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

What features would you give up for better amplifier quality in a A/V receiver?

  • Legacy connections (ie. S-video, composite video)

    Votes: 103 64.4%
  • DSP Modes (not including PLIIx / DTS Neo)

    Votes: 91 56.9%
  • HDMI Video processing & Upscaling

    Votes: 41 25.6%
  • Network streaming / XM Radio / Net Radio / etc

    Votes: 84 52.5%
  • THX Certification

    Votes: 89 55.6%
  • Multi Zone features beyond Zone 2

    Votes: 132 82.5%

  • Total voters
    160
emorphien

emorphien

Audioholic General
An interesting idea but not one I'd disagree with.

When I build my next system I would rather let the receiver switch inputs, tune the radio (net radio isn't a bad idea), and drive the speakers. HDMI switching is fine, I wouldn't want no video connections but I'd not be looking to have the receiver upconvert or do any other various things. HDMI, maybe a couple s-Video and a couple composite. Having some sVideo and Composite are good for trouble shooting if HDMI goes nuts as someone else mentioned.

As far as multi zones I have never used that so I couldn't say. DSP modes are neat and all but I never really use them either. I never really cared about THX certification, I want quality, not badges. If that quality can be reached without paying extra for a badge then I'm fine without it.

Auto room-eq can help sound quality for some folks so I do think that's a useful feature to keep.
 
jliedeka

jliedeka

Audioholic General
I don't care about DSP modes. I've tried playing some 2 channel stuff with them and it is interesting but if I could save a few bucks, I could definitely live without that. Also, I could do without 2 or 3 zones. I just care about the room my AVR is in. I think a couple of legacy inputs would be good but I don't need composite for every channel. I also don't care about any HDMI processing in the receiver. I let my TV do the scaling. I just want video switching and being able to handle bitstreams and PCM over HDMI.

THX certification is interesting. Since the spec is proprietary, I can't be absolutely sure what it means. Based on a really good article I read at Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity, I think the spec is a fairly good guide. Amplifiers have to be able to drive 4ohm loads which is a good thing, even for THX Select.

Jim
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
THX certification... not required and it doens't make the receiver sound better

Networking...........not required in my setup and offers little value to me

Multizone.............it may be nice to have in futur,,thinking of a speaker setup with the planned hotub outside but for now, I'll pass on this

DSP..................... I do like teh sports mode for watching NHL games but I would pass this up for a beefier amp section

Those are the ones I'm willing to pass up on.
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
Just give me my sound and let my PJ take care of the pictures:mad:

I hate all these bells and whistles too. Only AS XT and a couple of other things need to be on my receiver. However. I doubt the cost is very high to add all these connections. And most models are just modded from previous versions. So in the end I could Care Less.
 
davidtwotrees

davidtwotrees

Audioholic General
Audio First!

Just give me my sound ......:mad:..........
I hate all these bells and whistles too. ...... So in the end I could Care Less.
The above quote carries my sentiments........
I caved and tried out a Yammie 663. I thought it was cheesey plastic filled with cheesey gimmicks that I didn't need. I am not a tekkie. I am not a geek. I don't want to buy audio equiptment to play with little menus and sound modes. Heck, I think 7.1 is a waste of money unless you have a large room.
I don't even want a tuner.

I bought an Older HK receiver that is being used as a prepro....it is simple and easy to use. but now I'm dismayed to find that it might not have the right setup to properly preamp out for my external amp?!!
 
gixxerific

gixxerific

Audioholic
All I want is good clean power, maybe a wide band EQ, None of that rock arena or hall sound crap that no one in their right mind woud ever use.

HDMI inputs and throughputs, with video switching.
 
E

Exit

Audioholic Chief
I would get rid of video processing in the receiver and simply route all video signals to the TV for video processing. Better yet, I would like to connect all video inputs directly to the TV first and have a TV HDMI output to feed the latest audio codecs from any source to the receiver for processing. (They could disable any TV video output if they want.) This way when you want to listen to the TV speakers alone you can. If you want to hear the latest surround sound you can turn on the receiver and turn down the TV volume. I am basically doing this now with the optical outputs from my HDMI source devices. I don’t want to be forced to turn on my receiver just to watch TV with TV sound only.

I would keep a lot of optical inputs in the mean time and do away with S-video. I would like Audyssey on my next receiver that means I will have to give up on Yamaha.
 
mr-ben

mr-ben

Audioholic
I checked them all - I don't need very much in a receiver.

But I wonder what the cost is of those things. A better amplifier section has definite costs associated with it, but what are the savings of cutting out s-video connections, or DSP modes? I can see some savings for skipping THX and video processing, but the others are all just software or cheap connectors. The DSP is already going to be there to decode DTS-MA and other codecs.
 
agarwalro

agarwalro

Audioholic Ninja
2 or 5 or 7 channels
50 or 250 or 500 wpc
Audessy or ARC or DXC2496
HQV or Realta or none

When it comes to AV, I subscribe to the philosophy "don't make my choices for me, because invariably, they come with compromises you made for yourself", so I picked all options.

Legacy connections (ie. S-video, composite video)
Get them out of there. Needlessly making my processor back panel look like a space shuttle cabin! Maybe, if at all, leave one on the front, since that is where I am most likely to need one.

DSP Modes (not including PLIIx / DTS Neo)
I have never used or liked a single one, except 7 Ch Stereo for FM while I read a book. I am in my HT, not in a "stadium". If the 5.1 or 7.1 source track is not immersive enough, what makes you think your processing will make it any better.

HDMI Video processing & Upscaling
In the event that I am not running my video sources directly to my displays AND only if you can give me the level of processing provided by a quality dedicated video processing unit. E.g. Integra DHC 9.9

Network streaming / XM Radio / Net Radio / etc
I'd keep network streaming there for sheer convenience and not having to get a separate unit for it. But then again, those 128kbps MP3 sound so compressed compared to the real thing, I only use them for my driving, jogging and workout sessions. And if I have a HTPC or Music Server, it will use an audio out that is most probably digital.

THX Certification
TH-who? and they are certifying what? Out the window! Throw another sticker and media gimmick out. Just because your RCA connections are color coded and not just labeled "1", "2", "3".. does not make them sound any better. If I don’t have a THX reference room and THX speakers in the THX designated locations, what is your "THX Certified" setting of 80Hz for my crossovers achieving.

Multi Zone features beyond Zone 2
Today I use only the main zone since I have no use for the rest. In the future, when I have a house, if my HT is
1) on a different floor than the other listening area
2) on the other end of the house thereby requiring long in-wall cable runs
3) in a house not already wired for whole house audio-video
it is highly unlikely that I will run the other zone from the main HT, since, it will be less complicated and maybe even cost effective to just have a separate system in the other listening area.

I'd like to see a bare bones AV processor and the capablity to add or change whatever I want. I will happily pay a premium for it but not the year's paycheck.
 
Biggiesized

Biggiesized

Senior Audioholic
Isn't the THX option sort of counter-intuitive? I mean, if it is THX certified (like Ultra2 Plus), then isn't that an indication that you'll have a better amplifier?
 
agarwalro

agarwalro

Audioholic Ninja
Isn't the THX option sort of counter-intuitive? I mean, if it is THX certified (like Ultra2 Plus), then isn't that an indication that you'll have a better amplifier?
To obtain THX certification, the amp must meet certain standards. Therefore, a THX certified device is bound to have specs that will meet the reqirements of all but the most demanding users and "audiophilles".

Is THX certified better than non THX certified? Some of the more expensive and some less expensive yet exemplary equipment and speakers are rarely THX certified. I believe that speaks volumes.

Like I said earlier, THX Certification has become a marketing gimmic to attract the less knowledgable and the folks that must have the latest and greatest.
 
VERTIGGO

VERTIGGO

Audioholic Intern
I agree! I did leave THX unchecked but basically since I use a high end HTPC, all I want the receiver to do is amplify the sound with a high SNR and a few other things like phase control and individual crossovers.
 
Lordoftherings

Lordoftherings

Banned
I cut out a nice THX logo from a glossy magazine, and I apply a transparent tape over it, and I put a double side sticker on the back.
Then I put it in the best spot on the front panel of my Denon AVR-3805.
Voila! It looks so cool, and I feel so proud now with my very good job.

Bob
 
F

farout

Audioholic Intern
farout here

i have a dennon avr 2700 running my hp elite p.c. and i have a dennon avr 4800 thx surround ex holding my home theater together. lots of streaming video and smooth audio. next venture media center what a hobby. i started years ago with a crystal radio i put together to listen in my bedroom at my parents home. many years of experence and lots of set ups.i learned one thing . everybodys ear is different and can only hear at certain levels of hearing. so much money is wasted on sounds we cant not even hear. today kids will not be able to hear later on with so much on the market. look out car audio.i should talk. i was told the same thing. i am living today with a hiss that comes and goes in one ear. nothing can be done. i wonder were that came from? farout and thanks for havin me.
 
yettitheman

yettitheman

Audioholic General
Ah yes.
Well, I've never been one to exactly follow the status quo. However, features like HDMI capabilities are something that I would gladly amass to.

Honestly, I find the older equipment to be better built in some respects, and have much better audio quality in general.
One case in point are older Fender amplifiers from the 50's-70's. Old tube amps, point to point circuitry, heavy construction. Equipment that was built to last.
Now, the newer models of some of the "reissues" are made in Mexico, the amp plates seem lighter, circuit boards that are supposed to handle 6V6 current and voltage (reference to the Deluxe Reverb which can have about 480VAC plate voltage :eek: ). Doesn't add up to me. I'll keep my original '69 thank you. :D

To me, it makes sense. The business trend today versus what was even ten years ago has vastly changed in the electronics market. Remember computers? They were starting to move to plastic cases, but a lot of the 386's I worked with were still metal, 10 lbs or more tanks. Televisions, like our old RCA Colortrack 2000, were still assembled or made in Japan (IIRC) (save for the picture tube which came out of good old Marion, IN) lasted for 17 or so years, and weighed quite a considerable amount. VHS players were still on the market that had build quality and performance that warranted (IMO) repair should something go wrong, as opposed to the VCR's that come out of China weighing less than a loaf of bread (oops, that's DVD players, but still applicable).

And, what of audio equipment you say?
In many ways, I view the midrange/upper end of audio equipment of the 90's to be very well thought out and excellent performing (obviously there will be exceptions in every category fathomable). Some would say the 70's were better in terms of audio equipment; in certain instances, I agree. But, it was really a year in which I look at and go "THD wars".

However, it was also a time in which audio reproduction became widely popular, and also brought about by advances in transistor technology. See: cheaper and better sounding with advancement.
I tend to avoid most 80's instances with logic control, as they didn't quite get the hang of it.
The 90's though. Transistor technology was pretty much stable, integration of logic control was pretty much sorted out, and DSP was starting to come out (but still useless to me). I forgot where I was going with this so fill in this sentence with an enlightening story about kittens saving the world, or making a Wendy's Premium Fish Sandwich.

But, even so, more nowadays, 90's equipment or even newer equipment can be had for cheap just because of the "throw it away" and upgrade schema.
But, to me, the price of performance, durability, quality, and performance can't be matched with newer equipment. I just wish my DSP-A1000 had HDMI, and I would probably be in bliss. :D
 
P

Phaselinear77

Enthusiast
tading features for amp quality

You are heading in the right direction with this suggestion; I hope the AV marketing listens and begins heading in the right direction as well.

1. There is a "market niche" for better preamp and amplifier quality. Formerly, separates were the only way to go for a particular level of quality beyond mass market receivers. Today, it is entirely possible (high-end market segment notwithstanding) to fill the demand for exceptional quality engineering in an AVR without sacrificing audio quality.

2. Pre and amp must be able to produce sound in keeping with the quality of speakers purchased by many quality-oriented listeners today. Such is not the case with the sacrifices being made in pre/amp sections.

3. User surveys and other data should confirm the niche if the companies are alert to customer desires and usable features.

4. Customer expectation managment is key here:manufacturers should not "dumb down" EE specs in the present manner, as it has only created a pseudo customer expectation, now assumed to be the reality, due to apathetic market segment which in fact has been established only my the manufactures themselves, not the actual customer demand and market segment.
 
Lordoftherings

Lordoftherings

Banned
What you guys think about the two new Rotel receivers?

Check it out to see what they are omitting and still give you that is totally useless (bunch of composite and S-video inputs).
And they claim to be an audiophile receiver, without a Phono input, no headphone jack, no SACD though HDMI!...
No Ethernet, no Internet, no XM radio, no Sirius radio, no HD radio, no automatic room calibration, no USB ports... No THX of course, forget Audyssey, prehistoric video processor (Faroudja) that degrades picture if you use it; it seems to me that it is obsolete even before they release it!
Should they have waited for Dolby Pro Logic IIz? Mmmm...Just kidding.

But they have a bunch of composite video outputs along with their S-Video counterparts, and lots of 12v triggers...HDCD of course, Zone 2 & 3 of course, preouts for all channels of course, 7.1-multichannel analog input (bass management probably absent), 4 HDMI inputs and one out.
Oh ya, all gold plated connectors, and 5 channels of amplification (75 watts x 5 for the RSX-1550). The RSX-1560 is 100 watts x 7 channels.

The RSX-1550 and the RSX-1560.

You can read a review of the Rotel RSX-1550 here:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/receivers/rotel_rsx-1550_av_receiver/

I love to know your impressions.

Bob
 
Last edited:
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top