ABT vs. VRS Technology

[kevhed72]

Does anyone know the differences, if any, in ABT vs, VRS in HT receivers.
I believe these are specific manufacturers of the sound decoding chips (?), but was wondering if anyone has had experience in one vs. the other in their home theaters.
Please advise,,,

[billbillw]

ABT is VRS.

ABT=Anchor Bay Technologies.
VRS is their technology for upscaling/deinterlacing.

Its purely video, nothing to do with audio.

http://www.anchorbaytech.com/vrs_technology/

BTW, it is one of the most highly rated upscaling technologies.

[kevhed72]

Hmm...on a Yamaha comparison page on their 1800 vs. 1900 Receivers, the
1800 has a check next to "ABT", and the 1900 has a check next to "VRS Technology". They make it appear that "VRS Technology" is something different / new.

Thanks for the info...

[billbillw]

Technically, the 1800, which has the ABT1010 upscaler, has VRS too. There are various implementations of VRS, some are better than others. From what I can tell, there is little, if any difference between the video capabilities of the 1900 vs 1800.

[WilliamM2]

It's new to the 1900, the 1800 uses ABT for upscaling, but a different chip for deinterlacing.

Both models will only upscale component and composite to HDMI, niether will upconvert an HDMI input. If you want a reciever for upscaling, niether is a good choice.

On the other hand, most newer DVD players already have upscaling, and Blu-Ray players already output 1080p, so I find no need for upscaling in the reciever/processor.

[billbillw]

It's new to the 1900, the 1800 uses ABT for upscaling, but a different chip for deinterlacing.

Both models will only upscale component and composite to HDMI, niether will upconvert an HDMI input. If you want a reciever for upscaling, niether is a good choice.

On the other hand, most newer DVD players already have upscaling, and Blu-Ray players already output 1080p, so I find no need for upscaling in the reciever/processor.

I can't find anything reputable that shows the 1900 doing anything differently than the 1800. They both have the same ABT1010 chip and use a non ABT de-interlacing.

IMHO, the only good reason to use a receiver to upscale/deinterlace is for non-HD Cable/Satellite TV signals. In many cases, the upscaling by ABT, Faroudja, or Silicon Optix would be vastly better than what the cable/satellite boxes output and probably better than most TVs will do on their own. Of course, you need to have a STB that can output the native signal. In some cases, it may be better for the receiver to deinterlace the 1080i signal to 1080p as well, but you'd need the SI Reon or more advanced ABT solutions to make that worthwhile.

[kevhed72]

My current non-HD DVR has the following video outputs :
component video (the single yellow output)
S-video
2 USB outputs

Will the chip / receiver upscale via these outputs; ie, will I see a significant improvement in picture quality from my DVR & Satellite signal?
If so, this seems to be a good alternative to going to HD Satellite vs. the increased monthly cost.

[WilliamM2]

My current non-HD DVR has the following video outputs :
component video (the single yellow output)
S-video
2 USB outputs

Will the chip / receiver upscale via these outputs; ie, will I see a significant improvement in picture quality from my DVR & Satellite signal?
If so, this seems to be a good alternative to going to HD Satellite vs. the increased monthly cost.

The single yellow is composite, not component. The 1800 will upconvert composite, or s-video. Don't expect too much quality using those outputs. Probably won't look any better than letting your TV do the upscaling.