AJ & Other Home Theater Buffs - A Question

[PaulFiveOh]

Ok here goes-

What resolution is Component?

What res is HDMI (up to)?

If a system has component out & HDMI is it correct to say that the HDMI output will be BETTER looking than the component (assuming a 1080i/p signal)

Can you guys answer those questions for me. Trying to figure something out for a side customer of mine.

[Paul408Notch]

HDMI is the best connection possible right now, but you can get just as good a picture with component video as with HDMI. I just don't know of any sources that will output 1080p over component.

[Sharad]

Paul's right.

Fwiw, our yamaha receivers do HD upscaling and they have component and HDMI out.

[PaulFiveOh]

Edit-

Does this mean that 1080i over Component is being upconverted? Or. Is 1080i over component not possible.

[Black Hole]

Edit-

Does this mean that 1080i over Component is being upconverted? Or. Is 1080i over component not possible.
Depends on the equipment I believe.

If the equipment will do true 1080p without upscaling, I believe it has to be HDMI (like Paul said). It should be able to do 1080i over component (my sony SXRD suposedly will do 1080i either way and can upscale to 1080p over HDMI from my PS3).

I could be wrong though. :dunno:

[IWRBB]

Component is analog. HDMI is digital. HDMI should have a better picture in nearly every case. In my experience, it does. I really like the fact that HDMI is one thin wire that carries the video and audio compared to 5 wires for component/RCAs. Some HDMI devices only handle video though, and you still have to run audio. In that case I run optical if available, that keeps the sound digital. Bottom line, there's pretty much no good reason to run component video if you can run HDMI.

Component will carry 720p and 1080i, no problem. Those are the 2 broadcast HD resoultions (all 1080i except for Fox, ESPN and ABC which are 720p). I think you do need HDMI to carry 1080p, which is only available from a blu-ray player. Pretty much anyone who has a 1080p source and display will be running a full digital setup using HDMI cables anyways.

One other thing, do not buy the HDMI cables from the Bestbuy, etc. They are about 200% overpriced. A $30 cable online goes for $90 at Bestbuy.

[Black Hole]

Component is analog. HDMI is digital. HDMI should have a better picture in nearly every case. In my experience, it does. I really like the fact that HDMI is one thin wire that carries the video and audio compared to 5 wires for component/RCAs. Some HDMI devices only handle video though, and you still have to run audio. In that case I run optical if available, that keeps the sound digital. Bottom line, there's pretty much no good reason to run component video if you can run HDMI.

Component will carry 720p and 1080i, no problem. Those are the 2 broadcast HD resoultions (all 1080i except for Fox, ESPN and ABC which are 720p). I think you do need HDMI to carry 1080p, which is only available from a blu-ray player. Pretty much anyone who has a 1080p source and display will be running a full digital setup using HDMI cables anyways.

One other thing, do not buy the HDMI cables from the Bestbuy, etc. They are about 200% overpriced. A $30 cable online goes for $90 at Bestbuy.
I agree.

And a note about the HDMI cable.....the general mis-conception is that more expensive = better. This isn't true with HDMI as it's digital.

With analog, the better shielding and gold connectors can help reduce interference and improve the quality of the audio/video.

There is no way to improve digital than digital.....so a $10 wire will perform the same as a $100 wire. (and I should know since I'm using a $80 Monster Cable HDMI cable right next to a $12 GE HDMI cable that I got from Target. :doh:

[IWRBB]

Yea, no fancy cables needed for HDMI unless you are running it some crazy length, like over 50 ft. You can run it a long way with HDMI, I think you can go up to 150 ft.

[mach_u]

Just noticed this thread. I was actually working downstairs on my new theater/bar! :rockon: There are some great resources online on this subject. Check this article out, it may help: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm. I am a huge fan of HDMI, because if nothing else you don't have as many cables running around. Actually, I just got done running a 25ft 22AWG HDMI cable through the ceiling for the new projector. What ever you do, don't waste your money on monster cables. I paid less than $50 for my 25ft HDMI and it stacks up with Monster in every single way. Check out http://www.audioholics.com/ and http://www.avsforum.com/ for some great articles on all things A/V. The AV University on Audioholics has some killer articles that should answer most all your questions. I will say one thing however when it comes to TW Cable HD boxes. I noticed a slight delay between switching between HD and non-hd channels with my TV hooked up to HDMI. I went back to component for the cable box because as it's been said, you really aren't going to notice a big different on the 1080i broadcast anyway. I do however have one ran from my Upconverting DVD Recorder and my HD DVD player.

[Black92LX]

Component is analog. HDMI is digital. HDMI should have a better picture in nearly every case. In my experience, it does.

Going to have to disagree here to an extent.

If you are comparing HDMI (in 1080p) to Component (in 1080i) because it's not capable of 1080p. Then yes.
But by the standards 1080i from a component cable vs. a HDMI cable, the component is going to look better. The analog signal is a raw signal sent from end to end. Where as the HDMI breaks it down then puts it back together at the other end.
So in a perfect world the component will look better but we don't live in a perfect world so there are lots of variables that go into it.

As for your original question. Another thing that has not been hit on is what version HDMI cable are you running.
version 1.1 will not give a true 1080p signal. Some version 1.2s will and all 1.3a will.
Another thing to remember for the home theater only HDMI 1.3a will transfer your true 7.1 audio.

[Black92LX]

Yea, no fancy cables needed for HDMI unless you are running it some crazy length, like over 50 ft. You can run it a long way with HDMI, I think you can go up to 150 ft.

they make amplifiers so you can go longer if needed or are splitting the signal.

[IWRBB]

But by the standards 1080i from a component cable vs. a HDMI cable, the component is going to look better. The analog signal is a raw signal sent from end to end. Where as the HDMI breaks it down then puts it back together at the other end.

Huh? You are going to have to explain that better. Are you saying HDMI is using compression over the cable and not sending all the data?

[Black92LX]

Huh? You are going to have to explain that better. Are you saying HDMI is using compression over the cable and not sending all the data?

It does send "all the data" it's just sent differently. It is encoded and broken down at one end and decoded and put back together at the other.
That is how digital signals work. And dependent upon variables mainly your decoder and encoder can effect what goes in or what goes out.
All decoders and encoders are not equal.

Though with analog everything is there from the beginning to the end. This is why it is much more important to buy good analog cables, whereas Digital cables don't need to as good.
There is far less room for interference in a digital cable.

I run all HDMI except for my Wii (no HDMI available). Because of it's ease.

I was just pointing out that by the science involved in the two a Component 1080i signal is going to be better than an HDMI signal, due to the fact that HDMI is technically a reproduction.
A very good reproduction but it's still a reproduction.
Is the average watcher ever going to be able to tell a difference no.

It's the same reason I still use a turntable for those that still put stuff out on vinyl . When done properly a record sounds better than a CD.

[Paul408Notch]

So a blu-ray drive takes a digital reading from a disc, converts it to analog, then back to digital, then over an HDMI cable, then to analog , then back to digital to display on a TV?

[Black92LX]

So a blu-ray drive takes a digital reading from a disc, converts it to analog, then back to digital, then over an HDMI cable, then to analog , then back to digital to display on a TV?

HDMI is fully digital no analog conversion in that process.

[PaulFiveOh]

All decoders and encoders are not equal.



You are a wealth of info on this subject, as is everyone who posted so far.

Black92Lx, can you provide any data or research relating to encoders/decoders not being equal?

[Black92LX]

You are a wealth of info on this subject, as is everyone who posted so far.

Black92Lx, can you provide any data or research relating to encoders/decoders not being equal?

I will see if I can dig up any specific articles.
But it goes a long with the you get what you pay for logic.

One can buy a Sherwood Receiver for $200 vs a Marantz for $1400.
I promise you your processors, encoders and decoders will not be equal.

Do you have any specific products that you are looking at in-particular and I will attempt to find some comparisons with the technology in those products

[nkystanger]

I agree.

And a note about the HDMI cable.....the general mis-conception is that more expensive = better. This isn't true with HDMI as it's digital.

With analog, the better shielding and gold connectors can help reduce interference and improve the quality of the audio/video.

There is no way to improve digital than digital.....so a $10 wire will perform the same as a $100 wire. (and I should know since I'm using a $80 Monster Cable HDMI cable right next to a $12 GE HDMI cable that I got from Target. :doh:

Sams Club has a pretty good deal on them. I think they were selling 4 or 6 foot hdmi cables for $17.00

[Black92LX]

Also don't get me wrong here I am by no means bashing HDMI as I stated in prior posts it's what I use.

I am just stating from the pure science of the two. Component is technically better. When dealing with video quality at a 1080i level or lower.

Is HDMI superior I guess one could say so because it transfers 1080p and 7.1 lossless audio.
Something not supported nor ever will be supported by component.

Again it all depends on what exactly you are going for. Now a days for the Home Theater HDMI is the way to go. Cables, are cheaper, you need, less of them, digital signal is harder to interfere with.

But when breaking down the apples to apples 1080i or lower video component is going to be better because it is the true information being sent.

Again if you have something sending and receiving lower end signal that is what you are going to get.

[PaulFiveOh]

I want to recap with this question:

Is 1080i over Component practically as good, or better, than 1080i over HDMI?

[IWRBB]

It does send "all the data" it's just sent differently. It is encoded and broken down at one end and decoded and put back together at the other.
That is how digital signals work. And dependent upon variables mainly your decoder and encoder can effect what goes in or what goes out.
All decoders and encoders are not equal.

So you are saying having 2 DAC convertors in the mix is better than going through the digital encoding? To me, I'd think the encoding is like an encrypted file. Yes, it gets protected, but at the other end it comes out exactly the same. Or, are you saying that to go through an HDMI connection, the box sending the signal is actually taking the raw digital signal, and completely re-encoding it? If so, are you sure it's not just a lossless encryption scheme?

It's interesting that HDMI is potentially worse than analog.

[FireStang02]

A good place to buy your HDMI cables is through the cable company. They buy in bulk and don't mark them up. I bought a 25 ft cable at Insight for $12.

[Black92LX]

I want to recap with this question:

Is 1080i over Component practically as good, or better, than 1080i over HDMI?

Yes. The untrained eye, hell even the trained eye will not be able to tell the difference.

The untrained eye won't even be able to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p.

[Black92LX]

So you are saying having 2 DAC convertors in the mix is better than going through the digital encoding? To me, I'd think the encoding is like an encrypted file. Yes, it gets protected, but at the other end it comes out exactly the same. Or, are you saying that to go through an HDMI connection, the box sending the signal is actually taking the raw digital signal, and completely re-encoding it? If so, are you sure it's not just a lossless encryption scheme?

It's interesting that HDMI is potentially worse than analog.

Why is it interesting that HDMI is potentially worse than analog?

You are hoping the digital signal comes out exactly the same. Again it all depends how good the encoders and decoders are. And the cable does make a difference to an extent. Like I stated earlier HDMI version 1.1 cannot pass 1080p video nor can it or 1.2 pass 7.1 lossless audio.

In all reality it doesn't really matter one way or another they both are sending the exact same information just in different formats. (again we are speaking for 1080i and below)

If I sit in front of the same TV and input device. I will not be able to tell the difference in 1080i (component) or 1080i (HDMI). I don't think I could even tell the difference between 1080p and 1080i. But once I start bringing out color meters I would be able to. But just watching video one is not going to tell the difference.
Plus the difference is not going to be very noticeable.
My initial point was everyone is quick to say that HDMI is better, but that is not necessarily the case.

[IWRBB]

Why is it interesting that HDMI is potentially worse than analog?

You know why. Digital is claimed to be better, that's why.

I'm not saying you are wrong here either, I believe you know exactly what you are talking about.



In all reality it doesn't really matter one way or another they both are sending the exact same information just in different formats. (again we are speaking for 1080i and below)

If I sit in front of the same TV and input device. I will not be able to tell the difference in 1080i (component) or 1080i (HDMI). I don't think I could even tell the difference between 1080p and 1080i. But once I start bringing out color meters I would be able to. But just watching video one is not going to tell the difference.
Plus the difference is not going to be very noticeable.
My initial point was everyone is quick to say that HDMI is better, but that is not necessarily the case

On my Panasonic (720p commercial plasma), the picture looked noticeably better on a HDMI blade than the component blade, no doubt at all. On my Sony XBR960 (superfine HD Triniton), I couldn't tell much difference between the HDMI input and the component inputs.

I think you are right about 1080i vs 1080p. I doubt most people would see any difference between 1080i and 1080p, unless it was fast action on a big screen. I can easily see a difference between 720p and 1080i, but I doubt I'd notice any difference at all between 1080i and 1080p.

BTW, anyone interrested in buying the Sony 960? It's the best tube TV ever made, it's just too big (exterior wise) for my room. It's a 34" 16:9 HD superfine pitch Trinitron. The case is deep and wide, and it's heavy. I love the TV, but a flat panel would fit a lot better in my bedroom.

[PaulFiveOh]

On my Panasonic (720p commercial plasma), the picture looked noticeably better on a HDMI blade than the component blade, no doubt at all.


Does this then prove the statement (in your case) that it matters the quality of decoders?

[Black92LX]

You know why. Digital is claimed to be better, that's why.

I'm not saying you are wrong here either, I believe you know exactly what you are talking about.

Digital is only claimed to be better by those trying to sell the newest hip products. But those in it know when compared straight up Digital is no better than analog.

People claim digital to be better because it's the "new" technology.
Kind of like saying a cellphone is better than a land line.

Or another one is that people think LCD, plasma, and DLP are better than your old tube CRT televisions.
That is defiantly not the case. A CRT will always give a far better picture than a plasma, LCD, or DLP at a far cheaper price.
But people think just because it's new means it's better.

I have a 34" Samsung CRT HDTV (only goes to 1080i) but I will put it up against and of the LCD, Plasma or DLP pictures in 1080p any day of the week. And guess what when those LCD or Plasmas are dead in 6-8 years (the individual TVs not the technology, though i am sure something new will be out by then) my tube TV will still have years left. And I paid far less.
I got this TV almost just over 2 years ago now for $650 at that time 34" LCD and plasmas in 720 were going for $4,000. I always felt bad when my buddies would cove over that just bought their LCDs and Plasmas for $4,000 and my $650 TV far surpassed the picture of theirs.

Where digital really takes the cake though is in the whole scheme of things. It takes FAR less time to edit things in digital format than it does with your analog version. And in this world we all know time is money. And when the untrained can't tell the difference why spend 3 to 4 more time editing the analog that the digital.
Also when it comes to the storage of the media. Video Reel warehouse have been replaced with room sized servers.

Both digital and analog have their place. Like I said I still rock a turn table, I have lots of trouble finding new stuff on vinyl but man I just love to listen to a well mixed record.
The only thing that comes close in sound is a DTS DVD audio disc and those are just as difficult to come by.

[PaulFiveOh]

Thanks for your expert level knowledge dude, I sincerely appreciate it.

[mustang8998]

Digital is only claimed to be better by those trying to sell the newest hip products. But those in it know when compared straight up Digital is no better than analog.

People claim digital to be better because it's the "new" technology.
Kind of like saying a cellphone is better than a land line.

Or another one is that people think LCD, plasma, and DLP are better than your old tube CRT televisions.
That is defiantly not the case. A CRT will always give a far better picture than a plasma, LCD, or DLP at a far cheaper price.
But people think just because it's new means it's better.

I have a 34" Samsung CRT HDTV (only goes to 1080i) but I will put it up against and of the LCD, Plasma or DLP pictures in 1080p any day of the week. And guess what when those LCD or Plasmas are dead in 6-8 years (the individual TVs not the technology, though i am sure something new will be out by then) my tube TV will still have years left. And I paid far less.
I got this TV almost just over 2 years ago now for $650 at that time 34" LCD and plasmas in 720 were going for $4,000. I always felt bad when my buddies would cove over that just bought their LCDs and Plasmas for $4,000 and my $650 TV far surpassed the picture of theirs.

Where digital really takes the cake though is in the whole scheme of things. It takes FAR less time to edit things in digital format than it does with your analog version. And in this world we all know time is money. And when the untrained can't tell the difference why spend 3 to 4 more time editing the analog that the digital.
Also when it comes to the storage of the media. Video Reel warehouse have been replaced with room sized servers.

Both digital and analog have their place. Like I said I still rock a turn table, I have lots of trouble finding new stuff on vinyl but man I just love to listen to a well mixed record.
The only thing that comes close in sound is a DTS DVD audio disc and those are just as difficult to come by.

I agree, the CRT HDTV is a far superior format. But, for myself (like IWRBB), I opted for the LCD format. My Panasonic (garbage) CRT took a dump for the last time, so the opportunity to switch. The LCD, takes up alot less space, so I was able to gain a few inches in picture size.

[Black92LX]

I agree, the CRT HDTV is a far superior format. But, for myself (like IWRBB), I opted for the LCD format. My Panasonic (garbage) CRT took a dump for the last time, so the opportunity to switch. The LCD, takes up alot less space, so I was able to gain a few inches in picture size.

CRTs are also limited in size 34" is the largest you will find screen wise.
I have the Samsung Slimfit so it's only 12" deep.
I don't like mounting TVs on the wall for multiple reasons and I have plenty of space so I had no need for the flat panel.

Again just like the HDMI argument LCD and Plasma produce a great picture. You just need to weigh in all of your needs when choosing.
I didn't want to spend big dollars, 34" screen was plenty big, and I could deal with the extra space that the CRT took up.

[mach_u]

34" screen was plenty big
You may just have to stop by when you are in town and check out the 65" or the new 84" projector screen - I guarantee you will change your mind! :D

[Black92LX]

You may just have to stop by when you are in town and check out the 65" or the new 84" projector screen - I guarantee you will change your mind! :D

I currently don't have a room large enough to sit far enough away from it.

Though don't worry. Hopes are to sign the contract on our New home build next week.
Then next winter I will start finishing the basement and will build my ultimate media room Fully designed and installed by me!!!!!!! Then we will need a larger screen.

[mach_u]

I currently don't have a room large enough to sit far enough away from it.

Though don't worry. Hopes are to sign the contract on our New home build next week.
Then next winter I will start finishing the basement and will build my ultimate media room Fully designed and installed by me!!!!!!! Then we will need a larger screen.
Werd. Let me know if you need any help. I love setting this stuff up. I have some pretty good resources on cables, equipment, etc. also. :bigthumb

[WhiteT]

What do you think a 60" tubed CRT would weigh:eek:

[Foxxx5oh]

CRTs are also limited in size 34" is the largest you will find screen wise.
I have the Samsung Slimfit so it's only 12" deep.
I don't like mounting TVs on the wall for multiple reasons and I have plenty of space so I had no need for the flat panel.

Again just like the HDMI argument LCD and Plasma produce a great picture. You just need to weigh in all of your needs when choosing.
I didn't want to spend big dollars, 34" screen was plenty big, and I could deal with the extra space that the CRT took up.

i have a 36" RCA that is a CRT HDTV, so there were bigger than 34" ones :)

[Foxxx5oh]

What do you think a 60" tubed CRT would weigh:eek:



my 36" is HEAVY!!! i had a hard time gettin it to where it is right now jsut so i have to move it again when i get the new flyback transformer for it...LOL

[Black92LX]

i have a 36" RCA that is a CRT HDTV, so there were bigger than 34" ones :)

I am going to take a guess it is not a wide screen model though.

[Foxxx5oh]

I am going to take a guess it is not a wide screen model though.


it is a widescreen. the model # is RCA F36650. it has component inputs and all :)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YHRD5CPAL._AA280_.jpg

[Black92LX]

is it flat screen? looks to be concave in the picture.

[Foxxx5oh]

its flatter than any other TV in the house, that picture kinda skews things a little