Current "State of the Art" > Transition?? (1 Viewer)

After researching for a month or so on general HDTV, Home Theater, High Definition forums, I make the following, not quite well informed, observation; the industry appears to be "in transition".

By that I mean that old technologies (2-channel audio, s-video, composite video) are still being used on ALMOST EVERY product. Receivers are the biggest culpret - but even my new Panasonic DMP-BD60 blu-ray has composite video and 2 channel audio in addition to the HDMI output.

While I admit that having 2-channel audio may still be necessary, why are they on EVERY receiver? And so many? It seems that s-video is almost gone with this years models, but there are still tons of composite video connections even on the most high end of receivers.

It would seem to be cost effective and marketable to have a home theater receiver that only supported HDMI. Or at least concentrated on HDMI while providing one or two obsolete input formats.

I really don't have a "theater". I have a living room where we enjoy video, movies as well as watch news, weather, and TV shows. I almost never use that system to listen to music.

To me - a perfect receiver would have 5 HDMI inputs, 3 component inputs (upconverting to HDMI), 3 optical audio inputs, maybe 2 composite video inputs, and 2 2-channel audio inputs - of course an internet connection to keep with firmware releases.

Now that I have stirred the pot - what do you think?

...gene

Because there are, once again, a huge segment of people who only want 2-channel stereo for tv and movies and folks who want 2-channel stereo from their CDs, LPs, MP3s...The way it should be. This will always be. And it is included in every receiver so anyone can buy any receiver and get the basic 2-channels. Composite video is the same. It is the basic necessity required for connection. It has to be there because some people do not and will not go HDMI, even with BD.

The industry has been in transition since the beginning of the home theater/home audio industry began. There will always be new equipment every year and bigger, fancier, shinier new formats every few years. This is nothing new.

Also, some people still use VCR's (believe it or not) for recording or watching homemade videos, some people are still in love with their PS2 gaming systems, super NES, ect...and some people just don't care about hd and hdmi with multichannel audio.

I agree that there is a market for all the inputs and then some - but not everyone requires or desires a large number of analog inputs (video or audio).

All I am saying, is that while most may desire a number of analog inputs, I also believe many do not, and providing for that market - with a product that is cheaper - will sell units.

As for transition, market turns are quicker than ever, but with the ever growing popularity of HDTV (even in small screen sizes) I see this type of market growing. How many 480i only TVs do you see in the stores? And compaired to the HDTV offerings 480i is going to be a relatively unused standard. Add that to how many HDTVs do not have more than one HDMI input?

We are seeing more movement to provide more HDMI capabilities. Note the added HDMI input between Onkyo TX-SR506 and the newer TX-SR507. Also note the dropping of S-Video inputs.

All things are driven by market conditions, and I do not see this market being addressed.

...gene

One of the benefits of purchasing a receiver and speakers vs an HTIB system is the extra flexibility offered by a plethora of connection options. Though some may regard composite and S-video, along with 2 channel analog audio inputs obsolete they don't cost much to provide, and guarantee connectivity with virtually any device a buyer might already own and want to incorporate into their system. As mentioned before there are folks out there with huge collections of VHS tapes or audio cassettes that they still enjoy.

The fact is that taking the buying public as a whole the market for home theater receivers is actually pretty tiny.

The average buyer of a new HDTV, if purchasing any audio system at all is much more likely to purchase a $300 HTIB than to spend the thousand plus that even a basic standalone receiver and speaker set would cost. Alienating those few teetering on the edge of the decision to "do it right" by limiting connectivity doesn't make sense, as the ability to integrate virtually any audio or video device into their system is one of the biggest advantages over an HTIB.

In fact, limiting connectivity to HDMI and a couple of optical/coax digital inputs is a "feature" of one of Sony's HTIB systems.

IMO you are overestimating how much money would be saved by eliminating the analog inputs. The analog sections of these devices are so old that they are really just commodity products at this point that they likely do not add much more than $10-$20 to the total cost of the device. I would argue that most consumers would probably be willing to spend the extra $10-$20 to have the increased flexibility that these inputs offer. I would also argue that most manufacturers would likely keep prices the same in this scenario and simply increase their profit margins.

You don't understand how this stuff works. If an A/V company did as you suggest then they would label it an "audiophile" product and jack the price up by five hundred bucks.

Scott, you sound like you work in marketing.

It would cost them 100 times the money "saved" just to retool the line to accomodate the two receivers (one with analog, one without). It's the same reason why they don't sell TV sets without internal speakers. The miniscule cost savings per unit just isn't worth the excess cost to manufacture 2 separate units.

I'm glad they still have it.

My 42" plasma is now five years old, just before hdmi hit the market. It's a great screen and I don't want to get rid of it simply to connect a Blu-Ray player. I've got component going in and it's worth it.

It's already been said: the legacy stuff is nearly free. More plugs on the back loooks more impressive. Heck, many receivers still have support for turntables...because it doesn't cost anything and some people want it.

My perfect receiver or preamp would have one of each kind of connector for each input channel, and I'd get to choose what to plug where. Then there would be outputs to the speakers or amplifier stage, and output for the "image display device" whatever it be. All switching and signal conditioning would be done in the one box. Simple, clean, non-confusing.

Cost has nothing to do with price. The actuall cost for the physical construction of an electronic device is very small compaired to other cost factors. And regarless of cost, the market determines price.

While I do not know exactly how an HD Receiver is assembled, I do know how other electronics are.

Virtually all of the assembly is computer controlled and the only bits that would need modification (exclusion) are the actual connectors. No retooling required. Just a different back-panel part with less holes. And of course the programming modification to eliminate certain steps.

This is done alot for many other electronic items from cell phones to laptops.

As for speakers in TVs, I disagree with your assessment, speakers are placed in TVs because the vast majority of users do not have a receiver and never plan to.

But that is not my point - which many here are helping make by stating objections, I would be in the market for sush a device, but appearently, its a very small market

...gene