Who makes AV receivers that concentrate on quality rather than gimmicks?

Participant

Participant

Participant

Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
34,568
Location
Warwickshire
Looking around at the various AV receivers on offer, almost everyone seems to be pouring money into making sure their receiver supports 7.2, has umpteen HDMI slots, has netwoking with DLNA etc. etc.

My question is - why are more manufacturers not recognising that 5.1 is adequate for 90% of people and that what people (well, me anyway) really want is something that has had more money invested in build and sound quality?

I'd far rather they gave me an amp with 3 HDMI slots, 5.1 and DTS-HD decoding and spent the rest of the money on the amplification instead of having fifteen million input jacks and five hundred sound presets.

Does anyone else find this or am I a lone voice?
Which manufacturers should I look at if I want to buy a new AV receiver that reflects the above?
 
because there are tons of amps that produce good quality 5.1 audio with 3 HDMI slots and do DTS-HD encoding. So they do something to try and stand out.

Pioneer, Denon, Sony, Onkyo all produce cracking receivers.

One of the best mid range Amps is the Onkyo SR608

http://www.whathifi.com/review/onkyo-tx-sr608

no DLNA media streaming however. Most of them that do that are around £1000 or more.
 
Last edited:
Potentially stupid question, but why are they even necessary if your TV itself supports HDMI and Toslink input? How will the amp affect sound quality, and is that the only thing it's used for?
 
MrLOL you just linked to exactly what I'm talking about, an amp with 7/9.2 and loads of unnecessary connections.

I'm not talking about why don't more amps have 5.1 instead of 4.0, I'm asking why more amps aren't 5.1 instead of 7.1. That way manufacturers could plough more money into components rather than into features that most people will never need.

E.g. 3D. Until no-glasses 3D is mainstream, keep your 3D and give me better components please.
 
because adding support for 7.1 ultimately costs little

By ditching it you aren't going to get massive ammounts of extra features with the money saved.
 
Zid_ said:
Potentially stupid question, but why are they even necessary if your TV itself supports HDMI and Toslink input? How will the amp affect sound quality, and is that the only thing it's used for?
Click to expand...

Why are what even necessary? Co-ax etc?

MrLOL said:
because adding support for 7.1 ultimately costs little

By ditching it you aren't going to get massive ammounts of extra features with the money saved.
Click to expand...

Ditch 7.1.
Ditch DLNA.
Ditch three million HDMI inputs.
Ditch 3D.

All of the above would save significant build costs surely?
 
Somewhat related, I don't understand why you can by an av amp with hdmi and processing etc for 150 which does not have pre outs so you can avoid using the (cheap) inboard amplification, but if you want preouts you have to spend ****loads on a high end amp just so you can Not use it's higher quality amps. This is backwards.

Also where are the 100 quid av processors with no amps on them? Seriously you have to pay loads for like a meridian or an arcam when the features I need are bundled in every cheap amp except for pre outs.

If someone can show me a cheap processor only or av amp with preoits for less than 200 I'd be all over it like a rash
 
probably not, but it would make their model seem crap compared to the competitors and the only person they'd impress is you, assuming you needed an amp at that specific time, and liked the sound of it and had the money.
 
Robbie G said:
Why are what even necessary? Co-ax etc?



Ditch 7.1.
Ditch DLNA.
Ditch three million HDMI inputs.
Ditch 3D.

All of the above would save significant build costs surely?
Click to expand...

most of the < £500 amps don't even have DLNA.

HDMI inputs and 7.1 inputs cost nothing. Thats why even a £350 amp has 6 HDMI and 7.1. Heck my £400 amp from 5 years ago had 7.1

The only potentially expensive thing is 3D support, but you simply cannot get away from that. The whole industry is possessed by it.

What is it you're actually looking for, ultimately, what is it you can't find ?
 
MrLOL said:
because there are tons of amps that produce good quality 5.1 audio with 3 HDMI slots and do DTS-HD encoding. So they do something to try and stand out.

Pioneer, Denon, Sony, Onkyo all produce cracking receivers.

One of the best mid range Amps is the Onkyo SR608

http://www.whathifi.com/review/onkyo-tx-sr608

no DLNA media streaming however. Most of them that do that are around £1000 or more.
Click to expand...

The 609 has DLNA and is replacing the 608, looks like it'll be about £500.

As for the OP, personally I'd rather have a receiver that's fully-featured and still offers excellent sound quality, rather than one that's stripped bare but sound a little bit better. Functionality is important for a receiver, otherwise there's really no point having one.
 
Digital electronics are damn cheap, and easily add lots of features for little money. Analogue electronics aint cheap! They will all pile on as many features as they can, because if it comes down to it and your comparing like for like at a given price point the extra HDMI might swing your decision.
 
If quality is the way forward, then look for a secondhand pre/processor and then buy 5 channels of power amps. Something like an Audiolab 8000AP and 3x Behringer A500's would be in the region of a grand...
 
I think the answer is upgradability.

Users want access to the features whilst maybe not using them right from the start.

I have just got a second hand TX-SR607, only difference between that and the 608 is the HDMI1.4 spec (3D).

I don't need that now. And probably wont for some considerable time. But the 7.2, I probably will upgrade to as time passes. maybe not the two subs as my neighbour might object to that, but the additional speakers yes. Or I could hook them up outside and have music from the amp on the deck for BBQ's etc.

Options, options.
 
Denon and Onkyo are excellent receivers. They offer ones for most budgets.

Currently got the Onkyo 905 which weighs a ton but is glorious.
 
Zid_ said:
The AV receiver itself.
Click to expand...

You use a receiver in conjunction with a speaker system. Most TVs can't process 5.1, DTS etc etc so a receiver is needed if you want surround sound. They also provide a nice 'hub' for connecting all your sources to, again something that many TVs aren't particularly competent at managing properly.
 
3 HDMI just isnt enough, i have the following all connected via HDMI

PS3
Xbox 360
Sky HD
PC
3D Bluray Player

As for 7.1 it does go someway to help with quality when you can use the extra channels to bi-amp your current fronts.

I was amazed with the jump in quality when i went from my old Denon 1910 to my current 2311.
 
+1

I personally dont think 4 HDMI is enough and I dont even have a console on my main setup

HD pvr/ Sky
Streamer (Popcorn Hour)
BR player
Hd-DVD player

I also have BT vision which I use sometimes for ESPN

So I could concievably use 6 HDMI inputs (including my ps3)....and thats before I get Sky itself (given the reasonably limitied storage on pvr's for HD, and being encrypted, it would be useful to have two HD tv recorder - especiallly when F1 starts this weekend)

I would personally kill for a decent 5.1 amp with 6 hdmi's , 2 outputs, and a decent remote (DNLA adds nothing for me, and Im not interested in 3D at all, but I know these abilites are likely to be tacked onto any new amp/reciever I buy in the future)
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
What is it you're actually looking for, ultimately, what is it you can't find ?
Click to expand...

Something that doesn't make me feel like I'm paying for lots of things I know I won't use. It's a good point about buying a pre-amp then per channel power amps...

3D doesn't interest me as it's only really good at IMAX imo. I only need two HDMI inputs as all I need is my V+ box, my HTPC can handle Blu-ray, gaming and music.

Whilst I can see why some people need 4+ HDMI slots, they seem to be the ones that have a separate unit for each duty. I.e. separate Blu-ray player, 2 consoles, streamers, etc. My setup by contrast is such that PVR and TV duties are handled by the Virgin box and everything else including Blu-ray is handled by my HTPC.

If manufacturers really don't save much by cutting back on expansion options then fair enough, my point is moot. I just don't want to feel I'm paying for something that I know I'll never use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom