• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Why are AVRs and AVPs so expensive?

dlaloum

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
3,092
Likes
2,353
Cleaner designs that reach 100 db SINAD or more consistenly would be an innovation. If putting all the components together in a box were that easy, DIY-ers would be making AVR´s and that does not seem to be the case.

No innovation for amps in 20 years? Hypex and Purifi are have flipped the market in the last five years, so...
100db signal/noise has been commonplace for 40 years
-100db THD is indistinguishable from -80db THD (and possibly even down to -60db THD)

When the improvements are beyond the range of audibility, they are unlikely to sell more kit, or be viewed as "innovation"

Back to back testing of quality 40 year old power amps vs Hypex/purifi/benchmark, typically show no discernible difference for most listeners (as long as the amps are within their rated performance envelopes...)

The real difference, is that today, we can get some of the performance which 40 years ago was limited to megabuck high end components, down at mass market price levels... but yes that also implies lower margins.

What Massimo are trying to do, is take those advantages (reduced cost at equivalent performance), and raise the margins.

They can only succeed in this, if their competitors follow suit.

So the question is, what will Onkyo, Yamaha and Sony do.... the big players in that market segment.

If they are happy with current margin structures, and would love to increase their market share - all they have to do is stick with current pricing - and D&M/Massimo will end up sacrificing substantial market share, in exchange for their increased margin - but possibly substantially reduced overall net profit....

The game is afoot.
 
OP
techsamurai

techsamurai

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 26, 2022
Messages
804
Likes
261
They do a lot. I think they are hidden bargains as even some lower models perform very very well. IC, DACs, and amps in AVRs have come a long way. While audiophiles dick around with expensive components chasing nebulous performance abstractions, regular people get within millimeters of actual good to excellent performance with a carefully researched AVR purchase and same with speakers. Saving $1000 to $4000+ dollars.

But they've been doing that for 20 years. I view today's AVRs and AVPs just like that audiophile gear you're talking about. For me to upgrade, I'd have to spend crazy money.

Even the same model AVRs I have cost $4,000 a piece and I have 2 of them.

As for offering more than they used to, that's debatable.
 
OP
techsamurai

techsamurai

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 26, 2022
Messages
804
Likes
261
What Massimo are trying to do, is take those advantages (reduced cost at equivalent performance), and raise the margins.

They can only succeed in this, if their competitors follow suit.

So the question is, what will Onkyo, Yamaha and Sony do.... the big players in that market segment.

If they are happy with current margin structures, and would love to increase their market share - all they have to do is stick with current pricing - and D&M/Massimo will end up sacrificing substantial market share, in exchange for their increased margin - but possibly substantially reduced overall net profit....

The game is afoot.

Exactly, and it's not taking into account disruption which could make D+M obsolete. Dirac is a form of disruption and they are losing that battle at the low-end and midrange.

Sony's spatial Audio appears to be a step above Dirac so now Dirac is being disrupted and Sony's model are installer friendly allowing custom installers to sell them in more affordable home theater installations with excellent surround sound.

Then there's Hypex and Purifi - a manufacturer could come in with an AVR that has significantly better amplification. Then there's the lack of toroidals with Emotiva able to stick a 8015 toroidal in a $700 external amp. If they can put together an AVR with a decent toroidal for less than $2,000 with DIRAC, I'm not sure how Marantz and Denon wiil be able to compete as their high-end models will cost 3 times more.

As you said, the game is afoot and the board has completely opened up for anyone to take it away.
 
Last edited:
OP
techsamurai

techsamurai

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 26, 2022
Messages
804
Likes
261
I would love a citation for this.

Based on people that have heard both. But I think you're alluding to bass where Dirac apparently has 3 licenses to handle that.:)

I've no doubt that Dirac is better in bass management but I think bass is only part of the equation.

If you watch a movie with 5 or 7 speakers without a sub, it's watchable and extremely enjoyable. If you watch a movie with 7 subwoofers and no other speakers, it's probably not watchable regardless of DLBC or bass dips.
 

TSB

Active Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
189
Likes
294
Location
NL
Then there's Hypex and Purifi - a manufacturer could come in with an AVR that has significantly better amplification. Then there's the lack of toroidals with Emotiva able to stick a 8015 toroidal in a $700 external amp. If they can put together an AVR with a decent toroidal for less than $2,000 with DIRAC, I'm not sure how Marantz and Denon wiil be able to compete as their high-end models will cost 3 times more.

As you said, the game is afoot and the board has completely opened up for anyone to take it away.
Completely re-designing your AVR based on new amplifier technology doesn not bring down costs. It will induce significant costs to develop the new design. Since there is little audible benefit above current sinad values, and the AVR market is quite competitive, there is little interest from industry in such a redesign. Most use iterated refinements of designs that are by now at least 20 years old. (for the amp at least)

Any company that is not yet established in the AVR market with significant investments in hardware designs and software stack will have to spend a LOT of money to reach feature parity with the established brands. They won't be able to offer these features at a lower price if they want to win back the development cost. For the established companies that cost is smeared of many years of previous sales.

There is a reason why class D is seen mostly in markets were the higher power output or the lower power use and heat footprint are an advantage:
- Low power usage (portable speakers, automotive)
- Size/Heat constrained (active speakers)
- high power output (subwoofers)
Only exception is parts of the high end stereo market, were price is not an issue.
 

Jazz

Active Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
136
Likes
76
But they've been doing that for 20 years. I view today's AVRs and AVPs just like that audiophile gear you're talking about. For me to upgrade, I'd have to spend crazy money.

Even the same model AVRs I have cost $4,000 a piece and I have 2 of them.

As for offering more than they used to, that's debatable.
I think we said the same thing but you have $8000 to spend and I have $500. Tech advances always reach high end faster but, it seems like the past decade brought much of it down to the under $1000 AVRs and many good $500 or less models too. Same for all components.
 
OP
techsamurai

techsamurai

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 26, 2022
Messages
804
Likes
261
I think we said the same thing but you have $8000 to spend and I have $500. Tech advances always reach high end faster but, it seems like the past decade brought much of it down to the under $1000 AVRs and many good $500 or less models too. Same for all components.
Well, I don't want to spend $8,000 on just 2 boxes just to get the same thing... Who would?

Trickle down perhaps applies more to speakers, computers, TVs than AVRs. AVRs haven't trickled down - they seem to be trickling up.
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
933
Location
Calabasas, CA
I love reading posts about what companies "should" do. Keep in mind that these companies know who they are selling to, and they do market research. They have a reason for what they are doing. If it doesn't make sense to us, it is probably not because we have insight that they do not. It is more likely the other way around. That doesn't mean that the market can't be disrupted, or that things can't be improved. But you can be sure it isn't as obvious as some people want to believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TSB

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,229
Likes
17,811
Location
Netherlands
I love reading posts about what companies "should" do. Keep in mind that these companies know who they are selling to, and they do market research. They have a reason for what they are doing. If it doesn't make sense to us, it is probably not because we have insight that they do not. It is more likely the other way around. That doesn't mean that the market can't be disrupted, or that things can't be improved. But you can be sure it isn't as obvious as some people want to believe.
But these companies are like an oil tanker: they are slow and sluggish to change direction. Also they are risk averse. None of these qualities encourage innovation.
 
OP
techsamurai

techsamurai

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 26, 2022
Messages
804
Likes
261
I love reading posts about what companies "should" do. Keep in mind that these companies know who they are selling to, and they do market research. They have a reason for what they are doing. If it doesn't make sense to us, it is probably not because we have insight that they do not. It is more likely the other way around. That doesn't mean that the market can't be disrupted, or that things can't be improved. But you can be sure it isn't as obvious as some people want to believe.

Well, what's the reason for not selling the silver Marantz models in the United States market? What's the reason behind charging $1,000 in the US for the same products.

Judging by the design of the Denon and the old setup screens of the Marantz, the market research they do is probably on a napkin during their lunch break. But there was a shortage of napkins during Covid :)
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
933
Location
Calabasas, CA
Criticism is easy.
But these companies are like an oil tanker: they are slow and sluggish to change direction. Also they are risk averse. None of these qualities encourage innovation.
True, but nobody has proposed anything innovative in this thread. Just variations on the same themes. Mostly people complaining that the prices are too high or that someone doesn't want this feature or that feature. That isn't innovative thinking either.

EDIT: I would actually argue that the receiver is the most innovative component in audio today. It is the one device that brings room correction and DSP to the masses. And it does it with no audible limits. It is expandable to many channels, supports novel technologies (streaming, surround sound, etc). And it is affordable relative to most legacy 2-channel audio.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,229
Likes
17,811
Location
Netherlands
Criticism is easy.
That what these threads live on as you pointed out very well ;)
True, but nobody has proposed anything innovative in this thread. Just variations on the same themes. Mostly people complaining that the prices are too high or that someone doesn't want this feature or that feature. That isn't innovative thinking either.
Yes, you are correct. Still, putting out a lower priced product would be innovative, especially on the AVP front.

Look at the tiny Canton box. That could have been a fantastic solution for many people for not too much money, but the lack of any room correction makes the thing utterly useless in many cases. Obviously they want to sell their wireless speakers with build-in EQ. Which in-itself it quite innovative, but also very restrictive.

And don’t forget, we are the customers. If we complain, you better listen.
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
933
Location
Calabasas, CA
Still, putting out a lower priced product would be innovative, especially on the AVP front.
I am not sure that qualifies as innovative. It seems that "derivative" is a more accurate description. And if we make an AVP out of an AVR by taking out the amps and lowering the price, we might find out that the price wouldn't change by much, if anything. Not due to greed, but due to math of creating, stocking, shipping, promoting, and supporting a new product. My guess is that this is the reason it isn't done. From the company's perspective, it is better to simply use the same product to support both use cases via preamp outputs.
 

bungle

Active Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
179
Likes
122
I am not sure that qualifies as innovative. It seems that "derivative" is a more accurate description.
Almost everything is derivative. I cannot think anything that is not. The AVPs have been almost the same for decades. Yes, more and more derivatives have been integrated during the years, but basically they are the same. DSPs where there already on 90ies.
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
933
Location
Calabasas, CA
The AVPs have been almost the same for decades.
I am sorry but here are a few things that were not around "a few decades ago": DSP, many new surround sound formats, room measurement and correction, internet connectivity, firmware updating, streaming service support, multiple zones, on screen displays, more channels of power, HDMI switching and support, wireless subwoofer support, integration with controllers, ARC/eARC/CRC.

Now some are supporting your CHOICE of room correction (Dirac vs. Audyssey), multiple subwoofers, powering down of amps when using as a preamp.

I fail to see where things are getting stale.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,229
Likes
17,811
Location
Netherlands
And if we make an AVP out of an AVR by taking out the amps and lowering the price, we might find out that the price wouldn't change by much, if anything. Not due to greed, but due to math of creating, stocking, shipping, promoting, and supporting a new product.
I’d like to see that calculation…
 
OP
techsamurai

techsamurai

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 26, 2022
Messages
804
Likes
261
And if we make an AVP out of an AVR by taking out the amps and lowering the price, we might find out that the price wouldn't change by much, if anything. Not due to greed, but due to math of creating, stocking, shipping, promoting, and supporting a new product. My guess is that this is the reason it isn't done. From the company's perspective, it is better to simply use the same product to support both use cases via preamp outputs.

Well, if removing it doesn't bring down the cost then the opposite must also hold true. They can add another transformer and keep the price the same.

Of course, removing the power supply and heatsinks would reduce the cost massively. The transformer has to be the most expensive piece of equipment in the unit. I'm pretty sure the Denon 3800h could be turned into the same level $1,000 AVP and a great $1,500 AVP with higher DACs and better pre-outs. Let's not forget that the 3700H retailed at $1,000 not so long ago.
 
Top Bottom