Just what is a SageTV extender? What is a thin client or a thin server?

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

No, I'm not talking about stuff being in a closet. I'm talking about how a normal person does stuff and has a receiver (or not), DVD player, cable box, game systems all by the TV. All those cables make a mess of things. Having a single cable for both audio and video simplifies things tremendously.

It really doesn't matter with a closet because then it's all hidden away.

In that case I would agree. I was thinking more of the case of most SageTV users who have a server and are only using HD200's local to the HDTV's with no other local source devices.

Oh, and 'normal' people don't use SagetV Normal people don't centralize, so cable beauty is more of an issue for them.

[Taddeusz]

It will be nice to get a surround-sound receiver with HDMI. It will simplify cabling quite a bit. I don't even have my surround sound receiver currently hooked up. No room for it until after I get married and we find a house.

It would be nice if I were independently wealthy and I could have everything centralized in a closet and have only the TV and speakers visible in the room. Not sure how that would work with game systems though.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

It would be nice if I were independently wealthy and I could have everything centralized in a closet and have only the TV and speakers visible in the room. Not sure how that would work with game systems though.

It doesn't cost much more than SageTV to do that. That's the setup I was planning on doing before SageTV.

[SomeWhatLost]

well, I may not be Normal, but I never understood why anyone in their right mind would want their audio on the same cable as their video... video should go straight to a display device, audio should go straight to an audio processor, and then to the amps... whats an audio pre/pro going to do with video anyway? or whats a display going to do with audio?

I currently am using component (1080P) and it looks just fine, I have a HDMI cable and tried that, it looked just fine too... component is much cheaper to run between my switch and TV & projector, component matrix switches are cheaper than HDMI matrix switches, therefore as I am not independently wealthy component is better...

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

well, I may not be Normal, but I never understood why anyone in their right mind would want their audio on the same cable as their video... video should go straight to a display device, audio should go straight to an audio processor, and then to the amps... whats an audio pre/pro going to do with video anyway? or whats a display going to do with audio?

You just brought up another reason I forgot to not use an HDMI cable. If I used HDMI I might not be able to run the audio through the Sonos amplified Zoneplayer to the ceiling speakers, unless the HDMI video does not disable the analog L/R audio ports. Does anyone know if it does on the HD200?

[wayner]

The other reason to use component is that until a couple of years ago receviers that switched HDMI were rather expensive, and/or they only had a couple of HDMI inputs (many TVs also only had 2 HDMI inputs). If you had several source then you may be forced to use component, particularly if you want to use your receiver for switching. Some of these issues can be mitigated by using a remote like a Harmony but if you have lots of sources you still may be limited.

And the handshaking issue with HDMI can be a PITA! My cable box (SA8300HD) can take several seconds to synch up to my TV (Sony KDS60A2020) via my receiver (Yamaha HTR6060).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

So are you saying that you don't have the choice to use HDMI because of incompatability issues between equipment built to different HDMI standards (ie 1.2 sometimes and 1.3 other times)? As I am only installing my first extender this weekend, I am wondering what issues you have had specifically with SageTV and HDMI.

Sort of, depends. HDMI 1.y features won't work on HDMI 1.x where x < y. So these new HDMI 1.3 features (HBR bitstreaming, Deep Color, xvYCC) won't work with HDMI 1.1 or 1.2.

The issue is more though what the rest of the industry is done. Blu-ray and HD DVD were designed to have audio decoded in the player, to be mixed with secondary audio streams and output as PCM over HDMI (1.1+).

However at some point it was decided that HDMI needed to be enhanced, that they were adding the above features, thus making source device mfgs less likely to include things like TrueHD and DTS-HD decoding.

So now there's the whole "is it HDMI 1.3", "where's the decoding get done", and then there the rest of the issue of people looking for HDMI 1.3 devices because they think things like Deep Color and xvYCC will be beneficial, when nothing supports them.

So, we've got HBR bitstreaming which is completely unnecessary (PCM works just fine), and Deep Color and xvYCC which have gone completely unused.

In a nutshell, HDMI 1.3 bring no functional improvments of HDMI 1.2 only marketting benefits.

Originally Posted by Clift

I have 2 major gripes with HDMI:

1) Content protection. There are a lot of smart people out there who can come up wth increasingly imaginative ways to keep the consumer from doing something that he/she should be able to do all in the name of stopping piracy. And this hurts the consumer while piracy still happens.

I understand the aversion to DRM, but it's important to realize the difference between supporting it and requiring it. Content protection on HDMI is not a negative of HDMI, it's a negative of certain devices that use it (Blu-ray players, STBs etc). But for other devices, like the HD extenders, there's no content protection at all, so it can't be a negative toward using HDMI with such a device.

2) Handshaking. HDMI has to have an HDCP "handshake" and, unfortunately, some implementations of it in hardware are different than others.

But only if used, the HD extenders don't use HDCP.

This may lead/has led to issues depending on the situation. I had an issue just recently where the HD200 would not output HDMI if the TV was off while the HD200 was powered on. A subsequent Beta fixed this, but you get the point.

Yeah, but that's mainly due to features that are to make things easier. HDMI display devices report their supported and desired resolutions. Unfortunately it seems some source devices won't output video if they've lost contact.

But that's one of the pluses of SageTV, quick to solve issues

I just hope HDMI does not become tomorrow's 5C protection.

When every display and every source device supports HDMI, I doubt that will happen.

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

well, I may not be Normal, but I never understood why anyone in their right mind would want their audio on the same cable as their video...

To allow one device (eg an AVR/SSP) to do all the switching/routting. Simply connections and management.

video should go straight to a display device, audio should go straight to an audio processor, and then to the amps... whats an audio pre/pro going to do with video anyway?

Not necessarilly, HDMI video can be passed through many devices without any loss (unlike analog such as component) so there's no issue routing video through an AVR/SSP.

Additionally, many AVRs and SSPs have video processing greatly superior to that in displays or devices like the HD extenders, so running the video at native resolution into an AVR/SSP with a good video processor can result in better quality than letting the display or extender to deinterlacing/scaling.

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Not necessarilly, HDMI video can be passed through many devices without any loss (unlike analog such as component) so there's no issue routing video through an AVR/SSP.

I am not sure how routing a signal to a device that has no use for it really makes anything simpler

Originally Posted by stanger89

Additionally, many AVRs and SSPs have video processing greatly superior to that in displays or devices like the HD extenders, so running the video at native resolution into an AVR/SSP with a good video processor can result in better quality than letting the display or extender to deinterlacing/scaling.

your theory is sound up to the point you want to use any Vid processing built into an audio pre/pro or even an AVR... vid processing is always advancing, always getting better, what was great last year is only ok this year and will be crap next year... so you are better off getting a separate vid processor and upgrading it as needed and leaving your audio alone and separate...

of course this is just all a matter of perspective, so just do whatever floats your boat... as long as you are happy, this is just a hobby after all, not a religion... (the proceeding statement is not direct at any one or any group in particular, it just sounded good at the time)

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

I am not sure how routing a signal to a device that has no use for it really makes anything simpler

It's simpler to route everything, audio and video, from all your source devices into an AVR/SSP, and have it do the switching with just one connection to the display that to route your audio only to the AVR/SSP and video to a separate switch or display and have to switch inputs on two devices.

It also allows things like applying audio delay to keep audio in sync with video.

your theory is sound up to the point you want to use any Vid processing built into an audio pre/pro or even an AVR... vid processing is always advancing, always getting better, what was great last year is only ok this year and will be crap next year... so you are better off getting a separate vid processor and upgrading it as needed and leaving your audio alone and separate...

Well the same logic applies to a video processors. You can place an external VP either before or after an AVR. You can run all your sources into the VP, allow it to do the source switching and to feed the AVR/SSP and display either separately or via passthrough.

Or you could run everything to the AVR/SSP and allow it to the switching and just feed it's output through the VP.

All in all, HDMI has the potential to greatly simplify connecting an HT system. One cable from each source device to a central "hub" be it a VP, AVR, SSP, or even just a TV for simpler systems, and then one connection from the hub to the display. That's much simpler than the spagetti pile of cross connections too and from all the different components.