I normally like What HIFi reviews but this one troubled me. Is an Arcam AVR31 six times better pound for pound than a Denon AVC-X3700H. The Arcam is higher on the list so presumably What HiFi thinks it better, so what does better mean? As I doubt its six times better, I think it just means it sounds better.
The problem with that of course is how many people sit there going "I could spend 999 but hey the one higher on the list is better so I'll spend 6249. Normally, I get a sense on the reviews that bangs per buck is taken into account, I really don't with this list.
Also, the information is very badly collated. I'm no expert but it seems to me that there are some key features such as HDMI type, number of speakers it can handle and watts per channel. That could easily be put into a simple table and would make comparison a lot easier.
Also, in an article on What HiFi you say "As a general rule of thumb, we'd suggest spending around double the cost of your surround sound amp on a standard 5.1 speaker set-up." so are you saying that with the Arcam you should spend twelve grand on speakers?
How about the Wharfedale DX 2 that you have had as a top choice for speakers? You can get them for 400, so how does that factor into comments about the relationship between speakers and an AVR.
On the subject of speakers, I'm mystified by the watt rating and the relationship between wattage and speakers - maybe I should do more digging but it would be really good if a table of AVRs had a list of suitable speakers. You have written about a great test environment but I'm not sure we're getting the full benefit in the reviews. For example, you have the capability to match some AVRs with different speakers and staff who no doubt listen to a lot of systems, so how about a table with a subjective listening column, so that when someone listens to one set next to another they report how many times better the sound is (subjectively) than another set. So for example one AVR and speaker set up would be judged twice as good as another system but four times the price. I'm not sure how that would work and if its practical but otherwise the consumer is rather left to ask a local shop to set up systems and hear the difference.
I'd also like (in a table) the ideal room size for a product. There's a neat website at:
This has a tool for deciding of you really need an Arc or Beam Gen 2 based on room size.
Further, given the price difference between arc and beam, the price difference could be spent on the extra Sonos rear speakers, important for those on a budget. I know the review page is on AVRs but just wanted to note that room size could be factored into a review page.
Some sense of what speaker setups for different types of room would be much appreciated. For example, I live in a ground floor flat that about 4 m x 5m - in my use I'd like the effects of Dolby Atmos but I don't want a system that is going to annoy the neighbours. that's a very different scenario to a detached house with a large room.
On the subject, I'd really like an article that tests if as Dolby Atmos sound travels through ceilings it creates too much noise for those living above. I'm also nervous about a subwoofer, does the bass travel significantly to annoy the neighbours. Plenty of people live in flats that may be put off by putting in wall and ceiling speakers because of the neighbours. that being said I'd happily spend more on a full Dolby Atmos system if wouldn't be oppressive to the neighbours. I wonder how many other people are put off by the same thing.
I hope the thoughts above have been constructive, my apologies for any technical inaccuracies, I'm an amateur in this area.
Thank you for your reviews and hope the above has been of interest.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram