Can I live without HDMI?

Yes you do need a HDMI receiver if going blu ray any time soon if you what lossless sound.

If you want to upgrade to blu-ray in the near future, the HD audio codecs need to be decoded and sent to the receiver in some manner. There are a variety of ways to do this. If you buy an older receiver that does not have HDMI, but has 5.1 analog inputs, then you would need to buy a blu-ray player that decodes internally, and has at least 5.1 analog outputs (some have 7.1 now), and then use HDMI for video only to the display. Otherwise, you would need to have at least HDMI 1.1 capabilities in a receiver, and also make sure that it accepts PCM audio via HDMI. In these cases, you can get a blu-ray player that decodes internally, but passes the audio via PCM (such as the Playstation 3), then run HDMI from the receiver out to the display. On the video side, component will only pass up to 1080i, which may or may not be a deterrent depending on your display and blu-ray player. Only HDMI will pass 1080p/24, which is video taken off the disc and passed to the display without any scaling or deinterlacing involved, which can mildly degrade the video quality, again depending on your display.

Outside of blu-ray, there really is no compelling reason right now to have HDMI in your receiver. You can always work your way around it.

+1

Whilst I'm not usually into all this "1 x to rule them all" stuff, I do have to admit that moving to all HDMI means that there is only 1.5 plates of spagetti behind my system now, and not the usual 3.

Seggers

HDMI spec keeps changing, and it won't surprise me at all if it changes again in the next 2 years.

I bought a Zektor MAS 7 switcher, but it has it's own set of costs.

For one thing ~$500 for the MAS7 unit.

And I've so far done something like 20 pair of self constructed RCA interconnect cables.

The key thing is the Canare RCA connectors themselves, which at 100+ quantity cost me something like ~$3.25 each. These RCA connectors are the best, and I frankly consider it time and money well spent. I went with RG-6 wire (solid copper center) at 42 cents/foot.

See: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1067714&page=2

If you buy a Zektor MAS 7 switcher (3-to-1 HDMI 1.3a, as well as 3-to-1 5.1 RCA), you then depend on your disc players to do the audio decoding to 5.1 RCA. The video is up-rezed (via 720p or 1080i or 1080p) in the player and sent out via HDMI, which goes into the MAS7 and then straight to the TV. The pre/pro/AVR never sees the HDMI video signal.

Cheers

This coulda/woulda/shoulda/maybe-some-day buisness is for the birds.
Even if you chose not to use HDMI today, the receiver you purchase now will have it for when you do need it.

No. The high def audio formats (Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA) cannot be sent out over optical or digital coax. In digital form, they can only travel over HDMI.

However, I think some players can decode the high-def audio formats and send them out over multi-channel analog (6 or 8 RCA cables).

IMO, buy an HDMI receiver. You will regret your purchase if you don't.

I suggest a refurb Onkyo 805 from accessories4less on ebay with the live.com cash-back discount; it's a great deal. Just make sure you have space and adequate room around the receiver for cooling with the 805.

-Max

Even with 5.1 or 7.1 analog connection (which you need pay extra $100 to $200 minimum for the player capable of analog MCH out), you will find that most AVR won't do any processing, speaker management and base management for analog input. So you're left with a simpe amp and force to use whatever speaker management feature the player offers (they usually poorly imeplemnted unless you want to spend $2k for a Denon player). So, in the end, your bargain high-end oldie may not worth the trouble and money.

Go with a HDMI AVR. You will regret it if you don't. That's what those who dump their high end systems on eBay eventually found out

Component (in general) will actually pass 1080p, however, many TV's do not accept 1080p over component.

Unless of course you were just referring to AACS limitations.

Yes, I didn't want to get that deeply into it, but that's what I meant. I personally would love to run component at 1080p; much more solid connection than HDMI in general.

And this is exactly why whatever you are going to purchase will not only be a low-end product, but a total PO$. Your "smart guy is smart" buisness tactics are not going to cut in the real world.

His logic is warranted. If he "could" get a receiver that performs better with say, lossy or 2ch, @ less money, it would make sense pending he didn't have HDMI audio in the near future. Considering older high end receivers without HDMI have almost no resale value, and could be picked up cheap...

With that said, the prices of HDMI receivers are comparable to those without, particularly refurb last gen receivers with HDMI 1.1 repeaters.

Marantz 4001 comes to mind

So because the OP cares about sound quality the most, which is what he stated in his first post, you basically tell him that if he buys an older top end model receiver that doesn't have HDMI that it will be a total PO$. Is that correct? Because that's the way I read it.

To the OP: Apparently, most who answered your first post failed to read that your primary care was for sound quality. You don't need HDMI for great sound quality. There are plenty of members on this forum who have incredible setups that don't have a receiver with HDMI. For the money you would spend on an Onkyo sr606 (I believe that's the receiver you mentioned) you could pick up a used NAD T773, Pio. 56txi, Rotel 1056, Arcam 300; all of which are around 4 years old and I would put money on it that they all would sound better than the sr606.

I don't follow you. What are you saying?