Like

Stupid question about receivers...

 

New member
Username: Saltyrhino

Post Number: 7
Registered: Jan-05
Right now im doing some window shopping for a new set up. Between researching online, stopping in at some high end stores, and reviews from friends, Ive settled down on a paradigm monitor series set up. Im looking at the following:

Monitor 9s Fronts
CC-290 Center
ADP-190 surrounds
Unsure about the subwoofer, seeing if i can get a 10 inch sunfire for cheap. So granted that im probably dishing out ~2200 for a new set up, i have to look into a receiver to fit the set up.

Now, here is my question. Does anyone make a receiver that does not handle video. I just want a receiver to decode the surround sound from my HD-DVD player, Cable box, and get am/fm radio. I just dont want to run any video through a intermediate component. I feel like im wasting money looking at a Denon AVR2308 when i wont even use the Video portion of it. Any advice on where to go from here? Thanks.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 11897
Registered: May-04
.


Don't worry about it. It didn't cost that much to include video functions in the Denon.
 

Silver Member
Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 904
Registered: Jun-07
Salty, most, if not all A/V receivers have video inputs and outputs. Doesn't meant you have to use them. I use absolutely none of them on my A/V receiver. All of my video cables run directly to the TV. Keeping the audio and video separate, like they should IMO.
 

Silver Member
Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 905
Registered: Jun-07
By the way IMO, Denon leave a lot to be desired in the Sound Quality department. And their power ratings are brutal.
 

Silver Member
Username: Eramsey

South carolina United States

Post Number: 575
Registered: Feb-05
Unfortunately no. This is why they are called audio/VIDEO receivers. The video inputs are there but you are not required to use them. Personally I prefer to run all of my video connections from source straight to my display. This keeps the signal as pure and direct as possible without subjecting the signal to sources of noise contamination such as the circuitry inside of an AV receiver. This has been discussed several times on this forum and unless the video circuitry is being used for up conversion/enhancement,straight from source to display is the ideal route,most on this forum would agree. BTW, those composite video(yellow RCA's) on the back of a receiver cost about 20-25 cents each.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 11899
Registered: May-04
.

"BTW, those composite video(yellow RCA's) on the back of a receiver cost about 20-25 cents each."



Where are you buying this high priced crap? You surely aren't buying in lots of one million at a time.
 

Silver Member
Username: Eramsey

South carolina United States

Post Number: 576
Registered: Feb-05
That price(an average) was quoted from an article in a stereo mag. some years ago,sorry cannot remember which one but in the huge lots that manufacturers buy probably even less.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 9511
Registered: Dec-04
I paid $20 for 6
 

New member
Username: Mr_audio

St. Louis, MO USA

Post Number: 2
Registered: Dec-07
I agree with Nick K. Denon receivers in my experience take a huge turd on sound quality. I just replaced my Denon for that very reason. About getting a new receiver that has no video function I'm sure you know by now that's impossible unless you go stereo. If you wanna save money by cutting back on video switching, then consider an Onkyo under the 605, a Yamaha 659, or if it must be a Denon get the 1508. They don't have HDMI switching which makes them less desirable therefore cheaper. I highly recommmend the Yamaha.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 9516
Registered: Dec-04
I was gonna jump right to the stereo suggestion right away, but I always seem to do that.
If it is 5.1 you need a processor/preamp like a Rotel to sidestep the viseo. That means a 5channel power amp as well.
 

New member
Username: Mr_audio

St. Louis, MO USA

Post Number: 5
Registered: Dec-07
I don't really see what the big deal is. I've never used the video sections of my receivers. I do all switching using macros on my remote. I might use it someday when I get more components and need more inputs. If salty goes with separates, he might find himself spending a lot more money just to get the stuff he doesn't want. I'm not doubting separates will sound better even though I've never owned separates. I know the cost between the two is considerable to get good separates. If the extra money is not an object, I say separates. If it is, just deal with buying a video section you will never use. Heck, my receiver has a lot of stupid and useless DSP modes (Yamaha), but it does DD, DTS, Prologic 2 and Neo:6 extremely well. I could have bought a Denon that doesn't have an abundance of useless DSP, but then my ears would hurt all the time due to the crappy SQ.
 

Silver Member
Username: Hannjeff

Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 242
Registered: Jun-06
I have a very similar setup. I have monitor 9 fronts, monitor 3 rears, the pw-2100 sub, cc-370 center. I went with a Marantz reciever, the SR-7500. Its a great setup, I would look at some of marantz gear.
 

Silver Member
Username: Pablo

Post Number: 120
Registered: Mar-06
If you are looking for sound - Arcam AVR 280 or 350. It has hdmi but just switching not upconversion. Arcam do not believe in video processing - they went with sound in these. If you have big $$ like one of my friends - he just got Anthem Statement separates - this is true video processing.

Pablo
 

Gold Member
Username: Frank_abela

Berkshire UK

Post Number: 2920
Registered: Sep-04
Whoa there boys and girls. Salty says he wants the receiver to decode the sound from his HD-DVD player. Well, if that's the case, it depends on what kind of audio he's talking about. If he says he wants to decode HD-DVDs' (movies), then the best way is to go via HDMI into the AV receiver and breakout in the receiver to send the video to the screen via another HDMI cable. Why? Because HD-DVD has TrueHD and DTS Master Audio, just like Blu-ray. Provided his HD-DVD player can send out these codecs, he should use HDMI for the purpose. S/PDIF is not allowed to send these high res audio formats between units because it's not encrypted (and I believe would have problems with throughput).

Also, if his player miraculously does other goodies like SACD or DVD-A, he should not go via S/PDIF since this degrades the sound quality to CD level for the same reasons. If it has this capability, it should either have its own connection schemes (Denon's and Pioneer's iLink for example) and so he should choose a receiver of the same brand that has these connection schemes. The Pioneer uses two s400 connectors for example and comes with the cables in the box. Alternatively he should decode in the player and use multichannel analogue interconnects to the receiver. In this latter case almost any receiver would do.

Salty, check what your HD-DVD player can output before buying anything. Some of them couldn't do certain things such as the full 1080p video or DTS Master Audio. The other thing to bear in mind is that HD-DVD is effectively dead. Are you considering a BD machine too?

Pablo, Arcam have to address the lack of HDMI functionality. They are losing ground to the other brands because of this. Expect to see something later this year, but it won't be cheap.

Regards,
Frank.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us