Tuners in processors

The components for adding a tuner probably cost under $1. You can build a transistor radio yourself, after all. They all include one because there's no reason not to. There's no reason to expect that having a tuner would compromise the quality of the surround sound processing.

Prove this, please. Thanks.

I hate to break this to you, but the products you were looking at were receivers. If you don't want a receiver, don't look at them.

U want it good and u want it cheap?

What u looking for is a bit esoteric these days, commanding major dough that u already realized.

I think your worries are unfounded. Next thing ur gonna complaint why they spend money on the nice packaging when that $ can be spent on circuitry.

My processor's tuner is a 2x3" add-on daughtercard that I imagine cost them $5.

Cost of good tuner, which is all digital with HD Radio support is in tens of dollars. So cheap receivers either have poor analog tuners (here you can talk about $5), or do not have it at all. But FM tuner has a little value at home, when you have Internet and can use services like vTuner or Pandora.

I also don't see how having a tuner has anything to do with your SQ.

It's like having a side of mashed potatoes with your chicken.. it doesn't "disturb" your chicken quality by being next to it

now I'm hungry..

How Amerocentric of you! And just because *you* don't find value in an FM tuner, it hardly means that an FM tuner has 'little value'.

This thread reminds me of the 2 channel forum. Receivers are routinely bashed as being beneath the dignity of a true audiophile to even consider buying. Get an integrated amp they chortle - its better. The difference? A tiny little radio little bigger than a pack of cigarettes - and a few hundred dollars. Audio quality? Little to none.

Please explain how such a small daughter board can make such a big difference in sound quality.

Please...

Considering that the differences in a receiver vs separates (I have separates) in audio quality is negligible and more cosmetic than practical (I admit it - I'm a bit vain when it comes to my HT equipment) unless you have hard to drive speakers like Magnepans to drive a receiver will probably do the job for 95% of us.

Everyone needs to remember that value is int he eye of the beholder. Is it worth paying for a higher end brand when the components maybe the same as the companies standard line with only a tweak here and there?

Value is up to the individual and is not an Americanism it happens everywhere. Some would say a 20K Krell Pre/pro is stupid to buy others would say the value is well worth more.

I like having an FM turner in my Pre/Pro. I even have a Tek or Terk powered ant. I do not use the radio much but I do like the fact that it has a digital turner built in and I do not feel it does anything negative tot he sound.

You could possibly remove it from your receiver.

My comment about AP1's views being Amerocentric is because he references Pandora and other web services that are not available outside of the USA. So his comments, to anyone outside of the USA, reads like this "But FM tuner has a little value at home, when you have Internet and can use services like Ummm... or Ummm..."

Besides, this assumes that you are willing to route Internet audio to your sound system. Most people are not going to do this, and it requires hardware beyond the receiver (computer or set-top-box) so it's not a great comparison anyway.

There are many NON USA streaming services avialable to others. I cannot remember the one that just can to American shores, but everyone in Europe has been drooling over it for a few years now.

Very true about additonal hardware, although some very new receivers now include streaming service organic to them.

Which brings us right back to the first post, about including extraneous hardware and features that 'dilute' the sound! (FWIW, I don't think the addition of a tuner or internet input would do that, but it was the entire thrust of this thread)

What it comes down to is this: If someone wants a tuner, or doesn't care about a tuner being built in, get a receiver. If someone does care, and they don't want a tuner, get an integrated amp or a pre/pro based system. They might pay more, but they get what they want.

I'd want the FM tuner still.... I am a dinosaur. I still complain about particularly weak AM/FM tuners in AVR's even.

I have had my upstairs receiver for 6 years, and have never so much as attached an antenna, let alone actually selected the tuner's input, so it really dosen't bother me.

Saying that, it's probably because of the radio where I live. I would rather stab myself in the brain than listen to local radio. If I still lived in the UK though, I would.

Still, it's a useful feature to many with no real drawback, IMO.

For the record, yes I still listen to radio. Sue me for being behind the times.

This reminds me of the connectivity disucussions. Some went as far as to post a photo of what they thought the backside of a receiver would look like. I think they counted all their HDMI inputs, then made connections for that amount, and called it a day.

Not long after, people were complaining that some new receivers were not allowing them to hook up all their gear.

Enough people complain about tuners, maybe those will get removed as well. A bit sad for people who do use them.

Did the price go down when (for example) Yamaha removed a good chunk of their receivers connectivity? Not that I can tell. In fact, in the same year, they seemed to cut back on power, keeping the price the same.

Please, keep our tuners Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, Pioneer, et al. Some of us DO use them!