Digital cable vs. Component cable
 

"Michelle Steiner" wrote in message
...
I'm in the market for a new AV receiver. Quite a few of them can
upconvert composite and S video to component, so I could simply run all
my inputs to the AV receiver and have only one component video
connection from the receiver to the TV.

However, my satellite receiver also has HDMI output, so I can connect it
directly to the TV. If I do that, I might as well connect the DVD
player and VCR directly to the TV also (which is what I'm doing now),
and save money on the receiver.

So the question is how much, if any, of a difference there is in picture
quality between component and HDMI cabling?

(One other consideration for the receiver is that it has to have RIAA
phono inputs, but that is aside from the video question.)

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

I am also wondering about that.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
I'm in the market for a new AV receiver. Quite a few of them can
upconvert composite and S video to component, so I could simply run all
my inputs to the AV receiver and have only one component video
connection from the receiver to the TV.

However, my satellite receiver also has HDMI output, so I can connect it
directly to the TV. If I do that, I might as well connect the DVD
player and VCR directly to the TV also (which is what I'm doing now),
and save money on the receiver.

So the question is how much, if any, of a difference there is in picture
quality between component and HDMI cabling?

In theory it depends on which device has better video DACs. Moving the
information from the receiver to the TV in the digital domain might
"protect" it from analog noise, but decent component cable will do that
in the analog domain.

If hooking everything up to your TV for video and every thing up to you
receiver for audio complicate changing inputs, I'd lean towards hooking
all the audio and video to the receiver.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

I found this article. It _may_ help.

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messa...79/122868.html


"Michelle Steiner" wrote in message
...
I'm in the market for a new AV receiver. Quite a few of them can
upconvert composite and S video to component, so I could simply run all
my inputs to the AV receiver and have only one component video
connection from the receiver to the TV.

However, my satellite receiver also has HDMI output, so I can connect it
directly to the TV. If I do that, I might as well connect the DVD
player and VCR directly to the TV also (which is what I'm doing now),
and save money on the receiver.

So the question is how much, if any, of a difference there is in picture
quality between component and HDMI cabling?

(One other consideration for the receiver is that it has to have RIAA
phono inputs, but that is aside from the video question.)

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

I'm in the market for a new AV receiver. Quite a few of them can
upconvert composite and S video to component, so I could simply run all
my inputs to the AV receiver and have only one component video
connection from the receiver to the TV.

However, my satellite receiver also has HDMI output, so I can connect it
directly to the TV. If I do that, I might as well connect the DVD
player and VCR directly to the TV also (which is what I'm doing now),
and save money on the receiver.

So the question is how much, if any, of a difference there is in picture
quality between component and HDMI cabling?

(One other consideration for the receiver is that it has to have RIAA
phono inputs, but that is aside from the video question.)

Based on what I have read, some people get better picture with
component and other with the HDMI. Depends on the source - cable set top
box, sat receiver, DVD - and the TV. With HDMI, there is device
configuration information going back and forth, so sometimes the TV has
to be turned on before the set top box or source - or the other way
around. I guess the sense that HDMI is still getting the bugs out of it.

Does you current receiver or system setup handle 5.1 sound? If it
doesn't, then you should consider getting a decent receiver & speakers
which can do that. 5.1 is becoming increasingly common on HD broadcasts.

I have been using my Yamaha receiver to switch between component video
sources, but if I get an HDMI DVD player, I have just enough ports to
connect the cable STB, DVD, OTA receiver, and my now currently unused
Tivo directly to the TV while the just the stereo and digital audio goes
to the Yamaha receiver. The picture quality should be slightly better
with a direct connection to the TV.

Alan F

"Michelle Steiner" wrote in message
...
I'm in the market for a new AV receiver. Quite a few of them can
upconvert composite and S video to component, so I could simply run all
my inputs to the AV receiver and have only one component video
connection from the receiver to the TV.

However, my satellite receiver also has HDMI output, so I can connect it
directly to the TV. If I do that, I might as well connect the DVD
player and VCR directly to the TV also (which is what I'm doing now),
and save money on the receiver.

So the question is how much, if any, of a difference there is in picture
quality between component and HDMI cabling?

Here is my opinion. You probably won't see a bit difference and go with
what's easier. That having been said, when the intelligencia get through
with you, and give you 10 very complex and theoretical reasons why HDMI is
potentially better, you'll start imagining you see a difference and then
want the more difficult and expensive connection.

Try this (google is your friend):
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...+vs.+component