What exactly is the function of a dedicated separate AV processor?

keysersoze123 · 15-11-2009, 12:17 PM

Hi guys,

Am thinking about getting surround sound for my Pioneer LX5090 Kuro, and am just starting to learn a little bit about the world of AVRs etc, mainly due to the kind and helpful people in this forum.

So far, as I understand it, an AVR will be your all in one solution for processing (not quite sure exactly what that entails) and amplification, and includes a radio tuner to boot.

An AV amplifier seems to be exactly the same as an AVR, minus the radio tuner (which I can probably live without).

However, I've now learnt that you can go the "separates" route, where you get a separate AV processor and a separate AV power amp.

So my question is, what exactly is the function of an AV processor?

Does the AV power amplifier deal with audio side of things?

And is the AV Processor dedicated to video processing?

Or is the AV processor also dedicated to audio, like a pre-amp in HiFi?

Either way, can I expect an AV Processor to increase picture quality across the board?

Will it improve the picture from my native 1080p Blu-Ray player?

Will it improve the picture quality from TV broadcasts (both SD and HD)?

Will it improve the picture from a DVD player? i.e. will a dedicated AV Processor upsample DVDs to 1080p, to a higher quality than the upsampling in a DVD player? Some people say upsampling is best left to the TV, others say it's best done by the DVD player, and consensus seems to be an AVR is not so good for upsampling... But what about a dedicated AV Processor?

If an AV Processor is all about picture quality, not sound quality, I would hope it does have a significant improvement in picture quality, considering some of these things cos £1k, some even a lot more!

It's kinda hard to believe picture quality could be so much better, because the Blu-Ray picture on my Pioneer - purchased from Tony Lazzerini and his brilliant shop TLC Broadcast (he's a member here on the forums) - even with Blu-Ray from a PS3, the picture is just sensational.

But if an AV processor (or even an integrated AV amplifier) can significantly improve SD television, I'd be very interested. Let's face it, most TV is still SD, so if an AV Processor can improve the quality of SD broadcasts, I would be very, very interested.

You hear about some 1080p TVs being much better for SD than others, but if an AV processor can make that redundant, and do all the improvement in SD picture quality by itself, I'd be very interested...

Thanks again for any input guys,

Keyser

indus · 15-11-2009, 3:39 PM

I can give you a very basic explanation, and then others can expand.

An av processor (pro) will process both sound and picture.

In terms of sound the modern ones will decode surround sound formats inc HD ones ie HD master audio, true HD etc. It may also have room compensation methods such audyssey.

It will also process video (picture) and that includes upsampling chips. Whether it does it better than your TV or dvd player, depends on the quality of your tv/dvd vs the quality of your TV. I'll let other more knowledgable people expand on that, but given a good quality TV/DVD I'd doubt you'll see an improvement.

As you mentioned a pro has no built in poweramps. The theory is by seperating the pro and power, you get better sound quality. In VERY simple terms its due to less 'interference' of each of those functions imposed on the other. Also physically its difficult to fit big high power amps into the same 'box' as the pro

As I said, that's a simple explanation based on my limited knowledge.

MarkE19 · 15-11-2009, 5:30 PM

In the early days of DVD players the best quality video signal most TV's could accept was RGB via scart. The AV receivers (and processors) at the time could normally only work with YUV Component video, S-Video & Composite Video. Some DVD players could output YUV, but not all, but could also output all the others that the receiver could acccept. For each video signal fed into the receiver you had to have the same output to TV as it was only a video switching unit rather than doing any processing.
After a while we started to see AV receivers that could upconvert from lower quality video signals to the better ones. This did not improve the picture quality but did make all the connections simpler along with easy video switching from one source to another. So you could feed the receiver composite, S-Video & YUV signals and only need a YUV connection to the plasma/PJ (or even HDMI/DVI once it became available). With the exception of Arcam receivers none of them could/can accept a feed from RGB scart equipment.
It is really only in the very recent past that the video sections of an AV receiver have started to be able to do any real processing and therefore hopefully improve the quality of the video along with scaling and deinterlacing etc. but this only tends to be on the more expensive units, not all of them.

All the above is stated about AV receivers, but is also relevant for AV Processors. However the video side of these units is more of an added bonus rather than being the main use of them. They are more designed around the audio side of things and this is where most of the time & money is spent developing them.
If you look at the signiture at the bottom of my post you will see that I have a Lexicon MC-8B processor. this does have basic video switching but I only use it for the audio. All my video is via another dedicated video processor, the Lumagen HDP which has no audio connections on it at all. By keeping everything separate you can use a dedicated unit for the required purpose and therefore hopefully get the best possible results from each.

My above comments, although long winded (sorry for that) barely scratch the surface of the AV hobby and what all the different equipment does. I'm sure others will add their own comments and fill in some more gaps, but the best way to learn is to jump in and start enjoying the equipment you have. When funds allow you can start looking to upgrade and take the next step up in quality. Keep looking around the forum and you will continue to learn things that will let you get more out of the equipment you have, or point you in the best direction for your next upgrade.

Mark.

keysersoze123 · 15-11-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkE19

In the early days of DVD players the best quality video signal most TV's could accept was RGB via scart. The AV receivers (and processors) at the time could normally only work with YUV Component video, S-Video & Composite Video. Some DVD players could output YUV, but not all, but could also output all the others that the receiver could acccept. For each video signal fed into the receiver you had to have the same output to TV as it was only a video switching unit rather than doing any processing.
After a while we started to see AV receivers that could upconvert from lower quality video signals to the better ones. This did not improve the picture quality but did make all the connections simpler along with easy video switching from one source to another. So you could feed the receiver composite, S-Video & YUV signals and only need a YUV connection to the plasma/PJ (or even HDMI/DVI once it became available). With the exception of Arcam receivers none of them could/can accept a feed from RGB scart equipment.
It is really only in the very recent past that the video sections of an AV receiver have started to be able to do any real processing and therefore hopefully improve the quality of the video along with scaling and deinterlacing etc. but this only tends to be on the more expensive units, not all of them.

All the above is stated about AV receivers, but is also relevant for AV Processors. However the video side of these units is more of an added bonus rather than being the main use of them. They are more designed around the audio side of things and this is where most of the time & money is spent developing them.
If you look at the signiture at the bottom of my post you will see that I have a Lexicon MC-8B processor. this does have basic video switching but I only use it for the audio. All my video is via another dedicated video processor, the Lumagen HDP which has no audio connections on it at all. By keeping everything separate you can use a dedicated unit for the required purpose and therefore hopefully get the best possible results from each.

My above comments, although long winded (sorry for that) barely scratch the surface of the AV hobby and what all the different equipment does. I'm sure others will add their own comments and fill in some more gaps, but the best way to learn is to jump in and start enjoying the equipment you have. When funds allow you can start looking to upgrade and take the next step up in quality. Keep looking around the forum and you will continue to learn things that will let you get more out of the equipment you have, or point you in the best direction for your next upgrade.

Mark.

Hey Mark, no problem for being long winded - look at my original post! Thanks for your comments, and you too indus.

If a processor/amp separates solution is mainly about audio quality, I may find that an all-in-one AVR solution is good enough for me (also dedicated mainly to audio, right..?) I guess it's basically, by analogy, the same as an integrated amp vs separate pre/power amps in HiFi, but multichannel instead..

However, I am excited at the prospect of dedicated video processors, if it can drastically improve picture quality. Does your Lumagen HDP improve picture quality significantly?

Does it do so with even HD sources like Blu-Ray?

How about SD? Does it give big improvements to DVD picture quality, and regular SD TV broadcasts? This would be a massive plus, as having a big shiny 1080p TV is all very well, but it's a shame when a lot of the stuff you feed it is crappy SD television signals..

I doubt a video processor can work miracles, but does it make it a decent difference on pic quality, HD or SD?

EDIT: Video processors don't seem to be talked about very often (maybe they are? I just haven't noticed). Why is this? I would have thought people who were into home cinema would be just as interested in the video quality as sound quality... Is it a small market, with little competition (and perhaps by extension high prices) and therefore little ongoing innovation?

Final question, does a dedicated video processor need to be part of a separates Processor/Amp solution, or can a video processor be used with a regular (all in one) AVR?

Thanks for any pointers,

Keyser

KelvinS1965 · 15-11-2009, 10:35 PM

Just a quick reply to say that there is a sub forum for video scalers....it's just below the screens one.

Video Scalers, Video Processing & Progressive Scan - AVForums.com

I use a Lumagen HDQ (similar to the HDP but with more inputs and a different shaped case). It was a very steep learning curve when I got it, but it improves SD a worthwhile amount. I often use it to watch TV from my Sony HDD recorder (output in 576i and upscaled/deinterlaced in the HDQ to 1080/50p) It is better than the built in Freeview tuner (Sony TV as well). The HDQ/P allows all sorts of tweaks that are useful for calibration that some TVs don't have controls for and us it with my PJ too. While it won't improve your HD directly in the same way it does for SD, it may help to improve overall calibration so it's worthwhile in my setup, maybe less so with yours.

MarkE19 · 16-11-2009, 2:28 AM

Quote: