Home Theater Forum - PIP/Recording to VCR

Author

PIP/Recording to VCR

bmitd67

2005-11-09, 11:21 am

Hi.

I have a Sony KDE-37XS955 and I would like to record to VCR and/or use
the Picture-In-Picture function.

Currently the chain is HDbox to Receiver (via component video & TOSlink
audio) -> Receiver to TV (via component video).

The VCR is S-video.

1. Should I split the cable before or after the HD Box?
2. Should the "cable out" from the VCR connect to the "cable in" or the
"VHF/UHF" in on the TV?

Thanks.

vij

2005-11-09, 12:21 pm

"bmitd67" <bmitd67@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131546771.363494.209490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi.
>
> I have a Sony KDE-37XS955 and I would like to record to VCR and/or use
> the Picture-In-Picture function.
>
> Currently the chain is HDbox to Receiver (via component video & TOSlink
> audio) -> Receiver to TV (via component video).
>
> The VCR is S-video.
>
> 1. Should I split the cable before or after the HD Box?
> 2. Should the "cable out" from the VCR connect to the "cable in" or the
> "VHF/UHF" in on the TV?

In regards to using the VCR, it's up to you. What *I* did was split the
cable before the box. So cable from the wall goes into a splitter and from
there, one cable into the box and one cable into the VCR. The box is hooked
to the receiver -- both audio and video. The VCR is hooked to the
receiver -- both audio and video. And video from receiver goes to the TV.
There are a few advantages/disadvantages to this.

The disadvantage is that I can't record channels that are higher than 125.
Not a big deal for me, since all the channels I want to record are lower
than 126 anyway. And if I missed a show that was on a channel higher than
125, there's always timeshifting.

Would I get higher picture quality if the cable went from the box to the
VCR? I don't know. I doubt it. And the VCR would just downmix the 5.1 to
2.0 anyway.

One advantage is that I switch everything at the receiver. I don't have to
bother with switching at the TV at all. I just don't want to make things
complicated for myself. Another advantage is that when I want to set the
VCR to record something, I set only the VCR. I don't have to set the box to
have certain channels on at certain times so that the VCR gets the right
recording.

Now, bear in mind, I'm a novice at this stuff. I'm discovering new things
about Home Theatre all the time. So don't necessarily go by my word. Best
to get as many opinions as you can, and also try out as many things as you
can and then decide which works best for you.

Good luck!

cheers,
vij

Tony Hwang

2005-11-09, 1:21 pm

vij wrote:
> "bmitd67" <bmitd67@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131546771.363494.209490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> In regards to using the VCR, it's up to you. What *I* did was split the
> cable before the box. So cable from the wall goes into a splitter and from
> there, one cable into the box and one cable into the VCR. The box is hooked
> to the receiver -- both audio and video. The VCR is hooked to the
> receiver -- both audio and video. And video from receiver goes to the TV.
> There are a few advantages/disadvantages to this.
>
> The disadvantage is that I can't record channels that are higher than 125.
> Not a big deal for me, since all the channels I want to record are lower
> than 126 anyway. And if I missed a show that was on a channel higher than
> 125, there's always timeshifting.
>
> Would I get higher picture quality if the cable went from the box to the
> VCR? I don't know. I doubt it. And the VCR would just downmix the 5.1 to
> 2.0 anyway.
>
> One advantage is that I switch everything at the receiver. I don't have to
> bother with switching at the TV at all. I just don't want to make things
> complicated for myself. Another advantage is that when I want to set the
> VCR to record something, I set only the VCR. I don't have to set the box to
> have certain channels on at certain times so that the VCR gets the right
> recording.
>
> Now, bear in mind, I'm a novice at this stuff. I'm discovering new things
> about Home Theatre all the time. So don't necessarily go by my word. Best
> to get as many opinions as you can, and also try out as many things as you
> can and then decide which works best for you.
>
> Good luck!
>
> cheers,
> vij
>
>
Hi,
Keep in mind he mentioned component video. Then video upconverting
receiver will be handy. And choice of hooking up VCR is off the box thru
RF connector, S-video or composite hook up.
Tony

vij

2005-11-09, 1:21 pm

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Ijpcf.468527$1i.288214@pd7tw2no...
> vij wrote:
> Hi,
> Keep in mind he mentioned component video. Then video upconverting
> receiver will be handy. And choice of hooking up VCR is off the box thru
> RF connector, S-video or composite hook up.

Tony, I just assumed he had a video upconverting receiver. I guess I gotta
stop making that assumption. I've come across a surprising number of people
who have a receiver that doesn't upconvert. Oh well. I *tried* to help.
: )

yustr

2005-11-09, 2:21 pm

He specifically asked about picture-in-picture capability. Can he do
that if every source routes into the receiver? He'll then have only a
single feed into his TV.

My TV will not use the component input for PIP - or TVI or HDMI or PC
either (a silly error but not significant enough for me to buy
something else.)

I'd split the cable before the HD box and run one into the HD box then
through the receiver (if you choose to) and the other to the VCR. Run
components from the receiver to the TV and run cable from the VCR to
the "cable in" of the TV. You'll be limited on the channels you can
watch like vij says but you'll be able to use your PIP capability.

--
yustr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
yustr's Profile: http://www.homeplot.com/member.php?userid=37
View this thread: http://www.homeplot.com/showthread.php?t=60650

LinkBot