HDMI worse than component video

[smokinjoe73]

So I am confused. My sony reciever controls the signals from my sat box(HD) DVD, etc, I am getting better picture quality with just a simple RCA yellow video cable than either the 3 RCA component video, but BOTH are better quality than HDMI ! What gives?

[bfalls]

It could be how you've configured your system, or a bad receiver. Provide more details, receiver model, how you have the component or HDMI configured. Have you tried going directly from the player to the TV? What model TV do you have? Player?

[smokinjoe73]

Its a sony str-dg720. I realize that it will only output hdmi if inputed hdmi on that component. My concern with hdmi directly to the tv is that I would lose video switching capabilities. So far the best picture is from the single yellow "video" rca like I said which is backward of what it should be.

[recoveryone]

WOW! you have an issue going on that is hard to pin down or even start to diagnose. If you single composite RCA line gives you the best PQ out of the 3 something is very very wrong, It could be in the settings on the BDP, for mine ask which method is being used to send out the signal (Composite, Component or HDMI) and ask which line will carry the audio. Now does this problem occur only with the BDP or with all of your sources? And is everything being ran through the AVR with one output to the TV? If yes to both questions then the AVR could be the problem. You may need to be more detail in how your system is connected (each piece of gear)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You might have a bad HDMI cable, or bad HDMI transmitters. In normal conditions there is no way that component outputs would look better than HDMI.

[pixelthis]

Its a sony str-dg720. I realize that it will only output hdmi if inputed hdmi on that component. My concern with hdmi directly to the tv is that I would lose video switching capabilities. So far the best picture is from the single yellow "video" rca like I said which is backward of what it should be.

THE PHRASE "Sony receiver" is probably your problem.
Its "video switching" is either whats called "repeater"(passthru) or it has a video processing chip. If a chip, you can set the resolution, and it might be set wrong.
Video switching is nice, but if its hurting the picture q of your HT, you need to go direct to the TV. Hard to believe that a composite is giving a better pic no matter what.
Could also be a bad cable, BLU player could be set to a lower res.
One more thing you're wrong about, if your receiver has video processing instead of
passthru everything can be output through one cable, like HDMI.
My stuff all goes through my receiver and out my HDMI, including an older DVDA
player thats hooked up via component. All receivers with video processing have this.
EVEN THO my one lung video proc on my receiver is set to "pass" it converts everything to HDMI.

[GMichael]

THE PHRASE "Sony receiver" is probably your problem.
Its "video switching" is either whats called "repeater"(passthru) or it has a video processing chip. If a chip, you can set the resolution, and it might be set wrong.
Video switching is nice, but if its hurting the picture q of your HT, you need to go direct to the TV. Hard to believe that a composite is giving a better pic no matter what.
Could also be a bad cable, BLU player could be set to a lower res.
One more thing you're wrong about, if your receiver has video processing instead of
passthru everything can be output through one cable, like HDMI.
My stuff all goes through my receiver and out my HDMI, including an older DVDA
player thats hooked up via component. All receivers with video processing have this.
EVEN THO my one lung video proc on my receiver is set to "pass" it converts everything to HDMI.

Dude. Get out of there. I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

[bfalls]

Its a sony str-dg720. I realize that it will only output hdmi if inputed hdmi on that component. My concern with hdmi directly to the tv is that I would lose video switching capabilities. So far the best picture is from the single yellow "video" rca like I said which is backward of what it should be.

The only reason I mentioned going direct is to verify video out of the player is good/bad. Narrows the problem to either the player, cable or receiver.

If video is good on the TV with direct connection, the cable and player are good.
Bad with direct connection, cable or player could be bad, maybe receiver also, but we'll be able to tell once the problem is resolved with the player and cable.
Troubleshooting 101, configure the system in simplest form. Eliminate the variables.

[BadAssJazz]

An interesting anomaly that I wouldn't think possible. A standard composite video cable that delivers a better picture than BOTH component AND HDMI?!?!??

Let's assume that your Component and HDMI cables are half decent quality and up to specs. Let's also assume that your definition of "Good Picture Quality" more or less coincides with normal human standard.

Remove the receiver from the chain and connect your SAT/Cable box directly to the TV and then see if the above still holds true. If it does, then your problem is either the SAT/Cable box or your TV.

If you have a DVD player with composite, component and HDMI connections (not likely, but ...), then hook your DVD player directly to the TV using all 3 methods. Again, if the above still holds true, the problem is your TV. However, if the component and HDMI images are better than the composite, then the problem is your SAT/Cable box.

IF after checking every link in the chain you still find your composite video cable to be better than component and HDMI, I strongly advise filling out paperwork for a name change to, say, Rumpelstiltskin and cornering the market on as many of those cheap composite video cables as you can find, because clearly you've stumbled upon the secret alchemy of spinning straw into gold. Long live the magic composite video cable!!!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is one huge problem with going direct to the television unless you have a HDMI 1.4 spec HDMI transmitters with a return channel. Signal latency and alignment is a problem when you send your audio down one cable, and your video down another. Instead of both going through the same processing, each could go through two different processing knocking each other out of time.

This is the benefit that HDMI 1.4 brings. It allows you to send HDMI directly to the television, and then send the audio to a reciever. The HDMI transmitters would keep the signal aligned.

[GMichael]

There is one huge problem with going direct to the television unless you have a HDMI 1.4 spec HDMI transmitters with a return channel. Signal latency and alignment is a problem when you send your audio down one cable, and your video down another. Instead of both going through the same processing, each could go through two different processing knocking each other out of time.

This is the benefit that HDMI 1.4 brings. It allows you to send HDMI directly to the television, and then send the audio to a reciever. The HDMI transmitters would keep the signal aligned.

I think they mean to just do it for a few minutes for testing reasons only.

[Luvin Da Blues]

You might have a bad HDMI cable, or bad HDMI transmitters. In normal conditions there is no way that component outputs would look better than HDMI.

That's my guess to. I have a bad HDMI cable that will pass 480p but not anything better. It took me awhile to figure that out.

[smokinjoe73]

So yeah, I will attempt all the patch-through and check HDMI cables against each other to establish consistency. BUT why would the reciever have the option for this to even happen? I would have to read more into the recievers "settings" but this seems crazy that I would have to even do this.
What I was saying was that according to the manual, if you say input via component or composite, that it wont send that signal to the monitor via HDMI. I think I actually tried this and was suprised to find it was true.
Good thing I built my entertainment center with wheels on it. It still a pia.

[pixelthis]

Dude. Get out of there. I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

Not lookin for food. Flat screen TV's have killed the supply of boxes big enough to take a nap in.

[pixelthis]

So yeah, I will attempt all the patch-through and check HDMI cables against each other to establish consistency. BUT why would the reciever have the option for this to even happen? I would have to read more into the recievers "settings" but this seems crazy that I would have to even do this.
What I was saying was that according to the manual, if you say input via component or composite, that it wont send that signal to the monitor via HDMI. I think I actually tried this and was suprised to find it was true.
Good thing I built my entertainment center with wheels on it. It still a pia.

HEY, this is a Sony receiver we're talking about here, one step above a ten
year old Ukrainian alarm clock. Don't complain if you find out that your ten dollar
suit has a tag that says "made in Chernobyl". My main complaint about Sony receivers
is that they don't include the quikcrete to pour into them to make a boat anchor.
CHEAPSKATES.

[bfalls]

HEY, this is a Sony receiver we're talking about here, one step above a ten
year old Ukrainian alarm clock. Don't complain if you find out that your ten dollar
suit has a tag that says "made in Chernobyl". My main complaint about Sony receivers
is that they don't include the quikcrete to pour into them to make a boat anchor.
CHEAPSKATES.

What crystal ball did you look into to determine the problem is with the receiver? From what experience do you speak about the quality and reliability of Sony receivers? I work for SonyDADC in their disc facility. We have a media test facility where dozens of titles are tested daily on their matrix of over 150 DVD and Blu-ray players.

The players are but in racks. Each rack has a monitor and Sony receiver which is used for switching and listening to audio streams. We currently have 25 racks and two full surround rooms. I can state as a fact the Sony receivers we use are and have been very reliable in function and durability. About 80% of the receivers are Sony ES Series. It really gripes me to hear someone rag on an entire product line because they had a bad experience or two. Maybe it's not the hardware! Haven't you gone through other hardware failures lately?

[pixelthis]

What crystal ball did you look into to determine the problem is with the receiver? From what experience do you speak about the quality and reliability of Sony receivers? I work for SonyDADC in their disc facility. We have a media test facility where dozens of titles are tested daily on their matrix of over 150 DVD and Blu-ray players.

The players are but in racks. Each rack has a monitor and Sony receiver which is used for switching and listening to audio streams. We currently have 25 racks and two full surround rooms. I can state as a fact the Sony receivers we use are and have been very reliable in function and durability. About 80% of the receivers are Sony ES Series. It really gripes me to hear someone rag on an entire product line because they had a bad experience or two. Maybe it's not the hardware! Haven't you gone through other hardware failures lately?

I HAVE HAD ABOUT a zillion receivers, and had problems with two, a Yamaha and
a Sony.
THE Sony was not "ES", more like P.O.S. I paid 450 (about 800 today) and this was the top of the "mainstream" line. KEPT waiting for it to break in. It never did, bit it did
break, twice. THE LEFT AMP went out. Sent it in, and when I GOT IT BACK IT LASTED SIX MONTHS. Whole time I had it the performance was mediocre.
ERGONOMICS were great, the "remote comander" would turn on everything( had a Sony
vcr, laser, monitor) which impressed the chicks, mostly. AFTER THE 2ND FAILURE
took a look at the train wreck inside, wrote it off as a bad job. GOT ABOUT three years of use for a considerable amount of money, all of it bad.
NOW I knew this going in, but SONY WAS ALL my dealer had, and my credit was rough
(this was 1994 or so), so please don't tell me about Sony receivers, nobody
considers them a serious piece of kit, and you know it. BASICALLY a step up
for the know-nothings aspiring to leave HTIB world. MY brother loves his Sony receiver,
tho, but hes' tone deaf(bad inner ear infections).
So please don't get all up in my grille, I HAVE BEEN HEARING about Sony receivers for years. As far as making receivers, Sony is a great TV company.
HERE'S what I don't understand, SONY makes excellent monitors, I have had five.
Your "top of the line" ES, AVERAGE AT BEST. So why bother making something(or
more likely contracting it out) you aren't very good at?
I DON'T buy clothes from BEST BUY, I don't buy groceries at SEARS, and will never understand why anybody buys a receiver from a monitor company.
SURE, all of the other stuff you either contract out or build, I UNDERSTAND THAT,
but a receiver is the heart of a system, if you can't get it right, don't sully your name trying
with mediocre efforts. AND since you use the "es" stuff at work, I probably know more about it than you do, having made the mistake of buying one.
RANT all you want, I HAVE BEEN THERE, got the tee shirt and the bobble head doll.
I don't slam stuff unless I HAVE EXPERIENCE or close knowledge about that of which I
speak. A DECENT receiver is a product of magic, so much can go wrong.
MOST companies have several product lines, but I would never buy a receiver
from a company that didn't specialize in them, same with speakers.
OR monitors.BTW your receivers are at least better than your speakers, but then again a fat lady yelling in the yard is better than your "speakers".
SORRY.

[BadAssJazz]

HERE'S what I don't understand, SONY makes excellent monitors, I have had five. Your "top of the line" ES, AVERAGE AT BEST. So why bother making something(or more likely contracting it out) you aren't very good at? I DON'T buy clothes from BEST BUY, I don't buy groceries at SEARS, and will never understand why anybody buys a receiver from a monitor company.

It finally has sunk in, just this very minute, that Pioneer Elite will never ever EVER bring back its KURO line of plasmas. Dude, that sucks.

[Woochifer]

So yeah, I will attempt all the patch-through and check HDMI cables against each other to establish consistency. BUT why would the reciever have the option for this to even happen? I would have to read more into the recievers "settings" but this seems crazy that I would have to even do this.
What I was saying was that according to the manual, if you say input via component or composite, that it wont send that signal to the monitor via HDMI. I think I actually tried this and was suprised to find it was true.
Good thing I built my entertainment center with wheels on it. It still a pia.

As others have indicated, if your picture quality looks better connected direct than it does patched through the receiver, then there you have your answer. And it sounds to me like you got a defective unit, or a setting is way off.

HDMI and component are the only connections with enough bandwidth to carry 720p/1080i/p HD signals. There's no way that a composite video connection should look better, if you know what a calibrated reference picture looks like. The only situation where this is conceivable would be if you're using 480i signals.

Back in the first generation of HDMI -connected HDTVs, you did have instances where the component video produced better picture quality than the HDMI connection. This was a case where the analog video circuitry in the TV was better than what they used in the digital signal path. With newer TVs, the HDMI connection will typically result in the best picture quality, and many of the latest TVs have begun phasing out analog video connections.

And beginning with this year's Blu-ray players, the analog video outputs are limited to composite connectors. You need to get this straightened out at some point, because analog video is disappearing.

In a worst case scenario, we could just go with an auto-sensing HDMI switch. I use an older receiver without HDMI switching, so my video sources are switched using an HDMI switch. I simply plug the sources in order of priority, and the picture going to the TV switches automatically as I turn video sources on and off. Very simple, and they cost less than $100. Some I've also seen selling for less than $40.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-001-_-Product

Look into those options if you have a problem receiver, but can't afford to replace it right now.

[bfalls]

I HAVE HAD ABOUT a zillion receivers, and had problems with two, a Yamaha and
a Sony.
THE Sony was not "ES", more like P.O.S. I paid 450 (about 800 today) and this was the top of the "mainstream" line. KEPT waiting for it to break in. It never did, bit it did
break, twice. THE LEFT AMP went out. Sent it in, and when I GOT IT BACK IT LASTED SIX MONTHS. Whole time I had it the performance was mediocre.
ERGONOMICS were great, the "remote comander" would turn on everything( had a Sony
vcr, laser, monitor) which impressed the chicks, mostly. AFTER THE 2ND FAILURE
took a look at the train wreck inside, wrote it off as a bad job. GOT ABOUT three years of use for a considerable amount of money, all of it bad.
NOW I knew this going in, but SONY WAS ALL my dealer had, and my credit was rough
(this was 1994 or so), so please don't tell me about Sony receivers, nobody
considers them a serious piece of kit, and you know it. BASICALLY a step up
for the know-nothings aspiring to leave HTIB world. MY brother loves his Sony receiver,
tho, but hes' tone deaf(bad inner ear infections).
So please don't get all up in my grille, I HAVE BEEN HEARING about Sony receivers for years. As far as making receivers, Sony is a great TV company.
HERE'S what I don't understand, SONY makes excellent monitors, I have had five.
Your "top of the line" ES, AVERAGE AT BEST. So why bother making something(or
more likely contracting it out) you aren't very good at?
I DON'T buy clothes from BEST BUY, I don't buy groceries at SEARS, and will never understand why anybody buys a receiver from a monitor company.
SURE, all of the other stuff you either contract out or build, I UNDERSTAND THAT,
but a receiver is the heart of a system, if you can't get it right, don't sully your name trying
with mediocre efforts. AND since you use the "es" stuff at work, I probably know more about it than you do, having made the mistake of buying one.
RANT all you want, I HAVE BEEN THERE, got the tee shirt and the bobble head doll.
I don't slam stuff unless I HAVE EXPERIENCE or close knowledge about that of which I
speak. A DECENT receiver is a product of magic, so much can go wrong.
MOST companies have several product lines, but I would never buy a receiver
from a company that didn't specialize in them, same with speakers.
OR monitors.BTW your receivers are at least better than your speakers, but then again a fat lady yelling in the yard is better than your "speakers".
SORRY.

NO reason To bE SOrry, evERYoNE HAS thE rIghT to theiR OPINION (OK now I have my eyes straight after reading your text).
I knew if I yanked your chain, you'd growl I submit to your expertise. How can my experience on Sony receivers compare to someone who owned one from 1997-2000 and has a tone-deaf brother who owns one he likes. I MUST HAVE BEEN CRAAAZZY! Or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I agree receivers are not Sony's strongest suite, but they are not bad receivers. I have owned my ES for about four years and had one firmware issue. I called Sony about and had a replacement in two days with free return shipping on the defective unit. I had the option to have a local service center update it, but opted for the replacement.

Dollar for dollar Sony receivers usually have more features than most. Mine had 6 HDMI inputs when most had two, 120W/ch when most in the same price range had 100W, Zones 3 & 4 when others only had Zone 2, binding post for surrounds when many had spring-type, up conversion and up scaling for video. Sony has always been known for their Tuners. For a mid-fi receiver I would probably rank them about fourth or fifth behind B&K, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo. Harmon Kardon and Marantz are in there somewhere, depending on the model.

Sony is not generally known for their speakres, but they have manufactured some good ones. Their SS-M3/5/7/9 speakers were excellent speakers. The SS-M9 was reviewed very favorably in Stereophile. Their APM Series speakers were also good and sought after by collectors. Check out Audiokarma. Their Sountina NSA-PF ($10,000 only sold in Japan) are also well received and use leading-edge tech. I'm sure with your experience you've seen and heard them all. You always speak in generalities.

BTW with a zillion (-2) receivers, I'll bet your carbon footprint is large enough to cover the state of Texas. Yank. Yank.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As others have indicated, if your picture quality looks better connected direct than it does patched through the receiver, then there you have your answer. And it sounds to me like you got a defective unit, or a setting is way off.

HDMI and component are the only connections with enough bandwidth to carry 720p/1080i/p HD signals. There's no way that a composite video connection should look better, if you know what a calibrated reference picture looks like. The only situation where this is conceivable would be if you're using 480i signals.

Back in the first generation of HDMI -connected HDTVs, you did have instances where the component video produced better picture quality than the HDMI connection. This was a case where the analog video circuitry in the TV was better than what they used in the digital signal path. With newer TVs, the HDMI connection will typically result in the best picture quality, and many of the latest TVs have begun phasing out analog video connections.

And beginning with this year's Blu-ray players, the analog video outputs are limited to composite connectors. You need to get this straightened out at some point, because analog video is disappearing.

In a worst case scenario, we could just go with an auto-sensing HDMI switch. I use an older receiver without HDMI switching, so my video sources are switched using an HDMI switch. I simply plug the sources in order of priority, and the picture going to the TV switches automatically as I turn video sources on and off. Very simple, and they cost less than $100. Some I've also seen selling for less than $40.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-001-_-Product

Look into those options if you have a problem receiver, but can't afford to replace it right now.

Be very careful about those auto sensing switchers. Every one I tried could not pass any audio above 24/48khz. That means no Bluray concert video's or music only disc with 24/192khz. They just played back at 24/48khz.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

NO reason To bE SOrry, evERYoNE HAS thE rIghT to theiR OPINION (OK now I have my eyes straight after reading your text).
I knew if I yanked your chain, you'd growl I submit to your expertise. How can my experience on Sony receivers compare to someone who owned one from 1997-2000 and has a tone-deaf brother who owns one he likes. I MUST HAVE BEEN CRAAAZZY! Or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I agree receivers are not Sony's strongest suite, but they are not bad receivers. I have owned my ES for about four years and had one firmware issue. I called Sony about and had a replacement in two days with free return shipping on the defective unit. I had the option to have a local service center update it, but opted for the replacement.

Dollar for dollar Sony receivers usually have more features than most. Mine had 6 HDMI inputs when most had two, 120W/ch when most in the same price range had 100W, Zones 3 & 4 when others only had Zone 2, binding post for surrounds when many had spring-type, up conversion and up scaling for video. Sony has always been known for their Tuners. For a mid-fi receiver I would probably rank them about fourth or fifth behind B&K, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo. Harmon Kardon and Marantz are in there somewhere, depending on the model.

Sony is not generally known for their speakres, but they have manufactured some good ones. Their SS-M3/5/7/9 speakers were excellent speakers. The SS-M9 was reviewed very favorably in Stereophile. Their APM Series speakers were also good and sought after by collectors. Check out Audiokarma. Their Sountina NSA-PF ($10,000 only sold in Japan) are also well received and use leading-edge tech. I'm sure with your experience you've seen and heard them all. You always speak in generalities.

BTW with a zillion (-2) receivers, I'll bet your carbon footprint is large enough to cover the state of Texas. Yank. Yank.

Do not pay Pixie any attention. Sony recievers are just as good as Yamaha, Pioneer or any other mid priced brand. Pixies understanding of quality components is about the same as his IQ....which would be zero.

[pixelthis]

Do not pay Pixie any attention. Sony recievers are just as good as Yamaha, Pioneer or any other mid priced brand. Pixies understanding of quality components is about the same as his IQ....which would be zero.

AND FOR YOU to make the above statement displays your understanding of
what constitutes quality gear, about the same as a dog understands a cloud.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=bfalls]NO reason To bE SOrry, evERYoNE HAS thE rIghT to theiR OPINION (OK now I have my eyes straight after reading your text).

I knew if I yanked your chain, you'd growl I submit to your expertise. How can my experience on Sony receivers compare to someone who owned one from 1997-2000 and has a tone-deaf brother who owns one he likes. I MUST HAVE BEEN CRAAAZZY! Or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

Or had a brief stay at the local "rest" facility for the mentally tired.
MY "EXPERIENCE " with Sony receivers is a lot more than that unfortunately

I agree receivers are not Sony's strongest suite, but they are not bad receivers. I have owned my ES for about four years and had one firmware issue. I called Sony about and had a replacement in two days with free return shipping on the defective unit. I had the option to have a local service center update it, but opted for the replacement.

My one year old unit took a week to get back, cost me 125 bucks(plus shipping) and lasted about six months before it broke again.
AND NO, Sony receivers are not "bad" receivers, they are worse. THEY ARE
mediocre receivers, just good enough for the uninformed to be clueless as to what they're' getting. AHEM.
BTW you had a problem, and I HAD A PROBLEM. Two out of two
Out of all of my other receivers I have had two break, one being a Sony

Dollar for dollar Sony receivers usually have more features than most. Mine had 6 HDMI inputs when most had two, 120W/ch when most in the same price range had 100W, Zones 3 & 4 when others only had Zone 2, binding post for surrounds when many had spring-type, up conversion and up scaling for video. Sony has always been known for their Tuners. For a mid-fi receiver I would probably rank them about fourth or fifth behind B&K, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo. Harmon Kardon and Marantz are in there somewhere, depending on the model.

DENON has been known for their tuners. SONY receivers are known to have a bunch
of stuff packed in, all right, like IC amps, cheap power supplies, etc.
A friend recently blought an Onkyo for 350 bucks, has all of the stuff you mentioned,
and one thing you didn't mention, the most important thing, mainly...
THE SOUND. The sound of any given receiver from anybody beats the HTIB
masqurading as a Sony reciever any day of the week.

AS FOR SPRING TYPE BINDING POSTS, these are on the most cheap recievers,
although they usually sound better than Sony

Sony is not generally known for their speakres, but they have manufactured some good ones. Their SS-M3/5/7/9 speakers were excellent speakers. The SS-M9 was reviewed very favorably in Stereophile. Their APM Series speakers were also good and sought after by collectors. Check out Audiokarma. Their Sountina NSA-PF ($10,000 only sold in Japan) are also well received and use leading-edge tech. I'm sure with your experience you've seen and heard them all. You always speak in generalities.

I LIKE TO talk about mainstream gear, not stuff most won't ever see, much less buy.
My favorite brand, B&W , has a NAUTILUS speaker that looks like a NAUTILUS
shell. You have to get an audition to hear it. SOUINDS great, and has almost nothing to do with anything.

BTW with a zillion (-2) receivers, I'll bet your carbon footprint is large enough to cover the state of Texas. Yank. Yank.

CARBON FOOTPRINT? There is your problem, you live in a fantasy world, believing
in chimera like global warming and other nonsense.
Loyalty to your company is touching, really, but I consider the source.
Anybody that has been hanging around this hobby (in my case over 40 years) for awhile
can look at a Sony receiver and tell its quality pedigree by sight, but I would forgive the
cheap construction if the sound was there, and it isn't. AND YOU KNOW IT.
Sorry

[pixelthis]

BTW, besides the slight slam at Sony receivers, my main reason for blaming the receiver
is that, if it has a video proc, that could be set too low, down converting all
output signals to 480p or worse. WHENEVER I put in a receiver for someone, I set
the video proc to "passthru" in order to avoid this.