|   Do they really need tuners in A/V receivers anymore? | AudioAlleyCat
Dec 6, 2002 4:05 PM | | Why put tuners in A/V receivers? No one hardly listens to radio anymore with internet music and MP3 and such. The tuner is dying out. I still use a tuner, but I use a separate piece as my AMC or NAD. I'm not going to use the crappy one in my A/V receiver. Is there a demand for it? I dont think so. Theres still a very few that do use the tuner. Lets concentrate on the movies and home theater and rid of the dreaded tuner from AV receivers. I guess it would be called a processor then. Thoughts? |
| re: Do they really need tuners in A/V receivers anymore? | AudioAlleyCat
Dec 6, 2002 4:08 PM | | I meant this to be in Home theater forum. Screwed up. sorry. |
| re: Do they really need tuners in A/V receivers anymore? | RGA
Dec 6, 2002 5:09 PM | | The crappy tuners are a also a problem sonically in the receivers. So you pay for a crappy tuner that makes the rest of the unit sound worse. Take them out. |
| re: Do they really need tuners in A/V receivers anymore? | Woochifer
Dec 6, 2002 6:27 PM | | "The crappy tuners are a also a problem sonically in the receivers. So you pay for a crappy tuner that makes the rest of the unit sound worse. Take them out."
Have you ever compared a comparable integrated amp with the receiver version? (Yamaha makes integrated amp and receiver versions of their flagship models, so it would be easy to isolate the effect of this one change.) You'd be hard pressed to find ANY kind of sonic difference. The tuner components nowadays are so tiny and isolated from the other circuits, I don't see how any interactions can cause the sonic degradations that you assert. Back in the days of analog tuners that took up gobs of real estate inside the case and had wiring crossing over one another in all directions, I can see the potential for interference. But, with newer tuners that barely take up a matchbook sized footprint and are usually shielded, I don't see it. The sound quality of typical receiver tuners has declined in the last decade, but that's another story. |
| re: Do they really need tuners in A/V receivers anymore? | RGA
Dec 6, 2002 9:41 PM | | I did it with a Pioneer Elite receiver(mine) and a non receiver version. Pretty fair difference(Though the 2k integrated still was no great shakes - I can only assume Pioneer simply has no clue how to build amplifiers...they do know how to make great LOOKING products and I loved the piano black laquer and Rosewood side panels. I had a $650.00 Pioneer Prologic receiver(VSX4900) that in CD MODE, when you put the volume up to the 2 O'clock position you would hear radio reception. Admittedly I have sensitive speakers, but still. Basically, Pioneer was sharing internal wiring or not isolating the sections or some such thing. I also did it with similar priced Sony and Denons...the latter was supposedly better then and it is supposedly better now...still did it then (have not tried the newer models).
It's not like $650.00 was the entry level model either. The Flagship, well reviewed, Pioneer Elite didn't do this luckily. Though the radio section was horrid which makes one wonder why they put them in anyway. But hay it's another LCD disply that lights up.
After hearing a $2400.00CDN Marantz the other day I was impressed, for the most part, with its abilities in Home Theatre. The music portion still sounds like my Pioneer Elite with the slow and dull bass response and lack of rightness in the midband. Switching to the Bryston 3BSST and naturally it made a world of difference.
Speakers used = Energy C7 - not a bad speaker considering the $999.00CDN price tag. Nice $8,000.00 Sony HDTV, Though I was surprised at how it has slight shudderring(some sort of video noise(I'm no videophile but something was weird).
I'd consider the set-up if it included the Bryston...otherwise it does not cut the mustard with music...it's not even passable IMO(and to me). However, what I would do is find the Cheapest Marantz with external Power amp jacks....I'm guessing around the $1000.00 range would include these jacks, then I'd by the older 3B ST which should run well below $1400.00 CDN. I save money and actually get a real amp instead of whatever cheap boxes their putting into the receiver. Shockingly the receiver weighs a LOT. I'd love to know where the weight went...they must be hiding a brick in their because the power amp section sucks eggs...or maybe it's because instead of two amps they have 7 worse ones...and of course the other gadgets. |
| re: Do they really need tuners in A/V receivers anymore? | Woochifer
Dec 9, 2002 4:30 PM | | "I had a $650.00 Pioneer Prologic receiver(VSX4900) that in CD MODE, when you put the volume up to the 2 O'clock position you would hear radio reception. Admittedly I have sensitive speakers, but still."
You potentially get that kind of interference with ANY source, not just radio reception. Admittedly, radio tuners are probably more prone to that than any other feature; but just as an example on my Yamaha I do get crosstalking in the analog mode (this is only audible when the volume position is all the way up to full line level; putting any source on at this volume would destroy my speaker drivers), but it's not the radio that I hear, it's the analog audio output from the VCR. Eliminating the tuner would not cancel this out. That's why I don't see it BY ITSELF as a causal effect.
"Shockingly the receiver weighs a LOT. I'd love to know where the weight went...they must be hiding a brick in their because the power amp section sucks eggs...or maybe it's because instead of two amps they have 7 worse ones...and of course the other gadgets."
You can get a lot of variation just in how the internal layout is done with some of these receivers. One of Kenwood's older flagship models mounted the processor board ON TOP of the transformer and heat sink -- LOTS of potential for interference (not to mention heat problems) in that kind of layout, even if the power supply components weighed a lot. Contrastly, other manufacturers keep the preamp section well segregated from the power supply components and shield the most sensitive parts. Unless you can connect to the power amp using an analog direct connection, you have no way of saying whether the perceived lack of performance is in the preamp or power supply section. If the preamp section's no good, then no amount of external amplification will help. Those so-called gadgets don't really add any weight, a lot of the functionality is built into the processor and other multifunctional chips. Even among higher end processors that are supposedly free from extraneous features, features like DSP modes are hardwired into the chips (which are almost always off-the-shelf items purchased through third-party vendors), they're just not activiated. |
| re: Do they really need tuners in A/V receivers anymore? | RGA
Dec 9, 2002 8:01 PM | | You're quite right there could be many other things that create this interference...yet in the same place two power amps and two integrateds and the better Pioneer Elite had no such issues.
As for the preamp section being worse well yes I agree. Of course with receivers both tend to be poor so it's a lesser of two evils. By adding the Bryston to the Denon AVR3000 and to my old Elite made things vastly superior. One might even think the preamp was "good" as a result.
The Pioneer had all discrete amplifiers and was separated and independantly shielded from the rest of the stuff.
I don't know enough about the AVR3000 to comment on how it was laid out. Though the same thing I noticed with the Denon 5700($5,400.00CDN) by adding a the Bryston 3B ST. I'm still puzzled by receivers in that price point. You can buy 5 channels worth of Bryston Power amps as well as a dedicated pre amp processr(which is current) for less money. One heck of an expensive tuner. Heck we don't even need to pay the premium Bryston asks...Rotel could split the cost in two. |
| Do we really need A/V receivers.... | cone
Dec 7, 2002 3:45 PM | | these new HT receivers have so many bells and whistles in one confined box..with all that internal interference...its no wonder all but the best..such as Magnum Dynalab or hi-end Denon...sound bright and paper thin...and if anybody is remotely serious about radio...they will add a decent tuner anyways...I would opt for removing them all together...they cost the manufacturer next to nothing to include them...similiar to a factory installed cartridge on a turntable...which is promptly discarded ....even my NAD intergrated has a ton of inputs and tone controls most will never utilize...keep the signal path as clean as possible... |
| Without tuner, they wouldn't be called receivers! | ZMC
Dec 6, 2002 5:30 PM | | Think about it: then how would they receive? Tunerless "receivers" are called amplifiers, if you want one, they're out there.
And by the way, I don't think MP3 sounds that much better than FM (of course, it also depends on the MP3's compression).
I don't have problem with the tuner section, in fact, I would love to see them extended by XM and Sirius bands in all receivers. What I don't understand is why do they still put a phono preamp in them? Turntables are obsolete, on the receivers put an extra line (call it "Aux-2" or whatever) input instead.
Peace! |
| Good Question | Chris009
Dec 6, 2002 5:54 PM | | ZMC is a philospher..."how would they receive" hehe! Well it can still "receive" (audio and video) signals from a source (DVD player/CD player/Turntable/HDTV Tuner/...etc.) right??? A Tunerless receiver is called... Well it's going to be a Pre/Pro with an amp.
I too am asking the same question why the heck not take the tuner out of the reciever. I never used mine...so i don't even know how the tuner sounds :). Just like what you said no one ever uses em right but believe it or not a lot of people still use em. I agree why not take out the tuner and use the use the cost for the tuner for something else...an added feature maybe?
and ZMC another thing, Turntables ARE NOT obsolete...a lot of people especially, audiophiles, who still use, buy and even prefer the sound of LP's rather than CD's. |
| Hmmm. I guess I learn something every day. | ZMC
Dec 6, 2002 6:28 PM | | I was almost certain that the over-the-air reception feature gave the name to the receiver.
"Well it can still "receive" (audio and video) signals from a source (DVD player/CD player/Turntable/HDTV Tuner/...etc.) right??? "
True. Starting tomorrow, I'll call my tropical fish receivers - they receive those flakes every night.
"Turntables ARE NOT obsolete...a lot of people especially, audiophiles, who still use, buy and even prefer the sound of LP's rather than CD's."
All right, then let me substitute the word: "obsolite" with "not-very-strongly-preferred-media-by-the-general-public-anymore". Personally I haven't seen too many LPs in the Strawberries lately - maybe I didn't look in the right place. And I also believe that those die-hard audiphiles don't use those $149 Sony or Kenwood receivers to enjoy their vinyl - more likely McIntosh. |
| Yes but... | RGA
Dec 6, 2002 9:52 PM | | "Turntables ARE NOT obsolete...a lot of people especially, audiophiles, who still use, buy and even prefer the sound of LP's rather than CD's"
Yes But....Audiophiles don't use receivers for serious music listening and besides there is no point putting the Phone section in because their so horribly bad in receivers anyway.
They should take the phono section out and the tuner and maybe put a half decent power amplifier in the bloody things. Sure they start to get good arounf the $3kUS range...but then you go separates for 3k. |
| You're only speaking for yourself... | Woochifer
Dec 6, 2002 6:05 PM | | Most people still keep their internet connections and home entertainment systems separated, simply because no one has come up with a universally acceptable way of using the internet from the comfort of a sofa or lounge chair. I'd love to feed internet radio into my home theatre system, but that would entail running long cords all over the place (few people I know keep their computer right next to their home theatre system), and the audio quality would still be barely above AM (less than 10 percent of households have broadband connections, and the growth rate has slowed down).
Quite the contrary, I use my tuner all the time -- local public jazz station and using it for sports when I prefer the radio play-by-play over the hacks doing the call on TV (growing up in L.A., I much preferred Chick Hearn and Vin Scully over anyone doing the TV announcing). And your assertion that hardly anyone listens to radio anymore is just wrong. Yes, the number of regular listeners is going down, but that doesn't negate the huge number of people that still listen to radio on a regular basis -- a number that I'm pretty sure FAR outnumbers people who listen to internet radio at home. (Just like all the baseless hype surrounding e-tailing doesn't obscure the simple FACT that over 90 percent of retail purchases are still made at retail stores.)
If you ever open up a receiver, the tuner box is barely the size of a cigarette pack, doesn't take up much room and doesn't add much cost. No rational reason whatsoever to get rid of the tuner from a receiver. And, I would venture to guess that more AV receiver purchasers use the tuner than the 6.1 features (do you have space for that rear center speaker in your living room? I sure as hell don't, and a lot of others on this board have said that they don't either), yet I don't see any reason to remove that feature from the mix. |
| You're only speaking for yourself... | Mike_G
Dec 7, 2002 8:33 AM | | For me, the tuner section of receivers is useless, but then I live in an FM-challenged part of Canada. If I lived in Toronto or Vancouver, or better yet, San Francisco, I would probably use it quite a bit. |
| As much as I hate to admit...gotta side with RGA on this one.... | cone
Dec 7, 2002 4:02 PM | | as the tuner section often "bleeds" into the amplified signal...even when its off...they should remove these and the poor quality phono stages as well...anybody with vinyl will be adding a quality phono preamp...but probably to a intergrated amp...so the point is somewhat mute...these A/v units are the modern version of the all-in-one turntable,cassette,8track,tuner,amp atrocities of the 70s/80s...and we all know how they performed... |
| But, it's not just the tuner.... | Woochifer
Dec 9, 2002 4:51 PM | | ANY source has the potential of bleeding into another analog signal path. On my receiver, the tuner has no crosstalk whatsoever -- the interference comes from the VCR (but that's only barely audible at full line level volumes).
"even when its off...they should remove these and the poor quality phono stages as well...anybody with vinyl will be adding a quality phono preamp."
A rather gross generalization, don't you think? I use vinyl all the time, and go with the phono stage on my receiver. In fact, nobody I know uses a phono preamp -- they ALL use the phono stage on their receiver/preamp, so I have no idea what population sample you're drawing your conclusions from. The most audible differences on my system have come from swapping out cartridges. (I'm not going to spend over $200 just for a line level phono stage)
"these A/v units are the modern version of the all-in-one turntable,cassette,8track,tuner,amp atrocities of the 70s/80s...and we all know how they performed..."
Uh, not really, given that the receiver is still a component based system with separate source components, and connectivity to a variety of external components. The all-in-one systems that you're describing (I used to use one, so I should know) were closed loop systems with virtually no external connections and zero upgradability. The performance of a modern AV receiver is a LOT closer to separates than those all-in-one systems that you describe.
The most equivalent type of system to what you're describing would be the Bose Lifestyles or Sony Dream Systems, and even those components sound far better than any of those woodgrained boxes with the gawdawful BSR turntables ever did. |
| Phono stages on AV receivers are very poor... | cone
Dec 9, 2002 6:21 PM | | and in general...the quality of "built-in" phono stages has declined over the last 10 yrs...no big surprise here as digital has taken over...most makers throw in a cheapo that doesnt cost anything...that is why they are still included... |
| Phono stages on AV receivers are very poor... | Woochifer
Dec 9, 2002 8:05 PM | | "and in general...the quality of "built-in" phono stages has declined over the last 10 yrs...no big surprise here as digital has taken over"
Well, I don't think the phono input on my receiver is any different than the one that came with my 16-year old receiver. If anything, the quality of the step up phono preamps can be very bad if you stay in the affordable rhelm (under $100). And with that added cost, you'd get far better value by investing the cost into a better phono cartridge, which is probably the most overlooked yet crucially important component in any system with a turntable.
"most makers throw in a cheapo that doesnt cost anything...that is why they are still included"
Have you shopped for any kind of affordable equipment lately? Phono stages are NOT still included with most entry level and even some midlevel receivers. You can check around for yourself if you don't believe me. |
| But, it's not just the tuner.... | RGA
Dec 11, 2002 10:09 PM | | "(I'm not going to spend over $200 just for a line level phono stage)"
Well of course there is no need. If you're running a receiver you would not achieve a noticeable improvement anyway. The $200.00 could go to a used power amp or preferrably a used preamp(provided they are good ones). |
| VCRs,tuners, and whatever else... | cone
Dec 11, 2002 10:48 PM | | add unwanted interference to your system...you cant connect everything electrical under the sun in one box and then wonder why you have problems...best to keep it simple...I understand with families,wives,living quarters,etc...this is difficult...but it does improve "crossover" distortion... |
| Speak for yourself. Most buyers are quite happy with 'em. | markw
Dec 6, 2002 8:31 PM | | Remember, We are not a majority had have less effect on the manufacturers marketing decisions than Joe sixpack and the mass market. To think that we do is a bit of an elitest assumption on your part.
Just because you and a select group prefer to drive 5 speed stick shifts, don't believe for one minute that the world is ready to drop automatic transmissions.
Joe Sixpack is more than happy to have the ability to receive local stations thrown into the bargain when be goes for his HTIB type setup. He's buying the daylites out of these at at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, et al.. I don't see Radio Shack complaining about sales, either.
Granted, I want a little more than most tuners can provide but I, and probably most here, are more demanding than
Joe is. I'm probably more demanding of my FM than most here even.
Joe won't even bother with an outside antenna, which I personally consider a necessity to FM reception. Even this makes an otherwise mediocre tuner perform quite a bit better than you can imagine.
Plus, it doesn't appreciably add to the manufacturing costs anyway.
FWIW, Don't pronounce last rites on Free Music quite yet. I still do quite a bit of FM listening. I'm sure many others do as well. You don't need an ISP to enjoy it. |
| I have a separate NAD tuner... | jeskibuff
Dec 7, 2002 12:00 PM | | ...and it's probably the LEAST used component in my system. Not because radio sounds bad or compressed, but because THERE ARE PRACTICALLY NO GOOD RADIO STATIONS TO LISTEN TO! All over our nation, we've got cookie-cutter radio stations. They play the same crap over and over and over and over and over, sometimes many times per day! How do people tolerate this? The stations are owned by big companies (Clear Channel, etc.), so they're like Wendy's or McDonalds. You can go ANYWHERE in the country and hear the identical playlist - even identical contests! Give me a small independent station with the freedom to explore the musical landscape. Anyone want to buy an NAD tuner? Mine hasn't been used for almost a year now! |
| Ah feel yer pain. | markw
Dec 7, 2002 1:59 PM | | I was raised 10 miles outside of NYC. I graduated HS in '67, just as FM was coming around to "progressive rock". Before that, the earlier FM stations served to expose me to classical music and, sorry to say, soft listening. But, the sound was great! I still have a soft spot in my heart (and some say head as well) for Mantovanni and the 1000 strings. Of course, 99.1 (?) WBAI, listener sponsered radio had some interesting things on late at night.
By the time I went into the AF in '68, we had some early FM rock stations starting up. WNEW, 102.7 was, I believe, the first all rock FM station in the country. I was there on day 1.
I went into tha AF. Basic in Amarillo, Tx. Can you say C & W on an AM radio? ...and not much of that.
Tech school in Biloxi, Miss. Same thing, but on a bigger portable.
Stationed in Ft Waldon Beach, Fla, Alabama's Riveria. More of the same. At least I was here long enough to bring down my rusty Fishet 200T. Same stuff! Arghhh!
Now, 30 years later I'm back outside of NYC with a rooftop omnidirectional. Loads of college stations on the low end of the dial, a few good classical stations fewer still rock stations, (many cookie cutter and dance or latin) but at least the variety is astounding!
Granted, FM without decent stations is no better than no FM at all. At least the upcoming satellite radio seems to offer a remedy for this. I hate being tethered to an ISP for music. |
| How much are you asking for the NAD tuner?nt | cone
Dec 7, 2002 4:06 PM | | |
| Actually, cone...I was just being a bit overdramatic... | jeskibuff
Dec 8, 2002 8:23 AM | | ...despite the fact that I get so little use out of it, I'll probably hold on to it in the faint hope that maybe someday I'll move to an area that has some good stations. I know they're out there, just not in normal sized metropolitan areas. I am fairly nomadic, so maybe someday that dream will come true. Plus, doing contract work, I sometimes find myself listening more when I'm inbetween contracts (unemployed). You could ALWAYS bribe me with an incredible make-me-an-offer-I-can't-refuse deal.  |
| I'll probably inherit my old mans Magnum Dynalab anyways nt | cone
Dec 8, 2002 1:50 PM | | |
| re: Do they really need tuners in A/V receivers anymore? | meyer
Dec 7, 2002 2:20 PM | | I personally don't use my tuner. Tuners cost so little they would not significantly affect the cost of the reciever. So why take it out? Just because you get a few people that generalize every reciever on the planet of having a tuners that sucks! The fact is some use the tuner so thats why it it there. I don't use my phono input or half the other inputs for that matter. Mabey they should save the 50 cents for the power button on the front after all I don't use it that is what the remote is for. The arguement that the tuner will affect the sonic abilities of the reciever does not hold water. Reciever design has evolved just a little since the 70s. |
| |
