61–70 of 344 posts
If I'm at the computer and turn off the TV with the TV remote it turns off the monitor the majority of the time.
I wonder if Samsung will manage to make to so Denon and Marantz receivers will also sometimes turn off when you turn off a Samsung TV?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, traditional receivers wanted to be the "brains" of home theater, switching video inputs, managing audio, turning everything on. That role is no longer sensible when used with smart TVs/Apple TV boxes/Android TV boxes. As a result, traditional receivers are relegated to be being audio decoders and amplifiers. Honestly, I think there's already more manufactured and lying around than the world really needs…
Yes, but vinyl is making a strong comeback, and with that comes the need for traditional receivers. Even CDs are making a comeback -- as many indie artists publish CDs (and some do vinyl), which implies demand for standalone CD players with a receiver (like those made by the Denon, Onkyo, etc.) I have a HomePod in my living room and it gets used, but I also have a traditional receiver hooked up to my external speaker…
There are lots of speaker manufacturers; I'm not too concerned about Polk and B&W. But! There are relatively few home theater receiver makers, and the Denon/Marantz siblings have been a big chunk of them for decades. (Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon. Nobody else covers the low and mid cost market.)
AFAIK B&W 800D is used in many mastering studio's. I wonder what they will do with their high-end / pro audio segment, since it's quite different from your average home stereo (or even hi-fi) markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 2 problems currently with movie audio. One is that the channel separation is not as good as it used to be. New movies have 5.1 audio the effect is minimal which no longer justifies the expense on the sound system. People online are saying this is because many movies are made for primarily for streaming and that majority of people listen on their TV or sound bar instead of dedicated surround systems. The sec…
For most people a good 2.1 system vs surround or soundbars is where it’s at these days. As you say most surround mixing is an afterthought now anyway. The physics of moving air to create sound hasn’t really changed in any meaningful ways; the biggest upgrade is usually larger drivers fed with more power. I think most would experience that as much more of a theatre like experience than 7+ tiny underpowered satellites…
I feel that sound bars + speakers directly attached to TVs has decimated the "home theatre receiver." "Back in the day", home theatre receivers made sense when you wanted Radio + CD inputs in addition to the TV input. But radio and CD players are gone. There is just TV. Even when I do audio, I run it through the TV. Thus why do you need a separate box? It just seems like a waste. Instead everyone these days are just…
> Thus why do you need a separate box? It just seems like a waste The sound quality of modern TV is absymal. The digital compression does play its part, but the speakers and the case are crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, traditional receivers wanted to be the "brains" of home theater, switching video inputs, managing audio, turning everything on. That role is no longer sensible when used with smart TVs/Apple TV boxes/Android TV boxes. As a result, traditional receivers are relegated to be being audio decoders and amplifiers. Honestly, I think there's already more manufactured and lying around than the world really needs…
This is one of the things that kept me from getting a proper home theater setup. It always seemed like more complexity than I wanted under my TV. I could do it, but I simply objected to the idea. Not to mention, I like for someone to be able to come to my house and use my TV without taking a class first.
Denon and Marantz are arguably the best AVR manufacturers. It’ll be interesting to see what Samsung does with them. The home theater market is pretty outdated compared to other areas of audio. Car audio, soundbars, and professional systems mostly use active speakers and tightly integrated setups. Meanwhile, home theater is still stuck with passive speakers and a component-based approach.
While some might see this as a monopoly concern, there's a chance Samsung could use its combined brands to modernize home audio. Imagine a fully wireless, all-in-one home theater system with active speakers and centralized room correction. That could be a real step forward.
I feel that sound bars + speakers directly attached to TVs has decimated the "home theatre receiver." "Back in the day", home theatre receivers made sense when you wanted Radio + CD inputs in addition to the TV input. But radio and CD players are gone. There is just TV. Even when I do audio, I run it through the TV. Thus why do you need a separate box? It just seems like a waste. Instead everyone these days are just…
> Thus why do you need a separate box? It just seems like a waste The sound quality of modern TV is absymal. The digital compression does play its part, but the speakers and the case are crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could estimate it from sales or something, but Walmart has a huge wall full of various TVs, and barely one half of one aisle-side of soundbars, and no receivers/speaker setups. I suspect something like 80% of people use the TV, and of those who upgrade, use a soundbar, maybe. And even those with a dedicated theatre room, probably have other TVs that are just TV audio.
That's a really sad percentage of people listening to such subpar sound that they might as well not be. I understand not everyone can afford nice audio, but a soundbar is such a drastic improvement, VHS=>DVD level of improvement, while a soundbar to surround is a DVD=>BluRay improvement. It's great for those with discerning taste, but not noticed by the vast majority. Granted, I'm not an audiophile, but I've been in/…