[WolfClan Dan]

Perhaps this is in the wrong forum, however it does pertain to my HR20.

The installer told me component cables and HDMI will produce an equal picture and the only advantage was HDMI carried sound.

Any first hand oppinions on this? I did notice a huge difference when using quality component cables compared to the cheap ones which came with the unit.

 

[wmschultz]

Component = analog
HDMI = Digital

If it looks good to you, that is all that matters.

 

[hr20manray]

I get a little interference in my component but the hdmi is clear. I think the interference is fm after I installed an OTA antenna with a signal booster. Slightly visable wavy verical lines going across my screen horizontally from right to left. My hdmi is interference free. As soon as I can find an fm trap at Radio Shack I'll install it and hopefully it will go away. Other than that, the picture is the same on my tv. (Pioneer pdp5071 hd)

 

[Nick]

You didn't mention what type of display you have, which is definitely a part of the equation.

Assuming you have a digital set, and considering that component video cables carry analog
signals, going from your HR20, which receives a digital signal from satellite, to a digital display
using component cables requires both digital-to-analog (d/a) and an analog-to-digital (a/d)
conversions. In this case, I would go with HDMI, which is what I do with my 23" desktop LCD
HD display.

OTOH, when feeding an analog-type HD display such as a CRT-based RPTV, then utilizing
component video connections as I do with my 53" RPTV is your best option.

 

[linuxworks]

there is no easy answer to this. there SHOULD be but its more complicated than it is for computer monitors.

lets start with computer monitors. you ALWAYS want to drive them purely digitally if you can help it. an lcd is internally pure digital. your computer data is pure digital. there is NO good reason to convert digital to analog, carry that data over a lossy cable and then convert BACK in the lcd to digital. totally useless set of D/A and A/D conversions. with dvi (digital) you get dot for dot perfection and also lack of need for many screen adjustments (most are now non-adjustable if you come in via digital in's on an lcd).

now lets talk about tvs. tvs are problematic due to the content quality being ALL OVER THE PLACE. and I don't mean this in a good way, either ;(

if we were talking about display text and flash (object based) graphics then a pure digital display would render them best. but we have poorly video taped shows, poor color balance, poor lighting, poor focus, and worst of all, poor analog to digital conversion - jaggies, blockies and hatchies galore! ;(

so here's my approach. the 'digitalness' of the blockies is too much for me to take. yes, technically the tv set is showing you ALL the data without any conversion stages but in this case, we DO need a missing state. a smoothing circuit. going pure digital often makes the video VERY harsh. but if you go thru s-video (yuk) or component (aaah!) then you get almost as much bit-for-bit data as hdmi but you get a bonus smoothing effect that helps low-pass cut some of the digital harshness that mpg encoding (poorly done) and bit-starvation does.

hope that made some sense. its counter-intuitive and experience based. I never would have thought this way until I experienced it firsthand. I was all for a pure hdmi connection (afterall, I INSIST on all my audio connections be spdif, which is digital) but the poor CONTENT quality of 90% of SD, about half the DVD's and even half the HD over satellite - they all need a better smoothing and deartifacting stage. using an analog middle stage is an ugly hack to deal with it, but its often better than a pure digital connection.

odd how that happens, huh?

 

[lguvenoz]

Back to the original response...

If it looks good to you, that's what matters. My experience is that I've seen no significant difference between the two, but I use HDMI because it's one cable (I have a Sony LCD Projection HDTV).

 

[deebeeeff]

Perhaps this is in the wrong forum, however it does pertain to my HR20.

The installer told me component cables and HDMI will produce an equal picture and the only advantage was HDMI carried sound.

Any first hand oppinions on this? I did notice a huge difference when using quality component cables compared to the cheap ones which came with the unit.

I have a Sony LCD projection TV. I can see no difference in picture quality, BUT when I use the HDMI, I get audio/video sync problems. So I use the component, which is just fine with me.

 

[Lowry666]

Hi,
I used to use the component out of my HR20 and I used the HDMI input on my Sony for for my dvd player. I upgraded my receiver just before Christmas, my present to myself, I went from a Yamaha RXV690 to the new RXV2700. I now use the HDMI output and I have noticed NO difference in picture quality. The main reason I did it is the one cable solution. I use one cable and it handles audio and video. I can now use the one HDMI input and let the receiver do the switching. The receiver also upconverts to HDMI. It is great having one cable and no more optical cables from my components using HDMI, it's all in the one cable. I don't know if I helped at all, but do whatever works for the sytem and components that you have.

Take care,
Lowry

 

[linuxworks]

this is horrible! you say that going all digital -causes- you to have a/v sync issues?

man, that's really bad. sending both forms of data in pure digital format should, if anything. allow them to sync up better. wow. ;(

have you tried all the combos? video in analog but audio via spdif; video in analog and audio also in analog? etc etc?

 

[Nick]

...If it looks good to you, that is all that matters.

Not really. :nono2:

As a video professional, I can tell you that some people are very poor judges of
picture quality. I wouldn't want your friends to laugh at you behind your back for
spending megabucks for a new tv set with a crappy picture. It happens. I always
remember the guy who thought getting the best picture meant maximizing the
"Sharpness" and color controls on his new set. Ugh!

I not only recommend using the proper connections, but utilizing a calibration disc
to optimize PQ and get the greatest pleasure from your display.

Saying "If it looks good to you, that is all that matters." is like saying "It doesn't
matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere." If you'd fall for that load of
equine manure, you'll fall for anything.

 

[marksman]

Not really.

As a video professional, I can tell you that some people are very poor judges of
picture quality. I wouldn't want your friends to laugh at you behind your back for
spending megabucks for a new tv set with a crappy picture. It happens.

Saying "If it looks good to you, that is all that matters." is like saying "It doesn't
matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere." If you'd fall for that load of
equine manure, you'll fall for anything.

Huh?

That is a pretty flimsy argument. Ultimately if the person who bought is happy with how it looks, then that really is all that matters. Your idea that is not enough because your friends might laugh at you smacks more of an issue with someone's circle of friends than anything to do with the television of the quality of the signal. In this case the quality of friends might be in question, not the television.

Your analogy is a horrible one as well. It is not the same thing as saying it doesn't matter what you say as long as you are sincere. How is that the least bit comparable?

It is the same as buying ANYTHING else and using it. If you go out and buy a corvette but choose never to go over 55, but you are happy with that, who cares that the car goes 150? You spent the money and you are enjoying it.

 

[wmschultz]

Well, people are always asking what they should use. If it was composite vs component vs HDMI it would be one thing, but it is component vs HDMI.

If someone is asking what is better, it all depends.

I use a HDMI to my receiver then HDMI -> DVI to my TV. Should I use component to
my receiver then component to my TV, or should I just run component to my TV and just optical to my recevier.

It all depends and what looks best to me is what i should do.

 

[HarleyD]

If it looks good to you who CARES what other people think?

 

[wmschultz]

If it looks good to you who CARES what other people think?

That's true because I have actually fixed people's stuff, only to find out they went
back to the old configuration because it was easier/better for them.

 

[Nick]

Well, true. Back in the '70s, my father-in-law thought green-tinted people looked
normal. When we visited I always tweaked his set, but the next time, same thing.

It's a truism that there is no accounting for taste, and I'm sure that there are even
a few here who have very little, but I would defend to the death their right to wear
leisure suits, shuffle along in flip-flops and look at less than optimum PQ. :shrug:

 

[Hutchinshouse]

Component vs HDMI

Picture size is everything. If you have a properly calibrated TV you will see a difference. The larger the screen the more noticeable the difference.

HDMI is king!

 

[linuxworks]

HDMI is king!

NOT when it highlights the flaws in the content, itself.

"too many jaggies" is what I see and also hear from others, both tech and non-tech.

I just read a review of the current model philips dvd player that has hdmi output on it ($70 unit). it misses s-video but has comp. and hdmi.

a few people have commented that the hdmi output makes the picture look TOO digital.

I'm not the only one seeing this. so while hdmi transfers data more faithfully to the display, sometimes the data NEEDS some work and so literal bit-for-bit isn't ALWAYS the best solution.

not to mention the noise, too. dot grain is far too visible with hdmi. with analog i/o, again, the smoothing helps reduce the harshness of today's poor quality video content.

 

[Hutchinshouse]

NOT when it highlights the flaws in the content, itself.

"too many jaggies" is what I see and also hear from others, both tech and non-tech.

I just read a review of the current model philips dvd player that has hdmi output on it ($70 unit). it misses s-video but has comp. and hdmi.

a few people have commented that the hdmi output makes the picture look TOO digital.

I'm not the only one seeing this. so while hdmi transfers data more faithfully to the display, sometimes the data NEEDS some work and so literal bit-for-bit isn't ALWAYS the best solution.

not to mention the noise, too. dot grain is far too visible with hdmi. with analog i/o, again, the smoothing helps reduce the harshness of today's poor quality video content.

Basically you're saying HDMI is too good. It reveals the flaws in the video signal. Lets not forget, HDMI is merely a bridge from the source to the TV. If you feed HDMI crap it will display crap. The first problem with the Philips player you mentioned is it's price tag. At 70 buck list I'm sure the H/W in the player is very low quality. You also mention 'the smoothing helps reduce the harshness of today's poor quality video content'. That is why I stated a properly calibrated TV. The sharpness control will tailor the harshness of the picture. HDMI is the better choice. Peace my brother.

 

[Rambler]

I tried both, and I thought HDMI had a slightly crisper look to it on my Pioneer 50" PDP-5050HD plasma. So I kept the HDMI connection.

 

[WolfClan Dan]

You didn't mention what type of display you have, which is definitely a part of the equation.

I use a Samsung HL-S6167w 1080p set.