Originally Posted by Phrehdd
Android? Hmmmm that is okay but why not stick to tried and true - a flavour of Linux?
a flavor of Linux.
That said, I agree that Linux (or BSD, or GNU, or any of the other Unix-y open-source operating systems out there today) would be a reasonable starting point.
Originally Posted by arnyk
Points out that a clipping indicator or better yet a set of peak power meters might be a valuable feature for an AVR.
Originally Posted by Bill Mac
I'd like this as well, almost like buying a car. But its not going to happen and if it did it certainly is not going to be cheaper. How could any A/V manufacturer produce a built to order AVR for less than they could a mass produced one? The huge costs of building a custom AVR would far out weigh any savings of the features and the outputs being omitted. A good example would be the firmware that would be needed for every built to order AVR. Say if you wanted an AVR from Denon without Audyssey or video processing. I would believe that built to order AVR would have to have a custom designed FW. That alone would be a huge cost and not something that any manufacturer would want to get involved with IMO.
The same way that Apple, Dell, or any other big-name brand does it with computers -- by having traditional assembly-line-style manufacturing for the most popular configurations, with a separate facility for custom orders that deviate from the norm. If you choose not to order one of the popular configurations, you pay extra and you wait a little longer for it to ship.
Originally Posted by bd2003
The only thing on the front of it should be a volume dial, a power button, and a full color touchscreen. With an ambient light sensor to automatically change brightness, so you can see it in the day, and doesn't blind you at night.
Basically, I want someone to do to receivers what nest did for thermostats. This is absolutely possible today, all it takes is some design work and a $20-30 ARM chip.
1. "some design work" massively oversimplifies the software effort involved in doing this without an established GUI operating system to build from. I doubt you could get Apple to license you iOS, Android is an unappealing choice for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. Microsoft is all about licensing Windows, so maybe that's an option, but I always hesitate to buy into Microsoft-based products and I don't feel that this would be a wise choice. That said, I do agree that this is absolutely possible today.
2. A full-color touchscreen on the front of my AVR? No, thanks. The receiver (and everything else but the display) is supposed to disappear when I'm watching TV or movies. I don't mind the faint glow of the LED display on the front of my Denons (I have a 2313 and a 2113), and I appreciate being able to glance down to check what input it's on, what audio mode it's using, what the volume level is, etc., but I definitely don't want the glow of a full LCD display down there. The front of the receiver, to me, is for ancillary stuff like that; its primary UI belongs in the GUI overlay. I'm cool with the remote having a full LCD touchscreen (which goes dark when not in use, of course), but there are already solutions that use your iPhone / iPod touch / iPad for that, and I see no reason for receiver manufacturers to duplicate it.
That said, I would appreciate a full dot-matrix display on the front of my AVR, such that it could display a larger variety of information. Want power level meters and clipping indicators? Those could be done in software and rendered on the display. It wouldn't be quite as responsive as a traditional analog meter, but I think it'd do the trick sufficiently for most people who would be interested in such a thing.
Originally Posted by nlpearman
"10-15% of the AVR/PROC" sounds reasonable, until you realize that the AVR/PROC you're referencing costs $4,500 (or used to cost that much).
Reading this thread, it's obvious that modular is popular. All I'm doing is echoing the voices saying that modular, good quality and accessible pricing don't all go together... and the NAD you referenced supports that logic.
I hadn't heard of NAD before. I looked at their current "MDC" receiver offering and, if I'm not mistaken, it accepts only one "module", and the available modules only offer a variety of inputs. This is not what I had in mind at all. In addition to inputs, I want modular amplifiers, modular outputs, modular processing capability. I would expect even the simplest of modular receivers along the lines of what I had in mind to accept at least four modules (inputs, 2x amplifiers for four channels, and processing), with chassis available that accept eight, twelve, even sixteen modules. If you implement the "decent prices for common configurations" system used by computer manufacturers, make your module interface an open standard (like computers do with PCI), and perhaps blow everyone else away in terms of GUI/usability, I think you could steal a lot of sales from manufacturers still selling traditional AVRs. If the base chassis provides ethernet and/or wi-fi internet connectivity, the AVR could even offer support for apps and an app store. I'd very much prefer an app-centric approach to offering support for things like XM, Pandora, Spotify, Netflix, and other services, and I'd much rather have those features right in my AVR rather than coming from some connected device like a PS3 or BD player. As the world transitions from physical media to downloaded media, I think the AVR-as-source-device approach becomes more and more viable. (Note: I'm not trying to take away your option to use physical media; just pointing out that there are a lot of popular sources out there that don't.)
I don't think anyone here denies that modular would cost extra relative to a fixed design, but given the level of interest here, I think there's a market. Apple has proven (with, for example, the iPad) that if you offer a superior product, you can charge more for it and people will still buy it.