HDMI is not better than component? WTF

[mainman]

According to this article, HDMI is better than component is just a myth.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2007/09/...ent/page2.html

Conclusion
The real point is that there's not really a winner: the argument to be made is that both formats function just fine. HDMI is nice because it incorporates both audio and video, and that's a very nice extra feature. However, if your cable company's HD converter box only supports component output, that's not a reason to jump to another service provider. Analog technologies date back decades upon decades and are built on a long-standing tradition. And while digital formats are supposed to deliver more fulfilling standards, they're often under-utilized in favor of making cheaper products.

Long-range HDMI cables are also known to lose quality because of a less-than-perfect set of standards for the format.

Huh?

[evo_dadi]

from what i can understand on that he's just basing the result of what you get off a cable/satellite provider.not coming from a standalone player.

[bmr76]

Ive talked to numerous installers who actually prefer a nice pair of component (monster video 3)over hdmi due to the fact its almost always going to work. Hdmi capatability can sometimes be an issue between the set and dvd etc.. Picture in my opinion is a little sharper with hdmi.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by bmr76

Ive talked to numerous installers who actually prefer a nice pair of component (monster video 3)over hdmi due to the fact its almost always going to work. Hdmi capatability can sometimes be an issue between the set and dvd etc.. Picture in my opinion is a little sharper with hdmi.

Unless you have an HD-A1, in which case the picture is much sharper with component. Your black levels are also much better with component...

[DavePS3]

HDMI was introduced to pass HDCP - which Component can't do properly ans of course both HD audio formats - which can only pass through HDMI. Component will eventually be reduced to 480p, letting HD only passable via HDMI. There's a huge fight over it but that's the was things will go. They say Component wont even pass 720p eventually. It's all about copy protection.

[PaulGo]

HDMI (and DVI) keeps the signal in a digital format. If you use component the signal has to be converted to analog and then the set need to convert it back to digital. If you have a good quality source keeping the signal digital should be preferred.

[BTBuck1]

The only Tv I could ever tell a noticeble difference with was my samsung plasma back in 03' (EDTV)

Since then, I've never been able to tell an appreciable difference in sharpness/color etc.
(actually that was DVI)


Another set, my kv30hs420 a Sony HD crt in my office, had some interference when using component cables, i switched to a DVI out/to HDMI in and I no longer get the transparent rolling I'd get from corner to corner Diagonally.

But it's a damn cool concept isn't it: HDMI that is!

[ground chuck]

hold on a minute....i was using component cables on a 720p dlp a 2years ago and i switched to hdmi and the difference is night and day. i have comcast and after i switched cables all my hd channels came in in full screen not 4:3 witht the black bars on the side. the clarity was 100x better. maybe it is b/c my cable box supports hdmi, maybe not, either way hdmi cables are the way to go.

back then i didn't think that cables could make such a big difference, but they do.

[gand41f]

YMMV. My old cable company's box looked much better with component than DVI. Older TVs might convert HDMI/DVI to analog to reuse the existing circuitry. (Mine is one of them. )

The latest TVs with "dot-by-dot" mode should look sharper with HDMI if you are watching Blu-ray though.

enjoy
gandalf

P.S. My 444th post!

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by ground chuck

hold on a minute....i was using component cables on a 720p dlp a 2years ago and i switched to hdmi and the difference is night and day. i have comcast and after i switched cables all my hd channels came in in full screen not 4:3 witht the black bars on the side. the clarity was 100x better. maybe it is b/c my cable box supports hdmi, maybe not, either way hdmi cables are the way to go.

back then i didn't think that cables could make such a big difference, but they do.

That's not what the article is talking about. If you can't get HD signals on component because of HDCP, then yes, the difference is night and day. (Although I don't know that some cable boxes disallow HD channels on compenent.)

If you can get HD signals on component, the difference can be small or even negative (better on component). Depends on your equipment.

We're still in the nascent stage of this "high-definition" thing so lots of "common sense" don't always apply. Examples of statements that are not necessarily true:

• All-digital (HDMI/DVI) is better than digital-analog-digital (component)
• 120Hz TVs will show 1080p24 without judder
• Lossless compressed audio (Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA) sounds exactly the same as uncompressed audio
• 1080i60 and 1080p (24 or 60Hz) contain enough information from the original 1080p24 so they will look exactly the same

One can even write a small article on each and why they are not this way.

enjoy
gandalf

[Neo65]

I have seen four TVs now where the component video input will clip a few pixels from all four sides while the HDMI displays the full 1920x1080. If you display the right test signal. For exampe this one or other similar test patterns that cover the entire 1920x1080 screen :
http://www.w6rz.net/overscancrop.zip

You'll find that many TVs when fed YPrPb signals will clip all four corners. This is why the xbox360 preferred connection is the VGA instead of component, and the PS3's preferred connection is HDMI instead of component.

The author of the article didn't test his pet theory on enough TVs or he wouldn't have written such easily disproved claims.

[Uxi]

I don't think HDMI offers substantially better video than component. The fine print says that it needs to be a decent component cable whereas any old off teh shelf HDMI bearing the logo is much more likely to be up to par.

The biggest benefit of HDMI for me is the 8ch of PCM that comes along with that 1920 x 1080 picture.

[Ilka]

Originally Posted by mainman

... the real point is that there is not a winner.

Huh?

One is an analog transport -- the other is a digital transport. Under the assumption that the the analog cables aren't FUBAR'ed and that the colour-space configuration (and other current/older screwey implementations/combinations), it's true -- the end-result (digital signals) can often be re-constructed bit-for-bit. But not on everyone's current equipment -- hence the confusion and claims.

As HDMI standards become mainstream, this occasional difference*should* disappear.

However, why I like HDMI is:

a) It's one cable, not a set;
b) It can also transport the audio stream (raw, and more often now with new/announced receivers, the encoded bitstream);
c) It's intelligent, as in the ability to negotiate with the next end-point in the connection (e.g. a BD player to a receiver), and determine what audio/video settings are supported automatically, and set the data delivery accordingly.

I'm one of "those" that is awaiting for a Sony-ES (or other high-end) receiver with at least 4-5 HDMI inputs, with on-board audio processing.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by Ilka

I'm one of "those" that is awaiting for a Sony-ES (or other high-end) receiver with at least 4-5 HDMI inputs, with on-board audio processing.

4-5 HDMI inputs is not that great if there is only 1 output. Then you are forced to have the same Picture settings for each component that uses the same HDMI input on your TV. What settings may look good on Bluray will not be ideal for Cable tv, DVD players, game systems...etc

So idealy you would hook these variables directly to an HDMI input on your TV and run an audio (optical) cable to the receiver. So 4-5 HDMI inputs on a receiver is not necessarily a good thing...its how many outputs it has...which not many have more than one.

[actionhank]

Originally Posted by gand41f

• All-digital (HDMI/DVI) is better than digital-analog-digital (component)

From my understanding this is not true is you have a CRT HDTV than has HDMI inputs because CRT will convert your digital signal from the HDMI to analog where you'll lose data. It'll be digital-digital-analog. I don't know of any CRT HDTV that has HDMI inputs though.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

4-5 HDMI inputs is not that great if there is only 1 output. Then you are forced to have the same Picture settings for each component that uses the same HDMI input on your TV. What settings may look good on Bluray will not be ideal for Cable tv, DVD players, game systems...etc

So idealy you would hook these variables directly to an HDMI input on your TV and run an audio (optical) cable to the receiver. So 4-5 HDMI inputs on a receiver is not necessarily a good thing...its how many outputs it has...which not many have more than one.

I agree. I'm glad my TV has three HDMI inputs with distinct settings for each one. For HD cable, I want to have my overscan set to normal while Full pixel set for my PS3 and HD-A2.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by actionhank

From my understanding this is not true is you have a CRT HDTV than has HDMI inputs because CRT will convert your digital signal from the HDMI to analog where you'll lose data. It'll be digital-digital-analog. I don't know of any CRT HDTV that has HDMI inputs though.

Many CRT HDTV's have a DVI connection....HDMI-DVI cable.

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by actionhank

From my understanding this is not true is you have a CRT HDTV than has HDMI inputs because CRT will convert your digital signal from the HDMI to analog where you'll lose data. It'll be digital-digital-analog. I don't know of any CRT HDTV that has HDMI inputs though.

Can't recall the model number off the top of my head, but my Sanyo CRT HDTV has HDMI...only one input, but it's the one I use.

[actionhank]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

Can't recall the model number off the top of my head, but my Sanyo CRT HDTV has HDMI...only one input, but it's the one I use.

Then it will be better if you use the component cable so that the signal will be: analog-analog-analog. You will lose data whenever you convert digital to analog.

But then you might not be able to do 1080p which is not so good.

I am just paraphrasing all of this from a really good thread on the Playstation Forums. You should read it. It's really informative.

Here it is:
http://boardsus.playstation.com/play...read.id=943985

And check out is other helpful posts in his sig.

[w_tanoto]

my main objection and the only thing I don't like about HDMI is HDCP. I opted component-to-VGA because of that.