S-Video is dead on AV receivers--do you care?

The future for AV receivers: no S-Video inputs.

(Credit: Sarah Tew/CNET Networks)

S-Video inputs are disappearing from AV receivers. Sony was one of the first companies to drop S-Video on the STR-DG810 in 2007, and in 2008, both the Sony STR-DG920 and Pioneer VSX-1018AH-K went without S-Video jacks. Yamaha's new 2009 AV receivers were announced last week, and it was no surprise that the company followed suit and dropped S-Video connections on its entire RX-V65 line. It will be interesting to see if any manufacturer includes S-Video on their new 2009 AV receiver lines.

In 2007, we knocked the STR-DG810 pretty hard for lacking S-Video. In 2009, however, the case for keeping S-Video seems pretty weak. Almost every new video gadget these days comes with HDMI, and the most popular standard definition device--the Nintendo Wii--also works with component video, which will look better anyway. While early Blu-ray players included the connection as a standard-def backup, newer players like the Samsung BD-P1500 and Insignia NS-2BRDVD drop S-Video completely, offering only a composite video connection.

Still, there are a few cases where an S-Video input would be useful. There are still legacy video components where S-Video is the highest quality connection--standard-definition cable boxes are a good example. S-Video is also still useful for anyone with an older camcorder that uses the connection. Instead of dropping S-Video completely, we'd rather receivers keep a single S-Video jack on the front panel input. That way you can still hook up a legacy device in a pinch, but manufacturers can recoup some of the cost by dropping S-Video on the rear panel--and hopefully that savings gets passed onto the consumer.

What do you think? Are S-Video inputs still useful? Should they be dropped to free up rear panel space and save money? Let us know in the comments.

[mmntech]

I couldn't care less about S-Video since I can just plug it directly into my TV anyway, but will they please bring back Phono inputs! Seems like Sony's A/V receivers are the only ones that still have them.

[alegr]

Phono input:
1) costs much extra;
2) very little used;
3) just record your damn vinyl to a CD and forget about your phono inputs.

[make_or_break]

Onkyo still makes units that have phono inputs.

As long as you've got a pair of available analog inputs (RCA jacks), you can pick up a phone preamp and hook up a table that way.

[shopkins82]

I'm pretty indifferent to S-Video. SD cable and satellite are about the only devices that might offer S-Video as its best output option. Sources like LD and VHS/8mm camcorders will likely look better over composite than S-Video given that most modern displays contain comb filters vastly superior to those internal to these sources (sans some of the very high-end LD players). A single S-Video on the front panel does make sense, but I'm guess it's the comb-filter that represents the bulk of the cost, not the input itself.

[jakebala]

I don't get the point of eliminating S-Video. If you're going to eliminate S-Video then just get rid of Composite inputs while you're at it and give the consumer more Component and/or HDMI ports.

S-Video is better than Composite (by a good amount too, you can easily see the difference) and it is for that reason that I don't hook any non-hd sources by Composite and instead by S-Video. Example is that the receiver above has 5 Composite inputs and 1 output. Why not cut that down to 2 inputs and put 2 more component or hdmi b/c in the future people will need it

[cheinonen]

S-Video is better than composite, but both of there are there to allow support for legacy devices for people that won't/can't upgrade, and composite will allow more compatibility than S-Video. In theory, if people are looking for a receiver and have old devices, and there are two models available: One with only composite, and one with only s-video, I'd guess the composite would sell more not because it's better technically, but more compatible with those old devices (I'm thinking a Nintendo and a Genesis, among devices my friends still own). I'm happy to see all these legacy ports go away as it should cost less to make, and be less complex.

[Staszek]

@jakebala

I think you are missing the point. Any item that usually has an S video connection also has a composite connection as well, but every item that has a composite connection does not always have an S video connection.

Older Ipod Video, VCRs, Nintendo, ps1/2 etc all came standard in the box with composite cables (except ipod with no cables). Except for audiophiles back in the day barely anyone used S video, they just stayed with Composite that came with their player. So if you were to cut out composite instead of S video you are really cutting more of the market out.

If anything I agree with the writer, put one S video on the front just to have but there really is no need for S Video anymore since it was really only marginally better then composite in the first place.

I will give one more example, I have a composite cable for my iphone and ipod, I know I can connect it to just about 99% of the tv's out there when I travel to watch a movie etc, there is no way that percentage would be that high with S video.

[amber0728]

I'll miss them for work purposes. Need to purchase third party A/V equipment to hook up to my company's devices and SVideo is required. This is because unlike typical hadware, medical devices are the result of years of planning, manufacturing, testing, release - consequently they find themselves well behind the technology curve. In fact, our 'newer' devices offer DVI - not HDMI. lol :)

[nojava]

I'm use to buying worthless ports. Seems dumb to drop it since they still have all the other ports. We might as well drop all the ports an use a switched fiber network. One cable per box. The Audiophiles get two ports. (for stereo) Ha!

[jimothyGator]

Let's drop the bevy of composite inputs, as well. Imagine how clean the back panel of an A/V receiver a decade from now would look if all it had were several HDMI inputs, one or two stereo-in pairs, an optical audio in, digital audio in, and maybe on component input. Of course, a decade from now, something will probably have supplanted HDMI, meaning the receiver would sport both HDMI and the new connector, so we'll never reach the one-connector-to-rule-them-all dream.

[Mosephus]

S-Video was little better than the RCA video inputs it replaced. If receiver manufacturers can use the space taken by these inputs for additional HDMI or optical inputs, more power to them.

[rnaoncfixd]

As a video nerd... YES I WILL MISS IT!!!

I'll be lighting a candle and weeping at the funeral.

[JustinL54]

What is S-Video...? Forgot about that a long time ago.
They should probably remove this page ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video

[gulmer]

I would miss s-video connections on my next receiver purchase, which is why I would choose a receiver with s-video inputs, like the Denon models. I have a laser disc player and s-video VCR that I would want to keep in my rack. Now why manufactures would drop s-video and keep composite video is a mystery to me when s-video is by far the superior video input. I would not miss it if they dropped the composite video input.

[grtgrfx]

I still record HD material from my DirecTV satellite box to a TiVo Series 2 DVR, since they stopped working with TiVo some years ago. Only way I route TiVo recordings to my NAD receiver is via S-Video, since it's the best output. Since S-Video still looks pretty good on my plasma flat-panel, and certainly better than composite, I'd be unhappy that it won't be a choice on my next receiver...at least until DirecTV releases a new DTV-branded HD TiVo DVR as part of their line-up next year. As for phono inputs, I gave up and bought a ParaSound outboard phono preamp and hooked it into a spare AUX input.

[briancnet]

This is bad news for people with legacy collections of Laserdisc, VHS, S-VHS, D-VHS, Hi-8, Video8 or a Tivo Series2. Many of us care more about the richness of legacy content than the latest level of fidelity or digital connections. A lot of media we care about is not now and never will be on DVD, Blu-ray, online, etc.

Digitizing and converting legacy media to DVD is a waste of time since transcoding/digitizing is an imperfect and very lengthy process. And then you'll have to do it all over again when the next big trend in media platforms comes along (i.e, affordable Blu-ray recorders.)

This trend away from S-Video -- and mark my words, Component is next as it takes up a lot more room on the backplane and motherboard and doesn't support DRM -- is about moving the mainstream market on to the next big (profitable) thing. Media lovers over the age of 25 whose shelf contains more than just the same predictable releases from the major studios will create a brisk market for compact, high-quality S-to-HDMI converters if indeed S-VHS and other analog connections vanish.

[skrubol]

Trying to justify this financially (from the manufacturers perspective.) S-Video is probably a significantly more expensive connector, and it may require more circuitry than composite. It's possible composite can share some circuitry with component, and even if not, I'm sure it's cheaper to implement than S-video. In the future I wonder if we will see the composite input connectors go away, but support retained by allowing the device to detect a composite signal on the Y (green connector) of the composite connectors.
I don't miss S-video on my AVR, as I don't have anything that uses S-video anyway, and if I did, I can always connect it directly to my TV.

[rmco47]

I need an s-video input for my older satellite receiver. As a result, I would be hesitant to upgrade my present AV receiver to one lacking this input. Upgrading to satellite HD is an expensive alternative requiring new equipment and higher fees. The other alternative is to redirect my satellite s-video output to my new TV.

[tletnes]

To those who think S-Video take more processing power: As a developer who has had to work with with this hardware in the lab I can tell you S-Video is actually simpler than Composite because with Composite you need an extra circuit to separate the black&white from the color signal while S-Video transmits these on two separate wires. A lot of really simple S-Video hacks just join the two wires together and feed them into a Composite decoder, The only problem with this is you get all of the old garbage that S-Video was supposed to get rid of. I have also seen devices that overload the Component jack to use either the blue or red to take the color signal (you need an adapter to go from one s-video mini-din to 2 RCA jacks) and the green to take the black and white since that is actually what it receives for component video anyway. I for one hate the idea of completely loosing S-Video, however I can see dropping from total support to 1-3 jacks or a hybrid jack solution, in fact we are already seeing a lot of hybrid jack solutions for component/composite on TVs so this is probably not to far off base, and a $5 adapter would certainly be a reasonable compromise for a videophile to continue to use a high quality signal.

[What-Questionmark]

I may be missing something here, but are we really going to see that big of a difference between composite and s-video once it's been unconverted to 1080p anyway? Almost all of these new receivers are capable of up conversion for analog inputs.

I, for one, am looking forward to my new receiver having less clutter.

[sanlyn2]

It's a shame to drop s-video, for 2 reasons. Many high-end playback and record devices (many costing thousands of $$$), along with millions of cable boxes, require s-video. True, s-video won't support hi-def, but any video professional will tell you that lines of resolution is definitely NOT the most important factor in good video, especially for color. Second, any video pro or engineer will readily testify that HDMI is one of the worst ideas ever inflicted on decent video or audio -- it's a disaster, and totally incapable of exploiting new improvements in digital entertainment. I, for one, won't buy any display that lacks s-video. I'm not alone, either; salespeople at BestBuy tell me that flocks of people won't buy the 2009 tv's with no s-video, because they refuse to throw away most of the gear and entertainment they already own and have enjoyed for years. Hopefully, this stupid marketing idea will create business opportunities for anyone able to fill the gap with competent add-ons or adapters, even if those gadgets are likely to be expensive. HDMI? Phooey.

[Maxwell De Long]

I would not purchase a receiver if it did not have S-video inputs. Analog upconversion is not an option for people who want to hook videogame consoles up to a receiver as it adds lag to a game where split second decisions can make all the difference. The inclusion of an absurd number of composite ports seems odd, given that most things capable of being hooked up via composite are relics of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, a time where S-video delivered the highest quality video! Subtract two or three composites and replace them with S-video for legacy connections and you will have a hit with the countless others like myself. That or give us lagless video up conversion, and I might be willing to sacrifice the initial video quality...