Why are AVRs and AVPs so expensive?

[Joffy1780]

Good reputation for reliability, and decent to excellent sound quality.

But no on-board room eq system

It does have an on board room eq system and a calibration mic (sold separately of course )
Sounds promising then, considering it is considerably cheaper than the competition.

 

[dlaloum]

It does have an on board room eq system and a calibration mic (sold separately of course )
Sounds promising then, considering it is considerably cheaper than the competition.

Be aware, that when I use the catch all term " room eq", I am including specifically, quite sophisticated systems like Dirac, Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, that do far more than mere eq.

REW can be used with the on-board eq to analyse and adjust, but probably won't do the sort of impulse response correction or bass phase and mixing that the sophisticated systems do.

To me these " Room EQ " systems are one of the main reasons for having an AVR in the first place.

DIRAC has made a dramatic difference to my system, even when the frequency response ( traditional EQ ) is kept identical to the natural voicing of the system.

Midrange is much improved, as is sounds take and imaging.

I would be seriously considering tonewinner, if it had Dirac on-board, or a Dirac upgrade option.

Without that, (or rather with Dirac or Audyssey ) the most economical AVR I could find with a full set of pre outs was the integra drx 3.4.

 

[voodooless]

Good reputation for reliability, and decent to excellent sound quality.

I could also contend the sound quality. Objectively it’s not very good with a self claimed SINAD of about 74.

 

[Joffy1780]

Be aware, that when I use the catch all term " room eq", I am including specifically, quite sophisticated systems like Dirac, Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, that do far more than mere eq.

REW can be used with the on-board eq to analyse and adjust, but probably won't do the sort of impulse response correction or bass phase and mixing that the sophisticated systems do.

To me these " Room EQ " systems are one of the main reasons for having an AVR in the first place.

DIRAC has made a dramatic difference to my system, even when the frequency response ( traditional EQ ) is kept identical to the natural voicing of the system.

Midrange is much improved, as is sounds take and imaging.

I would be seriously considering tonewinner, if it had Dirac on-board, or a Dirac upgrade option.

Without that, (or rather with Dirac or Audyssey ) the most economical AVR I could find with a full set of pre outs was the integra drx 3.4.

Thanks for the lecture and sorry I'm not a mind reader.

 

[Chrispy]

A general revisit/thought....theyre uusually a better value than most audio gear these days.....did I say that before?

 

[dlaloum]

Thanks for the lecture and sorry I'm not a mind reader.

I apologise for the previous lack of clarity... (and no one has ever accused me of lacking verbosity.... never use one word - or syllable when a dozen will suit)

 

[ubik3000]

No way the manufacturers pay that much for those licenses. It's probably below 100$ for all licenses for such devices.

You should also not forget the development cost that needs to be amortized over the sales. An AVR (line) is vastly more complex than an x-channel amplifier. There is a lot of software that needs to work flawlessly.

AVPs are more expensive because they just have much lower sales figures. You may argue that because they have 80% of the same insides, this price difference should not be that high, especially because the amps are missing. But in reality, they probably just make a bit more margin on those things, why not

And no, toroidals aren't necessarily the hallmark of top quality. The best amps in the SINAD list don't have any For an AVR, they don't make sense. They are way too large for a product that is already crammed with processing PCBs and amplifiers.

"There is a lot of software that needs to work flawlessly." But it does not, not in the case of Marantz.

 

[Descartes]

"There is a lot of software that needs to work flawlessly." But it does not, not in the case of Marantz.

Look at how much DIRAC charges!!

 

[funnychap]

I was looking at the Emotiva BasX 7 channel class A/B Amplifier which comes with a toroidal and puts out 90 watts. Reading online it seems that it has 6 x 10,000 capacitors so it beats every AVR made in the past 15 years. It also weighs 30lbs which is more than many AVRs weigh that cost $2,000-$3,000.

Price $699

Then there's the Outlaw Model 7000 which ups the wattage to 130 watts and weighs 60 lbs; nearly as much as the heaviest current AVR the Denon which costs $6,500.

Price $999

A couple of questions spring to mind immediately after seeing these products:

1. Why aren't we seeing AVPs in the same price range as these amplifiers?

2. How can today's AVRs justify their prices?

These amps come with toroidals and I'm pretty sure the only thing that compares to the Outlaw powerwise is the Rotel RAP-1580 MkII which costs $5,500 and weighs as much with all the video processing.

How can AVRs like the Marantz SR8015 (the last toroidal with the Rotel) justify its price when the power delivery is at best comparable to $1,000 amplifiers? That means the video processing has to be worth $3,000 which is laughable when it comes with just 1 HDMI 2.1 connection 4 years after HDMI 2.1 was released.

But at least the aforementioned Marantz and Rotel had toroidal transformers which are a staple of high-end audio equipment (Luxman and SMPS being the exception). How can all the new models justify their prices when they are not even toroidal and deliver much less power? Their amp section is worth a maximum of $700 to $1,000 for all those AVRs and we're not even comparing apples to apples.

After all, most AVRs today just need a few HDMI connections along a circuit board with a DAC. It's not like the old days with Composite, S-Video, Component, HDMI where half the rear of the AVR was dedicated to video connections. Plus, you need very little power for the processing part as opposed to the speaker amplification part.

If we look at 3700h, an AVR that was very popular and used with external amps, it cost $1,000 when it was launched not long ago. Let's be generous and make it $1,200 to account for inflation and to keep Denon smiling. Let's now convert it to an AVP stripping it of its amplification (nearly half of the unit) dropping the weight from 27lbs to, say, 15lbs by adding a little bit of extra strength to the smaller chassis to make it a bit more audiophile. Let's assume the removal of the amplification and replacement with a basic power supply to run the unit as an AVP shaved $400 off the price ($100 in cost). Now we're looking at a $800 small sized near audiophile AVP without the mumbo jumbo. Let's add a little bit of niceties that cost $50 in parts and labor and bring the price to $1,000 or just sell it for $1,000.

Here's a $1,000 AVP. Okay, Denon is greedy and it would cost $1,500 in today's Denon world. Let's go along with that - Denon can charge $1,500 and Marantz can go bonkers and charge $1,600 since they're Ferraris!

Onkyo, Pioneer, and Integra can offer it for a lower price.

So now we have a decent AVP that's going to be home friendly and a decent value. Let's add a toroidal amp and turn it into an AVR like the BASX A7. We'll charge more than $700 since there are complexities to a single box - you need more than a napkin to design that. Instead of $1,700 ($1,000 for the AVP + $700 for the amplification), let's make it $2,500 and bump up the quality a bit adding $100 in better parts.

Now we have a world class AVR. This unit costs $2,500 and is better than the Cinema 40 and is still profitable as a single-box. We have $150 in parts improvement (massive in terms of quality, who knows a 5th leg maybe???) over the Cinema 40, and we also have a toroidal transformer like the SR8015 and we're saving $1,000. We slap the Denon and Marantz badge on it.

Bottomline mid-range AVPs should cost $1,500 and high-end AVRs should cost $2,500-$3,000 and should be better than current models.

lol, the Emotiva BasX 7 is terrible at dynamic range 2-channels music (I have the more powerful BasX-A3 which creates 150 wpc into 3 channels or 160 wpc into 2 channels)

 

[funnychap]

I was looking at the Emotiva BasX 7 channel class A/B Amplifier which comes with a toroidal and puts out 90 watts. Reading online it seems that it has 6 x 10,000 capacitors so it beats every AVR made in the past 15 years. It also weighs 30lbs which is more than many AVRs weigh that cost $2,000-$3,000.

Price $699

Then there's the Outlaw Model 7000 which ups the wattage to 130 watts and weighs 60 lbs; nearly as much as the heaviest current AVR the Denon which costs $6,500.

Price $999

A couple of questions spring to mind immediately after seeing these products:

1. Why aren't we seeing AVPs in the same price range as these amplifiers?

2. How can today's AVRs justify their prices?

These amps come with toroidals and I'm pretty sure the only thing that compares to the Outlaw powerwise is the Rotel RAP-1580 MkII which costs $5,500 and weighs as much with all the video processing.

How can AVRs like the Marantz SR8015 (the last toroidal with the Rotel) justify its price when the power delivery is at best comparable to $1,000 amplifiers? That means the video processing has to be worth $3,000 which is laughable when it comes with just 1 HDMI 2.1 connection 4 years after HDMI 2.1 was released.

But at least the aforementioned Marantz and Rotel had toroidal transformers which are a staple of high-end audio equipment (Luxman and SMPS being the exception). How can all the new models justify their prices when they are not even toroidal and deliver much less power? Their amp section is worth a maximum of $700 to $1,000 for all those AVRs and we're not even comparing apples to apples.

After all, most AVRs today just need a few HDMI connections along a circuit board with a DAC. It's not like the old days with Composite, S-Video, Component, HDMI where half the rear of the AVR was dedicated to video connections. Plus, you need very little power for the processing part as opposed to the speaker amplification part.

If we look at 3700h, an AVR that was very popular and used with external amps, it cost $1,000 when it was launched not long ago. Let's be generous and make it $1,200 to account for inflation and to keep Denon smiling. Let's now convert it to an AVP stripping it of its amplification (nearly half of the unit) dropping the weight from 27lbs to, say, 15lbs by adding a little bit of extra strength to the smaller chassis to make it a bit more audiophile. Let's assume the removal of the amplification and replacement with a basic power supply to run the unit as an AVP shaved $400 off the price ($100 in cost). Now we're looking at a $800 small sized near audiophile AVP without the mumbo jumbo. Let's add a little bit of niceties that cost $50 in parts and labor and bring the price to $1,000 or just sell it for $1,000.

Here's a $1,000 AVP. Okay, Denon is greedy and it would cost $1,500 in today's Denon world. Let's go along with that - Denon can charge $1,500 and Marantz can go bonkers and charge $1,600 since they're Ferraris!

Onkyo, Pioneer, and Integra can offer it for a lower price.

So now we have a decent AVP that's going to be home friendly and a decent value. Let's add a toroidal amp and turn it into an AVR like the BASX A7. We'll charge more than $700 since there are complexities to a single box - you need more than a napkin to design that. Instead of $1,700 ($1,000 for the AVP + $700 for the amplification), let's make it $2,500 and bump up the quality a bit adding $100 in better parts.

Now we have a world class AVR. This unit costs $2,500 and is better than the Cinema 40 and is still profitable as a single-box. We have $150 in parts improvement (massive in terms of quality, who knows a 5th leg maybe???) over the Cinema 40, and we also have a toroidal transformer like the SR8015 and we're saving $1,000. We slap the Denon and Marantz badge on it.

Bottomline mid-range AVPs should cost $1,500 and high-end AVRs should cost $2,500-$3,000 and should be better than current models.

mass market AVRs (Denon, Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo) have budget DACs and half the maximum power supply.

You'll hear a big improvement in higher brands (Arcam, JBL, Anthem).

 

[Dougey_Jones]

We can definitely approach this on low end too, e.g. eARC input on cheap DAC that can only process PCM.

Explain the usefulness of this? What AVR's output format decoded LPCM over eARC? I've heard a few people mention that some Samsung and Sony model TV's might be able to do this, but haven't ever seen someone post about having this setup functioning.

Atmos/DTS-X Decoded to LPCM (TV?) --> Outboard 8-Channel DAC --> MultiChannel Input on Preamp? --> Amps

 

[Dougey_Jones]

You need same mastering/mixing on both, otherwise it is apples to oranges. DTS was in many cases mastered/mixed differently than Dolby Digital (same with different versions of these). There were even fights between these companies because of that (there were of course technical differences too but I'd argue the biggest difference came from mastering/mixing, not sure though why DTS in general was considered better during the time, perhaps it was just mixed louder or bass bumped, similar to CD compression wars).

Taken directly from the Wiki, DTS had higher average bitrate.

"In the consumer market, AC-3 and DTS are close in terms of audio performance. When the DTS audio track is encoded at its highest legal bitrate (1509.75 kbit/s), technical experts rank DTS as perceptually transparent for most audio program material (i.e., indistinguishable to the uncoded source in a double blind test).[citation needed] Dolby claims its competing AC-3 codec achieves similar transparency at its highest coded bitrate (640 kbit/s). However, in program material available to home consumers (DVD, broadcast, and subscription digital TV), neither AC-3 nor DTS typically run at their highest allowed bitrate."

I always thought DTS encoded surround tracks subjectively sounded better. Whether it was bitrate or better mixing/mastering is up for discussion. This obviously went out the window with the advent of TrueHD/Atmos/etc.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

Since the Onkyo has Dirac and all pre-outs, what's missing then?

If Onkyo made a processor only version of the RZ50 with no amps, all XLR outputs and DLBC I'd literally be in heaven. But here I am using the RZ50 as a processor anyway. To be quite honest, I'm using multiple subs daisy chained off of the RZ50's sub outputs and Dirac without DLBC did a very impressive job of EQ'ing the subs as one "unit". The software obviously doesn't know (or care) where the measured sounds are coming from, the best you can do is use a lot of measurement locations and let it work.

My setup sounds amazing.

EDIT - It looks like the Integra DRX-8.4 includes XLR output for L/C/R and Sub, which would be plenty for me, unfortunately it's $3,200 vs $1,600 and all I'd get out of the deal is balanced pre-outs for my front sound stage.

 

[dshreter]

One thing I'd love to see is to 2.1/2.2 AVP (modern HDMI and codecs) with XLR either analog or AES (or both) outputs (AES probably not possible because of HDMI/HDCP). Right now AVP they release is that 16 channel containing everything beasts with a starting price 5000+ USD.

I too would like to see that mythical creature, but processing of modern codecs is expensive, and I'm skeptical that Dolby and DTS even have stereo licensing programs. By the time you throw all of that into the mix, I'm skeptical they cost much less. The main benefit would be a better form factor as you don't need as big a box for all the connectors and channels.

 

[bungle]

Explain the usefulness of this? What AVR's output format decoded LPCM over eARC? I've heard a few people mention that some Samsung and Sony model TV's might be able to do this, but haven't ever seen someone post about having this setup functioning.

Atmos/DTS-X Decoded to LPCM (TV?) --> Outboard 8-Channel DAC --> MultiChannel Input on Preamp? --> Amps

Same as with toslink, except CEC (volume control, switch on/off), and lipsync. Bandwidth for multichannel LPCM provided that you have LPCM decoder at source, a way more useful than I2C. The MiniDSP Flex HT is trying just that (and with SINAD +110, and room correction), and there are others too. Being able to connect AV equipment to stereo is a plus. Many TVs don’t have anything else than eARC anymore. Many patents for earlier codecs are already expired, so perhaps basic codecs will start to be integrated to these too. E.g. AC3 patents have been expired and can be found on a lot of OSS software. Adding that to for example miniDSP will already make many happy (music high quality stereo, movies 5.1 AC3). AFAIK almost all E-AC3 patents have been expired too.

 

[Jbrunwa]

Same as with toslink, except CEC (volume control, switch on/off), and lipsync. Bandwidth for multichannel LPCM provided that you have LPCM decoder at source, a way more useful than I2C. The MiniDSP Flex HT is trying just that (and with SINAD +110, and room correction), and there are others too. Being able to connect AV equipment to stereo is a plus. Many TVs don’t have anything else than eARC anymore. Many patents for earlier codecs are already expired, so perhaps basic codecs will start to be integrated to these too. E.g. AC3 patents have been expired and can be found on a lot of OSS software. Adding that to for example miniDSP will already make many happy (music high quality stereo, movies 5.1 AC3). AFAIK almost all E-AC3 patents have been expired too.

In our vacation home we just set up Apple TV and other HDMI sources to TCL TV and TCL TV toslink output to an old B&K Reference 50 AVP with 5.1 amps and speakers. Atmos auto decodes to LPCM Dolby Digital 5.1, and stereo to PL ii. After setting speaker distances, levels, and crossovers, It sounds so good it had me questioning why we went to the trouble with Atmos and newer gear at our primary home. Of course, different rooms, no A/B, yada yada, etc. Oh, yeah, so TV does all the HDMI switching and there are no AVR HDMI switching problems like when trying to run all the HDMI sources through our newer AVRs.

 

[EJ3]

One thing I'd love to see is to 2.1/2.2 AVP (modern HDMI and codecs) with XLR either analog or AES (or both) outputs (AES probably not possible because of HDMI/HDCP) AVP. Right now AVP they release is that 16 channel containing everything beasts with a starting price 5000+ USD.

I'd like to see 3.2 or 3.x (other than 3.1) AVP & (modern HDMI and codecs) with XLR either analog or AES (or both) outputs (AES probably not possible because of HDMI/HDCP)"

 

[EJ3]

If you stream everything, as I do

I am at the opposite end, I stream nothing (unless it's from within my home), get over the air HDMI (haven't had cable since 2007), FM (on my setup it only goes up to 17.5 KHz but I can no longer hear that high anyway), play silver disks or LP's & sometimes Reel to Reel or cassettes. And want a 3.2 AVP. I do use Bluetooth Apt-X (want to switch to LDAC).
To reliably stream would require a dedicated SAT link, that is not happening.

 

[EJ3]

Well, there are active speakers that take PoE, so it is only a single cable and that's it (and also wireless speakers that only take power cord). I am also thinking that active speakers are the more and more popular these days. Every bluetooth speaker and sound bar and subwoofer is essentially active. The passive speakers seem to be more and more in a niche, and that market is only getting smaller.

But you are also presuming that people who already have excellent (passive)gear want to buy new excellent (active) gear. Even if I had the money, I would only do it if I did not have great gear already.

 

[Roland68]

If Onkyo made a processor only version of the RZ50 with no amps, all XLR outputs and DLBC I'd literally be in heaven.

But that's exactly what most end users don't understand.
The device would be significantly more expensive due to the much lower sales figures. Which is because all costs are spread across much lower volumes.
Many costs also increase because of the lower quantity, e.g. housing, packaging, circuit boards, etc.

Even under favorable circumstances, such a device would be at least $500-1000 more expensive, which would not exactly increase sales.
Is it worth it just so that the power amplifiers are missing?

Another important point, with most AVR / AVPre the signals for the XLR outputs are only generated at the output. Is that worth the extra cost?