I don't think it is just an age thing though. I think that part of the problem is that the AV sector drained the enthusiasm of many people with over rapid product cycles, inescapable obsolescence, and heartbreaking depreciation.Those who enjoyed the rise of av in the 90s an 00s (like me) are getting older and are not as enthusiastic about it as we once were...just an age thing.
It's ideal for spiders. They deserve to live somewhere.The biggest problem, at least for me, is a cable mess.
I don't plan on upgrading my Denon x3500h. Good enough imo. Don't also plan any special cinema arrangements of my apartmen (e.g. adding atmos), so I am just going to finish the Monitor Audio Silver 200AV route. Well, maybe except for the sub, as some ppl are suggesting getting REL instead.It's ideal for spiders. They deserve to live somewhere.
Behind my cabinet is a mess, a real rat's nest of cables. I bought into the AV all in one when it first began to come out and gave my music separates away. A decision I soon came to regret and have since added further separates to run the music side adding to that nest of wires.
I do love surround sound though but I'm not falling into the trap of upgrading receivers every time something new is added and my current receiver is going into it's fifth year of ownership.
Ironically the huge depreciation on high-ish end full surround av receivers, make them pretty bloody good as bargain stereo only setups. When those power supplies are only powering two channels, they can do wonderful things for not much money. Also leaves you the option to go full surround in the future if required.
That's exactly how I started tooBtw started off in AV via Nicam VHS player into the amp and speakers either side of the TV. Funny if we are now going back to that
Agreed, a proper stereo amplifier is best if that's all you want it to do, but the depreciation over 5 or so years for av receivers is so massive that very capable bits of kit can be bought for not much money, so the spending double to get the equivalent performance rule is negated quite quickly if you don't require, for instance atmos etc. And the dedicated stereo amplifier won't be so convenient for multiple video sources. Worth thinking about at least....Yeah, but you will not get the same kind of stereo performance as you'd have gotten if usin a dedicated stereo integrated amplifier. The audio is compromised by the AV receiver's more complex signal paths and the AV receiver's heavy reliance upon processing. An audiophile wouldn't use an AV receiver because of this. It is suggested that you need to at least spend double what you would have spent on a dedicated stereo amp on an AV receiver to get anywhere near the same stereo performance from said AVR. Even then, you'd still not be getting something that isn't compromised by it being an AVR.
If wanting quality stereo performance then you are still better off looking at dedicated stereo solutions.
Agreed. Case in point: who would like a capable stereo amp with HDMI switching, effective room correction and bass management, multiple digital inputs and high quality power supply for £700, which is what my Anthem cost me.Ironically the huge depreciation on high-ish end full surround av receivers, make them pretty bloody good as bargain stereo only setups. When those power supplies are only powering two channels, they can do wonderful things for not much money. Also leaves you the option to go full surround in the future if required.