Pre/Pro and HDMI importance?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • 2channellover
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2009
    • 27

    Pre/Pro and HDMI importance?

    I'm just jumping back into HT (component video was considered the best connection, since I've been in the market) and I've started looking at moderately priced pre/pro units (namely Rotel). The big negative seems to be dated component connectivity, specifically lack of 1.3 HDMI ports, or in some cases no HDMI ports.

    Pardon me in advance if these are dumb questions

    If your source and TV have 1.3 HDMI, what's the real need for the pre/pro to have it also since it's function is audio control?

    Is HDMI functionally superior for connecting your pre/pro to a satellite box, etc.?

    I've owned Rotel in the past, been pleased with performance and quality. Found a good price on a RSP-1068, but now a little gun shy thinking I may be getting something outdated.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by 2channellover; 31 January 2009, 16:39 Saturday. Reason: superior to quality digital audio cables
  • Blindamood
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2003
    • 899

    #2
    Originally posted by 2channellover
    If your source and TV have 1.3 HDMI, what's the real need for the pre/pro to have it also since it's function is audio control?

    Is HDMI functionally superior for connecting your pre/pro to a satellite box, etc.?

    I've owned Rotel in the past, been pleased with performance and quality. Found a good price on a RSP-1068, but now a little gun shy thinking I may be getting something outdated.
    There are technical reason to go to HDMI, but (from my perspective) they are mostly convenience and cost. Using one wire for both audio and video, instead of three for component video + one for digital audio is cheaper and easier to set up. They both can do hi-def video (720p/1080i), but I don't believe component video will do 1080p.

    If you're into multi-channel audio (DVD-A / SACD) and/or blu-ray, then HDMI is even better. To handle multiple sources with the 1068, you'd need an external switcher. If you're only using one multi-channel source (for example, a blu-ray player that can decode the new audio codecs), then the 1068 would work perfectly well.
    Brad

    Comment

    • 2channellover
      Junior Member
      • Jan 2009
      • 27

      #3
      Thank Brad, and it's logical too.

      I'm looking at mostly 1080p projectors so blu-ray will likely be a source. I'll think about it (1068) some more this week. In the mean time do you have any experience with NAD? I still have an old stereo preamp from the late 80s.

      I'm going to demo their T175/T955 combo...the T175 seems to be more advanced than the 1068, but this would cost a little more (roughly $300) considering the deal I can get the 1068 for.
      Last edited by 2channellover; 01 February 2009, 08:33 Sunday. Reason: spelling

      Comment

      • Blindamood
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2003
        • 899

        #4
        Originally posted by 2channellover
        Thank Brad, and it's logical too.

        I'm looking at mostly 1080p projectors so blu-ray will likely be a source. I'll think about it (1068) some more this week. In the mean time do you have any experience with NAD? I still have an old stereo preamp from the late 80s.

        I'm going to demo their T175/T955 combo...the T175 seems to be more advanced than the 1068, but this would cost a little more (roughly $300) considering the deal I can get the 1068 for.
        I do not have experience with NAD, except that I was looking at the T175 and decided for various reasons not to go wtih it. Read the reviews on avsforum for more info. It sounded pretty good at first, but I read about some problems with it there. I know they're coming out with a new 'HD' version of it though (which includes new audio codec processing), so you might want to look at that one too.
        Brad

        Comment

        • Race Car Driver
          Super Senior Member
          • Mar 2005
          • 1537

          #5
          I guess I would determine what your source will be.

          For example my PS3 ONLY sends the HD audio out the HDMI cable. I ran an HDMI cable to my TV and fiber optic to my older receiver for the last year. It worked fine, however I couldnt take advantage of DTS-HD or Dolby Tru-HD.

          So in Jan I upgraded to a new receiver that does that.. through HDMI only

          EDIT and it looks like I should have read all the replies first. :lol:
          B&W

          Comment

          • SoundEngine355
            Senior Member
            • Feb 2008
            • 313

            #6
            Bottom line is you don't need HDMI 1.3 for blu-ray if your AVR has 7.1 analog inputs then buy a player with 7.1 output and using this you will have the audio sorted. To get the 1080p video output you will need HDMI, but don't need 1.3.
            SoundEngine355

            -------------------
            [Music] B&W 800D | Classe CDP202 +M400s | Velodyne DD15

            Comment

            • David G
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2005
              • 170

              #7
              There are some amazing bargains to be found for non-HDMI equipped pre-processors. I'm using a NAD M15, and have no intention of upgrading it to a HDMI-equipped model.

              Comment

              Working...
              Searching...Please wait.
              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
              An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
              There are no results that meet this criteria.
              Search Result for "|||"