A New Approach to Components in a Digital Audio/Video World

rfowkes · Post by **rfowkes** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:35 am

Remember when Home Entertainment life was much simpler? All you did was to sit back and turn on the TV to watch programs. Or, if you remember TV before the days of remotes you turned on the TV and then sat back unless you had a young son who was your human remote. Carrying this one step further back (as this writer remembers) there was actually a time when you only listened to programs for your nightly entertainment. Fibber McGee and Molly anyone? In any event, in the 1950's to somewhere in the 1980's "Home Theater in a Box" was just that for most people - the family television.

A handful of audiophiles (I was building kits in the early days) had stereos by the late 50's and we knew about audio components - a pre-amplifier, an amplifier and speakers which produced wonderful sounds from our sources - usually records and reel to reel tapes. (Yes, I also had a wire recorder for a time. I also have an Edison cylinder or two gathering dust.) But as interest in components grew so did the demand for a one box solution to audio as well - and the audio receiver was born. Nirvana for the "I don' need no steenkin' wires!" set!

Fast forwarding a bit (through LPs, Audio Cassette Tapes, 8 Track Players, Cable TV, VCRs, PCs, CDs, Satellite TV, DVDs, SACDs, DVD-As and similar) we arrive at the present...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2007/12/a_new_approach_to_components_in_a_digital_audiovideo_world.php]Read the Full Article[/url]

rfowkes · Post by **rfowkes** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:28 am

I'm glad that Shane felt that my "component approach" article had enough merit to share it with all of you and I'll try to answer any questions that you might have. Please understand that the article was originally published over a year ago and while the basic principles still apply I've modified my thinking on a couple of items. As you know if you've read the article, having a good dedicated video processor in your HT system gives you better control over what and where video processing (VP) takes place. As long as you choose your other components carefully, like making sure that your display has inputs that support the native resolution of the set (such as 1080p inputs for 1080p displays), you are not at the mercy of the internal VP of such components. This allows you to upgrade your video processing when new things develop without having to purchase a new display. And the same goes for a lot of other equipment such as players, pre/pros and similar. Most of us understand that one of the advantages of separate amps is that you can purchase good ones once, and upgrade the pre/pro as new things (HDMI, HD audio codecs, etc.) come to market. The same principle applies for a dedicated video processor.

However there is now one other thing to consider. The price of VP chips (and, therefore, video processing) has dropped dramatically in the past year or so. There are a lot of fine AVRs and pre/pros on the market that now boast a lot of the same features of dedicated video processors so I would urge you to look at your choices regarding such AVRs with VP as you consider your options. While I'm fine with my DVDO VP-50 (the new VP-50pro didn't excite me enough to trade up although I would recommend the VP-50pro or similar to those just starting out as something that should be on your short list) some of the new receivers from Denon and others are very interesting. In fact I consider the VP in Denon's top of the line 5308 on a par with a dedicated VP. You pay more, but it might be less expensive than a separate AVR and VP. Denon is also introducing (as we speak) a hefty priced (and extremely capable) pre/pro with excellent VP specifications for those who already have favorite amps.

I, myself, took advantage of my "component approach" a few months ago by upgrading my Denon 3806 to a Denon 3808ci. Its VP is "OK." In A/B testing I far prefer the VP-50 but you have the option of by-passing the Denon's VP via a pass-through mode. Apparently every manufacturer now feels the obligation to include some VP in their AVRs so the inclusion is understandable. If I wanted VP on a par with the VP-50 I would have had to move up to the Denon 5308ci which is several thousand dollars more - so my component strategy paid off once again. And I don't believe that this will be the last time. And why did I move from a Denon 3806 to a 3808ci? Let me list a couple of the upgraded features. The 3808 has 4 HDMI inputs (compared to the 3806's two) and all inputs on the new model are HDMI 1.3a (this is good.) The 3808 has incorporated a new Graphical User Interface (GUI) which is far superior to the old Denon (and Lexicon and Outlaw and others) "Block White Letter Menu with Pointing Hand." Those who are familiar with the older, cruder menu know what I'm talking about. The 3808 has expanded the Audyssey option available on the 3806 to include eight point calibration and, more significantly, the ability to license Audyssey Pro which brings with it dynamic room equalization. Let's just say that you have to hear this to believe it. Anyone interested in learning more should visit the audyssey.com site. There are some other enhancements on the 3808 over the 3806 such as Ethernet connectivity for Internet Radio and seamless firmware updates so that it was literally a no-brainer for me to move up at minimal cost. I could have sold my 3806 so that the total upgrade cost would have been insignificant but chose to move the 3806 upstairs where it is providing good service (and HDMI connectivity for HD-DVD and Blu-ray) as well as 7.1 channels of amplification (it's a bedroom and I'm only using 5.1). The whole point of this is to show how easy it is to upgrade when new items come out. The VP-50 is still doing everything I need in the way of video processing so I didn't need to spend several thousand extra dollars to get an AVR or pre/pro with that functionality.

The bottom line: My thesis still holds, but I would amend it for those just starting out to consider the possibility of placing the VP in the pre/pro instead of relying on separate components if cost is a factor because VP within pre/pros and AVRs has come a long way. True, you are then locked into your AVR for VP but you will probably get more life out of your AVR or pre/pro than out of your video players, et. al. While my first choice would be total components, I can see some merit in modern AVRs w/ VP because they have become more flexible than they have been in the past.

jrowla · Post by **jrowla** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:22 pm

I love to watch football with the best picture I can find. Audio is optional, since I often use the radio commentators for my enlightenment. Which of your components would you recommend for my needs ?

rfowkes · Post by **rfowkes** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:09 pm

Based on your priorities (especially since you state that audio is not a priority because you often listen to the radio feed of games) I would say that you should concentrate on getting a nice display of your choice. If you want a flat screen you can choose from Plasma or LCD. If you can accommodate something that isn't normally hung on a wall then you might want to look at a Rear Projection Monitor (RPM). These come in various flavors, with DLP and LCOS being my personal favorites. Finally, there are Front Projectors, but I'm guessing that this isn't what you are looking for.

The most important thing is to see the sets you are considering in person. There are many brands of LCD monitors. Ditto for Plasma, with my favorites being Pioneer and Panasonic. For DLP RPMS there's Samsung and others. For LCoS the major players are SONY, which calls their version of LCoS "SXRD" and JVC which calls their version D-ILA. Both produce superb pictures.

The idea of a separate video processor usually comes into play when you have a variety of sources feeding your display. The VP gets the best picture out of all sources. With viewing mostly TV material (like Football) you probably are better off concentrating on the best display that suits your fancy. Let your eyes be the final judge.

Bob B. · Post by **Bob B.** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:57 am

I would be interested in know what grade of cable you use for your HDMI 1.3a connectors. I know you use excellent components.

rfowkes · Post by **rfowkes** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:42 am

The majority of my cables come from monoprice.com. I refuse to spend upwards of $100 for an HDMI cable when a $10 cable will do as good a job. I sat through some dubious presentations at CEDIA 2007 where a well know cable manufacturer claimed that "high speed" HDMI cables were required for good signals. My answer? Hogwash! The only "souped up" cable I run is from my components to my projector where a long length requires a repeater in the line to send digital signals more than 15 feet or so (the run is over 50 feet). I use an ACCELL Ultrarun cable and it's worked like a charm since Day 1.

Incidentally, I wrote another "position paper" a while back which tackles HDMI and one section deals with choice of cables.

Here's a link if you're interested:

http://www.rfowkes.com/html/hdmi_article.html

joe277 · Post by **joe277** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:12 am

Hi, i'm sorry to butt in but i'm sure this reader would appreciate any input. I am an A/V installer and I do my research. Whether it's reviews or equipment that I've hooked up. In my experience it is a mixed bag whether any particular cable will result in a better picture. I do not believe that the mainstream cables you'll find in big box stores will result in a better picture, but there are good quality cables out there that when paired with quality equipment should produce a richer, cleaner picture. I personally prefer the Ultralink Platinum HDMI cables right now. They are great cables. There are also these new cables by Vizionware that are powered cables (meaning one end gets plugged into an electrical socket). These cables are supposed to increase contrast and black levels. The cables are generally meant for longer runs and to be honest, i have not tried them yet. BASICALLY, it's not how much you spend on a cable, it's which cable you buy. Worse comes to worse.... just buy a cheap cable and a "good" cable and do your own test. Make sure you use the same input, the same settings, etc. It's not an exact science that way, but your eyes and perception are the best way to tell if one picture is better than the next.

joe277 · Post by **joe277** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:22 am

Go with the Pioneer(best) or Panasonic(2nd best, but best value) PLASMAS. They show motion better (although high end LCD's are trying to improve on that) and look more realistic. Blacks and contrast on Plasmas is great, too, even against the higher contrast ratios of top-end LCDs. Real contrast ratio is not a spec on the side of the box. If you want something bigger than say... a 50" TV, consider going to the rear projection line (my personal favorites are the Sony and Samsung). You'll save a few bucks that way. They also have great motion. And don't forget all the other components to a great picture (i.e. good cables, power conditioner, and low lighting)

akirby · Post by **akirby** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:21 am

joe277 wrote:but there are good quality cables out there that when paired with quality equipment should produce a richer, cleaner picture.

There are also these new cables by Vizionware that are powered cables (meaning one end gets plugged into an electrical socket). These cables are supposed to increase contrast and black levels. The cables are generally meant for longer runs and to be honest, i have not tried them yet.

You can't change the contrast or black levels in a digital video signal without a digital video signal processor. Those powered cables are for longer runs because they amplify the signal allowing it to reach the end of the longer cable without dropping out. They won't change the picture quality.

Does a more expensive ethernet cable make your web pages look better? Of course not. With HDMI you either have a reliable connection or you don't and once you have the connection it doesn't get any better.

joe277 · Post by **joe277** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:41 am

Your point is received. I do not know much about the Vizionware cables. Only what I've read and been told. I actually just purchased one from my distributor (who said I could return it for full refund if I didn't like the results) and plan on trying it out to see what, if any, difference it will make. I do know, though, that different quality cables may transmit a signal differently. A poorly constructed cable may degrade the signal quality so that at the other end of the cable you are not receiving the same signal that was originally put in. This is less prevalent in shorter length cables, but should always be a consideration.

Your example of the Ethernet cable is misused. The Ethernet cables transmit a signal to the computer as a coax cable would transfer your cable signal to your cable box. What is being referred to is the end all. From the immediate source to the video display. Which in the case of a computer IS the computer and the cables and processors inside. THOUGH, a better quality Ethernet and COAX cable should better transmit the original signal better and more reliably. Unfortunately, the more obstacles a signal needs to overcome the more possibilities that parts of the signal are lost or degraded. This is why always using the best possible quality cabling (from start to finish) should always reproduce the best possible picture.

I do agree with you about the cables shouldn't be able to improve the contrast and black levels, but the Vizionware cables supposedly boost the signal and the stated contrast ratio on TV's is NOT the actual contrast ratio at any given time. Check out www.hdtvexpert.com. He reviews TV's at the technical level which shows the true possible contrast ratios. Whether or not the Vizionware cables would improve these numbers is something for someone with the proper equipment to test.

HDTV Forum