One
welcome trend in AV receivers is the addition of more features at lower price points. Modern, full-featured AV receivers are signal processing powerhouses, and we've come to expect HDMI switching, video processing, on-screen UIs and room correction as de rigeur features. Everyone loves these conveniences, but there's a catch -- in many cases, sound quality is what's getting left behind in the transition.
Audioholics has put its hand to enough receivers to know this, and without crying foul, the linked article does a good job of keeping you informed of the tradeoffs. Bottom line -- software-laden silicon keeps getting cheaper and lighter, but the (largely analog) componentry used for audio amplification doesn't. So if your latest receiver is lighter, cheaper and sports a longer spec list, you have a good idea where designers trimmed; and it's not the
S-Video ports. The differences may not be audible, but if current
trends in audio are any indicator, the limit of what is "good enough" is headed for market testing. Meanwhile, take your ears along with the spec sheets if you're shopping receivers.
posted Mar 24th 2009 7:19AM
I'm one of those users who must not have very good hearing. Most of the time I can't tell much difference between different sources and speakers. As long as it is surround sound and it isn't little tiny baby speakers it is usually "good enough" for me. I did have to turn on my "Dialog Enhance" on my low end Pioneer receiver because my center channel didn't have enough oomph though. Cheaper with more features with a barely audible difference in sound quality is an okay trade off for me.... Is anybody else like me?
Nope!!! The steak is always more important than the sizzle.
I would much rather have a better sounding receiver over a receiver with a couple of extra features. Many of the receiver features like up scaling can be done by the display device or the source. Or say something like HDMI switching which can be done with a cheap Monoprice switch. But a person will probably have to live with inferior sound for the life of the receiver, and the only way to fix that is to replace it.
When I moved, I took about a year to set the old component system up. I figured the newer stuff sounded "good enough". Then one day, I pulled the old system out. No where near as cool, but infinitely better.
With processors running as low as $500, and surround amps starting at not much more, if you are in the market for a $500 solution you might be stuck with these power-starved receivers Audioholics is talking about.
But if you are thinking of dropping $1k on a receiver, you'd be better off with entry level separates, and then upgrading each when there is a reason (ie, new fangled audio format leads to a new processor purchase, or more power hungry speakers mean more amplification is needed).
1k on a receiver? Yeah, as if. Sound is nice but really, like BR, it's just not worth it. I bought my current receiver 9 years ago. It does the 5.1 and the optical toslink . Until it dies it's good enough.