HDMI Input/outputs on receiver a necessity?

[HDwannaB]

Hi Everyone,

I am as novice as you can get in the HT world and this question came up in another thread I have and wanted to post it in its own thread. The question is whether or not HDMI inputs/outputs on an a/v receiver are necessary to enjoy high quality audio with an HDTV. Certainly it makes sense for the video side, but most Receivers I've seen under $700 dollars don't have any HDMI ports. Is HDMI necessary for sound quality (i.e. worth dropping a few hundred extra) or does it even play a factor????

 

[stratman]

If you search you will find receivers under 700.00 with HDMI port(s); Is HDMI worth it? Absolutely!

 

[jonnythan]

If you search you will find receivers under 700.00 with HDMI port(s); Is HDMI worth it? Absolutely!

HDMI is worth it on a receiver?!

Absolutely not.

Current SPDIF connectors are more than sufficient to carry audio from all sources except Blu-Ray players. Sound from those can be sufficiently carried by analog inputs.

HDMI is *not* important on a receiver IMO.

 

[HDwannaB]

I should clarify that the receiver would be coupled with a 5.1 speaker system and an HDTV with both component video inputs and HDMI inputs. New DVD player is also on the wishlist as my current one is the cheapest one I could find at the time, evidence of my ignorance up to this point

 

[jonnythan]

HDMI on the receiver won't get you much of anything. HDMI into the HDTV, SPDIF into the receiver.

 

[Nick250]

Hi Everyone,

I am as novice as you can get in the HT world and this question came up in another thread I have and wanted to post it in its own thread. The question is whether or not HDMI inputs/outputs on an a/v receiver are necessary to enjoy high quality audio with an HDTV. Certainly it makes sense for the video side, but most Receivers I've seen under $700 dollars don't have any HDMI ports. Is HDMI necessary for sound quality (i.e. worth dropping a few hundred extra) or does it even play a factor????

No benefit in HDMI on my system. Have it, don't use it.

Nick

 

[JustEd]

I agree about HDMI not being of much use on a receiver

Look at it from this perspective. The reason for having ANY video, yes I understand HDMI also carries audio, source on a receiver is to simplify the switching in you home theater system. When composite video started showing up on receivers it was because there was no other piece of electronics in the hardware chain of a home theater system that could so easily serve to switch the video inputs.

Many manufactures have also made external video and video/audio switches which is another way to accomplish the switching in you home theater system.

Which is better, from a standpoint of video and audio quality they are about equal. My only hesitation is that some external switchers are really cheaply made, I had a fairly expensive one from Sony that fell apart faster than I could get use to using it. I have not seen a stand alone HDMI switcher yet but someone must make them.

So my choice would be to go for the receiver with the best audio quality/power/Dolby decoding scheme in that order. Switching is not even something I would consider using on a receiver as it means running longer calbes, usually, fromt he DVD to the tv and receiver.

Ed

 

[stratman]

HDMI certainly worked for me and in my set up I saw the difference, not only that but I eliminated a bunch of needless wiring. Panasonic's SARX 70 has HDMI it's all digital, it's been well rated, and it's sub 300.00. I bought it, really like it, specially with my new Gallos. My advice: listen and listen before you buy everybody's hearing is different. At the end of the day you have to live with it!

 

[jonnythan]

HDMI will transmit the exact same digital audio data as SPDIF. There is no difference in sound.

 

[MDS]

At this point, HDMI has one and only one advantage - you can use 1 cable for video instead of 3 if you were to use component.

- Many set-top boxes don't work with 'repeater' devices like a receiver.
- Many TVs that accept HDMI STILL don't accept audio over HDMI.

Really, what's the point? You can use HDMI for the video if you want to minimize cables, but you still need the digital audio connection, so why even bother with HDMI in the first place? It won't improve the picture quality and even when blue-ray/HD-DVD are mainstream (and thats a huge "IF") the advantages of the increased color space certainly won't be realized in the first couple of generations of HD players. The industry likes to promote the next big thing even though their players won't support any of the capabilities of the new interface for several generations. In another thread Sleestack (I think - could be wrong) explained how even the next gen players still do all the decoding anyway and pass PCM - rendering audio over HDMI irrelevant.

 

[jonnythan]

To be fair, HDMI is also capable of transmitting high-bandwidth digital audio from HD DVD and Blu-Ray that optical and digital coaxial can't.

"You can use HDMI for the video if you want to minimize cables, but you still need the digital audio connection, so why even bother with HDMI in the first place?"

A few reasons... upconverting DVD players only upconvert over HDMI and it's basically a requirement to get actual HD out of an HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc (if not now, then in the future).

 

[HDwannaB]

So the feeling I am getting from everyone's comments so far is that a receiver sans HDMI is more than sufficient for audio for atleast 3-4 years (when technology catches up to theory). Therefore, my best bet if I wanted to get a system before the end of the year would be to find the best quality receiver I can find on my modest budget ($500 or so).

This may be a dumb question but if I get a DVD player which uses HDMI as an output and I hook that up directly to my TV to get the best *video* possible, I can still use other connections from the DVD player to the receiver for audio even though the HDMI would be sending both audio and video to the TV right? If so what would be the best connection assuming both the player and the receiver have those ports available. How does this change if I was using an upconverting DVD player or an HD DVD or Blue Ray?

 

[jonnythan]

Yes.

HDMI to the TV and optical to the receiver will work fine.

On any given DVD player, all outputs should work simultaneously.

 

[Nick250]

So the feeling I am getting from everyone's comments so far is that a receiver sans HDMI is more than sufficient for audio for atleast 3-4 years (when technology catches up to theory). Therefore, my best bet if I wanted to get a system before the end of the year would be to find the best quality receiver I can find on my modest budget ($500 or so).

This may be a dumb question but if I get a DVD player which uses HDMI as an output and I hook that up directly to my TV to get the best *video* possible, I can still use other connections from the DVD player to the receiver for audio even though the HDMI would be sending both audio and video to the TV right? If so what would be the best connection assuming both the player and the receiver have those ports available. How does this change if I was using an upconverting DVD player or an HD DVD or Blue Ray?

A quick note, a DVI connection from the cable box to the TV provides picture quality equal to HDMI so it's another option. The downside, DVI it does not carry audio if that matters.

Nick

 

[jonnythan]

A quick note, a DVI connection from the cable box to the TV provides picture quality equal to HDMI

Just to clarify for those new to the game, DVI provides picture quality equal to HDMI because HDMI is DVI.

HDMI is DVI with a few pins added for audio. HDMI and DVI are physically compatible, which is why you can buy a cable with HDMI on one end and DVI on the other.

 

[HDwannaB]

Good to know! Being a newbie i'm flooded with "HDMI is king and youre a fool to use anything else." Not knocking HDMI as eventually this may be the case, but currently it doesn't seem like a necessity. I just wanted to thank everyone who responded to this thread as it seems to be an interesting topic that I know many others new to the game probably wonder about but don't want to sound stupid by asking. You know the old adage:

*It is better to be thought to be stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt*

 

[HDwannaB]

One other thing:

If i bypass the receiver and hook up the video signal directly to the TV from the DVD player/cable box using HDMI or DVI, and run the audio signal to the receiver from the DVD player/cable box using optical, is there a potential for lip syncing (audio and video slightly out of phase if lip syncing isn't the correct term)?? From what I am reading it seems this is only a problem with lower end receivers and/or the distance between speakers and the receiver being fairly large (i.e. long cables). Since I would be using this system mainly for movies and TV this can be critical.

 

[jonnythan]

Not really, no.

That's what the vast majority of people, myself included, do already.

Video to the display device, audio to the receiver.

At absolute worst due to video processing delays on the TV, you would be dealing with a difference of a couple of milliseconds. You would not be able to detect that.

 

[AVRat]

Most receivers in your price range will have a lip-sync feature which is required for all display types except CRT.