# HD over component?



## CopyChief (Jan 17, 2005)

A question for those with a 622 or 722. The installer is coming next week to swap out my 522 with an HD upgrade to go with my brand new HDTV. I know there has been much debate on here about whether or not HDMI or other cables are included, so I won't go there. My main question is that I have a set of component cables and was wondering if I could use those instead of HDMI until I can get one. Will I still get a good HD picture through component from the STB? I'm using my receiver to decode the optical audio signal from the 522, so I plan to do the same from the new box, so the inclusion of audio in the HDMI feed is not an issue.

Thanks.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Some say their picture is better with component, some say it's better with HDMI and others can't tell the difference. It all depends on your setup. But yes, you will get a good picture with component.


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

I've used both...same STB's, same Displays, same programs...I can't tell any difference. I have 2 622's, running 2 identical Sony HDTV's, one using component and one using HDMI. Both look the same to me. Only difference is, I use a Toslink for the audio with the components.


----------



## jimborst (Jun 13, 2006)

My 622's HDMI port just went out, so at the moment I am using the component cabeling, and I do not see a difference.

BTW this is on a purchased 622, I am out of warranty, do I have to take out the plan that Dish offers to have this replaced, and how long before I call will I have to have the plan in effect?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

You will be just fine with component. I can tell little to no difference between the two in my setup


----------



## chasby (Jan 9, 2006)

Since I have excellent Anthem & Denon receivers (without HDMI switching) feeding my 65" Hitachi HDTV and my Sony Front Projector in my two home theaters, and have good DVD players in both systems I can only use the component feeds from my 622 and my 722. I am extremely happy with the HDTV picture in both systems. I'm using TOSLINK audio feeds with both systems.
I think you will be happy.

Chasby


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

I agree.. no difference in quality between componet and HDMI. Never forget that the only real reason for HDMI to exist it copy protection. HDMI has it, Component does not.

Sure it's nice to have one cable instead of 5 but today you need HDMI for protected content that will not come over component. This is one of the main reasons that most upconverting DVD players (convert regualr DVD's to HD resolution) will only upconvert over an HDMI cable. I guess they fear that some people might grab the upconverted signal and pass it off as true HD.

While this does not factor into the Dish component or HDMI... which is better it does help explain why there "should" be no difference in quality between the two.

Now having said this ther can be some difference on certain HDTV's as I have heard that some have better HDMI or component circuits but on my HD DLP they both look identical provided I have them tuned the same.

I have both connected and when I toggle between the two I see zero difference. I use HDMI for my upconverting DVD player, component for my Xbox 360, HDMI for my 622 and component for my Computer video out because it was easier to find longer component cables over HDMI at the time.

Now here is something interesting. I got one of those DVD recorders and if I hook it up via HDMI it will not record, connect it with component and it will record anything 

Got to love greed and copy protection 

-JB


----------



## jackienopay (Dec 18, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> I agree.. no difference in quality between componet and HDMI. Never forget that the only real reason for HDMI to exist it copy protection. HDMI has it, Component does not.
> 
> Sure it's nice to have one cable instead of 5 but today you need HDMI for protected content that will not come over component. This is one of the main reasons that most upconverting DVD players (convert regualr DVD's to HD resolution) will only upconvert over an HDMI cable. I guess they fear that some people might grab the upconverted signal and pass it off as true HD.
> 
> ...


I don't dare hijack this thread, so instead I'll just say "wrong!" and never check this thread again.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

jackienopay said:


> I don't dare hijack this thread, so instead I'll just say "wrong!" and never check this thread again.


Well you could at least tell me what is wrong with what I said?

HDMI and Component cables (red-green-blue+ audio) is somehow different in quality?

Or is it the comment about HDMI being basically invented to add copy protection?

Hmmmmm anyone?

-JB


----------



## lv99 (Jan 3, 2008)

jrb531 said:


> Well you could at least tell me what is wrong with what I said?
> 
> HDMI and Component cables (red-green-blue+ audio) is somehow different in quality?
> 
> ...


component and HDMI both send digital data (0,1,1,0...) only diff is the audio, component do not carry audio


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Component is analog, not digital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

some say that sdtv signal looks better over component than hdmi. i personally use hdmi but component is great too


----------



## wreck (Oct 27, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> Component is analog, not digital.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video


From the same wiki article:



> Digital component video is slowly becoming popular in both computer and home-theatre applications. Component video is capable of carrying signals such as 480i, 480p, 576i, 576p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p, although most TVs do not support 1080p through component video.


So -- are they saying that newer "component" does???


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

wreck said:


> From the same wiki article:
> 
> So -- are they saying that newer "component" does???


All consumer TVs and consumer video devices with RGB component outputs are ANALOG. Wikipedia is hardly an authoritive source for much of anything.

There would be no reason to have 3 seperate cables with a digital signal.


----------



## ZBoomer (Feb 21, 2008)

I can't see a visual difference between component (analog) and HDMI with short runs, but HDMI has an advantage with distance. Since it's a digital signal it does better for me with a long run to my projector.


----------



## lv99 (Jan 3, 2008)

ZBoomer said:


> I can't see a visual difference between component (analog) and HDMI with short runs, but HDMI has an advantage with distance. Since it's a digital signal it does better for me with a long run to my projector.


HDMI cables are subject to a maximum of 15 meters

practical-home-theater-guide.com/hdmi-cable.html


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

lv99 said:


> HDMI cables are subject to a maximum of 15 meters
> 
> practical-home-theater-guide.com/hdmi-cable.html


There is a newer version that is good for longer runs


----------



## wreck (Oct 27, 2007)

I don't consider myself "clueless" ( many here might disagree  ) but would someone explain/clarify for me why coax cable can carry digital HD signal on "cable TV systems", can carry digital HD signals from your dish to your receiver -- but can't carry digital HD signals from the receiver to your TV??


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

For some Mitsubishi CRT RPTV HDMI has a washed out picture compared to component. I was a Beta tester in November. I was able under HDMI test to switch between RGB AND YCrCb input. When I swapped to YCrCb input, my HDMI connection was beautiful. I reported my findings but *E* removed the switch in early Dec. 2007 when 4.48 rolled out. I was told it might be a future add on but for know it was not a priority. I had Craig Rounds come and calibrate my Television and he left me hooked up to component saying the HDMI input problem was a Mitsubishi problem when hooked up to the 622. My HD DVD player is hooked up HDMI and is beautiful. Later models have been fixed but I would have to stay on component until *E* decides to make the HDMI input selector switch a option if ever.
If your picture looks washed out and you are hooked up HDMI and you own a older Mitsubishi RPTV (2006 OR LESS) go component and you will be Happy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

wreck said:


> I don't consider myself "clueless" ( many here might disagree  ) but would someone explain/clarify for me why coax cable can carry digital HD signal on "cable TV systems", can carry digital HD signals from your dish to your receiver -- but can't carry digital HD signals from the receiver to your TV??


It's a matter of the format of the transmission. You could just as well ask why HD signals are being transmitted wirelessly (via satellite or OTA) to your home but then you need wires to connect to your TV in order to watch them.

What is coming OTA or cable or via satellite transmission is not raw video/audio... but rather data (in this case we are talking about digital data)... 1s and 0s... so at that point the data can be anything... it could be HD, SD, radio stations, whatever... and its really just a sequence of 1s and 0s.

Your receiver turns this into something to feed to your TV. Once it turns it into something else, then specific cables are needed for various reasons for specific kinds of signals.

For a really low-level example... Think of a sheet of paper. It is thin and flat and you can slide it under your door... but if you ball it up, you can't. It's still a sheet of paper but you can't slide it under the door anymore. You could flatten it out again, but in the ball form you are more limited in places you can fit it.

This is a very birds-eye view of things... almost anything else would require a lot more detail that you may or may not actually be interested in.. but if you are, I can go farther (as I'm sure others can jump in as well).


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

wreck said:


> I don't consider myself "clueless" ( many here might disagree  ) but would someone explain/clarify for me why coax cable can carry digital HD signal on "cable TV systems", can carry digital HD signals from your dish to your receiver -- but can't carry digital HD signals from the receiver to your TV??


The most economical modulators to allow a single HD channel to be sent over coax run about $1,000. Your local cable company's head-end equipment probably costs several million dollars. But they can justify the cost because that head-end services a LOT of customers. Could you justify the extra $1000 added to the price of your HD receiver?

The HDMI cable also is designed to pass other signals that are useful when connecting different types of devices together and make them compatible. And, using a different interface adds some security to the DRM that the content-makers insist upon when allowing digital transmission of their content.


----------



## fwampler (Dec 2, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> Well you could at least tell me what is wrong with what I said?
> 
> HDMI and Component cables (red-green-blue+ audio) is somehow different in quality?
> 
> ...


I just deleted my input. Don't ask if you don't want an answer.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

fwampler said:


> I just deleted my input. Don't ask if you don't want an answer.


This will help expalin the difference between Component, HDMI and DVI:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html

The short answer:

HDMI is digital which "can" allow copy protection
Component is analog which does not allow copy protection



> Both DVI/HDMI and Component Video deliver signals as discrete red, green, and blue color components, together with sync information which allows the display to determine when a new line, or a new frame, begins. The DVI/HDMI standard delivers these along three data channels in a format called T.M.D.S., which stands for "Transmission Minimized Differential Signaling." Big words aside, the T.M.D.S. format basically involves a blue channel to which horizontal and vertical sync are added, and separate green and red channels.
> 
> Component Video is delivered, similarly, with the color information split up three ways. However, component video uses a "color-difference" type signal, which consists of Luminance (the "Y", or "green," channel, representing the total brightness of the image), Red Minus Luminance (the "Pr," or "Red," channel), and Blue Minus Luminance (the "Pb," or "Blue," channel). The sync pulses for both horizontal and vertical are delivered on the Y channel. The display calculates the values of red, green and blue from the Y, Pb, and Pr signals.





> Isn't Digital Just Better?
> 
> It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a factor at distance.





> So, which is better, DVI or component? HDMI or component? The answer--unsatisfying, perhaps, but true--is that it depends. It depends upon your source and display devices, and there's no good way, in principle, to say in advance whether the digital or the analog connection will render a better picture. You may even find, say, that your DVD player looks better through its DVI or HDMI output, while your satellite or cable box looks better through its component output, on the same display. In this case, there's no real substitute for simply plugging it in and giving it a try both ways.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

wreck said:


> I don't consider myself "clueless" ( many here might disagree  ) but would someone explain/clarify for me why coax cable can carry digital HD signal on "cable TV systems", can carry digital HD signals from your dish to your receiver -- but can't carry digital HD signals from the receiver to your TV??


Completely different modulation and signal encoding types?

The coax output from a Dish receiver is modulated as a crappy old analog RF signal. Why? Because it's cheap, and because what's plugged into the other end (usually a "cable ready" TV without an HD tuner) is expecting it as a crappy old analog RF signal. It's not economically feasible to have the receiver do a digital encode, since it involves applying MPEG-2 compression to the signal being sent out. One could say, "Just pass the original compressed data along!", but the data received from the satellite isn't in a standard format (i.e. not 720p or 1080i) and in fact can be MPEG-4.

Furthermore, even if one did send it out of the Dish receiver this way, the HDTV then has to use its digital tuner to tune and decompress the image. A total waste, since all HDTVs (and "HDTV ready" TVs) have inputs intended for uncompressed high definition content.


----------

