There are like 1 or 2 micro systems available at a time usually for a much higher price due to their smaller size then for decent prices are these big ugly boxes. I just never get it. We have had the technology to make smaller home stereo and surround sound system receivers since 2004. Everything now days is getting smaller and small yet we still have the oversized black box godzilla sized receivers or the over designed and overly tall ugly stereo reciever. Which look great in a living room in a wooden cabinet catered towards them, I myself own a oversized box system in my living room. How ever such a thing looks awful and clashes with a computer area or bedroom. For my computer area I just use a micro receiver I feel blends in more with my computer area. I just don't get the lack of demand for smaller receivers.
Most of the time it is the heat sinks they have to use to get the components cool.
Eliminate interference? Idk
there are a couple of factors that all tie into making them oversized. first off they generally have a lot of I/O ports on them if we are talking video they have to have multiple video in ports along with the dedicated audio in ports. All of those have to be spaced out some so that they do not produce interference under any situation, and the same for the multitude of outs on the system so you will not see a tightly packed design on the back I/O's. Most Sound systems are passively cooled so they need lots of open space and coolers that can handle dispersing all the heat over as wide an area as possible. Along with those two options most quality brands over build the components so that they will last longer than the warranty as these are devices that the consumer expects to last 10+ years regardless of the warranty.
when you factor in all of those requirements it is not easy to make a small unit that is affordable unless the inputs and outputs are limited and the total wattage is relatively low.
The amount of outputs is a good explanation but the thing is. Stuff today has to many outputs.
More realistic power = bigger components.
While cheap receiver and amps skimp on this, the good ones have gigantic transformers, sometimes multiple ones, and HUGE capacitors. This is why you can often tell how powerful a receiver is by simply lifting it up, because generally the heavier, the more powerful it is. Obviously exceptions are everywhere, but there is a reason good amps can weigh 70+ pounds. Then on top of this, like others mentioned, you need the metal to cool all that heat.
I wonder with the extra space in a receiver, if you could swap the heatsinks out for flat-topped ones and watercool it? That would be a strange and unneccesary monster.
Then you probably don't need a receiver for whatever it is you're doing.
then why are you buying a 5.1 or 7.1 Audio Receiver? I am being serious. my Yamaha home theater system is as big as it is because it can do 5.1, stereo, 2.1, and Sub out. I want that flexibility as my system may expand if I move the system downstairs or move to a new house with a different layout for the TV/Living room. I would not use the Receiver if I was planning to use something as a switch/breakout from a pc and another item then I would look at a mixer or a/b audio switcher.
By to much stuff I more hdmi inputs than I will ever use plus normal a'v video inputs. Where as most technologies now days would force you to get a adapter for older technologies or cut out inputs for size 5.1. receivers just cram everything in. Sure they are people that love this backwards compatibility but I just see wasted space. A good chunk of a reciever space and price could be cut out if inputs where cut out. I want a 5.1 receiver with less extra crap. Some of this stuff could literally be cut out and put into a whole different part like this for instance.
If some one wants 5 different hdmi inputs they can use this.
The multitude of inputs on a Receiver is redunant when you think of it. A t.v. has multiple hdmi inputs, A computer has input capability. I can't think of a setup that requires a receiver to have so many inputs for a multitude of sources.
Compact receivers are possible to its just some reason everyone in the market likes giant metal blocks.
This thing could even smaller to if the amount of hmdi and other video inputs was limited.
I just see all these inputs on recievers and see them get hooked up to either a t.v. which already has the game system and dvd player running into the t.v. thus voiding all the receivers inputs or its running a cd changers and a t.v. thus needing way less inputs than what it offers.
The number of HDMI ports on a TV is irrelevant when we're talking about receivers. You should be plugging all your devices into the receiver, and the receiver into the TV. Receivers will decode the audio and pass the video to the TV. You're giving the TV way too much credit. Also, if you're plugging all your stuff into your TV, I'm hoping it has an optical out to send that audio back to the receiver.
Every setup I can think of would have the receiver at it's center. The receiver directs the flow of content. The TV is just a monitor. What kind of setups are you talking about?
Just because the end user you see is being an idiot does not mean its a design flaw of the product. those big receivers are Designed to produce a good amount of clean amplification which requires larger capacitors and transformers along with the need to dissipate heat without using fans. if all someone is doing is using a reciver as a 5.1 or 7.1 break out device then sure something like this would be a better option. But that does not mean that some how the neiche product that is a reciver is the problem it is simply that people see the flexability in the device and are applying it for use with something that it was not intended for.
Acid Rock sounds great on a 1973 Marantz. The experience takes me back to my childhood. http://www.tonepublications.com/media/1143.jpg
Oh man, I have a soft spot for 70's era Marantz receivers! Growing up, my dad had one he bought at a garage sale and had restored. It was a Marantz 2325 that he bought, and restored with some nice old box speakers for under $200. Still to this day, that thing sounds better than just about anything else I've listened to!
Again, I think @BoyTitan that you are missing just how much space the amps themselves take up. That old Marantz we are talking about was a simply stereo amp, but had TONS of power. Here is a picture!
You will notice just how HUGE that transformer is in the middle. Next to it, the two large capacitors, and on the edges are the amps (one for each channel of stereo). That is basically half the size of the receiver, and well over half the weight. Now, while that was a TRUE 125 watts/channel amp, imagine now that you add an additional 3-5 channels on top of that, and you can quickly see that in order to have a receiver with the capability to produce an equal amount of power over 3 times the amount of channels would require A LOT of space. While with modern technology things like capacitors and amp circuits have shrunk, they have not shrunk as much as you would think. Things like that huge transformer in the middle have remained virtually unchanged over the years.
Now obviously the Marantz 2325 was a BEAST stereo receiver even by today's standards, meant to drive gigantic speakers; however, a modern receiver driving small satellite speakers still requires significantly sized electronics. Now I could get into the small exceptions like Class D and such, but even then the reality remains true in my first statement:
More realistic power = bigger components.
The reality of the situation is that when it comes to audio, it isn't about buying the biggest and most expensive audio equipment as much as it is about buying the setup that best fits the environment you are putting it into (as well as modifying the environment to best make use of itself). While something like a Marantz 2325 might be great in a room with a 2 story tall ceiling with enough room to call a theater, it would be completely overkill in something the size of a small bedroom where a properly utilized 15 watt/channel amp would be more than enough. Then on top of this, I would go so far as to say that a properly utilized mid-range stereo setup is superior to even a mid-range off the shelf 5.1+ system. In fact, when I show people people a proper stereo setup, outside of the jaw-dropping reactions, often one of their first questions is often asking where all the other speakers and subwoofers are, because they simply can't believe what they just heard only came from 2 speakers.
Ah the ol' Marantz, they and Pioneer sure made some big monster receivers back in the day!
The Marantz Model 2500, and it has a big brother too, the 2600. Ought to see how big the transformer and capacitors are in those. ;)
I also agree, more power does call for bigger components, though that is highest dependent on amplifier class and style of transformer / power supply. A, AB, D, H, T, etc. Plus, more amp channels you have, the more power you need coming in as well. Which the majority of today's receivers don't dish out so well with all channels driven.
Example, my Onkyo TX-NR5007 will deliver about 145WPC two channels driven, at 8 ohms, 20Hz to 20kHz, at 0.05% THD. However, when all channels are driven, power output is more like 50WPC, from what bench tests I've seen a while back. And it's a 55 pound receiver still.
The newer Class D Pioneer Elites however, can do better all channels driven, bench tests at least 100 ~ 110WPC, I'll have to find the article again. Though still, full size receiver.
Plus the way I also see it, a lot of people may want to have plenty of connections, I know I do, so size reduction would not only result in less power output due to physical size constraints on components, but connections as well. Which HDMI has helped reduce the need for so many since it came around.
Personally I don't even use the amps built into my receiver anymore, and will get a pre-amp someday for my home theater system. I have a server rack filled with professional audio amplifiers that suite my needs quite well and deliver plenty of headroom with my whole 7.1 setup.
I don't think we can expect to see receivers get much smaller than the Marantz AVR linked above, unless you want to go strictly stereo. If power isn't a huge concern, you could probably get away with a couple of good T-amps and use a computer as the pre-amp or hide the audio equipment in a well vented cabinet or closet and run an IR sensor somewhere.
Meh, penis envy. since the 80's heat dissipation was rather controlled. Open one up and you'll see a lot of open space. Think original PS2 vs. slim PS2, all they did was move the power to a brick and dropped 70-80% in size.
Yep. I would guess they have giant output transformers to maximize power output, as HT receivers have amps built in that are strong enough to power multiple channels and sometimes multiple zones. That takes a lot of power. If you don't need an amp, and just need to decode a Dolby or DTS signal for discrete output, look for a decoder on ebay or CL.
Well thats because 5.1 set ups aren't designed for music theres ways to change this around and make it better but most people don't know this they just keep it from how they got it out the store. My set up is to the point where you can't tell where the bass from the sub is coming from and would think one of the satellite speakers is delivering the bass everything is in sync giving a sound sphere. Usually 5.1 set ups by the average person has bass that overwhelms the sound of the entire system. Still is outperformed by my old kenwood system in the living but theirs a difference in big difference in wattage between the two.
Well, 5.1 (or 7.1+) setups you buy at the store as a whole package would be the ones not really designed for music (or moves/games in my opinion.).
In general, 5.1 can work for music as well as any stereo system out there, there are actual 5.1 channel music tracks out there. Whether that suits your fancy or not, is another story.
Now a good 5.1+ system can reproduce music quite well in stereo mode. I use my 7.1 system for everything. Two channel music to 7.1 channel moves/video games. Usually the more capable system you have the better. If you want high sound pressure levels, you're going to need bigger speakers and more power, there's no way around it. Subwoofers being the largest, most power hungry component of the system. Those HT systems in a box usally can't compete with anything that let's you pick speakers for a chosen receiver. Let alone be able to compete with any old stereo systems like your Kenwood. lol
But the way I see it, it's no different than selecting a computer. You can buy pre-built from Walmart (like you can buy a HT in a box) or you can build your own computer. Well you can build your own sound system as well. Which can especially be more fun with DIY speakers. Just pick each component and have at it.
Well home sound systems have gotten worse. The kenwood as good as it is is inferior to the sound system it replaced its a hand me down from my mom. The sound system she had before it had 12 inch woofers like the kenwood same 3 way speaker set but it had a 12 inch bass radiator in the back so it had a woofer and radiator so it could cover every spectrum of bass in music.
Hell their are some flat out downgrade you can find for example sharp has been making their xl stereo system worse and worse each year. The 2003 or 2008 model can't exactly remember the year is a great radio aside from the speakers tooss the speakers out. The speakers are not bad you can just do better from the same wattage. Get some better speakers and a passive woofer since it has a passive woofer output and it makes a really good system. For home use.