What Would You Like to See in Your Next AVR? - Page 6

Originally Posted by CMonMan 

I agree that it's a bit long and would not hold anyone against it for not reading it, but there is no reason to make posts mocking it. If someone doesn't want to read it, move on. If you want to discuss or even mock the content, great. But no need for the non-constructive criticism.

I was in a car wreck 2 years ago, and suffered severe head trauma. It's caused me to have a hard time focusing without taking these damn pills. The problem is that when I take them, I end up focusing too much on things resulting in me sometimes rambling on in emails and posts. I'm sorry if it bothers anyone.

Originally Posted by snyderkv 


I'll say it again, we are talking about the AVR and specifically the power outputs. The sound quality from your speakers won't sound good if your amp is clipping/straining no matter if your using Audyessey XT64 or 1000 or infinity. XT changes your perception of the sound, envolopement etc. EQ, gains etc is preference, some people like coloration of the source signal, others (purists) do not but it's still a preference

So yes I'm serious
That was an example, but yes you can play louder than the amp can produce, it's called clipping and Tube amps do it all the time, some people prefer the rounding off of highs. AMPs will clip, the answer is how much before it's humanly audible and starts to affect the SQ i.e. speaker distortion, less dynamics etc. Does this make more sense now?

My original point being, put more measured power into AMPs stable into lower ohms from 20-20 at its rated distortion just like high end amps.

But I guess the question was directed towards what features do people want in a low end AVR.

Originally Posted by 802Diamond 

It seems everyone else has given up on explaining your misconception, but since as a sales person I have to deal on a daily basis with what you write I have to react on your post.

First of all, while you are right that an amp is going to clip near the end of its' range, there is such a thing called volume knob. If the sound is distorted, just turn it a bit back; that's all... Also, I think you don't know what 100 Watts really is. If you play everything at 100 Watts, you must be deaf by now, no matter what amp or speakers you are using. Say that a given speaker is rated at 90dB/W/m sensitivity, then it means that the sound level will be at 113dB at 100 Watts. That is per speaker, add an extra 2dB per speaker (not 3 dB because none of the channels normally produce exactly the same sound in a surround or stereo set up) which accounts for 121dB for a normal 5 speaker set up, not counting the subwoofer. That will be unbearable, no matter how big your living room is, because that will exactly be the sound level of an air plane flying by at 100 yards... Ouch!

So now that it is established that no good amplifier is going to distort at normal listening levels, we can take it to the next level. Sound quality is by far most influenced by room acoustics (no one lives in a anechoic chamber), then it is fairly logic to say that room calibration will have a great influence on sound quality...

Originally Posted by Bill Mac 

802Diamond,

Thank you for the above post . You have a much better grasp of things technical than I do that is for sure. By the way I agree 100% with your post especially the part about how much ones room effects the SQ of ones system. I wish I could have made my point as well as you did .

Bill

Originally Posted by snyderkv 


How can more watts have nothing to do with sound quality? I agree not everyone may need it, but you need enough for your listening level or your amp will clip and sound worse at higher volume. My speakers alone requires 100watts according to manufacturer. And not everybody wants to go seperates. NAD or whatever high watt AVRs have higher SQ simply due to higher watts, not due to Audyssey. That's just a setup program.

Originally Posted by DS-21 

But that out of the way, "more watts," beyond what are needed to reach one's SPL goals, are irrelevant to sound quality

Originally Posted by 802Diamond 

It seems everyone else has given up on explaining your misconception,

Originally Posted by 802Diamond 

but since as a sales person I have to deal on a daily basis with what you write I have to react on your post.

Originally Posted by 802Diamond 

That will be unbearable, no matter how big your living room is, because that will exactly be the sound level of an air plane flying by at 100 yards... Ouch!

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

Sorry I have no misconceptions about it. I can't believe how many times I have to explain that we are talking about this particular variable in the chain, the AVR, NOT room accoustics or speakers. Sure those make a difference too, but the question is what would you like within an AVR, not sure why you keep going off topic

You're bf already agreed that more power = better sound quality when a smaller amp is clipping. Bu Just because an amp is producing enough power on paper for that lestening level doesn't mean it's straining on those transients and action scenes. And I did mention reference levels, big rooms and larger distances from speakers could turn that 113db into 70, as an example

Originally Posted by DS-21 

But that out of the way, "more watts," beyond what are needed to reach one's SPL goals, are irrelevant to sound quality. Not irrelevant to bragging rights, perhaps, but to sound quality.

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

Providing a source to prove why this statement is wrong. Bold covers points I already made

Source: http://www.axiomaudio.com/power

Huge power requirements inherent in reproducing real-life acoustic sound levels in average or big rooms. The M80ti's are tested to levels of 1,200 watts of input power so they come very close. But the truth is that if we are seeking real-life acoustic sound levels in our listening rooms, there's a very persuasive argument for very large, powerful amplifiers. And if your speakers are less sensitive (and many are), then the power demands rise even more dramaticaly.Sizeable rooms and greater listening distances will also increase power demands tremendously

And what many of us don't realize until we hear it, clean undistorted loud sound often does not sound that "loud". The key here is that in most or our home listeningthere are small amounts of distortion caused by a lack of dynamic headroom (but more on that next month.It's the distortion that makes it sound "loud". To remove those distortions and increase dynamic headroom relates to even more power. We've become accustomed to accepting some distortion with our reproduced music, all amplifier's distortion ratings gradually increase as they approach their output limits or slightly clip the audio signals. When that happens, we turn down the volume, because distortion starts to intrude on our listening pleasure, and it sounds "too loud".The lesson in all this is that you can never have too much power, and that big amplifiers rarely damage speakers. Little amplifiers driven into clipping burn out speakers. In the scheme of high fidelity, that last barrier to realism is having enough power and being able to approximate real-life loudness levels.

Originally Posted by M Code 

More on-board amps..

• Raises the unit's cost
• Requires bigger chassis
• More components & heat sink
• Larger power supply

Since 11 channels apply to very few systems either due to cost, room size and/or wife approval factor Onkyo limits the # of amplifiers.. They could increase the # of amplifiers within the same size chassis but then they would have to decrease its power output per channel making the unit less competitive vs. other brands..

Just my $0.02...

Originally Posted by Bill Mac 

What in your above post is remotely new to anyone here? For some reason your posts take the tone of someone that believes they are an expert in audio when they really are not . Why don't you do some research on those really knowledgable in audio. If you do that then you will find that they will lead you to discussions on how important room acoustics are.
Bill

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

If you have nothing to provide against my claims with an equal scientific explanation or source, then please don't respond

Off topic again, we are talking about what we want in an AVR, not in your theatre room. I want more power to improve SQ in my particular setup and I actually provided a source to back up what I'm trying to say and build credibility, you however haven't put up any real argument against it other than constant redirection of the topic. Remember this started when your BFF said that power has no bearing on SQ in an AVR!. I proved him incorrect. If you can prove otherwise, than speak up, otherwise go away

Originally Posted by oztech 

Better room correction so you do not have to manually go back and tweak the settings because it could not get it right the first time.
Honest power ratings from 20Hz to 20KHz at .01% distortion( instead of this 1KHz mess) at 4ohm since a vast majority of speakers dip in impedance at lower frequencies.
Do away with half the legacy inputs most will never use them put the money in better build quality .
Better onscreen GUI with side notes explaining briefly what the function will do ( clients want this).
As already mentioned better amps in a 7.1. ( as an installer it is so hard to get people to go beyond 5.1 and they use the other 2.0 on their patio.garden or pool).
Clipping lights brought back do to tone def clients that don't know when to turn it down.
If you can't offer the consumer a good remote at least provide an app that can be controlled by a phone or tablet some already do.

Originally Posted by Bill Mac 

802Diamond,

Thank you for the above post . You have a much better grasp of things technical than I do that is for sure. By the way I agree 100% with your post especially the part about how much ones room effects the SQ of ones system. I wish I could have made my point as well as you did .

Bill

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

Sorry I have no misconceptions about it. I can't believe how many times I have to explain that we are talking about this particular variable in the chain, the AVR, NOT room accoustics or speakers. Sure those make a difference too, but the question is what would you like within an AVR, not sure why you keep going off topic

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

You're bf already agreed that more power = better sound quality when a smaller amp is clipping. Bu Just because an amp is producing enough power on paper for that lestening level doesn't mean it's straining on those transients and action scenes. And I did mention reference levels, big rooms and larger distances from speakers could turn that 113db into 70, as an example

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

I'd be interested to know who everyone is?
Nice logical falacy of authority. Did you forget that higher loads requires more watts?

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

As impedance drops, power requirements increase. A normal speaker may require 128 watts to handle 112db/meter. But my speaker can dip to .5 ohm and require more power . It will sound like total crap with whatever main stream AVR you have right now.

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

The main idea is to have enough reserve power to handle transients like explosions, cymbal crashes, and other loud passages without overloading your amp.

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

So sometimes, just "enough" watts for your required SPL just isn't going to cut it and is over simplifying the issue.
Ok don't ever go to a movie theatre because they can reach 120db! You WILL GO DEAF! Unless ofcourse you understand sound damping

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

Providing a source to prove why this statement is wrong. Bold covers points I already made

Source: http://www.axiomaudio.com/power

Originally Posted by snyderkv 

Providing a source to prove why this statement is wrong. Bold covers points I already made

Source: http://www.axiomaudio.com/power

Huge power requirements inherent in reproducing real-life acoustic sound levels in average or big rooms. The M80ti's are tested to levels of 1,200 watts of input power so they come very close. But the truth is that if we are seeking real-life acoustic sound levels in our listening rooms, there's a very persuasive argument for very large, powerful amplifiers. And if your speakers are less sensitive (and many are), then the power demands rise even more dramaticaly.Sizeable rooms and greater listening distances will also increase power demands tremendously

And what many of us don't realize until we hear it, clean undistorted loud sound often does not sound that "loud". The key here is that in most or our home listeningthere are small amounts of distortion caused by a lack of dynamic headroom (but more on that next month.It's the distortion that makes it sound "loud". To remove those distortions and increase dynamic headroom relates to even more power. We've become accustomed to accepting some distortion with our reproduced music, all amplifier's distortion ratings gradually increase as they approach their output limits or slightly clip the audio signals. When that happens, we turn down the volume, because distortion starts to intrude on our listening pleasure, and it sounds "too loud".The lesson in all this is that you can never have too much power, and that big amplifiers rarely damage speakers. Little amplifiers driven into clipping burn out speakers. In the scheme of high fidelity, that last barrier to realism is having enough power and being able to approximate real-life loudness levels.

The last part reads, "The lesson in all this is that you can never have too much power" interesting

So I'll answer the topics question one more time and request more power. I'd like more watts "measured" into 4 ohms or less from 20-20 at its rated distortion

Originally Posted by crussader 

I suspect a large portion of those people (and I am one of them) are doing that because you can't get a pre/pro from an established brand for less than $1200. It is great that the internet direct companies are are now offering $600 pre/pros, but they are still working on establishing themselves. Even so, I would have bought from one of them except for the fact that I needed 2 HDMI outs which neither offers. The features department is where the AVR manufacturers have an advantage. I just wish they would get in the game.
You would save money. Amplifier components cost money. If they weren't included, you wouldn't have to pay for them.
There are plenty of people that disagree with that. There are more than half a dozen companies selling non-AVR pre/pros, most costing thousands of dollars. Somebody is buying them.

Originally Posted by M Code 

More on-board amps..

• Raises the unit's cost
• Requires bigger chassis
• More components & heat sink
• Larger power supply

Since 11 channels apply to very few systems either due to cost, room size and/or wife approval factor Onkyo limits the # of amplifiers.. They could increase the # of amplifiers within the same size chassis but then they would have to decrease its power output per channel making the unit less competitive vs. other brands..

Just my $0.02...

Originally Posted by BiggAW 

Those high-end units are for customers who can't find the same quality of features (which are probably of dubious value anyways, but that's another story) in an AVR, so they are buying a standalone pre/pro. The cost-conscious enthusiast is better off with an AIO AVR, as the mass production ends up saving money over removing components for a tiny portion of the market, and many users of external amps still need some internal amp capability, i.e. an 11.2 system with 5 or 7 channels of external amps, or 2nd/3rd zones.
The cost is the ultimate factor... the size isn't that big of a deal. If someone is that into HT gear, they are OK with having some more of it. With mass production of AVRs, there is little to save. The future of the enthusiast market is 11, and eventually 13 channels (it looks like surround heights or "presence" speakers are next after 11.4 to move to 13.4). Yes, 99% of people are fine with 5.1 or 7.1, but that 99% is also fine with their AVR's internal amps.

Originally Posted by BiggAW 

Those high-end units are for customers who can't find the same quality of features (which are probably of dubious value anyways, but that's another story) in an AVR, so they are buying a standalone pre/pro. The cost-conscious enthusiast is better off with an AIO AVR, as the mass production ends up saving money over removing components for a tiny portion of the market, and many users of external amps still need some internal amp capability, i.e. an 11.2 system with 5 or 7 channels of external amps, or 2nd/3rd zones.
The cost is the ultimate factor... the size isn't that big of a deal. If someone is that into HT gear, they are OK with having some more of it. With mass production of AVRs, there is little to save. The future of the enthusiast market is 11, and eventually 13 channels (it looks like surround heights or "presence" speakers are next after 11.4 to move to 13.4). Yes, 99% of people are fine with 5.1 or 7.1, but that 99% is also fine with their AVR's internal amps.

Originally Posted by BiggAW 

The "average" person is buying crappy HTIB setups, not AVRs individually like we're talking about here.

And what's with this "upgrading" thing? I have a stereo receiver from the '80s. Even with the 5.1 stuff, I see no reason to obsolete it in a few years. It will probably trickle down when I eventually get 11.4 and such, but for the forseeable future, it's staying around.
Modularizing stuff like FM would just add cost, not subtract. Stuff like that is super cheap to put in, so why not just bundle it all? It would just drive the cost up for everyone. Wifi, content streaming, bluetooth, that sort of things makes sense through dongles, but actual cards to do I/O makes no sense. The concept of making an AVR a home theater control system is interesting, but this could already be done, and other manufactures already make their own devices that do it. Many ethernet-connected devices, like Roku, Oppo, and TiVo, all support control for Crestron over IP, and anyone else could tap into the same protocols.
Most people need analog. The Wii, VCRs, and older consoles all need it. In my case, I don't need it, because I switch all my video through my DVDO EDGE, but if you're not using a standalone video processor, then you need the AVR to do it, and upscaling is a great feature, as it reduced the amount of input switching you have to do, and the number of cables running everywhere.
I'd agree no network switch, it's stupid... unless it can take one Ethernet jack, and then switch it out over HDMI with Ethernet or HDBaseT, which would really cut the cable clutter down. Especially HDBaseT, where you can run CAT-5 for everything, with Ethernet included. Of course it would require devices on the other end to support it too.

Originally Posted by JakeRobb 

I didn't read all of the replies, so maybe somebody beat me to this idea, but:

I feel like most of the AVRs on the market today from the respectable brands are all at parity with each other in terms of features. I'd love more features, lower prices, stronger amps, more inputs/outputs/zones/etc, but I like to think about revolution, not evolution.

That said, I'd like to see a modular AVR platform. Build a system that is basically a chassis containing a "motherboard" with "slots", whose only jobs are to provide power, cooling, an incredibly high-bandwidth/low-latency/low-interference interconnect, a dot-matrix front display, and an interface designed with A/V in mind. The end user can install whatever modules they please. Modules connect into the slots on the motherboard and can optionally provide ports on the back panel. In concept, this is very similar to a PC with PCI-X slots. A module might be an amplifier; perhaps two channels, with speaker connections on it. Or it might be an HDMI input board, with perhaps four HDMI inputs on it. Or it might be a legacy input board, with component video and coax+optical audio, or an even older legacy input board with composite or S-video or plain old RCA stereo audio, or a 7.1 preout board. A Wi-fi board, an Airplay/DLNA board. An Audyssey board, a DSP board, a DTS Neo:X board. An onscreen GUI board. An output board with an HDMI out, or a legacy output board with component. Two output boards? Two zones. Add a third for a third zone. If you have enough slots and bandwidth, add as many zones as you want. Want analog audio to zone 2? Get a second DSP board (or an output board with one built in) and you've got it.

Manufacturers would sell chassis varieties empty as well as preloaded with popular configurations (at a slight discount compared to piecing the same setup together yourself). More expensive versions would include capacity for more modules and/or higher maximum bandwidth. There might be internal-only slots for processing-only boards, or front slots (with prettier cover plates) for those who care about front inputs. High end chassis might have an external super-high-bandwidth interconnect to hook up to another chassis, giving basically unlimited maximum expansion capacity.

Benefit to the manufacturer: vendor lock-in. Once a customer has outfitted a Denon chassis with a bunch of Denon modules, they're unlikely to switch to a Pioneer chassis the next time they're interested in upgrading. It's like how a professional photographer with a Nikon camera will basically never consider switching to Canon because he'd have to throw away his huge investment in Nikon lenses, flashes, and filters.

Benefit to the customer: no more worries about whether a new, modern AVR that offers the high-tech features you want like Airplay or 4K will also offer the legacy inputs or outputs you want.

Third party manufacturers could make modules compatible with the most popular chassis brands; you could have a Sony Playstation 5 on a module someday (probably only available on Sony AVRs), and your Dish Network DVR on another. The possibilities are enormous.

It'll probably never happen.

Originally Posted by Phrehdd 

What does expensive mean for you? Do I need XLR on a system no. You however might and thus it could be additive.

The idea was to create the most common denominator system that can be grown. This is similar to a computer where cards can be added.
Not everyone has the same needs but alas, I may be happy with a rather simple Audessy (sp) set up while you may need something to handle an 11.x system. There are different levels of needs and not one box serves all.

It would be really nice to have a base box that can be kept for years and the latest trends reflected in add ons only. This is why I prefer a more modular approach as it would allow both your needs and my needs to be met with the very same unit rather than having to over time, trade up for the latest and greatest "features."

Perhaps you and I wont agree but I do appreciate your logic.