7.1 Receivers With 9 Pairs of Binding Posts?

[BMXTRIX]

What's up with that? It seriously is something I see all the time these days and I don't really get it.

Why do so many current AV receivers advertise a 7.1 or 5.1 yet they have a long string of binding posts on the back that don't match up to the number of channels of amplification that they actually are able to provide?

Example: Yamaha RX-V683
https://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/yamrxv683bl/yamaha-rx-v683-7.2-ch-x-90-watts-a/v-receiver/1.html

Someone please help me understand the real world purpose of these extra connections.

 

[lovinthehd]

To offer different types of 7.1 audio (rear surrounds vs front height vs wide) was one reason....

 

[ryanosaur]

Doesn’t look like this one offers the processing for 9 channels with pre-outs like some do... my Marantz has 11 channel processing but only 9 channel amplification along with the extra binding posts for assignable channels: as long as I use at least one external stereo amp I can do 7.2.4... or bi-amp, etc.
It seems to me like an extension of the same conversation re AVPs and the mega-channel offerings(up to 16) and the new AVRs offering 13 channels. Or speakers coming with 2 sets of binding posts (I even saw a quote from Jim Salk to the effect that he puts them on his speakers because if he didn’t they wouldn’t be perceived of being as valuable).
It has that same feeling, as a forced expectation from the marketing team, that more binding posts increases perceived value.

 

[slipperybidness]

9 is clearly better than 7........i.e. marketing

 

[BMXTRIX]

I think that's really it. It is entirely marketing, but it isn't clear at all what the connections really offer or how it is to be setup.

I get it with Atmos and proper effects channels that some receivers do NOT have the amplification that you need for a complete setup.

But, this, I just don't get it beyond marketing, yet it's not like they are going 'FULL 11 CHANNEL CONNECTIVITY!!!'. No, they are just there. Worthless extra binding posts. I suppose with the old days of 'A-B' speakers this may be considered similar. But, it still strikes me as very weird as it seems to have even less purpose anymore.

I suppose for .01% of people out there, they may find some use.

 

[ryanosaur]

It definitely confused me... only thing I can think is it was less expensive for them to set it up that way than to have a digital switch inside and associated software to process the assignability. As it stands, I can only guess that the last group of binding posts there are either on or off, with the added assignability of height or bi-amp for that last optional set. *shrugs is that easier to implement/less expensive to build? Perhaps they tried the other way but had qa issues?
???