or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › What Would You Like to See in Your Next AVR?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Would You Like to See in Your Next AVR? - Page 10

post #271 of 354
Bit surprised this whole modular dialog is still going on, but ok.

Look, the problem is that this tiny ground swell for "modularity" ignores a MASSIVE reality:

it's really not needed.

A $500 AVR can do 95% of what most $1000 AVRs can do. At least 95%.

And while some have convinced themselves that "dumping' streaming, a tuner, an ethernet switch, or whatever fill-in-the-blank option feature (that's different for everyone, lol) will somehow magically improve sound quality, usability, or significantly lower the price, it just won't. I can promise you that. The gains of their INCLUSION for a % that are looking for those features/options FAR outweigh those who will look elsewhere because of their presence. rolleyes.gif

Trust me, this isn't Denons, Onkyos, Yamahas, etc first time at the rodeo- why do you suppose they're so FANTASTICALLY similar/competitive at a given price-point? They have a pretty damn good idea what the MARKET is looking for (perhaps not mastermaybe, precisely wink.gif ) and how they can maximize their bottom line while meeting the aforementioned. As I've said, I think they largely have it dead-nuts with a few quibbles here and there as we're finding out in this otherwise insightful thread.

Others here have already stated the obvious. You will not see any major manufacturer producing "modular" receivers EVER. CPU's with some codec-update possibilities...sure. But that's already gone on with folks like Denon...I updated to Audyssey Dyn EQ with my 3808 years ago for example.

Just ask NAD how their modular AVRs are working (really, workED) out for them. Then ask them again to answer honestly.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 3/22/13 at 8:52am
post #272 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Bit surprised this whole modular dialog is still going on, but ok.

Look, the problem is that this tiny ground swell for "modularity" ignores a MASSIVE reality:

it's really not needed.

A $500 AVR can do 95% of what most $1000 AVRs can do. At least 95%.

And while some have convinced themselves that "dumping' streaming, a tuner, an ethernet switch, or whatever fill-in-the-blank option feature (that's different for everyone, lol) will somehow magically improve sound quality, usability, or significantly lower the price, it just won't. I can promise you that. The gains of their INCLUSION for a % that are looking for those features/options FAR outweigh those who will look elsewhere because of their presence. rolleyes.gif

Trust me, this isn't Denons, Onkyos, Yamahas, etc first time at the rodeo- why do you suppose they're so FANTASTICALLY similar/competitive at a given price-point? They have a pretty damn good idea what the MARKET is looking for (perhaps not mastermaybe, precisely wink.gif ) and how they can maximize their bottom line while meeting the aforementioned. As I've said, I think they largely have it dead-nuts with a few quibbles here and there as we're finding out in this otherwise insightful thread.

Others here have already stated the obvious. You will not see any major manufacturer producing "modular" receivers EVER. CPU's with some codec-update possibilities...sure. But that's already gone on with folks like Denon...I updated to Audyssey Dyn EQ with my 3808 years ago for example.

Just ask NAD how their modular AVRs are working (really, workED) out for them. Then ask them again to answer honestly.

James

yeah, but it's still fun to talk about...it's the AV equivalent of bench racing wink.gif
post #273 of 354
I want them to take a step back on adding features, and take a step forward on usability.

For instance, having the receiver detect which inputs actually have something plugged in, and greatly simply setup and adding a new device. As soon as you plug it in, it should ask you to name it, and that's it, no need to remember the number of which port you just plugged in. I shouldn't even have to know what HDMI is. Likewise it should support wireless connectivity equally well - airplay, widi, Bluetooth, etc

Id like a headphone jack in the rear that can have headphones permanently plugged in, instead of always forcing it on. Let those headphones act as zone 2, and let me set it to always output line level if the headphones themselves have a volume control (like most wireless headsets).

I'd like to see less vestigal buttons on the remote that do one thing, and a much better (and faster GUI) instead. It doesn't need to be Apple TV level simplicity, but it doesn't need to look like the control panel for a helicopter either. It definitely doesn't need to be a universal remote with playback and number buttons.

Throw a smartphone CPU/SoC in the receiver and make something fast and beautiful, instead of whatever slow and ancient processors they're using now. I should never need to read a manual - the OSD should clearly define every option as you're changing it, and provide user guidance. For instance, when setting crossover, explain what a crossover is, what its typically set at, the real diff between "small" and "large" etc.

I'd like a dynamic compression mode that you can set a schedule to - at 9pm, switch to night mode. At midnight, switch to midnight mode.

The receiver should also be aware of when it starts to clip/distort - the volume level display could just turn red to inform the user they're pushing it too far for optimum quality.

I guess basically just finally make a receiver that normal non-techie human beings can use without being totally baffled. Keep all the tech stuff behind the scenes, I still want it, but I swear its like they're all a decade behind the rest of the tech industry when it comes to GUI design. I want them to be receivers that are better at their actual job of integrating components, not try to be a sub par replacement for some of them.

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.
Edited by bd2003 - 3/22/13 at 12:33pm
post #274 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Bit surprised this whole modular dialog is still going on, but ok.

Just ask NAD how their modular AVRs are working (really, workED) out for them. Then ask them again to answer honestly.

James

I think they would honestly say, "it's working excellent"

Here is a link to 7 NAD modules http://nadelectronics.com/products/mdc-modules

Case Study: If I bought a M15HD processor in Jan 2009, it would have Audyssey Pro and no 3D capability

Fast forward more than 4 years later and you can install both XT and 3D modules effectively making it their current HD2 without trashing your current proc and upgrading

Can you find a receiver in 2008/2009 that isn't obsolete today? It seems you made a broad statement without any kind of research.
Edited by snyderkv - 3/22/13 at 12:18pm
post #275 of 354
Those modules are expensive. Two of them could get you a fairly nice new AVR.

The arguments about the economics of modular AVRs still stand, even if NAD is making it work.
post #276 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Agreed. I'd pay an extra grand for an AVR with everything my Anthem box has, but a look more like this, with a small screen in place of the gaudily oversized logo:



So let me clarify, assuming an AVR of say ≥50W/ch output.

For everyone, Room correction is far more relevant and material to sound quality than power for this particular link in the chain, regardless of one's preferred SPL.

You can leave me out when you speak for everyone because I don't think Audyssey is going to save me from low end AVR sonics when I'm listening to a dynamic movie/symphonic rock concert in DTS with 50 watts of FTC rated power. I'm not talking about grandpa levels here so don't try and speak for everyone on listening level too. I personally don't know anybody that doesn't crank their system when their wife is gone or friends are around

Take your 50 watts of FTC rated power and it could measure just 25 watts FDC

Below is just an example of one manufacturer who measures both FTC and full disclosure power on one particular model that I copied below. Brand is of no concern, I just don't want to sound like a salesman.

FTC 200W
Full Disclosure Power (all channels driven simultaneously) 7 x 120w

FTC 2 x 80W
Full Disclosure Power (all channels driven simultaneously) 7 x 40W

As you can see, measured power is about half the watts when using the same measuring standard as low end AVRs. Edit. After some reading, some amps measure 1/3 their claims with just 2 channels. What happens when all 7 are driven? Ouch! Maybe Audyssey will make it sound better
Edited by snyderkv - 3/22/13 at 1:24pm
post #277 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlpearman View Post

Those modules are expensive. Two of them could get you a fairly nice new AVR.

The arguments about the economics of modular AVRs still stand, even if NAD is making it work.

The modules cost 10-15% of the price of the AVR/PROC.

Isn't that better than spending 100% on next years model?

I was never a great financial investor but I know simple math and NAD modular economics stands well to me

I know you can buy a cheap AVR for the price of a module but that's like me trading in my Ferrari for a Toyota Carolla because my bent rim costs more to repair than the total cost of the Toyota. And with that logic, I would downsize to a moped and then just start taking the bus, then get a local job and not have to drive at all.
Edited by snyderkv - 3/22/13 at 1:10pm
post #278 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I want them to take a step back on adding features, and take a step forward on usability.

For instance, having the receiver detect which inputs actually have something plugged in, and greatly simply setup and adding a new device. As soon as you plug it in, it should ask you to name it, and that's it, no need to remember the number of which port you just plugged in. I shouldn't even have to know what HDMI is. Likewise it should support wireless connectivity equally well - airplay, widi, Bluetooth, etc

Id like a headphone jack in the rear that can have headphones permanently plugged in, instead of always forcing it on. Let those headphones act as zone 2, and let me set it to always output line level if the headphones themselves have a volume control (like most wireless headsets).

I'd like to see less vestigal buttons on the remote that do one thing, and a much better (and faster GUI) instead. It doesn't need to be Apple TV level simplicity, but it doesn't need to look like the control panel for a helicopter either. It definitely doesn't need to be a universal remote with playback and number buttons.

Throw a smartphone CPU/SoC in the receiver and make something fast and beautiful, instead of whatever slow and ancient processors they're using now. I should never need to read a manual - the OSD should clearly define every option as you're changing it, and provide user guidance. For instance, when setting crossover, explain what a crossover is, what its typically set at, the real diff between "small" and "large" etc.

I'd like a dynamic compression mode that you can set a schedule to - at 9pm, switch to night mode. At midnight, switch to midnight mode.

The receiver should also be aware of when it starts to clip/distort - the volume level display could just turn red to inform the user they're pushing it too far for optimum quality.

I guess basically just finally make a receiver that normal non-techie human beings can use without being totally baffled. Keep all the tech stuff behind the scenes, I still want it, but I swear its like they're all a decade behind the rest of the tech industry when it comes to GUI design. I want them to be receivers that are better at their actual job of integrating components, not try to be a sub par replacement for some of them.

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.

Very creative ideas..
Unfortunately you left out the development $ cost for the supporting software...
This will push its price way too high..
And without the confidence of selling significant quantities, the CE brand will not make the investment..

Just my $0.02... 👍😉
post #279 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

Very creative ideas..
Unfortunately you left out the development $ cost for the supporting software...
This will push its price way too high..
And without the confidence of selling significant quantities, the CE brand will not make the investment..

Just my $0.02... 👍😉

My feeling is that a product like this would be so revolutionary that it'd more than make up for the up front investment. (See: Nest). I dunno, it just seems crazy to me how many years behind they are. Even my car stereo has a more sophisticated UI than my $1000 receiver. No joke, my HP printer has a better display than my receiver!

What's weird is that they are making smartphone apps that function as remotes for even some lower end receivers, instead of improving the actual UI. Theyre usually pretty half assed and useless though, seems like its just another feature box they want to check, without actually putting any effort. They could actually kill two birds with one stone and have the smartphone app mirror the very same UI.
post #280 of 354
Delete
post #281 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I want them to take a step back on adding features, and take a step forward on usability.

For instance, having the receiver detect which inputs actually have something plugged in, and greatly simply setup and adding a new device. As soon as you plug it in, it should ask you to name it, and that's it, no need to remember the number of which port you just plugged in. I shouldn't even have to know what HDMI is. Likewise it should support wireless connectivity equally well - airplay, widi, Bluetooth, etc

Id like a headphone jack in the rear that can have headphones permanently plugged in, instead of always forcing it on. Let those headphones act as zone 2, and let me set it to always output line level if the headphones themselves have a volume control (like most wireless headsets).

I'd like to see less vestigal buttons on the remote that do one thing, and a much better (and faster GUI) instead. It doesn't need to be Apple TV level simplicity, but it doesn't need to look like the control panel for a helicopter either. It definitely doesn't need to be a universal remote with playback and number buttons.

Throw a smartphone CPU/SoC in the receiver and make something fast and beautiful, instead of whatever slow and ancient processors they're using now. I should never need to read a manual - the OSD should clearly define every option as you're changing it, and provide user guidance. For instance, when setting crossover, explain what a crossover is, what its typically set at, the real diff between "small" and "large" etc.

I'd like a dynamic compression mode that you can set a schedule to - at 9pm, switch to night mode. At midnight, switch to midnight mode.

The receiver should also be aware of when it starts to clip/distort - the volume level display could just turn red to inform the user they're pushing it too far for optimum quality.

I guess basically just finally make a receiver that normal non-techie human beings can use without being totally baffled. Keep all the tech stuff behind the scenes, I still want it, but I swear its like they're all a decade behind the rest of the tech industry when it comes to GUI design. I want them to be receivers that are better at their actual job of integrating components, not try to be a sub par replacement for some of them.

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.


I like how you said you want them to stop adding features, then went on to list the feature you want them to add. lol. Personally, there are several features I'd like added in one way or another- but I do like almost every idea you mentioned as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

The modules cost 10-15% of the price of the AVR/PROC.

Isn't that better than spending 100% on next years model?

I was never a great financial investor but I know simple math and NAD modular economics stands well to me

I know you can buy a cheap AVR for the price of a module but that's like me trading in my Ferrari for a Toyota Carolla because my bent rim costs more to repair than the total cost of the Toyota. And with that logic, I would downsize to a moped and then just start taking the bus, then get a local job and not have to drive at all.

I agree. Besides the points you made, choosing a new receiver all together can be intimidating for many buyers. In many cases, if the only option is to replace the whole receiver- many will just keep what they have and go without the latest features. On the other hand, if someone can keep their entire system as is and without needing to learn a whole new receiver, adding on a simple module for the latest feature or spec (whatever it may be and however that may be), they'd be a lot more willing to do so.
post #282 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonMan View Post

I like how you said you want them to stop adding features, then went on to list the feature you want them to add. lol. Personally, there are several features I'd like added in one way or another- but I do like almost every idea you mentioned as well.

Lol true, I guess what I mean to say is that it doesnt need to playback pandora, netflix or mp3s - it should be assumed that if you have an AVR, you have a device hooked up to it that can do all that (and much better). Next thing you know theyre going to start adding games. I still dont quite get the need for multiple zones and HDMI outputs either. I'm not even convinced it needs any sort of video processing (that's the TV's job). Nor does it need a universal remote - no AVR comes even close to something like a harmony.

I also like the modular hardware idea, but I'd be more interested in modular software. Like to be able to add codec and processing filter support over time, etc. Why saddle everyone with the cost of licensing dolby headphone, when you can sell it to whoever wants it for a reasonable fee? I've seen this happen in limited form before - denon had a software upgrade to add airplay, but it was outrageously expensive ($50), terribly slow and buggy and wasnt half as good as an apple TV (didnt support video at all), despite costing half as much. I dunno, I feel like they should either do it right, or not do it at all. Less feature creep, more focus on making the core product better.
Edited by bd2003 - 3/22/13 at 2:08pm
post #283 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiHigh View Post

Wireless surround channels....

There are various systems out there. However, most of us, even the not extreme audiophiles on this forum, don't want some crappy wireless solution... we want reliable hard wiring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Bit surprised this whole modular dialog is still going on, but ok.

Look, the problem is that this tiny ground swell for "modularity" ignores a MASSIVE reality:

it's really not needed.

Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I want them to take a step back on adding features, and take a step forward on usability.

Agreed. There's so many different modes on mine, which is just a $700 HTIB, that I can't figure out what half of them do. The manual was sort of helpful, but even then, it's information overload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

Take your 50 watts of FTC rated power and it could measure just 25 watts FDC

Realistically, how much power do you actually need? Most speakers just don't use that much. They're extremely efficient, and most systems out there can deliver way more power than the speakers need, or the listeners would ever want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Lol true, I guess what I mean to say is that it doesnt need to playback pandora, netflix or mp3s - it should be assumed that if you have an AVR, you have a device hooked up to it that can do all that (and much better). Next thing you know theyre going to start adding games. I still dont quite get the need for multiple zones and HDMI outputs either. I'm not even convinced it needs any sort of video processing (that's the TV's job). Nor does it need a universal remote - no AVR comes even close to something like a harmony.

I also like the modular hardware idea, but I'd be more interested in modular software. Like to be able to add codec and processing filter support over time, etc. Why saddle everyone with the cost of licensing dolby headphone, when you can sell it to whoever wants it for a reasonable fee? I've seen this happen in limited form before - denon had a software upgrade to add airplay, but it was outrageously expensive ($50), terribly slow and buggy and wasnt half as good as an apple TV (didnt support video at all), despite costing half as much. I dunno, I feel like they should either do it right, or not do it at all. Less feature creep, more focus on making the core product better.

AVRs should do video processing, as TVs don't do a good job, and many users don't have a dedicated video scaler like a DVDO EDGE. Optional software is interesting, but it would be a nightmare trying to actually sell it, and I bet the take rate would be extremely low. We've gotten to AVRs and TVs needing software updates, I don't know how soon people will take to buying software for their AVRs. It just feels like a nickel and dime thing at that point.
post #284 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlpearman View Post

Those modules are expensive. Two of them could get you a fairly nice new AVR.

The arguments about the economics of modular AVRs still stand, even if NAD is making it work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

The modules cost 10-15% of the price of the AVR/PROC.

Isn't that better than spending 100% on next years model?

I was never a great financial investor but I know simple math and NAD modular economics stands well to me

...[Snip]

"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.
post #285 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlpearman View Post


"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.

This assumes you think the modular ability is the cause of the high price which it's not. The modular ability is diluted into the total price similiar to royalties paid for the THX logo on a low end AVR

You can also buy a much cheaper bare bones AVR ($800) new on audiogon and add modules you want and leave ones you don't want. Closest thing to "built to order" you can get
Edited by snyderkv - 3/23/13 at 12:19am
post #286 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrehdd View Post

Android? Hmmmm that is okay but why not stick to tried and true - a flavour of Linux?
Android is a flavor of Linux. smile.gif 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Points out that a clipping indicator or better yet a set of peak power meters might be a valuable feature for an AVR.
+1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

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.
Two things:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlpearman View Post


"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.
post #287 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb View Post

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",

I think you are, their low end module accepts less, but as you go up, you can upgrade to everything, inputs/outputs, 3D, Audyssey, HD and anything in the future like Doldy Digital + ++, 4K upscaling etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb View Post

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.

I think you're a little late to the party. NAD has been doing this for years with obvious success. You could of bought their receiver in 2008 and upgraded to today's specs using its new modules. It seems NAD doesn't advertise to the mid-low end markets. Maybe if an Emotiva developed modularity it would all of a sudden become the most awsome thing ever.
Edited by snyderkv - 3/23/13 at 11:15am
post #288 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb View Post

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.

That works quite well for computers. Doing the same thing for AVRs is a whole different concept. The first an most obvious question would there be enough demand for an AVR manufacturer to do this? I doubt there would be and if it did happen the costs for these "built to order" AVRs would be quite steep.

Bill
post #289 of 354
My old CPM computer had memory boards that plugged into the motherboard, but now desktop systems have the memory all on the motherboard. Up to the last desktop I had, the monitor was driven by a video module plugin, but the last one had a video chip on the motherboard. Now, desktop systems with any plugin modules at all seem to be going out of style. I think I see a trend.
post #290 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

This assumes you think the modular ability is the cause of the high price which it's not. The modular ability is diluted into the total price similiar to royalties paid for the THX logo on a low end AVR

You can also buy a much cheaper bare bones AVR ($800) new on audiogon and add modules you want and leave ones you don't want. Closest thing to "built to order" you can get

Module upgrade capability is not new in receivers...
In the mid-70s...
Marantz had plug-in module capability for different quad decoding schemes.. 😳
Also they had plug-in capability for Dolby FM and even AM-Stereo..
The product development guys @ Marantz were way ahead of the pack in their product/feature thinking...


Just my $0.02... 👍😉
post #291 of 354
I'd like to see at least 4 sub outs all controlled by a dedicated DSP.
post #292 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah_1014 View Post

Sorry you feel that way. I have nothing but good things to say about my Yamaha. Crystal clear dynamic sound with punchy bass. I love the parametric equalizer, despite its limitations of only 4 bands, but I hope they improve with that with future models.

I'll tell you this with the Yamaha I was able to get my entire seating position not just my "main listening position" but my entire seating area pretty flat from 30-90hz +/- 1db. Took a lot of hard work and subwoofer placement plus equalization to do that. I guarantee no auto calibration software (without manual calibration)would have been able to do that in my nasty room that I have. I had a horrible dip between 41-48hz of -12db, 51-58 was about -5db and from 70-90 of -5db and that was on my right side of my coach. On the left side lets just say all those frequencies were peaking. I'll admit YPAO is not the greatest calibration for subwoofers, but I doubt you'll find any calibration software that is capable of calibrating a flat frequency response in my room based on the data I provided you.rolleyes.gif

Do you know how engulfing your system sounds when you have every listening position pretty equal? I'm not sure how your system is setup but I've been thriving for a flat response from all listening position for quite some time and I've been able to achieve it with much trial and error. biggrin.gif

My subwoofers aren't the greatest either Velodyne VDR-12 they drop off pretty quickly after 30hz, so that's why I was only capable of getting my system flat down to 30hz, hopefully by the end of the year I'll be adding two Rhytmik FV15HP.

Thats something quite impressive in terms of what you have going there. I envy you rolleyes.gif

My room is a disaster when it comes to room modes. Its terrible. I have the Velodyne SMS-1 EQ for my Submersive, which I can get down to about 12hz in VERY specific spots of my room.

So when I got my Sub eq, I got my seating position eqed to perfection and was very happy with the flat response I was seeing on the screen. That is until I moved the Mic about 5cm to the left, and everything was a horrific jumble again. I don't know if I'll ever get even half way to an all equal room response. YPAO does pretty much nothing for me except bump the subwoofer volume up or down, and set the crossover. Both things which the EQ also does.
post #293 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb View Post

Two things:
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.

I'm not at all suggesting to make the AVR into a full fledged computer. It just needs a better interface. What OS my car stereo is running is a mystery to me....I'm pretty sure its not windows CE, maybe linux? Who knows? When it comes down to it, there's a huge amount of similarity between a car stereo and an AVR, and if a $200 tiny little car stereo can do it, so can a $600-2000+ AVR. Its just that no one's tried yet. When I speak of the UI, I'm speaking both of the OSD and the AVR display. Both are equally ancient, both should be far more capable.
Quote:
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.

It def doesnt need to be a super bright and distracting display. You'd certainly expect it to dim automatically when the lights are off, and you'd more than likely want white text on a black background. A modern screen is still technically a dot matrix display, its just better in every way. It could replace every nearly single button on the AVR while being far more intuitive to use.

Here's an $80 router with a better display and UI than my $1000 AVR. http://www.amazon.com/Securifi-Almond-Wireless-Extender-Booster/dp/B0087NZ31S
Here's a $120 printer: http://www.amazon.com/HP-Officejet-6600-Wireless-Printer/dp/B006M1N9QI/ref=sr_1_52?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1364140700&sr=1-52&keywords=deskjet

Eventually someone is going to do this, CNET is going to rave and gush about how easy it is for the average person to set this AVR up, and everyone else will immediately start playing catch up.

Also, keep in mind, an AVR has some very legitimate uses that don't involve a TV. FM/HD radio, Pandora/Spotify/Whatever, Airplay, LAN Mp3s etc. If I just want to listen to some music, it'd be pretty nice to not have to turn my TV on at all, and manage everything from the AVR display. No more fiddling with the remote to recall which button starts pandora, which is upvote/downvote, etc - just turn on AVR, touch input select, touch pandora, and go. Pick playlists, stations etc. This would all basically be impossible without turning on your TV and fiddling with a remote at the moment.
Edited by bd2003 - 3/24/13 at 9:12am
post #294 of 354
After much comparison shopping and more than a dozen hours in various listening rooms, I found the Yamaha RX-V373. Less than $200. and an exception first step into digital sound other than on a PC. Many more options than apparent from the meager front panel controls. It offers numberous options for attaching devices , both analog and digital. It does have only one HDMI output but that's fine and it gives me a full control display on the HDTV. Just a fine example.
post #295 of 354
Here's what I see coming. My next AVR will be integrated into my TV, with left/center/right speakers in a soundbar in the bottom frame. There is just one remote for TV+AVR, one volume control, and a single integrated OSD covers setup and control functions for both TV and AVR. You can add a subwoofer accessory if you like, which works wirelessly with the TV. You just plug it in anywhere in the room and turn it on -- it configures itself and starts playing. There are wireless surrounds that work the same way, because they are on a universal wireless bus. The calibration mike is connected the same way. All surrounds are the same, initially, but they know how to configure themselves, depending on where in the room they are put. No manual is necessary.
post #296 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

Here's what I see coming. My next AVR will be integrated into my TV, with left/center/right speakers in a soundbar in the bottom frame. There is just one remote for TV+AVR, one volume control, and a single integrated OSD covers setup and control functions for both TV and AVR. You can add a subwoofer accessory if you like, which works wirelessly with the TV. You just plug it in anywhere in the room and turn it on -- it configures itself and starts playing. There are wireless surrounds that work the same way, because they are on a universal wireless bus. The calibration mike is connected the same way. All surrounds are the same, initially, but they know how to configure themselves, depending on where in the room they are put. No manual is necessary.

UGH. You need separate channels that are more than 1/2" thick to make decent sound. There are laws of physics, and tiny speakers will make crappy sound. It's just that simple. There's also laws of biology, and in order for the sound to sound realistic to us, we must have good channel separation.
post #297 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

I think you're a little late to the party. NAD has been doing this for years with obvious success. You could of bought their receiver in 2008 and upgraded to today's specs using its new modules. It seems NAD doesn't advertise to the mid-low end markets. Maybe if an Emotiva developed modularity it would all of a sudden become the most awsome thing ever.
Most people have never heard of NAD or Emotiva, including me until recently. Even Denon isn't a widely recognized name outside of the community of people interested in home audio and/or theater equipment. I'm looking for this capability to become commonplace, all the way down to brands like Pioneer and Yamaha. I don't mean for it to be in every model, but I do mean for it to be in every lineup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

My old CPM computer had memory boards that plugged into the motherboard, but now desktop systems have the memory all on the motherboard. Up to the last desktop I had, the monitor was driven by a video module plugin, but the last one had a video chip on the motherboard. Now, desktop systems with any plugin modules at all seem to be going out of style. I think I see a trend.
Find me a desktop computer sold today that doesn't have removeable/upgradable memory modules.

Discrete video cards are still common among gamers and graphics professionals, but integrated chipsets with video are quite common and impressively capable these days.
post #298 of 354
I have trouble with this question because i believe our current generation of audio video equipment is flawed. I would like to see a display with no audio at all just the best picture for the money with hdbase-t in. A receiver that doesn't do fancy audio modes just what you put in you get out, i would like a calibration that makes the room and speakers as flat l as possible I would like it to have an assortment of inputs and if it has a second zone allow it to use the digital audio sources. The receivers would come in assortment of size from 2 channel to 9.3. and the devices would be controlled from one remote and different manufactures would be required to use the same control protocol. Our Set top boxes like apple tvs should have rvu's built in and there shoulb be a tv server (directv, fios timewarner) so that it is a single interface to watch tv and internet video.
post #299 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb View Post

Most people have never heard of NAD or Emotiva, including me until recently. Even Denon isn't a widely recognized name outside of the community of people interested in home audio and/or theater equipment. I'm looking for this capability to become commonplace, all the way down to brands like Pioneer and Yamaha. I don't mean for it to be in every model, but I do mean for it to be in every lineup.
Find me a desktop computer sold today that doesn't have removeable/upgradable memory modules.

Discrete video cards are still common among gamers and graphics professionals, but integrated chipsets with video are quite common and impressively capable these days.
The desktop does have the ability to change the problem is the motherboard may not accept the latest processor or the memory maxes out at 1600MHz while things have moved on requiring a new motherboard giving new meaning to forklift overhaul since things are becoming outdated a year later.
post #300 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb View Post

Find me a desktop computer sold today that doesn't have removeable/upgradable memory modules.
I meant that desktops are going out of style. So far as I know, desktops still have modular memory.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › What Would You Like to See in Your Next AVR?