hdmi receivers

[ronning]

i'm thinking about buying a new receiver, and am especially interested in these newer Denon and Rotel (etc..) receivers that have HDMI in/out connections.

I have a few questions:

1) do any of these upconvert *everything* to HDMI digital out, so that I can finally just run 1 cable to my TV?
2) do any input 1080p over component (and then pass that along to the HDMI out)?

I'm continuing to research various models, but it's difficult to decipher the cryptic (and sometimes innacurate) input/output specifiations.

Thanks!

[edtyct]

The Rotels that I know isolate HDMI from the other video inputs completely and don't allow audio to pass either. I'm not aware of any receiver that inputs 1080p via component, but my knowledge is limited in this area. You might take a look at the new Arcam receivers, which, if I recall correctly, implement HDMI more comprehensively.

[PeruvianSkies]

I recently heard the new Denon Flagship receiver...the AVR5805 mkII, which is the biggest honkin' receiver I have ever seen! This montherfreaker is huge and has just about every input/output known to man. I wouldn't be surprised if this thing allows you to hook up a washer and dryer to it as well. It only weighs 92lbs too! If WWIII breaks out and we have nuclear war...the only things left will be Cher's nose and this thing! It does have HMDI 1080p and should be able to upconvert anything from what I understand. I was unable to get a good look at what was connected when I checked it out, but it appeared as though everything going in was component and there was 1 HDMI output...picture was stunning! It was THE LAST SAMURAI playing. I might be mistaken, but I think that it can only convert S-Video up to Component though. Don't quote me on that.

[edtyct]

I just checked the Arcam AVR350, and I was wrong about it. Arcam has full HDMI implementation in the works, but the newest receiver limits HDMI to switching only. All upconversion is done by analog to component output, as in the Rotels. Sorry about that.

If the Rotels or Arcams sway you, as well they might for their sound quality alone, you still might consider them as video HDMI switches and then simply let a single component feed handle the analog sources to the TV. Is that too much cabling?

[ronning]

Aside from cabling (which is an issue), my *true* problem is this:

My brand new Sony Bravia flat panel doesn't support 1080p over component, only hdmi. Which is fine, until recently I discovered that the Xbox 360 will output 1080p - but only over VGA and component (which is rediculous)! So I'm stuck wondering what to do about that.. what options I have, whether I should look at a different TV (this is already my 2nd one in a month) etc. etc...

I was hoping maybe that a receiver could input 1080p over component, then just pass the signal along in digital format via HDMI... ?

In many ways, I think i'd rather just get a PS3, but I don't think Sony quite has their act together in that department...

edit: the TV is 1080p

[PeruvianSkies]

Sounds like your problems are not uncommon at this point in time since there are alot of compatability problems during this transitional time. Obviously upgrading your receiver to alleviate the problem is going to be costly, so why not put that money into a different TV? I guess I am trying to think of ways to safeguard yourself for the next few years and not have to re-route things just to get what you want when it shouldn't be component dependant.

[ronning]

I agree. But I've spend literally the last 60 days extensively researching 1080p lcd sets, and like I said, this is actually my 2nd purchase. The first set was a Westinhouse, which did 1080p from *all* inputs (dvi, hdmi, component, vga) and was super cheap. But the picture quality was crap and the overal build quality was poor.

I love the Samsungs, which do 1080p over component and vga, but they have overscan on all inputs (why oh why?). Since I primaily use my PC on the display (as I am right now), 1:1 pixel mapping is important (I also do graphic and CAD design on the display, so pixel accuracy is important).

The Sharps don't have VGA input, and their PQ was not as good as the Sony, IMO.

The Sony is *gorgeous* and does 1:1 mapping over dvi/hdmi.

The next step would be to get an XBR for about $500 more, which I believe does 1080p over component and VGA. It *might* be worth it (although I've read that the XBR sets have uncontrollable sharpness filtering on HDMI inputs - something I have turned off on my current Bravia set).

And that's my conundrum. ARG.

Really, PC is most important to me. Xbox 360... I don't really care as much ( I don't even own one yet). I'm wondering if there really would be any difference between inputting a 1080i signal from the 360 and having the TV de-interlace vs. feeding a straight 1080p signal.. ?

[edtyct]

If the deinterlacing is good, a feed of 1080i and of 1080p to a 1080p set should often match. The TV wouldn't have to add any new information when deinterlacing film, only identify a 3:2 cadence correctly to re-assemble the original frames or, in the case of video, reconstruct the player's original data, whatever that would be. TVs aren't as likely to pick up a film sequence as quickly as a dedicated processor, but once they do, they should be able to lock it. Video deinterlacing with motion might be a little harder, even if the source already has provided the blueprint. I don't know what will be coming out of an X box. You can research it. But standard PC text and graphics at 1080p would be a piece of cake to deinterlace from 1080i to 1080p.

By uncontrollable sharpness filtering, do you mean the Sony DRC processing? Why wouldn't it be defeatable? Displays normally suffer more from undefeatable edge enhancement (articial sharpness that actually steals resolution) than edge filtering in the other direction, which is usually an elective option to hide deinterlacing/scaling artifacts at the distinct cost of sharpness. More explanation?

Some TVs allow overscan control in the user menus. Have you checked the Olevia LCD sets? Brillian, the good company that makes them, seems to offer many parameters that are usually buried in the service menu of displays from other makers. Brillian's LCoS set, I believe, provides overscan management, among many other things (like ISF calibration in home), but then again, it cost $8000.

Your're the only person, whether pro or enthusiast, that I've encountered who thinks that the Westinghouse picture is crap. I'm not disputing you, but I'm a little surprised. How and what kind of material?

[misterq4u]

i'm thinking about buying a new receiver, and am especially interested in these newer Denon and Rotel (etc..) receivers that have HDMI in/out connections.

I have a few questions:

1) do any of these upconvert *everything* to HDMI digital out, so that I can finally just run 1 cable to my TV?
2) do any input 1080p over component (and then pass that along to the HDMI out)?

I'm continuing to research various models, but it's difficult to decipher the cryptic (and sometimes innacurate) input/output specifiations.

Thanks!

Before going to brand names, specs are an obligation these days; meaning:

-Make sure that the receiver is HDMI ver 1.3, else you wont enjoy the "pure" stream from BD and HD DVD. This is the utmost spec to research first.

-Make sure that it does upconvert your current collections and is not just a switcher.

Please forgive me if you already knew this, but i did not see it in the other comments.

After the HDMI research, the usual, power, appeal so on and so forth..

[edtyct]

HDMI 1.3 won't be showing up in receivers for a while yet. Transcoding to HDMI from analog formats requires conversions that aren't simple. Who knows when and who will be willing to undertake them at what price? In the meantime, the analog equivalent of the new DD and DTS formats through the tried and true 5.1 channels sounds awfully good. I, for one, wouldn't sacrifice the opportunity to hear them just because HDMI 1.3 weren't available yet. But I imagine that lots of other people might.

[misterq4u]

HDMI 1.3 won't be showing up in receivers for a while yet. Transcoding to HDMI from analog formats requires conversions that aren't simple. Who knows when and who will be willing to undertake them at what price? In the meantime, the analog equivalent of the new DD and DTS formats through the tried and true 5.1 channels sounds awfully good. I, for one, wouldn't sacrifice the opportunity to hear them just because HDMI 1.3 weren't available yet. But I imagine that lots of other people might.

Agreed, 5.1 still rules because of the lack of 7.1 material.
But for the increasing number of 7.1 adopters and BD/HDVD adopters, it is a must to have the 1.3, I believe that by the end of this year they will be out there and next year will be full speed ahead. The other issue is that as the majority of consumers hold 1.2 or lower, there will be even more confusion when they find that all the new glitter coming out does not apply to their units. That will be a big dissapointment for the uninformed digital purists. Another 1.3 benefit will be the SACD DSD stream that still requires the 5.1 analog links. So for the Audiophilios, is a must. I adopted HDMI as early as 1.1 and after 3 years I am now able to have the 1 cable for all dream, with the exception of the SACD.

[ronning]

Like I mentioned, what most concerns me at this moment is that the receiver can input 1080p over compnent - a somewhat unusual and hard thing to pin down.

Regarding HDMI 1.3... what does it add that is so special?

[edtyct]

Twice as much speed as 1.2, enabling higher resolutions and faster frame rates, in addition to deep color at as much as 48 bits (rather than 24), which will eradicate once and for all banding and contouring artifacts and increase/improve color/grey palettes, accuracy, and contrast ratios. It will also pass all of the new lossless and lossy audio formats from DD and DTS, as well as control lip sync issues automatically as well as other functions usually relegated to hardware at this point. But don't look for much of these advances to occur overnight, and I'm not sure as misterq4u that you'll be seeing receivers with 1.3 this year.

1080p over component is a big bite for a receiver to chew.

[Woochifer]

Like I mentioned, what most concerns me at this moment is that the receiver can input 1080p over compnent - a somewhat unusual and hard thing to pin down.

Regarding HDMI 1.3... what does it add that is so special?

It's really more about a measure of future-proofing than anything. In general, I would say that if you don't have a 5.1 setup right now, then there's no reason not to shop around for a receiver. But, if you already have 5.1 with DD, DTS, and component video switching, then you might want to wait until HDMI 1.3 has made its way thru the market. By this time next year, a lot more HDMI 1.3 components will be available.

HDMI is ultimately about running all of your audio and video signals through one cable, and keeping these signals in the digital domain. This will gain importance because HDMI is a copy protected connection standard, and there have been various pushes by the studios to close the "analog hole" (i.e., forced downconversions for analog outputs). Just because component vid can carry HD resolution right now does not mean the analog video connections will always support that resolution. Here's a general timeline on the changes to the HDMI standard over the last couple of years.

HDMI 1.0: copy-protected digital video
HDMI 1.1: adds simultaneous audio signals with support for PCM, DD, DTS, and DVD-A formats
HDMI 1.2: adds support for 1-bit DSD audio (SACD)

HDMI 1.3 incorporates a lot of changes and is the connection standard used with HD-DVD/Blu-ray as well as the new Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD audio formats. It can also support 48-bit deep color. Receivers featuring the HDMI 1.3 connections will likely start appearing early next year, since the DSP chips supporting the new sound formats are already in production.

With the audio especially, it's better to run the audio through a receiver/processor in the digital domain since the bass management and other signal processing are done digitally. In general, the analog audio outputs from a DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray player don't have the flexibility with the bass management that you get from a receiver/processor.

[misterq4u]

Thanks EdTyCT and Woochifer for elaborating on my vague and incomplete remarks.
Hopefully it is clear now why 1.3 is a must if you care about what is "hot" right now. Don't blame me for 1.4,.5,.6 etc. Checkout slashdot if it matters.

[kexodusc]

I've been silently observing this thread since video is definitely not one of my stronger points - but alot of very knowledgeable people here are on record saying in all but the largest display sizes, 1080p is a moot point and offers no visual enhancement over 1080i anyway.
Ronning, what size set do you have and how far are you sitting from it typically? This whole exercise may not yield any tangible reward for you...perhaps we can simplify the process?

[edtyct]

kexo,

This, like Wooch's about component and copy protection, is a good point. But LCDs, unlike plasmas, have no trouble incorporating 1920x1080 pixel arrays in 40" panels. True, at 10' away or so, the eye will have trouble resolving the extra detail, but if a display is going to be progressive, anyway, it might as well be 1080p rather than 720p or 768p. However, 1080p inputs won't really reach their stride until they can accept or generate frame rates that are multiples of 24 fps--like the new Pioneer plasma--which will promote the extinction of 3:2 pulldown for film material.

Edit: It just occurs to me 10 min. later that I missed your point: It's not the resolution of the display that you're questioning but the resolution through the receiver; 1080p through a receiver shouldn't be crucial since you aren't likely to see it. That's an even better point. Personally, I wouldn't want my analog video to go through a receiver, if I can help it. I'd prefer it to go directly into the display whenever possible. A digital connection wouldn't bother me as much, so long as the handshake and repeating functions were smooth.

Ed

[ronning]

I've been silently observing this thread since video is definitely not one of my stronger points - but alot of very knowledgeable people here are on record saying in all but the largest display sizes, 1080p is a moot point and offers no visual enhancement over 1080i anyway.
Ronning, what size set do you have and how far are you sitting from it typically? This whole exercise may not yield any tangible reward for you...perhaps we can simplify the process?

The set is 46" and I sit approximately 6 feet away from it. If I'm watching movies, I may recline back a bit more and be 8 feet away.

1080p was the deciding factor for stepping into the HD world - I've been hanging on to my ancient CRT until just now... waiting for the day when 1080p was attainable.

I use the set primarily for PC (for example, right now browsing the forums). And games like Half Life 2 @ 1920x1080 look *fantastic*. Plus, I plan on purchasing some form of hi-def dvd sometime in the next 3 months (probably ps3).

This whole thread started because the set I finally ended up with supposedly doesn't support 1080p over component (although I can't actually test that...) and my concern that if/when I buy an Xbox 360, I won't get 1080p output from it.

Considering the games for 360, however, I think I'd rather just stick with my PC where I have a digital connection and an endless supply of upgradable technology...

[PeruvianSkies]

Look at this beast!!!!!!

[PeruvianSkies]

Are you nuts? 6ft away from a 46" TV???? Up that close you are going to see pixels no matter how high the resolution!!! The recommended distance for a TV of that size is 10 feet!!!

[ldgibson76]

Hello Everyone. I'm kind of new to this forum thing. So bare with me.....
There are 1080P AV Receivers that exist, and yes it is a Denon product, but you do not have to spend 6-7K to have the 1080P experience. You can if you want to, but you don't have to! The Denon AVR2807($1099), the AVR4306($1999), the AVR4806($3500.00) and the AVR5805MKII($7000.00) will pass a 1080P signal. Not only receive it, but also pass that signal to your monitor. Most receivers including the AVR5805 will downconvert that signal to 720P.
And understand this.....You must have a 1080P highway to experience tthe actual resolution.
That means that your DVD, DVD player, the receiver the component/HDMI cable must be capable of accomodating the 1080P bandwidth. Any interruption in the path, and you've lost it. Now I may be wrong...but, I don't think so. Go to the Denon website and read the specs on the forementioned AVRs. Yamaha has introduced the RX-V2700($1500.00). It too is 1080P ready.
ldgibson

[edtyct]

Are you nuts? 6ft away from a 46" TV???? Up that close you are going to see pixels no matter how high the resolution!!! The recommended distance for a TV of that size is 10 feet!!!

He's not nuts at all. At 10 ft., with a panel that size, he probably wouldn't be able to distinguish 720p from 1080p.

[ronning]

He's not nuts at all. At 10 ft., with a panel that size, he probably wouldn't be able to distinguish 720p from 1080p.

wtih movies i would agree. But even at 8+ feet i can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on this set given really crisp input (e.g. PC input and games). That's also why picking up a set w/ 1:1 pixel mapping was so critical to me. (since I also do graphic design and CAD modeling with this).

At 6ft, it's almost exactly the same as looking at my 21" lcd monitor from about 1 foot away (which is what I wanted)

[ronning]

A few new thoughts:

1) Are there any receivers out there with VGA input on them (with HDMI conversion/output)?

2) Are there any receivers that have a DVI input that handles an analog signal (DVI-A) and the converts that over to HDMI?

Obscure questions, I know, but I'm searching around...

[ronning]

This may all be a moot point in the near future:

http://gear.ign.com/articles/735/735860p1.html