Onkyo TR-NR809 vs Yamaha RX-A1010 -- VIDEO QUALITY

[itallushrt]

I've read everything in the world about the audio quality of the Yamaha, but very little is being said about the video output. Gene's review mentions the lack of video processing and he rates it a 3 out of 5.

Everything I"m hearing about the NR809 says its strongest quality is video output, but that is no slouch with audio either. However, I already have a NR-509 and I'm not that impressed with the video.

I'm more concerned with video quality at this point in my life.

Should I be looking at any other competitors in the sub $1000 price range?

Thoughts?

thanks in advance.

 

[joeyvaz]

I HAD the 809 for a few months connected to Emotiva speakers and a Sony XBR5 55" TV. The picture and sound quality were fantastic in my opinion. The video quality was probably the best it has been on this TV in the 4 years or so that I own it. And the XBR5 is no slouch on its own, btw. The colors were deep, crisp, and almost 3D like when watching blu-rays. SD content was also much better going through the Onkyo 809. As for sound, the 809 had no problem pushing my Emo speakers. They sounded AWESOME: crisp highs, deep bass, and very articulate mids.

I sold the 809 because it was wreaking havoc on my Elemental Designs A2-300 sub. No matter what I did, the sub would bottom out. Some 50-60 Audyssey runs later, I got so frustrated that I sold both the 809 and the a2-300.

Fast foward a few months, I bought a Yamaha A1000 from newegg. Video quality is ok, it basically looks as though the XBR is handling everything. Sound quality is also superb on the Yamaha. Very happy on the audio side of things. If I had the funds, a Yamaha 3010 or Onkyo 3009 would be in my possession. I want to try Audyssey's XT32 to see if I get better results on my new sub: HSU VTF3.

Hope this helps a little.

 

[tom67]

why in the world would you want to run video through a receiver? Aside from eliminating a couple of cables it makes no sense......A video signal can only degrade running it through multiple layers of electronics....half the posts on sites like this about receivers are concerned with handshake and other issues..run direct from source to tv....the only drawback is lack of HD audio, whatever the hell that is....

 

[LAB3]

why in the world would you want to run video through a receiver? Aside from eliminating a couple of cables it makes no sense......A video signal can only degrade running it through multiple layers of electronics....half the posts on sites like this about receivers are concerned with handshake and other issues..run direct from source to tv....the only drawback is lack of HD audio, whatever the hell that is....

I have tried it both ways with my equipment and I could NOT see any difference on Blurays. I now run a HDMI from Bluray to HD TV and optic to AVR for HD sound... this way I can watch a movie and Not turn on AVR late at night ...... TV speakers sux. Some expensive AVR may have better video chips then a $150.00 Bluray player.

 

[avnetguy]

However, I already have a NR-509 and I'm not that impressed with the video.

I'm more concerned with video quality at this point in my life.

It might be helpful to describe what you are not impressed with and indentify the video sources (DVD, game console, Bluray, etc) in question.

Steve

 

[PENG]

If video quality is most important to you then don't put it through an AVR. I think manufacturers will eventually wake up and focus their resource on other more useful features and things instead of on the mostly redundant video processing that could degrade VQ. The latest Sony ES model and I read about at least one high end processor (may be Cary?) have already gone that route, that is, their HDMI just do pass through. IMHO, that is a smart move. I do connect some of my media players to the AVR but I always have the upscaler turned off.

 

[joeyvaz]

why in the world would you want to run video through a receiver? Aside from eliminating a couple of cables it makes no sense......A video signal can only degrade running it through multiple layers of electronics....half the posts on sites like this about receivers are concerned with handshake and other issues..run direct from source to tv....the only drawback is lack of HD audio, whatever the hell that is....

You cannot be serious. For some, running the source through the receiver and then to the TV yields better results. Especially when the TV is older. In my case, with a TV that was very good when it came out, the Onkyo made a big difference. Not so much now with the Yamaha. YMMV, but obviously others prefer to run their sources through the receiver and out to the TV. VERY few nowadays prefer to run straight to the TV and run optical cables for audio, which I think is what you're suggesting.

 

[tom67]

exactly what I am suggesting....just look at all those cheap little wires in your amp....it certainly cannot improve the image or sound going direct....the best signal is out of the source....of course, if you are flush mounting the tv on the wall, that might be a reason, but you still will have the power cord and HDMI cord to hide....when systems go wireless, (aside from speakers of course), I will buy into it immediately. Until then, its silliness to sell ****. Its painful to see people retiring good older amps for 20lb pieces of crap to get hdmi connectivity....

 

[joeyvaz]

The Onkyo has a superior chip set then some cheaper Blu Ray players or even some older TVs. So the video signal is enhanced with deeper color and blacker blacks.

The Onkyo 809 and above do 4k scaling so they are ready for future TVs that can take advantage of the new resolution.

There will always be differing opinions in this hobby. My suggestion is to try the sources connected both ways and see which looks better or is more convenient. BUT I can assure you, that on the 809 I had DID NOT degrade the sources when routed through the receiver. They actually looked better to me.

And as far as convenience, the Onkyo and Yamaha both have thru settings where you can route the sources through the receiver. So you don't have to turn the receiver on unless you want to hear something through your speakers. Very convenient in my opinion.

 

[PENG]

The benefits of upscalers especially in AVRs are often way over exaggerated. Again, I would route them through the AVR for the convenience and audio, but turn the scalers off. If you have an older TV, the upscaling won't do anything for you anyway. For good VQ, stick with high quality discs. No upscaler, not even the Oppo models can magically make mediocre transfers look nice to you. Again, I really wish manufacturers would stop forcing us to pay for redundant ABT, Reon, Realta, Qdeo chips on us, I have all of them, and some, except for the Realta and the only one I need is the one in my Elite Plasma, the rest are left unused, yet I had to pay for them over and over again..

 

[3db]

The benefits of upscalers especially in AVRs are often way over exaggerated. Again, I would route them through the AVR for the convenience and audio, but turn the scalers off. If you have an older TV, the upscaling won't do anything for you anyway. For good VQ, stick with high quality discs. No upscaler, not even the Oppo models can magically make mediocre transfers look nice to you. Again, I really wish manufacturers would stop forcing us to pay for redundant ABT, Reon, Realta, Qdeo chips on us, I have all of them, and some, except for the Realta and the only one I need is the one in my Elite Plasma, the rest are left unused, yet I had to pay for them over and over again..

Tell us how you really feel!!! j/k I agree with you whole heartedly. I leave my scaling features off on my receiver. It just acts like a video source switch with the ability to make use of the multichannel audio.

 

[smurphy522]

The quality of the output (in this case HDMI) from any given receiver or processor depends on the input source. If a Blu Ray then even a $100 player should (and I stress should) be able to pass the original 1080p signal untouched to the TV or projector and if "properly" set to do nothing to the signal - just display it in all of its "1080p glory"

Processing a cable signal or DVD signal is another issue. Some DVD players (like those from Oppo) had good scalers in them and this for the most part was what made them so popular and successful. Of course customer service and firmware support also contributed.

Anyway what I am getting at is that if the signal is not native 1080p then usually a good quality processing chip like those mentioned in all the other posts can improve the signal.

What some are mentioning by saying blacks are blacker and colors deeper is misleading if it is a Blu ray 1080p source - that will not happen. It can change and manipuilate from the orig. but it will not be "blacker or deeper in color"

 

[tcarcio]

This was one of the reasons I got the Oppo 93, With 2 outputs one goes directly to my Sony PJ and the other to the AVR to process the audio. I will say that all the video I send from my Dish reciever to my 809 looks fantastic.

 

[PENG]

I have no idea what you guys compared the oppo93 with. I can tell you my oppo95's up scales better but barely noticeable than my other players and TV. I am talking about dvd and cable. I also know for dvds of good transfer quality, any of my 3 dvd players offer PQ comparable to that of some of my BR discs. Bottom line is, the quality of the source matters much more than the device upscalar, as long as the media player is of decent quality. As always, ymmv.., for me I am done with the much hyped up scaling exaggerated myth. If the op wish to pay for another potentially redundant VP, that's what he is going to do and I wish he will enjoy the end result.