"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message

A receiver is just an amplifier with a radio tuner in
it.

Of course, but around here, a given level of power and
performance is usually cheaper with the tuner thrown in
than without it. Something about sales volumes...

And it's the same around here, but in the context of this
thread the term "AV Amplifier" includes "AV receiver"
since the later is simply the former with an irrelevant
tuner included. I didn't see the need to add "or AV
receiver" to my original post. But I do now! (some pedant
is bound to make an issue of an irrelevance).

If a receiver is what everyman knows and recognizes, why not call it a
receiver and not an amplifier?

Talking about sales volumes, have you noticed that
virtually all AV amplifiers (receivers!) are one-box
efforts?

Of course.

If you want to keep the power amps physically
separate to make the whole thing more manageable you are
limited to a tiny number of models at silly prices.

Putting everything into one box cuts costs and reduces the skill level
required to make it work.

The economics of receivers that don't have amplifiers built-in is such that
it can make economic sense to buy a reciever that has separate preamp outs
and amp ins and just don't use the on-premesis amps, as opposed to doing
something stupid like buy a signal processor that lacks amps.