The Denon AVR-X8500H

[richierey1]

Hello. This is my first post and I have a fairly simple question that centers around bi-amping. I understand that there are folk in the community that do not agree with the notion that there is an audible difference between traditional wiring and bi-amping, however i am one of those who respectfully disagrees. I have run both configurations (standard wiring with jumpers and bi-amping) and although there is not not an overwhelming difference, I can detect a "preferable" difference which brings me to my hypothetical question ... without having to shell out over $3000, what would I notice if I were to switch from a Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W (wired using OEM jumpers) to a Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2 channel 150W (bi-amped)?

Right out of the gate i can see a 40W difference and the extra channels would allow me the ability to bi-amp as preferred, but i guess my reservation (and thus the reason for my question) is ... would it be worth it?

Although i do have a turntable, about 80% of my listening material is streamed from my iphone via Qobuz.

I realize this is a subjective question, but for those who own a Denon 8500 or are subject matter experts in the field, your insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Here's my current configuration:

Panamax 5100 power conditioner
Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W receiver

6 full range speakers
Wired using OEM jumpers from B&W
2 active subwoofers (which i rarely use)
multi-channel stereo

- 2 B&W Nautilus 804 / 200W
- 2 B&W CDM7 NT / 150W
- 2 B&W CDM7 SE / 150W
- B&W ASW 3000 15" active subwoofer / 300W amplifier
- B&W ASW 1000 12" active subwoofer / 120W amplifier

 

[ryanosaur]

If I were you I would just get some external amps for bi-wiring if you want to do that. Taking extra channels off the AVR to do that just robs total available power to all connected channels. So that 150w number isn’t all channels driven... you’d probably see only about 80w per channel. But that might change if you are listening to multi-ch stereo, since all speakers will be producing the same signal.
*shrugs
That just my 2¢
Cheers

 

[2channel lover]

Those speakers (mains) look like 804s...(confirmed...duh...I just noticed your list of equipment). I'm very familiar with the 804, I have a pair of 804m (the model just prior to the Nautilus)...not as much as the 803s, but they are power hungry in general, but I'm one of those that don't buy into bi-amping.

So I'm not much help, but my answer would be not much.

My question to you is what do you think your system is missing (SQ wise) as it's configurated now?

 

[slipperybidness]

Hello. This is my first post and I have a fairly simple question that centers around bi-amping. I understand that there are folk in the community that do not agree with the notion that there is an audible difference between traditional wiring and bi-amping, however i am one of those who respectfully disagrees. I have run both configurations (standard wiring with jumpers and bi-amping) and although there is not not an overwhelming difference, I can detect a "preferable" difference which brings me to my hypothetical question ... without having to shell out over $3000, what would I notice if I were to switch from a Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W (wired using OEM jumpers) to a Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2 channel 150W (bi-amped)?

Right out of the gate i can see a 40W difference and the extra channels would allow me the ability to bi-amp as preferred, but i guess my reservation (and thus the reason for my question) is ... would it be worth it?

Although i do have a turntable, about 80% of my listening material is streamed from my iphone via Qobuz.

I realize this is a subjective question, but for those who own a Denon 8500 or are subject matter experts in the field, your insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Here's my current configuration:

Panamax 5100 power conditioner
Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W receiver

6 full range speakers
Wired using OEM jumpers from B&W
2 active subwoofers (which i rarely use)
multi-channel stereo

- 2 B&W Nautilus 804
- 2 B&W CDM7 NT
- 2 B&W CDM7 SE
- B&W ASW 3000 15" active subwoofer
- B&W ASW 1000 12" active subwoofer

40W difference in power is not significant!

Doubling the power is a 3dB gain.

 

[2channel lover]

If I were you I would just get some external amps for bi-wiring if you want to do that. Taking extra channels off the AVR to do that just robs total available power to all connected channels. So that 150w number isn’t all channels driven... you’d probably see only about 80w per channel. But that might change if you are listening to multi-ch stereo, since all speakers will be producing the same signal.
*shrugs
That just my 2¢
Cheers

Agreed...I've seen dealers bi-amping 803s and 802s, and I didn't hear any A/B options to really know if they gained anything, but the A/Bs that I have heard didn't yield much difference. The 804s imo play nice with moderate power....I will admit going from a bargain basement Onkyo AVR to the Monoblocks...the bass performance improved.

 

[PENG]

I have run both configurations (standard wiring with jumpers and bi-amping) and although there is not not an overwhelming difference, I can detect a "preferable" difference which brings me to my hypothetical question ... without having to shell out over $3000, what would I notice if I were to switch from a Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W (wired using OEM jumpers) to a Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2 channel 150W (bi-amped)?

If you listen to reference level or higher spl, and you sit far enough away you may notice more dynamic impacts when watching certain movies and/or classical music that has high dynamics, biamp or not, probably more so if biamped. That's based on specs, past measurement data on similar models, and other available data, and is rather theoretically speaking only.

Right out of the gate i can see a 40W difference and the extra channels would allow me the ability to bi-amp as preferred, but i guess my reservation (and thus the reason for my question) is ... would it be worth it?

As pointed out, need double the power to gain 3 dB spl. From 110 W to 150 W, that's just 1.36 dB, noticeably but very slightly louder if listening to music with little dynamics, and hardly noticeable for high dynamic material.

Although i do have a turntable, about 80% of my listening material is streamed from my iphone via Qobuz.

Well then, why bother? After all, given what you have now, recording quality should rank as high as speaker's quality, if not higher, preamp/amps would rank almost at the bottom in terms of upgrade priority, let alone biamp vs not..

I realize this is a subjective question, but for those who own a Denon 8500 or are subject matter experts in the field, your insight would be greatly appreciated.

I am very familiar with the SR7009, have used the AV8801 with power amps, currently using a X4400H that has the same preamp chips, to drive power amps so I do have some insight from my own experience though not directly related to the 6009 and 8500. I do know the SR7009 will struggle if driving speakers such as the 804 in a large room unless you sit close enough.

So the key question is as @2channel lover asked: "My question to you is what do you think your system is missing (SQ wise) as it's configurated now?"

Also need to know your seating distance and spl you desire (i.e. ref level or well below that?)

 

[Kingnoob]

Hello. This is my first post and I have a fairly simple question that centers around bi-amping. I understand that there are folk in the community that do not agree with the notion that there is an audible difference between traditional wiring and bi-amping, however i am one of those who respectfully disagrees. I have run both configurations (standard wiring with jumpers and bi-amping) and although there is not not an overwhelming difference, I can detect a "preferable" difference which brings me to my hypothetical question ... without having to shell out over $3000, what would I notice if I were to switch from a Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W (wired using OEM jumpers) to a Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2 channel 150W (bi-amped)?

Right out of the gate i can see a 40W difference and the extra channels would allow me the ability to bi-amp as preferred, but i guess my reservation (and thus the reason for my question) is ... would it be worth it?

Although i do have a turntable, about 80% of my listening material is streamed from my iphone via Qobuz.

I realize this is a subjective question, but for those who own a Denon 8500 or are subject matter experts in the field, your insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Here's my current configuration:

Panamax 5100 power conditioner
Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W receiver

6 full range speakers
Wired using OEM jumpers from B&W
2 active subwoofers (which i rarely use)
multi-channel stereo

- 2 B&W Nautilus 804
- 2 B&W CDM7 NT
- 2 B&W CDM7 SE
- B&W ASW 3000 15" active subwoofer
- B&W ASW 1000 12" active subwoofer

Wow spectacular speakers !! I’m Not sure how much bi amplified speakers cost per speaker or if its worth it , bass generally needs more power then Mids or high . Better amplifier always will sound better then bi-amping , I’ m unsure why
Bi amp exists ? Maybe for ultra high end set ups?

Ultimate bass lover !! si ht15 dvc.
Free the reptile aliens

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well then, why bother? After all, given what you have now, recording quality should rank as high as speaker's quality, if not higher, preamp/amps would rank almost at the bottom in terms of upgrade priority, let along biamp vs not..

Dear PENG,

I want the utmost highest sound quality possible by bi-amping my speakers when listening to my utmost lowest quality MP3s from my iPhone.

P.S. Vinyls have the utmost best sound quality --- much better than SACD and BluRays, especially when bi-amping.

 

[richierey1]

Hello and thank you all for your replies. I don't quite know the etiquette on response, whether individual or just start an overall response, so for now I'll choose the latter.

ryanosaur - i don't have any external amps on hand and have thought about going the route of separates, but unfortunately that is an even more expensive option. As for the 110W, that is what the manual states per channel. Does the wattage of the AVR degrade as one utilizes more channels? I'm not sure. I may be naive, but i take the specs at their word. And yes, i am listening in multi-channel stereo. Thank you.

2channel lover - As far as what am i missing in terms of SQ ... honestly nothing, that i know of. And I guess that is why i ask the question. I honestly don't know what i don't know. I love my current setup. I have had my CDM 7 SEs for over 20 years. They were my first purchase at a Wilson Audio store when i was a 26 year old newly graduated math major and now having all three pairs performing in unison, the soundstage sounds gorgeous. Each have their own character which i can modify individually based on position, volume and tone. I appreciate that the SR6009 allows for this in multi-channel mode at the individual speaker level. Thank you.

slipperybidness - I'm not a sound engineer so i don't quite understand (at this time) the relationship between wattage and gain, but from your statement it looks to be a logarithmic scale (assuming db is dependent upon wattage). Homework for me. Thank you.

PENG - My typical reference distance is about 16.5 ft, 60 - 80 db depending upon input source and format. Vinyl typically needs more gain than Qobuz Hi-Res formats. I've just noticed that i don't have to turn the gain up as much (in general, as this is a relative scale) and the SQ appears to be "cleaner" when bi-amped. As stated before, it is negligible but perceived. As for recording quality ... I am WOWed with Hi-Res audio. I love Vinyl, but in terms of value (cost, quality, satisfaction), whatever Qobuz is doing I'm impressed. I asked my 15 year old son to sit and listen to several songs in order to compare Vinyl to CD to Spotify to Tidal and to Quobuz. His selections were consistently between Qobuz and Vinyl. I agreed with his responses, but wanted younger ears to validate my perception. Thanks.

Kingnoob - I have to ask ... what is a lizard alien and do they exit? ;-) Thank you.

AcuDefTechGuy - I was in that camp for many years, and to an extent still am. I just wish i could afford it. I agree analog will always be the standard reference upon which 1s and 0s will be judged (have they thought about applying quantum computing to sound waves yet?). But like i said, Hi-Res is amazing and not MP3. I appreciate the classic formats (vinyl, tape) and devices (tube amps) and always will. But for a 9-5 single dad who just wants to enjoy a glass of bourbon and the White Album by the fire at the end of the day and at the touch of a button ... the value of solid state is upon us and will only continue to improve. Thank you.

Thanks again to all.

 

[ryanosaur]

@ryanosaur - i don't have any external amps on hand and have thought about going the route of separates, but unfortunately that is an even more expensive option. As for the 110W, that is what the manual states per channel. Does the wattage of the AVR degrade as one utilizes more channels? I'm not sure. I may be naive, but i take the specs at their word. And yes, i am listening in multi-channel stereo. Thank you.

Much like my Marantz SR6013, as you add channels, you will decrease the wattage available to all. Denon specs 150w @ 8 ohms, 2 ch. driven. You could expect 80-90 w per channel, as a conservative estimate, running your main speakers bi-amped with two other pairs running on single amps, especially with all channels reproducing the same signal in multi channel stereo.

You can still use an AVR for the processing, but if you want juice for your speaker... though I am in the camp that looks upon this more as folly, you would need to invest in external amps.

Frankly, you should just get good external amps and connect traditionally with a single cable per speaker. My humble opinion.

But to achieve what you want, in a manner approaching what you described, you need external amplification.
If you need to biamp everything... get two 6-channel XPA from Emotiva, or two 7 channel Monolith or two 7-channel Outlaw.

Personally, Monoblocks are better still... one per speaker wired normally. You might be surprised. I use Outlaw 2200s to power my mains, center and surrounds, running my rears from the AVR (and soon my atmos speakers, too).

Though I'm not a proponent, I was very curious for a while. I chose not to after talking to several speaker designers that all said the same thing. It's a waste. *shrugs But if you want to, you want to... just make certain to do it right, otherwise, it's not just a waste "Buy-Amping" your gear, but you could blow it all too if you don't connect properly.

You should be looking at amps, at least for your mains, capable of delivering 250-300w clean power per channel. You might never use it, but the headroom is nice to have when you need it!

Cheers.

 

[lovinthehd]

You can maybe use the bench test of this Marantz avr rated similarly to yours to get an idea of the all channels driven ratings https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr6006-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures

 

[PENG]

You can maybe use the bench test of this Marantz avr rated similarly to yours to get an idea of the all channels driven ratings https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr6006-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures

According to Gene (who I believe got the number from Marantz), the 7 channel models should be able to deliver 70% of their rated output. That is, if the model is rated 100 W, the 7 channel driven output should do 70 W, approximately.

Just fyi, for reference purposes, on balance, the best ever output measured by S&V appeared to be the Denon AVR-4308CI (I owned that one haha..) One or two Onkyo/Integra might have done slightly better in one or two ways, and they were 10-12 lbs heavier too.

Denon AVR-4308CI A/V Receiver Measurements

This graph shows that the AVR-4308CI's left channel, from Multi input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reached 0.1% distortion at 198.6 watts and 1% distortion at 218.9 watts. The distortion level remained at or below 0.002% across all power levels until it reached about...

www.soundandvision.com

 

[Swerd]

I'm coming into this thread somewhat late, but I agree with ryanosaur, slipperybidness, 2channel lover, Peng, and all the others.

We often get questions about bi-amping from people who have a multi-channel AV receiver but who use fewer speakers in their system. They ask if they should convert those unused channels to bi-amp their front speakers. Apparently, AV receiver makers have built-in the ability to redirect the signal for the front left & right speakers into two unused channels, and they prominently tout that as an advantageous feature.

Bi-amping an AV receiver in such a manner is of no value at all. Why?

The limiting factor of any amplifier is the capability of its power supply transformer. In a sense, the power supply transformer acts like a car's engine, and the power output transistors act more like a car's transmission. If you want more power, you need a bigger power supply transformer. There is no way around this fact. With an AV receiver, you have one power supply transformer with its power divided among the various output channels. If you have 5 speakers and a 7 channel AV receiver, and convert 2 unused audio channels into a bi-amped 5 channel system, you haven't added any ability to deliver power. Only by adding external amps, with their additional power supply transformers can you deliver more power to speakers.

It's a real disservice that AV receiver makers tout the benefits of bi-amping in their manuals. It is wrong and causes a lot of confusion. It think it may stem from the fact that people pay a lot of money for their receivers and want to take advantage of those 2 unused channels if they have a 5 channel surround system.

It is important to understand what the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires when AV receiver makers state their amplifier power specifications. Look at what Marantz says in the owner’s manual for its SR6009 AV receiver. Look at page 266 for Specifications:

Front:
110 W + 110 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
150 W + 150 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)

Center:
110 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08% T.H.D.)
150 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)

Surround:
110 W + 110 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
150 W + 150 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)

Surround back / Front height/wide:
110 W + 110 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
150 W + 150 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.

First of all, pay attention only to the power ratings at 8 ohms, at the full audio frequency range of 20 Hz - 20 kHz. They're all 110 W. Ignore those higher power ratings of 150 W as they're done at lower impedance of 6 ohms, at a single frequency of 1 kHz, and at nearly 10-fold greater THD.

Note that these power ratings are all stated as 110 W + 110 W. The reason for this somewhat odd looking way of stating power is that the FTC requires power be rated when 2 channels are driven. What power is available when all channels are driven is not stated, nor is it required by the FTC (see section IIB in the third column). This receiver may be powerful enough when all channels are driven, but it certainly will not be as high as 110 watts per channel. Although nothing said in manual fails to comply with what the FTC requires, it still misleads nearly everyone who reads that.

In comparison, the Denon AVR-X8500H has these power ratings (below). Again, pay attention only to the power ratings at 8 ohms and at the full audio frequency range. Ignore the higher power ratings done at 6 ohms. And as above for the Marantz AVR, these power ratings are done when 2 channels are driven. It says nothing about when all channels are driven.

Front:
150 W + 150 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.05 % T.H.D.)
190 W + 190 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)

Center:
150 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.05 % T.H.D.)
190 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)

Surround:
150 W + 150 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.05 % T.H.D.)
190 W + 190 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)

Surround back / Height1 / Height2 / Height3 / Height4/Front wide:
150 W + 150 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.05 % T.H.D.)
190 W + 190 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)

So to return to the bi-amp question, when you drive 2 speakers with 4 amplifier channels instead of 2 with an AVR, how much power is available to the speakers? Short of doing your own measurements (if you had the right instruments), you won't know for certain. Those 3rd party measurements of all channels driven are probably the best available info.

With these AVRs, and probably most or all others, you are diverting the existing power available from one large power supply transformer to multiple outputs. You are not delivering greater power to your speakers. Let's briefly go back to the car engine & transmission analogy. In a 4-wheel drive vehicle, you have only one engine. It doesn't matter if you switch from 2-wheel drive to 4-wheel drive, you still have the same engine with the same power. This is similar to reassigning power outputs on an AVR, as you've done.

 

[Verdinut]

According to Gene (who I believe got the number from Marantz), the 7 channel models should be able to deliver 70% of their rated output. That is, if the model is rated 100 W, the 7 channel driven output should do 70 W, approximately.

FYI, the garanteed 70% of the 2 ch rated output for all channels driven is usually included in the specs which Marantz provide in the owner's manual or the listed specs on their website.

 

[lovinthehd]

Just in case the OP hasn't seen this article https://www.audioholics.com/frequent-questions/the-difference-between-biamping-vs-biwiring

 

[KEW]

Hello. This is my first post and I have a fairly simple question that centers around bi-amping. I understand that there are folk in the community that do not agree with the notion that there is an audible difference between traditional wiring and bi-amping, however i am one of those who respectfully disagrees. I have run both configurations (standard wiring with jumpers and bi-amping) and although there is not not an overwhelming difference, I can detect a "preferable" difference which brings me to my hypothetical question ... without having to shell out over $3000, what would I notice if I were to switch from a Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W (wired using OEM jumpers) to a Denon AVR-X8500H 13.2 channel 150W (bi-amped)?

Right out of the gate i can see a 40W difference and the extra channels would allow me the ability to bi-amp as preferred, but i guess my reservation (and thus the reason for my question) is ... would it be worth it?

Although i do have a turntable, about 80% of my listening material is streamed from my iphone via Qobuz.

I realize this is a subjective question, but for those who own a Denon 8500 or are subject matter experts in the field, your insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Here's my current configuration:

Panamax 5100 power conditioner
Marantz SR6009 7.2 channel 110W receiver

6 full range speakers
Wired using OEM jumpers from B&W
2 active subwoofers (which i rarely use)
multi-channel stereo

- 2 B&W Nautilus 804
- 2 B&W CDM7 NT
- 2 B&W CDM7 SE
- B&W ASW 3000 15" active subwoofer
- B&W ASW 1000 12" active subwoofer

If I had your gear, based on 2 Channel Lover's comment that your 804's are power hungry (as verified by this review:

Not only does its impedance reach a minimum value of 3 ohms at 108Hz, there is a combination of 4.5 ohms and a 53° capacitive phase angle at 72Hz, and the impedance remains below 4 ohms for much of the midrange and the top octave.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-amp-wilkins-804-diamond-loudspeaker-measurements#Df4T7jLygtDiPGWT.99

), knowing that you listen at 16.5' from the speakers and usually do not use your subwoofers ... it is entirely reasonable that you might be running out of juice while running all 6 channels full-range using multi-channel Stereo. You are essentially checking every box for how to provide the greatest load to your AVR (multi-channel stereo perhaps being the most significant).
It is generally established that bi-wiring is generally folly (and, IMHO, becomes a total non-starter when compared to spending the same money on a single channel with more power instead of a second channel with roughly the same power).
Consequently, I would recommend buying a pair of Outlaw 2200 monoblocks for your 804's, and use the 6009 to drive the other 4!
Based on your equipment and usage, I don't think anyone here would argue against this being an appropriate upgrade.
I am not familiar with your other speakers. If they are real power hogs, the 6009 may still not do the job, but I would consider driving 4 typical speakers with the Marantz a comfortable task!
Either way, the 2200's are a good step in the right direction!

PS Just to further make the case against bi-amping, it is likely that any issues you may experience are from the two situations quoted at 108Hz and 72Hz. While Bi-amping will free the amp which is feeding the upper frequencies from having to deal with these loads, the amp feeding the lower frequencies is still being overworked. It makes sense that using a more powerful amp that can accommodate these loads is a better solution than simply adding a separate amp for the highs while still incurring the same problem for the lows!

I mention the 2200 because I see it as the highest value add-on amp option if you need 2 channels. Here is a good thread on it if you like to research:

The popular Outlaw M2200 mono block power amp

As more people going beyond 5 channels, I can see the need for external power amps may also increase. The Outlaw Mono block M2200 and multi-channel amps, as well Monolith's and Emotiva''s seem to be the most recommended amps on this forum. For some strange reason, I cannot find my Adcom...

forums.audioholics.com

 

[PENG]

"Power hungry" or not, the 804s (any version) didn't seem to be designed to play at near reference level to 16.5 ft in a large room. They can do it but will struggle and likely won't sound too pleasant. If pushed to near or pass their limit with a powerful amp, the tweeter may be at risk.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

But for a 9-5 single dad who just wants to enjoy a glass of bourbon and the White Album by the fire at the end of the day and at the touch of a button ... the value of solid state is upon us and will only continue to improve. Thank you.

I actually don't use any Vinyls or even CDs since I also stream everything these days - music, TV, and movies.

But the point is, if that's all we want to do - enjoy a glass of bourbon and some favorite music at the end of the day after a long day of work - we don't need to bi-amp or bi-wire anything. Just enjoy.

 

[richierey1]

Wow. You guys (and gals?) really know your stuff. I appreciate all your responses and am learning so much. Here's what i've been able to summarize from all your comments thus far ...

1) No one sees any value-add in bi-amping.
(I kinda knew that going into this discussion, but now have a better appreciation for the rationale.)

2) My current system is good enough and I'm really not missing out on anything.
(However if i wanted to improve my system based on my listening preference, external amplification would be the recommended way to go as opposed to a new AVR.)

I've been reading about the Outlaw M2200 monoblocks you've mentioned and am extremely impressed with the specs. So for the way I listen to music (6 tower speakers running simultaneously in mutli-channel) a reasonable improvement would be to purchase at least 2 if not 6 Outlaw monoblock M2200 amplifiers (2 minimum for the 804s and perhaps 4 additional for the CDM7 NT/SEs) and use the Marantz AVR simply as a pre-amplifier. Am i correct on this assessment? Also would i need two additional monoblocks for my subwoofers, or could I run those from the AVR?

I've attached the info sheets to describe my gear in detail. Any direction on what is "power hungry" and what can be managed via the AVR would also be appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[lovinthehd]

Can we talk you out of using multich stereo or multiple stereo pairs in general?