I just read a comment, "don't use an AVR for the audio because that's just amateur."

In today's systems with changing video requirements and capabilities, where today's solution for one part of the chain is obsolete in a year or less, are we at a juncture where the best answer isn't an AVR?

Let's say we want the client's system to be up to date or updatable for, say, three years; should we be separating the audio path from the video path? We've had ongoing changing component combinations before; somewhere I have a late 50s mono FM tuner -- standard for the time -- that has a "multiplex" output intended to feed a device that would separate left and right audio. The wonderful Fisher receivers of the time could only do mono... then an outboard adaptor was made available... then stereo was built in.

I've never been a fan of the jack of all trades AVR. Usually not enough clean power for my systems and all the "features" and sound parameters are 99% useless. But, if you think configuring and controlling (IP) AVRs can be finicky at times...wait until you get into mid/high end separates. Good times!

Yes, one could add a multiplex adapter to an FM tuner of the era, but in fact, the tuner's bandwidth and linearity was not quite wide enough for proper stereo -- and the early adapters were somewhat crude. The next wave of receivers were using proper designs. However, none of these were in the league of the high end tuners from Marantz, McIntosh, and Sequerra. I'm a recovering tuner freak. Curent tuners are not very exciting for me -- nor is the programming.

In terms of feature set and being in the front of the then current video wave, receivers are on the leading edge because they are redesigned frequently. The production volume of separates is too low to justify the almost annual receiver update. Separates may have better amplifiers, but separates typically don't have the rich control interface that receivers offer.

"Separates" are not always much different from "receivers". I can recall a receiver that used the same amplifier module as a sister separate amplifier. One could physically (with a few solder connections) swap them in the field.

Recovering tuner freak? The best AM radio I had was a Philco seven-tube unit; all tubes predated octal sockets; it was TRF; all power and bypass capacitors were built inside one metal box, so when that failed, the radio was dead. Meanwhile, with 20 feet of wire tossed out the window, in Los Angeles I could regularly get WLS in Chicago, WWL in New Orleans, a station in Norman OK, and various closer stations.


So we're being honest with our videophile clients if we tell them that their receivers will probably be up to date for about a year, but we cannot make any guarantees.


Very perceptive observation!

I've done several systems with the base level AVR that has preouts, paired with a nice multi-channel amp.

Usually by the time you get to the model that has preouts there are also ample HDMI outputs and other gadgetry that may or may not be useful. Way better sound than the AVR alone, not nearly as pricy as the pre-pros usually are, and when the processing tech advances the client can just upgrade the AVR and hang in to their amplifier.

Craig

All it would take is for a manufacturer to release a pre/pro at a price that represents what it really is... an AVR minus the amplifier. But they want to take a $2500 AVR, yank out the amp and charge you $3500 for it, and then another $3500 for the matching amp. Ridiculous if you ask me.

Integra had the dhc-40.2 at what.... $1200 MSRP? Then they disco'd it.... Probably because it was taking sales from the higher priced 80.x.

If Yamaha had separates, a pre/pro based on the rx-a860, with a 9 ch. amp, priced at ~$2000 for the set, we could sell them all day long.

The other side is that 99% of our clients do not really know or care what is in the rack or cabinet, so long as it works.

Yea, those were the good old days. It was very difficult to overload those TRF things and you didn't have all of the image issues that plague poorly shielded superhet designs. But to be fair, in those OLD days, there were not so many multi-megawatt TV transmitters nearby and in your youth there were not as many stations to pick through and one did not need razor sharp selectivity. A 20' antenna would probably hopelessly overload a modern trash AM radio.

Clear channel stations are fun, but in a way they are a cheap shot. You don't need to wait for weird atmospheric conditions to filter between distant stations for you.

Yes, it is a bit annoying, but to be fair, the design and tooling costs of the amp are spread over a fraction of the receiver's sell through. And, the separate unit probably has a better power supply.

In MY youth, all of the AM stations now operating in the Los Angeles market were operating. I guess I'm not as old as you think.

A 20' antenna would probably hopelessly overload a modern trash AM radio.
Yeah, though Terk has a product that works -- I say that because Terk's award-winning antenna designs have won industrial design awards, not performance awards -- anyway, they have about a 9" loop antenna that will greatly increase sensitivity and can even increase selectivity of an AM radio that's near it, not even connected!


Right. More than once, after midnight on a Sunday night, when local stations went off the air, I'd tune around and get non-clear channels that were then not obscured by the local stations.

I have a Farnsworth floor-standing radio that I'll finish if/when I get a chance and I'm hoping it works as well as I expect. It would be good if someone is playing old shows, but I doubt it- we used to go to my aunt/uncle's house for Sunday dinner on occasion and when we had finished, we kids would go to the basement and listen to The Shadow and Green Lantern in the dark.

Some day, I may use the center channel output on my Fisher receiver.

AVR manufacturers want to push boxes, not upgrades and it's too bad they don't give a rat's butt about the customers. I'd like to see a removable video module and a better audio section with multi-channel pre-out. I'm not sure why they need to place all of the HDMI in a long row across the rear- sure, it lets them build a single board for everything, but they could also use a double-sided board and accomplish the same thing in half of the length x about double the height. Or, they could have a barrier on one side and use three boards- that way, some of the HDMI could fail and it wouldn't take out the whole section.