Re: Re: OT: Which AV Amp?

[Richard Malcolm-Smith <rich@xxxxxxx>]

Kenneth Watt wrote:
>
> Subjective statement!
>
> For the money and considering that that vast majority of sources that
do
> not come with built-in support for RGB via SCART and/(but
> particularly)or S-VHS connection are generally pretty pants anyway,
then
> I think that the product is superb. It does the job very well for the
> money and I'm thinking of Sky and ITV Digital as the main culprits for
> not having built in S-V connections where picture quality is generally
> of a questionable quality anyway.

MPEG sub-samples the chroma anyway, so the loss of resolution on it from
RGB or component isnt is bad as people would have you believe

> To me and I suspect most others it's a way of getting a decent quality
> signal to S-V for easy connection and switching through an AV amp for
> not a great deal of money.

Sky here in NZ added a menu option to change the scarts to svideo about
a year (or more) ago. The difference from composite to svid is huge. But
going to RGB on a different TV isnt really any different except on the
menu on the box where the edges of the lines are a bit more defined.

However, the passive composite to svid adaptors are crap. The ones I got
locally are a notch filter, designed for NTSC so its at 3.58 Mhz not
4.43.. DOH!.. not that it would help anyway. No TVs have a dumb notch
filter in them so if you can live with composite to the TV and switching
it yourself you will have a better picture. I have the VCR (only
composite source) connected directly to AV1 on the TV, and the AV amp to
AV2 with all the svid stuff on it.