Anthem MRX-700 VS. UMC-1

[jeffreymercado]

Nov 8, 2010 18:00:06 GMT -5 moe said:

I'm sure most of us appreciate the review and the time.I was curious why for comparison you did not just crank each unit up to a certain db at the same listening position?[/quote
We actually did. I raised 10db but something still sounded off. We just wished it worked right. If they are volume matched why do I have to raise the volume. We did and I felt the anthem was a bit richer sounding. But how accurate if I have to raise none 10db

[NorthStar]

Well, I'm seriously contemplating an Anthem receiver for one of my system setups.
...I'm doing some research right now to see which one I'd like to try; the MRX 700 or the MRX 500. The difference between these two is extremely minimal, mainly HD Radio on the 700, and a very small amount of overall power (120 watts x 7 ch. vs. 100 watts x 7 ch.). Also, the MRX 500 has an EI core transformer as compared to the Toroidal one from the MRX 700. But the weight of those two receivers is only different by a pound (34.3 lbs vs. 35.4 lbs).
The biggest difference is in their Canadian list price; the MRX 500 list for $1,649 CAD and the MRX 700 for $2,199 CAD.
I think it is wiser to go with the 500 as the money you save can be used towards the purchase of an Emotiva amp like the XPA-5, plus an additional $150. ...If you don't need HD radio.

Soooo, because I am already Canadian myself , and that I'm smart , and that I already have an XPA-5 , and that I already have other products with HD radio , and that I know Anthem is one of the very best Canadian companies out there for their tremendous customer support , and that I already know the people (Bob & Nick +) at the head of Anthem headquarters here in Canada , and that it comes also with a 3-year warranty , and that they are the sister company of Paradigm , which I know and own some of their speakers , and that I must try ARC , and that they look real cool , ... I just decided that I should try the MRX 500!

Info on the MRX 500: -> @ www.anthemav.com/products/anthem/a-v-receiver/mrx-500





*** What da ya guys think? ...About ma reasonin'?

[Pauly]

It certainly does look cool. Go for it Bob! Get the 500! You know you want to.

[NorthStar]

Nov 10, 2010 21:45:32 GMT -5 Pauly said:

It certainly does look cool. Go for it Bob! Get the 500! You know you want to.

;D Thanks Pauly! ...Not only I want to, but I have to. It is my mission! ...And I'm also arc to it.

[bigred7078]

I'm still considering it, so I say get it and let me know if it gets the thumbs up or not

[skymovessideways]

I am very interested in the Anthem too. But a show stopper for me is the lack of an analog 7.1 input... unless I am missing it in the picture. Why would they leave out this important feature?

Brad

[billmac]

Nov 15, 2010 12:25:03 GMT -5 skymovessideways said:

I am very interested in the Anthem too. But a show stopper for me is the lack of an analog 7.1 input... unless I am missing it in the picture. Why would they leave out this important feature?

Brad

I am also disappointed there is no 7.1 input. I was over at AVS on the MRX AVR thread and was just informed that none of the 7 analog inputs have an analog bypass . All analog inputs are digitized as Anthem felt that most will use ARC for both movies and music.

So more than likely I will pass on the Anthem AVR to replace my 886. I really feel for the cost of the MRX lineup there should be an analog bypass option. I was hoping to try ARC but Audyssey will have to do .

Bill

[NorthStar]

Nov 18, 2010 17:28:41 GMT -5 billmac said:

Nov 15, 2010 12:25:03 GMT -5 skymovessideways said:

I am very interested in the Anthem too. But a show stopper for me is the lack of an analog 7.1 input... unless I am missing it in the picture. Why would they leave out this important feature?

Brad

I am also disappointed there is no 7.1 input. I was over at AVS on the MRX AVR thread and was just informed that none of the 7 analog inputs have an analog bypass . All analog inputs are digitized as Anthem felt that most will use ARC for both movies and music.

So more than likely I will pass on the Anthem AVR to replace my 886. I really feel for the cost of the MRX lineup there should be an analog bypass option. I was hoping to try ARC but Audyssey will have to do .

Bill

I agree with you Bill and Skymovessideways.

It is totally unacceptable from a company like Anthem (Canadian company) to omit one of the most important (if not the most important) feature in a Receiver (or Pre/pro).

* For me the Multichannel Analog Input (Bypassing all that junk), has always been the best Sounding one.

Anthem is to be spank real hard on its butt for this one!

If they wanna go the Digital way, be it, and let them suffer the digital way!
...As for me, I am now looking at the Arcam FMJ AVR500 receiver.
=> @ www.hometheatermag.com/receivers/arcam_avr500_av_receiver/

And if Anthem does not adjust themselves in the future, they will lose a huge amount of audiophile customers!

[billmac]

Nov 18, 2010 17:39:54 GMT -5 NorthStar said:

For me the Multichannel Analog Input (Bypassing all that junk), has always been the best Sounding one.

Bob,

I agree .

And if Anthem does not adjust themselves in the future, they will lose a huge amount of audiophile customers!

I would understand the MRX 300 the lowest priced in Anthem's AVR lineup not having a 7.1 analog input. But the MRX 500 is priced at $1499 and the MRX 700 is $1999 which is fairly expensive for an AVR. To not include both a 7.1 analog input and analog bypass is really strange to me coming from Anthem .

I really think Anthem needs to release an affordable prepro based on the MRX line but with a 7.1 analog input and a true analog bypass. Now that is something I would jump on in a heatbeat .

For the record I do not consider myself an audiophile but I still like the option of analog bypass .

Bill

[skymovessideways]

Yeah, even low priced but decent quality recievers like Marantz SR500x and SR600x have 7.1 analog in and analog bypass. And, these are priced under $1k (well under for the year old models).

I was hoping to take advantage of Anthem's excellent ARC, and hoping for better analog audio quality (for SACD and DVDA) than a mid-priced AVR like the Marantz. But, without 7.1 analog input, it is not even an option.

[NorthStar]

Nov 18, 2010 23:19:58 GMT -5 skymovessideways said:

Yeah, even low priced but decent quality recievers like Marantz SR500x and SR600x have 7.1 analog in and analog bypass. And, these are priced under $1k (well under for the year old models).

I was hoping to take advantage of Anthem's excellent ARC, and hoping for better analog audio quality (for SACD and DVDA) than a mid-priced AVR like the Marantz. But, without 7.1 analog input, it is not even an option.

Yeah but ARC is a digital Auto Room Correction, and not analog.
You simply use the HDMI v1.4 for that my friend. ...From a Universal BD player like the Oppo BDP-93 for example.
...And several more models from Denon, Marantz, Pioneer Elite, Sony, etc.

What it does simply is it eliminates the multichannel analog option that's all. And this is where the future lays, in the Digital Era. Everything will eventually be Digital.

The only Analog that will be left is the odd Phono turntable, and few hard core CD/SACD/DVD Audio listening people from which their players have a better Digital section. Right?

...And I'm still one of them! ...I'm not yet at ease with HDMI...
But I do use it even if less than happy. And with Movies, I ain't too fussy.
But with Stereo Music I can still at least use the Analog RCA Left & Right connections. ...And get the Audio benefit of some of my players.

What I would luv to see too is 5.1 High Res Audio using three digital RCA Coaxial jacks; with each one handling two high res audio channels, like some products have (Denon high-end pre/pro, and Meridian for example, and perhaps Lexicon too).

[Deleted]

I was checking out a 500 at a local audio shop yesterday. I like it's look and it sounded great hooked up to a pair of S2's they had in there. I "kind of" know a salesman there and he was letting me go nuts with it I could get it for 1650 tax's in which is a decent discount since it's brand new but I'm gonna wait and see what else is out there when the XMC-1 comes along.

[nozzlejockey112]

I can't believe I had to read through 3 pages of text to find the outcome of the testing being done??? Sounds to me like Jam and Bill need to check their genitalia and see if a cat fight should ensue. My God gentlemen let the girls fight and get the tests results to the men. Take the bickering to the off shoot messaging amongst one another and clean up the boards for people who love to listen and comment !!!

[NorthStar]

We talk first, then we attack! ;D

[billmac]

Nov 20, 2010 13:54:05 GMT -5 nozzlejockey112 said:

I can't believe I had to read through 3 pages of text to find the outcome of the testing being done??? Sounds to me like Jam and Bill need to check their genitalia and see if a cat fight should ensue. My God gentlemen let the girls fight and get the tests results to the men. Take the bickering to the off shoot messaging amongst one another and clean up the boards for people who love to listen and comment !!!

Hissssssssssssss ;D. There are 72 posts in this thread with about 12 between jamrock and me. So your reading comprehension must be lacking if those 12 posts throw off your attention span .

Just out of curiousity what is any different about your post than those of our little "catfight"? Your post adds nothing to the discussion of the MRX-700 and UMC-1 comparison now does it ? You add no opinions on anything you have listened to that might add to this discussion.

Our little "catfight" has long since passed but you seem to have the need to bring it up starting another off topic discussion. If you were so concerned about this type of bickering and off topic discussion you would have been wise to let it pass but I guess you are not .

But instead you post a rather unflattering post of your own that even jamrock and I did not sink to. Did you even read what you posted? Do you see how ironic your post is? So unless you can add to this thread in a constructive way I see your involvement in it pretty much useless.

Bill

[snodog]

Billmac I know what he is saying though, I know you know what you are talking about and value your input but I was impatiently trying to find the results of the post too and it was a little annoying scrolling through a brawl...lol jk Bill
That being said I have always loved the Anthem products and really would like to hear more comparisons between the Umc and the 500 or 700. God it would be nice to have the unit set it up flawlessly Im not a technical person with SPL and crossover jargon.

[Emo-Bob]

I don't feel the excitment for this Anthem. Glad I have the UMC-1. Also the XPA-5. They both equal the price of the Anthem.

[Stevens]

FWIW: a local Scandinavian magazine just tested a range of budget receivers and the Anthem MRX 300 came out on top in terms of sound quality, whereas the Onkyo 809 won the shoot-out overall. About the Anthem: "Anyone who cares little about all sorts of features, but is looking for a surround receiver with the best sound, you can stop the search here. "

Link to a test summary: link (hope the Google translation makes sense)

[snodog]

I bought it to use with Emotiva amp.

[snodog]

Feb 28, 2011 14:33:58 GMT -5 Emo-Bob said:

I don't feel the excitment for this Anthem. Glad I have the UMC-1. Also the XPA-5. They both equal the price of the Anthem.

With a name like "EmoBob" who would expect you would say anything else.