Audio Video Revolution Forum

Audio Video Revolution Forum (http://www.avrev.com/forum/index.php)
-   Preamps (Audio & Video) (http://www.avrev.com/forum/preamps-audio-video-8/)
-   -   Which way is better? (http://www.avrev.com/forum/preamps-audio-video/2186-way-better.html)

pconley2 07-08-2008 02:16 PM

Which way is better?
 
Can anyone tell me if running all of the content (audio and video) from the DVD player into the pre-pro via HDMI and then to the Monitor and power amps is better or worse for video and or audio quality than running the HDMI directly to the monitor and the audio out to the Pre-pro via digital.

I have received various opinions (from people who have a vested interest in the answer) that video direct to the monitor is best, that the pre-pro doesn't add anything and that fewer switches or connections is better. I have also heard that the pre-pro takes care of everything and that it easier and more convenient to have everything connected.

Phil

rlpiii 07-08-2008 08:05 PM

Re: Which way is better?
 
Best audio and video is through HDMI.

pfslai 07-09-2008 09:18 AM

Re: Which way is better?
 
if you use you digital (coax or optical) for your audio then you will not be able to listen to any of the new HD audio codec.

While there is logic that you don't want the video signal to go thru an extra step for HDMI it does not matter that much. For your SD signals many receivers will do video scaling for you. Then it becomes a question whether you DVD/Blu-ray player is better or your processor is better. For 1080p signals I have not encountered any processors that can do any scaling or video processing to that signal.

The short answer is use HDMI for audio and video.

wes 07-09-2008 04:40 PM

Re: Which way is better?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pfslai (Post 16412)
The short answer is use HDMI for audio and video.

HDMi 1.3 with pass through for Blu Ray video at 1080p and lossless for Audio DTS Master HD (all Fox movies have it and now Universal is jumping on it as well.

pconley2 07-10-2008 03:57 PM

Re: Which way is better?
 
Thank all of you for your responses, they help a great deal. As a follow on question, would the improvement that HDMI gives (to audio with respect to new codecs) apply even if I was only using two channels?

Phil

wes 07-10-2008 09:17 PM

Re: Which way is better?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pconley2 (Post 16498)
Thank all of you for your responses, they help a great deal. As a follow on question, would the improvement that HDMI gives (to audio with respect to new codecs) apply even if I was only using two channels? Phil

Yes it would still be loosless vs compressed example:

DTS “core” contains data for a 5.1-channel system, operating at 44.1 or 48kHz, with a bit rate of 1.5Mbps (mega-bits per second).

DTS-HD MASTER AUDIO: delivering audio that is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master and at super high variable bit rates — 24.5 Mbps on Blu-ray discs :)

-- DTS-HD Master Audio features a bit-stream so fast and the transfer rate so high that it can deliver 7.1 audio channels with 96k/24-bit sound identical to the original and in 2.0 channels.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=41820


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:58 PM.


© 1996-2008 AVRev.com | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use


SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1