Background video - listen/watch different sources

Dtc,

After understanding the issues in more detail, I have to agree with Chadnliz that HDMI is a step backwards. By combining the video and audio signals in one cable they have, in practical hook up terms, probably caused as many problems as they've solved. In trying to solve Dtjdorris's problem, I suggested using the HDMI cable for the video signal only and Dtc suggested using it for the audio signal only. And Dbphd suggested using the DVDO Edge device which separates out the video and audio signals. And it sounds like Yamaha's previous ht receivers were capable of splitting the video and audio signals internally but,probably to save costs, their current ht receivers can no longer do this. HDMI is only a good idea if everyone has the same simple requrements (connecting a satellite/cable box or Bluray player to a tv) and uses compatible equipment. This 'compatible equipment' may be the driving force behind HDMI since the manufacturers were envisioning, and drooling over, the propect of consumers replacing their now suddenly almost obsolete components with their new 'HDMI compatible' products that so simplify hook ups. HA.

So, Dtjdorris, are you clear on the solutions suggested? Thanks.

I do this all the time in my audio room. As stated above, you need to route all video signals directly to the TV. I use the TV as a video switching device and do not mix the audio & video signal. All direct tv receivers have digital outputs that you could route to the receiver, dac or SSprocessor. I generally will listen to music and watch football, basketball or Tennis at the same time.

I really do not recommend mixing the audio & video signal in the same device as I think the video degrades the audio signal.

Let me elaborate on my suggest. I would suggest using HDMI as the normal hookup - cable box to receiver to TV. Also use HDMI from Blu Ray/CD to receiver to the TV. That allows you to take full advantage of the 1080p/24 signal from a Blu Ray. That would be your normal setup. For the special case of watching football and listening to another source, also run component video cables to TV. For the football game, simply flip the TV input to component rather than HDMI. The audio source is then played as normal through the receiver. With this setup, the normal receiver settings are used the majority of the time, which should simplfy the setup for the rest of the family. This setup also minimizes the number of cables. The football lover then just has to learn the special trick of changing the TV input for games with alternate sound.

Mds - I am not too concerned about mixing the audio and video signals on hdmi for cable or blu ray. Cable audio is not that good anyway and the only way to get 1080p/24 and the high def audio signals from blu ray is through HDMI.

Noble100 - one reason for developing HDMI was to provide the bandwith for the new 7.1 high def audio formats. Existing digial formats just could not handle it. In general I like the one cable solution. It usually simplifies the hookup and means you have to buy fewer cables. My biggest complaint is that they did not provide any easy way to secure the cable to the box. It seems that most of the early compatibility issues have been worked out. New blu ray players do not even have component video out.

One final note - for short runs, there is no reason to pay high prices for HDMI cables. You can get 6' category 2 certified cables for less than $10.

I think it is plainly obvious to me now that I can achieve this, but (most likely) not in the "conventional" setup of everything going through the receiver, but putting video signals into the TV and then audio signals into the receiver. In particular Noble100's post was the most clear to me, and for that I extend extra thanks, but thank you all for the helpful discussion.

As an added thought, I think it may be helpful once I get things set up to find a nice universal remote so I can program some macros to make sure switching between sources would be easier for guests since this may be a bit more complex than the average boob-tube watcher expects, but not terribly because most of the time it'll be set up to watch and listen to TV as the default.

I too prefer having a one-cable solution, but it seems there are certainly trade-offs that I'm starting to rub up against.

You can definitely do what you want to do. Just a couple more details. Sorry, if this is too much detail.

For a TV or DVD separating the audio and video signals is fine.

If you have a 3D broadcast going to a 3D TV, you will need an HDMI cable between the satellite box and the TV. Component does not pass 3D signals. Then, assuming your satellite box only has one HDMI out, you would use a coax/optical cable to the receiver for audio. You should check with your satellite provider to be sure you can run video over HDMI and audio over coax/optical at the same time. My cable box does. If you do not need 3D, component video is OK for video signal.

If you have a Blu Ray player, you need HDMI to pass the high rez audio signals (Dolby True HD and DTS Master Audio) and you need HDMI to pass the Blu Ray video signal (1080P at 24 frames per second or 3D). So, if you want to run the audio directly to the receiver and the video directly to the TV, you will need 2 HDMI outs, which is not common for Blu Ray players. So, I think it would be best to use an HDMI solution, through the receiver, for the Blu Ray. Some Blu Ray players, like the Oppo BDP 93, do have 2 HDMI outputs.

A programmable remote is definitely the way to go That will make the split signal system use much easier. I use a Home Theater Master, but lots of people like Harmony. As you said, just be sure it is easy to do your own macros.