• 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 modern AV Receivers so terrible?

Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
Granted @amirm hasn't performed very many reviews for home theater receivers. His sample size is too small to determine if it is indicative a larger trend within the industry. However, I am seeing multi-thousand dollar receivers measuring terribly. And it's mind blowing to me.

I understand from a technological perspective that pushing larger amounts of power will be more difficult to accomplish while also delivering acceptable measurements. Headphones have it easy, even the most inefficient samples only require, at most, 6 watts of power to properly drive. We are also lucky because only two channels have to be driven. It's logical to assume that increasing the number of channels will also increase the difficulty in engineering equipment that measures well. The part I don't understand is that engineers haven't worked through these problems to deliver quality equipment. Or are they just not trying because the parent companies don't want them to? Anyway, we live in a day and age where we can purchase phenomenal speakers and the receivers that drive them are absolutely terrible. What gives?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,374
Likes
234,454
Location
Seattle Area
In some ways, you can blame Dolby Atmos. By increasing the number of channels, these companies have had to cut more corners to keep prices the same. It was bad enough to stuff 5 amps in one box. Now they do 9, 11 or whatever? The retail channel is brutal in demanding most number of channels and logos so these companies are in survival mode.

I also think many of these products are sold at a loss at the end of the day. So hard for them to invest even more in engineering and design quality.

Oppo was a rare exception in this field and they pulled out.
 
OP
BoosedElephant
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
In some ways, you can blame Dolby Atmos. By increasing the number of channels, these companies have had to cut more corners to keep prices the same. It was bad enough to stuff 5 amps in one box. Now they do 9, 11 or whatever? The retail channel is brutal in demanding most number of channels and logos so these companies are in survival mode.

I also think many of these products are sold at a loss at the end of the day. So hard for them to invest even more in engineering and design quality.

Oppo was a rare exception in this field and they pulled out.

Are there any companies that still produce quality equipment? I don't want, when I have the funds, to spend a lot of money an KEF speakers and then have crappy equipment drive them. I would be happy with five channels, and even then it would take some time for me to saturate them with equipment.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
In some ways, you can blame Dolby Atmos. By increasing the number of channels, these companies have had to cut more corners to keep prices the same. It was bad enough to stuff 5 amps in one box. Now they do 9, 11 or whatever? The retail channel is brutal in demanding most number of channels and logos so these companies are in survival mode.

I actually find it ridiculous that the HT market is based on regularly swapping huge amplifier boxes. The only part of the chain that needs updating is the decoding electronics, and those could be in a tiny box with digital outputs that costs $200 at most.

I'm guessing the reason this doesn't exist is because Dolby doesn't want to license their algorithms to cheap fully-digital consumer products for piracy-paranoia reasons.
 
OP
BoosedElephant
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
I actually find it ridiculous that the HT market is based on regularly swapping huge amplifier boxes. The only part of the chain that needs updating is the decoding electronics, and those could be in a tiny box with digital outputs that costs $200 at most.

I'm guessing the reason this doesn't exist is because Dolby doesn't want to license their algorithms to cheap fully-digital consumer products for piracy-paranoia reasons.

I actually really like this idea. I imagine it would be hard to integrate some features without incorporating the AMP into the unit, but, it would be a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Overall I think this design philosophy would be more beneficial to the market.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,580
Likes
38,282
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Overall I think this design philosophy would be more beneficial to the market.

The early surround processors were all initially separate and people bought separate amplifiers for the surround channels, usually pressing into service their existing main amplifiers they already owned. This situation continued well into the early dolby digital days. If you wanted proper performance home theatre, that was how it was done.

AVRs have always been a compromise and nothing has changed.

The issue became the various video standards and connectors, along with HDMI clouding the issue. It got too hard to go discrete (separate amplifiers).
 
OP
BoosedElephant
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
The early surround processors were all initially separate and people bought separate amplifiers for the surround channels, usually pressing into service their existing main amplifiers they already owned. This situation continued well into the early dolby digital days. If you wanted proper performance home theatre, that was how it was done.

AVRs have always been a compromise and nothing has changed.

The issue became the various video standards and connectors, along with HDMI clouding the issue. It got too hard to go discrete (separate amplifiers).

Is it still possible to do it this way? If so, what type of equipment do I need to Google?
 

Cahudson42

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
1,083
Likes
1,556
You could, instead of an off-the-shelf AVR put together an Outlaw 5000 (5 channel amp), at $649 , Dayton DSP-408 at $149, and a 'source box'/streamer (perhaps an LG V20).. $120.. (for a stereo and center setup at least..)

No room EQ, but you separately, could use REW...Or substitute a Dirac version miniDSP.. Or a relatively cheap AVR with pre-outs (maybe not using any/some of its amps) - like the Onkyo TX-RZ820 - $399..

I've been toying with doing something like this to replace an old Koss 5.1 'Home Theater:' in our Winter 'manufactured home' .. but have hesitated pending ASR review of the DSP-408.. (except I will start with a pair of RX-596s for the amps - which were less than $100 total :)

PS - can't afford KEFs - so I am looking at the 408 to to provide crossovers and PEQ to something inexpensive - maybe even (horror!) 3 pairs of Dayton B652 AIRs.. driving each driver separately...just to see how well I might optimize them..
 
Last edited:

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,580
Likes
38,282
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
In an ideal world, you'd have a multichannel "mainframe" processor with say 30 or more fully flexible amplifier outputs and a digital I/O (standardized slot) where you just purchased and plugged in a physical card/cartridge with whatever bundled surround formats you wanted, upgrading whenever you wanted.

Future proofed in terms of plenty of reserve channels that could be used for anything- multiroom, Atmos Extreme 22.6, DTS mega-edition whatever.

Your amplifiers never need to be changed and you could re-sell the older surround cartridges on the secondary market. In this "sustainable" world- that is what is needed.
 
OP
BoosedElephant
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
In an ideal world, you'd have a multichannel "mainframe" processor with say 30 or more fully flexible amplifier outputs and a digital I/O (standardized slot) where you just purchased and plugged in a physical card/cartridge with whatever bundled surround formats you wanted, upgrading whenever you wanted.

Future proofed in terms of plenty of reserve channels that could be used for anything- multiroom, Atmos Extreme 22.6, DTS mega-edition whatever.

Your amplifiers never need to be changed and you could re-sell the older surround cartridges on the secondary market. In this "sustainable" world- that is what is needed.
Then let's stick with what we have. What setup could I put together, that is 5.1 and measure well? Has multiple input options for switching between a TV, turntable, and if possible the internet.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
The key problem is there's nothing in the consumer market <$10K(might be some some complicated/expensive pro gear that does) that will decode Atmos+DTS:X to digital outputs that could be connected to an arbitrary multi-channel DAC. Well, nothing except maybe the JBL SDP-55, but it's a full prepro on top of that functionality and not released yet.

If you don't care about the object-based sound formats, height channels, and upmixing to more than 7.1, then you can certainly already do this as anything else can be decoded in software by an HTPC and there are some minimalist DACs too.
 

capt.s

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
71
Likes
50
Pre/processors such as the Marantz Amir just tested should be a no brainier perfect solution. If $100 desktop DACs can measure great, how can a $2200 unit measure so bad. It should be plenty of budget to engineer high performance and be profitable. Frustrating!
 

Cahudson42

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
1,083
Likes
1,556
Then let's stick with what we have. What setup could I put together, that is 5.1 and measure well? Has multiple input options for switching between a TV, turntable, and if possible the internet.
I keep coming back to the Onkyo TX-RZ820 with 7.2 pre-outs at $399 - hoping the 'front end' doesn't suck as much as the amps likely do..Unfortunately again, no ASR review..
Onkyo TX-RZ820 THX-Certified 7.2-Channel 4K Network A/V Receiver https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071VF518B/
Comparisons:

https://www.zkelectronics.com/compare/yamaha-rx-a1080/usa-and-canada/onkyo-tx-rz820/north-america/

https://www.zkelectronics.com/compare/denon-avr-x3500h/usa/onkyo-tx-rz820/north-america/
 
Last edited:
OP
BoosedElephant
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
The key problem is there's nothing in the consumer market <$10K(might be some some complicated/expensive pro gear that does) that will decode Atmos+DTS:X to digital outputs that could be connected to an arbitrary multi-channel DAC. Well, nothing except maybe the JBL SDP-55, but it's a full prepro on top of that functionality and not released yet.

If you don't care about the object-based sound formats, height channels, and upmixing to more than 7.1, then you can certainly already do this as anything else can be decoded in software by an HTPC and there are some minimalist DACs too.

Under what circumstances would an individual need to decode these formats? Are they included on Blu-ray movies as an option for people with the ability to decode them?

What is a prepro?

What are height channels?
 
OP
BoosedElephant
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
Pre/processors such as the Marantz Amir just tested should be a no brainier perfect solution. If $100 desktop DACs can measure great, how can a $2200 unit measure so bad. It should be plenty of budget to engineer high performance and be profitable. Frustrating!
Unless I'm mistaken the Marantz tested poorly and he didn't recommend it.
 

capt.s

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
71
Likes
50
Unless I'm mistaken the Marantz tested poorly and he didn't recommend it.
Agreed - I said pre/processsors 'should' be a no brainier and their price should allow the engineering required to perform well........ but unfortunately the ones tested so far don't.
 
OP
BoosedElephant
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
Since quality equipment is so expensive, and anything within a reasonable budget measures poorly, would it be better to just purchase powered speakers and forgo passive? I imagine there's a device that can switch the source of powered monitors between at least two sources. If so, what companies produce competent powered speakers? If I'm going powered a 2.1 or 3.1 would be fine.
 
OP
BoosedElephant
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
12
Agreed - I said pre/processsors 'should' be a no brainier and their price should allow the engineering required to perform well........ but unfortunately the ones tested so far don't.
Just to clarify, a pre is a preamp? What does the processor do? Decode specific audio formats?
 
Top Bottom