On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:46:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:29:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home
theater receiver...
Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these?
(or have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup,
just your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy with.
They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-tv tuner?
Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are being
slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of smaller
manufacturers.
ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of future
TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact that it
would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated receivers, I
doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that the poster was
asking about.
Given that we didn't see the 125 channel cable-ready TV tuners in receivers
ever, that seems like a safe bet. I think that Mr. What's question is a good
one - why not put a TV tuner in an AV receiver? It would at worst
differentiate itself from the other 100 or more look-alikes that it competes
with on the shelves of the big-box stores and web sites.
I addressed that in my earlier post. It's a matter of margins. At the
price points that's being talked about, every dollar is vital to keep
a receiver at its current price level. Niches tend to fall in $25 (or
so) increments. Once you've built another $25 - $30 to the price of a
receiver, suddenly you're compteting with more powerful receivers, and
you've just traded off one feature for another, and power is probably
a more motivating factor for most people who are shopping for that
sort of receiver.
For such a tuner feature to really be useful these days, it would need
to be cable-ready and the 125 channel sound cards that you're talking
about wouldn't be very useful for a growing number of consumers.
Actually, 125 channel video cards are growing trend in mainstream PCs.
Microsoft has even come out with a special version of XP that among other
things, supports them.
This doesn't mean that the card will displace their cable/satellite
box though. It's useful for those who want to watch TV on their PC at
work, or on their computer at home. It's *not* as useful as a
replacement for the cable pox at the point of someone's HT system.
You need to get out more, Weil.
Isn't it funny how you can't stay civil in *any* conversation with me?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/m...on/default.asp
And they will never address the interactive aspect of modern cable and
satellite boxes.
Never is a big word. That vision thing has long eluded you, Weil. I still
remember the rant you went on when I first suggested that people replace CD
changers with hard drives. It was such a stupid idea that 100,000's of
people now walk around with them in their pocket.
Once again, you can't stop with the personal attacks. That's fine.
However, considering the different formats for interactivity (which
has laready been addressed by someone else), I can't see how it would
*ever* be accomplished, especially since it's going to ba rare thing
just to have the decoder chip in a very few receivers in the first
place.
For a receiver to address the interactivity of *my* satellite box, for
instance, it would also have to add a phone jack.
You might as well ask why receivers don't include integrated DVD players.
You obviously don't get out enough, Weil. Time to stop listening to those
ancient Klipsch Cornwalls and speakers from your classic-but-broken
collection, and stick your nose out of the door while the sun still shines.
More personal attacks.
I think that history bears out *my* take on things.