Receiver video switching

[darien87]

Hey folks,

My Denon 2805 is only a couple of years old, but I'm already thinking of upgrading. I was looking at the 987 and it seems pretty feature-packed. One question I have is; does anyone know if this or ANY other receiver does the switching WITHOUT the unit having to be "on"? That is specifically why I do not use this feature with my 2805. I don't see the point of having to turn on my reciever if I'm just watching regular TV.

 

[no. 5]

I can't believe I know this, but the Bose 3-2-1 will pass video with the unit off.

I can't think of any real D ) receivers that will pass video, or allow switching with the unit off.

 

[darien87]

I can't believe I know this, but the Bose 3-2-1 will pass video with the unit off.

I can't think of any real D ) receivers that will pass video, or allow switching with the unit off.

Well that just sucks. I can't believe that none of the big manufacturers see the benefit in not having to turn the unit on to pass video. Who knows, maybe it's difficult to do it that way. Oh well. I guess I can always just hook my cable box directly to my TV and then have all of my other components going to the receiver.


p.s. Shame on you for knowing anything about a Bose product. But I do have to admit to listening to a Bose system years ago, and actually considering one for about 10 minutes. Thank God I was turned off by the high price tag.

 

[no. 5]

p.s. Shame on you for knowing anything about a Bose product.

lol , In my defense, I found out about that feature on an errand or mercy; some friends of mine called me over to hook-up their new TV.

 

[Nick250]

Hey folks,

My Denon 2805 is only a couple of years old, but I'm already thinking of upgrading. I was looking at the 987 and it seems pretty feature-packed. One question I have is; does anyone know if this or ANY other receiver does the switching WITHOUT the unit having to be "on"? That is specifically why I do not use this feature with my 2805. I don't see the point of having to turn on my reciever if I'm just watching regular TV.

If I am understanding you correctly a Harmony (or other programmable remotes) will do what you want and anything else you might want with one push of a button. I am a satisfied customer.

Nick

 

[darien87]

If I am understanding you correctly a Harmony (or other programmable remotes) will do what you want and anything else you might want with one push of a button. I am a satisfied customer.

Nick

Sorry Nick, that's not what I am asking. I have the Harmony 880 by the way.

What I was asking, was if any of the big name companies make receivers that pass the video signal to your TV without the receiver having to be on. You know, you hook all of your video cables to the back of the receiver and then have only one video cable going to your TV. But I tend to watch more cable TV than DVD's. And as far as I know, ALL receivers require the unit to be on for it to pass the signal. So I don't want to have to have my receiver on while I am watching TV.

 

[GlocksRock]

Do you have speakers connected to your receiver? If so, then why would you not want to listen to your good speakers over your tv speakers for tv? Besides, why is it such a hassle to turn the receiver on to watch tv? Does your cable box/sat. receiver not have more than one output you can use, one for the receiver and one for the tv?

 

[darien87]

Do you have speakers connected to your receiver? If so, then why would you not want to listen to your good speakers over your tv speakers for tv? Besides, why is it such a hassle to turn the receiver on to watch tv? Does your cable box/sat. receiver not have more than one output you can use, one for the receiver and one for the tv?

Good question Glock. I never thought to check the cable box for more than one output. I'll have to take a look. But the reason I didn't want to have to turn on the receiver is more of a "not wasting energy" and "trying to extend the life of my receiver" kind of thing. I just don't see the point of turning on a component that I'm not really using. Plus, I don't want the sound to come from my stereo when I'm just watching TV. It's just TV, why would I need surround sound and a sub and all that? Honestly, the times that I have watched TV through my stereo it sounds a little weird. For some reason the center channel comes out much louder than the other channels. I guess I could always mute it, but that would be yet another thing I would have to do just to watch TV.

 

[tase2]

Good question Glock. I never thought to check the cable box for more than one output. I'll have to take a look. But the reason I didn't want to have to turn on the receiver is more of a "not wasting energy" and "trying to extend the life of my receiver" kind of thing. I just don't see the point of turning on a component that I'm not really using. Plus, I don't want the sound to come from my stereo when I'm just watching TV. It's just TV, why would I need surround sound and a sub and all that? Honestly, the times that I have watched TV through my stereo it sounds a little weird. For some reason the center channel comes out much louder than the other channels. I guess I could always mute it, but that would be yet another thing I would have to do just to watch TV.

You must be my twin
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31061
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=261929&postcount=3

I still have not resolved how I will be handling this, but it's good to know I am not alone with the TV speakers thing.

 

[Nick250]

Sorry Nick, that's not what I am asking. I have the Harmony 880 by the way.

What I was asking, was if any of the big name companies make receivers that pass the video signal to your TV without the receiver having to be on. You know, you hook all of your video cables to the back of the receiver and then have only one video cable going to your TV. But I tend to watch more cable TV than DVD's. And as far as I know, ALL receivers require the unit to be on for it to pass the signal. So I don't want to have to have my receiver on while I am watching TV.

I have a DVI out [it would HDMI in your case] going from the cable box go directly from the cable box to the TV. Same thing with analog audio outs from the cable box to the TV. I have the digital audio out from the cable box go directly to the receiver. I rarely watch TV with the whole system fired up too. With the Harmony remote, what's wrong with this solution?

Nick

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I may be crazy but I have a basic ole coax going from the cable box to the TV for TV speaker use only. When I want to use the set-up I just hit the swith on the TV and everything goes through my AVR(THROUGH COMP) and to my TV.

 

[markw]

If you don't mind a second-hand post, here's my take on this.

I just posted this in response to another's query on the importance of HDMI in a receiver. The answer is so similar to what I would say to you, I took the lazy way out and simply copied and pasted it.

I'm of the school that routes all video sources directly to the monitor and uses that for video selection. Along with that, I also route the primitive red/white analog outputs from the sources to thecorrosponding input on the TV.

Also, I run the "better" audio (digital coax, toslink) directly to the receiver and use that for audio selection/switching.

This allows me to select a source via the TV, watch the source on the TV, have rudimentary audio through it's internal speakers and not even turn on the receiver. I don't need a cooking show, the grandkids purple dinodsaur/Bob the Builder videos, or the daily news in 5.1 surround. Those little speakers are fine for that.

But, when I want the big sound, I turn the volume down on the TV, turn on the Denon, select the source, and blast away. All is right with the world.

Heck, many times I have the kids sitting (duct-taped together) watching a video and I'll be sitting in the LazyBoy listening to a CD with my headphones on. Who says I'm not a good Grandpa?

So, if you intend to route everything through the receiver, then HDMI becomes important. As it is, for myself, I don't find it really necessary at this time.

 

[darien87]

I just posted this in response to another's query on the importance of HDMI in a receiver. The answer is so similar to what I would say to you, I took the lazy way out and simply copied and pasted it.

I'm of the school that routes all video sources directly to the monitor and uses that for video selection. Along with that, I also route the primitive red/white analog outputs from the sources to thecorrosponding input on the TV.

Also, I run the "better" audio (digital coax, toslink) directly to the receiver and use that for audio selection/switching.

This allows me to select a source via the TV, watch the source on the TV, have rudimentary audio through it's internal speakers and not even turn on the receiver. I don't need a cooking show, the grandkids purple dinodsaur/Bob the Builder videos, or the daily news in 5.1 surround. Those little speakers are fine for that.

But, when I want the big sound, I turn the volume down on the TV, turn on the Denon, select the source, and blast away. All is right with the world.

Heck, many times I have the kids sitting (duct-taped together) watching a video and I'll be sitting in the LazyBoy listening to a CD with my headphones on. Who says I'm not a good Grandpa?

So, if you intend to route everything through the receiver, then HDMI becomes important. As it is, for myself, I don't find it really necessary at this time.

You seem to be of the same mind as me. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have wanted to watch a TV show in surround sound, (usually a concert on one of the HD channels). I would like the convenience of only having one set of cables going to the TV. But it's not worth it to me if I have to always turn the receiver on. Plus I have heard convincing arguments both for and against whether or not the video signal gets degraded going from the source to the receiver, then to the TV.

 

[darien87]

I have a DVI out [it would HDMI in your case] going from the cable box go directly from the cable box to the TV. Same thing with analog audio outs from the cable box to the TV. I have the digital audio out from the cable box go directly to the receiver. I rarely watch TV with the whole system fired up too. With the Harmony remote, what's wrong with this solution?

Nick

Dude, you're still not getting it. Yes, that is the way I have my set up working now. I have all my sources going directly to my TV. But it would be convenient to use the receiver as a switcher, as it is designed to be used. The drawback to this is, that the receiver has to be turned on to pass the video signal. So if I were to connect my cable box to the receiver, I would have to turn the receiver on to watch TV.

Yes, I could easily connect everything else to the receiver and only connect the cable box directly to the TV. But then I will have at least 2 connections going to the back of the TV. If I'm going to do 2, I might as well do 3 or 4.

My whole point is that I just wished that someone made a receiver that could pass video while being off. That way I could take advantage of the single connection the the TV and still be able to watch TV with the sound coming from the TV only.

 

[tase2]

I just posted this in response to another's query on the importance of HDMI in a receiver. The answer is so similar to what I would say to you, I took the lazy way out and simply copied and pasted it.

I'm of the school that routes all video sources directly to the monitor and uses that for video selection. Along with that, I also route the primitive red/white analog outputs from the sources to thecorrosponding input on the TV.

Also, I run the "better" audio (digital coax, toslink) directly to the receiver and use that for audio selection/switching.

This allows me to select a source via the TV, watch the source on the TV, have rudimentary audio through it's internal speakers and not even turn on the receiver. I don't need a cooking show, the grandkids purple dinodsaur/Bob the Builder videos, or the daily news in 5.1 surround. Those little speakers are fine for that.

But, when I want the big sound, I turn the volume down on the TV, turn on the Denon, select the source, and blast away. All is right with the world.

Heck, many times I have the kids sitting (duct-taped together) watching a video and I'll be sitting in the LazyBoy listening to a CD with my headphones on. Who says I'm not a good Grandpa?

So, if you intend to route everything through the receiver, then HDMI becomes important. As it is, for myself, I don't find it really necessary at this time.

mark

Very nice explanation.

I'm curious as to whether or not your TV is HDTV?

Also what would be your thoughts or recommendation if we eliminate any cable box and substitute a Series 3 HD Tivo loaded with 2 cablecards?

Does this change the dynamic at all?

 

[Nick250]

Dude, you're still not getting it. Yes, that is the way I have my set up working now. I have all my sources going directly to my TV. But it would be convenient to use the receiver as a switcher, as it is designed to be used. The drawback to this is, that the receiver has to be turned on to pass the video signal. So if I were to connect my cable box to the receiver, I would have to turn the receiver on to watch TV.

Yes, I could easily connect everything else to the receiver and only connect the cable box directly to the TV. But then I will have at least 2 connections going to the back of the TV. If I'm going to do 2, I might as well do 3 or 4.

My whole point is that I just wished that someone made a receiver that could pass video while being off. That way I could take advantage of the single connection the the TV and still be able to watch TV with the sound coming from the TV only.

I don't think of my receiver as an audio switcher and I happy with things as there are. But that's me not you, so good luck finding what you want.


Nick

 

[markw]

Thank you

mark

Very nice explanation.

I'm curious as to whether or not your TV is HDTV?

Yes, it's a Toshiba 32HL66 and I use Comcast with a HD box and it does quite well.

Also, since the TV has an ATSC tuner for OTSA digital/HD built in, I also have a 35 year old rooftop antenna going to it for when I view stuff on the local stations or network affiliates. Smallville, Supernatural and PBS, mainly. The OTA network feeds are just a teensy bit better than their cable counterparts, but cable offers so much more variety.

Also what would be your thoughts or recommendation if we eliminate any cable box and substitute a Series 3 HD Tivo loaded with 2 cablecards?

Does this change the dynamic at all?

Dunno. I'm a dinosaur when it comes to this new fangled stuff. What I do know about cable cards* (a similar situation?) in TV's is that while they have been known to provide the basic cake, they don't allow a lot of the frosating, such as the gcable guides and any "On Demand" features that are taken for granted with a STB (set top box). You may want to talk to a tech at Tivo and your local cable company and pray they have a clue as to what they are talking about. I gave up on the latter here.

good luck, and let us know how this works out. Inquiring minds want to know.

* or at least how they were in their last iteration. Perhaps things have changed.

 

[DT1009]

Bypass the receiver

Mark-

I want to also do exactly what you have set up. To basically let my wife watch TV without firing up the AVR. I want to use the whole system for watching DVD's, the occasional cable movie and mostly listening to CD's.
Is there somewhere where I can get a wiring diagram on hooking up the video source to the tv or cable box and then the audio to my receiver and which connections are best?

This site has already taught me more in a week than I ever could have imagined about HT!