[Oliwa]

I agree that having high quality cables are important when dealing with component and other analog signals, but it's not as important with digital signals. The reason is that digital signals are either there or they're not. You either will have a good picture or you won't have a picture at all. Analog signals are different because the picture quality is relative to the signal strength and interference.

I bet you won't be able to tell any difference between a $100 HDMI Monster cable and a $9.99 HDMI cable available from an online retailer.

 

[Oliwa]

I honestly wouldn't waste the money on an HDMI cable that costs $125.00, if you actually but a new HR10, it should come with an HDMI cable, HDMI to DVI cable, and component cables. The HDMI is not going to necessarily give you a better picture...you would have to be a computer to tell the difference. The only good thing, as others have listed above is the convenience of using one cable...not to mention, it's optical so it will support dolby 5.1

but, you can get the same out of component cables and an optical audio cable...
don't waste the money on the HDMI, it's not worth it...

HDMI is better (IMO) because HDMI is digital and component is analog. I still use optical for audio though.

 

[Oliwa]

You may want to read this article and rethink your position:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm

I read this and their explanation that converting digital->analog->digital may yield better picture quality than straight digital to digital just defies reason. I understand things are scaled and converted, but the less conversions is generally better. Hence reducing the step of digital->analog->digital would be beneficial.

It's very likely that most people will not be able to tell any difference because there is a lot more at play than just the cable, you have the source, receiver, TV, and environment (lighting, calibration, etc).

I prefer HDMI because it's only 1 connection and it's digital. In the end it's about what you like that matters most.

 

[Oliwa]

Absolutely true, but a bad cable would definitely degrade the image, wouldn't you agree?

I would agree with analog, but not digital and let me explain why.

Most of us used to have an antenna on top of our house to get analog broadcasts before cable and D*. I used to have a rotor that would rotate the antenna to give me a better picture. The stronger the signal the better the picture.

Now fast forward to today with digital broadcasts from an antenna. If I get a signal strength of 75 my picture is clean and clear, but the picture doesn't get any better if my signal bumps up to 80 or 90. It's digital...it's either there or not. The only thing a higher signal strength over my antenna will do is withstand the occasional wind gust or bit of interference.

I equate that logic to an HDMI cable. A quad shielded gold plated Monster cable won't deliver a clearer and more vibrant picture than the one that was packaged with my HR20.

 

[Oliwa]

A broken digital cable produces no picture at all. That's bad. I think that's what he meant in response my post. If a cheap cable is actually prone have connections fall apart, that would indeed have a dramatic effect on the picture.

I have to agree there.

But my point is that if the cable has a poor connector you will either receive 100% of the picture quality or none at all. With analog you may receive 75% of the picture quality.

 

[Oliwa]

No one said you'd see slowly degrading saturtion and sharpness, but actually, you could have a margnial or intermittent connection. Ask anyone DTV OTA fringe area about the 100%/0% thing.

When you said it would have a dramatic effect on picture quality I thought you were referring to the picture quality, not whether or not you had a picture at all. I guess we are misunderstanding each other.

 

[Oliwa]

I'm curious. Don't most of you that have a very nice HD set also have your audio routed through a nice audio receiver? In that case, coming off the sat box (or DVD) you'd have video connections to the tv and audio to the amp? Then why would the "one cable" HDMI be so attractive? Hook up component from sat or DVD to the tv, and the digital optical out to the receiver. Seems like for many of us, the one cable reason for an expensive HDMI when the image quality is as good or only slightly better than component is a weak reason??

I have HDMI for video and optical for audio. I use HDMI because it's digital and I use a $10 cable. If I used component I would be forced to buy a high quality cable and it would still be analog. The 1 cable solution is great for some, but it's not the selling point for me.

 

[Oliwa]

So when does analog automatically=bad?
This topic has been gone through ad nauseum on several boards. There is no discernable difference between Component and HDMI in PQ.

I never meant to imply it was bad. I agree with the other posters that said a typical person probably will never be able to tell the difference. I think with a high quality cable component would be just as good as HDMI in terms of PQ, but I prefer HDMI over component.