Why so much???

Early B.

Sure would be nice to step up to separates for HT. Only one problem -- the COST!!!

A. Why do 7-channel processors cost so much? ($2,000 plus)

B. Why not just use a receiver's processing capability and get separate amps for all channels?

C. Since I never heard one, I gotta ask -- how much of a difference does a separate processor make?

AsSiMiLaTeD

Sure would be nice to step up to separates for HT. Only one problem -- the COST!!!

A. Why do 7-channel processors cost so much? ($2,000 plus) - why do wheels on a Ferrari cost more than wheels on a Cavalier? Same principle - better quality...

B. Why not just use a receiver's processing capability and get separate amps for all channels? - same reason you don't put $50 tires on a Ferrari...that's a bit overstated, but you get the idea...

C. Since I never heard one, I gotta ask -- how much of a difference does a separate processor make? - It makes a HUGE difference IMO. I've got a bud who has separates, and it's friggin amazing...a HUGE difference. Think about having your HDTV, Satellite tuner, DVD Player, and VCR all in one box...and think about all the advantages in quality you get by having them separate...same pronciple here...

AsSiMiLaTeD

Something else to think about...

Home Audio/Video is basically the poster child for the law of diminishing returns...

The increase in 'return' gained by moving from a $300 receiver to a $1000 receiver is much greater than moving from a $1000 to a $2000 receiver, and even greater than moving from a $2000 to a $4000 receiver...you get the drift...the higher up the foodchain you go, the improvement you gain for you dollar...

Just like a $30 steak is a whole lot better than a $10 steak, but a $100 stead is not that much better than a $30 one...

My .02

Early B.

I was looking for more of a technical response.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Originally posted by Early B.
I was looking for more of a technical response.

Well you shoulda said that...:)

Essentially, they are more expensive becuase they use better parts. It pretty much boils down to the build quality and the actual chips used...

The build quality improvement is obvious, better 'guts' are used to build the machine, from everything like the casing and board probably down to the type of solder used...stuff like that.

In terms of the chips used, those higher end processors use much more expensive chips. I'm sure someone here can offer the names and details of the chips, but in the end it boils down to quality. The high end chips are likely more powerful (i.e. have more transistors, faster clock cycles, etc) and therefore are more expensive to manufacture and hence the higher selling price.

Early B.

Thanks. PM.

Hopefully, they'll come down in price over time due to greater demand, competition, and lower cost for technology.

The other issue is that technology changes so rapidly that if you invest in a processor today, it may be outdated two years from now and they'll need to be upgraded or replaced. Contrast that with pre-amps for music -- they can last for years without going out of style.

AsSiMiLaTeD

One of the advantages of having separates is flexibility...so that when your processor gets outdated you can just change that piece, and still keep your amps...Or if one of your amps fries, you can replace just that one..........

With a receiver, you gots to replace the whole thing alot of the time...course they're not as expensive either...

disneyjoe7

It may be price and demand issue also. A 7 channel AVR receiver sells for $1k sold 1mill of them, so chips in them are mass produce hence cheaper. A 7 channel processors used better chips sells for $3k sold 100k of them so chips are more costly due to price of chip to RD of chip used.

Also another way to look at it $100 chip isn't 10 times better then the $10 chip. I can think that the 60% of the $100 chip uses the same technology as the $10 chip uses. They add some heavy RD to the design 40% is upgraded. But due to chips sold vs. chips sold.

PolkWannabie

Originally posted by Early B.
Hopefully, they'll come down in price over time due to greater demand, competition, and lower cost for technology.

Not likely or not much ...

Originally posted by Early B.
The other issue is that technology changes so rapidly that if you invest in a processor today, it may be outdated two years from now and they'll need to be upgraded or replaced. Contrast that with pre-amps for music -- they can last for years without going out of style. [/B]

The same can be said for a receiver for processing 5.1/6.1/7.1 ... Most preamp/processors these days are field upgradable ( software ) which should provide for more longevity. Even the best processor out there is going to get somewhat left behind when a new sound format comes along unless it can be potentially upgraded through software. This leaves it open to obsolescence. But a power amp capable of X wpc will still have the same capability ten years from now although even there new tchnologies are always coming along.

steveinaz

That's why I'm 2-channel all the way---music first. Movies sound great to my ears via 2-channel/DVD Player. I could never do the surround thing, too expensive for what I would want...

Tour2ma

Originally posted by Polkmaniac
One of the advantages of having separates is flexibility...

Big factor here indeed, IMO.

EB,
On the tech side...

With separates the designers are free to optimize all aspects of the piece, including layout. Start cramming multiple functions in one box and compromise happens.

Also inherent in separates is dedication and isolation. Great example is the power transformer. Receivers normally share one for Pre-amp, Processor and Power Amp sections. Separates obviously do not. Shared components can mean noise transfer and, again, compromise.

Early B.

I'll wait for a company like Outlaw to come out with a decent pre/pro for less than $1,000. Their 950 costs $799 right now and got good reviews, but it's old, doesn't remember your settings, and is not upgradable. In the meantime, I guess I should enjoy what I have.

warviper

To be on the bleeding edge of technology you will take it up the ****. I feel that ht can be done well with a good avr to start out as long as it has the preouts so you have the option to add amps at a later date. I tend not to coment on the clarity of the last explosion.

PolkWannabie

You don't have to be on the bleeding edge ... Just like when buying new P/C's a good place to be is one step off the bleeding edge for preamps and you can be farther back than one step for amps. This is even more true with audio gear than P/C's as although almost no one sells 6 month old 3 ghz P/C's, lots of folks for a variety of reasons are constantly selling 6 month old preamps. These can typically be had for 50% of original price.

With regards to AVR's w/pre-outs, I agree completely. It provides a good starting place and an upgrade path.

wire

Originally posted by Early B.
Thanks. PM.

Hopefully, they'll come down in price over time due to greater demand, competition, and lower cost for technology.

One thing with Amps , i dont think they every go out of date and definitly do not drop in price .
I have a 4b bryston , which i have had for close to or over 20 years now . Bryston hasnt really improved a already great Amp and still give it a 20 year warrenty . The price is out of this world now for the same amp i have , so i hope this Amp keeps on running for another 20 years .
With Pres , i agree with everyone , it can get out of date for watching movies only .
I have a old CT-17 carver , it has Dolby Prologic . But i never use that end of the prosessor anyhow , it was fun in the begining but now i use my system for music only . So for me its not outdated , its still a great pre and smooths out my 4b .