Originally Posted by Osamede
- modern GUI
- networking eg DLNA etc
- room correction
- that remote is poor, not only is it not backlit but even in daylight it is hard to read, layout/organisation is poor. (Do you have the option of an app-based remote or web interface? Nope)
I'm thinking of the Denon AVR-4810 while reading this; it does all of those things. I'm also thinking about universal remotes, but that's "outside of the product" (and I don't even use the included universals with AVRs - it's easier to just grab a Logitech).
See a picture of the 4810 and it's remote(s):
I get where you're coming from though - it should be "better" given the state of other devices. Also, and I may be wrong here, but don't Yamaha AVRs have an iPhone/iPod control app? I remember seeing a presentation about the V3800 and how it was web/mobile device controlled - could be mistaken though.
Assuming they claim to be focusing on the audio customer, okay fine, at least try to do this. Wanting good audio is not synonymous with rejecting all modern progress. Rather you'd want to figure out what tools in 2012 can help me enjoy my music. Fumbling with a bad remote you havent changed in 6-8 years? No.
That's my point though - that customer isnt the Cambridge Audio customer. CA has pretty much zero chance of winning that customer, and certainly less so with this product which is new, but arguably inferior in "features" to say a mid-lower end product such the Denon 2312 or the Yamaha A810.
So why then doesnt Cambridge focus on their core customer and start doing something really different (as detailed in my previous post). I'd argue what they've done here is an inferior implementation of the strategy you are describing as the "in thing". So double failure here, as it is not the wrong strategy for them and they've also made a hash of their attempt to copy that MO from the bigger AVR makers.
Let's put it this way, having owned the CA 540R V2, I'm arguable a prime target customer for them and frankly I'm still trying to figure out what they've spent the past 5 years doing, since I last bought a receiver from them. Adding HD codecs? Wow, now that's "british design"....
Sorry to be so harsh, but actually this is an interesting slim-line receiver platform with decent power. However, one would wish that they'd actually try harder to make something successful of it. What I see here has no chance of doing any better than their previous receiver. In fact it will probably sell worse. And I dont think they really have too many shots at this, at their size.
Alright. I'm not trying to attack you (I have no idea who you are or what you believe), but when I think of the "target customer" for most "boutique" manufacturers (Cambridge, NAD, Anthem, B&K, Parasound, etc) I think of people who argue about how amplifiers "sound" and all of that, not about people who want modern features or lots of technology. This kind of product appeals to those people - it lacks room correction, it's very "basic" (which appeals to that "total audio purity" jag), and probably has quite competent amplifiers.
This isn't a value judgment, just my own observation. I've never seen NAD or Cambridge or similar mentioned in value-oriented discussions, or by the "objectivists" - but they often come up when people start talking about amplifiers that sound "warm" or "cold" or whatever. I think the advertisers associated with these companies know this. There probably isn't enough demand from the target audience to warrant new features.