Is this right? (1 Viewer)

[TreyP]

I've got a satellite reciver, vcr, dvd player, and xbox. For each one of these, I run the video straight to the TV, and the sound straight to the reciever. Does this sound right, or should I be doing it a different way? I notice that my reciever has video inputs and outputs on it, but I don't use them.

 

[Roland_Sjouw]

I've got a satellite reciver, vcr, dvd player, and xbox. For each one of these, I run the video straight to the TV, and the sound straight to the reciever. Does this sound right, or should I be doing it a different way? I notice that my reciever has video inputs and outputs on it, but I don't use them.

Sounds Right, the only good thing about running video to you receiver is that you can control video through your receiver, dhoo
Other that I don't know any possible pre's to this sollution...
Roland

 

[Jeffrey R]

Your way is not right or wrong. It's one way to do things. Some people run all of their video and audio through the A/V receiver, so everything runs through the same source. They like the convenience. Others, like you, run the video straight to the TV and then run audio to the receiver.

I do the same thing that you do. I run my DVD player, VCR, PS2, cable, etc. straight to the TV. I want the purest video possible, and running cables straight to the TV are the best way to get that. Then I have Digital and analogc audio cables running straight from the different sources and my TV into my receiver's audio inputs.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Trey,

As Jeffrey said, there are different ways to do it, and it is a matter of personal Pref. I persoanlly fall on the opposite pref from Jeffrey, I use my receiver as a video switcher as well as audio device.

In your case your display (TV) has enough inputs to handle all the various sources you're feeding it-- and you simply toggle between the sources on the TV. In my case, I don't have enough inputs on the Display (in my case a projector) to receive all the inputs I'd like to feed it, so I use my receiver to switch.

BUt, honestly, even if I did have a set like yours which had enough video inputs to handle all the sources, I'd still run through the receiver. Running through the receiver gives one touch switching for audio and video- without being bother with changing the TV mode and the receiver mode independently.

I have run extensive tests with my DENON 3300 reciver, and the video switching is perfect- I cannot see nor even MEASURE a degrade in video signal for standard NTSC stuff. I don't know if that can be said for every receiver-- but for even Mid-range products, I think the idea of more "pure" signal going direct to the TV is a misconception.

So- again, it comes down to your pref. I like video switching via the receiver because it makes the receiver the control center for everything... and simplifies operation of the system.

-Vince

 

[Ted Lee]

i also like running everything through my receiver. i really like the "one-stop" switching.

what you'll need to do is test for yourself. run the video through the receiver and see if you notice any signal degredation. if you do, the choice is obvious - send the video directly to the tv.

if you do not notice any signal loss, see if you like the one-stop switching. i bet you will. it's much easier to only change one input (on the receiver) then two inputs (on the receiver for audio, on the tv for video).

in any case, there's no right or wrong answer here...it's totally personal preference!

 

[Jim_Stu]

Trey & etc,

Four things to be aware of:

1) In lab tests, Component video (NTSC) is only 5%

sharper, on TV's 36 inch or larger, than S-Video.

S-video is a 30%-40% improvement over composite video.

2) Receivers costing less than 1K USD do not have

video converters. In other words, if you want an S-video

output, you must have all S-video inputs.

3) Composite to S-video converters are available from

Radio Shack for 19 USD, and better ones are 90 USD from

Entec/monster.

4) Systems that use the receiver to switch the video, are

more user friendly than the ones that require the TV to be

switched.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Then, there are people like me who have a hybrid. My DVD composite cables go directly to the TV, but all the other video goes to the receiver. This makes for some quirky settings, but it's all in the best quality and allows me to listen to music while playing video games.

 

[Bill Catherall]

4) Systems that use the receiver to switch the video, are more user friendly than the ones that require the TV to be switched.

That's a very subjective statement. If you always intend to do your listening through your receiver then I can see how doing all the video switching through the receiver would be more user friendly (one less thing to switch). But for me, I only use the receiver for 1) listening to CDs and audio tapes, 2) listening to DVDs in surround sound, 3) only on rare occasions I'll listen to VHS tapes in surround sound (I haven't actually watched a movie on tape for over a year). But when I watch TV or let the kids watch tapes or DVDs then I don't even turn on the receiver. If I had all my video switching through the receiver then it would be less user friendly because there would be one more thing to turn on. And since I don't use the receiver for 90% (or more) of the TV watching I can cut down on unnecessary wear.