[pbateman]

I can understand the importance of HDMI upconversion if you wanted to convert your composite/S viseo signal to HDMi to then send them to the TV... but for a simple setup of just Plasma TV / receiver/ DVD player / Cable box. Can't i just plug the Cable box and DVD video signals to the plasma's HDMI ports and bypass the receiver? basically leaving the receiver for just audio?

I am trying to see if with a simple setup like this, HDMI on the receiver is justified or I should be looking more at overall power and other features instead of HDMI. Seems that a lot of entry level HDMI receivers are expensive compared to other receivers which may be even more powerful but just have no HDMI.

 

[JOHNnDENVER]

It becomes more of a factor for audio than video for most of us. The new HD disc players have audio avialable via HDMI digital audio that is not digitally available any other way.


There can also arise odditied when your passing video over one connection and audio over a different connection.


But you are correct, nothign at all wrong with running all your video to the display, and all your audio directly to your audio system.

 

[OldCodger73]

You can argue this several ways. Buying a HDMI receiver is more future proof in case you do add a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player in the future.


On the other hand, as long as you have 2 HDMI inputs on the plasma what you propose works fine.


I'm not sure if I understand the whole HDMI 1.2 and 1.3 or whatever it is thing, but in one way it might be better to get a good low price non-HDMI receiver right now, one that has the number of optical/coax inputs you need and then when things shake out in a couple of years upgrade to a more full featured receiver.


Anyway, that's my somewhat confused take.

 

[JOHNnDENVER]

Clear as mud right?

 

[pbateman]

Yup it is ...clearer than before at least haha. Thanx!

 

[WhiskeyD0G]

What is lost if a receiver w/out HDMI is purchased ?? As far as the HD-DVD player or Blu-Ray, the video is going straight to the television. What is so important about having things routed through the receiver ?


Can someone explain the overall benefit of a receiver with HDMI?

 

[pbateman]

I am guessing according to what John mentioned that you would lose the ability to transfer the HDMI audio portion trough your receiver and hence your home theater speakers. You could always just route the audio using optical or composite audio just not HDMI. That's just my take on it...from what I read here.

 

[eric102]

You can't experience multichannel TrueHD or LPCM audio with an optical or coax connection, you need HDMI or 5.1 analog.


HDMI is the easiest, one cable from your player to the receiver, then one to your display.

 

[Hogan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by eric102 /forum/post/0


You can't experience multichannel TrueHD or LPCM audio with an optical or coax connection, you need HDMI or 5.1 analog.


HDMI is the easiest, one cable from your player to the receiver, then one to your display.

But if your receiver has 5.1 or 7.1 analog inputs, you could run a snake of RCA cables from the HDDVD player and have the DVD player do the audio decoding, right?

 

[JOHNnDENVER]

Yes, I said more or less "for your AVR to recieve these digitally"


Yes, you can generally use you one set of analog mulit-channel input, but what if you want two devices that provide high rez audio? Or what if you want to use a PS3 as your BD player?



Nothing wrong with basic DD 5.1 and most devices and HD content does offer it still, so optical/coax isn't the worst thing. For HD-DVD your audio system needs to have DTS capablity too.

 

[eric102]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogan /forum/post/0


But if your receiver has 5.1 or 7.1 analog inputs, you could run a snake of RCA cables from the HDDVD player and have the DVD player do the audio decoding, right?

Yes, thats my understanding. I went the HDMI route, haven't tried analog.