I could run the DVD player via HDMI directly into the TV, and then connect the DVD and amp via coaxial or optical. Apart from being limited to the number of HDMI connections on the TV (2), are there any other negatives for this connection method?

This post has been edited by piscesguy: Apr 7 2007, 09:28 AM

other than the inconvenience of having to select sources on two remotes, not really - if you are running a standard definition DVD player.

I thought HDMI consist of video and audio signal within a same cable? If you output your DVD player audio signal to your amp and not your TV, what's the point of using HDMI?

Yup you are right....
Video and audio signal should within a same cable .....






This post has been edited by kvn1080: Jan 1 2007, 11:40 AM

If you use HDMI from player to amp, you will be able to get both video and audio. Or, if you run HDMI direct to your plasma/LCD with built in speakers, yuo will get both audio and video.

Sorry to tumpang thread, but how about those HDMI switchers? You know.... 3-4 HDMI source and able to switch and output via 1 HDMI??

Of course HDMI carries both audio and video...

from the topic title, I'm guessing piscesguy's current amp doesn't have HDMI, and he doesn't want to upgrade his amp yet. But he has a HDMI capable player AND display

The point of using HDMI is getting the video signal to the TV in digital form.

The only way to get DD/DTS to the receiver in this case is a coax/optical connection. If you just connect the HDMI to the TV, you will get stereo sound from your TV only, or stereo into your receiver (if you connect the TV audio output, you can use PLII, but it wont be the same as DD/DTS)

This post has been edited by SiriuslyCold: Jan 1 2007, 01:26 PM

Yes SiriuslyCold, I kinda agree what u said. I think HDMI is for digital display from source to tv and for digital audio can still stick to coax or optical.

This post has been edited by piscesguy: Jan 1 2007, 03:29 PM

You can but you'll never get to hear the lossless audio formats in its full glory if you're talking about Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players. Of course, the first batch of HDMI amps ain't cheap but eventually, all amps in the market will have HDMI, probably 2-3 years down the road.

I prefer using a HDMI amp to act as a HDMI video selector because my LCD has two HDMIs only, in my humble opinion is ain't enough as most equipment these days have HDMI outputs.

that'll be relevant when piscesguy upgrades his receiver AND gets a HD or BD player.

Yes u r right, probably HDMI amp price will go down in 2-3 years time but talking about Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players I think its gonna wait at least 5 years to get an affordable player in Malaysia. Even then maybe the disc itself will be expensive too.

By the way, which format is more superior? Blu-Ray or HD-DVD ? Honestly, I think in the future only 1 of these format will replace DVD. Any comment?

Nah, dual format players will be coming in 2008, I believe both formats will survive, just like SACD and DVD-Audio. The softwares are not that expensive, just order them from the US, they're around RM120 to RM150 each the most including DHL shipping, that's the same price we are paying for Region 1 dvds at any Speedy Videos. To me, they ain't that expensive if compared to PS3 or XBOX 360 original games. Of course, the price will go down too if you can wait but we're not in a hurry anyway, why get a killer amp when software is limited, only a fraction of the movies are on the new formats and I can't even watch Jurassic Park on HD-DVD format either.

HD DVDs and BluRay are too infant to venture into it. Even in the USA is hard. On HDMIs, its better to test it out first before you buy it. For me, I never regret my HDMI (thanks sunuato) and my 720p (can upscale to 1080i) projector.

But going into BD and HDDVD, not for me yet at the moment.

I beg to differ. I still think only 1 format will survive and that is HD-DVD. I m saying this because of the CHEAPER PRICE for both players and discs. Moreover is is supported by Microsoft. Dual format players? Not sure it can play both format perfectly. I believe only a dedicated player produce the best result.
I heard that we can buy an external drive to read HD-DVDs as long as we have a USB port in the PC and more likely HD-DVD will become a "standard drive" for PC in the future.

Actually, you can't come to such a conclusion just because HD-DVD is backed by Microsoft. Don't forget Sony owns 60% of Hollywood and about 80% of the movies are on Blu-Ray. Yeah, no doubt movies like Fast And Furious, Van Helsing, etc are on HD-DVD only but at the end of the day, I prefer to get a dual format player, I don't really care much about the pricing, it's just a few dollars of difference between these two formats and even if you convert it to RM, that's just the price of a Starbucks ice blended drink, still okay lah in my opinion.

For me, I want a dual format player so but meanwhile I'll just use my XBOX HD-DVD drive to watch my HD-DVD movies first and I'll probably get a PS3 this year and it can play Blu-Ray movies too but of course, I'm still on the lookout for a proper Blu-Ray / HD-DVD hybrid players but I think LG and Samsung will be the first to launch a dual format player, followed by other brands if successful.

Actually LG and Samsung have decided to cancel plan to produce combo devices (Blu-Ray/HD DVD). I think the costs of producing such player involve very high cost because of "some" part of the licensing agreement, if the player is very expensive I don't think the majority of consumer will be interested.I think next year might not be possible to get an affordable combo player after all.

However, the latest reports said otherwise because NEC has already developed a chip to support both formats, it will eventually be a reality one day, I rather pay more for a dual format player than getting them seperately as long as the dual format player is of good quality, my LCD has two HDMI inputs, I can't afford to have tons of players with HDMI output, it will be messy, the less the better, I need to reserve one for my future PS3.

I have a strong feeling that a dual format player is the only solution to ensure the survival of these two formats since both camps failed to agree on a single format for the sake of consumers. Blu-Ray has the most support from Hollywood studios, it has more storage space but somehow, pictures look better on HD-DVDs even though it has less storage space. Blu-Ray will win in the sound department so both formats have their own pros and cons and I know that Blu-Ray can use the same codecs as HD-DVD but even both formats encoded with the same codecs like VC-1, HD-DVD still looked slightly better in terms of constrast and sharpness. Weird but true.

remember what happened with VHS and Beta - well i guess most of you were too young...

the war was decided by default when the pron industry went with VHS

OK its different because the media is physically the same size and it'll be less difficult to have a combo - or universal player - which makes it moot who wins the war eventually.

someone's got a combo HTPC http://www.vidabox.com/


This post has been edited by SiriuslyCold: Jan 4 2007, 11:55 AM

For VHS and Betamax, they couldn't come out with the dual format player which is not possible at that time but this time around, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be different because a dual format player is possible, not a rumour but technically possible. It will benefit consumers if a dual format player is out because we can't afford to let one of the formats die off just like that and dual format players will ensure next gen dvds will survive as the major hollywood movies are divided between the two formats and that is not inclusive of Japanese, Korean, HK movies even our local movies, like Sepet, Cicakman, etc ....... they haven't decided which format they wanna support either. I'm supporting dual format players for the best interest of everyone. It will be like SACD and DVD-Audio, both formats surviving alongside each other. That's better than having both formats disappear shortly in the market.

more like lying alongside each other in critical condition actually.