Anyone have any experience with either of these HT receivers? The 350 appears to be very similar to the 300, but has improved the pre-amp section, includes HDMI upconverting and video switching, and has a substantially improved transformer. Both are reviewed very favorably and the 350 is seen as a step-up feature wise and sound-wise. It gets extremely good reviews for its handling of both 2 channel material and HT applications. I understand at $2500 there are a lot of options available and i would certainly consider what other things you guys might suggest as well. I'm looking for the best compromise i can get in HT and 2 channel performance...and space is a consideration, so while i know there are some options in separates, I'm not sure it's that feasible.
Arcam and reviewers refer to the 100wpc output and talk about it as "real world power" and continuous power output. I'm not really sure what they are referring to. 100wpc is a bit weak to be pushing the B&W 804's, but if this idea of real world power and continuous output is actually something that means it's going to perform similarly to higher power rated amps, then it's not an issue. additionally, this is a 7.1 channel amp and the 2 additional surround channels can be reassigned to bi-amp the front 2 channels, which is something that drew me to this amp to begin with. How does 100wpc bi-amped compare against simply bi-wiring higher-powered amps?
also, anyone have experience with other arcam gear and/or have recommendations on where to buy (DC or NYC preferable)? it seems it is not widely distributed.
In the end, i understand that purchasing a HT receiver is always a compromise. based on my research, this seems like a pretty solid compromise for both HT and 2-channel performance as well as pushing pretty demanding speakers that i do not think i am getting the most out of right now.