To connect or not to Connect!!!!

[love2listen]

Is there any REAL advantage to connecting the Output of any Video source directly to the A/V rec. vs.directly to the T.V.? I have always believed that a straight line between the source and the tv would give the best signal.It is true that doing it this way forces you to do DOUBLE switching(tv and rec.),but I think its worth it. I know today's A/V rec. have come a long way from where they began,but has it been enough to justify sending the video signal through them?














is

 

[supervij]

Most receivers can easily handle a video signal, hi-def or not. And I've seen no degradation of signal quality (I hooked it up both ways, just to see). There is the added convenience of switching just on the receiver instead of the receiver AND the TV. But this convenience is rendered moot if you have a good universal remote, like a Harmony or something, that can initiate a whole bunch of changes using only one button.

I think I read that some receivers can even upconvert a 480i signal to a nice, clear 720p or 1080i output. Or maybe I was back on the crack pipe and just imagined that. I'm not sure.

cheers,
supervij

 

[fredejo]

i have mine going through a denon 3805 & it looks fine. i believe that new yamaha v2600 upconverts from 480i to 720p/1080i

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Receivers that call themselves upconverting is a bit of a misnomer. What they call upconverting really isnt anything at all. IE.... You can connect composite cables-in, and run DVI out to the TV, but it's still the same crappy signal. They cant take a bad 480i source and turn it into something it isnt. The unfortunate truth is that they will not take a 480i source, and convert it into a DVD quallity 480p image either. The way these receivers are advertised is misleading; to say the least.

GoBucks

 

[agarwalro]

Ideally, if you set the receiver only to switch and not process, the signal quality should not be effected. In real life, it varies on make and model, some being good and other horrible. The switching capabilities of the receiver help tremendously if your TV or projector has fewer inputs than the number of sources.

 

[Pyrrho]

Is there any REAL advantage to connecting the Output of any Video source directly to the A/V rec. vs.directly to the T.V.? I have always believed that a straight line between the source and the tv would give the best signal.It is true that doing it this way forces you to do DOUBLE switching(tv and rec.),but I think its worth it. I know today's A/V rec. have come a long way from where they began,but has it been enough to justify sending the video signal through them?

Some of the newer receivers are starting to add video processing to their capabilities, and some of them might have desirable effects on the signal, which could give you a better picture, depending upon what other equipment we are talking about. However, generally receivers are basically switchboxes (for video) that do not make any practical difference, and for those receivers, whether you send the video through them or not will only be a matter of convenience.

 

[jcPanny]

If you have plenty of inputs on your TV . . .

And you don't mind switching the TV's video modes, then connect directly and save a few bucks on cables. You can even program Harmany type remotes with a macro to change the TV input at the same time as the receiver.

 

[supervij]

You can even program Harmany type remotes with a macro to change the TV input at the same time as the receiver.

Glad somebody brought that up!

cheers,
supervij

 

[jcsprankle]

Receivers that call themselves upconverting is a bit of a misnomer. What they call upconverting really isnt anything at all. IE.... You can connect composite cables-in, and run DVI out to the TV, but it's still the same crappy signal. They cant take a bad 480i source and turn it into something it isnt. The unfortunate truth is that they will not take a 480i source, and convert it into a DVD quallity 480p image either. The way these receivers are advertised is misleading; to say the least.

This is mostly true. In my experience, up-converting is the same as video switching where the receiver can take a signal on any input and output to any output (i.e.- S-video in -> HDMI out). The resolution of the input signal remains the same.

But, some receivers (like the Yammy 2600) can also do de-interlacing and up-scaling. That is, de-interlacing will take an incoming 480i signal and output a 480p signal. Up-scaling will take that same input signal and up-scale it to 720p/1080i. I have heard mixed reports on the success of the Yammy's up-scaling chip so, in my mind, the jury is still out.

As I've said in other threads, one must be careful with the specific language that's used to describe certain features (specifically up-converting and up-scaling, which are two very different things).