• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Question Decent AV Receivers or amps with integrated Blu Ray

Crownshi

Active Member
Why don't any half decent AV amps come with an integrated blu ray player? I know you can get all in ones but having a separate box just to put discs in seems unnecessary these days. It's not as though there isn't enough space, they are big enough to slot a disc reader in.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Whenever you integrate something you compromise something else in order to facilitate this. THe additional power and circuitry required for the disc transport would compromise the AV receiver's capabilities. Size would actually be an issue because all of the space occupied by current AV receivers is needed to house the components needed to make that device function. You'd have to make AV receivers even larger in order to house the same components plus the additional hardware associated with a disc transport.

There are no benefits to having the disc transport incorporated into the receiver. The only benefit is in relation to those putting convenience above quality of playback both in relation to the video and the audio. If this is what you want then you have to sacrifice the benefits associated with having seperates in order to meet your requirements.

The reason the AV receiver separates are better is because they are separates and because they are not compromised by adding a disc transport to them and or other circuitry that could effect the signal paths within the device.
 
Last edited:

Crownshi

Active Member
Not sure I agree with you dante. Todays disc players are extremely compact and take little power. I should know I fit enough of them to PCs and servers in my job. There is also a lot of empty space inside most AV amps and definitely enough space to install a disc reader without making the overall size of the amp larger. The signal paths would be greatly reduced and with no external cables to compromise them should be much cleaner.
For me they could make savings by doing away with the old connector types like component sockets. All we need today are HDMI, digital audio and maybe analogue phono.
I also do not believe that the likes of Sony. Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo etc. can design their circuitry wiithout compromising the amps capabilities. Isn't there an amount of duplication of circuitry between the blu ray player and the amp anyway, upscaling for example? Let's face it they have all managed to add some or all of the following - wired and wireless networking, DLNA compliance, Internet radio, Spotify type services, Apple Airplay, Bluetooth etc. without compromising their products audio\video capabilities.
The benefit is power, space & cabling savings, less complexity for the less technologically minded. I don't know what it is like behind your AV rack but if I could reduce the amount of cabling back there I would be very happy. I'm betting a lot of people would feel the same.
My home cinema set up is there for one thing only and that is to give us the best audio\video entertainment as I can afford and in this day and age we shouldn't need a rack full of equipment to achieve this. I see enough racks of equipment at work. :)
 

PSM1

Distinguished Member
The issue I see is it is cheaper to buy a new player when it fails than a complete amp and player. Since players are cheap this is a better option.
 

Crownshi

Active Member
I see you point PSM1 I guess it depends on how easy it might be to slot in a new disc reader rather than replace the whole thing. it is usually the bit with the moving parts that fails.
 

Crownshi

Active Member

boabis

Active Member
That's the kind of thing i'm talking about! It's the future! Though i would probably kie a bit more ooomph! :)

Therein lies the rub.

Separate components give you the ability to customise your equipment to the level you desire.

In the enthusiast market, people buy kit to do specific things, and the jack of all trades is always going to be the master of none.

By having my devices be independent of one another, I can upgrade and improve as I require, rather than having to ditch the whole kit and caboodle when new technology emerges.

I've recently made the following upgrades:

Floorstanders --> Kef Eggs

Sony DD/DTS receiver --> Denon TrueHD/DTS-MA receiver

Meanwhile my speaker cables, subwoofer and trusty PS3 all remain intact.
 

dante01

Distinguished Member
Not sure I agree with you dante. Todays disc players are extremely compact and take little power. I should know I fit enough of them to PCs and servers in my job. There is also a lot of empty space inside most AV amps and definitely enough space to install a disc reader without making the overall size of the amp larger. The signal paths would be greatly reduced and with no external cables to compromise them should be much cleaner.
For me they could make savings by doing away with the old connector types like component sockets. All we need today are HDMI, digital audio and maybe analogue phono.
I also do not believe that the likes of Sony. Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo etc. can design their circuitry wiithout compromising the amps capabilities. Isn't there an amount of duplication of circuitry between the blu ray player and the amp anyway, upscaling for example? Let's face it they have all managed to add some or all of the following - wired and wireless networking, DLNA compliance, Internet radio, Spotify type services, Apple Airplay, Bluetooth etc. without compromising their products audio\video capabilities.
The benefit is power, space & cabling savings, less complexity for the less technologically minded. I don't know what it is like behind your AV rack but if I could reduce the amount of cabling back there I would be very happy. I'm betting a lot of people would feel the same.
My home cinema set up is there for one thing only and that is to give us the best audio\video entertainment as I can afford and in this day and age we shouldn't need a rack full of equipment to achieve this. I see enough racks of equipment at work. :)


Really?

NHQzd5.jpg



Any space left unused is needed for heat dispersion. You'd also need to isolate the drive mechanism from the circuitry involved in the audio processing because it can and would effect the audio. You'd again need to isolate the circuitry associated with the player and its functions to avoid it influencing the audio signal. THe power the drive draws from the PSU would also no longer be available for the amps to use and you'd probably compromise the audio signal paths to be able to fit everything into such a small space.

Why would you assume that a manufacturer good with audio components will also be just as good when it comes to video playback and what happens if the player fails or the receiver fails? Do you keep the unit to just fullfill one aspect because you paid a small fortune for it? Its the reason most All-in-one purchases are so short lived. The capabilities of one aspect outgrow the other or the unit as a whole fails to meet the needs of a growing system far sooner than the seperates allow for. You'd only need to replace one aspect if the other is still viable and not both because they are integrated.

There are no benefits associated with power. Slimline receivers are compromised by having less power at their disposal due to their smaller size and the fact they've not the space on their rear panel for many of the inputs you'd find on larger models.

It may sadly be the future, but lead by convenience as opposed to quality of the resulting sound. I'd say this more applicable to soundbars than integrated All-in-one setups because they are already starting to sell more units than separates sell and they do not result in better surround sound performances, but are more convenient for many to implement into their homes. Serious home theatre enthusiasts are always going to want and buy separates, because the audio is important to them and more important than the asthetics or the convenience of having a smaller, but compromised solution to their needs. In fact if really serious then you'd go one step further and have a separated audio processor and power amps rather than an integrated AV receiver.

All-in-one solutions simply appeal to a different market sector. The sales of such units are not on the increase amongst AV enthusiasts and there has been such options for as long as I can remember. Look at those old record decks with the integrated tape deck and radio, did they surpass the quality associated with separates? Did the midi systems alter the way audiophiles buy their kit and did integrated TV and VCR players mean we all now have a disc player integrated into every TV? Although it has to be said that modern TVs do integrate a lot of digital features, but then again the manufacturer doesn't always continue to support those SMART feature over the entire lifespan of their products. These things appeal to a different type of consumer and cannot compete when it comes to the actual performance seperates give because their very construction compromises the ability to do so.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Guardians of the Galaxy Xmas Special, Strange World, Bones and All, and Cabinet of Dr Caligari in 4K
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom