[ApK]

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.

You wisely included the word "generally" and that's the key. In a real system there are real and subtle factors that can be addressed to improve things.

Look at the earliest DVI computer monitors and you'll see that pure untouched digital doesn't automatically mean the end product will look better to human eyes than signals cleverly processed by smart people who know what they are doing. I think that is case here.

 

[Ryanm86]

It will come with all cables if it's a new unit. If not, them someone is ripping you off. DTV installers have been known to pilfer any cables they don't use to hook up a new unit so it's always wise to keep an eye on them.

I experienced this first hand. The installer jacked my cables once. Now I watch them like a Hawk!

 

[bigboysony]

Aight, i am new here so bare with me, I just purchase the sony xbr2, but here is my situation, i am in corpus christi tx and my cable provider is time warner and i have there sad hd package, but any ways i have the tv and box box with hdmi cable and the funyy thing with this the picture is phenominal but the situation i am having, one is that when i turn off the tv go some where and when i return to turn to on the tv with out turning on the cable box the last channel i was wathcing is going with out the box being turn on now i obiously can't change it because the box is off but is this somthing that i need to be concerned. and now the other situation i have is with the dvr through timewarner, if i were to have on pause for about thirty minute and if i were to turn off the tv it interfears with the dvr box and looses all information and heads back to live tv, bascilly it is like if i were to chang the channel does anyone know about this.

 

[vikingguy]

If you only have 1 HDMI input on the tv like I do. I would just use component for the sat box and use the HDMI port for either an upscaling DVD player or a HD-media player ie blue ray and HD-dvd players. The reason for that is there are very DVD players that upscale via component. Also I think a next gen media player would make much better use of that HDMI than the currenct direct tv signal we get.

If you need extra cables I really like monoprice also.

 

[captain_video]

Weakest link theory? With an analog cable you can a/b a cheap cable and good cable and see a night and day difference, but you'll have to show me some evidence that a cheap HDMI cable is in someway inferior to an expensive one before I'll spend money on the assumption. If I can't tell the difference in picture by looking (as long as the cable doesn't break if you look at it wrong) then I won't spend a dime more. Weakest link theort doesn't apply if the price of the cable doesn't actually effect the strength of the link. Does it?

Absolutely true, but a bad cable would definitely degrade the image, wouldn't you agree? Hence the weakest link comment. Most any cable will do the job but when you start getting into the high-end cable market you pay a lot more for subtle changes in quality. Unless you really know what to look and listen for, the average consumer won't be able to tell any difference between a Monster cable (or the cheap OEM cable supplied in the box) and a high quality one.

And Monster cables not good at ANY price? That seems a bit over the top. By all indications Monster Cables are good. Way over priced, but good. In fact, those usually ARE the ones the a/b in the stores to show the night and day difference with the included-in-the-box cables.

That comment is just my opinion. In my mind, Monster cables are merely adequate and certainly not worth the extra cost added on by the hype. There are several vendors that advertise over at the AVS Forums that carry high quality cables that are far better than the Monster brand for about the same price or maybe even less. You can a/b them in the stores because they're the most widely know brand name in cables and they're the only aftermarket cables many stores carry. Go to a high-end audio/video salon or home theater store and see if they'll let you audition some cables. Take one of your own cables as a reference and see if they'll put it in the system to let you see if you can detect any differenes. If the salesperson is really knowledgeable he will be able to point out the subtleties between a good cable and a mediocre one.

I believe a lot of high end gear in general (and not just cables) is targeted towards people that have more money than they know what to do with and want the best products available regardless of the cost. I used to be totally into high end audio and it literally made me neurotic. My ears had become so finely tuned that I could hear the changes in my speakers when there was a change in the humidity levels. I got to the point where I spent more time trying to track down the subtle changes in my system and correct them that I totally lost track of why I bought the hardware in the first place. Whether I was actually able to detect these difference became irrelevent because I believed they were there. I found that I was listening more to the A/V gear and wasn't enjoying the music anymore.

 

[jeffshoaf]

Everyone seems to be overlooking the reason HDMI was developed: to provide a copy-protection compliant method of connecting HD sources and displays. The HD signal can include a "copy protect" flag that will cause HD set top boxes to down-convert the signal going to analog outputs (such as component), while still sending the full res digital signal (including the flag) out digital outputs. Supposedly, any recording device (VCR, DVD, etc.) that has HDMI inputs should down-res or refuse to copy any source flagged for copy protection.

So, by connecting your HR10-250 to your TV via component, you run the risk of seeing down-res'ed video if DirecTv ever flags any HD content as copy-protected.

 

[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.

 

[captain_video]

I won't argue the point either way. Just refer back to the article I referenced and make up your own mind which type of cable works best for you.

 

[Carnivore]

There is a difference between component and HDMI picture quality, but I can safely assure anyone there is no difference between the $5.00 HDMI cable that comes with the HR10-250 Tivo or the $125.00 Monster HDMI cable. I can't believe people actually pay the markup price without researching what they actually cost. Yes, some people have more money than they know what to do with it.

 

[captain_video]

There is a difference between component and HDMI picture quality

I'll have to challenge you on that one. That's too broad a statement to be made point blank across the board. It all depends on the decoding circuitry in your source component vs. your HDTV. Most people will not be able to discern any difference whatsoever on the vast majority of HDTV sets, regardless of which connection they choose. Someone more experienced might be able to see the difference but the average Joe won't be able to tell.

 

[texasbrit]

I'll have to challenge you on that one. That's too broad a statement to be made point blank across the board. It all depends on the decoding circuitry in your source component vs. your HDTV. Most people will not be able to discern any difference whatsoever on the vast majority of HDTV sets, regardless of which connection they choose. Someone more experienced might be able to see the difference but the average Joe won't be able to tell.

I agree with you. For almost all consumer equipment there will be no discernable difference between component and HDMI. Many people convince themselves that HDMI is better just because it's digital. In fact, for longer cable runs HDMI is more of a problem than component. HDMI is convenient because it's a single cable run, and maybe in the future because it provides copy protection so may allow more access to premium content. But it does not usually give any better quality picture than component.

 

[ApK]

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[gcisko]

Hello, I am new to the forum,

I have a question regarding the hdmi connection with HR10-250. I am in the market for a new HDTV television. My question, is the hdmi that much better than the standard component hook-up (That is what I have now)? And if so, does the monster cable (125.00) provide that much better of a picture vs the HDMI cable that comes with the HR10-250?

Sorry if these are studip questions.

Thanks

HDMI may look somewhat better, but most will probably not notice it. It does have the audio along with the video all in one cable and I think that is a big plus.

As for the monster cables... An audiophile friend of mine suggested Acoustic Reasearch cabled from Best Buy. My friend found that the Acoustic Research cables have all the important parts you need to make the cables high quality. But the price is not offensive like the monster cables. So I would not go super cheap but have in fact bought a bunch of the Acoustic Research cables.

 

[ApK]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[ApK]

I think the point was just not to rely on a cheap poorly made cable that might fall apart, even for digital.

 

[mrb]

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??

 

[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.

 

[twaller]

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.