Have AV receivers gone down the wrong road?

I recently got an Arcam AVR550 and it was a bit if a shock with the basic (to say the least) GUI - but oh my, the sound!

I'm ashamed to say it does have Spotify Connect though. :p
 
I recently got an Arcam AVR550 and it was a bit if a shock with the basic (to say the least) GUI - but oh my, the sound!

There you go! :D
 
I also still think they are some rose tinted glasses when it comes to the older stuff. I for example had a Yamaha dsp-a1 for years. I have also owned its predecessor and successor but for shorter durations of time.

Did I love it? Yes I used it every day as my only sound source for around 15 years.

It was built like a tank and when quality was reflected in weight it certainly tipped the scales.

However internally it was ok but the layout has improved over the years. There were issues with soldering joints and the display. I fixed mine myself.

A new amp has better sound processing even for the older codecs plus much better room eq.

So the built in power amplification, would I for example use the 5 channel input on the a1 with the pre out from a new amp.

No because having tried various combinations an external dedicated power amp was better than the a1. It was still under powered if driving all speakers hard
 
And the arcam at around 2.5k isn't cheap so not going to appeal to the sub 1k crowd
 
And the arcam at around 2.5k isn't cheap so not going to appeal to the sub 1k crowd
True - I had to scrimp and save for it.

But my basic remit was all about the sound quality (and HDCP 2.2 I admit), and it has that in bucket loads in both multi channel and 2 channel.

Now I just need to figure out this DIRAC setup! :(
 
Stating the bleeding obvious there CM, what's your point? We've already established there's a wealth of choice, especially at sub grand level.
 
Well we're going off topic here really, but as long as you've got a good network and a decent laptop to use (mine's a 4 year old MacBook Air), yeah it's relatively straight forward. Give yourself some time (and as quiet as you can get). There's always Arcam support if you need them, and they're pretty good.
 
Thanks Chester - apologies for going off topic.
 
Stating the bleeding obvious there CM, what's your point? We've already established there's a wealth of choice, especially at sub grand level.

The point is some people are still missing the point. There was an earlier suggestion that you could take a 2 grand amp strip out some unnecessary features and end up with a 1 grand amp. That's not going to happen and if anything will drive the price up.
 
I personally believe you're more likely to see surround sound capabilities built-in to the TV itself. We're seeing high-end TVs with sound bars with Dolby Atmos today, and there has been the odd TV with 5.1 capability before. As I said before, if there's a market for it, they'll do it. Perhaps TV manufacturers could do some kind of add on 5.1 box, or more likely all that built-in to a sub as has been done before. Anything to lower costs and ensure the system is easy to set-up and use.

Another thing: how reliable is eARC going to be? Have you seen how many 'I can't get ARC to work' threads on here? That's not consumer friendly, that's a nightmare! And the manufacturers have to support it. I think they've already had the pocket calculator out on this one!
I feel this will achieve nothing. Displays are getting thinner. If they are to house multi channel amplification and as you have said it will need an external box. That will no doubt push up prices, the new Panny OLEDs are an example with the additional soundbar pushing prices higher. Yet even with an external box, isn't that the job of the humble receiver.

The soundbar solution is already being pushed by the majority of manufacturers and I hesitate to think that they will go any further than this as 5.1 'boxes' already exist. I was told not so long ago by a Currys TV expert that an LG soundbar would sound far superior to any surround sound system available. Think of all the retraining necessary.:)
 
Mark my words, Yamaha (and others) will be reducing their model line-up as the AVR market is dwindling and becoming more specialist. That's been discussed on the forums and on the podcast. So who in their right mind is going to produce a more niche product in a declining market? You guessed it!

Sorry to tell you this, but Denon are actually expanding their line up and will be introducing 13 channel receivers into the fray. Marantz will also be introducing a receiver with 11 channels of integral amplification into its line up.
 
Last edited:
In my position, I simply want a powerful, solid and well made receiver to take an optical feed from my TV and give 5.1 sound
It's already been mentioned earlier in the thread, but Optical SPDIF doesn't support any HD Audio for a start (7.1 PCM, TrueHD etc. etc.). The only way to transfer modern HD audio formats is via HDMI - and that's why you need to use the HDMI ports on your Receiver.
So why is no one making a receiver that focuses purely on receiving, (and/or decoding) and amplifying sound? Why can't I buy the guts of a £2000 receiver in a more basic package for £1000?
Because it would be useless for modern audio formats.

If you're happy with DD/DTS/PCM2.0 from your telly, then you can use any old AV Receiver from 20 years ago for fifty quid - Marantz SR4200 5.1 Channel 70 Watt Receiver | eBay

But modern audio formats require HDMI to transport - and so it made sense for Receivers to start switching the video alongside the audio. You're sending both down the same cable through the Receiver anyway !!
 
-- As an eBay Associate, AVForums earns from qualifying purchases --
Posting this (as a debate) because recently I've become quite frustrated with the pointless stuff hurled at AV receivers and the reality seems to be that you can no longer buy a quality receiver (IE one that receives and amplifies) without paying for about 100 additional bells and whistles, most of which you will never use as your smart TV and various other bits of kit do the same thing.

In my position, I simply want a powerful, solid and well made receiver to take an optical feed from my TV and give 5.1 sound. Basically, I don't need any of the visual abilities of the receiver. And why would I? Like most I now stream music via my TV (spotify etc) or via lossless audio into the TV USB port. Do I need a receiver that also streams and has a USB port? Nope... And 5/6 HDMI in, 2/3 HDMI out on the top receivers? Really!? Everything I want to watch is either fed direct to the smart TV or can be streamed to it from PC - including 4k for movies.

I'm aware there are exceptions, and some people genuinely do use receivers to link everything. But the vast majority use them to process sound - the end. So why is no one making a receiver that focuses purely on receiving, (and/or decoding) and amplifying sound? Why can't I buy the guts of a £2000 receiver in a more basic package for £1000?

The root of my grumble, is that it seems patently obvious that for the last many years the Smart TV revolution has meant most people that would buy a top end receiver already have much of the functionality in their TV and various other devices.

I'm aware that audio only receivers are available and that I could externally amp the output.. But why no decent, solid, single box solution for stereo and surround sound handling? Do I really need to be able to stream Spotify from my phone to my tv to my amp, or direct to my tv to my amp, or to blu-ray player to my tv to my amp, or direct from blu-ray player to my amp? No. But I already have all these choices. Yet for some reason all top end receivers seem keen to bang on about how I can now also hook my amp up to spotify directly.. And that's just Spotify, but the principal of duplicated ability applies to so much of what we apparently have to pay for these days.

Rant over :)
I agree with you apart from we need both optical & HDMI to give 5.1 surround sound
 
One thing that could be dropped is the radio tuner - what do you need that on an avr these days when you can get radio across the internet?
A receiver is by definition an amplifier with a built-in tuner. Take out the tuner and you have an AV amplifier, not an AV receiver - again, by definition. AV amplifiers do of course exist, although they've becoming rather uncommon, but one needs to accept that the built-in tuner is what makes it a receiver in the first place.

A second question is why most AV kit is a receiver rather than an amplifier, and the answer is because 10-15 years when both were available., most people bought the version with the built-in (and often low quality) tuner.

---

Although there are TVs that can happily accept and decode HD formats (e.g. my Loewe), there is no defined connector that permits the TV to pass the digital HD audio signal back to the amplifier for audio processing. The ARC connector is defined as an SD connector with bandwidth specified to permit SD audio, but not permitting HD audio. Whether this will change in a future HDMI standard is another question.
 
Last edited:
A receiver is by definition an amplifier with a built-in tuner. Take out the tuner and you have an AV amplifier, not an AV receiver - again, by definition. AV amplifiers do of course exist, although they've becoming rather uncommon, but one needs to accept that the built-in tuner is what makes it a receiver in the first place.

A second question is why most AV kit is a receiver rather than an amplifier, and the answer is because 10-15 years when both were available., most people bought the version with the built-in (and often low quality) tuner.

---

Although there are TVs that can happily accept and decode HD formats (e.g. my Loewe), there is no defined connector that permits the TV to pass the digital HD audio signal back to the amplifier for audio processing. The ARC connector is defined as an SD connector with bandwidth specified to permit SD audio, but not permitting HD audio. Whether this will change in a future HDMI standard is another question.

Yes, I know.
 
The ARC connector is defined as an SD connector with bandwidth specified to permit SD audio, but not permitting HD audio. Whether this will change in a future HDMI standard is another question.

Yes, HDMI 2.1 includes eARC which will allow for HD audio formats.
 
Although the models Denon have recently announced don't include HDMI version 2.1 they will include eARC. Even so, it has to be pointed out that you'd still require the TV set to also include eARC in order to benefit from the expanded capabilities of eARC. Denon will be adding eARC support to the X3400H and above via a firmware update in the autumn.
 
Although some manufacturers are including eARC in devices that are not HDMI 2.1 certified. All devices released in the future that are HDMI 2.1 certified will include eARC. Of course, all devices in the chain will need to be compatible.
 
Just as a note in defense of the over-specced receiver..

I've recently simplified my system as I wanted something that the whole family could use easily and I wan't making use of the over-powered 5.1 system much due to life, kids and work.

With a totally modern B6 OLED and active KEF speakers (featuring WiFi, AptX bluetooth, optical and USB) and a Logitech harmony remote you think it would be easy. Sadly the ease of use is actually lower than with my old £1000 receiver as you are utterly dependent of the software of the TV and if it isn't in the mood to pass audio reliably via ARC you have to start playing around in the settings.

Overall i'm fine with my move but there is something to be said still for a big clunky device that does everything though I suspect that we may see them slowly disappear over the coming years.
 
I've read AVF threads for a long time but never felt like putting my oar in till this one. The original post expressed my own feelings about AV receivers just at the time I'm looking for one for a new home cinema setup I'm building (with the emphasis on cinema).

I get the impression reading through all the posts that the dispute is between those who are primarily thinking in terms of viewing and those who are primarily thinking of listening. For my own part, I already have a completely separate stereo hifi setup for listening to music and can't imagine how, price for price, any av setup could outperform such a setup. It might be different for someone who likes surround-sound music without visuals, but except where the two are melded together (musicals, etc.), I find it distracting. So for me, it's the quality of the video that is critical.

People normally speak of seeing movies and watching TV, not listening to them. That is not to say (as some posters seem to imply) that viewers don't care about the quality of the accompanying audio. I do, otherwise I'd make do with the build-in speakers of the TV. But what I don't want is a receiver that processes the video. Quite apart from the unnecessary cost (or poorer quality audio for the same price), the fact is, as demonstrated by experience, that generic AVRs can't process video as well as commensurately priced TVs with built-in video processing specifically adapted to the particular make and model by the manufacturer. In any case, the video can't be better than the TV is capable of displaying, whatever the receiver can or can't do.

What I want (like others) is an AVR that does the audio processing but leaves the video processing to the the TV, which means capable of passing through UHD/HDR/3D metadata. For that it has to be HDMI 2.0a (not just 2.0) and HDCP 2.2 compliant (not just "compatible") and be connected to a compatible TV by HDMI ARC. (Talk of HDMI 2.1 is highly premature to say the least.) Anything else is redundant. The AVR does not have to be able to upscale or do any of the other video processing wonders. I find it almost impossible to believe that that would not significantly affect the price as has been suggested. Nor is it being suggested that an AVR be dispensed with altogether, at least for real surround sound, or that the audio be passed from the TV to the receiver and then to the speakers rather than from receiver to the speakers directly. I suspect that only those who are more interested in sound than vision would balk at getting a TV with the necessary capability. They cost considerably less than the sort of AVRs being recommended here.

So there it is, and after much research I am no nearer getting a convincing answer than I was before, partly because the specs are not sufficiently precise (no mention of HDMI 2.0a.)
 
For that it has to be HDMI 2.0a (not just 2.0) and HDCP 2.2 compliant (not just "compatible") and be connected to a compatible TV by HDMI ARC.
Sounds like you should be looking at Anthem AVR's (highly recommended). :)
 
The AVR does not have to be able to upscale or do any of the other video processing wonders. I find it almost impossible to believe that that would not significantly affect the price as has been suggested.

I know as much as you do about the subject in general when it comes to costing of parts.

But I would have thought the video processing capabilities would just be a single chip that is located somewhere on the main board. Most of the cost would be the amplifiers, discrete sound channels and the processors to account for EQ and sound processing of your particularly speakers room??

Again, a very quick look for a Video Scaler chip brought up the following:

ABT1030ALQ176 - ABT Video Scaler & De-Interlacing

Again no idea if this is applicable to the world of AVR but it seems to do a fair amount of what you would expect an AVR to do and at $12.15 it's not exactly pricey. Maybe some form of licensing costs / software implementation may also be involved...........again could believe that these are minimal for a company like Denon per unit sold.

For me my gut instinct is that the video scaling capabilities of receivers ARE relatively inexpensive compared to the rest of the components.

Plus I think you may need some sort of processing in order to get an onscreen display of things like volume level, configuration...etc. So the "chip" itself could be used a fair amount during normal operation even if you don't actually use the video conversion aspects of it. I totally agree that a TV will do the job better pretty much 100% of the time and probably the source may provide a better alternative than the AVR if by some chance the TV seems to be making a mess of it!

Anyway, fully prepared for somebody that does know about this stuff to completely contradict me. Like you I would be genuinely interested in knowing the cost breakdown of where our money is being spent on components / licensing & R&D....etc. :)
 
I'm mostly with the thread starter. I've got an LG OLED C6 and am perfectly happy doing the video switching using the LG's lovely Web OS. Lot's of audio with just 5.1 simple surround is taken care of via the TV optical-out to a receiver. I've got my shiny new Oppo UHD blu ray going to both the TV and one HDMI on my receiver to deal with DTS-HD MA and Dolby True HD etc. I want to upgrade my receiver to have multi-channel analog inputs as well as an optical and maybe one or two HDMIs for audio. I need no video pass-through or switching, and certainly don't want or need or want to pay for 8 HDMI inputs and multiple outputs etc. So the market largely does not provide what I need. I know I can pay to have a lot off stuff I do not want and not use it, but I really want something stripped back down to the minimum.

The weird thing is that the sound-bar manufacturers totally get this, and provide a range of simple systems with optical and perhaps a bit of HDMI, but suddenly if you want a receiver and 5 or 7 speakers you are into the crazy territory with a bazillion HDMIs and the presumption of video switching/upscaling and all the wasted resources and cash that go with it. I am still making up my mind about what to do, and might wire the Oppo 205 direct to a power amp and let the optical-in take the TV output. Or maybe get something like the Nad 758 V3 (with a sensible 3 HDMI I think). Otherwise to get multi-channel analog I am looking at the very top Denon, or maybe a better Marantz or Cambridge ( which takes me straight back to stupid amounts of redundant functionality). I really think the receiver manufacturers need to provide options to cut back the pointless endless HDMI video stuff and concentrate the resources into high quality components delivering good audio. My money would go ideally to a pure audio solution that is mostly a power amp but with one or two optical and HDMI, multi-channel audio, audio-only decoding for modern formats, speaker-room calibration, and absolutely zero video management. People with no more than about 3 video sources and a modern TV with 3+ HDMI inputs have no need for any video functionality in the sound management.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom