Wanted: A basic home theater receiver?

Too many jacks?

Today's receivers are so jam-packed with features they can be a hassle to set up and use. Even entry-level models boast features that flagship models from even just five years ago never had.

Is that a good thing? No manufacturer offers a receiver that's dead simple to use, sounds great, and has adequate connectivity to hook up a cable box, Blu-ray player, and one or two other sources.

Do you base your buying decision on the features lineup? Does the one with the most features win? Does your receiver really need to be THX Ultra2 Plus-certified, with four or more 1080p HDMI compatible inputs, and have Internet radio streaming, Pandora, Rhapsody, Sirius Internet Radio, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby PLIIz, Dolby Volume, DTS Master Audio, Audyssey DSX surround processing, Audyssey MultEQ, Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume, iPod-dock-ready--plus front and rear USB inputs?

Sure, it's tempting to go for more rather than less stuff, but at what point does the technology interfere with actually using the thing? And no matter how much stuff is in there, next year's models will have more. Have you used even half of the features your receiver has right now?

Can you slog through the hassles of "auto" setup, or even manual setup? Or do you even try? Today's receivers are incredibly sophisticated devices, so getting them to just do the basics--playing a CD or a movie--can be a trial. Or it worked yesterday, but now, even with the correct input selected, you're not getting what you wanted.

So would a receiver with fewer, but easier-to-use features be an attractive alternative? Or do I have this all wrong and you want even more stuff in your next receiver?

If you have any horror stories about receiver setup or just getting the damn thing to play, please share them in the Comments section below.

[research1st]

I agree with Steve. Buy what you need, with maybe a slight nod to further expansion if you think you might need it. Steve talks about the complexity of use and setup on the "over enhanced" models, which is all true, but you also increase the risk of hardware and software problems. The more complex it is, the more things that can go wrong.

With all of that being said....
I've been looking at new receivers, as I've hit a wall with my current receiver's setup options....
But it took 14 years for it to happen....

I'm going to try to stick with the KISS principal, with the new receiver.....

[Irishsof]

I have to say that what I'm really looking for next is an all-in-one that's easy to use.

I currently have a Kenwood system that I bought in 1997 - so it's big and bulky and complicated. And the remote no longer operates all the functions. It takes up way to much space, especially when combined with the big CD deck.

So I'm on the lookout for something simple in one unit. Manufacturers need to make the connections easier to identify.

[moretroops]

Apple needs to make a receiver. They know a thing or two about ease of use. I'm only half joking.

[rhinofrim]

Although I agree with the article, I find it troubling that a reporter would use a doctored photo to aid in getting his point across. Your credibility is diminished by doing things like this.

You can tell the picture is doctored by looking at the speaker connectors. Specifically, the background of the sixth pair from the right overlaps, partially, the fifth pair connectors from the right.

Next time use an un-doctored photo, or non at all.

[rhinofrim]

Not only that, but the angles of the four connectors on the right side of the picture are different than all the others.

[timsterr1]

"Specifically, the background of the sixth pair from the right overlaps, partially, the fifth pair connectors from the right."

That was your first tip-off? It wasn't the 12 HDMI inputs or 15 composite inputs? It's satire man. Where's you sense of humor?

[timsterr1]

That was your first clue? You didn't notice the 12 HDMI jacks or 15 composite video plugs? It's a satire man - where's your sense of humor?

[TheAudiophiliac]

Sorry, I thought it was funny, that's why I didn't try to hide the Photoshopping of the picture. It's a parody.

[rhinofrim]

I'm not sure why I missed the satire here. I guess my sense of humor is still sleeping.
I would like to see an example of the most complicated receiver anyone has actually seen though.

[tw1975]

Ah, the "timsterr1" can critique, but cannot be critiqued, thus a paradox is born with far too many HDMI configurations.

[ibjoeyd]

Don't you guys get the point of this article rather than immediately putting the author down for a random receiver back. Who cares if it's photo shopped. Lighten up nerds!

[Proud_Geek]

@rhinofrim
Lighten up, NEERRRRRD!!!

[justdenny]

You mean I can't buy the pictured receiver? Darn, I really wanted to spend the next year setting it up....

[scaught78]

I thought the photo was pretty funny myself and it drove the point home.

[carguy622]

I just went from a home theater in a box to a dedicated receiver (Onkyo HT-RC180), and even though there are far more inputs than I'll probably ever need it's nice to have all the extra options that weren't available on the home theater in a box.

Besides, most of the stuff you hook up to a receiver is done once, and you don't need to touch it again. It can be a little intimidating at first, but as long as you're fairly proficient it's not that bad.

[jakebala]

i partially agree. I love having more things to do straight out of the box. I have an Onkyo TX-SR606 which I love.

The thing that annoys me is that there are like 8 composite video inputs?!?!? Look at the picture above, the thing is loaded with them even though everyone nowadays uses HDMI or Component. I think companies just need to get rid of all the crap that loads up the back and make things simple to use. Have 6 HDMI's and a few digital audio inputs. Then add in a few component and composite. Done!

Doing that will make people realize that buying a high-end device and setting it up themselves isn't that hard. I did it with mine and although it sucked having to look behind my TV Stand for an hr to make sure everything was set up correctly, I got a great universal remote and it's been peachy every since (make that over 18 months now, not 1 problem).

I have to admit, manual set up can be a pain, I've been putting it off, but the auto set-up makes sense for most people. Also, since I got a great receiver with good insides, it will probably last me a decade.

[cvaldes1831]

Complain all you want about acoustics, performance characteristics, etc., but my septuagenarian mother could operate a Bose or Bang & Olufsen with less stress and more confidence than using a typical A/V receiver from a major manufacturer.

Right now she is very tentative about operating a Sony A/V receiver with its incredibly miniscule buttons, tiny lettering, and confounding remote control. Switching from TV to DVD to radio causes stress because often there are several buttons to press (turn on TV, change input, turn on DVD, turn on receiver, change input). The programmable remotes are scary for her.

Very discouraging.

[monopod1]

Get her a universal remote that has a simple, one-button-per-function macro (like the Harmony remotes). She can just push "Watch TV" and it does everything else. I've seen these save a couple of marriages, I'm sure it would help with your mother.

[grtgrfx]

No doubt she'd have to. Setting up a B&O receiver with it's stupid DIN ports and lousy wiring ergonomics is a "do it once - never again" kinda process. God forbid you need to add an input device to a B&O receiver set up in a closed cabinet, it's almost impossible. Bose, yeah those are home electronics for dummies, but B&O? Get an installer to do the painful work.

[eclein]

I recently bought a inexpensive SONY ( they have one-I bought it! ) 7.1 AV receiver and I'm still learning all the ins and outs. I consider myself pretty tech savy and I've had to break out the owners manual several times to make sure I was in the ballpark with the settings. This particular unit comes with a mic and auto calibrates itself....thank God it works!! The hardest part about hooking it up was trying to tighten down the speaker leads on the back, it looks almost as packed as your photoshopped one.

[minimalist]

Having just jumped into the AV receiver world from a nice mid-level pure stereo setup I've had for 20 years I understand the dilemma. It used to be in audiophile circles that the less you had in the path of the signal and the higher quality the components the better the sound. Fewer but higher quality components was the name of the game, not a bunch of blingy lights an a gigantic row of DAP badges across the bottom of the front panel. You bought a good system as an investment and knew that you'd get years if not decades of enjoyment out of it.

But the rise of 5, 7 and 9 channel Home Theater changed all that. Now everything, both audio and video, is digital and the digital world changes fast so its hard to get a foothold of what's necessary and what's just marketing hype. Even the harbingers of less is more (NAD, Rotel, etc) have very complicated AV receivers. Their quality is probably still superior but ease of use is certainly not. Not one CE manufacturer I have seen has figured out that AV has moved from pure hardware into the world of software and in the software world the user interface is king. Having it all on screen now helps some (as opposed to those horrid little led panels on the AV receiver of old) but most of them are still badly designed and not anywhere near intuitive. In order to make it so anyone can use my system I had to buy a Harmony remote and create single button macros with very simple name: "Watch DVD", "Listen to Music", "Play Xbox" etc.

That said, the advancements made is sound are pretty amazing to me. The dynamic range and clarity of Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD codecs played on a good system is just jaw-dropping. So going for ultra simple on an AV receiver may not be the best choice unless you are just listening to music in which case you should just get a good 2 channel integrated am or preamp/amp combo.

[exhuberance]

I have made comments to the last few retailers I've talked to / bought from to pass along to manufacturers: Get rid of the composite, component, S-video crap from the stone ages. Give me all HD. I'm already using all 4 HDMI inputs (have been for over two years). And don't make me trade off a channel for my main room for a pair of patio speakers. Geez. Have I used any of those old connections? Nope, not at all. Just think how much smaller (and cheaper?) A/V receivers could be, would be without the archaic connectors. That is all.

[manumathewv]

Completely agree. I do think there is a market for such recievers, without skimping on sound quality.

[minimalist]

This is a great point. A lot of the AV receivers' problems come from trying to be all things to all people. Legacy support becomes an albatross around your neck as you try to move forward and design a great experience.

get rid of composite & component inputs? so how do you think it is going to be possible to hookup that Wii gaming system your kids will get this Christmas to the stereo system? what about a cable box that only has component outputs? I have yet to see an iPod dock output video on anything other than composite/component. if all you have is HDMI inputs you severely restrict what you are going to be able to watch/listen through your A/V receiver. flexibility is the key to a good A/V receiver and all of the inputs should not be discounted just because you think you will not use all of them because if you choose the right receiver, it will upconvert those video signals to HDMI anyways. just my $.02

[CoBarefoot]

I already have a big receiver (Integra 9.8) in my main home theater, but I would LOVE something simple for my living room. If I could find something simple that did HDMI with the HD audio decoding, I would buy it in a second.

[MoooBoy]

Oh god yes, that is exactly what I am looking for. The audio manufacturers just don't get it.

[minimalist]

Imagine an HDMI only AV receiver that got rid of all the RCA, S-Video, composite and component inputs as well as all the legacy codecs you no longer need (anything prior to Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS)... get rid of all the simulated surrounds and the fake room acoustic settings that nobody who cares about sound actually uses.

All you'd have left would be the best in true digital surround decoding and really good 2 channel audio. The back would only need 4 or 5 HDMI inputs a couple of outputs and your speaker connections. What could be simpler?

[Philips]

> Do you base your buying decision on the features lineup?

If like how it sounds, then I would consider it. Long list of features is least of importance to me, as I'm an old timer who knows what goon ol' stereo is capable of.

Otherwise, I'm not much bothered by amount of connectors receivers offer.

What I really hate is that they are all (all important at least) as in the ar*e of the device. Considering that I have to plug/unplug something about once in a month, even thinking about the event makes me sad.

I wish manufacturers could have put at least some thoughts into cable management....

[jptobin]

I'm just going to throw this out there... A solid receiver is about the size of a desktop PC, right? Dedicate some space to the required electronics (motherboard, display, controls, amp if included, etc.) and create some modular components. Sound card = digital audio inputs or RCA's. Video card = HDMI or RCA's or DVI or S-Video or VGA (see why you need options?). etc. etc. Leave a couple/few slots for each, and offer several options for customization. Choose your inputs, choose your outputs. Leave some spaces blank for expansion. Everybody gets exactly what they want, because they have the option to build it themselves.

[Paul001312]

Why not take it one step further. Since many receivers have USB ports now, why not offer a receiver with a resonable number of connectors, and an External USB box with more connectors can be purchased if required. USB 2.0 is more than fast enough for any sort of legacy connection. This way the back of the box stays clean, and those people who need additional connections can get them.

I noticed Sherwood coming out with what seems like a thin, simple receiver and I'd be interested in something like that. If Ipod sales have taught other manufacturers anything, it's that simplicity of use trumps complicated every time when it comes to consumer electronic purchases.

I bought a Sony STR-DG800 a couple years ago in order to simplify our home's AV setup. I managed to eventually assign and label the inputs to work with all of our sources, but it required doubling up on several of the labels (e.g., DVD/Karaoke, Wii/360). Somewhere along the way though, other family members accidentally got lost in the menus and borked the settings. I ended up swapping it out with my older Sony receiver (circa 1999) and reconnecting a secondary AV switcher.

The kicker? The older receiver delivers MUCH better sound, driving the speakers far more capably than the newer one. And this is despite both having the same watt/channel rating.

I still want to move to a new receiver, but am feeling once burned, twice shy.

[grotteaux]

Come on, is that even a real AV receiver? 12 HDMI?

I have read your reviews before (love them) and even you knock companies for having less features than their competition...I think the question is a non-starter.

[olarson]

Two features that I think go a lone way to simplyfying things:
1) high quality video processing -- this allows you to port everything to your TV through the same HDMI connection, whether the source is a cable box, DVD, Blu-Ray, VCR (ugh!). No more trying to program the TV to switch to the right input, or recall which TV input to use if you are mixing and matching component video, HDMI, S video, standard video etc.. A very GF/wife friendly feature.

2) nameable inputs. telling the wife to set the reciever to "Video2" to watch the Roku box, "Video3" for the Wii, and "Cab/Sat" to watch TV is a non-starter. Tell her to switch it "Netflix" or "Comcast" or "Wii" and it works like a dream.

add in a truly universal remote like the harmony units, and its a pretty easy to use system. much easier than my dedicated audio system -- "see honey, the squeezebox plays through the CD player to take advantage of the CD player's better D/A converter, so you turn on the squeezebox, then the CD, then switch the CD to digital in, then turn on the pre-amplifier, then the amplifier, but let it warm up first, then go the Squeezecenter on the Squeezebox ...."

[pcraine]

That picture is hilarious. I laughed out loud when I saw it.

[Irishsof]

I second this. :-)

[jw55]

How about a receiver that's just for audio. I'm not interested in sending my video signals through the receiver I just want a receiver that gives me as much bang for the buck in terms of performance and options for audio, including surround sound, as possible.

[hagosrush]

Receivers are not overly complex. Most people do not have the need for all that they can produce. What most everyone esepcially you cnet readers that complain about the complexity of said receivers is a switch. A four button, get your a** off the couch switch which will fulfill your desires.

Most receivers come with an auto setup, meaning you plug it in, plug the speakers to their colour coded wires and tell the system to figure the rest out. Once you have done that you are generally done apart from plugging in your sources into their respective inputs.

No sympathy from me.

[sspadafo]

Wow, I can't believe how many posts there are on this subject!