HDMI connection questions (1 Viewer)

[jonnyrocket]

Hi everyone, this is my first post , cool forums.

I'm new to the home theatre scene, and in fact I'm just setting it up for my parents.

At one point I thought that the connections that were required were:

Tuner -> TV
Tuner -> Receiver
PS3 -> TV
TV -> Reciever
PS3 -> Receiver

The receiver is an HTIB (HT-SF2000 iirc) and it has 3 HDMI in ports, and one out.

My TV is a samsung LN46A530 with 3 HDMI ports.

My Tuner which is being installed now only has one hdmi port. So, I was wondering if I could connect the tuner to the tv, and the tv to the receiver and get the best possible audio from cable.

Clarification tuner = cable box thing.

Thanks for any help

 

[jonnyrocket]

I can't edit my post so double post

I have another question as wel, in regards to the cables themselves. There was one review stating:

"I bought three of these cables. They worked great for 1080i or 720p connections, but when I tried hooking up my blu-ray player to my 1080p TV, the picture had a bit of digital snow. I tried all three and got similar results. I then tried the category 2 cable I bought (3992) and it worked perfectly. For 1080p connections, it might be best to get category 2 certified cables instead. "

on monoprice, for the 3ft 28awg hdmi cables. So I googled and got more confused. Can anybody explain the difference between category 1 and 2? does it in fact mean it won't produce 1080p quality?

THanks again

 

[Jeff Gatie]

The tuner to tv and tv to receiver will not work for the best sound. Any sound that comes from the TV (either by RCA analog or digital output) will be limited to stereo downmix if your TV source is the cable box. The only way for the TV to ourput the full DD 5.1 available from HD sources is to use the TV's internal tuner and output the audio over the digital audio out.

Instead, you should do one of the following:

If your receiver can process audio via HDMI (some only do video), connect the cable box to the receiver via HDMI and receiver to the TV via HDMI. This will give you the best picture/sound available.

If your receiver can only pass video via HDMI, connect your cable box to the receiver via both HDMI and either the optical or coax digital audio connection. This will give you video via HDMI and digital audio via the optical/coax.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

The "diffences" are mostly a crock and I wouldn't be surprised if that review was an industry plant. Most decent HDMI cables are so overbuilt in regards to the "Category XYZ" specs, even the cheapest of cables will pass 1080p flawlessly. It ain't rocket science, it's just wire.

 

[jonnyrocket]

Thanks for the help!

 

[JeremyErwin]

Do you have a home LAN? Did you cheap out and use Cat3 wire?

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’m not sure of your point Jeremy, as I think that if you are suggesting that using CAT3 cabling instead of CAT5 is comparable to using an inexpensive HDMI connection instead of the most expensive, your analogy does not hold.

There are differences in the technical specification between CAT3 and CAT5. As far as I know the technical specs are the same for cheap and expensive HDMI. And even if there are differences, so long as the cheap HDMI cable passes those 1s and 0s (there is no such thing as a good 1 or a bad 0), the differences will be moot.

I’m not opposed to spending money for better audio or video, but only when the money spent results in a discernible difference.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Cat6e and Cat3 are both types of cable. It just happens that Cat3 is rated for 10baseT, and Cat6 is rated for 1000baseT. But, since cable is cable, and digital is digital, they must be the same, right?

There are two Categories for HDMI. Category 1 cable is tested up to 74.25 MHz while Category 2 cable is tested up to 340 MHz.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I was referencing the difference between an expensive HDMI cable and an inexpensive one as opposed to cat 1 and cart 2. But even so for HT purposes they are the same regardless of bandwidth, as the lower rated one easily has the capacity for HD video and lossless audio.

 

[JeremyErwin]

source I suppose it only really matters if you're installing long cables in your walls-- and a mistake (or a future need for more bandwidth) would be a pain to correct.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Here, we agree—I would use the highest-rated cabling (not necessarily the most expensive) I could for any type of in-wall installation.

After all, you never know what you will need next year (or in the next 5 years). Your mention of Cat 6a is an example. AT one point 100bastT was the standard. Now some would like to replace their Cat5.

But in the specific case of connecting an AVR or BD player to a display, I’d buy an inexpensive HDMI cable.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Tests have shown that the differences show up only in really long cables (over 10 meters). Even the cheapest of cables will pass 1.3 fine. As I said, the differences are mostly a crock.

The Truth About Monster Cable, Part 2 (Verdict: Cheap Cables Keep Up...Usually)

 

[JeremyErwin]

I suppose you're right. Here's another set of benchmarks.

Looks like Monoprice is good enough, unless you're pushing 1080p 8-bit 120Hz (seldom found anywhere) through a cable longer than 2 meters.