HDMI vs component video - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 8 Old 09-12-2013, 02:10 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gearheadslife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hi, is the advent of the HDMI format better than component, or is it just for the K.I.S.S(keep it simple stupid) ease of connection for the masses that might not want bulky compontent+audio cables? and just basicly for the "one and done" connection or is it more than that?

I'll be buying my first product with a HDMI input, (plasma tv) my bluray has an hdmi out, but I've always use compontent as that's what my old plasma had and my B&k avr507 has.
Finding it hard to believe a cable that thin can be better than component video cable and optical audio

After looking at HDMI cables it's hard to find out what ones have heavier gauge wires as if I use that over component it have to be 15' or better.

And I'd have to open up the wall to run one so if there is no difference in quality of signal other than ease of hook up. I'll pass
as it seems to me HDMI is just s video with audio in one cable. in digital form
what am I missing
gearheadslife is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 Old 09-12-2013, 07:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
Phil17108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Orange County California
Posts: 927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

Hi, is the advent of the HDMI format better than component, or is it just for the K.I.S.S(keep it simple stupid) ease of connection for the masses that might not want bulky compontent+audio cables? and just basicly for the "one and done" connection or is it more than that?

I'll be buying my first product with a HDMI input, (plasma tv) my bluray has an hdmi out, but I've always use compontent as that's what my old plasma had and my B&k avr507 has.
Finding it hard to believe a cable that thin can be better than component video cable and optical audio

After looking at HDMI cables it's hard to find out what ones have heavier gauge wires as if I use that over component it have to be 15' or better.

And I'd have to open up the wall to run one so if there is no difference in quality of signal other than ease of hook up. I'll pass
as it seems to me HDMI is just s video with audio in one cable. in digital form
what am I missing

Sound for one thing if you are using an AVR. The HDMI cares DD. If you have a 5.1 sound system and are running digital coax or optical to and AVR you get the DD. The Blu Day has whats called lossless audio or as Dolby calls it TrueHD and to get it you need a HDMI AVR that that decades it. There is a ton of info on HDMI and on the AVS forum. Also with component the signal has to be converted to analog at the Blu Ray and back to digital in the TV. Also the Blu Ray can do 1080P and I don't think component can.

Look here for cables and education.

http://www.monoprice.com http://www.bluejeanscable.com

And here is an interesting and educating article on whats coming or what is going

http://hometheater.about.com/od/gadgetsgizmos/ss/Say-Bye-To-S-Video-Phono-Component-And-Multi-Channel-Analog-Audio-Connections.htm
Phil17108 is offline  
post #3 of 8 Old 09-12-2013, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Fernand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 1,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 61
‘what am I missing’ – Copy Protection, pure and simple that’s what HDMI is all about!

Your 3RCA HD capable analogue cable is going to become (for the most part) redundant as going forward you are not going to find any connection other than HDMI on the gear you purchase.

For HDMI cables simply look for a High Speed cable at the required length from a reputable supplier sporting the correct Logos – after that they all perform the same.

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/buying_guide.aspx#Choose

Joe

PS Where you Source lacks a 3RCA Out it is possible to ‘convert’ HDMI to work over your 3RCA cable – though over your side of the pond the devices required have been outlawed so cant mention them on here!
gearheadslife likes this.

If I've helped 'Like' me on Facebook - www.facebook.com/Octavainc

Joe Fernand is offline  
post #4 of 8 Old 09-12-2013, 08:02 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gearheadslife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
the surround sound is 7.1 but the unit doesn't have hdmi
but does have optical and coax
and the cable box and t.v and blueray and dvdr burner/data recorder has optical audio and coax
with the dvdr burner recorder/data recorder and c/d recorder having both optical in and out and coax in and out..
both bought before computer optical drives that recorded were mainsteam
gearheadslife is offline  
post #5 of 8 Old 09-12-2013, 08:24 AM
 
alk3997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearheadslife View Post

Hi, is the advent of the HDMI format better than component, or is it just for the K.I.S.S(keep it simple stupid) ease of connection for the masses that might not want bulky compontent+audio cables? and just basicly for the "one and done" connection or is it more than that?

I'll be buying my first product with a HDMI input, (plasma tv) my bluray has an hdmi out, but I've always use compontent as that's what my old plasma had and my B&k avr507 has.
Finding it hard to believe a cable that thin can be better than component video cable and optical audio

After looking at HDMI cables it's hard to find out what ones have heavier gauge wires as if I use that over component it have to be 15' or better.

And I'd have to open up the wall to run one so if there is no difference in quality of signal other than ease of hook up. I'll pass
as it seems to me HDMI is just s video with audio in one cable. in digital form
what am I missing

I think I can help with your question. It's been asked a number of times and people seem really confused about whether HDMI is "better" than component.

The bottom line answer is that they could be the same but aren't exactly.

For video, the real question is where is the digital data decoded into analog? For component video, the answer is in the player (or STB). For HDMI, its in the sink - the TV in this case. Who does a better job of decoding? That depends upon the player and the TV.

However, due to copyright restrictions, those players that have HDMI (which is pretty much all of them) are forbidden to send 1080p out of the component video jacks. Component video has plenty of bandwidth to handle 1080p, so it isn't a technical problem but an agreement instead.

With HDMI you therefore gain 1080p/24, 1080p/60 and 1080p/24 3D. For a cable box or satellite box, the input sources are 1080i and 720p, so it really doesn't matter since component video handles those perfectly (with good cables, of course). For Blu-Ray disc, source material these days is at least 1080p.

So, there can be some gain with HDMI, but is it noticible? Depends upon the person looking at it, the size of the screen, the viewing distance and the accuracy of the TV.

One other consideration is that due to copying paranoia, component video outputs (if you can find them) on a new Blu-Ray player were being downconverted to 520p on any component video output. Now the manufacturers are prohibitted from including component video outputs. This is again not true on a satellite or cable STB. Older Blu-Ray players are also not subject to this "analog sunset" rule but they have to have been designed prior to 2010.

For audio, it's slightly difference but the same time. In the Blu-Ray world, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA and 7.1-channel PCM all take a lot of bandwidth. You can still buy players that have analog audio outputs. However, HDMI allows those formats to be decoded in the AVR (not the TV in this case).

Therefore, it again goes back to where is the digital audio decoded into analog? In the player if you are using 7.1-channel RCA jacks. In the AVR if you are using HDMI.

The difference with audio is there is a separate digital audio output - the S/PDIF (coax and optical). However, that only works for 2-channel PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS due to the bandwidth available on that link.

HDMI was created as a method to send secure uncompressed video and audio. But, that didn't eliminate other methods.
alk3997 is offline  
post #6 of 8 Old 09-12-2013, 12:16 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
gearheadslife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Ok, so as far as the surround sound because the optical can't handle the bandwidth of todays blueray disc soundtracs I'll loose some of the disk surround elements
As the B&K a/v receiver is before tha advent of hdmi or it was in it's infancy (2002)
I'd think at some point early on, they made a d/a converter that took hdmi and split it to dvd audio as A ton of gear had this set up. and I'd think to keep people that spent big bucks on a high end piece, not to be outdated that fast.. Have to research that.. or if not the B&K would end up in the basement room when done and be shop'n for a newer a/v receiver.
oh well, technology marches on.. all because of copyrights and piracy.
gearheadslife is offline  
post #7 of 8 Old 09-12-2013, 12:55 PM
 
alk3997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I suspect some of what you wrote doesn't look right just because of terminology rather than it being incorrect. Let me clarify...

It's not just the surround elements that have less bits, but the front / center / main channels as well. With a S/PDIF connection, you end up with the core DTS or Dolby Digital signal. This is a lossy signal, meaning the original audio cannot be completely reconstructed from Dolby Digital or DTS. A very close facimile can be constructed, particularly with DTS, but not exactly the original signal. This is true for all 5.1 channels (or 6.1 channels with DTS ES). With Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, the original signal is reconstructed bit-for-bit for all 7.1-channels (and the channel total can actually be higher than that in the future).

There were many receivers that were built in that era that had 5.1 and 7.1-channel analog inputs. Unfortunately many of those did not do bass management on the analog inputs. Usually that was limited to the higher end AVRs and separates. Without bass management unless you have 5 large exactly matching speakers and a subwoofer, you will lose bass without bass management.

Also be careful about calling it DVD audio since DVD Audio is a separate format (that I still use) for 5.1-channel high resolution lossless audio. HDMI 1.0 came out in December 2002, so I suspect anything you would find from 2002 would have component and possibly DVI inputs. HDMI 1.0 could handle only 7.1-channel LPCM (no DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD). So your Blu-Ray player would have to convert to LPCM, if indeed the AVR has HDMI 1.0.
alk3997 is offline  
post #8 of 8 Old 09-19-2013, 07:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AV_Integrated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Northern, VA - Washington, DC
Posts: 2,962
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 283
You also would have found analog audio outputs on many of the older gear to connect to A/V receivers which lacked HDMI inputs and connectivity. For that matter, those products are still on the market and available.

If your receiver has 7.1 or 5.1 analog audio inputs, then a Blu-ray Disc player like the Oppo Digital BDP-105 has the connectivity you need for HD audio formats to be delivered to your receiver.

I think Alk hit it dead on though - for the most part the actual video quality of component video and HDMI tend to look very similar. There are bits of hardware which can make one look a bit better, and if there is a slight difference in one looking better it tends to favor HDMI. Don't confuse yourself on this, HDMI is 100% digital. It works and lives in a place where component video does not, so it is designed to be a single cable, with many smaller cables inside of it. Analog cables tend to be big and bulky because their inherent design requires shielding to help the signal get from point 'A' to point 'B' in the highest quality possible.

But, my home uses a component video distribution system. I use component video to feed half a dozen displays and the video looks great. It IS high definition - 1080i mostly. Looks great. I also have a dedicated Blu-ray player that feeds my family room over HDMI and that looks about the same, perhaps a tiny bit better, but it's hard to say.

At the end of all of this, eventually you must switch to HDMI. You can't convert from HDMI down to component video cleanly, and copyright protection will limit your connectivity with component video on more and more sources. Even now, products like Roku, AppleTV, and Blu-ray players only ship with HDMI connectivity on their newest products. Eventually we may even see computers dump all analog outputs in favor of digital connectivity.

Now, if you DID run cat-5e to your display location, you may have another solution in the form of pushing HDMI over that cable, but that's a different discussion to have.

AV Integrated - Theater, whole house audio, and technology installation in the Washington DC metro area.
AV_Integrated is offline  
Reply HDMI Q&A - The One Connector World

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off