Im New To Hdmi Is There Really A Diference. Just Purchased The New Model Mitsh Wd65736 . Anything I Need To Know About Hook Up To Directv Hddvr And Hd Cablebox Both Have Hdmi Slots.

From what I understand any HDMI cable will do a good job... but I am still a little cautious myself.


Everyone says do not spend a great deal on an HDMI cable..

From what I understand any HDMI cable will do a good job... but I am still a little cautious myself.


Everyone says do not spend a great deal on an HDMI cable..

One does need to take care with long runs of HDMI, say 10M+

i meant a difference in picture quality. thanks for responding.

i meant a difference in picture quality. thanks for responding.
HDMI transmits the uncompressed digital signal so it should give the best picture quality of any transmission scheme.

One does need to take care with long runs of HDMI, say 10M+

And I think he was saying that the longer the cable, the more likely that the signal will start to weaken.

HDMI transmits the uncompressed digital signal so it should give the best picture quality of any transmission scheme.

Misinformation based on partial undersanding.

Analog can also transmit exactly the same information, albeit in an analog format. It basically depends on implementation. I've seen several product implementations where analog input/output quality is superior to the digital input/output, despite the additional DAC/ADC stage. Analog can also be more robust at distance from an installer's perspective than HDMI, which can be extremely finicky.

Any statements that HDMI can transmit something that is inherently better than analog or even other digital video transmission formats is incorrect.

i meant a difference in picture quality. thanks for responding.

Unless the cable is insufficient for the task (meaning bandwidth requirements for the distance needed), which would cause serious picture degradations or no picture whatsoever, then there are no differences whatsoever.

Originally Posted by crutschow: HDMI transmits the uncompressed digital signal so it should give the best picture quality of any transmission scheme.

Misinformation based on partial undersanding.

Analog can also transmit exactly the same information, albeit in an analog format. It basically depends on implementation. I've seen several product implementations where analog input/output quality is superior to the digital input/output, despite the additional DAC/ADC stage. Analog can also be more robust at distance from an installer's perspective than HDMI, which can be extremely finicky.
Yes, it's true that analog can transmit exactly the same information as digital, but that's not the only consideration. I believe there can be a difference depending upon the type of display. With HDMI (or other digital transmission system) the signal remains in digital form to the display device. This can be an advantage for inherently digital display devices such as DLP and LCD which operate internally with a digital signal and thus do not require an A/D or D/A conversion and the possible degradations this can cause (see http://www.dlpprojection.net/ and http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3174_7-5136369-1.html).

So try not to disparage other's comments unless you are free of your own "Misinformation based on partial understanding".

Yes, it's true that analog can transmit exactly the same information as digital, but that's not the only consideration. I believe there can be a difference depending upon the type of display. With HDMI (or other digital transmission system) the signal remains in digital form to the display device. This can be an advantage for inherently digital display devices such as DLP and LCD which operate internally with a digital signal and thus do not require an A/D or D/A conversion and the possible degradations this can cause (see http://www.dlpprojection.net/ and http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3174_7-5136369-1.html).

So try not to disparage other's comments unless you are free of your own "Misinformation based on partial understanding".

Feel free to point out what was incorrect. I included a statement about the added DAC/ADC step. REgardless, I have seen many digital devices have lackluster HDMI/DVI inputs where analog input is preferred. Implementation often trumps the theoretical advantage that avoiding a DAC/ADC step, which is my point.

Feel free to point out what was incorrect. I included a statement about the added DAC/ADC step. REgardless, I have seen many digital devices have lackluster HDMI/DVI inputs where analog input is preferred. Implementation often trumps the theoretical advantage that avoiding a DAC/ADC step, which is my point.And my point was that HDMI "should" give the best picture. I don't believe that's misinformation based upon partial understanding. I'm sure there are a number of pathological cases with older implementations of DVI or HDMI which don't give as good a picture as analog. But, with proper design, which I believe is the case with most new implementations of the HDMI standard, the digital should have the edge since it avoids the degradation that the A/D and D/A conversion can cause, as well as the noise pickup and frequency response degradation that can occur with an analog signal.

I realize this is a sample of one, but my BenQ HiDef projector definitely has a better picture with HDMI than with Component input.

Also, HDMI is superior to any digital transmission scheme that uses compression, as some do.

And my point was that HDMI "should" give the best picture.

Which is erroneous both in theory and practice. That's simply incorrect information.

Also, HDMI is superior to any digital transmission scheme that uses compression, as some do.

As is this. And I'm not even sure what transmission format you're referring to here. If you're referring to SDI/HD-SDI, I think this claim is ridiculous, let alone the fact that it isn't compressed either.

crutschow Quote: And my point was that HDMI "should" give the best picture.

Which is erroneous both in theory and practice. That's simply incorrect information.

From your tenor in this discussion and the unequivocal statements you make, you apparently feel you're an authority on the subject, and of course you're entitled to your opinions, but that doesn't mean they're factual. (Perhaps you're confused by the word "should". It doesn't mean "will".) If both analog and HDMI video systems are optimized they can be comparable, but in practice there are more ways for an analog signal to be corrupted than a digital signal. There are many reasons that all electronic systems are going digital, and one is to preserve the integrity of the signal and avoid the degradation that analog signals are subject to. If you prefer your signals in analog format rather than digital that's fine, but that's subjective.

crutschow Quote: Also, HDMI is superior to any digital transmission scheme that uses compression, as some do.

As is this. And I'm not even sure what transmission format you're referring to here. If you're referring to SDI/HD-SDI, I think this claim is ridiculous, let alone the fact that it isn't compressed either.Well, if you don't know which transmission format I'm referring then don't put up a straw-man system with no compression to criticize so you can say my statement is ridiculous. That's a cheap tactic more appropriate to politics than a technical discussion.

I was referring, in general, to any digital transmission system that adds compression to the signal (and I believe there are several, but that's beside the point). Any system that adds compression will degrade the signal (unless it's some form of lossless compression which is generally only achievable under very limited conditions).

Well, if you don't know which transmission format I'm referring then don't put up a straw-man system with no compression to criticize so you can say my statement is ridiculous. That's a cheap tactic more appropriate to politics than a technical discussion.

I can't read minds. Why don't you tell me? Those are the only two digital video signals that you would even remotely find likely in the home, and HD-SDI is extremely unlikely at that. So I have no idea what you are thinking of unless you tell me.

I was referring, in general, to any digital transmission system that adds compression to the signal (and I believe there are several, but that's beside the point). Any system that adds compression will degrade the signal (unless it's some form of lossless compression which is generally only achievable under very limited conditions).

Such as what?

And anyway, how that differs from analog is beyond me. That's not a compressed signal format either, obviously. And even beyond that, the content you're sending has been heavily compressed already, so whether the transmisison method is or is not compressed is really irrelevant, all it does is alter the decode location.


From your tenor in this discussion and the unequivocal statements you make, you apparently feel you're an authority on the subject, and of course you're entitled to your opinions, but that doesn't mean they're factual.

That's right. It's why I back up my statements.

(Perhaps you're confused by the word "should". It doesn't mean "will".)

I'm not confused by it at all, and you're still incorrect with the word "should." Should is a theoretical assertion, which in this case is incorrect. You actually would have been more correct if you said "will," but included a qualified that limited it to specific situations or combinations of components. For instance, you WILL get a better picture with HDMI for copy-protected high-def content. You WILL get a better picture with HDMI for 1080p content on many displays simply because they don't accept 1080p on their analog inputs. Because in both those instances, analog won't give you any picture.

If both analog and HDMI video systems are optimized they can be comparable, but in practice there are more ways for an analog signal to be corrupted than a digital signal. There are many reasons that all electronic systems are going digital, and one is to preserve the integrity of the signal and avoid the degradation that analog signals are subject to. If you prefer your signals in analog format rather than digital that's fine, but that's subjective.

My judgement is not at all subjective. And as I said before already, HDMI can be very difficult to implement over distances compared with analog transmission which is incredibly robust if you have to go longer distances. HDMI fails very frequently if you have to go far with it. And in those instances, analog certainly WILL give you a better picture because if you're not getting a picture at all with HDMI, even a slightly rolled off analog frequency response will look pretty darn excellent in HD, and certainly better than no picture at all. And you can easily correct for that anyway with EQ, something that you can also try with HDMI but may not always work, and will be a lot costlier.

I understand the desire to maintain a digital signal all the way through the playback chain, but it's an emotional desire that is neither theoretically sound, nor effective in the real world. Any custom integrator worth their salt still runs analog either as primary or as backup, because HDMI fails all the time, and no picture at all is a pretty bad problem. Analog, at this point, is a more robust transmission method and is subsequently a great deal more reliable. I would love to have HD-SDI in the home, which actually works, reliably, but we don't. We have HDMI which is often a crapshoot.