Need quick opinion: 2 channel amp vs. 7.1

[kioko12]

Hi,

I'm trying to build a halfway decent stereo system from scratch. I have a pair of KEF bookshelf speakers right now, and plan on getting a sub later on (most likely an SVS tube sub).

I'm about 75% music and 25% movies. I was wondering if I'm better off with a 2 channel amplifier or a regular 7.1 receiver. The 2 channel amp is the Marantz PM7001, which I can get for around $550-ish. The other 7.1 is a Marantz SR5001 (brand new), which I can get for about $300 less than retail.

What should I do? Any suggestions? I'm sort of in a tight deadline...

Many thanks.

[jackfish]

Two channel, but there are other possibilities that could provide more joy.

Cambridge Audio Azur 640A v2
NAD C352
Rotel RA-1062
Music Hall A25.2

But if you have to act fast then I'd get the PM7001 if you listen to mostly music. If you think you may need the video features of the SR5001 in the future then I guess you'ld have to weigh that in your decision, if not go two channel. JMHO

[kioko12]

How would the NAD C325BEE compare? Granted it's got less power, but my room isn't that big. If I were on, say a $500 budget, what would be best to get?

[jackfish]

With moderately efficient loudspeakers (which most KEFs are) a 50 wpc amp will do just fine in a small listening area. The NAD C325BEE has many fine attributes and would establish a good core for your new system.

[conchyjoe7]

It would seem that you're looking for a good integrated 2 channel...and have been doing your homework well too. Here http://www.audioadvisor.com/products.asp?dept=9 is one of the places I would look as they're a very good company, but the Marantz will sound good as well. You may also want to check out Audiogon. If music is your primary concern by as much as you say it is, then by all means search out a good integrated, but remember that you will not have the core of a HT if you do go integrated...not that that necessarily matters as I still listen in stereo to music, and if you check my public profile here you will see that I can listen pretty much anyway I want to. Good luck and I hope this helps somewhat. Personally, I would be gaga over the Cambridge Azur 540A v2 here http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo...umber=CA540AV2
Cheers,
Konky.

[v_techkick]

I know there are hardcore audiophilles that swear 2 channel is the only way to go but IMO I like having my music and movies in surround. I switch back and forth between 2 channel and multi channel and even my gf says she likes it much better in multi channel. It feels like your sitting at a concert instead of your living room. As mentioned by previous posts you can't go wrong with NAD

[PT800]

Any system is only as good as its weakest link. And for stereo it takes a good pre-amp and good speakers to provide a really good soundstage. Much more so than multichannel, as a center speaker will fill in the middle, plus having surround speakers adds to filling the room.
Certainly nothiing wrong with going just stereo.
As for myself, I have both setups and enjoy them equally.

[tonyvdb]

Depending on what you want to spend there are lots of options.
I know that the "purists" will say different but these days a good 7.1 receiver that has a dedicated Pure Direct mode will work just fine and there should be little to no difference in sound quality.
The Onkyo I have sounds fantastic in Pure direct mode, It turns off all processing including the display that is not required and sends the signal directly to the speakers in two channels only. This way you dont have two setups in one room and you get the best of both worlds.

[john guest]

If you go for something like the Rotel amp (which is a good amp) you can at a later date add the rotel processor and still keep the 2 channel to biamp the front pair . later add the Rotel power amp. they will all have the same gain characteristics and work together fabulously. I did the same with the tag range, I have a good two channel bi amped front setup with the addition of 5.1 processor and av PC.