1 post / 0 new
admin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 12 hours ago
Joined: 04/09/2013 - 14:19
Posts: 51595
Upscaling: Amp or HDTV?

Hi,

I don't know if anyone has any practical experience with helping me answer the following questions, but any views or opinions on the matter would be greatly appreciated, as it will influence the price ranges for my impending home cinema purchases.

I am currently in a dilemna as to how I should be dealing with my SD sources, with respect to connecting them up to a 720/1080 line HDTV. I am under the impression that the image processing chips built into all HDTVs (even on expensive sets) will be far inferior to the de-interlacing/scaling chips found in mid-to-high-end upscaling dvd players and amps. Ideally, my money would go on a high-end amp, with the dvd player (solid player, but no real need for fancy de-interlacing/upscaling), freeview tuner, games console, PVR etc getting cabled directly to the amp, which would upconvert, de-interlace and upscale all SD sources to HD (using the more expensive, and far superior components/scalers etc in the amp), then feed the output to the HDTV via a single HDMI cable.

However, it seems as though most dvd-players now have this progressive scan, upscaling functionality from high-quality scalars anyway, and therefore make the amp's scalar redundant for dvd-playback. I would be paying twice for superior image processing capabilities, where only one would be utilised when playing dvds. Therefore, should I be buying and connecting a decent upscaling dvd-player directly to the HDTV (5.1 sound going direct to the amp) and my other SD sources direct to the amp itself (to get de-interlaced, upconverted, upscaled & fed via HDMI to the HDTV), or forget about spending the extra on the amp's scaling capabilities altogether and make use of the HDTVs scalar for non-dvd SD sources?

It really boils down to exactly where the image upscaling should be done for each SD source, as this will be the dominant type of feed until HD becomes more prevalent?

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks,

Dave