Receiver 1st or HDTV 1st?

[TheTool]

I'm not sure I understand what the best connection method is for my HDTV and Stereo Receiver. I keep hearing that I should run all video and audio sources to the receiver 1st, then out to the TV. It seems to me that the video would have less interferrence / degredation in picutre quality run directly to the TV, then audio run from the source directly to the receiver. Does this connection not provide the best quality for both audio and video? Can someone help me understand why I would run both video and audio to the receiver 1st?

 

[Brian_the_King]

The only reason one would do this is ease of use. That is, using fewer inputs on the TV and being able to switch the audio and video source with a single action. I personally do not do this [why buy more cables?], and run the video outs to the tv, and audio outs to the receiver, as you describe.

Edit: I forgot one further useful application; video up conversion.

 

[TheTool]

The only reason one would do this is ease of use. That is, using fewer inputs on the TV and being able to switch the audio and video source with a single action. I personally do not do this [why buy more cables?], and run the video outs to the tv, and audio outs to the receiver, as you describe.

Edit: I forgot one further useful application; video up conversion.

Thanks for your response, I guess I'm trying to determine which direction to go. Would it not be true that I'll get less signal degredation going directly from the video source to the HDTV? What benefit do I get going through a receiver besides less cables? (video up conversion?) All audio connections still go directly to the receiver regardles of what I do with the video connections, so I get there would be less cables to run, I'm just trying to get to the answer of quality.
How can it be better to run video source's through my stereo receiver?

 

[Brian_the_King]

Well if you're not bothered by using the TV to switch your video source, and then going to the receiver to switch the audio, just run the video right to the TV.

As for image quality, you are right in theory that there would be a loss of quality by running things through the receiver, but I really don't think there is any perceptible difference, assuming the receiver can handle high definition signals properly.

I would just run things right to the TV if I were you.

 

[TheTool]

Well if you're not bothered by using the TV to switch your video source, and then going to the receiver to switch the audio, just run the video right to the TV.

As for image quality, you are right in theory that there would be a loss of quality by running things through the receiver, but I really don't think there is any perceptible difference, assuming the receiver can handle high definition signals properly.

I would just run things right to the TV if I were you.

Thanks again Brian, I can certainly understand the conveinence of using the reciever as a better switching device between my componenets, I just needed some reassurance that video through the receiver does not mean better quality signal to the TV.
Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

[jbs]

There's a quick and dirty way to test this. Assuming you have enough outputs on your source and inputs on your receiver, run video from the sourec to the TV input 1, then from the source to the receiver and from the receiver to TV input 2. The source will be the same for both.

Now use the TV to toggle back and forth between TV Input 1 (direct connection) and TV Input 2 (through the receiver).

If you don't see a difference in the video quality, then you can choose whichever is more convenient (in my case that's generally through the receiver to minimize the number of remotes I need to use). If you see a difference, then make the direct connection and perhaps invest in a universal remote that can change both sources for you at the same time!

Good luck!

--Jason