for starters, I think the RR2150 is higher than entry level (which I would consider the $200-400 range... this is getting into "most who want hi fi will probably blow some portion of money on perceived performance that may or may not be there because we like the idea of it" moreso than entry level.
Hm. You are not exaggerating? As for the pertinence to any particular consumer, KEW uses nicer stuff as far as speakers are concerned. I wouldn't trust any $200 unit to power my stereo, but I would have no qualms at all about powering them with the Outlaw. Likewise, I'm not sure I'd trust a $200 unit to power higher end Focals/Signatures/SongTowers, etc, but i would trust the Outlaw to do just fine (I'm pretty sure KEW has had these speakers at his place?).
Second, It's true that a modern state-of-the-art surround receiver with the amp channels to compete with the outlaw would likely be "overkill" in the sense of relative cost-to-performance . However if you start looking into something even a few years old, for the cost of the RR21.... the thing about a surround receiver is that the older it gets, its value declines rapidly because of the addition of features - whereas stereo receivers rarely even get updates. So for, give or take, the cost of the outlaw - granted without the same warranty, I'd definitely be as willing to look into a something like a marantz sr7002
Oh, I didn't know we were talking about used items. Ok, right, this is the first mention of used market in this thread. Well, you can still save by purchasing a used Outlaw, perhaps a couple hundred, though no, not a +50% discount. There is also the yin for the yang here, as if you still intended on a new (or used) Outlaw, that you get more of your money back when you intend to sell it. After all, 5 yr transferable.
BTW, I have often recommended used AVRs "or anything" from garage sales and clist for those with ultra low budgets. But, is ultra low budget the key point of our discussion here?
http://www.accessories4less.com/index.php?page=search&search_query=sr7002&x=0&y=0
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/marantz-sr7002-hdmi/measurements-analysis-report
then with all things considered, you have to really ask yourself
"what does the outlaw offer me, which the marantz does not"
as well as
"what does the marantz offer me, which the outlaw does not"
The marantz costs as much as the Outlaw. The Outlaw would be new, with that great warranty.
I checked Ebay and Audiogon too. Didn't see any at the 'gon.
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=marantz+sr7002
My bias would tell me the stereo receiver has better channel separation and lower noise floor and all that probably subjective BS we're all prone to. That of course puts me in the category of "spend way more than I need to". Who here hasn't seriously considered mono blocks and dedicated prepros only to stop their credit car hand when they realise the signal to noise ratio is 4db lower than something that costs 30% more. Pointlessly obsessive compulsive but entry level stereo receivers just don't feel right.
Uh. Hm. No comment.
In the category of "I just want two quality speakers and a receiver to drive them properly" there's absolutely nothing wrong with losing a few watts and going down an SR5004 refurb for only $350 with arguably more functionality and preamplifier outputs. Why a $350 7 channel 90wpc receiver over a more robust stereo receiver? A better question is "why not".
OK, I guess everyone should get a 5004. I mean, why not?
It's not that a stereo receiver doesn't fit into any of these categories, just that the market really dictates profitability. That's why manufacturers will focus on the surround receivers at entry level... because they are more profitable.
Here, I believe you are incorrect. The entry surround receivers make next to nothing (or maybe in fact nothing) for the companies. The bargain basement price point is so entirely competitive, that the main goal is simply market share. They will sacrifice profits in order to achieve that market share, if I understood what M Code has taught me in the past. Anyways, I don't think this topic is really salient to the discussion.
This is why I cringe every time someone tells a newbie not to waste money on a $300 AVR or a $75 used AVR for stereo, and to instead buy a $200-300 stereo receiver. The average newbie isn't going to have a clue how to manage bass using their subwoofer or have the tools (tones and meter) to do it with.
Even if I were to capitulate to your argument, I don't think KEW would fall into this category.
Getting into something like the outlaw is a different story but let's face it it really doesn't bring a lot more to the party than a similar priced AVR.
But if I don't care for HDMI inputs, video scaling/upconversion/transcoding, multiple DACs for the 8 channels, multiple power supplies . . I wouldn't mind sacrificing all of that for even a moderate increase in headroom, as far as my stereo is concerned. This is even when assuming that all of the parts, capacitors, heat dissipation, analog transparency, perceived reliability, length of warranty, and ease and quality of resale value were all equal. Yep, even if all those things were equal, I personally would give up all of that unnecessary crap in order to gain just a tad more headroom. Am I stupid for thinking that way?
