Because of a faulty Balun it seems that the HDMI connector of my TV has been fried. My CI was able to successfully send the HD signal across Cat5e over a new Balun and with an HDMI-DVI cable get a picture on my 4 yr old DLP. All of the components are connected through HDMI to an AVR so I am getting HDMI sound. We were able to get a picture from a stand alone Blu-ray player, my PS3 and HD cable.

Basically my question is if there is any reason I shouldn't be content with this setup instead of the initial HDMI to HDMI considering that I have a 4 yr old DLP with a native resolution of 720P and a max resolution of 1080i?

Obviously one potential problem is if I ever wanted to use this tv in a different room later on and I needed the HDMI port, but absent of that, am I missing out by using the HDMI to DVI cable from the balun rather than straight HDMI?

If I do accept this solution I would get something in writing from the CI that they would warranty the solution in case of a future problem with the HDMI to DVI.

Thanks for the help.

If you are routing your audio through your receiver, there shouldn't really be any downside to using a HDMI>DVI cable from the receiver to your TV.

HDMI and DVI cables only differ by connectors.

larry

I would be satisfied. The only difference MIGHT be differen support for YCbCr over HDMI input that may not be available on the DVI input on the display. But unless you already know what I'm talking about I wouldn't worry about it at all. And seeing as how you're probably likely to replace the projector at some point the blown HDMI input isn't that much of a problem. HDMI-DVI adapters are cheap and easily available, and very unlikely to fail.

Thanks for the thoughts.

On another thread somebody mentioned that HDMI does HDCP but DVI doesn't. Would this mean that I could have copyright issues in the future?

HDMI has HDCP "built in" whereas DVI does not necessarily have it. However, except for early implementations, DVI based CE products are HDCP compliant.

larry