4 ms·

The middle of the market is actually all messy generally these days. The very high end wants systems that feel like current systems, but if you want something

The middle of the market is actually all messy generally these days. The very high end wants systems that feel like current systems, but if you want something in the middle, you don't actually really want the awkwardness associated with having an audio system today. A system of passive speakers, an amplifier or two, and the complexities of the user interface (I can't hear the TV, which of these three remotes do I need to push the "source" button on?) isn't actually a good experience -- and in the middle of the market, there's no particular reason it needs to stay this way. At the highest end, people want analog sound processing. At the bottom end, we have cheap powered smart speakers using Bluetooth for connectivity. In the middle, we could easily have good quality powered speakers and some reasonable mixture of wireless and wired interconnect that didn't require all the legacy nonsense of a separate amplifier/audio receiver.

pbronez 4y ago
There are products there… plenty of good powered monitors available. Some of them have integrated DAC with an optical, line and USB inputs. Those are pretty easy to connect to a TV or whatever. I’m actually hacking on a project to make it easier to sift through all this stuff. The work that Audio Science Review and a (very) few others are pumping out some great objective data on audio equipment performance. My goal is to pull that together in a data-first way that will allow for robust cost/quality/criteria queries.
- convolvatron 4y ago
  yeah. i mean i understand the value of being able to replace components, but for the not-super-concerning the integrated amp silicon is just fine. digital in means a lot less opportunity for noise injection, and the manufacturer gets to tune it all as a unit. i got some prosumer roland monitors a few years ago and they've had excellent clarity, flat frequency response, plenty of power at 60w on each of the drivers. why aren't there more products here between the crappy little usb speakers and the $5k/channel real gear?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    There totally could be, but for the most part the only product in this space for the most part is the tv-manufacturer-branded sound bar kits.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  These do exist, but they're not really marketed to the mainstream home theater market.
vladvasiliu 4y ago
> I can't hear the TV, which of these three remotes do I need to push the "source" button on? I have a fairly dumb amplifier (it does BT, and the DAC can be fed through optical and coax, too). It can also be controlled over RS-232 and Ethernet. It doesn't have any kind of HDMI or other "home theater" related functions. But the remote of my Fire TV can be configured to control the input and the volume of this amp. So if all I want is to watch a movie or something, I only need to reach for the amp's remote to turn it off when I'm done. If I'm too lazy, it can go to standby on its own if it doesn't get any input for a while. I do agree, though, that a "normal person" would probably not want it. It's quite big and not particularly pretty. Plus it's useless on its own, you need some kind of source to feed it. A soundbar or some active speakers would be best for them, and it's what they usually choose.
- wallacoloo 4y ago
  modern day i expect to not have to turn off/on my receiver: it should wake on input and go into a standby state after so much inactivity. hence my problem: i’ve got the Technics receiver + stereo speakers i inherited, but if you leave the receiver on for more than a couple days without explicitly venting it’ll cut out (even if it’s inactive: its idle power draw is incredible). that’s fine for me, but if i’m the only one who cares about audio, it’s a hassle for everyone else in the house to manually flip the rocker switch on as they use the tv and off when they’re done. now i think about it, there’s probably some “smart outlet” i could get to make this transparent.
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    Mine does wake on input, but it doesn't change inputs automatically. So if it's off and I send sound to it on some input, it'll wake and set that input. But if it's already on on a separate input, it won't switch. In my case, I turned that off, because I don't want it to randomly turn on while I'm away (it's connected to a computer I tend to leave on with spotify running). But the fire TV remote is actually able to tell it to switch to a specific input, which is exactly what I need, since that will also turn it on if it was off.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
hakfoo 4y ago
I always felt like it was a battle for control of the user interface. When the system was audio-dominant, the receiver made sense to put in control. The TV audio was one source among many, and most of the functionality was in front-panel buttons. When it became video-centric instead, we started putting the TV in the centre of the experience-- plugging devices directly into it and using its menus to control switching. The problem there is that anything cool the AVR could do by being aware of different inputs is lost (I'm picturing per-input volume controls, for example). There's not really a great way to get them to communicate-- CEC is limited, I've seen AVRs that do on-screen display and wish I hadn't seen it, and the only way I can imagine it working would be a single brand-based propriatery interface where all the parts could cooperate. The one I find weird is the soundbar angle. It's not going to be anywhere near as good as all but the worst free-standing speakers, due to size and positioning limits, but it's still introducing cost and complexity. Bluetooth speakers, at least you could put them in a good place for the room. I assume they trade mostly on what they used to call "Wife Acceptance Factor"
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  The thing about Sound bars is that they're dead easy. The sit physically near the TV and either plug directly into the TV or are Bluetooth. They don't need a receiver or any complicated wiring or configuration. You open the box, set it up in 5 minutes, and have sound way better than the built-in TV speakers. No weird mounts, no wires in the walls, no three remotes. Super easy and sound pretty decent.

pbronez 4y ago

There are products there… plenty of good powered monitors available. Some of them have integrated DAC with an optical, line and USB inputs. Those are pretty easy to connect to a TV or whatever. I’m actually hacking on a project to make it easier to sift through all this stuff. The work that Audio Science Review and a (very) few others are pumping out some great objective data on audio equipment performance. My goal is to pull that together in a data-first way that will allow for robust cost/quality/criteria queries.

convolvatron 4y ago
yeah. i mean i understand the value of being able to replace components, but for the not-super-concerning the integrated amp silicon is just fine. digital in means a lot less opportunity for noise injection, and the manufacturer gets to tune it all as a unit. i got some prosumer roland monitors a few years ago and they've had excellent clarity, flat frequency response, plenty of power at 60w on each of the drivers. why aren't there more products here between the crappy little usb speakers and the $5k/channel real gear?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  There totally could be, but for the most part the only product in this space for the most part is the tv-manufacturer-branded sound bar kits.
codefreeordie 4y ago
These do exist, but they're not really marketed to the mainstream home theater market.

vladvasiliu 4y ago

> I can't hear the TV, which of these three remotes do I need to push the "source" button on? I have a fairly dumb amplifier (it does BT, and the DAC can be fed through optical and coax, too). It can also be controlled over RS-232 and Ethernet. It doesn't have any kind of HDMI or other "home theater" related functions. But the remote of my Fire TV can be configured to control the input and the volume of this amp. So if all I want is to watch a movie or something, I only need to reach for the amp's remote to turn it off when I'm done. If I'm too lazy, it can go to standby on its own if it doesn't get any input for a while. I do agree, though, that a "normal person" would probably not want it. It's quite big and not particularly pretty. Plus it's useless on its own, you need some kind of source to feed it. A soundbar or some active speakers would be best for them, and it's what they usually choose.

wallacoloo 4y ago
modern day i expect to not have to turn off/on my receiver: it should wake on input and go into a standby state after so much inactivity. hence my problem: i’ve got the Technics receiver + stereo speakers i inherited, but if you leave the receiver on for more than a couple days without explicitly venting it’ll cut out (even if it’s inactive: its idle power draw is incredible). that’s fine for me, but if i’m the only one who cares about audio, it’s a hassle for everyone else in the house to manually flip the rocker switch on as they use the tv and off when they’re done. now i think about it, there’s probably some “smart outlet” i could get to make this transparent.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  Mine does wake on input, but it doesn't change inputs automatically. So if it's off and I send sound to it on some input, it'll wake and set that input. But if it's already on on a separate input, it won't switch. In my case, I turned that off, because I don't want it to randomly turn on while I'm away (it's connected to a computer I tend to leave on with spotify running). But the fire TV remote is actually able to tell it to switch to a specific input, which is exactly what I need, since that will also turn it on if it was off.
codefreeordie 4y ago

hakfoo 4y ago

I always felt like it was a battle for control of the user interface. When the system was audio-dominant, the receiver made sense to put in control. The TV audio was one source among many, and most of the functionality was in front-panel buttons. When it became video-centric instead, we started putting the TV in the centre of the experience-- plugging devices directly into it and using its menus to control switching. The problem there is that anything cool the AVR could do by being aware of different inputs is lost (I'm picturing per-input volume controls, for example). There's not really a great way to get them to communicate-- CEC is limited, I've seen AVRs that do on-screen display and wish I hadn't seen it, and the only way I can imagine it working would be a single brand-based propriatery interface where all the parts could cooperate. The one I find weird is the soundbar angle. It's not going to be anywhere near as good as all but the worst free-standing speakers, due to size and positioning limits, but it's still introducing cost and complexity. Bluetooth speakers, at least you could put them in a good place for the room. I assume they trade mostly on what they used to call "Wife Acceptance Factor"

codefreeordie 4y ago
The thing about Sound bars is that they're dead easy. The sit physically near the TV and either plug directly into the TV or are Bluetooth. They don't need a receiver or any complicated wiring or configuration. You open the box, set it up in 5 minutes, and have sound way better than the built-in TV speakers. No weird mounts, no wires in the walls, no three remotes. Super easy and sound pretty decent.