I am confused...I am going to buy a new Home Theatre receiver in the $400-$700 range. At the top of that range, I can find 1 or 2 HDMI receivers...my question is related to the usefulness of HDMI. Because all my sound will go from my receiver to my speakers, what is point of having a connection to my television that has both audio and video? Maybe I am missing something obvious to everyone else in the world. Does HDMI actually make a difference to music and picture quality? Can I get 1080i through a normal high def connection? I am really just wondering if it is worth the extra $'s to step it up to HDMI. Thanks for the comments...this is my first non HTIB and I just want to make sure I am making the right choices. I think I would rather step up my front speakers to something in the $400 range(ideas?) rather than the $200 bookshelves I am looking at...although they seem sweet. Thoughts?
IMO HDMI video is worth the purchase, it likely will be the only way to get HD off the new DVD formats. As far as audio, unless one invests in a high end player, the audio processing of the receiver is often on par or better than the player, so having the player do the processing can prove to result in worse performance. As far as signal loss, I have no problem with the performance of optical and coax connections in that regard. The only feature towards audio of use is having multiple HDMI switching through the receiver, but not many models offer more than 2 in 1 out, and one can buy a 4 in 1 out HDMI switcher for likely less money than the extra cost of the receiver which presently has those capabilities.
Something like the Denon AVR2807 may be worth the purchase as it is IMO the most advanced receiver on the market. HDMI is only one of many of the features offered. It is higher than your pricerange.
You get best results IMO by picking the speakers you want first then matching the receiver to them. Something like Klipsch and Panasonic's digital amps are a bad match, but if you like the Klipsch sound there are plenty of options.
Where to start for speaker...? There are just so many options out there, you should go listen and decide what type of sound you like.
Some popular brands around your price range-
Polk Paradigm Athena Alegria Energy Klipsch Ascend
I have a follow-up question, if I may "borrow" this thread... I think it goes to the original question regarding the usefulnes of an HDMI receiver.
A lot of the receivers in my price class (~$1k) offer HDMI switching and upconversion, but not upscaling. A lot of DVD players in my price class (~<$500) offer upscaling, but only on the HDMI port.
I mean upconverting as in "from component to HDMI", for example, and upscaling as in "from 480p to 1080i".
Suppose I buy a HDMI receiver with great audio DAC'S, and an upscaling DVD player as described.
I know that HDMI carries both video and audio, but if I want to use the audio DAC's in the receiver (not the ones in the DVD player), AND the video upscaler in the DVD player (so that I don't have to buy an upscaling receiver), can I do both?
This would require one of these hookups:
1a) HDMI: DVD player > TV 1b) Audio digital out: DVD player > receiver
Or possibly just:
2) HDMI: DVD > Receiver > TV
Other possiblities exist, of course, but I'm pretty sure they're either no better or actually worse than these two.
My questions are:
Q1: What are the overall pro's and con's to these different hookup options?
Q2: For the second option, will I be able to "pass" the upconverted video signal from the receiver to the TV? I understand that the "devil's in the details" with this stuff, which is why I ask.
Q3: Will I be able to pick which audio DAC's get used in the second option?
This is hard to verbalize. I hope I'm making sense.
Q1: Depends upon the equipment, if the audio/video processing is better in the player, HDMI might be the best route. I noticed an improvement moving from component to HDMI in terms of PQ with my DCT, suggesting the video quality may be better with HDMI, as I doubt the processing in the DCT is better than the TVs. I prefer the sound of the Denon2910 to my receiver's through 6 ch analog, I suspect the sound quality would be improved through HDMI for Dolby Digital and DTS, where I use the optical connection. But most don't buy DVD players worth $650+, so the pay-off for audio would not be had by most. In fact I suspect many players have audio processing worse than the receiver, so they might get less quality audio through HDMI.
Q2 - There have been many reported problems of losing either sound or video through the receiver. Make sure it can pass 720p/1080i through HDMI, not just 480p. I'm sure any current model will but watch for some of the earliest HDMI models.
Q3 - As far as I understand it the source's audio DACs are used through HDMI and there is no option to use the receiver's. I base this upon my experience with the 2910, correct me if I'm wrong.
As a side note, the Denon 2910 through HDMI has a macroblocking issue which basically appeared as shading and bordering of dark areas. This is not present through component and the picture looks just as good through component. I prefer the picture at 480p with my TV which has a native res. of 720p, so losing the ability to upscale to 720p/1080i is not an issue.
In my view, the use of a processor amp for switching between video sources is limited by the lack of HDMI sources. Currently, DVD players offer HDMI and in future it'll be HD-DVD/BluRay machines. If you anticipate having X-Box 360, Playstation 3 and a DVD player, then it may be nice to have HDMI switching in the processor. If you don't think you'll be running all these simultaneously, then there is little point in paying for the technology. Also, currently there are very few processors that offer to switch more than 2 HDMI inputs, so one wonders what the point is here.
There is also the question of quality. Although all HDMI inpuits should meet certain standards, I have noted that different processors can add noise to the HDMI feed and you get a better result by going direct from DVD player to screen. The cheaper the processor, the less likely it's going to be particularly good.
As to upscaling, I've had good and bad results with this. Obviously a dedicated upscaling switcher (like a DVDO) is going to give you a better result because it is dedicated to the task. Then again, it's another box. Perhaps one day processors will do this for you as competition and volume sales kick in, but not now.
Upconverting is fraught with its own issues as the analogue signal is converted to digital and upscaled in real time. One usually gets a better result by sticking in the analogue domain. That said, if you're using a digital screen such as an LCD or plasma, this conversion has to take place somewhere. It's likely to be done better by the screen thanks to the fact that it's dedicated to the task, but it's not a given.
All in all, I'm not convinced of the importance of the switching facility in the processor, but it is good to have HDMI in a digital screen if possible.