<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for As receivers pack more features per dollar, Audioholics questions the trade-off</title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for As receivers pack more features per dollar, Audioholics questions the trade-off</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on As receivers pack more features per dollar, Audioholics questions the trade-off]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</guid><description><![CDATA[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?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 24th 2009 12:15PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on As receivers pack more features per dollar, Audioholics questions the trade-off]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</guid><description><![CDATA[Nope!!! The steak is always more important than the sizzle. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[chuckdaly]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 24th 2009 12:48PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on As receivers pack more features per dollar, Audioholics questions the trade-off]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</guid><description><![CDATA[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.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[David S]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 24th 2009 1:34PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on As receivers pack more features per dollar, Audioholics questions the trade-off]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</guid><description><![CDATA[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.<br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[brn]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 24th 2009 1:54PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on As receivers pack more features per dollar, Audioholics questions the trade-off]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</guid><description><![CDATA[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.<br><br>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).]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[nathan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 24th 2009 2:56PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on As receivers pack more features per dollar, Audioholics questions the trade-off]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/as-receivers-pack-more-features-per-dollar-audioholics-question/</guid><description><![CDATA[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.  ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[YouFaceTheTick]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 26th 2009 12:28AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
