Shallow Depth AV Receiver

Status
Not open for further replies.

chanjam

Established Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
3
Points
23
Hi I'm currently running a Pio SC LX86 which is great but it's such a beast in terms of size. I don't mind the height or the width but the depth is just huge at 441mm.

Does anyone know of something with similar sound quality but less deep?
 
Depth is my enemy also. The Denon AVR X6200 is 383mm deep and is my friend. Available for £1169.
 
Depth is my enemy also. The Denon AVR X6200 is 383mm deep and is my friend. Available for £1169.

that's def better than 444mm but I'd love to get one closer to the 300mm area! I don't understand why no one makes this. I'd much prefer to have 2 linked units of shallow depth.
 
I think you will really struggle to get anything, especially mid to high end, that shallow. Marantz, Pioneer, Yamaha and the Denon 7200 are all deeper than a 6200. Right angled fittings for HDMI and power could shave a few millimetres off.
 
that's def better than 444mm but I'd love to get one closer to the 300mm area! I don't understand why no one makes this. I'd much prefer to have 2 linked units of shallow depth.


The reason no one makes one shallower than they do is where would they house the internal components needed if they did? Even the slimline receivers have considerable depth to them to allow the multiple amplification stages and other components to be housed within the casing. It has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with necessity.
 
The reason no one makes one shallower than they do is where would they house the internal components needed if they did? Even the slimline receivers have considerable depth to them to allow the multiple amplification stages and other components to be housed within the casing. It has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with necessity.

those circuit boards would be easy to modulise. That's the whole point. You could easily have relayed circuits and produce 'add on' modules for additional power. They could make one base signal processing unit and then additional amplification units according to budget. much like pre and power amps in the stereo market. if you took it one step further you could have a certain amount of the signal processing carried out by a home server...
 
Last edited:
those circuit boards would be easy to modulise. That's the whole point. You could easily have relayed circuits and produce 'add on' modules for additional power. They could make one base signal processing unit and then additional amplification units according to budget. much like pre and power amps in the stereo market. if you took it one step further you could have a certain amount of the signal processing carried out by a home server...

It doesn't work like that. You cannot make them any smaller and they require the space they occupy for cooling purposes. There's a lot more circuitry asspciated with an AV receiver not incorporated into stereo integrated amps or are you saying the manufacturers simply make AV receivers big to be awkward? By the way, which home servers include the inputs and outputs needed to do as you are suggesting and where are the standards that would ensure such a server would integrate with a power amp? Would such a srver simply be an AV receiver by the time you'd fascilitated all of this? You'd just be reinventing the wheel for no particular reason and with no particular benefit asspciated with doing so.

THere are already AV pre processors and multichannel power amps if this is what you are after.
 
It doesn't work like that. You cannot make them any smaller and they require the space they occupy for cooling purposes. There's a lot more circuitry asspciated with an AV receiver not incorporated into stereo integrated amps or are you saying the manufacturers simply make AV receivers big to be awkward? By the way, which home servers include the inputs and outputs needed to do as you are suggesting and where are the standards that would ensure such a server would integrate with a power amp? Would such a srver simply be an AV receiver by the time you'd fascilitated all of this? You'd just be reinventing the wheel for no particular reason and with no particular benefit asspciated with doing so.

THere are already AV pre processors and multichannel power amps if this is what you are after.

What do you mean 'it doesn't work like that'? You are completely wrong - I really don't think you understand what I'm saying. Any large circuit board CAN be modulated into smaller circuits which can in turn also be housed within their separate chassis'. ALL circuits can be relayed. Heat production from single relayed circuits, per circuit, require less cooling and airflow than one giant one. The simple answer is they make them big because its the most cost effective way to print one circuit on the line. Signal process can be done by a single microchip. I have built signal processing software and I doubt the finest engineers in the finest companies would have a problem separating signal processing with amplification. Similarly I could modulise this pc i'm typing from by isolating the separate components and rehousing each. What do you think the difference between a PC and a receiver are component-wise? I guarantee you the PC I built and am using now has more than enough computing power to handle the on board processing on the receivers. The only thing it's lacking is the power generation which is more hardware related than software. I'd be re-inventing the AV Receiver to make them more accepted by the general population. Let's face it, half the crap on most receivers NEVER gets used. If I were a betting man and apple decided to have a crack at the AV receiver I'd say it wouldn't look much like the 90's stuff we seem to have no problem paying thousands of £'s for.
 
I'm not complletely wrong and you spuriously inventing things in your head doesn't make what you want possible. The depth is there to accomodate the components contained within the unit. The width is constrained in order to fit with what has already been established for hifi components while ever increasing the height cannot be used to house many of the components due to heat rising and the need for ventilation. Where are you suggesting they place the components?

Housing the amplification and processing in separate units is already an option and is called a processor which you'd then need a power amp or amps to use it with. You are free to go buy these if you so wish, but I don't think you'll be saving any space by doing so and the associated cost will be a lot more than you are budgeting for..

Running the processing onboard a PC is one thing, but do PC's include the inputs and outputs you'd need that you'd get on a dedicated AV pre processor or integrated AV receiver? The answer is no.

If you think you ideas are so great then why not manufacture the product you think no one else has ever considered. The fact of the matter is that you'd never sell enough of them to make it viable and the cost per unit would alienate the vast majority of your potential customers. You'd not be making something more accessible to more people and you'd be making an elitist product targeted at a niche market. More than this, you'd be making a product that can't andd will not even solve the issue you suggest it would solve.

There are already AV processors available that are used with external power amps.

Apple would have no interest in doing as you suggest for the simple reason that there's no money to be made from it. They couldn't even get the Apple TV right let alone an AV processor.
 
Last edited:
@chanjam If it is as easy as you say to modularise then why not strip down your Pioneer and re-house to suit.
 
I'm not complletely wrong and you spuriously inventing things in your head doesn't make what you want possible. The depth is there to accomodate the components contained within the unit. The width is constrained in order to fit with what has already been established for hifi components while ever increasing the height cannot be used to house many of the components due to heat rising and the need for ventilation. Where are you suggesting they place the components?

Housing the amplification and processing in separate units is already an option and is called a processor which you'd then need a power amp or amps to use it with. You are free to go buy these if you so wish, but I don't think you'll be saving any space by doing so and the associated cost will be a lot more than you are budgeting for..

Running the processing onboard a PC is one thing, but do PC's include the inputs and outputs you'd need that you'd get on a dedicated AV pre processor or integrated AV receiver? The answer is no.

If you think you ideas are so great then why not manufacture the product you think no one else has ever considered. The fact of the matter is that you'd never sell enough of them to make it viable and the cost per unit would alienate the vast majority of your potential customers. You'd not be making something more accessible to more people and you'd be making an elitist product targeted at a niche market. More than this, you'd be making a product that can't andd will not even solve the issue you suggest it would solve.

There are already AV processors available that are used with external power amps.

Apple would have no interest in doing as you suggest for the simple reason that there's no money to be made from it. They couldn't even get the Apple TV right let alone an AV processor.

Seriously you are just talking nonsense for the sake of sounding like you know everything. You don't seem to have much knowledge on system design, signal processing or circuit design otherwise you would write such uneducated drivel. You are making no arguments based on fact - just rants. Good luck.
 
@chanjam If it is as easy as you say to modularise then why not strip down your Pioneer and re-house to suit.

I haven't opened it up but I'd guess the circuit board makes up most of the depth and because it was designed as a single unit, it cannot be modified. It would need to be resigned and componentised.
 
Seriously you are just talking nonsense for the sake of sounding like you know everything. You don't seem to have much knowledge on system design, signal processing or circuit design otherwise you would write such uneducated drivel. You are making no arguments based on fact - just rants. Good luck.

No. You are talking nonsense. You are the one suggesting manufacturers purposely make AV receivers deeper than they need to and you are the one suggesting it would be cost effective for them to do something they already do that doesn't solve you issue, but as an option for every single one of their existing receivers.

Sorry, but what system are you refering to and which aspect of its design? You really want me to start getting technical with you? According to you its simply a matter of housing microchips, but what microchips are you referring to? The DSP chipset, the video processor, the DAC etc, etc, etc????? What about signal paths and avoiding signal cross talk and what about where you put things such as inputs and outputs relative to the power supply?

Suggesting I'm stupid without actually having any understanding of what is required yourself simply makes you more stupid than I am.

Rants? I'm explaining myself while you're daydreaming. What is it you are now awaiting, a manufacturer stumbling across your thread and making you a bespoke solution for a budget price? Good luck with that one. The answer is no, there's no AV receiver as shallow as you'd like one to be and there's not likely to be one in the foreseeable future (for the reasons already explained) :)
 
To illustrate that simply removing the amplification from the equation doesn't result in a shallower box then look at the Yamaha CXA5100. This is a 11.2-channel AV Pre-Amplifier that has a depth of 474mm. The nearest comparative integrated AV receiver would be the RXA3060 which has a depth of 474mm. So no, removing the amplification and associated power supply doesn't diminish the depth.
 
No. You are talking nonsense. You are the one suggesting manufacturers purposely make AV receivers deeper than they need to and you are the one suggesting it would be cost effective for them to do something they already do that doesn't solve you issue, but as an option for every single one of their existing receivers.

Sorry, but what system are you refering to and which aspect of its design? You really want me to start getting technical with you? According to you its simply a matter of housing microchips, but what microchips are you referring to? The DSP chipset, the video processor, the DAC etc, etc, etc????? What about signal paths and avoiding signal cross talk and what about where you put things such as inputs and outputs relative to the power supply?

Suggesting I'm stupid without actually having any understanding of what is required yourself simply makes you more stupid than I am.

Rants? I'm explaining myself while you're daydreaming. What is it you are now awaiting, a manufacturer stumbling across your thread and making you a bespoke solution for a budget price? Good luck with that one. The answer is no, there's no AV receiver as shallow as you'd like one to be and there's not likely to be one in the foreseeable future (for the reasons already explained) :)

lol in your eyes 'inputs and outputs' are technical. I'm an electronic engineer so pls just stop while you are ahead.
 
To illustrate that simply removing the amplification from the equation doesn't result in a shallower box then look at the Yamaha CXA5100. This is a 11.2-channel AV Pre-Amplifier that has a depth of 474mm. The nearest comparative integrated AV receiver would be the RXA3060 which has a depth of 474mm. So no, removing the amplification and associated power supply doesn't diminish the depth.

seriously you really don't understand circuit design otherwise you wouldn't be writing this nonsense. Like I said, you should quit while you are ahead.
 
lol in your eyes 'inputs and outputs' are technical. I'm an electronic engineer so pls just stop while you are ahead.

Another electrical engineer. :eek: You do know that fitting a plug gives you no expertise as far as designing audio and video equipment is concerned? This board is overflowing with so called "electrical engineers", many of whom are just like you and happy to tell people what they are without actually displaying any evidence of any knowledge relating to the topic they proclaim to be an expert on. PLease, be my guest and explain yourself. I'm not an electrical engineer so at least I can be forgiven for being incorrect. What's your excuse?

As I said:

The answer is no, there's no AV receiver as shallow as you'd like one to be and there's not likely to be one in the foreseeable future (for the reasons already explained) :)

You having a jolly good moan about the manufacturers not building you a bespoke solution isn't going to change anything. :)
 
Another electrical engineer. :eek: You do know that fitting a plug gives you no expertise as far as designing audio and video equipment is concerned? This board is overflowing with so called "electrical engineers", many of whom are just like you and happy to tell people what they are without actually displaying any evidence of any knowledge relating to the topic they proclaim to be an expert on. PLease, be my guest and explain yourself. I'm not an electrical engineer so at least I can be forgiven for being incorrect. What's your excuse?

As I said:



You having a jolly good moan about the manufacturers not building you a bespoke solution isn't going to change anything. :)

no. I said I'm an 'electronic' engineer not an 'electrical' engineer. I didn't study for 5yrs to be confused with an electrician (no offence to electricians).
 
no. I said I'm an 'electronic' engineer not an 'electrical' engineer. I didn't study for 5yrs to be confused with an electrician (no offence to electricians).

Neither do you exhibit oany evidence of actually being an electrical or electronic engineer. You couldn't even work out how to utilise a 12v trigger to operate a device that didn't have an inbuilt 12v trigger. I'd love to see the wondrous solution you come up with to resolve your current dilemma. Will you be posting the results here first or will you be waiting for CES?

Modularise is a lovely word, but you now need to translate it into reality as opposed to theorising. Believe it or not, simply popping back up to critise me or attempting to diminish my credability via your own self proclaimed expertise doesn't make what you suggest any the more doable and neither will it result in any manufacturer building you a bespoke prototype that you can have to resolve your issue.

In other words, I don't give a flying fig as to what your qualifications are. Your qualifications do not change the facts or make what you are theorising about a reality.

Again:

The answer is no, there's no AV receiver as shallow as you'd like one to be and there's not likely to be one in the foreseeable future (for the reasons already explained)

You dayfreaming will not change this so I take it that from your posts that you are now going to go away and build yourself an AV processor that meets with your own expectations of what the established manufactures should already be doing?
 
Closing this as I think we've discovered what the OP wants is not available for various reasons!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom