# Component vs. HDMI - what's the advantage?



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

I always thought HDMI was the cleaner route because it was digital to digital. But a Samsung factory service guy told me HDMI still involves signal conversion. Is that true? If so, then other than having both video and audio in a single connection with a somewhat smaller cable, is there really an advantage of one over the other? I know component can handle 1080i from my 622. Could it handle 1080P also in the future?

(After learning the hard way that USB is not the best way to connect cable internet - ethernet has much higher internet capacity - I've started questioning everything I thought I knew about technology.)


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

I think the most important reason to use HDMI would be that it is possible for a content provider to set a flag that will cause analog (component) output to be downgraded to something less than HD. I don't think anyone is doing it yet but the capability is there.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

There's no technical reason that component cables can't carry 1080p... it's just something that the content providers and movie studios don't want us to be able to do.

As for whether HDMI is better or not... a lot of that is debatable. When talking about something like a Dish receiver, the signal is a digital signal from the satellite and can stay digital through HDMI... so that actually eliminates a conversion from the process.

It's hard to say universally for sure if this is true for all devices you might connect via HDMI, though... and for that matter... some HDTVs with HDMI could be CRTs that actually do an analog conversion for projection... so your TV could still be doing something else.


----------



## bnborg (Jun 3, 2005)

I have another reason.

My AverMedia HD DVR MTVHDDVRR HD capture card refuses to record anything from my DVR as HDMI. I don't have a problem with component.

It will however, display HDMI on the PC, with pause rewind and fast forward. I have played with saving the display buffer with limited success.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The larger story is component's days are likely numbered. Blue Ray players have to disable their component outputs in the future and newly introduced models won't even have component outputs capable of HD anymore.

Sucks if you have an older model TV (and not even that much older) that doesn't have HDMI inputs. Or an AV system that is based upon component distribution.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> The larger story is component's days are likely numbered. Blue Ray players have to disable their component outputs in the future and newly introduced models won't even have component outputs capable of HD anymore.
> 
> Sucks if you have an older model TV (and not even that much older) that doesn't have HDMI inputs. Or an AV system that is based upon component distribution.
> 
> ...


Which is really stupid, since a bluray can be copied digitally...What are they going to prevent by disabling analog? Sony and all those MPAA people have their heads up their butts. That is why I never pay to see a movie. I refuse to donate money to their cause. I can wait until I get if from Netflix if I want to watch it.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

BillJ said:


> I always thought HDMI was the cleaner route because it was digital to digital. But a Samsung factory service guy told me HDMI still involves signal conversion. Is that true?


Suppose it depends on the input signal, electronics, and panel resolution. If your display panel is 1920x1080p, and signal other than 1080p will require conversion. If it was not converted, your 720P stations would be letter and pillar boxed. Even 1080i requires the fields to be buffered, and deinterlaced for the TV to display the two interlaced fields as one 1080p frame.

As for using USB for internet, if your USB ports on your computer can support the highest speed you get from the internet, you would never notice a difference between it and ethernet. It is slower than ethernet, but if you drive your model-T on a two lane road at its max speed, getting on the freeway wont make it go any faster


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> some HDTVs with HDMI could be CRTs that actually do an analog conversion for projection... so your TV could still be doing something else.


I had an old CRT projection HDTV with DVI-D in. Component from my old HR10-250 definitely looked better than did HDMI>DVI. Much warmer and the colors weren't oversaturated.

On my Sony SXRD, I can't tell the difference between the two type of inputs.


----------



## apinkel (May 28, 2004)

Quality wise I can't tell the difference between the two with my current TV. But as previously mentioned it does depend on the TV, I had a mitsubishi RPTV that had one of the first generation of DVI connections on it and the component was quite a bit better than DVI.

I prefer hdmi because it's one cable/connection for audio/video... which makes it easier to connect and trouble shoot cable problems.


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

One of the reasons for HDMI is the ability to coreect errors in the data stream. It's really hard to correct analog errors, but most digital receivers have error correcting as part of the processing circuitry.

As far as converting...remember, we live in an ANALOG world. No matter where your signal comes from, it eventually comes out as analog - as sound waves and light waves.


----------

