OTHER TECH

Q. I've been using separates in my surround system for some time and have a collection of high-end amplifiers. But the surround processing modes, HDMI connectivity, and video upconversion on my preamp/processor are now out of date. New receivers seem to have the latest technology at a much more reasonable price than most of the pre/pros with similar attributes. Would using the preamp outputs on a receiver, thereby bypassing its amplifier section, be a reasonable solution to the seemingly high cost of a new pre/pro? Doug Glennie Stratford, Ontario, Canada

A. Before you judge preamp/processor manufacturers too harshly, consider this: While receivers are usually made by huge corporations with the product-planning-and-engineering resources to replace their entire lineup every year, pre/pros are generally made by smaller outfits catering to the high-end crowd. This year's crop of new receivers might offer HDMI 1.3 switching and Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio decoding, but it's safe to say that most don't provide things like balanced connections, analog pass-through inputs to bypass the preamp's DSP engine, or a built-in phono stage to connect a turntable - stuff you'll find on many high-end pre/pros.

Also, with a number of Blu-ray Disc players now offering built-in TrueHD (and in some cases DTS-HD) decoding - both of which can be passed to the preamp either as a PCM signal over an HDMI 1.1 or 1.2 connection, or via the player's multichannel analog output - HDMI 1.3 connections on a pre/pro aren't a crucial feature. As one pre/pro designer told me, "If the player itself can handle the decoding, why should consumers fork over two sets of licensing fees to Dolby and DTS?" And it's not that the pre/pro makers don't want to incorporate all the snazzy features that new receivers have, but it takes them longer to develop a new product. Give 'em another year or so, and they'll be up to speed with HDMI 1.3 and everything else.

But if you can't wait for models with HDMI 1.3 to materialize, buying a receiver with multichannel preamp outputs is a legitimate - and budget-friendly - plan of action. And when you eventually do get a pre/pro with all the latest and greatest capabilities, you can then use the receiver in a bedroom or other small system. Plus, there's always eBay!

The Digital Divide

Q. In "Lost About Lossless" ("Q&A," April ), you didn't say anything about coaxial or optical digital connections passing Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio. Can they? Michael Wozniak Corona, CA

A. To experience the lossless Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio sound-tracks on Blu-ray Discs, you need to connect your player to a receiver or preamp/processor via HDMI; neither format can be conveyed over a standard coaxial or optical digital connection. But that doesn't mean you won't hear any sound from Blu-ray if your gear lacks HDMI. Blu-ray maintains backward compatibility with older receivers and pre/pros by including a separate 5.1-channel Dolby Digital version on discs with TrueHD soundtracks. And the DTS-HD soundtracks on Blu-ray titles also contain a regular 5.1-channel DTS version. In both cases, these "lossy" versions can either be output as a digital bitstream over the player's standard coaxial or optical digital jacks, or decoded internally for delivery over analog audio connections. So any way you make the hookup, Blu-ray's got you covered.

Shed Some Light

Q. Are there any front projectors that use an LED instead of a UHP or Xenon lamp? David Shanklin Via E-Mail

A.LED lamps can be found in several rear-projection TVs, including DLP models from Samsung and NuVision, but they've yet to show up in home theater front projectors. A key reason is brightness: The brightness specification for the prototype LED front projectors that have been demonstrated max out at around 700 ANSI lumens, well below that of your average home theater model. That's not to say there aren't any front projectors that take advantage of LED technology as opposed to traditional UHP lamps. LG, Samsung, and others sell ultraportable "micro" projectors, not much larger than your hand, that are designed for business presentations.

Is Free HDTV Better?

Q. Is it true that cable and satellite use so much compression for their HDTV channels that the same local broadcast channels look better when received directly by antenna? Dr. R. C. Cincinnati, OH

A. I can't confirm that it's true for all broadcast HDTV compared to network channels transmitted over cable and satellite, but it does jibe with my own experiences as a cable/satellite subscriber and an antenna user. Broadcasters use MPEG-2 compression to distribute HDTV programs, which generally results in excellent picture quality. But when those signals are received and then retransmitted by a cable or satellite operator, more digital compression is applied, heightening the chance that the picture quality will be compromised. And not only does over-the-air HDTV tend to look better than the same programs on cable and satellite, it's free!

See Last Month's Q&A Back to Homepage What's New on S&V