AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know, probably a stupid question, but I have always hooked up my plasma direct via HDMI or component from the cable or sat box to the TV. I only use my onkyo 605 for surround sound.

Is there a benefit to passing the vid through your AVR? I would think further processing would cause more degradation in PQ. Thanks for answering the newb question of the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
1. the ability to hook multiple sources into the same box and switch them back and forth into the same monitor. example, xbox, ps3, blue ray player all could be hooked up into the receiver and then you can leave the tv input on one input and switch them via the receiver's remote.


personally to me this saves you a couple of button presses but isnt that big of a deal really. this was really benenficial when tv's only had one hdmi input. i think it is less of a big deal that even most entry level tv's have multiple inputs.


2. most receiver companies are going the route of including a scaling/deinterlacing video processing chip into the receiver. there is much debate as to whether the video processing chips the receivers have are even worth it to scale or deinterlace since most claim that the tv based video processing unit is superior. i am not sure of how true this is because i only have one lg tv and have only used multiple sources into the tv. i had a denon receiver and coulnt tell a bit of difference in the scaling ability between the receiver or the tv. i had it hooked up using both.


personally to me i dont see the benefit of running your video into a receiver. i went back to an old receiver and run video via hdmi into tv and audio via optical into receiver.


3. some claim that if you split the video and audio between devices there is a risk that you get audio/video sync issues. i have not experienced this yet.

as a matter of fact there was still audio/video sync issues with the previous standards of hdmi (hdmi specs prior to hdmi 1.3a, example 1.1, 1.2, etc) that STILL encountered these issues.


so again i dont see the benefit there.


i hope others chime in with solid benefits because i am having a hard time seeing them. but i am fairly new into the world of hdmi and its connections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
I found a use for my receiver's 1080p conversion feature. It avoids overscan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
thanks for the quick response. I am willing to experiment, but not seeing any real benefit. I do flip through the input selection on my TV remote when switching from PS3 and sat box, but it's not a big deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/17033511


I found a use for my receiver's 1080p conversion feature. It avoids overscan.
overscan -

The area at the edges of a television tube that is covered to hide possible video distortion. Overscan typically covers about 4 or 5 percent of the picture.





hmmm... my tv has an LG feature called just scan..

The JUST SCAN is one of the options for the Aspect Ratio.

This option displays the ORIGINAL FORMAT of the HD signal

displayed by the unit (HDMI, COMPONENT & RF).



which is supposed to eliminate overscan. but again i cant tell the difference in pq other than a minimal picture sizing between turning it off and turning it on..


i assumed most tv's if not all had a similar setting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
My TV only eliminates overscan when the input is 1080. So scaling to 1080 eliminates overscan on 480, for example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/17033706


My TV only eliminates overscan when the input is 1080. So scaling to 1080 eliminates overscan on 480, for example.

i should have known it wasnt that easy.. i have no idea wether or not my lg scans lower resolutions or not.. it problem is the same as yours.. what tv do you have?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtv47lg70 /forum/post/17033910


i should have known it wasnt that easy.. i have no idea wether or not my lg scans lower resolutions or not.. it problem is the same as yours.. what tv do you have?

I have a Panasonic. It has a setting fpr 'picture size', but it only seems to affect 1080.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Alcasid /forum/post/17034663


If you have a blu-ray player you should hook it up to your receiver via hdmi to benefit from the advanced audio codecs

This I understand, and I also understand the benefit of leaving the tv on the same input & not having to change..........but what about the theory that "directly" connecting the source to the tv provides the best result. Is this not correct any more?


But there is also a problem inherent with running everything through the AVR. What if you only want to watch something on tv with no surrond sounds? Yes, I know that you can connect most sources via component to the tv & still use hdmi to the avr, but again.......isn't hdmi supposed to give the best picture quality? In the past, I have always used optical/coax connections for the audio portion to my AVR, but now that will not result in the highest quality sound.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnewt /forum/post/17035110


This I understand, and I also understand the benefit of leaving the tv on the same input & not having to change..........but what about the theory that "directly" connecting the source to the tv provides the best result. Is this not correct any more?


But there is also a problem inherent with running everything through the AVR. What if you only want to watch something on tv with no surrond sounds? Yes, I know that you can connect most sources via component to the tv & still use hdmi to the avr, but again.......isn't hdmi supposed to give the best picture quality? In the past, I have always used optical/coax connections for the audio portion to my AVR, but now that will not result in the highest quality sound.

HDMI is digital, therefore running it through your receiver shouldn't compromise the quality at all if the receiver has pass through. Many of the higher end receivers also have better processing than the TVs so that can be helpful on SD sources.


Simplifying connections is also very nice. I use a Harmony remote and everything is automated, but as my equipment is in the adjacent room I appreciate the simplicity of only one cable going to the TV. In the past I had two component, one s-video and one composite cable running to the TV. Now it's just one HDMI.


My receiver has six devices connected to it, I have four HDMI cables, one component video, and two optical digital cables connected, and with all that I only have one HDMI cable coming off it. That's much, much better than how it used to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bnewt /forum/post/17035110


This I understand, and I also understand the benefit of leaving the tv on the same input & not having to change..........but what about the theory that "directly" connecting the source to the tv provides the best result. Is this not correct any more?


But there is also a problem inherent with running everything through the AVR. What if you only want to watch something on tv with no surrond sounds? Yes, I know that you can connect most sources via component to the tv & still use hdmi to the avr, but again.......isn't hdmi supposed to give the best picture quality? In the past, I have always used optical/coax connections for the audio portion to my AVR, but now that will not result in the highest quality sound.

i am in louisville ky homie....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Mickunas /forum/post/17035162


Many of the higher end receivers also have better processing than the TVs so that can be helpful on SD sources.


Simplifying connections is also very nice. I use a Harmony remote and everything is automated, but as my equipment is in the adjacent room I appreciate the simplicity of only one cable going to the TV. In the past I had two component, one s-video and one composite cable running to the TV. Now it's just one HDMI.


My receiver has six devices connected to it, I have four HDMI cables, one component video, and two optical digital cables connected, and with all that I only have one HDMI cable coming off it. That's much, much better than how it used to be.


it is arguable whether or not the best avr video processor is as good as the worse tv video processor...


i like the idea of the harmony remote tying everything together much better than the idea of running video through the receiver.. there are options in some receivers of passing the audio through when the receiver is in standby mode but this introduces the idea of handshake issues with the devices in that you may have to power the devices off and then restart them in a certain order to get it to work.. like for instance if you are watching blue ray on the ps3 then want to watch tv on cable box. i would have to turn everything off then power up the receiver, put receiver in standby mode, turn on cable box then turn tv back on.. it was kind of goofy..


the way it works now with optical connections to my receiver and video connections to my tv all i have to do is turn off the receiver and then since the cable box automatically sends audio via both the optical and the hdmi and the same time i get audio/video directly to tv and it works great for watching news and other non hi def sources..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,113 Posts

Quote:
But there is also a problem inherent with running everything through the AVR. What if you only want to watch something on tv with no surrond sounds? Yes, I know that you can connect most sources via component to the tv & still use hdmi to the avr, but again.......isn't hdmi supposed to give the best picture quality? In the past, I have always used optical/coax connections for the audio portion to my AVR, but now that will not result in the highest quality sound.

I don't understand that desire at all!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtv47lg70 /forum/post/17035253


i am in louisville ky homie....



it is arguable whether or not the best avr video processor is as good as the worse tv video processor...

Well, when we got our high def TV, my wife complained moderately about how DVDs looked "fake." After I got a blu-ray player (nothing fancy - - Sony S350) and started using its processor to upscale to 1080, her complaints went away. So at least some TVs' processing is less good than it might be . . . which means another device's processing might well be better. Where's the argument?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtv47lg70 /forum/post/17035253


i am in louisville ky homie....


it is arguable whether or not the best avr video processor is as good as the worse tv video processor...

Seriously? How many TVs can compete with the Reon HQV or ABT2010? I've got a Samsung HL-T6187s, and just it's de-interlacing with my Toshiba HD-A2 was horrible compared to what Reon can do with it. I haven't done many other comparisons, and frankly I don't think I need to. Until the ABT2010 came around I don't recall of hearing of anything that can handle video like the Reon in any reasonably priced equipment. I'm sure there's some high-end video scalars costing several thousand that do a bit better, but not much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
I wonder why people insist on the general opinion that TVs somehow have better deinterlacer/scalers than receivers. Have they done extensive testing? I think that would take a LOT of time and money.


I think my TV scored about the same as my 3900 in the loop. I think maybe the 3900 surpassed the TV in some ways. Been awhile since I ran the tests though, so don't put too much stock in my memory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/17035551


I wonder why people insist on the general opinion that TVs somehow have better deinterlacer/scalers than receivers. Have they done extensive testing? I think that would take a LOT of time and money.


I think my TV scored about the same as my 3900 in the loop. I think maybe the 3900 surpassed the TV in some ways. Been awhile since I ran the tests though, so don't put too much stock in my memory.

yum.. a 3900... i have been looking at those.. but trying to figure out why on the earth that i need lossless audio.. i am pretty happy with the rx-v995 that i bought on the fly when i took back my denon 1910...


with regards to the video processor debate.. there are tons of people ( other forums ) that have not seen any difference in the video processing of the newer reciever vs the video processing of the newer tv's. some agree that if you have a older tv (5 plus years old) and buy the newest receiver you will probably see some benefit... but new to new... there isnt much difference from what i read.. i mean i dont have the time or the money to buy all this equipment and test it so i just go buy what i have read... and holy cow do i read alot... probably 2 to three hours a day reading this stuff...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
I honestly think lossless audio gives you only a small improvement. If someone hears a big difference, I am suspicious that they are over stating the difference, or the difference is not just from lossless.


Compare 128 kbs MP3 to 256 kbs MP3? Is there a difference? I think so. Is it minor? I think so. Is it important? Depends on the person making the evaluation.


I think a lot of us want to think we have these amazing ears and want to feel superior by hearing these huge differences others can't hear. If I am right, that tendency skews listening tests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Mickunas /forum/post/17035540


Seriously? How many TVs can compete with the Reon HQV or ABT2010? I've got a Samsung HL-T6187s, and just it's de-interlacing with my Toshiba HD-A2 was horrible compared to what Reon can do with it. I haven't done many other comparisons, and frankly I don't think I need to. Until the ABT2010 came around I don't recall of hearing of anything that can handle video like the Reon in any reasonably priced equipment. I'm sure there's some high-end video scalars costing several thousand that do a bit better, but not much.

i had the denon 1910 .. which i believe it had the abt 1010 processor.. at least i hope it did... because if it had the 2010 then my statment stands.. no difference with sd sources between the denon vs the lg tv... i dont know about this reon chip.. although it is supposed to be pretty sweet...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/17035624


I honestly think lossless audio gives you only a small improvement. If someone hears a big difference, I am suspicious that they are over stating the difference, or the difference is not just from lossless.


Compare 128 kbs MP3 to 256 kbs MP3? Is there a difference? I think so. Is it minor? I think so. Is it important? Depends on the person making the evaluation.


I think a lot of us want to think we have these amazing ears and want to feel superior by hearing these huge differences others can't hear. If I am right, that tendency skews listening tests.

we are agreed.. and we both like yamaha receivers...


check this out... this was an interesting experiment...

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top