What features would you give up for a more audio centric A/V receiver?

[gene]

Guys;

Based on my article:

Trading Amplifier Quality for Features - A New Trend in A/V Receivers?

I propose that some of our favorite brands come out with a line of Audio centric A/V receivers available only through Specialty Outlets.

I suggest price points from $600 - $1500 that will support all of the latest audio codecs but only offer Video pass thru for component and HDMI.

If you think this is a good idea, you need to be vocal here as I will send this out to the major manufacturers after it has enough responses.

Please share your thoughts by replying and also participating in our poll. Please also invite other forums to come here and participate.

Thanks.

[bandphan]

Nice poll Gene. I know alot of people complian about the legacy connections, but ivè found that hdmi problems occur that can be the only way to trouble shoot

[gene]

Nice poll Gene. I know alot of people complian about the legacy connections, but ivè found that hdmi problems occur that can be the only way to trouble shoot

Agreed though I think composite video is more useful than s-video. I have tons of rca cables and a handful of s-video. So I'd rather give up s-video over composite.

I forgot to add the option of auto room correction but I think most companies would leave that in as a perk, especially if its their own design like YPAO for Yamaha and MCAA for Pioneer.

[STRONGBADF1]

This should be done!

How many use 1/2 the features we are paying for? I don't need the extra DSP's. I don't want my room to sound like the Roxy. I want it to sound like the recording. I don't want THX certification. It just costs me more money. Audioholics (and others) will let us know if it's up to snuff.

If I spend $750-$1000 on a receiver I want the money going into the amp section, connections (quality and versatility), EQ/room correction, bass management, "pure direct mode" and all the standard decoding. There's just too much fluff in the current "midfi" receivers.

What I really don't under stand is that sound quality (& video quality) should be number one, and that to me means better amps and chips first. Then add options to higher end models. At least offer a mid-dollar receiver with great processing that is compatible with a separate high power amp that doesn't cost an arm and a leg!

I think Gene is right. Offer a separate product line of "Hot Rod" products. Stripped down and powerful!

Thanks for the opportunity to speak my mind.

-SBF1

[Gary S.]

DSP modes are a waste as far as I'm concerned. I have never, ever , used them. Same thing with extra zones. Personally, I only need 1. I agree with the video pass through. Leave the video work to the Blu-ray player.

[Jeepers]

This is already mentioned in my post 35 of the original thread but is a price point from $600 - $1500 realistic ? What is the ratio in % of the price of an AV receiver/amp for following items; audio; video; features; licences ?
Taking my example of the Z11 and let's keep the 140 watts per channel and let's assume a price of $5500. What are the individual costs ?

[jostenmeat]

DSP modes are a waste as far as I'm concerned. I have never, ever , used them. Same thing with extra zones. Personally, I only need 1. I agree with the video pass through. Leave the video work to the Blu-ray player.

DSP modes was the only thing I left unchecked. I am in the same boat as you as far as only caring about one zone.

When I did some preliminary research on displays some time ago, I noticed the "commerical" plasmas, where the consumer chooses which connections to add. However, I don't think it was any cheaper. While it would be nice to custom order the few connections I need on a receiver, I am positive that it would only be more expensive, not less, even as bare bones. Economies of scale. Oh well.

[mperfct]

I just wrote Tom about this last week...

I think it's a terrific idea. I would think most consumers that buy >$500 receivers typically own some nicer source components or own displays with very competent scaler/de-interlacers. I really believe a majority of receivers have either weak video processors or poorly implemented v.p.'s.

That is one reason I like the Pioneer Elites and their lack of video processing. Don't touch my HDMI signal. At all. I'd take it a step further and get rid of all of those s-video/composite inputs as well. Maybe keep one or two of each. If I have a mid-fi receiver, chances are pretty small I'm watching VCR tapes anymore.

*speaking of which, I need to get that wedding tape put on DVD*.

[bandphan]

If you dont have a highend display, there are very few avrs with proper video applications that would make a difference. I want unaltered signals to my displays. Ivè been saying for quite some time that avrs are about features and benfits. Buy a 600*900 avr add external power and video processing. (if one cares about video )

[Kai]

I think it must be a bit rough on the brands at this moment. Trying to put in all the newest, shiniest along with keeping old connections, etc. for those that may want/need them etc.

For me I would rather have a receiver that offers more and better quality power/amplifiers, quality speaker connections and quality electronics. I do not need or want all the connection options...I only have the receiver, speakers, tv and blu-ray dvd player...I do not use the many and varied audio dsp's, etc. for music or tv/movies...I usually prefer "Pure Direct" when listening to a music cd or 7 speaker mode when entertaining with light background music. For movies I usually use straight surround though I may play around with "sci-fi/spectacle" mode depending on the movie and codecs offered...my Yamaha 659 does not have the latest codecs so my choices are a bit more limited...When watching TV I usually let the network signal do its' thing. I would say I am satisfied with what I hear/see from the High Def channels.

To sum it up: Brands that would offer better quality, more power and less "gewgaws" would get my money rather than a brand the offers everything to everyone whether you want it/ned it or not.