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

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an
adjustable delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's *only* output of any kind other than the
picture is digital coax (stereo, not multichannel),
which does indeed have the proper amount of delay for
use with a standard DAC. If I wanted multichannel,
then I'd have to use one of
the outputs of the cable box. I've tested some of them
and they all cause lip synch problems unless additional
delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature
to bring the sound into time-alignment with the
picture. If the OP wants multi-channel sound then this
is his best option, if he only wants 2 channel stereo
then using the digital audio output from the TV will do
the job for a lot less dosh.

I've heard that A/V amplifiers exist, but most people on
this side of the pond save a lot of money by going the
receiver route. On Black Friday I saw a 100 wpc
multichannel receiver for under $100. The ad didn't
give much but brand and channel count. For sure, I saw
7.1 channels and HDMI for under $200.

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...

"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).

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

David.

"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.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

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

Because it's the amplifier part that is relevant to this discussion. (sigh!)
The term "AV amplifier" will cover an "AV receiver" because a receiver is
simply an amplifier with a tuner (which many people don't want and won't
use) in it.

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.


Unwanted power amps (and their power supply) add *considerable* unnecessary
size and weight to the unit. I can't see why you think it "stupid" to want
to buy a small, light unit that does what you want, rather than a large,
heavy thing that does a load of things that you don't want, don't need, and
just add size, weight and complexity.

David.

On 29/11/2010 22:15, David Looser wrote:
"Arny wrote in message
...
"David 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).

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



Indeed. I currently have just stereo speakers/amp. What's the best way
to bolt on rear/centre speakers to this sort of arrangement?

Thanks, Rob

David Looser wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an adjustable
delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's only output of any kind other than the picture is digital
coax (stereo, not multichannel), which does indeed have the proper
amount of delay for use with a standard DAC.

If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use one of the outputs
of the cable box. I've tested some of them and they all cause lip
synch problems unless additional delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature to bring the
sound into time-alignment with the picture. If the OP wants
multi-channel sound then this is his best option, if he only wants 2
channel stereo then using the digital audio output from the TV will
do the job for a lot less dosh.

David.



Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.

Alan

--

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

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

Because it's the amplifier part that is relevant to this discussion.

Perhaps also because this may be another example of two countries seperated
by a common langauge. My impression is that 'AV amplifier" is common in the
UK. Whereas the USA with its history of preferring all-in-one 'receivers'
may tend to assume/acknowledge the inclusion of tuners.

Unwanted power amps (and their power supply) add *considerable*
unnecessary size and weight to the unit. I can't see why you think it
"stupid" to want to buy a small, light unit that does what you want,
rather than a large, heavy thing that does a load of things that you
don't want, don't need, and just add size, weight and complexity.

And some of us already have a good stereo power amp we'd want to go on
using for *stereo*, not a higher number of channels.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Alan Crowder
wrote:


Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.

Some modern amps provide optical inputs. Alternatively you can buy a DAC
and use that to feed a more traditional amp. If you want to save cash, then
either buy something inexpensive like the CYP one from CPC, or look in the
secondhand ads at the back of magazines.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Alan Crowder" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Modern A/V receivers with HDMI I/O generally have an adjustable
delay for addressing this issue.

My HDTV's only output of any kind other than the picture is digital
coax (stereo, not multichannel), which does indeed have the proper
amount of delay for use with a standard DAC.

If I wanted multichannel, then I'd have to use one of the outputs
of the cable box. I've tested some of them and they all cause lip
synch problems unless additional delay is applied.

An AV amplifier would have an adjustable delay feature to bring the
sound into time-alignment with the picture. If the OP wants
multi-channel sound then this is his best option, if he only wants 2
channel stereo then using the digital audio output from the TV will
do the job for a lot less dosh.

David.



Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.

Alan

--
My TV similarly has no audio outputs, but I use the headphone out to spare
input (tape) on an aging receiver. I am sure this is not a "purist"
approach, but it seems to work well enough.

Geoff

"Alan Crowder" wrote

Having looked at the rear of my TV i find no audio outputs at all, only
inputs, but there is an optical output, i am informed that this can
indeed be sent to a suitable Amp and the sound exited to speakers, just
to find a suitable amp now.


I am, I have to say, surprised that the TV doesn't have a pair of phonos for
left and right analogue audio, the extra cost in manufacture would be small.
You can buy small DACs with an optical input for relatively little money,
but it's still going to cost you a lot more than it would have cost the TV
manufacturer to include the circuitry within the TV.

David.