No single best amplifier here. What decides it is what you have to drive, what you need to plug in, and how much of the system you want in one box.
| Area | Better | Why |
|---|
| Power | B | Advance Paris X-A160 EVO has more power - 160W against 100W into 8 ohms. That is about 2dB, so it plays usefully louder before it runs out and has more in hand on peaks. |
| Analogue inputs | A | Yamaha R-N1000A takes more analogue sources - 3 against 2. |
| Price | A | Yamaha R-N1000A costs less - $2,300 against $2,499 at list. |
| Watts per dollar | B | Advance Paris X-A160 EVO is the cheaper watt - about $16 per watt against $23. A blunt measure, and it says nothing about how either sounds, but it is the honest one for raw output. |
A Yamaha R-N1000A B Advance Paris X-A160 EVO
depends neither is better in the abstract - it turns on your room, your system or how you will use them. Only specs published for both amplifiers are judged; anything missing on either side is left out rather than guessed.
Which should you choose?
The usual trade-off: Advance Paris X-A160 EVO measures better, Yamaha R-N1000A costs about 8% less. With most speakers in most rooms that gap is smaller in practice than it looks here. Start with the room. In a large or open-plan room, or with speakers that are hard to drive - low sensitivity, or an impedance that dips - Advance Paris X-A160 EVO has the headroom, and headroom is what stops an amplifier hardening up on peaks. At desk distance or in a small room, 100 watts is already more than most people ever use, and the extra 60 watts would be headroom you pay for and never hear.
What a spec sheet cannot show: how either sounds with your speakers, how the controls feel day to day, and what the app is like to live with - which is where most all-in-one amplifiers are actually won or lost. Power figures are the manufacturers' own and are not measured to a common standard, so treat small differences as noise. If you can hear both, that will tell you more than any row above.