• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Where'd the receiver go? Ideal basic setup...

Flint

Prodigal Son
Superstar
Given the new era of home audio generally consists of some speakers and one source, the need for a big receiver or preamp with dozens of inputs is gone.

As I consider what I need for my downstairs second TV system, I realize what I really need is just a pair of powered speakers, like studio monitors, a TV, and a Amazon Fire TV. That's it. The TV will act as the volume control for the Fire TV which provides everything I need in terms of a source with all my video channels AND my music. No need for a receiver. If I am really pushing it, I could put a Bluetooth receiver on the TV as an audio only input to connect my phone or a guest's phone to the system. Sure, the TV would need to be on, but this isn't my primary system.

What about in my bedroom? Well, I currently have a pair of Audio Engine A5 powered speakers with a Bluetooth receiver and an additional 1/8" audio cable to plug anything else I might, like maybe a future Amazon Dot.

In the bathroom I have an Amazon Dot connected to my Logitech Boom Squeezebox which is always set to Line In and the Dot provides all the audio.

In my office I have a small USB DAC amplifier connected to my PC digitally and driving a pair of SVS bookshelf speakers.

In my big Home Theater I have two sources, my Roku and a BluRay player. If it performed faster I could use the BluRay player as the streaming device, but it is slow and clunky and the remote is not intuitive, so I use the Roku. My huge Onkyo Pro preamp/processor is only needed for two sources. It does, however, provide bass management for LFE subs, surround decoding, and volume control. Otherwise I could go without it.

So, when I consider my "next system" I start with the speakers and source components and don't even consider a preamp or receiver a necessity.
 
Sorry for the noob question but what is needed to connect the TV to the powered speakers? How do you get the sound from the TV and Fire TV to come through the powered speakers?
 
Nearly all TVs have analog or digital audio outputs which are configurable as either fixed level or controlled with the volume setting.

If the TV only has a digital output, a small $30 DAC is all you need to connect it to the speakers.

If the TV cannot be configured so adjust the volume via that output, a small preamp or some sort of volume control might be necessary, or speakers which have an easy to use volume control, like my Audio Engine A5 speakers which have a remote control for volume.
 
Basically, if there is more than one source component, the TV is the main hub for the multiple connections.
 
If we're starting from scratch all the TVs in the house would have either a Sonos PlayBar or PlayBase connected via Toslink to the TV.

In the HT however I believe I'd still need a pre/pro for bass management as well as some EQ and modest processing.
 
I only use a receiver if I need surround. My main system is 7.1 and my family room system is 5.2. Those have receivers. We use a Boston Acoustics powered sub/sat system in the kitchen and a Pioneer soundbase in the master bedroom. Both are connected via optical. Our girls both have Boston Acoustics sub/sat systems (identical to the one in the kitchen) that they use with Bluetooth. My wife also has a Bluetooth speaker she uses in the bathroom. Both receivers also have Bluetooth.
 
I would love to see a high grade preamp/processor with limited ports but high grade surround processing, bass management, and so on. Something with, say, four HDMI inputs, two line level inputs, Bluetooth, WiFi, and Ethernet, and not much else. It needs loads of outputs, though. I look at that massive Onkyo prepro in my rig where the only ports I use are two HDMI jacks for input, two HDMI for output, and 8 outputs and get frustrated. It is way to large for my needs, but I cannot get what I need.
 
I would love to see a high grade preamp/processor with limited ports but high grade surround processing, bass management, and so on. Something with, say, four HDMI inputs, two line level inputs, Bluetooth, WiFi, and Ethernet, and not much else. It needs loads of outputs, though. I look at that massive Onkyo prepro in my rig where the only ports I use are two HDMI jacks for input, two HDMI for output, and 8 outputs and get frustrated. It is way to large for my needs, but I cannot get what I need.

The only thing I would add to your list is an optical or two. Other than that, I feel exactly the same way. My Marantz SR-6010 has a million inputs and all I use are three HDMI and one optical, plus the ARC on the monitor out. The Blu-Ray Player and Chromecast Audio are rarely used. Probably 99% of our listening and viewing is handled through a Roku Ultra and an HTPC running an embedded OpenPHT Plex client.
 
Yeah it's getting to the point where the only type of setup where a robust and capable preamp is essential, is projector based.
 
I can't see my number of inputs changing. So, the only difference here is having the amps built-in to the speakers, rather than a receiver. I know a speaker manufacturer can (not saying will) design the amp with that speaker's particular requirements in mind. Each amp will require its own power supply, and if nothing else will require multiple power outlets rather than one. Signal-level lines from the source to the speaker are more susceptible to picking up noise than speaker-level lines, so there's that.
Just some random thoughts, you can tell me what I'm missing.
 
Yeah it's getting to the point where the only type of setup where a robust and capable preamp is essential, is projector based.

How are you proposing to do bass management and surround processing without a preamp or a receiver?
 
^^ I apologize for not being more clear....I posted in a hurry. MY comment above was premised more on the OP and the way Flint sets up his secondary systems piggybacked by T7's comment about Sonos and other products that offer solutions....I personally don't subscribe to the notion that everyplace I can watch a TV requires true surround sound and all the extra bells and whistles. Personally I see those as unnecessary in our home and would keep me from investing that $ in main HT performance and/or even using the main HT altogether. In those secondary viewing environments I simply require better sound than that built into the TVs, nothing more. If someone's main HT system is built around a TV and needs bass management, surround processing, etc, than the answer is obvious. But when you feed, say, 3 or less sources directly into a TV and then tether that to a Sonos, nice sound bar, or active stereo speakers I don't even care about surround or bass management. It's just my personal POV on secondary setups. Also in my comment I mentioned projectors because they cannot pass along audio the way a TV can, and I made no mention of receivers, which to me are plenty capable for most living room based HTs.
 
Last edited:
I can't see my number of inputs changing. So, the only difference here is having the amps built-in to the speakers, rather than a receiver. I know a speaker manufacturer can (not saying will) design the amp with that speaker's particular requirements in mind. Each amp will require its own power supply, and if nothing else will require multiple power outlets rather than one. Signal-level lines from the source to the speaker are more susceptible to picking up noise than speaker-level lines, so there's that.
Just some random thoughts, you can tell me what I'm missing.

While potential drawbacks, they are pretty minor. For instance, noise on line level cables is extremely rare anymore, when's the last time we had a thread on someone's ground loop problem? Power wires, well, everything else needs a power wire as well, like a Roku, Fire TV, Sonos speakers, WiFi extenders, etc. I think most of us are pretty comfortable with wires. So, losing one receiver power wire and replacing it with two speaker power wires, that's pretty easy. Replace the receiver with a set of speakers like the Audio Engine models and only one wire is needed.

But, you are right, everything we can choose from has pros and cons we need to balance. I just don't see the point in having a separate receiver for most casual systems anymore.
 
^^ I apologize for not being more clear....I posted in a hurry. MY comment above was premised more on the OP and the way Flint sets up his secondary systems piggybacked by T7's comment about Sonos and other products that offer solutions....I personally don't subscribe to the notion that everyplace I can watch a TV requires true surround sound and all the extra bells and whistles. Personally I see those as unnecessary in our home and would keep me from investing that $ in main HT performance and/or even using the main HT altogether. In those secondary viewing environments I simply require better sound than that built into the TVs, nothing more. If someone's main HT system is built around a TV and needs bass management, surround processing, etc, than the answer is obvious. But when you feed, say, 3 or less sources directly into a TV and then tether that to a Sonos, nice sound bar, or active stereo speakers I don't even care about surround or bass management. It's just my personal POV on secondary setups. Also in my comment I mentioned projectors because they cannot pass along audio the way a TV can, and I made no mention of receivers, which to me are plenty capable for most living room based HTs.

I agree entirely with that sentiment. It is silly to put surround systems all over the place. The only reason I threw one in the family room downstairs was to encourage my daughters to hang out down their with their friends to watch movies and play video games, so their mom and I can watch stuff in peace upstairs. A $500 TV, a $200 receiver, a $100 Roku and a bunch of stuff I already had bought me a basement full of noisy teenagers having a great time and not bothering me. :drinkingbeer:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At first I was going to balk, then I thought a bit, and yeah, I agree. The things a receiver does well are consolidate source components into a single stream to the display and amplify audio for speakers. Modern TVs have a lot of inputs- more than the receivers themselves sometimes, so the TV can handle source switching themselves. If you just want a soundbar or basic amplified speaker setup, they can take a feed right off the TV and the TV will even handle volume duties.

A while back I'd have said one other benefit to the receiver would be scaling of lower resolutions to higher resolution for the display, but TV scalers have improved over the years (the days where feeding a HDTV a SD resolution and having it look like utter crap have faded).

Honestly, if I were going to redo my system in the great room (it has everything running through a Yamaha receiver with a 3.1 speaker rig), I'd probably just get a halfway competent soundbar and call it done. Just let the TV handle its own video and get rid of a lot of extraneous cables. Heck, if this receiver ever bites it, I might well just do that and offload the speakers it currently uses.
 
And here I was waiting for someone to point out that you generally lose lossless audio support running through a TV.

Oh, wait, this isn't AVS.
 
And here I was waiting for someone to point out that you generally lose lossless audio support running through a TV.

Oh, wait, this isn't AVS.

HA! Yeah, I guess the current complaint would have to do with TVs not supporting MQA "unfolding".
 
Back
Top