3 ms·

Any article posted here about smart TVs draws a large number of comments about limitations and annoyances of smart TV platforms. 90+% of the things people comp

by tzs 2y ago

Any article posted here about smart TVs draws a large number of comments about limitations and annoyances of smart TV platforms. 90+% of the things people complain about would no longer be a problem if they got a traditional A/V receiver, plugged all their sources such as streaming boxes and game consoles into the receiver, and just used the smart TV as a monitor (and as a tuner if they watch OTA television). Until that is no longer the case there will be a role for traditional A/V receivers.

keoneflick 2y ago
You can have the TV still be a dumb monitor by using a TV box, but handle the switching of inputs if you have more than one input. The problem is that as video technology has advanced, it makes less and less sense to pay for video processing technology on a receiver. Your new TV supports HDMI 2.1 with 120hz and VRR for your new PS5. Does your receiver? Are you willing to spend $1000 to upgrade your receiver to simply correctly pass through that video signal, with little meaningful audio upgrade?
- timc3 2y ago
  But a lot only support that on 2 ports (though admittedly how many devices would you have doing that). I think you hit the only problem I have with receivers being the upgrade of them as new versions of HDMI come out.
ericghildyal 2y ago
The problem isn't the number of boxes plugged in, its that the TV has its own OS and built-in apps that people want to use that doesn't work with anything outside the TV. I don't think too many people have, for example, a Samsung TV and a Firestick and use the 2 interchangeably for different apps. I had this problem until the Samsung interface got too unbearably slow (6 year old tv), so I just bought a Google TV and that goes through my receiver's HDMI in port. Before this update, I was using optical out from the TV into my receiver, but the quality was noticeably degraded. I'm lucky I also don't use the radio function or a record player since that would just add to the chaos.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jwr 2y ago
> 90+% of the things people complain about would no longer be a problem if they got a traditional A/V receiver, plugged all their sources such as streaming boxes and game consoles into the receiver, and just used the smart TV as a monitor (and as a tuner if they watch OTA television). The problem there is the terrible UI of those A/V receivers, designed by committee that upholds long-standing traditions. It takes a lot of fussing with the complicated remote to get to where you want, which is perhaps fine for geeks, but annoying in a family setup, where all household members would like to know how to watch Netflix. BTW, these traditions are ridiculous: as an example, my DENON receiver has two monstrous knobs on the front, like most AV receivers. The one on the left I will never use in its entire lifetime: it is for manually sequentially switching input sources, which nobody does anymore. And yet they still place it as the most prominent feature/control on the front panel. The buttons that I'd like to use are small, black-on-black with dark gray labeling in 8pt type, so basically impossible to use unless you use a magnifying glass and a flashlight.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Seconded, I’m happy with my Denon (especially because I got it cheap) but only because I rarely touch it. The front panel design is demented.
  - anton-c 2y ago
    My receiver(amplifier is a better name for its job) is mounted sideways on l-brackets so the power and volume knob, the only things that sometimes get touched, are at the top within reach. I do audio work but once a receiver is set up I don't mess with it. So easy for consumers to mess things up.
- smackeyacky 2y ago
  The Harmony remotes used to solve this problem - I am dreading the day my old Harmony One dies.
  - jwr 2y ago
    Kind of — Harmony remotes still had way too many buttons, you had to keep them pointed at the thing being controlled for the entire duration of a sequence, things could get desynced, and we shall not mention the horrible software, right?
hedora 2y ago
I don’t understand what an A/V receiver is for. Our setup: - An old LCD TV with 4(?) HDMI inputs and a few legacy ports. - linux box with hdmi out - apple tv with hdmi out - console with hdmi out - line out cable from TV to 1970’s receiver’s line in. - line out from sonos to another line in on the receiver. - roof antenna, with a Y to the TV and receiver - turntable - two extremely nice speakers (Before someone asks, the TV has some sort of multichannel digital audio out. I don’t care. If I did, that’d give me surround sound. Similarly, I could get a subwoofer if I wanted.) This is completely fine. The apple tv and console auto-switch the tv to their output, and sync the power buttons. The linux box doesn’t, but probably could if I decided to RTFM. The apple tv can be controlled with the tv remote, but its native remote is nicer. We only use the TV remote to access linux. We only touch the receiver to switch between TV, turntable, sonos and radio. How would an A/V receiver possibly improve this? (Note: I want the analog radio and record player with their nice mechanical switches and warm FM sound, and will run the sonos s1 app until the cloud side of it dies.)
- jeffbee 2y ago
  I would say my greatest suspicion about such a setup would be that your TV is doing a poor job of decoding surround streams into sensible 2-channel downmixes. However, if you're happy with it, that's all that matters.
  - hedora 2y ago
    The AppleTV and Linux do the downmix (and are probably both state of the art at it.) The console might be suboptimal, but it knows the TV is in 2 channel mode, so it it’s emitting surround encoded signal, that’s just dumb.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  It’s mainly useful for getting good surround. If you don’t care about that, sure, not really necessary. That’s like the whole point of it. Side benefits include: - Adding more ports to often port-starved TVs or projectors. - Providing alternative port-switching interface if you hate your TV’s UI and want something simpler. - An organizational aid—you can put all your stuff somewhere away from the TV, and all that needs to reach it is a single HDMI cable. This can create interesting room layout options that are otherwise impractical. All of these can also be accomplished by a simple HDMI port switch, but still, it’s handy.

by tzs 2y ago

keoneflick 2y ago

You can have the TV still be a dumb monitor by using a TV box, but handle the switching of inputs if you have more than one input. The problem is that as video technology has advanced, it makes less and less sense to pay for video processing technology on a receiver. Your new TV supports HDMI 2.1 with 120hz and VRR for your new PS5. Does your receiver? Are you willing to spend $1000 to upgrade your receiver to simply correctly pass through that video signal, with little meaningful audio upgrade?

timc3 2y ago
But a lot only support that on 2 ports (though admittedly how many devices would you have doing that). I think you hit the only problem I have with receivers being the upgrade of them as new versions of HDMI come out.

ericghildyal 2y ago

The problem isn't the number of boxes plugged in, its that the TV has its own OS and built-in apps that people want to use that doesn't work with anything outside the TV. I don't think too many people have, for example, a Samsung TV and a Firestick and use the 2 interchangeably for different apps. I had this problem until the Samsung interface got too unbearably slow (6 year old tv), so I just bought a Google TV and that goes through my receiver's HDMI in port. Before this update, I was using optical out from the TV into my receiver, but the quality was noticeably degraded. I'm lucky I also don't use the radio function or a record player since that would just add to the chaos.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jwr 2y ago

> 90+% of the things people complain about would no longer be a problem if they got a traditional A/V receiver, plugged all their sources such as streaming boxes and game consoles into the receiver, and just used the smart TV as a monitor (and as a tuner if they watch OTA television). The problem there is the terrible UI of those A/V receivers, designed by committee that upholds long-standing traditions. It takes a lot of fussing with the complicated remote to get to where you want, which is perhaps fine for geeks, but annoying in a family setup, where all household members would like to know how to watch Netflix. BTW, these traditions are ridiculous: as an example, my DENON receiver has two monstrous knobs on the front, like most AV receivers. The one on the left I will never use in its entire lifetime: it is for manually sequentially switching input sources, which nobody does anymore. And yet they still place it as the most prominent feature/control on the front panel. The buttons that I'd like to use are small, black-on-black with dark gray labeling in 8pt type, so basically impossible to use unless you use a magnifying glass and a flashlight.

alabastervlog 2y ago
Seconded, I’m happy with my Denon (especially because I got it cheap) but only because I rarely touch it. The front panel design is demented.
- anton-c 2y ago
  My receiver(amplifier is a better name for its job) is mounted sideways on l-brackets so the power and volume knob, the only things that sometimes get touched, are at the top within reach. I do audio work but once a receiver is set up I don't mess with it. So easy for consumers to mess things up.
smackeyacky 2y ago
The Harmony remotes used to solve this problem - I am dreading the day my old Harmony One dies.
- jwr 2y ago
  Kind of — Harmony remotes still had way too many buttons, you had to keep them pointed at the thing being controlled for the entire duration of a sequence, things could get desynced, and we shall not mention the horrible software, right?

hedora 2y ago

I don’t understand what an A/V receiver is for. Our setup: - An old LCD TV with 4(?) HDMI inputs and a few legacy ports. - linux box with hdmi out - apple tv with hdmi out - console with hdmi out - line out cable from TV to 1970’s receiver’s line in. - line out from sonos to another line in on the receiver. - roof antenna, with a Y to the TV and receiver - turntable - two extremely nice speakers (Before someone asks, the TV has some sort of multichannel digital audio out. I don’t care. If I did, that’d give me surround sound. Similarly, I could get a subwoofer if I wanted.) This is completely fine. The apple tv and console auto-switch the tv to their output, and sync the power buttons. The linux box doesn’t, but probably could if I decided to RTFM. The apple tv can be controlled with the tv remote, but its native remote is nicer. We only use the TV remote to access linux. We only touch the receiver to switch between TV, turntable, sonos and radio. How would an A/V receiver possibly improve this? (Note: I want the analog radio and record player with their nice mechanical switches and warm FM sound, and will run the sonos s1 app until the cloud side of it dies.)

jeffbee 2y ago
I would say my greatest suspicion about such a setup would be that your TV is doing a poor job of decoding surround streams into sensible 2-channel downmixes. However, if you're happy with it, that's all that matters.
- hedora 2y ago
  The AppleTV and Linux do the downmix (and are probably both state of the art at it.) The console might be suboptimal, but it knows the TV is in 2 channel mode, so it it’s emitting surround encoded signal, that’s just dumb.
alabastervlog 2y ago
It’s mainly useful for getting good surround. If you don’t care about that, sure, not really necessary. That’s like the whole point of it. Side benefits include: - Adding more ports to often port-starved TVs or projectors. - Providing alternative port-switching interface if you hate your TV’s UI and want something simpler. - An organizational aid—you can put all your stuff somewhere away from the TV, and all that needs to reach it is a single HDMI cable. This can create interesting room layout options that are otherwise impractical. All of these can also be accomplished by a simple HDMI port switch, but still, it’s handy.