I'm looking to upgrade my old JVC receiver with something that supports HDMI.
The only requirement is I need a HDMI pass through (maybe not the correct terminology) to allow the HDMI signal to get to the TV without using the receiver as I don't always want surround sound and just be able to use the built in TV speakers.
I'm undecided on how much to spend but will most likely not use it much.
Current speaker setup is a passive sub with speaker level inputs with built in crossover to the front left and right speakers, a center channel and two surround speakers. Not looking to upgrade the speakers now, may later.
Any recommendations?
Need a receiver recomendation
- Thread starter orlzx6r
- Start date
- Status
my solution was to use the TV out to pass sound back to the receiver.. no reason you need hdmi pass through.
most newer tv's support toslink(fiber optic)
It also simplifies matters when you have 3-4 input devices they all goto tv.. tv passes sound to receiver = win.
I have a Pioneer Elite, and recommend them. Avoid the cheap made i China/Singapore units
We have a Denon AVR-590 with basically the same setup speaker wise as you. Can't remember what we paid for it thought it was less that $200 but must of been closer to $350. No complaints even with the old Phillips speakers. Sounds good with enough bass to vibrate the sofa. It does the hdmi pass-through without issue.
Depends on your price range. Top name brand manufacturers that are readily available everywhere include Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer. I currently use a Yamaha that I bought 3 years ago. In other words, it was obsolete 6 months later. 
My next receiver will probably be an NAD or one from Cambridge Audio.
My next receiver will probably be an NAD or one from Cambridge Audio.Originally Posted By: Rand
my solution was to use the TV out to pass sound back to the receiver.. no reason you need hdmi pass through.
most newer tv's support toslink(fiber optic)
It also simplifies matters when you have 3-4 input devices they all goto tv.. tv passes sound to receiver = win.
JHZR2
Staff member
I like my yamaha stuff.
Is HDMI really better picture than component? I've heard so many bad things about its intentional limitations, not sure I'd want use it if I could get same/better quality the old fashioned way.
HDMI makes it easy for people to connect stuff, but if it castrates the connectivity, then what's the point?
The "intentional limitations" are not unique to HDMI. It is a function of HDCP. DVI and DisplayPort also support HDCP and it's "limitations".
HDCP was implementated to reduce piracy by preventing people from "recording" content while it is being played, like you could do with a VCR and an analog recordings. Pretty much all digital video has some type of DRM, usually in the form of some type of encryption like CSS. Per the DMCA, it is illegal to circumvent copyright protection to copy a work.
To circumvent the DRM, another way of copying a work is to intercept the signal when it's being passed between two devices. A so-called "man in the middle" approach. HDCP seeks to prevent this by requiring a type of handshake between legitimate devices. Without the handshake, audio and video doesn't change hands. Things get messy when you start passing signals.
HDMI switching is easy. The source (a BRD player) and the receiver are both HDCP compliant devices. The receiver and the television are also both HDCP compliant devices. Everybody is happy. When you change formats, HDMI into television and toslink out, you lose your HDCP protection because toslink doesn't support HDCP. Instead of just eliminating the signal, the pass-thru is allowed, but at a reduced function. In this case, two channel stereo.
It all works fine when you're using devices that were designed to work together. If you're trying to intercept and steal the signal to circumvent copyright, it causes a problem. If you're trying to legally work outside the realm of HDCP, which is becoming less and less common since nearly everything recent is using HDMI, you have to accept some limitations.
Is HDMI better than component? Yes and no. Component video has the bandwidth to pass a 1080p signal. Unfortunately, many BRD players downconvert the signal to 720p/1080i when using component video. Component video is also an analog signal and is much more prone to interference. Obviously, component video is only a video signal, so audio requires a separate connector. None of the commercially available S/PDIF interconnects will handle the highest lossless audio from Dolby and DTS. So, yes, it can technically produce a comparable picture but it can't match HDMI in it's overall package.
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
As for the OP, I may be mistaken, but HDMI switching in receivers is active switching, not passive, and requires the receiver to be ON for switching to function. If the receiver is already powered up, why would you ever want to listen to audio through the television instead of the theater system?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Is HDMI really better picture than component?
- Status
Similar threads
