Why run video through receiver?

[tom67]

I have been around a while and still looking for good reason to run video through any receiver. Running from source direct to tv simply makes more sense, assuming you have enough HDMI inputs on tv.All things being equal, common sense would dictate you have more chance of degrading a signal by adding a complicated device like a receiver. It is especially curious that "wire freaks" would even consider doing do. They spend tons on cables, then run video through a box with cheap 30 gauage and printed circuit wiring. If one stop control is an issue, a $60 Harmony remote will solve that problem....

 

[chris357]

I'm always worried about timing of soundtrack and dialogue. Although since my pre/pro does not have hdmi i do send just the video to the tv and the sound to the stereo and everything works fine ... so I guess that worry is all in my head but alot of things are all in my head anyway so its ok

 

[Exit]

I don't have HDMI on my receiver, but I believe that running the HDMI from the source to the receiver is the only way to get the latest higher quality audio from the source. I don't believe you can run audio out from the TV to the receiver and get these new formats, even if the TV had an HDMI output. Whether the new formats are a lot better or not is up to someone else to state their impressions.

 

[GlocksRock]

Let me ask you this, why not run video through the reciever? It uses less cables, therefore less clutter and expense. My receiver has auto lip sync so I don't have to worry about the dialogue being out of sync. A quality reciever will also not degrade the signal, and some even upscale the image.

 

[adk highlander]

The number one reason for me is to process the lossless codecs available on Blu-ray. If you run the HDMI to the TV you are only left with optical or multichannel analog connections to your receiver. Now if you have older gear and purchased a blu-ray player with multichannel outs this is not as much of an issue.

Other reasons are cable management and ease of connections. It makes more sense to me to run each source to my prepro/receiver and then have one cable to my display. Why would I want to go through running each sources video to my display and then have another set of wires running to my receiver. Then when I am switching sources I have to worry about the receiver switching and having the display go to the correct input as well. Many displays don't offer direct input selection and you end up getting out of sync between the display and the receiver.

Most prepro/receivers will pass the video through with no adulteration and you end up gaining the ability to upconvert and upscale to HDMI and whatever resolution you choose.

 

[davidtwotrees]

Gosh. The cables alone make it worth it. I have a universal dvd, a bluray and my music server needs an osd. The distance from my rack to the tv routed behind my sound proofed wainscotting is 11 to 13 feet. Right now I have a 13' BlueJeans HDMI from the Onk, with a 3' HDMI from the bluray, a 3' HDMI from the Uni, and a 3' component from the server all to the receiver. All those 3' cables would be replaced by 13' cables.
I did do a source direct to tv comparison...............and while it wasn't scientific, I could see no diff in bluray direct to tv or routed through my Onkyo 706.
And as stated above, I forgot about the snake pit of analog connections routed to the receiver to get the new codecs. Also, in doing that, I had to choose which source got the analog ins and which would run through the optical in. That is eliminated with HDMI to Reciever.

 

[Lordoftherings]

I have been around a while and still looking for good reason to run video through any receiver. Running from source direct to tv simply makes more sense, assuming you have enough HDMI inputs on tv.All things being equal, common sense would dictate you have more chance of degrading a signal by adding a complicated device like a receiver. It is especially curious that "wire freaks" would even consider doing do. They spend tons on cables, then run video through a box with cheap 30 gauage and printed circuit wiring. If one stop control is an issue, a $60 Harmony remote will solve that problem....

Absolutely agree with you man. But what about the Audio?

 

[markw]

I don't always want to be forced to use the AVR. I see no need to watch the daily news, sitcoms, and the grandkid's kiddie videos in 5.1.

By running the video and analog audio to the TV, I can play it independently of the rest of the system, excepting the selected source.

 

[adk highlander]

I don't always want to be forced to use the AVR. I see no need to watch the daily news, sitcoms, and the grandkid's kiddie videos in 5.1.

And you call yourself an Audioholic?!

 

[Lordoftherings]

And you call yourself an Audioholic?!

LOL. Good one for that early this morning. Must be Friday.

 

[Rickster71]

I don't always want to be forced to use the AVR. I see no need to watch the daily news, sitcoms, and the grandkid's kiddie videos in 5.1.

By running the video and analog audio to the TV, I can play it independently of the rest of the system, excepting the selected source.

I agree, that's how I've always done it.
I refuse to add another heating & cooling cycle to the circuit boards in my $1k to $2k AVR just to watch the news.
The other side of the coin is true too, "less wire" that's a nice thing. I wonder what that's like.

 

[Lordoftherings]

I just used two TVs.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, everything we do depends on our needs.

And our needs change.

It's not about right or wrong.

You don't have to justify your actions.

One way is NOT better than the other.

When I had analog components, I connected the source directly to the TV.

When I had digital components (Receiver, HDMI), I connected the source to the receiver for the HD sound and convinience.

 

[Rickster71]

Well, everything we do depends on our needs.

And our needs change.

It's not about right or wrong.

You don't have to justify your actions.

One way is NOT better than the other.

When I had analog components, I connected the source directly to the TV.

When I had digital components (Receiver, HDMI), I connected the source to the receiver for the HD sound and convinience.

Absolutely agree!
If the Emotiva pre/pro ever gets here I may change everything.

 

[Lordoftherings]

Absolutely agree!
If the Emotiva pre/pro ever gets here I may change everything.

Which year that would be?

 

[bombarde32]

A quality reciever will also not degrade the signal, and some even upscale the image.

Agreed. I have an Integra 8.9 with the video set to "Through" on all inputs so it's not processed. I see no difference between that and when I was running directly to the TV.

The only issue I've seen is running 1080p over component. I run my xbox 360 at 1080p over component into a Sony TV (forget the model off hand ). It accepts 1080p over component but my Integra does not. In that case I'm not going to drop to a lower signal just to save a couple bucks on cable.
Of course, whilst hooking said component cables up I tripped over and ruined the receiver to TV HDMI cable. So maybe I should have run it to receiver after all!!

 

[GlocksRock]

My xbox 360 outputs 1080p to the receiver, but when the receiver upconverts the components 1080p to HDMI, it is only output as 1080i, and I'm not sure why. The receiver is a RX-V663, this is in my bedroom which the xbox in there doesn't get much use, but since no games are in true 1080p, at least none that I own, I don't really concern myself too much with it only getting 1080i. Now since I have a harmony one remote I could just run the component video directly to the tv and keep the optical cable running to the receiver, but then I have to see another cable running to the tv, and I don't really want to do that. Besides I can't really see a difference between the two anyway.

 

[bandphan]

Unless you have an avr that can be calibrated per input, I can see running sperate cabling to the display. And other than Bluray audio codecs/1080p, there isnt anything that warrants HDMI other than simplistic needs. Imagine having same source multiple inputs on the display for day and night viewing

 

[lsiberian]

I have been around a while and still looking for good reason to run video through any receiver. Running from source direct to tv simply makes more sense, assuming you have enough HDMI inputs on tv.All things being equal, common sense would dictate you have more chance of degrading a signal by adding a complicated device like a receiver. It is especially curious that "wire freaks" would even consider doing do. They spend tons on cables, then run video through a box with cheap 30 gauage and printed circuit wiring. If one stop control is an issue, a $60 Harmony remote will solve that problem....

My reason for running it is for simplicity in switching sources. My AVR controls my entire system. I like things that way. And I like being able to use the front panel to navigate.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I don't always want to be forced to use the AVR. I see no need to watch the daily news, sitcoms, and the grandkid's kiddie videos in 5.1...

You don't? I am flabbergasted