HDMI vs. Component/digital audio

[bobbydigital]

JUst wondering if HDMI has any advantages over component video and a digital coax cables other than being more convenient? I quickly searched my question but found no relevant info, sorry if this is redunant.

 

[MDS]

The main advantage, other than single cable simplicity, would be the higher bandwidth. It is supposed to be able to carry up to 8.1 channels of 192 kHz sampling rate uncompressed audio. The problem is that I don't think there are any devices that can actually use it yet - probably have to wait for version 1.3.

 

[louhamilton]

Depending on the type of TV that you have, there may or may not be a difference. This does not mean that there is not a difference, just that your eyes may not perceive a difference between the two.

Usually, although not always, tube CRT's look best with Component, while fixed pixel displays like plasma and LCD look best with DVI or HDMI. Again, this is a personal perception most times. It can also depend on the content being watched. A DVD or HD program may look fantastic using one type but regular cable TV looks better (I intentionally did not say fantastic) using the other type of connection.

However, you need to test them both and judge for yourself what looks best. You can do this by borrowing cable from friends or finding a place with a liberal return policy for open packages.

You will want to do this AFTER you calibrate your tv. This is an important step that many new HDTV buyers overlook or do not realize. This can be done professionally by an ISF certified technician, or by your self using Avia or DVE. Keep in mind that I do not recommend that you go into the service menus to accomplish the DIY calibration.

-Lou

 

[mtrycrafts]

Usually, although not always, tube CRT's look best with Component, while fixed pixel displays like plasma and LCD look best with DVI or HDMI. Again, this is a personal perception most times. It can also depend on the content being watched. .

-Lou

CRT based TV needs an analog signal for scanning so a digital video signal would have to be processed again back to analog.
The other two will work best with the DVI digital as the video is all in the digital domain to the pixels, no conversion.

 

[louhamilton]

Although technically speaking this statement is accurate, my Toshiba CRT looks better with an HDMI connection than component.

It still boils down to what looks good to the viewer.

-Lou

 

[petermwilson]

Hi,

If you take some electical tape and combine a DVI vid & coax snd, you have a HDMI cable. Qualities of each are all over the map. DviGear HDMI won't win any beauty contest but the innards are top notch.

Unless your CRT is ISF'd you'll never know how good it can actually be.

If it has been, I challeng anyone to tell the difference from a either perspective using good quality cables.

Peter M.

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

On one of my displays at work I have a tv with component and a tv with HDMI with the same video feed. I can't tell the difference, and when I ask customers to pick which one they think looks better they almost always pick the one with component.

~Chuck

 

[jadejay2]

And I always thought HDMI was better than Component . . .

What about the sound? On my DVD, I have a 5.1 Ch. out and an optical out. Should I hook up both to the A/V receiver? My receiver is set to select digital over analog so will it "ignore" the 5.1 Ch. analog sound?

 

[MDS]

What about the sound? On my DVD, I have a 5.1 Ch. out and an optical out. Should I hook up both to the A/V receiver? My receiver is set to select digital over analog so will it "ignore" the 5.1 Ch. analog sound?

The 5.1 channel analog outs are used for playing SACD and DVD-A discs as the digital (optical or coax) cannot be used for that purpose. You can use the 5.1 analog outs for playing DD or DTS tracks, but doing so means that the player does the decoding and conversion to analog and sends the analog signal to the receiver for amplification. For DD/DTS/PCM to remain digital all the way to the receiver, you MUST use a digital connection as well as set the player to output 'bitstream'.

The auto selection of digital over analog is not related to the 5.1 analog outs. That feature is for the case where you have both analog and digital connections from the same source and the receiver will choose the digital out if the input signal is digital, the analog outs if the input signal is analog, or the digital out if both analog and digital signals are present. For example, I have both analog and digital connections from my cable box because some of the channels are digital and some are not. The auto selection feature takes care of always selecting the digital outs - even when the station has both analog and digital signals present.

If you don't have any SACD or DVD-A discs, don't bother with the 5.1 analog connection (unless you want to switch between it and the digital to compare sound quality). To hear the sound from the 5.1 analog inputs, you have to select that input (mine is labeled 'Multi-Ch).

 

[jadejay2]

MDS,

Thanks for the info!

I posted the earlier question since we were talking about analog vs. digital. Is digital (Optical out) sound always more superior than analog (5.1 ch. out) when it comes to playing DVD movies? I thought so until the sales guy at Best Buy was telling me otherwise . . . In other words, should I use the DVD to decode (using 5.1 ch. out) or should I send the audio via optical out (digital) and let the receiver to do the decoding.

Thanks again!

 

[j_garcia]

In most cases the receiver has better bass management, so more often than not, the receiver will do a better job with coaxial and optical digital feeds. That's why I have both connected to my receiver - 5.1 analog for DVD-A and SACD and coaxial for DVDs.

 

[MDS]

In other words, should I use the DVD to decode (using 5.1 ch. out) or should I send the audio via optical out (digital) and let the receiver to do the decoding.

The age old question.

It comes down to whether the DACS in the player are better than the DACS in the receiver. My take on it is that there is little to no (audible) difference unless perhaps you have very mismatched equipment - like an ancient early receiver paired with a top of line, megabucks DVD player. IMO, the 'sound quality' argument is moot as it will be about the same.

However, using a digital connection to the receiver has other benefits that are often overlooked:
1. Very few receivers offer any kind of bass managment on the 5.1 analog inputs (speaker size, distance, xover) and you must rely on the player for those features or use an external device. Players are almost universally poor in their implementation of bass management. With a digital connection, you get full bass managment and more.

2. Receivers have other features, like Dynamic Range Compression (most only work on Dolby Digital sources) which CANNOT be used if you use the analog inputs. Other similar features like 'CineFilter' (similar to THX re-eq that tones down the high frequencies) also require that the receiver get a digital signal.

3. Some receivers have digital outs so you can send the digital signal to a digital recorder like a mini-disc recorder or some cd recording decks. They will NOT convert an analog input signal to digital and send it out the digital outs.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Some receivers have digital outs so you can send the digital signal to a digital recorder like a mini-disc recorder or some cd recording decks. They will NOT convert an analog input signal to digital and send it out the digital outs.

What's the point in having digital outs then? If one were able to record via a digital cable, why not simply take the cable direct from the source to the recorder? Why route it through a receiver?

 

[jadejay2]

Thanks guys! I think I will hook up both the 5.1 ch and the optical out to the receiver.

 

[MDS]

What's the point in having digital outs then? If one were able to record via a digital cable, why not simply take the cable direct from the source to the recorder? Why route it through a receiver?

I suppose one reason would be if you have more than one digital device connected to the receiver and want the convenience of selecting which one to be the source for the recorder.

Another possibility would be to pipe the input digital signal to an external decoder, but if the receiver can already decode the format, what's the point of that?

Considering that it won't convert analog signals to digital for output over the digital out, it's probably just another superfluous feature that very few will ever use.

 

[jjl4224]

SACD: HDMI 1.2a vs. analog

The newly acquired PS3 rekindled my interests in sacd. I connected the PS3 (HDMI 1.3) to my Yamaha HTR 6090 receiver (HDMI 1.2a) Via HDMI and was pleased with the sound quality of multi-channel sacd. I played both some classical ones and The Dark Side of the Moon with much satisfaction.

But I am wondering whether an analog 5.1 output from a dedicated dvd/sacd player (such as Denon DVD 1930) would play SACD better than the digital out of the PS3's HDMI. I've checked both magazines and internet forums, but I could not find any thread there. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[DMcV]

my choice

Well after trying both HDMI & component on y equipment this is what I went with. The Motorola (cable box) HD PVR is better on component and the DVD (home theatre) system is much better on HDMI.
I noticed with the PVR on HDMI in scenes where the camera would pan from one person to another there wa some IR, the faces would blurr as it moved, but not when on component.
One big difference is the Audio level in HDMI being louder at a lower setting.
I found with component on my DVD the Audio level was very minimal. I connected the HDMI and with the same setting of audio it was 'much' louder and possibly clearer (?).
Anyway... this was my choice..and I'm sticking with it
DMcV