Hookup DVD through A/V receiver
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by LG on October 7, 2005, 12:02 pm
Please log in for more thread options My TV has enough component hookups to accept a few different video sources (DVD, cable box, etc.). I'm using component hookups to go from DVD to TV, cable to TV, etc. Is there any reason that I want to go from DVD to A/V receiver to TV rather than just DVD to TV for the component (video only)? Obviously, I want to run the sound through the receiver. Is the only advantage the ability to control all sources through the receiver? Thanks, LG | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by vij on October 7, 2005, 3:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options Yeah, pretty much. But only if your receiver has video upconversion. I configured my gear so that ALL video and audio go to the receiver. If I didn't, I'd have to switch sources at the TV *and* the receiver. But this way, I switch only at the receiver. It does require an extra set of component cables, but I still think it's simpler. And it's not like the receiver's going to degrade the signal, so I find it convenient to route everything through the receiver. My two cents. cheers, vij | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by JKad on October 7, 2005, 10:36 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>> My TV has enough component hookups to accept a few different video
>> sources (DVD, cable box, etc.). I'm using component hookups to go from >> DVD to TV, cable to TV, etc. Is there any reason that I want to go >> from DVD to A/V receiver to TV rather than just DVD to TV for the >> component (video only)? Obviously, I want to run the sound through the >> receiver. Is the only advantage the ability to control all sources >> through the receiver? >
Why "But only if your receiver has video upconversion."? I am new to all
> Yeah, pretty much. But only if your receiver has video upconversion. I > configured my gear so that ALL video and audio go to the receiver. If I > didn't, I'd have to switch sources at the TV *and* the receiver. But this > way, I switch only at the receiver. It does require an extra set of > component cables, but I still think it's simpler. And it's not like the > receiver's going to degrade the signal, so I find it convenient to route > everything through the receiver. My two cents. > > cheers, > vij this after my 50" 10 year old Toshiba power supply went belly up a week ago. I will have a HDTV STB from the cable co. with component out to my Yamaha switching amp. but the amp. does not upconvert. I have a DVD player with component out that I intend to run to the amp. The output from the amp to the HDTV will be through the monitor component out. Any other video sources will route through the amp. with a corresponding out of like type to the HDTV. Doesn't this plan work??? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by vij on October 7, 2005, 11:46 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>>> My TV has enough component hookups to accept a few different video
>>> sources (DVD, cable box, etc.). I'm using component hookups to go from >>> DVD to TV, cable to TV, etc. Is there any reason that I want to go >>> from DVD to A/V receiver to TV rather than just DVD to TV for the >>> component (video only)? Obviously, I want to run the sound through the >>> receiver. Is the only advantage the ability to control all sources >>> through the receiver? >>
>> Yeah, pretty much. But only if your receiver has video upconversion. I >> configured my gear so that ALL video and audio go to the receiver. If I >> didn't, I'd have to switch sources at the TV *and* the receiver. But >> this way, I switch only at the receiver. It does require an extra set of >> component cables, but I still think it's simpler. And it's not like the >> receiver's going to degrade the signal, so I find it convenient to route >> everything through the receiver. My two cents. >> >> cheers, >> vij > Why "But only if your receiver has video upconversion."? I am new to all
> this after my 50" 10 year old Toshiba power supply went belly up a week > ago. I will have a HDTV STB from the cable co. with component out to my > Yamaha switching amp. but the amp. does not upconvert. I have a DVD > player with component out that I intend to run to the amp. The output > from the amp to the HDTV will be through the monitor component out. Any > other video sources will route through the amp. with a corresponding out > of like type to the HDTV. Doesn't this plan work??? Okay, yeah, I misread what you wrote; I see that now. Video upconversion is needed if you've got connections of different types going into your receiver. For example, I've got component cable from my DVD player, S-video from my STB, and composite from my VCR. With video upconversion, all these signals will be transferred over the component cables I've got going from the receiver to the TV. If I didn't have video upconversion, then I'd need another S-video cable going from the receiver to the TV, and another composite going from the receiver to the TV. Video upconversion just means that the lower quality signals (S-video and composite) will be relayed through the higher quality components. Your plan does work. One of these days I'm gonna read first and make sure I've got all the facts before I spout off and look like a total bo-bo head. One of these days . . . God, I feel like a dork. cheers, vij | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by JKad on October 8, 2005, 12:23 am
Please log in for more thread options
>
>>
>>>> My TV has enough component hookups to accept a few different video
>>>> sources (DVD, cable box, etc.). I'm using component hookups to go from >>>> DVD to TV, cable to TV, etc. Is there any reason that I want to go >>>> from DVD to A/V receiver to TV rather than just DVD to TV for the >>>> component (video only)? Obviously, I want to run the sound through the >>>> receiver. Is the only advantage the ability to control all sources >>>> through the receiver? >>> >>> Yeah, pretty much. But only if your receiver has video upconversion. I >>> configured my gear so that ALL video and audio go to the receiver. If I >>> didn't, I'd have to switch sources at the TV *and* the receiver. But >>> this way, I switch only at the receiver. It does require an extra set >>> of component cables, but I still think it's simpler. And it's not like >>> the receiver's going to degrade the signal, so I find it convenient to >>> route everything through the receiver. My two cents. >>> >>> cheers, >>> vij >> Why "But only if your receiver has video upconversion."? I am new to all
>> this after my 50" 10 year old Toshiba power supply went belly up a week >> ago. I will have a HDTV STB from the cable co. with component out to my >> Yamaha switching amp. but the amp. does not upconvert. I have a DVD >> player with component out that I intend to run to the amp. The output >> from the amp to the HDTV will be through the monitor component out. Any >> other video sources will route through the amp. with a corresponding out >> of like type to the HDTV. Doesn't this plan work??? >
Thanks for the clarification. Before I plop down the $$ for multiple
> Okay, yeah, I misread what you wrote; I see that now. Video upconversion > is needed if you've got connections of different types going into your > receiver. For example, I've got component cable from my DVD player, > S-video from my STB, and composite from my VCR. With video upconversion, > all these signals will be transferred over the component cables I've got > going from the receiver to the TV. If I didn't have video upconversion, > then I'd need another S-video cable going from the receiver to the TV, and > another composite going from the receiver to the TV. > > Video upconversion just means that the lower quality signals (S-video and > composite) will be relayed through the higher quality components. > > Your plan does work. One of these days I'm gonna read first and make sure > I've got all the facts before I spout off and look like a total bo-bo > head. One of these days . . . > > God, I feel like a dork. > > cheers, > vij component cables (two for each input run through the amp) I just wanted to verify that the plan would work. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Hookup DVD through A/V receiver | October 7, 2005, 12:02 pm |
| HD receiver for HD tv? | June 17, 2005, 10:05 pm |
| A/V Receiver under 1,000 | January 15, 2005, 6:15 pm |
| 5.1 from 7.1 receiver? | September 11, 2005, 8:24 pm |
| receiver shut off by itself | January 26, 2005, 11:28 pm |
| receiver up/down scale | May 26, 2005, 9:30 am |
| choosing an av receiver | July 18, 2005, 1:11 am |
| I need help finding a receiver | November 27, 2005, 12:13 pm |
| Receiver Recommendation | February 26, 2006, 4:30 pm |
| Suggestions for A/V receiver | May 12, 2006, 8:08 am |
| Receiver Suggestion | January 2, 2007, 1:02 pm |
| A/V Receiver application | December 21, 2007, 9:32 am |
| Audio receiver questions | November 14, 2004, 8:26 pm |
| AV Receiver with tape monitor???? | March 22, 2006, 10:49 pm |
| Best Receiver for Theater Audio Only | June 3, 2006, 4:38 pm |
> sources (DVD, cable box, etc.). I'm using component hookups to go from
> DVD to TV, cable to TV, etc. Is there any reason that I want to go
> from DVD to A/V receiver to TV rather than just DVD to TV for the
> component (video only)? Obviously, I want to run the sound through the
> receiver. Is the only advantage the ability to control all sources
> through the receiver?