Over two years ago I wrote an article titled <a href="http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2007/12/a_new_approach_to_components_in_a_digital_audiovideo_world.php"><b><i>A New Approach to Components in a Digital Audio/Video World</i></b></a> to share my thoughts regarding equipment options in Home Theater and related electronics. At that time I outlined the reasons that components might provide a better overall solution to an all-in-one box in terms of upgradability, performance and sometimes even price. Basically, the upside focused on the ability to upgrade as needed without replacing perfectly adequate and functional parts and the downside involved more boxes and wires than the alternative. While that's a gross simplification of the whole hypothesis you can review the entire argument by referring to the original article.
The basic principles of that paper still apply but a lot has changed over the past two years...
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2009/04/revisiting_the_component_approach_to_audiovideo_in_todays_home_theater_market.php]Read Article[/url]
Revisiting the Component Approach to Audio/Video in Today’s Home Theater Market
-
rfowkes
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 5:05 am
-
beatdrum
- Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:14 am
components vs. all-in-one
Is there an all-in-one home theater av unit (5.1 preferred) that does NOT include a tuner (AM & FM)?
-
akirby
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:52 pm
-
rfowkes
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 5:05 am
While there used to be several brands that had units without tuners (Outlaw, Rotel, Adcom and a few others if I'm not mistaken) I haven't really kept up with this aspect of pre/pros and receivers. Unless I'm misinterpreting your intention, I think I know where you are coming from. In many of my previous receivers I totally ignored the tuner section for a number of reasons. Many times the tuner section wasn't very good or the use of a quality antenna for good reception was something I didn't want to deal with. I had other ways of listening to AM and FM so it never was a priority to me. I also felt that if this was a feature that wasn't important to me I shouldn't have to pay for something that I would never use. In addition, there was always the possiblity of the inclusion of a tuner compromising the quality of the other features of the pre/pro or receiver so I thought that if a non-tuner version were to be available it might be my preferred unit. It was a very rare case where I ever used the tuner section(s) of any HT control center that I owned.
However, a lot has changed over the past decade or so. For one thing, most tuner circuits have been reduced to a couple of solid state chips and they no longer represent a significant cost for manufacturers to include. In addition, circuits have improved to the point where tuner components no longer affect the performance of the rest of the unit. In addition, there are now many more ways to "tune" into a broadcast than just the traditional AM/FM way. Many units now include active internet access and a lot of ways to receive over the web broadcasts. Then there is HD Radio, satellite radio, podcasts and similar among others. The whole question of the fidelity of these sources is a subject for a different discussion but you get the idea. So some of my previous concerns about on-board tuners in pre/pros and receivers have disappeared with the newer designs. My current feeling is that if a tuner is present in a receiver and you don't want to use it, ignore it. In fact, manufacturers like Denon even make it easy to ignore the tuner section(s). You can configure your device menu to not display any component that you don't wish to use so it won't even clog up your menu choices. Tuning circuits don't add to the cost of the unit in any significant way and they don't really make the unit any larger. It all comes down to a couple of small chips and a few lines of programming code.
Sorry that I couldn't provide you with more concrete information regarding pre/pros and receivers without tuners. Perhaps others here have some pertinent models to share? When I settled on the Denon AVP the fact that it included a tuner (or not) had absolutely no bearing on my decision to purchase it.
However, a lot has changed over the past decade or so. For one thing, most tuner circuits have been reduced to a couple of solid state chips and they no longer represent a significant cost for manufacturers to include. In addition, circuits have improved to the point where tuner components no longer affect the performance of the rest of the unit. In addition, there are now many more ways to "tune" into a broadcast than just the traditional AM/FM way. Many units now include active internet access and a lot of ways to receive over the web broadcasts. Then there is HD Radio, satellite radio, podcasts and similar among others. The whole question of the fidelity of these sources is a subject for a different discussion but you get the idea. So some of my previous concerns about on-board tuners in pre/pros and receivers have disappeared with the newer designs. My current feeling is that if a tuner is present in a receiver and you don't want to use it, ignore it. In fact, manufacturers like Denon even make it easy to ignore the tuner section(s). You can configure your device menu to not display any component that you don't wish to use so it won't even clog up your menu choices. Tuning circuits don't add to the cost of the unit in any significant way and they don't really make the unit any larger. It all comes down to a couple of small chips and a few lines of programming code.
Sorry that I couldn't provide you with more concrete information regarding pre/pros and receivers without tuners. Perhaps others here have some pertinent models to share? When I settled on the Denon AVP the fact that it included a tuner (or not) had absolutely no bearing on my decision to purchase it.
-
rfowkes
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 5:05 am
Yes, as others have pointed out the cost to include the tuner section is minimal at best so most manufacturers keep it in there to increase the "feature set" of the product. However, obviously $20 worth of electronics is not going to perform as well as an expensive audiophile tuner for critical listening (although the performance for the price of the "simple" tuning circuits can be quite impressive considering their cost). Therefore, if you want to get the best audio from tuner sources a dedidcated tuner (and quality antennas) is still the way to go.
At a time where the iPod generation has taken over and compressed audio is (incorrectly) confused with audiophile audio (ouch!) and has been accepted in the dumbing down of quality sound, fewer people are showing discernment for good sound. I find it ironic that on one hand we are in a golden age of digital sound with advanced HD Audio codecs rivaling analog sound with high sample rates, while at the same time living in a compressed audio world where 192bps sound is considered "good" by the masses. Just because it sounds better than the old handheld radios doesn't mean it's good. And the same thing goes for video. At the same time that we talk about 1080p video, 14 bit color, 120-240Hz refresh rates, etc. we are living in a world where a significant number of people are watching their videos on YouTube or postage stamp sized portable devices. While I understand that technology will always improve (always at a surpising rate) the "old guy" in me still rails against iPod sound being "acceptable" and now I add to that compressed video.
It's the dumbing down of HT (both audio and video) and the sacrificing of quality for convenience, in my opinion. True, "good enough" is the driving force here, but standards seem to be going by the wayside and I, for one, don't like the trend.
At a time where the iPod generation has taken over and compressed audio is (incorrectly) confused with audiophile audio (ouch!) and has been accepted in the dumbing down of quality sound, fewer people are showing discernment for good sound. I find it ironic that on one hand we are in a golden age of digital sound with advanced HD Audio codecs rivaling analog sound with high sample rates, while at the same time living in a compressed audio world where 192bps sound is considered "good" by the masses. Just because it sounds better than the old handheld radios doesn't mean it's good. And the same thing goes for video. At the same time that we talk about 1080p video, 14 bit color, 120-240Hz refresh rates, etc. we are living in a world where a significant number of people are watching their videos on YouTube or postage stamp sized portable devices. While I understand that technology will always improve (always at a surpising rate) the "old guy" in me still rails against iPod sound being "acceptable" and now I add to that compressed video.
It's the dumbing down of HT (both audio and video) and the sacrificing of quality for convenience, in my opinion. True, "good enough" is the driving force here, but standards seem to be going by the wayside and I, for one, don't like the trend.