Integrated Amp Reviews

Arcam FMJ SR250 stereo A/V receiver Associated Equipment

Sidebar 3: Associated Equipment

Digital Sources: Oppo BDP-103 universal BD player, Apple Mac mini running BootCamp, Windows 7, JRiver Music.
Preamplifier: Marantz AV8802a.
Power Amplifiers: Bryston 9BST, Classé Sigma Mono (2).
Loudspeakers: Bowers & Wilkins 802 D3, Monitor Audio Silver 8, JL Audio E-Sub e110 subwoofers (2).
Cables: Interconnect: AudioQuest Vodka (HDMI), Kubala-Sosna Anticipation (RCA) & Fascination (XLR). Speaker: Kubala-Sosna Anticipation & Fascination. AC: Kubala-Sosna Emotion.
Accessory: BrickWall 8RAUD power conditioner.—Kalman Rubinson

COMPANY INFO
Arcam
US distributor: The Sound Organisation
1009 Oakmead Dr.
Arlington, TX 76011
(972) 234-0182
soundorg.com
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
hnickm's picture
Submitted by hnickm on June 1, 2017 - 8:11pm

"Stereophile seldom reviews A/V receivers."
Is that because they aren't esoteric enough or not expensive enough for the audiophile cache?

JoeinNC's picture
Submitted by JoeinNC on June 2, 2017 - 6:55am

I imagine that's much of it, yeah. Also, maybe they're too convenient, there are more than a handful of boutique dealers/sources for them, and they mean less opportunity for outboard DACs, uber-expensive interconnects. Oh, and you don't get to explain them to your friends and guests.

Anon2's picture
Submitted by Anon2 on June 2, 2017 - 2:59pm

We should see how A/V receivers stack up. Why aren't more A/V receivers being reviewed from time to time? Does one have to cost more than one (two or three in cheaper communities) times of total monthly expenses of many people for it to be tested here?

I know there are time and budget constraints. I know you can't test everything. But then, what's the impediment? Many readers of this publication own A/V receivers; perhaps that's all they will ever own. Might it not be "revelatory" (an audiophile reserved word for components costing tens of thousands) to see how an A/V receiver stacks up, especially against integrateds.

I have a Marantz SR4023. It has an EI transformer, folded fins of stainless steel for heatsinks, a sheet metal exterior, non-Hemi V8 capacitors. But you know what? There's nothing wrong with the way it sounds; there's much less wrong with how it effortlessly drives my speakers from two brands. Indeed, per manufacturer's specifications, it's 4ohm rated at 100watts (continuous) per channel. I've seen lighter weight integrateds getting testing in this publication. I doubt that a venerable manufacturer like Marantz would trump-up these numbers.

I'm not an expert on measurements, but I've gotten a grounding in the basics from those in this publication (thank you, JA). If you scrounge around on the internet, there are measurements for A/V receivers out there; they are less comprehensive than those here, but they are out there nonetheless.

Yes, I'd agree with what the last writer posited. What's there to hide with putting an A/V receiver, even an older one, on the test bench? After all, we had an article this month about rehabbing a speaker that was around before many of us were born.

Are the "better" component makers worried that people might find out that, with proper speaker placement, good digital sources, good recordings, a receiver (with comparably budget-minded speakers) might make people question the thousands of dollars (that we don't have) to buy something "better" for multiples of what an A/V or stereo receiver might cost?

I accuse none of subterfuge, but we should ask the question.

Patrick Butler's picture
Submitted by Patrick Butler on June 4, 2017 - 7:05am

A hint as to why "Stereophile seldom reviews A/V receivers"- it's in the name of the publication.

John Atkinson's picture
Submitted by John Atkinson on June 4, 2017 - 7:34am
Patrick Butler wrote:
A hint as to why "Stereophile seldom reviews A/V receivers"- it's in the name of the publication.

We have a sister publication that reviews A/V receivers - and all kinds of home theater products - Sound & Vision magazine.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jeff Davis's picture
Submitted by Jeff Davis on April 19, 2018 - 2:38pm

Oh, I don't think something necessarily has to be expensive for them to review it. I got my Outlaw RR2160 stereo receiver based upon their review of it. It proved helpful, since I couldn't audition an Internet-only (no showrooms) piece like the Outlaw myself. BTW - They were right in saying it was as good as it gets for the price.

Johan Bottema's picture
Submitted by Johan Bottema on June 2, 2017 - 6:49am

I use a NAD receiver and 4 KEF speakers XQ20 ans XQ10 and a subwoofer. The UniQ drivers are the best in terms of imaging and using the NAD settings for 4 point stereo with careful tuning of distance/delay, attenuation and adjustment of subwoofer XO frequency results in true High End sound. I find it ridiculous to have only 2 speakers because it is missing a trick. Sounds is coming from all sides people!

HammerSandwich's picture
Submitted by HammerSandwich on June 2, 2017 - 6:53am
Quote:

The downward slope of the trace in fig.4 indicates that actual distortion lies below the noise floor; the broken curve in fig.5 suggests that it reveals the effect of the class-G voltage-rail switching. I don't know why this wasn't apparent in the 8 ohm graph.

There's less distortion at 8 ohms, so it's obscured by noise, right?

Also, figures 6 & 7 are flipped.

John Atkinson's picture
Submitted by John Atkinson on June 2, 2017 - 7:32am
HammerSandwich wrote:
figures 6 & 7 are flipped.

Fixed.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Shangri-La's picture
Submitted by Shangri-La on June 2, 2017 - 11:54am

In a new product review, can you include where it's ranked on Stereophile recommended component list (Class A/B/etc) if it makes it to the list? The reason the recommended list is so great is that consumers can compare different products in widely different price ranges. An individual product review is great and all but without knowing how it compares to its peers the review is less helpful than it otherwise could have been.

The recommended component list is updated every 6 months. If you can include where the reviewed product is on the list, it would help consumers a lot making informed audition/purchase, without waiting for 6 months.

Kal Rubinson's picture
Submitted by Kal Rubinson on June 2, 2017 - 12:45pm

It generally is not possible to include the rating in a review because the voting only takes place twice a year in preparation for. Recommended Components issues.

findcount's picture
Submitted by findcount on June 3, 2017 - 5:00am

USD3600 for this receiver ??!!.......just look at the internals......LOL

Arcam should rename itself as......ArCON.....or......ArSCAM....LOL

johnnythunder's picture
Submitted by johnnythunder on June 3, 2017 - 6:39am

The comments sections on the major audio magazine sites are just loaded with the worst kind of cynics, snarks and opinionated types. Your comment could have been constructive and may have deserved a response from the reviewer. But in this case, a surface judgement with insults based on a photograph is a little beneath the response level.

findcount's picture
Submitted by findcount on June 3, 2017 - 6:59am

yes.....on hindsight, you're right........i should just ask people to stay as far away from this product as possible.........

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on June 5, 2017 - 10:06pm

YOU should stay away as far as possible, as I presume you have no one to 'ask' to stay away from a product such as this.

Write your own publication if you don't like the prices or coverage or blah blah blah..

You haven't even heard, seen or touched the product... I am sure every one will ignore you anyways, as what substantive opinion about this product do you have??

NONE.

justinfaulkner's picture
Submitted by justinfaulkner on June 26, 2017 - 2:01pm

At least to me, this sounds like a very similar product to the Classe Sigma 2200i integrated amplifier you guys reviewed 2 months ago. It would be interesting to compare the two products (and similar ones) by feature and sound.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/class%C3%A9-sigma-2200i-integrated-amplifier

SpecialAero's picture
Submitted by SpecialAero on February 5, 2020 - 11:38pm

I connect the arcam with a rotel rdd dac always I get a pcm input signal. I wanted to sell the dac but the sound gets hearable better if I connect it instead of the arcam sr250 digital inputs.

The remote is not annoying me. Its a programmable remote.

Echolane's picture
Submitted by Echolane on August 3, 2022 - 10:55am

I bought this unit because I have a two channel setup and don’t ever expect to go multi channel. I also consider myself somewhat of an audiophile into opera and classical music and I wanted a serious listening experience. I didn’t get it with this AVR. I wound up bypassing it’s audio entirely, inserting my Audiomat Arpege tube amp into my system and routing RCA interconnects between the Audiomat Arpege and my video sources thus reducing the Arcam to just video switching responsibilities. I have 5 video sources, two of them vintage (laserdisc and VHS/DVD player) so if it still had component and s-video connections I would be much happier with it as a video switching device. But it sure is an expensive video switcher!

Echolane's picture
Submitted by Echolane on August 3, 2022 - 10:55am

I bought this unit because I have a two channel setup and don’t ever expect to go multi channel. I also consider myself somewhat of an audiophile into opera and classical music and I wanted a serious listening experience. I didn’t get it with this AVR. I wound up bypassing it’s audio entirely, inserting my Audiomat Arpege tube amp into my system and routing RCA interconnects between the Audiomat Arpege and my video sources thus reducing the Arcam to just video switching responsibilities. I have 5 video sources, two of them vintage (laserdisc and VHS/DVD player) so if it still had component and s-video connections I would be much happier with it as a video switching device. But it sure is an expensive video switcher!

X