# HDMI cables



## GatorDave (Aug 28, 2006)

Does anyone honestly notice a difference in picture quality between the standard component cables and an HDMI cable? I had an 811 and I couldn't notice a single change. I just upgraded to the 211 for my HD, and am debating whether or not to buy another HDMI cable (since the 811 required a HDMI to DVI while the 211 is HDMI to HDMI). I know it's not supposed to be a huge mind-blowing difference, but I can't see anything at all different. What am I missing?


----------



## Jolard (Feb 14, 2006)

YMMV. I know some people who swear they can't tell a difference. I can on my TV (52 inch DLP HD) but it is not extreme. I am not a cinephile, and honestly the Component Cables would be just fine, but with my HDMI cables I could see more definition and detail in the darker areas of my picture, and it seemed to have greater dynamic range.

That said, all the difference could just be in the setup!


----------



## Rommel (Aug 28, 2006)

I have a Mitsu WD-62627 hooked up to a 622 via HDMI and component. I get a brighter picture with HDMI but I *think* it looks more clear with component. So now I'm back to component.


----------



## GatorDave (Aug 28, 2006)

Jolard said:


> That said, all the difference could just be in the setup!


I have a 50" Samsung DLP. The power source is a basic Belkin surge protector / power filter. So all things being equal, is there really a difference? And what exactly is the HDMI supposed to do? Make the picture smoother, brighter, less pixelated, etc.?


----------



## mjhorv (Aug 28, 2006)

I have a vip622 and a brand new 46 inch xbr2 LCD. I notice zero difference. I returned the 90 dollar monster cable.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Some people see the difference. Others don't. I see a difference.

HDMI is digital. Component is analog. HDMI SHOULD be better but that is not always the case depending on your setup, cables, etc.


----------



## GatorDave (Aug 28, 2006)

So exactly what kind of "setup" and/or cables would make a difference? Are there any simple ways beyond an HDMI cable to improve picture quality?


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

GatorDave said:


> I have a 50" Samsung DLP. The power source is a basic Belkin surge protector / power filter. So all things being equal, is there really a difference? And what exactly is the HDMI supposed to do? Make the picture smoother, brighter, less pixelated, etc.?


HDMI is a fully-digital connection, component is analog. Theoretically, HDMI should be better. But, there are a lot of variables.

For short cables, you shouldn't see much, if any, difference UNLESS your set does a poor job of converting the analog component signal into digital (which all modern sets do; the signal processing is all digital these days).

For longer cables, HDMI should give better quality. Why? The component signal, being analog, will actually lose information as the cable length increases. High frequencies are attenuated more with longer cables. Digital signals essentially either get there or they don't. Component cable quality is significantly more important than HDMI cable quality, but you still don't need to lay out a lot of money for cables (ie, don't buy Monster cables unless you like wasting money).

Still, for most configurations and for most people, the difference will be very subtle.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (Apr 5, 2006)

I was one of those who swore HDMI gave me a better picture (in fact I probably posted that earlier). When my fist 622 HDMI connection crapped out after 2 months I had to use component cables as that was my only alternative. I got "used" to the component picture for a while when the new 622 arrived. I immediately switched back to HDMI and guess what? I really didn't like the picture as well as the component. I have a 2-year old Samsung 50" DLP. While the HDMI picture is outstanding on HD channels, it caused some pixelization (or digitizing as Samsung calls it) on some of my SD favorites, while the component seemed just "smoother" on SD channels. The biggest difference I see, or hear rather, is that the sound is much louder using HDMI as you get the digital sound rather than the analog with the component cables. I have had the new 622 for 3 months and I now use component input almost exlusively. Please don't tell E* however as I complained VERY loudly when the HDMI stopped working on my first unit...


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

Buffalo Bill said:


> ... While the HDMI picture is outstanding on HD channels, it caused some pixelization (or digitizing as Samsung calls it) on some of my SD favorites, while the component seemed just "smoother" on SD channels.


That's entirely possible. What you're proably seeing is some high-frequency rolloff (the loss of high-freqencies I mentioned before). The effect is a smoother or softer image.

Also, some TV's have separate settings for HDMI vs component signals. One of the settings that affects component inputs is the 'sharpness' setting. What this does is to boost higher frequencies to compensate for loss. It can easily be overdone, though. If you want to tweak it, adjust the sharpness while looking at some sharp dark-light and light-dark vertical edges. If the sharpness is too high, you'll see some ghosting and smearing. Adjust the sharpness for the best edges.


----------



## VinDoGG (Sep 16, 2002)

This is interesting I currently have components connected to my new Plasma. my $7.00 HDMI cable is coming in on Thursday can't wait to try it.


----------



## GatorDave (Aug 28, 2006)

Thanks for the responses. So just to sum it up, unless you are a videophile who's got a very discriminating eye, there really is no noticeable difference, granted your equipment uses recent technology. For the average tv viewer like myself, most of the HD channels look absolutely incredible and don't see how it could possibly be any better. I was just curious how some people could swear up and down that an HDMI cable makes a world of difference when I didn't notice a single thing.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

VinDoGG said:


> This is interesting I currently have components connected to my new Plasma. my $7.00 HDMI cable is coming in on Thursday can't wait to try it.


Just a word of warning. Be careful about buying cheap cables. My experience has been that low cost cables can be hit a miss. I purchased a $10 HDMI cable for my satellite receiver and had problems with it when viewing 1080i material. Then I purchased a higher quality HDMI cable for $50 and have no problems whatsoever. On the other hand though, the $10 HDMI cable works perfect with my HD-DVD player.

So, basically cross your fingers. The good news is that most likely it will work but you never know until you hook it up in your system.


----------



## smashr (Apr 19, 2006)

For cables, www.monoprice.com -- An amazing quality HDMI cable will run you about $20. It blows Monster away.

On my Sony KD-34XBR960, I cannot really tell a difference between component and HDMI.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

smashr said:


> For cables, www.monoprice.com -- An amazing quality HDMI cable will run you about $20. It blows Monster away.


Thanks for the link -- you just saved me some bucks.

I recently got a new LCD HDTV and picked up another HD DVR (SA Explorer 8300) just yesterday. 
An HDMI/DVI cable costs $50 at RS -- luckily for me, they were out of stock. 

Today, I'll order what I need from Monoprice at a considerable savings.

Thanks again.


----------



## Bama Mac (May 12, 2004)

JMPO

To me the biggest difference in using HDMI compared to Component is not the picture quality, but the fact that HDMI will also carry the audio feed which Component does not.


----------

