I think for Onkyo, they just fell in an awkward middle. Not as high end as Denon/Marantz/etc. and not as cheap as < cheapest thing you can find >. Combined with the drastic decrease in people "needing" receivers and speakers (many people now just get a sound bar, or Bluetooth speakers) and the market squeezed them.
A system of passive speakers, an amplifier or two, and the complexities of the user interface (I can't hear the TV, which of these three remotes do I need to push the "source" button on?) isn't actually a good experience -- and in the middle of the market, there's no particular reason it needs to stay this way.
At the highest end, people want analog sound processing. At the bottom end, we have cheap powered smart speakers using Bluetooth for connectivity. In the middle, we could easily have good quality powered speakers and some reasonable mixture of wireless and wired interconnect that didn't require all the legacy nonsense of a separate amplifier/audio receiver.
I’m actually hacking on a project to make it easier to sift through all this stuff. The work that Audio Science Review and a (very) few others are pumping out some great objective data on audio equipment performance. My goal is to pull that together in a data-first way that will allow for robust cost/quality/criteria queries.
i got some prosumer roland monitors a few years ago and they've had excellent clarity, flat frequency response, plenty of power at 60w on each of the drivers.
why aren't there more products here between the crappy little usb speakers and the $5k/channel real gear?
I have a fairly dumb amplifier (it does BT, and the DAC can be fed through optical and coax, too). It can also be controlled over RS-232 and Ethernet. It doesn't have any kind of HDMI or other "home theater" related functions.
But the remote of my Fire TV can be configured to control the input and the volume of this amp. So if all I want is to watch a movie or something, I only need to reach for the amp's remote to turn it off when I'm done. If I'm too lazy, it can go to standby on its own if it doesn't get any input for a while.
I do agree, though, that a "normal person" would probably not want it. It's quite big and not particularly pretty. Plus it's useless on its own, you need some kind of source to feed it. A soundbar or some active speakers would be best for them, and it's what they usually choose.
hence my problem: i’ve got the Technics receiver + stereo speakers i inherited, but if you leave the receiver on for more than a couple days without explicitly venting it’ll cut out (even if it’s inactive: its idle power draw is incredible). that’s fine for me, but if i’m the only one who cares about audio, it’s a hassle for everyone else in the house to manually flip the rocker switch on as they use the tv and off when they’re done.
now i think about it, there’s probably some “smart outlet” i could get to make this transparent.
In my case, I turned that off, because I don't want it to randomly turn on while I'm away (it's connected to a computer I tend to leave on with spotify running). But the fire TV remote is actually able to tell it to switch to a specific input, which is exactly what I need, since that will also turn it on if it was off.
If you're not interested in all that crap and just want decent sound, you're not doing it that way.
When the system was audio-dominant, the receiver made sense to put in control. The TV audio was one source among many, and most of the functionality was in front-panel buttons.
When it became video-centric instead, we started putting the TV in the centre of the experience-- plugging devices directly into it and using its menus to control switching. The problem there is that anything cool the AVR could do by being aware of different inputs is lost (I'm picturing per-input volume controls, for example). There's not really a great way to get them to communicate-- CEC is limited, I've seen AVRs that do on-screen display and wish I hadn't seen it, and the only way I can imagine it working would be a single brand-based propriatery interface where all the parts could cooperate.
The one I find weird is the soundbar angle. It's not going to be anywhere near as good as all but the worst free-standing speakers, due to size and positioning limits, but it's still introducing cost and complexity. Bluetooth speakers, at least you could put them in a good place for the room. I assume they trade mostly on what they used to call "Wife Acceptance Factor"
The sit physically near the TV and either plug directly into the TV or are Bluetooth. They don't need a receiver or any complicated wiring or configuration.
You open the box, set it up in 5 minutes, and have sound way better than the built-in TV speakers. No weird mounts, no wires in the walls, no three remotes. Super easy and sound pretty decent.
Edit to add: Dolby <anything> is also a bit of a fiasco. LG TVs went through multiple firmware updates to attempt to correctly negotiate Dolby Vision. I appreciate that they want to push audio / video quality, but it seems weird that the industry testing process for integration is so poor.
If you're a tinkerer there's also DIY solutions like running snapcast on a Pi.
But if you can get your hands on on they still work perfectly.
But it’s not like there aren’t alternative music providers - Spotify, qobuz, tidal, your own pick your poison DLNA all +/- Roon.
I’m not an Apple fanboi but having to purchase an Apple TV when it’s pretty clear they’re a lifestyle brand just doesn’t make me feel too bad for anyone.
I don’t see any piece of Apple hardware there. The Shield in your setup is superfluous, no? Apple is a hardware company - they need you to buy at least something for that HT setup.
I mean use Apple Music or don’t, but this sounds a bit leopards ate my face.
Apple determined that multiple channels were confusing for customers. One should be enough. /mouse/s