What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R

On Nov 20, 8:57*am, "ROANIN" wrote:
What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R

You could have an HD TV but not be viewing any HD content. HDMI
connections are also communication cable between component processors.
(For instance, if you put a BluRay in your player, the TV will switch
to HDMI (if it wasn't already).

ROANIN wrote:
What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently
bought an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV.
It was not a MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It
was just a normal one. The results as viewed by myself and my wife
was that the Component video source from the cable box looks just as
good if not better than the HDMI feed. ( these component cables were
left with my by Time Warner when they delivered the HD DVR) Any
explanations or opinions on this.

HDMI is a digital interface. Component video is an analog interface.
Depending on your "cable box" and television, the quality of the A/D
converters, and the quality of your cables, you may find either to provide a
better image.

Generally, in an all digital train, you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/A-A/D
loss.

Jon

On Nov 20, 9:15*am, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:

HDMI is a digital interface. Component video is an analog interface.
Depending on your "cable box" and television, the quality of the A/D
converters, and the quality of your cables, you may find either to
provide a
better image.

Generally, in an all digital train, you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss.

Jon

Drop the vernacular and explain in common terms...so he understands.
Not so you can express or impress!

Bob Villa wrote:
"Jon Danniken" wrote:

HDMI is a digital interface. Component video is an analog interface.
Depending on your "cable box" and television, the quality of the A/D
converters, and the quality of your cables, you may find either to
provide a better image.

Generally, in an all digital train, you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid
D/A-A/D loss.


Drop the vernacular and explain in common terms...so he understands.
Not so you can express or impress!

I thought I did that, "Bob". Which part are you having trouble
understanding?

Jon

On Nov 20, 9:50*am, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:
Bob Villa wrote:
"Jon Danniken" wrote:

HDMI is a digital interface. *Component video is an analog interface..
Depending on your "cable box" and television, the quality of the A/D
converters, and the quality of your cables, you may find either to
provide a better image.

Generally, in an all digital train, you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid
D/A-A/D loss.

Drop the vernacular and explain in common terms...so he understands.
Not so you can express or impress!

I thought I did that, "Bob". *Which part are you having trouble
understanding?

Jon

I'm not...but HE wants it explained...so, please aim a bit lower. ^L^

Bob Villa wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:50 am, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:
Bob Villa wrote:
"Jon Danniken" wrote:

HDMI is a digital interface. Component video is an analog
interface. Depending on your "cable box" and television, the
quality of the A/D converters, and the quality of your cables, you
may find either to provide a better image.

Generally, in an all digital train, you would use a high quality
(NOT monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to
avoid D/A-A/D loss.

Drop the vernacular and explain in common terms...so he understands.
Not so you can express or impress!

I thought I did that, "Bob". Which part are you having trouble
understanding?

Jon

I'm not...but HE wants it explained...so, please aim a bit lower. ^L^

OK so what is a "High quality" HDMI cable consist of? They all say they are
the best thing since sliced bread and the prices are all over the place.

R

In article
,
Bob Villa wrote:

On Nov 20, 9:15*am, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:

HDMI is a digital interface. Component video is an analog interface.
Depending on your "cable box" and television, the quality of the A/D
converters, and the quality of your cables, you may find either to
provide a
better image.

Generally, in an all digital train, you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss.

Jon

Drop the vernacular and explain in common terms...so he understands.
Not so you can express or impress!

Uh, "digital" and "analog" *are* common terms. There wasn't anything
obfuscating about Jon's comments.

"ROANIN" wrote:

What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video?

If you are watching a DVD the program material (audio and video) are recorded as
a series of 1/0 bits on the DVD. In the US, pre-HD TV was analog, so at some
point those 1/0 bits had to be converted to analog to form lines and levels.
Older analog TVs had three color guns - red, green and blue, so the 1/0 bits
were separated into three analog streams. That's what component video is.

Since no digital to analog conversion is perfect, there is always a little
quality loss. Really good conversions had almost imperceptible loss, poor
conversions had more.

Digital TV changed all that. A video frame consists of picture elements known as
pixels. Each pixel is represented by a collection of bits. The bits for each
pixel define the color and intensity of that pixel. Those bits can be taken from
the DVD and displayed with no analog conversion needed. Since bits can represent
both audio and vidio information, it's no long necessary to have separate cables
for each. The interface for connecting a digital device to a digital display is
HDMI.

For most consumers, the difference between a good component video and a digital
signal is undetectible. However, Hollywood was not keen on having perfect
digital copies of their content floating around the world, so they insisted that
the interface between the DVD and HD TV be encrypted. In order to get the
decryption keys, DVD and TV manufacturers had to agree to certain design
standards that would theoretically protect the data from being copied.

In article ,
"ROANIN" wrote:

OK so what is a "High quality" HDMI cable consist of? They all say they are
the best thing since sliced bread and the prices are all over the place.

Just make sure it says "Professional" on the label, preferably in
italics.

ROANIN wrote:
OK so what is a "High quality" HDMI cable consist of? They all say
they are the best thing since sliced bread and the prices are all
over the place.

I don't know any brands (other than to avoid monster like the plague), as HD
isn't my thing. If you are looking for one, go to where HD guys hang out,
and ask there. Maybe poke around newegg and see what the geeks say has the
best bang for the buck.

In other words, not the most expensive, and not the cheapest. Find one in
the middle that everyone says is a damn fine cable. They might even have it
at walmart.

Jon

"Jon Danniken" wrote:

In other words, not the most expensive, and not the cheapest. Find one in
the middle that everyone says is a damn fine cable. They might even have it
at walmart.

Amazon Basics is a good line. If you really want, you can get their braided
versions for a few bucks more.

The thing that annoys me about HDMI is that the various version numbers do not
reflect the functionality of the cable. The version number (1.1, 1.3a, 1.3b,
etc.) refer to the clock rate the cable supports and not necessarily additional
features such as back channel communication.

On Nov 20, 11:47*am, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:
ROANIN wrote:
*OK so what is a "High quality" HDMI cable consist of? They all say
they are the best thing since sliced bread and the prices are all
over the place.

I don't know any brands (other than to avoid monster like the plague), as HD
isn't my thing. *If you are looking for one, go to where HD guys hang out,
and ask there. *Maybe poke around newegg and see what the geeks say has the
best bang for the buck.

In other words, not the most expensive, and not the cheapest. *Find one in
the middle that everyone says is a damn fine cable. *They might even have it
at walmart.

Jon

It's a digital protocol and interface. For the typical 3-7 feet cable
run, how much you pay or what HDMI cable you use i not going to make
any difference. The cable doesn't affect the quality of the A/D or D/
A conversion unless the signal degrades so badly that the receiving
end can't distinguish a high level, ie "1" from a low level signal, ie
"0". That;s one of the great advantages of digital. If you're going
50+ feet, then I'd consider cable issues.

As for HDMI vs component, except for the HDMI cable part, I agree with
John. With HDMI, the conversion from digital to analog occurs in the
display. With component, it occurs in the cable,sat box, or DVD
player. So, it can depend on the quality of one of those converters
versus the other. But in general, I doubt you'd notice the
difference. I've tried both on my 42" Sony and I can't notice any
difference in picture quality.

wrote:

It's a digital protocol and interface. For the typical 3-7 feet cable
run, how much you pay or what HDMI cable you use i not going to make
any difference.

Generally, I would agree. However, newer versions of HDMI cables support higher
bit rates and suffer less crosstalk. I found I had to replace a couple of very
early (read: old) HDMI cables when I upgraded some system components to 1080p
which requires the higher bitrates.

On Nov 20, 10:23*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Bob Villa wrote:



On Nov 20, 9:15 am, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:

HDMI is a digital interface. *Component video is an analog interface.
Depending on your "cable box" and television, the quality of the A/D
converters, and the quality of your cables, you may find either to
provide a
better image.

Generally, in an all digital train, you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss.

Jon

Drop the vernacular and explain in common terms...so he understands.
Not so you can express or impress!

Uh, "digital" and "analog" *are* common terms. There wasn't anything
obfuscating about Jon's comments.

Does this help explain anything? "Generally, in an all digital train,
you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss. "
Simply...no!

On Nov 20, 8:57*am, "ROANIN" wrote:
What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R

I would have thought a complete digital signal would have been better.
Component is analog, Hdmi is digital with sound in one cable.
Component was out before Hdmi. Somewhere in the chain something isnt
optimised for Hdmi, maybe try a different cable box.

On Nov 20, 11:11*am, "ROANIN" wrote:
Bob Villa wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:50 am, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:
Bob Villa wrote:
"Jon Danniken" wrote:

HDMI is a digital interface. Component video is an analog
interface. Depending on your "cable box" and television, the
quality of the A/D converters, and the quality of your cables, you
may find either to provide a better image.

Generally, in an all digital train, you would use a high quality
(NOT monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to
avoid D/A-A/D loss.

Drop the vernacular and explain in common terms...so he understands.
Not so you can express or impress!

I thought I did that, "Bob". Which part are you having trouble
understanding?

Jon

I'm not...but HE wants it explained...so, please aim a bit lower. ^L^

OK so what is a "High quality" HDMI cable consist of? They all say they are
the best thing since sliced bread and the prices are all over the place.

R

If the picture looks fine, just use the component cables. I've hooked
my TV up to 2 different inputs using component and HDMI at the same
time. I have switched back and forth and I don't see any noticeable
difference. HDMI is just more convenient. 1 cable vs. 5.

Also, I have to use component cables, because for some stupid reason
the HDMI output on my HD DVR overrides the digital audio output that I
need for my stereo receiver.

On Nov 20, 2:48*pm, ransley wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:57*am, "ROANIN" wrote:

What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R

I would have thought a complete digital signal would have been better.
Component is analog, Hdmi is digital with sound in one cable.
Component was out before Hdmi. Somewhere in the chain something isnt
optimised for Hdmi, maybe try a different cable box.

And the component signal is converted to digital. Why do you think
they started putting component outputs on DVD players?

On Nov 20, 3:24*pm, Ron wrote:
On Nov 20, 2:48*pm, ransley wrote:





On Nov 20, 8:57*am, "ROANIN" wrote:

What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R

I would have thought a complete digital signal would have been better.
Component is analog, Hdmi is digital with sound in one cable.
Component was out before Hdmi. Somewhere in the chain something isnt
optimised for Hdmi, maybe try a different cable box.

And the component signal is converted to digital. Why do you think
they started putting component outputs on DVD players?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I said component is analog.

On Nov 20, 4:48*pm, ransley wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:24*pm, Ron wrote:



On Nov 20, 2:48*pm, ransley wrote:

On Nov 20, 8:57*am, "ROANIN" wrote:

What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R

I would have thought a complete digital signal would have been better..
Component is analog, Hdmi is digital with sound in one cable.
Component was out before Hdmi. Somewhere in the chain something isnt
optimised for Hdmi, maybe try a different cable box.

And the component signal is converted to digital. Why do you think
they started putting component outputs on DVD players?

I said component is analog.

So is the RG7 cable that hooks up to your TV. I guess I missed your
piont.

In article
,
Bob Villa wrote:

Does this help explain anything? "Generally, in an all digital train,
you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss. "
Simply...no!

Sure it does. Read the subject line. Jon's advice is to keep a digital
signal digital all the way through, IOW stay with HDMI. Changing digital
to analog and then analog back to digital will degrade the signal.

On Nov 20, 11:51*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Bob Villa wrote:

Does this help explain anything? *"Generally, in an all digital train,
you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss. "
Simply...no!

Sure it does. Read the subject line. Jon's advice is to keep a digital
signal digital all the way through, IOW stay with HDMI. Changing digital
to analog and then analog back to digital will degrade the signal.

Bull****. You can't see the difference.

BTW, what is the model number of this Sony WEGA CRT HDTV that you own?

In article
,
Ron wrote:

On Nov 20, 11:51*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Bob Villa wrote:

Does this help explain anything? *"Generally, in an all digital train,
you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss. "
Simply...no!

Sure it does. Read the subject line. Jon's advice is to keep a digital
signal digital all the way through, IOW stay with HDMI. Changing digital
to analog and then analog back to digital will degrade the signal.

Bull****. You can't see the difference.

BTW, what is the model number of this Sony WEGA CRT HDTV that you own?

It's a model 69, Ron.

On Nov 21, 1:18*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,



*Ron wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:51 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Bob Villa wrote:

Does this help explain anything? "Generally, in an all digital train,
you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss. "
Simply...no!

Sure it does. Read the subject line. Jon's advice is to keep a digital
signal digital all the way through, IOW stay with HDMI. Changing digital
to analog and then analog back to digital will degrade the signal.

Bull****. You can't see the difference.

BTW, what is the model number of this Sony WEGA CRT HDTV that you own?

It's a model 69, Ron.

Non-answer, noted.

ROANIN wrote:

What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R

On my first 32" 1080i HDTV, the component input from the cable box was
far superior to the digital output of the time - DVI (essentially HDMI
minus audio).

On my current 42" 1080p LCD as well as my 110" 1080p projector, they are
equal in quality.

So whether that's due to the signal quality limitations of the cable box
- not revealing the supposed superiority of HDMI - or that there simply
is no difference, I can't say.

On Nov 21, 2:46*am, "Bob(but not THAT Bob)"
wrote:
ROANIN wrote:

What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R

On my first 32" 1080i HDTV, the component input from the cable box was
far superior to the digital output of the time - DVI (essentially HDMI
minus audio).

On my current 42" 1080p LCD as well as my 110" 1080p projector, they are
equal in quality.

So whether that's due to the signal quality limitations of the cable box
- not revealing the supposed superiority of HDMI - or that there simply
is no difference, I can't say.

If I run my cable directly to my TV, my local HD channels look
slightly better than they do through my HD DVR. Riddle me that.......

On Nov 21, 1:24*am, Ron wrote:
On Nov 21, 1:18*am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article
,

*Ron wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:51 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Bob Villa wrote:

Does this help explain anything? "Generally, in an all digital train,
you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss. "
Simply...no!

Sure it does. Read the subject line. Jon's advice is to keep a digital
signal digital all the way through, IOW stay with HDMI. Changing digital
to analog and then analog back to digital will degrade the signal.

Bull****. You can't see the difference.

BTW, what is the model number of this Sony WEGA CRT HDTV that you own?

It's a model 69, Ron.

Non-answer, noted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Smitty seems to believe that any THEORETICAL advantage becomes
important, regardless of whether humans can perceive it or not. Many
audiophiles make the same leaps when purchasing analog audio cables
costing $1000 or more. Like you Ron, I've compared HDMI and component
on my 42" Sony and can't see any difference either with cable or Blue
Ray. The truth is that supposedly pure digital signal undergoes all
kinds of manipulation in the digital world that will have a bigger
impact on the resulting picture than any D/A conversion. Among those
are conversion from the original source to compressed digital,
compression by the cable/sat company to transmit it, conversion from
the incoming source to the native resolution of the display inside the
TV, etc.

On Nov 21, 7:57*am, wrote:
On Nov 21, 1:24*am, Ron wrote:



On Nov 21, 1:18*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*Ron wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:51 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
Bob Villa wrote:

Does this help explain anything? "Generally, in an all digital train,
you would use a high quality (NOT
monster) HDMI interface, especially at higher resolutions, to avoid D/
A-A/D
loss. "
Simply...no!

Sure it does. Read the subject line. Jon's advice is to keep a digital
signal digital all the way through, IOW stay with HDMI. Changing digital
to analog and then analog back to digital will degrade the signal..

Bull****. You can't see the difference.

BTW, what is the model number of this Sony WEGA CRT HDTV that you own?

It's a model 69, Ron.

Non-answer, noted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Smitty seems to believe that any THEORETICAL advantage becomes
important, regardless of whether humans can perceive it or not. * Many
audiophiles make the same leaps when purchasing analog audio cables
costing $1000 or more. *Like you Ron, I've compared HDMI and component
on my 42" Sony and can't see any difference either with cable or Blue
Ray. *The truth is that supposedly pure digital signal undergoes all
kinds of manipulation in the digital world that will have a bigger
impact on the resulting picture than any D/A conversion. *Among those
are conversion from the original source to compressed digital,
compression by the cable/sat company to transmit it, conversion from
the incoming source to the native resolution of the display inside the
TV, etc.

Yeah, I've been trying to get my cable company to run a HDMI cable
from their office to my home, so far no luck. How dare them use that
****ty RG7/RG11 coax cable!

ROANIN wrote:
What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently bought
an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV. It was not a
MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It was just a normal one.
The results as viewed by myself and my wife was that the Component video
source from the cable box looks just as good if not better than the HDMI
feed. ( these component cables were left with my by Time Warner when they
delivered the HD DVR) Any explanations or opinions on this.

Thanks,

R


Others have explained the difference between HDMI and Component video,
so I will pass, but will give you my 2 cents on a problem my dad and I
ran into.

1) The manufacture of my TV has an option that allows the entertainment
system to predict what I need and turn on or off things like BlueRay and
the Amp when using HDMI. I hated this so I disabled the option.

2) In our area we (both my dad and I) were having a little problem once
in a while with momentary drops in signal. When using HDMI the screen
would go blank for 10 - 20 seconds while the TV and Cable Box
reestablished a connection. I switched both systems to Component Video
from the cable box only and I no longer get the blank screen as the blip
in the signal is often hardly noticeable. I still connect to my BlueRay
using HDMI and to my Amp using optical.

YMMV

Ned Flanders wrote:
ROANIN wrote:
What is the difference between HDMI and Component Video. I recently
bought an HDMI cable and hooked it up from my cable box to my HD TV.
It was not a MONSTER cable as they are stupidly overpriced etc. It
was just a normal one. The results as viewed by myself and my wife
was that the Component video source from the cable box looks just as
good if not better than the HDMI feed. ( these component cables were
left with my by Time Warner when they delivered the HD DVR) Any
explanations or opinions on this. Thanks,

R


Others have explained the difference between HDMI and Component video,
so I will pass, but will give you my 2 cents on a problem my dad and I
ran into.

1) The manufacture of my TV has an option that allows the
entertainment system to predict what I need and turn on or off things
like BlueRay and the Amp when using HDMI. I hated this so I disabled
the option.
2) In our area we (both my dad and I) were having a little problem
once in a while with momentary drops in signal. When using HDMI the
screen would go blank for 10 - 20 seconds while the TV and Cable Box
reestablished a connection. I switched both systems to Component Video
from the cable box only and I no longer get the blank screen as the
blip in the signal is often hardly noticeable. I still connect to my
BlueRay using HDMI and to my Amp using optical.

YMMV
OK Thanks group for all the good information. All I know is that when I
hooked up the component connections they looked better than the HDMI 1.3b
cable and the box did say "professional" on it so who knows. Will just leave
it the way it is for now..

R