2. home-theater
  3. 1299793676

Background video - listen/watch different sources

I'm about to invest in new home theater components and something that would be very important to me is to be able to watch one video source on my television while listening to music from another source from the same receiver and set of speakers. Here's the specific example I'd like to accomplish: mute the football game and listen to a record. Now obviously I only want to purchase one set of speakers that can be used when watching movies or TV or when listening to my turntable or other audio source. This means I don't want to set up a "zone 2" of speakers there in the same room because that would necessitate (as I understand it) a complete second set of speakers. Someone suggested I plug the HDMI from the satellite straight into the back of the television which then means I can't use these speakers to listen any audio from the television programs I may watch (unless I manually switch the cable back and forth, which I don't see as viable).

I have been told (from Yamaha support) that this would be called "Background Video" and that it as a functionality has disappeared from receivers with the prevalence of using HDMI connections to/from receivers.

Obviously I've googled and read reviews and so on, but I cannot find a receiver that can make this happen in my home theater. Do any of you dear forum readers know of such a receiver or likely brand? Or perhaps is there another way to accomplish this other than manually switching cables around or using zone 2 functionality and needing another set of speakers? I would GREATLY appreciate any guidance, thank you.
gtjdorris
gtjdorris OP
2 posts
 
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.
dtc's avatar
dtc
1,024 posts
 
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.
noble100's avatar
noble100
1,093 posts
 
Well, I'm glad we were able to help Gtjdorris with his hookup problem.
DTC-My concern is where does it all end? Will the HDMI have enough bandwidth to handle 9.1 surround or 43.1 surround. And how about the new 'Smell o Vision' and its required extra channels. The manufacturers will probably come out with a new cable called the 'HugoHDMI'. The cable will be the diameter of a tree trunk and the connectors 2 feet long. I currently use Dolby 5.1 and probably wouldn't go beyond 7.1 but I'm certain I don't want to smell my movies and tv. New does not always mean better.
dtc's avatar
dtc
1,024 posts
 
Noble100 - I like the advances that have been made. 1080_/24 frame Blu Ray looks a lot better than 480i DVD. Dolby TrueHD is better than Dolby Digial. One HDMI cable is easier to use than 3 component video cables and a Digial audio cable. And remember the problem with component video - if you don't have the resolution set correctly, no picture. HDMI only passes signals that the TV can correctly read.

Are there growing pains with HDMI - of course. But there are with any technology.

I think a one cable solution is easier for most people than separate audio and video cables. The typical 6 foot HDMI cable is no thicker than the old F connector 75 ohm TV cable and the connector is a similar size, although in a different configuartion.

My hope is that HDMI will make it possible for most people to hook up their own systems without much problem, like back in the day of F connector TV cables. One HDMI from the cable/satellite box to the receiver. Once HDMMI from the Blu Ray/CD player to the receiver. One HDMI from the receiver to the TV. Done.

I like being on the leading edge of the technology. If you want to wait, that is fine.

That said, my preferred music source is still records, whoops vinyl. But for casual listening, a PC hooked through USB to my DAC is fine.
noble100's avatar
noble100
1,093 posts
 
Dtc,

I agree that having one cable (HDMI) simplifies hookups for the majority of users. My issue is really with the manufacturers' apparent strategy of ]planned obsolecence'.

Some of the improvements stand on their own merits and justifiedly spur increased sales. Examples are the improvement from black & white to color tvs and from regular definition to high definition tvs.

Other improvements are more dubious such as, in my opinion, the switch to HDMI connections. Few people are going to buy new tvs or other components just to get HDMI connections. Unless the manufacturers design their products,such as bluray players that only deliver the highest resolution through HDMI and if they can only receive the latest surround sound signal through HDMI connections to their htreceivers and surround processsors. Then those silly consumers could justify the purchase of their new products. Call me skeptical, but these companies cannot survive if the average consumer buys a new tv or receiver every 15 years, they need to create demand any way they can.
Their latest idea, or gimick, is 3D tv but I'll bet there's a new one coming soon. But I generally like new technology,like you do, so I may buy one of their products if I see the merit of it. Just my 2 cents.
More to discover