# HDMI question Vs componenet



## candler8 (Oct 20, 2006)

Hello, I am new to the forum,

I have a question regarding the hdmi connection with HR10-250. I am in the market for a new HDTV television. My question, is the hdmi that much better than the standard component hook-up (That is what I have now)? And if so, does the monster cable (125.00) provide that much better of a picture vs the HDMI cable that comes with the HR10-250? 

Sorry if these are studip questions.

Thanks


----------



## dpfaunts (Oct 17, 2006)

candler8,
IMHO the "Monster $125.00" would be a waste..... I'd suggest HDMI cables from Walmart ~$30-40. In a digital world HDMI, I doubt there would be any visible difference. As far as HDMI vs Component not much difference either. The HDMI will provide audio and video in one cable. And for my 2cents on HDTVs, I believe Samsung DLPs are great.


----------



## LDLemu4U (Oct 16, 2006)

Cannot discern any difference between HDMI and component. Have been using HDMI from Monoprice which is about $6.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

> I'd suggest HDMI cables from Walmart ~$30-40. In a digital world HDMI, I doubt there would be any visible difference.


Perhaps, but probably only if you bought the HDTV from Walmart as well. 

Cheap cables will give you poor results as a rule. High-priced esoteric cables won't necessarily buy you the Holy Grail either. Monster Cables are generally overpriced and overhyped for what you get. OEM cables are usually thrown in the box as an afterthought and should be considered throwaway items (literally). You can buy some excellent quality HDMI cables for well under $100 and probably much less. There are some good cable vendors listed over at the AVS Forums that sell quality products at reasonable prices.

Keep in mind how much you invested in your HDTV and decide if you'd rather save a few bucks and buy cheap cables and then consider the weakest link theory. There's not much point in buying a great TV if the cables won't give you the best signal. OTOH, don't give into the marketing ploys of high-end cable manufacturers. IMHO, good quality conductors, excellent shielding, and quality insulating and dielectric materials will give you great results. The rest is mostly hype aimed at your insecurity in the hopes of prying a few extra bucks out of your wallet. The best advice I can give you is to try various brands of cables and see if you can tell the difference.

There is little or no discernible difference between the picture quality viewed from HDMI or component outputs. It would depend mostly on how your monitor processes the two inputs.


----------



## untouchable (Jun 24, 2006)

I honestly wouldn't waste the money on an HDMI cable that costs $125.00, if you actually but a new HR10, it should come with an HDMI cable, HDMI to DVI cable, and component cables. The HDMI is not going to necessarily give you a better picture...you would have to be a computer to tell the difference. The only good thing, as others have listed above is the convenience of using one cable...not to mention, it's optical so it will support dolby 5.1 

but, you can get the same out of component cables and an optical audio cable...
don't waste the money on the HDMI, it's not worth it...


----------



## Oliwa (Dec 7, 2006)

I agree that having high quality cables are important when dealing with component and other analog signals, but it's not as important with digital signals. The reason is that digital signals are either there or they're not. You either will have a good picture or you won't have a picture at all. Analog signals are different because the picture quality is relative to the signal strength and interference.

I bet you won't be able to tell any difference between a $100 HDMI Monster cable and a $9.99 HDMI cable available from an online retailer.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

captain_video said:


> Perhaps, but probably only if you bought the HDTV from Walmart as well.
> Cheap cables will give you poor results as a rule. High-priced esoteric cables won't necessarily buy you the Holy Grail either. Monster Cables are generally overpriced and overhyped for what you get. OEM cables are usually thrown in the box as an afterthought and should be considered throwaway items (literally). You can buy some excellent quality HDMI cables for well under $100 and probably much less. There are some good cable vendors listed over at the AVS Forums that sell quality products at reasonable prices.


The HDMI cable at Wal-Mart is a Phillips; as far as I know, a good cable.

According to everything else I have read, HDMI can be run for reasonably short lengths on just about any cable--say, up to 12 or 15 feet. Component cable is much more sensitive to cable quality.

Although I bought my HDTVs at CC, what is wrong with the Sony, Samsung, or Panasonic HDTVs that Wal-Mart sells? What difference does it make where you buy a leading brand?


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

Sorry, but since I don't normally do my shopping for high end A/V gear at WalMart I'm a bit remiss on the brands they carry. While WalMart may carry leading brands, they tend to carry the low end to mid-priced models of the product lines offered by each brand. You won't find anything even remotely high end at a WalMart, including cables. For the most part, unless you have discerning eyes and ears, you won't notice the difference between a high end cable and a mediocre one. 

Unless you know what to look and listen for, most any cable will yield similar results. OTOH, you also need associated equipment of the highest quality to provide the cleanest signal possible. Theoretically, if you use high end cables on average gear then you could actually make the system sound or look worse since you will no longer be masking their flaws. Conversely, you wouldn't consider using WalMart cables on a home theater system costing thousands of dollars since they would end up being the weakest link in the signal chain.

Buy cables that match the performance of the rest of your hardware. If you bought the TV at WalMart then the cables they sell would be a decent match for your system. If you bought your system at a home theater salon or other high end dealer we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


----------



## SFNSXguy (Apr 17, 2006)

An HDMI cable connection offers the bonus of not having to hassle over aspect ratios (stretch, fill, zoom, etc.) the sets should automatically "do the right thing".

I've had wonderful performance from cables from Pacific Custom Cables (a 10 meter HDMI is under $100).... and have used runs up to 15 meters with no problems.

Just my $0.02


Harry


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

> An HDMI cable connection offers the bonus of not having to hassle over aspect ratios (stretch, fill, zoom, etc.) the sets should automatically "do the right thing".


That will depend entirely on how your TV set handles the signal. I'm constantly having to change the aspect ratio and zoom between different types of program material. My HDTivos are set to display 16:9 for the output to the TV. Most all HD programming will adhere to this format but SD programming will look stretched if I don't change the TV to 4:3, even though the source channel it was recorded from is a local OTA digital channel.


----------



## Oliwa (Dec 7, 2006)

untouchable said:



> I honestly wouldn't waste the money on an HDMI cable that costs $125.00, if you actually but a new HR10, it should come with an HDMI cable, HDMI to DVI cable, and component cables. The HDMI is not going to necessarily give you a better picture...you would have to be a computer to tell the difference. The only good thing, as others have listed above is the convenience of using one cable...not to mention, it's optical so it will support dolby 5.1
> 
> but, you can get the same out of component cables and an optical audio cable...
> don't waste the money on the HDMI, it's not worth it...


HDMI is better (IMO) because HDMI is digital and component is analog. I still use optical for audio though.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

> HDMI is better (IMO) because HDMI is digital and component is analog. I still use optical for audio though.


You may want to read this article and rethink your position:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm


----------



## tds4182 (Jul 17, 2003)

captain_video said:


> You may want to read this article and rethink your position:
> 
> http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm


IMO, the biggest advantage of HDMI cables is that they give you a "one cable" solution that carries both video and audio.

I've purchased several cables from monoprice and have been very pleased with their performance. The $125 Monster cables are, IMHO, a waste of $$$.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

tds4182 said:


> IMO, the biggest advantage of HDMI cables is that they give you a "one cable" solution that carries both video and audio.
> 
> I've purchased several cables from monoprice and have been very pleased with their performance. The $125 Monster cables are, IMHO, a waste of $$$.


Agree on both counts.

HDMI is a nice one-cable solution for applications where sound from the TV itself is all that's needed. We have one of our plasmas connected that way. As far as picture quality goes, I really can't tell any difference between component and HDMI on any of our televisions.

Monoprice sells quality cables at great prices.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

Monster Cables are a waste of money at any price, IMHO. You can spend far less for cables of equal or better quality. You're just buying a brand name when you buy Monster (and one that's been hyped beyond reality, sort of like Bose). You can also spend mucho bucks for super quality cables but the average consumer would never see any improvement, however miniscule it may be, so for them making such a purchase would be a complete waste of money.


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

untouchable said:


> if you actually but a new HR10, it should come with an HDMI cable, HDMI to DVI cable, and component cables. .


Used to but not anymore.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

It will come with all cables if it's a new unit. If not, them someone is ripping you off. DTV installers have been known to pilfer any cables they don't use to hook up a new unit so it's always wise to keep an eye on them.


----------



## Oliwa (Dec 7, 2006)

captain_video said:


> You may want to read this article and rethink your position:
> 
> http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm


I read this and their explanation that converting digital->analog->digital may yield better picture quality than straight digital to digital just defies reason. I understand things are scaled and converted, but the less conversions is generally better. Hence reducing the step of digital->analog->digital would be beneficial.

It's very likely that most people will not be able to tell any difference because there is a lot more at play than just the cable, you have the source, receiver, TV, and environment (lighting, calibration, etc).

I prefer HDMI because it's only 1 connection and it's digital. In the end it's about what you like that matters most.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Mertzen said:


> Used to but not anymore.


Mine had the cables last June.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

Captain, some of your comments here seem very unlike you.

Weakest link theory? With an analog cable you can a/b a cheap cable and good cable and see a night and day difference, but you'll have to show me some evidence that a cheap HDMI cable is in someway inferior to an expensive one before I'll spend money on the assumption. If I can't tell the difference in picture by looking (as long as the cable doesn't break if you look at it wrong) then I won't spend a dime more. Weakest link theort doesn't apply if the price of the cable doesn't actually effect the strength of the link. Does it?

And Monster cables not good at ANY price? That seems a bit over the top. By all indications Monster Cables are good. Way over priced, but good. In fact, those usually ARE the ones the a/b in the stores to show the night and day difference with the included-in-the-box cables.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

Oliwa said:


> I read this and their explanation that converting digital->analog->digital may yield better picture quality than straight digital to digital just defies reason. I understand things are scaled and converted, but the less conversions is generally better.


You wisely included the word "generally" and that's the key. In a real system there are real and subtle factors that can be addressed to improve things.

Look at the earliest DVI computer monitors and you'll see that pure untouched digital doesn't automatically mean the end product will look better to human eyes than signals cleverly processed by smart people who know what they are doing. I think that is case here.


----------



## Ryanm86 (Oct 18, 2006)

captain_video said:


> It will come with all cables if it's a new unit. If not, them someone is ripping you off. DTV installers have been known to pilfer any cables they don't use to hook up a new unit so it's always wise to keep an eye on them.


I experienced this first hand. The installer jacked my cables once. Now I watch them like a Hawk!


----------



## bigboysony (Dec 15, 2006)

Aight, i am new here so bare with me, I just purchase the sony xbr2, but here is my situation, i am in corpus christi tx and my cable provider is time warner and i have there sad hd package, but any ways i have the tv and box box with hdmi cable and the funyy thing with this the picture is phenominal but the situation i am having, one is that when i turn off the tv go some where and when i return to turn to on the tv with out turning on the cable box the last channel i was wathcing is going with out the box being turn on now i obiously can't change it because the box is off but is this somthing that i need to be concerned. and now the other situation i have is with the dvr through timewarner, if i were to have on pause for about thirty minute and if i were to turn off the tv it interfears with the dvr box and looses all information and heads back to live tv, bascilly it is like if i were to chang the channel does anyone know about this.


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 1, 2005)

If you only have 1 HDMI input on the tv like I do. I would just use component for the sat box and use the HDMI port for either an upscaling DVD player or a HD-media player ie blue ray and HD-dvd players. The reason for that is there are very DVD players that upscale via component. Also I think a next gen media player would make much better use of that HDMI than the currenct direct tv signal we get.

If you need extra cables I really like monoprice also.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

> Weakest link theory? With an analog cable you can a/b a cheap cable and good cable and see a night and day difference, but you'll have to show me some evidence that a cheap HDMI cable is in someway inferior to an expensive one before I'll spend money on the assumption. If I can't tell the difference in picture by looking (as long as the cable doesn't break if you look at it wrong) then I won't spend a dime more. Weakest link theort doesn't apply if the price of the cable doesn't actually effect the strength of the link. Does it?


Absolutely true, but a bad cable would definitely degrade the image, wouldn't you agree? Hence the weakest link comment. Most any cable will do the job but when you start getting into the high-end cable market you pay a lot more for subtle changes in quality. Unless you really know what to look and listen for, the average consumer won't be able to tell any difference between a Monster cable (or the cheap OEM cable supplied in the box) and a high quality one.



> And Monster cables not good at ANY price? That seems a bit over the top. By all indications Monster Cables are good. Way over priced, but good. In fact, those usually ARE the ones the a/b in the stores to show the night and day difference with the included-in-the-box cables.


That comment is just my opinion. In my mind, Monster cables are merely adequate and certainly not worth the extra cost added on by the hype. There are several vendors that advertise over at the AVS Forums that carry high quality cables that are far better than the Monster brand for about the same price or maybe even less. You can a/b them in the stores because they're the most widely know brand name in cables and they're the only aftermarket cables many stores carry. Go to a high-end audio/video salon or home theater store and see if they'll let you audition some cables. Take one of your own cables as a reference and see if they'll put it in the system to let you see if you can detect any differenes. If the salesperson is really knowledgeable he will be able to point out the subtleties between a good cable and a mediocre one.

I believe a lot of high end gear in general (and not just cables) is targeted towards people that have more money than they know what to do with and want the best products available regardless of the cost. I used to be totally into high end audio and it literally made me neurotic. My ears had become so finely tuned that I could hear the changes in my speakers when there was a change in the humidity levels. I got to the point where I spent more time trying to track down the subtle changes in my system and correct them that I totally lost track of why I bought the hardware in the first place. Whether I was actually able to detect these difference became irrelevent because I believed they were there. I found that I was listening more to the A/V gear and wasn't enjoying the music anymore.


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

Everyone seems to be overlooking the reason HDMI was developed: to provide a copy-protection compliant method of connecting HD sources and displays. The HD signal can include a "copy protect" flag that will cause HD set top boxes to down-convert the signal going to analog outputs (such as component), while still sending the full res digital signal (including the flag) out digital outputs. Supposedly, any recording device (VCR, DVD, etc.) that has HDMI inputs should down-res or refuse to copy any source flagged for copy protection.

So, by connecting your HR10-250 to your TV via component, you run the risk of seeing down-res'ed video if DirecTv ever flags any HD content as copy-protected.


----------



## Oliwa (Dec 7, 2006)

captain_video said:


> Absolutely true, but a bad cable would definitely degrade the image, wouldn't you agree?


I would agree with analog, but not digital and let me explain why.

Most of us used to have an antenna on top of our house to get analog broadcasts before cable and D*. I used to have a rotor that would rotate the antenna to give me a better picture. The stronger the signal the better the picture.

Now fast forward to today with digital broadcasts from an antenna. If I get a signal strength of 75 my picture is clean and clear, but the picture doesn't get any better if my signal bumps up to 80 or 90. It's digital...it's either there or not. The only thing a higher signal strength over my antenna will do is withstand the occasional wind gust or bit of interference.

I equate that logic to an HDMI cable. A quad shielded gold plated Monster cable won't deliver a clearer and more vibrant picture than the one that was packaged with my HR20.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

I won't argue the point either way. Just refer back to the article I referenced and make up your own mind which type of cable works best for you.


----------



## Carnivore (Dec 16, 2006)

There is a difference between component and HDMI picture quality, but I can safely assure anyone there is no difference between the $5.00 HDMI cable that comes with the HR10-250 Tivo or the $125.00 Monster HDMI cable. I can't believe people actually pay the markup price without researching what they actually cost. Yes, some people have more money than they know what to do with it.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

> There is a difference between component and HDMI picture quality


I'll have to challenge you on that one. That's too broad a statement to be made point blank across the board. It all depends on the decoding circuitry in your source component vs. your HDTV. Most people will not be able to discern any difference whatsoever on the vast majority of HDTV sets, regardless of which connection they choose. Someone more experienced might be able to see the difference but the average Joe won't be able to tell.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

captain_video said:


> I'll have to challenge you on that one. That's too broad a statement to be made point blank across the board. It all depends on the decoding circuitry in your source component vs. your HDTV. Most people will not be able to discern any difference whatsoever on the vast majority of HDTV sets, regardless of which connection they choose. Someone more experienced might be able to see the difference but the average Joe won't be able to tell.


I agree with you. For almost all consumer equipment there will be no discernable difference between component and HDMI. Many people convince themselves that HDMI is better just because it's digital. In fact, for longer cable runs HDMI is more of a problem than component. HDMI is convenient because it's a single cable run, and maybe in the future because it provides copy protection so may allow more access to premium content. But it does not usually give any better quality picture than component.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

Oliwa said:


> I would agree with analog, but not digital and let me explain why.


A broken digital cable produces no picture at all. That's bad. I think that's what he meant in response my post. If a cheap cable is actually prone have connections fall apart, that would indeed have a dramatic effect on the picture.

I have to agree there.


----------



## Oliwa (Dec 7, 2006)

ApK said:


> A broken digital cable produces no picture at all. That's bad. I think that's what he meant in response my post. If a cheap cable is actually prone have connections fall apart, that would indeed have a dramatic effect on the picture.
> 
> I have to agree there.


But my point is that if the cable has a poor connector you will either receive 100% of the picture quality or none at all. With analog you may receive 75% of the picture quality.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

candler8 said:


> Hello, I am new to the forum,
> 
> I have a question regarding the hdmi connection with HR10-250. I am in the market for a new HDTV television. My question, is the hdmi that much better than the standard component hook-up (That is what I have now)? And if so, does the monster cable (125.00) provide that much better of a picture vs the HDMI cable that comes with the HR10-250?
> 
> ...


HDMI may look somewhat better, but most will probably not notice it. It does have the audio along with the video all in one cable and I think that is a big plus.

As for the monster cables... An audiophile friend of mine suggested Acoustic Reasearch cabled from Best Buy. My friend found that the Acoustic Research cables have all the important parts you need to make the cables high quality. But the price is not offensive like the monster cables. So I would not go super cheap but have in fact bought a bunch of the Acoustic Research cables.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

Oliwa said:


> But my point is that if the cable has a poor connector you will either receive 100% of the picture quality or none at all. With analog you may receive 75% of the picture quality.


No one said you'd see slowly degrading saturtion and sharpness, but actually, you could have a margnial or intermittent connection. Ask anyone DTV OTA fringe area about the 100%/0% thing.


----------



## Oliwa (Dec 7, 2006)

ApK said:


> No one said you'd see slowly degrading saturtion and sharpness, but actually, you could have a margnial or intermittent connection. Ask anyone DTV OTA fringe area about the 100%/0% thing.


When you said it would have a dramatic effect on picture quality I thought you were referring to the picture quality, not whether or not you had a picture at all. I guess we are misunderstanding each other.


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

I think the point was just not to rely on a cheap poorly made cable that might fall apart, even for digital.


----------



## mrb (Sep 14, 2006)

I'm curious. Don't most of you that have a very nice HD set also have your audio routed through a nice audio receiver? In that case, coming off the sat box (or DVD) you'd have video connections to the tv and audio to the amp? Then why would the "one cable" HDMI be so attractive? Hook up component from sat or DVD to the tv, and the digital optical out to the receiver. Seems like for many of us, the one cable reason for an expensive HDMI when the image quality is as good or only slightly better than component is a weak reason??


----------



## Oliwa (Dec 7, 2006)

mrb said:


> I'm curious. Don't most of you that have a very nice HD set also have your audio routed through a nice audio receiver? In that case, coming off the sat box (or DVD) you'd have video connections to the tv and audio to the amp? Then why would the "one cable" HDMI be so attractive? Hook up component from sat or DVD to the tv, and the digital optical out to the receiver. Seems like for many of us, the one cable reason for an expensive HDMI when the image quality is as good or only slightly better than component is a weak reason??


I have HDMI for video and optical for audio. I use HDMI because it's digital and I use a $10 cable. If I used component I would be forced to buy a high quality cable and it would still be analog. The 1 cable solution is great for some, but it's not the selling point for me.


----------



## twaller (Dec 17, 2005)

So when does analog automatically=bad? 
This topic has been gone through ad nauseum on several boards. There is no discernable difference between Component and HDMI in PQ.


----------



## Oliwa (Dec 7, 2006)

twaller said:


> So when does analog automatically=bad?
> This topic has been gone through ad nauseum on several boards. There is no discernable difference between Component and HDMI in PQ.


I never meant to imply it was bad. I agree with the other posters that said a typical person probably will never be able to tell the difference. I think with a high quality cable component would be just as good as HDMI in terms of PQ, but I prefer HDMI over component.


----------

