Sony STRDH500 Receiver and PS3

[tk149]

So...there was a limited-time-only sale. Yeah, you know how that goes. Anyway, I now have a Sony STRDH500 Receiver. This is Sony's new low-end model.

Lat night I hooked it up to my PS3 via HDMI, and outputted to the TV via HDMI. Got sound from the TV but no sound from the speakers hooked up to the Receiver.

Did some online research. Seems that the previous model low-end Sony Receiver (STR-DG520) has "HDMI pass-through", which apparently means that while audio is passed through from an HDMI IN to the HDMI OUT, the audio is not sent to the attached speakers. Higher-end Sony receivers apparently don't have this problem.

First question: Is this normal for a low-end receiver, or does Sony just suck?

Second question: WTF? What's the point of HDMI carrying audio if I have to have a separate audio cable?

The Receiver manual does not mention this. It only says to make sure that AUDIO cables, in addition to HDMI cables, are connected properly.

Third Question: So how do I hook this receiver up to my PS3? I think the PS3 has an optical audio out. Is there only one kind of optical audio cable and connector type?

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

First question: Yes, that's normal for low-end.

Second question: In your case, you see little benefit. On higher end units, HDMI is the only want to pass the higher quality audio on Blu-ray to a receiver digitally. On a low end receiver, having HDMI in the receiver basically makes that a glorified HDMI switch integrated into the receiver so you can control it with the same remote. I find the lack of openness about what the audio capabilities are on low to midrange receivers deceiving to consumers.

Third question: Yes, get an optical cable to connect audio to the receiver. Something like this: http://www.monoprice.com/produ...id=1447&seq=1&format=2 (In the length you need).

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
First question: Yes, that's normal for low-end.

Second question: In your case, you see little benefit. On higher end units, HDMI is the only want to pass the higher quality audio on Blu-ray to a receiver digitally. On a low end receiver, having HDMI in the receiver basically makes that a glorified HDMI switch integrated into the receiver so you can control it with the same remote. I find the lack of openness about what the audio capabilities are on low to midrange receivers deceiving to consumers.

Third question: Yes, get an optical cable to connect audio to the receiver. Something like this: http://www.monoprice.com/produ...id=1447&seq=1&format=2 (In the length you need).

Thanks for the quick response!

Okay, so it sounds like I might as well NOT connect the PS3 to the receiver via HDMI, and just connect the PS3 directly to the TV via HDMI, and the PS3 to the receiver via Optical cable. If so, I guess I'll do the same sort of thing with my Wii (component cable), and whatever other sources I may end up getting. Is that right?

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

I had my PS3 connected straight to my display and optical going to my pre-pro (receiver without amplification built-in) before I replaced it with a receiver that did audio over HDMI.

The benefit of having the video plugged into the receiver as well is mainly that if you're changing sources with the remote, it could potentially be done with one press of a button.

For example, if you had two HDMI sources (PS3 and cable box), then you could switch audio and video with a single button on the receiver and the TV would always stay on the HDMI input it has that's connected to the HDMI output of the receiver.

Unfortunately, if you start mixing video connection types, then you might have to end up switching the input on the TV anyway unless your receiver converts Component, S-video, Composite, etc. to HDMI output. If you have non-HDMI sources (Wii isn't HDMI, is it?), then you should check the video conversion capabilities of your receiver.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
I had my PS3 connected straight to my display and optical going to my pre-pro (receiver without amplification built-in) before I replaced it with a receiver that did audio over HDMI.

The benefit of having the video plugged into the receiver as well is mainly that if you're changing sources with the remote, it could potentially be done with one press of a button.

For example, if you had two HDMI sources (PS3 and cable box), then you could switch audio and video with a single button on the receiver and the TV would always stay on the HDMI input it has that's connected to the HDMI output of the receiver.

Unfortunately, if you start mixing video connection types, then you might have to end up switching the input on the TV anyway unless your receiver converts Component, S-video, Composite, etc. to HDMI output. If you have non-HDMI sources (Wii isn't HDMI, is it?), then you should check the video conversion capabilities of your receiver.

Right, Wii does not have HDMI output - only component.

I haven't tried yet, but the reviews of the older Sony receiver said that only HDMI source audio gets output to HDMI (i.e. no component input to HDMI output).

Sigh...it's going to be a real octopus of cables back there...

 

[kalrith]

Another plus for connecting your HDMI cables directly to the display is that you can have different settings for each input. If you had 3 HDMI sources running to the receiver and then one HDMI cable running to the display, that would negate the ability to do this.

 

[tk149]

Okay, I bought the cable recommended by YOyoYOhowsDAjello (Thanks!) and hooked it up. Everything is working fine now, although I still have to mess with some of the other cables back there.

Right now I have B&W DM550's (purchased in 1990 as bookshelf speakers) hooked up as the front (and only) speakers. I still need a center speaker, subwoofer, and rear speakers to complete the 5.1 experience. I'm planning on adding them one piece every few months.

Any suggestions as to the proper order in which to buy these?

Just as side note, I purchased relatively cheap Monoprice HDMI cables, and found some "static" when I used one to hook the Receiver to the TV. The static went away when I switched to a more expensive Monoprice (much heavier, probably better shielded) HDMI cable. All the cables were 6-foot long cables.

 

[kalrith]

I would probably buy the sub, then center, then surrounds. Some might recommend to buy the center then the sub, but probably everyone will agree that the surrounds should be the last purchase.

 

[buck]

If I were you I would get new "front three" and then a sub. Use your front two as the surround since they are older bookshelf speakers and you want the center to match the front two. Av123.com has a good sale going on right now and they could hook you up with all 4 of those.

 

[Koing]

I'd go with buck.

Get a new front three and a sub. Relocate your current front's to rear duty as in most movies they do f0ck all most of the time. I'd get a decent centre as most sound is from the centre and it'll p!ss you off very quickly if you skimp on it.

Koing

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Koing
I'd go with buck.

Get a new front three and a sub. Relocate your current front's to rear duty as in most movies they do f0ck all most of the time. I'd get a decent centre as most sound is from the centre and it'll p!ss you off very quickly if you skimp on it.

Koing

What does "they do f0ck all most of the time" mean?

When people refer to "matching" the center and the two front speakers, what does that mean? Frequency Response? Volume?

me <- noob

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Koing
I'd go with buck.

Get a new front three and a sub. Relocate your current front's to rear duty as in most movies they do f0ck all most of the time. I'd get a decent centre as most sound is from the centre and it'll p!ss you off very quickly if you skimp on it.

Koing

What does "they do f0ck all most of the time" mean?

When people refer to "matching" the center and the two front speakers, what does that mean? Frequency Response? Volume?

me <- noob

By f0ck all most of the time is that they are rarely used and I'm glad I didn't spend much £££ on the rear speakers as the movies I watch (a lot of variety, action, etc etc) the rears are rarely used. Well they are used but they aren't used that much imo. Even in the cinema when I was watching T4 and Transformers2 and the other recent ones the rears weren't used that often imo.

When people refer to matching front and centre they mean generally from the same manufacturer and product line. This is to make the 'pans' you get from across the front left, centre and right sound more seamless. If you get a centre from another manufacturer the speaker cones will probably be different and could sound odd if you get a pan across the front 3. You could like this though, but I haven't had many sound systems and my current setup match.

Koing

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: tk149
What does "they do f0ck all most of the time" mean?

When people refer to "matching" the center and the two front speakers, what does that mean? Frequency Response? Volume?

me <- noob

By f0ck all most of the time is that they are rarely used and I'm glad I didn't spend much £££ on the rear speakers as the movies I watch (a lot of variety, action, etc etc) the rears are rarely used. Well they are used but they aren't used that much imo. Even in the cinema when I was watching T4 and Transformers2 and the other recent ones the rears weren't used that often imo.

When people refer to matching front and centre they mean generally from the same manufacturer and product line. This is to make the 'pans' you get from across the front left, centre and right sound more seamless. If you get a centre from another manufacturer the speaker cones will probably be different and could sound odd if you get a pan across the front 3. You could like this though, but I haven't had many sound systems and my current setup match.

Koing

Thank you for explaining. The "panning" effect you describe sounds like it would be caused by a difference in volume and sound quality. The Receiver can adjust individual speaker volume, so that isn't a problem, but the sound quality is of concern.

Based on reviews and my own listening tests, the DM550's were among the best speakers available for the price waaaay back when, which is why I'd really like to use them. Has speaker technology improved dramatically in the last 20 years? It's probably moot anyway, since my ears aren't as good as they used to be. Also, the B&W's are a bit too big to really be used as rear speakers. I just don't have that much room.

 

[hpkeeper]

Any suggestions for an Xbox 360 user having the same issue with the same receiver?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Any suggestions for an Xbox 360 user having the same issue with the same receiver?

Choose wisely:
a) HDMI => TV, optical or stereo audio => receiver
b) component => TV or receiver, optical or stereo audio => receiver

360 has no built in optical out so you need to connect an AV pack cable set that includes the optical digital plug. Monoprice has 360 component cables or get the genuine MS.

Sadly, MS now includes the composite cable set with 360s, which does NOT have the optical out jack.

If you want HDMI for video instead of component, you apparently need to re-wire the AV connector to stop the 360 from rebooting. Or you can bend over and pay MS $50 for their own HDMI cable set that includes a separate optical out connector for the AV pack.