Component better than HDMI?!? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 01:38 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
gspin2k1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi,
I'm under the impression that in most if not all cases, HDMI should be better for video than use of component cables. I have an HD Motorola Comcast box..set to 1080i for my 1080i HDTV. I was using the component cables at first given to me by Comcast, and later bought an HDMI-DVI (the box has a DVI output) cable and hooked it up VIA of that. and for some reason I think the component actually looked slightly better. I'm wondering if anyone else had the same result, or if maybe I just got a bad cable?
~Gavin
gspin2k1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bonscott87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilds of West Michigan
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Neither one is "better" (although *technically* HDMI is because it's all digital), it's really a subjective thing and matters a great deal of how your HDTV is setup and what components you have connected. Few people see the difference.

In your case though, you may have calibrated your set on your component input but not on the HDMI input. Thus the component looked better because it was calibrated.

Scott
bonscott87 is offline  
post #3 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Star56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In my armed redoubt deep in the mountains of northern Ohio
Posts: 3,491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
It is a bit of a myth that HDMI always provides the best PQ. A search of the optical disk forums will find many posts reporting the superiority of component over HDMI in various circumstances.

42" in the dining room.
50" in the bedroom
80" in the living room

65" in the family room
106" in the family room


"There is another system"

Video Modes: SDTV-EDTV-XGA-HDTV-3D
All HD Modes: Blu Ray, HD DVD, DVHS

Star56 is offline  
post #4 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 02:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
djdrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Latitude: 39° 44' N Longitude: 86° 17' W
Posts: 695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My vote is for component video. An ever so slight advantage from my motorola DVR with DVI.

Aren't you gonna take your skates off?
djdrock is offline  
post #5 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 03:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
rvanya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
Posts: 574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have compared hdmi to component on 2 different dish network receivers (942 and 622). I felt that the component looked better with both receivers. And I calibrated the display with both as my dvd player has both outputs as well (denon 2910).

"You're not the contents of your wallet. Your'e not your ****ing khakis!"

Tyler Durden, Fight Club
rvanya is offline  
post #6 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 03:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
gillcup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 577
With my setup, component provides a much better picture. The HDMI may be a tad bit sharper, but the colors were much better with component. I spent hours trying to adjust various settings to get HDMI to look right and never got it right. If I am ever forced to use HDMI, I'll have to get my set professionally calibrated. I saw the problem from two different HDMI sources (OTA tuner & DVR). Component looked great with minimal adjustments.

Mark

There is a very thin line between "hobby" and "mental illness". - Dave Barry
gillcup is offline  
post #7 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petergaryr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 6,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Component is a more mature system and HDMI is still a baby. In my experience, I have had less compatibility issues with component than HDMI.
petergaryr is offline  
post #8 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 04:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Is there a reason why hardware topics are posted, and replied to, in the programming forum?

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #9 of 28 Old 01-05-2007, 08:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petergaryr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 6,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Usually the threads seem to be started by people with low post counts, so I assume they are just learning the forum. I usually just answer the question, but it is probably a good practice to point out the more appropriate posting area as well.
petergaryr is offline  
post #10 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 05:15 AM
Member
 
lastdefender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

Is there a reason why hardware topics are posted, and replied to, in the programming forum?

Ummmmm....perhaps because the name of the forum is "Threads in Forum: HDTV Reception Hardware"
lastdefender is offline  
post #11 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 02:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdefender View Post

Ummmmm....perhaps because the name of the forum is "Threads in Forum: HDTV Reception Hardware"

Yes, which is where I moved it, from the Programming Forum.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #12 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Garman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The Moon
Posts: 4,763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Is vinyl better than CDs LOL At first yes, but now that CD mastering has gotten better I would have to say no. Same goes with HDMI, 1.0/1.1/1.3 will be a big test. I am sure we will see a lot of 1.3 HDMI hookups at CES. When will it stop, 5.1/7.1/9.1, hell I am still happy with 5.1, but will upgrade my theater when we redo it this summer.
Garman is offline  
post #13 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 07:27 PM
Member
 
lastdefender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

Yes, which is where I moved it, from the Programming Forum.


Ya got me!!! Good one!
lastdefender is offline  
post #14 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 07:39 PM
Member
 
8086's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If you have a CRT, keeping an analogue signal might be a better choice. So in that instance use component. But if you are using a matrix or "digital" (fixed resolution) display, then a digital signal that from HDMI or DVI would be the smarter choice and that is because if you use an analogue signal on a matrix display it will first be decoded by the source, then converted back to digital resulting in a lossy signal.

Matrix Display component analogue signaling Example:
DVD Player video dac converts digital signal to analogue. Analougue signal is sent through wires to TV. Then as closely as it possibly can TV then converts that analogue signal back to the original digital format to be displayed on your Matrix display (plasma, lcd, oled, LcOS, DLP, LED, FEP, IDLA,SED ). The problem with reconverting (FFFD5) a digital-analouge-digital signal is that the reconversion process trys hard to estamate where that pixel original belonged (X-Y) and what the exact colour number it was (FFFD0?). The process is never perfect.

So with fixed resolution displays it's best to preserve the digital signal and with analoue HDTVs (I.E. CRT) if your source has a high end Video DAC, an analogue signal would be your wisest option. Save the HDMI for when the only HD programing avalable requires HDCP (copy protection). HDMI/DVI should be a last resort for CRT users.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
8086 is offline  
post #15 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 07:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8086 View Post

If you have a CRT, keeping an analogue signal might be a better choice. So in that instance use component. But if you are using a matrix or "digital" (fixed resolution) display, then a digital signal that from HDMI or DVI would be the smarter choice and that is because if you use an analogue signal on a matrix display it will first be decoded by the source, then converted back to digital resulting in a lossy signal.

Matrix Display component analogue signaling Example:
DVD Player video dac converts digital signal to analogue. Analougue signal is sent through wires to TV. Then as closely as it possibly can TV then converts that analogue signal back to the original digital format to be displayed on your Matrix display (plasma, lcd, oled, LcOS, DLP, LED, FEP, IDLA, ). The problem with reconverting (FFFD5) a digital-analouge-digital signal is that the reconversion process trys hard to estamate where that pixel original belonged (X-Y) and what the exact colour number it was (FFFD0?). The process is never perfect.

So with fixed resolution displays it's best to preserve the digital signal and with analoue HDTVs (I.E. CRT) if your source has a high end Video DAC, an analogue signal would be your wisest option. Save the HDMI for when the only HD programing avalable requires HDCP (copy protection). HDMI/DVI should be a last resort for CRT users.

In theory, this is correct. In the real world, it is not.

Due to a variety of implementation issues, the only way to approach this is to try all possible connection alternatives, and select the one that looks best.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #16 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 07:52 PM
Member
 
8086's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

In theory, this is correct. In the real world, it is not.

Due to a variety of implementation issues, the only way to approach this is to try all possible connection alternatives, and select the one that looks best.


ADC Video conversion has gotten very very good in the past few years, but it is far from perfect, my guesstamation is that it's about 98% accurate.. Keep the signal the same as the display type-
Analogue display (crt) = analogue signal
Digital Display (all others) = digital signal


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
8086 is offline  
post #17 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 08:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8086 View Post

ADC Video conversion has gotten very very good in the past few years, but it is far from perfect, my guesstamation is that it's about 98% accurate..

My experence shows different.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #18 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 10:00 PM
Member
 
8086's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

My experence shows different.

Instead of generic statements, please elborate on what you mean. Doing so would help us all greatly.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
8086 is offline  
post #19 of 28 Old 01-06-2007, 10:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8086 View Post

Instead of generic statements, please elborate on what you mean. Doing so would help us all greatly.

I thought I was pretty clear.

Based on first hand experience, blanket statements about which type of connectivity, analog HD or digital HD, is 'better', will simply not stand up in real world applications.

To definitively know which is better in a specific application, both must be evaluated.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #20 of 28 Old 01-07-2007, 08:34 AM
ekb
AVS Special Member
 
ekb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lawrenceville, NJ
Posts: 4,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Things may not be as simple as they appear. For example, most if not all LCD TVs internally convert the signal to analog if they receive it digitally. Then it's converted back to digital to address pixels. You will not get 1:1 pixel mapping on LCDs with a digital input.

Ed
ekb is offline  
post #21 of 28 Old 01-07-2007, 09:08 AM
Member
 
hydro5.56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My feeling is that HDMI provides absolutely no improvement in PQ. I think it is a scam to allow some control over copyrighted material. From what (admittedly, little) reading I have done on the subject, HDMI allows some control over copyrighted material, this combined with the fact that they claim a big improvement in PQ when I see none makes me think its a scam. If they tell all of us that HDMI is "best" for PQ and it appears no better than component, yet it allows them so control over their "property" it makes me paranoid. My $.02.
hydro5.56 is offline  
post #22 of 28 Old 01-07-2007, 09:35 AM
Member
 
bsaxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydro5.56 View Post

My feeling is that HDMI provides absolutely no improvement in PQ. I think it is a scam to allow some control over copyrighted material. From what (admittedly, little) reading I have done on the subject, HDMI allows some control over copyrighted material, this combined with the fact that they claim a big improvement in PQ when I see none makes me think its a scam. If they tell all of us that HDMI is "best" for PQ and it appears no better than component, yet it allows them so control over their "property" it makes me paranoid. My $.02.

I feel I am being more or less forced to not only string a 35 foot HDMI-DVI cable but buy a new receiver HDMI capable. This so my HD DVI, when I get it, can up-convert SD DVDs. I sympathize with the copy write problem for the industry but I don't think the solution should be on my back. And the promotion of HDMI being better, if it is not, sounds like fraud to me.

Bill
bsaxon is offline  
post #23 of 28 Old 01-07-2007, 12:07 PM
Member
 
8086's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsaxon View Post

I feel I am being more or less forced to not only string a 35 foot HDMI-DVI cable but buy a new receiver HDMI capable. This so my HD DVI, when I get it, can up-convert SD DVDs. I sympathize with the copy write problem for the industry but I don't think the solution should be on my back. And the promotion of HDMI being better, if it is not, sounds like fraud to me.

Bill

No need for that. Just get a Gefen HDMI extender. It uses cheap Catagory 5e wire to extend your signal an extra 500 feet.

2x 100 ft HDMI
100m (330 FT) Cat5e

http://www.gefen.com/
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...Search+Froogle
http://www.gefen.com/kvm/product.jsp?prod_id=3872


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
8086 is offline  
post #24 of 28 Old 01-08-2007, 08:48 AM
Member
 
mrb1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The new Panny DVD player I bought seems to only upconvert if an HDMI cable is attached. I am still awaiting my new HD set (non-HD CRT until then) so I have not actually tested it, but I would rather use component from the DVD as well as the HD receiver to the tv since they are less expensive. Is it true I must use HDMI rather than component to get the upconverting? In my experience on other peoples' sets I truly do not see any increase in PQ with HDMI over component.
mrb1 is offline  
post #25 of 28 Old 01-08-2007, 09:29 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
gspin2k1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrb1 View Post

The new Panny DVD player I bought seems to only upconvert if an HDMI cable is attached. I am still awaiting my new HD set (non-HD CRT until then) so I have not actually tested it, but I would rather use component from the DVD as well as the HD receiver to the tv since they are less expensive. Is it true I must use HDMI rather than component to get the upconverting? In my experience on other peoples' sets I truly do not see any increase in PQ with HDMI over component.

If price is your factor, go to www.monoprice.com they have HDMI cables as cheap as like $6-7 bucks. and i've used it and compared it to the $80-100 monster cables and saw no difference in quality. Hope that helps you.
gspin2k1 is offline  
post #26 of 28 Old 01-08-2007, 11:21 AM
Member
 
mrb1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gspin2k1 View Post

If price is your factor, go to www.monoprice.com they have HDMI cables as cheap as like $6-7 bucks. and i've used it and compared it to the $80-100 monster cables and saw no difference in quality. Hope that helps you.

It sure does, just ordered a couple after reading reviews. Like most things, Monster and the like are all about pretty logos and actual quality the same as most others.
Thanks for the tip, gspin2k1.
mrb1 is offline  
post #27 of 28 Old 01-08-2007, 05:40 PM
Member
 
jerrod6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Philadelphia PA
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just upgraded my Direct TV to HD. The receivers were delivered with component cables, but I bought HDMI cables and am using them. The picture and dolby sound are very good even the local HD channels that Direct TV is including.

Did I make a mistake? Should I switch to using the component cables instead? If I do will I still get the Dolby sound or will I need something else?
jerrod6 is offline  
post #28 of 28 Old 01-08-2007, 06:25 PM
Member
 
nixhex03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm on Dish Network, and of course, my 622 DVR won't work with HDMI cables. So I'm going with Component, and can't really tell a significant difference than when the HDMI worked for like 5 minutes.
nixhex03 is offline  
Reply HDTV Technical

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