"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.

"David Looser" wrote in
message

"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.

I don't recall ever seeing what I recognized to be an A/V amplifier. I've
seen pictures of them and maybe I've seen them at hifi shows. I've even
owned an A/V receiver!

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.

Ironic then that accepting power amps as part of the receiver package can
signficantly cut the cost of obtaining the desired function.

I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be quite impressive. The
development, tooling and sales costs don't increase that much when the sales
double.

Manufacturing is now so efficient that added complexity is accepted to
obtain other benefits. Witness the disappearance of the iron core wall wart,
which is now almost universally replaced by a switchmode power supply that
is smaller, lighter, more efficient, and presumably even less costly to
make.

Ever take the base of a CFL apart? Compare the complexity what is in the
base of a CFL (might include an IC with significant active device count)
with what is in the base of a regular incadescent lamp (2 short wires).

If LED development continues at its current measured pace there could be a
market for a sequel to the CFL that is based on the kind of plasma-based
light source that is used for stage lighting. Very efficient with a
wonderful spectral balance that LEDs and CFLs can only dream about. Plasma
bulbs are fairly simple themselves. The trick is controlling their power
source.

With high-efficiency output stages and switchmode power supplies, the cost,
size and weight of power amplification can be and has been signficantly
reduced.

Basically, this is just the next logical step in the well-justified
trivialization of power amps. At one point the power amp was the largest,
heaviest, least reliable, and most expensive part of a good audio system.
Once upon a time they even sounded different! Today, power amps are well on
their way to becoming add-on, throw-away, something that is accepted
usually based on well-placed faith, in order to obtain what comes with it.

I see that even low-cost producers such as Behringer are offering heavy-duty
power amps (by consumer receiver standards) that are based on switchmode
power supplies and high-efficiency output stages. I see signs that
high-volume consumer electronics are following suit.

I don't have a surround system, but many of my friends who have surround
systems and use powered speakers and/or separate power amplfiers have for
economic reasons obtained an A/V receiver. They don't connect the power amps
to anything, they run their system off of the receivers preamp outputs. I've
even seen people use simple gadgets that reduce the voltage of a power amp
to a line-level signal. The car sound catalogs have them, but they work at
home.

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.

Look at the price tags. IMO it is stupid to pay more to obtain the same or
less function and performance if the package is manageable.

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be quite impressive.
The development, tooling and sales costs don't increase that much when
the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who will sell small
quantities of items like Toko-type low-pass filters! Countless similar
filters are in all kinds of tuners, etc.

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 , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be quite impressive.
The development, tooling and sales costs don't increase that much when
the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who will sell small
quantities of items like Toko-type low-pass filters! Countless similar
filters are in all kinds of tuners, etc.


Not much help but..

There is one around seem to remember he's out near Colchester if a come
across the name I'll mail it over;!..
Slainte,

Jim


--
Tony Sayer

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:


I think the lesson is that economies of scale can be
quite impressive. The development, tooling and sales
costs don't increase that much when the sales double.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to find a UK supplier who
will sell small quantities of items like Toko-type
low-pass filters! Countless similar filters are in all
kinds of tuners, etc.

Must be legacy technology. The FM tuner in my Sansa Clip+ can't have many
coils, given that they fit the FM stereo tuner (biggest weakness - no
dedicated antenna terminals), a computer (with DSP), EPROM (firmware), two
banks of gigabytes of RAM, headphone amps, jacks, color display, pushbuttons
and a battery in less than a cubic inch.

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

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