speakers. Just so you know where to keep expectations.

With that being said 1000$ is what I spent on my denon 4520 and it powers the bejesus out of my cinema setup. Now my speakers are quite a bit more efficient than yours but still a 2500$ receiver that you can still find under a grand.

I've owned your exact setup and powered them with an old onkyo 805 and they slammed in my house. Only way they ever sounded any better was on a dedicated 2 channel pre-amp/amp combo. Which will almost always smoke it on music. Just talking about something MADE for 2 channel vs something made for surround sound.

If your wanting better 2 channel I'd suggest looking into anthem or nad.

More power, any flagship from denon or marantz. And also don't forget pioneer. They are very powerful class d amps and they are a great in between for me on the surround and 2 channel. Good at both. I just prefer audyssey for movies. But pioneer does do a great job on 2 channel music.

[twistedcrankcammer]

OK, from the top:

 

Marantz and Denon are the same animal.

 

Does your current receiver have pre outputs? If so, you will sound wise be better served by an outboard amp.

 

I run 4 separate older high end s channel amplifiers for 7 channel.

 

A good 5.1 system is ALWAYS preferred over an average 7.1...ALWAYS!

 

Unlike what Scrappy said, Bi-amping and tri-amping have there place, but not until you are way higher on the food chain price wise, and absolutely NEVER with the receivers amp, they just do not have the power supply to handle it at any price point!

 

My recommendation is buy better speakers first, your best bang for the buck improvement will always be in your speakers until you at least get to something like Klipschorns, improved amplification is next

 

Roger

[Scrappydue]

Unlike what I said huh. With the speakers he has and a PASSIVE crossover there is absolutely no reason to bi-amp. Now if he tore the networks out and went active then we are talking. But that is completely different.

[Ski Bum]

And yes I am braced to get slammed by the receiver guys.  

 

 

I can't bring myself to slam you for recommending an amp that is probably the closest thing to the proverbial "straight wire with gain" in existence.  I kind of want one myself.

 

I still think that the OP would be served quite well by the Marantz he listed, particularly if he adds a couple subs to the equation.  I would suggest he prioritize subs before external amps, and before chasing down a dedicated (and pricey) two-channel rig.  Unless he's filthy rich.  If that's the case, let's proceed to suggest ways to spend snaky's money!

[twistedcrankcammer]

Unlike what I said huh. With the speakers he has and a PASSIVE crossover there is absolutely no reason to bi-amp. Now if he tore the networks out and went active then we are talking. But that is completely different.

 

 

you didn't specify dude!

 

It absolutely has a place with much higher end stuff, specifically fully horn loaded speakers.

 

In reference to what he has, sure, but not always

 

Rog