Originally Posted by gearheadslife
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.