new to site

[dunatic69]

i came across this site while trying to find reviews on a sonamp mkII 1250 and decided to join.my audio gear is a pioneer vsx84tsxi, b&w dm604 s3 fronts, dm603 s3 rears, lcr600s3 center, and a velodyne f1000 sub. my video gear is a mitsubishi wd 65832 dlp, a ps3 for bluray dvd and gaming, and an xbox360 for hddvd and gaming. i am curious as to how others have hooked up thier ps3's? do you run the hdmi to the tv and use the optical out to the reciever or just use the hdmi all the way through? i am still in the process of setting all this up and could use any help i can get.

[icarus]

Well first off welcome to audioreview forum and hopefully you enjoy your time here and you learn lots. As for your issue with the PS3, the optical out is definately a good option, im not sure of this, but does the PS3 have the ability to use component cables?

[dunatic69]

Well first off welcome to audioreview forum and hopefully you enjoy your time here and you learn lots. As for your issue with the PS3, the optical out is definately a good option, im not sure of this, but does the PS3 have the ability to use component cables?

yes i belive it came with componet cables or you can get them. isnt hdmi better than component though?

[Groundbeef]

Welcome to the boards!

However, your initial choice of topic is a little dicy. About the only thing more devisive than the PS3 VS XBOX 360, would be if you either got into a BOSE debate, or perhaps wanted to scrum about if high $ speaker wire is worth it.

I don't think that it comes with component, it comes with composite (red, white audio and yellow video). Spend $35 and get some HDMI, or component.

Back to the issue at hand. If your reciever has HDMI pass through, I would use it from your PS3 to the receiver and then feed the HDMI OUT from your reciever to your TV. The benefits to this would be that your audio would be sent via the HDMI. And if I am correct, any S-video, or component signals would be upconverted to the HDMI as well.

If you run your HDMI from the PS3 to the TV, and use Optical to your reciever, you run the risk of having a slight delay in synching. So your voice, and action my be off.

I don't have a PS3 (topic for another thread), but I do run my 360 through my reciever, and its HOT.

[dunatic69]

you are right about the composite cables. i do have it running straight into the tv on hdmi now and on optical to the kenwood htib im replacing. as for the 360/ps3 debate, i have and enjoy both. i've had the 360 for about 6 months and the hddvd player for 2.i bought the ps3 2 weeks ago after playing a demo of a game called motorstorm at the local gamestop. i played it for 15 minutes and turned around and bought the system right then, funnest racing game i have ever played. both systems play movies great but i will say the blu ray seems to look better on my display.i should have all my new gear set up by saturday and we'll see what everything looks like then.

[L.J.]

I'm running my PS3 audio via optical cable and video via HDMI with no problems. My AVR does not support HDMI but I eventually plan on upgrading though.

[PeruvianSkies]

Everyone talks and talks about HDMI cables...I personally was unimpressed and have since stuck with very good component cables, which still offer HD signal, but in my opinion seem to offer more color richness. I am a bigger fan of color richness and color accuracy than sharper detail. I found that the black levels seemed off when using HDMI and looked more gray, while colors seemed brighter, but almost too orangish. I thought it was the cable at first, so I tried several other HDMI cables and even purchased a $100 HDMI cable thinking that might help, nope. I am not saying that HDMI is a failure, but in my setup I prefer the component for now until maybe down the line the HDMI will improve whatever is currently wrong with it. Some people might not even notice this difference.

[GMichael]

Welcome to AR. Glad to see you join the party.

I'm still on the fence between X-BOX and PS3 so I can't really help you. But wanted to say hi. And maybe you can tell me which one you like better.

[L.J.]

Everyone talks and talks about HDMI cables...I personally was unimpressed and have since stuck with very good component cables, which still offer HD signal, but in my opinion seem to offer more color richness. I am a bigger fan of color richness and color accuracy than sharper detail. I found that the black levels seemed off when using HDMI and looked more gray, while colors seemed brighter, but almost too orangish. I thought it was the cable at first, so I tried several other HDMI cables and even purchased a $100 HDMI cable thinking that might help, nope. I am not saying that HDMI is a failure, but in my setup I prefer the component for now until maybe down the line the HDMI will improve whatever is currently wrong with it. Some people might not even notice this difference.

[edtyct]

First of all, on a level playing field with each format behaving as it should, video through HDMI and component cables will probably look quite similar to the naked eye. As PSkies implies, however, HDMI has an advantage at higher frequencies; component often falls short on the finest details. And if the component feed has to undergo any D/A or A/D conversions along the way (from, say, a DVD player to a fixed-pixel display), the picture can become even softer.

HDMI is not at a disadvantage with color fidelity or black level, however, unless the execution of a particular component's digital I/O system is compromised (as sometimes occurs with either format). Sometimes, however, HDMI sources can send the wrong color information to targets when upconversion is involved. Upconverted material sent at Rec. 601 should be received as such, not as Rec.709, and vice versa, but some targets can't adjust. Standard-definition color and high-definition color gamuts differ slightly. And color decoders are not always uniform in their interpretations of RGB and YCbCr signals. As for the ability to render black, RGB black levels come in two varieties, video and PC. If a DVD player or display expects PC or video black but gets the other, the levels will be too light or too dark. Contrast and brightness, at the very least, would have to be adjusted accordingly. HDMI itself doesn't have a tendency toward grey rather than black, but displays do.

An HDMI feed that looks significantly, or even a little, worse than an analog component feed will not have been implemented well. Most likely, the problem is with the actual devices in use rather than with HDMI itself. And the possibility always exists that the user hasn't set up the HDMI input correctly. The virtues of HDMI image quality are sufficiently well established to rule out blanket inadequacies when all goes according to plan. Nonetheless, all it takes is one corrupted video device along the chain to spoil it for every other one. This liability has nothing to do with HDCP handshakes or cable quality. If a handshake fails to take place, no signal transmits, and if a cable is poorly constructed or not robust enough to handle a certain length, the picture will be filled with tiny flashes, show intermittent pixellated artifacts, refuse to show hi def, or drop out altogether. In a picky competition involving fine points that may not be visible or important to everyone, HDMI is the clear winner.

[AVMASTER]

I am not saying that HDMI is a failure, but in my setup I prefer the component for now until maybe down the line the HDMI will improve whatever is currently wrong with it. Some people might not even notice this difference.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing wrong with HDMI, it's usually the equipment and/or set-up errors. HDMI 1.3 will offer even better color ( Deep Color and xvYCC), sound, and control. Of course all components in the chain must take advantage of HMDI capabilities but it is still superior to component video.