HDMI vs Component?

[Compnewbie01]

Just bought a PS3 and was surprised to find that only ordinary video cables come with the new system. I went out and bought the cheapest HDMI cable I could find and that resulted in one that is way too short for my needs so I was hoping Radioshack will take it back.

Anyway, if Radioshack will take these back I will consider component but I have no idea what the difference is between the two. I am currently playing on a Samsung LCD in 1080p and will watch Blu-Ray down the road after I try out some games. So I guess I'm looking for a little education on the topic of which is better for what purpose. I'm definately going to purchase online however after seeing how much cheaper they are versus a retail store.

 

[zerocool84]

There's minuscule difference in the quality you'll notice. HDMI's advantages lie in having one cable for sound and video which is convenient , upscaling dvd's, and some other things that 99% of people won't even use, loss-less audio etc. Some displays won't accept 1080p over component. Also if your receiver doesn't have HDMI and your tv doesn't have digital audio out, a reason to stay component.

Try monoprice.com

 

[Compnewbie01]

Thank you very much! I went ahead and purchased a 10ft cable for $11 shipped. Now if only I can get Radioshack to take back their rediculously overpriced cable.

 

[TheStu]

If returned within 30 days with receipt then it shouldn't be a problem (former RadioShack employee)

There are also HDCP concerns that you don't have to worry about with HDMI, but really, I prefer it for the convenience.

 

[TheStu]

Double Post

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

For the best entertainment experience, you simply must buy gold-plated 3' Monster HDMI cables, available at your local Best Buy for the low, low price of $99.99!

 

[RedRooster]

For the best entertainment experience, you simply must buy gold-plated 3' Monster HDMI cables, available at your local Best Buy for the low, low price of $99.99!

Are you crazy?! You run that thing without the $599.99 HD Power Center, and you might as well be running SD

 

[sonoma1993]

Are you crazy?! You run that thing without the $599.99 HD Power Center, and you might as well be running SD

don't forget your virtual dynamics 7 foot power cord for only $9582.50

http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/genesis-2-0-vanquish

or get the virtual dynamics Judge Power Cord, some dude on another forum said it improved his laptop audio quality by alot. According to him, he paid like $50k for this power cable

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f113/virtual-dynamics-judge-power-cable-arrived-412260/index18.html#post5617400

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Are you crazy?! You run that thing without the $599.99 HD Power Center, and you might as well be running SD

You would be foolish to run this setup without a gold-plated Monster Surge Protector, only $149.99 at your local Best Buy! Obviously, other surge protectors cannot protect your electronics without GOLD PLATING!

 

[MStele]

Digital > analog therefore HDMI/DVI > component. The reason many displays don't do 1080P over component is because its harder to remove interference that shows up with all but the D/A converters with the best cables. If you were using an analog display, like a crt monitor, then the difference would be smaller but the newer displays are all designed to be ran with a digital signal.

As for the cable, as long as your run is less than 2-3 meters any HDMI cable should work fine. Cable quality is far more important for an analog signal than a digital signal because of interference and signal degradation. Obviously good cables have their uses, primarily if you have a large room and thus large cable runs, but for the average near-tv setup any cable will do.

 

[erwos]

Digital > analog

Not really, but the reasons are complex enough that I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about it. Google for a bit to find out why that's a dramatic oversimplification. Shielding is a bit of a non-issue if you're smart about it.

In the specific case of the PS3, if you want multi-channel PCM output (aka, "HD audio"), you'll need to run HDMI. Elsewise, I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference between using component+optical and HDMI.

 

[MStele]

Not really, but the reasons are complex enough that I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about it. Google for a bit to find out why that's a dramatic oversimplification. Shielding is a bit of a non-issue if you're smart about it.

In the specific case of the PS3, if you want multi-channel PCM output (aka, "HD audio"), you'll need to run HDMI. Elsewise, I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference between using component+optical and HDMI.

Your going by perception, but its a matter of technicality. When you use component on current gen displays, you are taking a digital signal, converting it to analog, then converting it back to digital. There is always a quality reduction, but how much is based on the quality of the cables and the quality of the d/a converter used on BOTH sides. Is it perceivable? Well, i think alot depends on the television. Cheapers tvs will be prone to look much worse with component than with HDMI due to cheaper parts. If you use HDMI, you are getting rid of the D/A conversion process. Now, why would anyone purposely nerf their video stream if they could avoid it?

As for audio, you wouldn't notice the difference between Dolby Pro Logic and Dolby digital, but you would between Dolby and DTS. Also, the largest benefits from digital audio show up when using a good surround reciever and voice matched speakers. If your using tv speakers or a entry level surround setup then your right you wouldn't notice a difference in audio, since you'd still be using the same old Dolby compression thats been around for awhile. The current optical implimentation does not have the bandwidth for uncompressed audio streams, so it will be phased out soon enough.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Dear god go with HDMI for 1:1 pixel display

 

[BassBomb]

Dear god go with HDMI for 1:1 pixel display

Is it funny that I get 1:1 on component rather than HDMI?

I prefer HDMI over Component when using on my NEC 20WMGX2 because it will see it as a PC and not as a analog source. On Component I would get some flickering, which I don't get on HDMI.

HDMI however scales to 16:10 from 16:9, but I don't notice it
Component allowed me to do 1:1 on that monitor.

A real TV may have a different outcome

 

[mmntech]

HDMI = less cables, upscaling DVDs, and playing Blu-ray at 1080p.

No reason not to use it if your TV supports it. Makes your setup a lot neater. You should have seen the rats nest I got rid of just replacing all my RCA cables with HDMI ones. Just buy them from Amazon or Monoprice. 99% of HDMI cables are six and half a dozen of each other. The $5 Monoprice is as good as the $50 Moster Cable. I

 

[mmntech]

How the heck did this double post?! I only hit the button once.

 

[erwos]

Your going by perception, but its a matter of technicality. When you use component on current gen displays, you are taking a digital signal, converting it to analog, then converting it back to digital.

Only if you're starting with a digital signal, which is not always the case. If you are starting with an _analog_ source (VHS, vinyl, etc.), your statement would not apply. I was careful to segregate my criticism of your blanket "digital > analog" statement from the "what to do about your PS3" for a reason.

I have no idea what you're talking about vis a vis DTS being so much better than Dolby or that I wouldn't notice a difference between DPL-II and DD-5.1 (what are you smoking?). My point was, 7.1 multi-channel PCM output over analog is the same as 7.1-LPCM, TrueHD, or DTS-HD over HDMI. But once you've factored those codecs out of the equation, optical is giving you the same thing HDMI would on the PS3.

Check my sig: I have a pretty reasonable HT setup, probably better than 95% of people here. I have my PS3 hooked up via HDMI. I just object to misleading blanket statements like "digital > analog", which have nothing to do with perception, and everything to do with understanding what "digital" and "analog" sound really are.

 

[cmdrdredd]

There's minuscule difference in the quality you'll notice. HDMI's advantages lie in having one cable for sound and video which is convenient , upscaling dvd's, and some other things that 99% of people won't even use, loss-less audio etc. Some displays won't accept 1080p over component. Also if your receiver doesn't have HDMI and your tv doesn't have digital audio out, a reason to stay component.

Try monoprice.com

The PS3 CAN run HDMI for Video and Optical audio out to your Home Theater. You just have to tell it to do audio through a different source.

HDMI is the only way to view movies in 1080p on the PS3 because Component is locked out.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Only if you're starting with a digital signal, which is not always the case. If you are starting with an _analog_ source (VHS, vinyl, etc.), your statement would not apply. I was careful to segregate my criticism of your blanket "digital > analog" statement from the "what to do about your PS3" for a reason.

I have no idea what you're talking about vis a vis DTS being so much better than Dolby or that I wouldn't notice a difference between DPL-II and DD-5.1 (what are you smoking?). My point was, 7.1 multi-channel PCM output over analog is the same as 7.1-LPCM, TrueHD, or DTS-HD over HDMI. But once you've factored those codecs out of the equation, optical is giving you the same thing HDMI would on the PS3.

Check my sig: I have a pretty reasonable HT setup, probably better than 95% of people here. I have my PS3 hooked up via HDMI. I just object to misleading blanket statements like "digital > analog", which have nothing to do with perception, and everything to do with understanding what "digital" and "analog" sound really are.

DTS is better than Dolby when you're talking about compressed audio signals like on Standard Definition DVDs because it has a higher bitrate and supports 24/96, but neither of them are really studio quality as lossless codecs are. When you talk about TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and LPCM it's all the same. These are all lossless, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are simply compressed and can add features into the track like voice normalization etc. That being said, they are all bit for bit copies of the studio master track and what the sound engineers want you to hear. The PS3 can decode DTS-HD MA and TrueHD and output them over HDMI as LPCM signals uncompressed to an HDMI receiver or decoder/preamp. The slim model PS3 can bitstream these codecs. The difference being that when you bitstream you send the compressed signal over HDMI to your decoder or A/V Receiver to do the decoding and processing. Some people prefer this and claim to hear subtle differences from the same soundtrack decoded internally by the PS3. Now, I don't believe them because both are doing the same thing except on different ends. In one case the PS3 decodes it to LPCM and the other case is doing the same thing on the receiver end. The only reason I think people might notice a difference is if their receiver is changing some of the audio during/after decompression. There might be some DSP effects applied to the audio or something happening that is more than just decode & output.

I don't know how much of this applies to the OP's case though.

Just wanted to clarify that little bit.

 

[MStele]

Only if you're starting with a digital signal, which is not always the case. If you are starting with an _analog_ source (VHS, vinyl, etc.), your statement would not apply. I was careful to segregate my criticism of your blanket "digital > analog" statement from the "what to do about your PS3" for a reason.

I have no idea what you're talking about vis a vis DTS being so much better than Dolby or that I wouldn't notice a difference between DPL-II and DD-5.1 (what are you smoking?). My point was, 7.1 multi-channel PCM output over analog is the same as 7.1-LPCM, TrueHD, or DTS-HD over HDMI. But once you've factored those codecs out of the equation, optical is giving you the same thing HDMI would on the PS3.

Check my sig: I have a pretty reasonable HT setup, probably better than 95% of people here. I have my PS3 hooked up via HDMI. I just object to misleading blanket statements like "digital > analog", which have nothing to do with perception, and everything to do with understanding what "digital" and "analog" sound really are.

The original post was specifically about the PS3 and whether to use the included component (analog) cable versus the HDMI (digital) cable. The PS3 IS a digital platform. This is pretty cut and dry. Staying within the context of this post, which was primarily about analog versus digital in regards to video, my "blanket" statement of digital over analog holds true. I wasn't the one that brought up audio, and in that case I conceded that in mainstream home surround there would be no difference in in analog versus digital.

As for DTS, it operates at a around ~768kBits/sec versus ~448KBits/sec for Dolby digital and thus requires less compression than Dolby. This allows for higher quality sound on average. Now analog Dolby Surround, which is what you get when you use components, doesn't get hit so hard in the digital to analog conversion because your speakers are analog devices. What you lose are discrete channels and the ability to do digital crossover. I used DTS as an example because if you have a high end receiver with HDMI inputs this whole post would be moot because that would just be silly to buy a nice HD-audio capable receiver and waste it using analog audio inputs from a PS3. Since you argued for using the analog audio inputs, you would only have access to Dolby Pro Logic, and thus DTS (digital only) would in fact be superior than using analog in that case.

I'm on the same page with you with audio. No matter how you slice it, audio will originate as digital and must be converted to analog at some point for a speaker to reproduce it. Digital gives more control, and there are alot of variables at place, the largest I must admit being the person at the end of the line. Some people can't tell the difference, some can. I'm fortunate to be one of those people who can hear the difference between codecs.

But as for my first post, I stand by it. For a display, which is what we are talking about, going Digital-to-analog-to-digital is just silly when you can go Digital-to-digital.

 

[Thraxen]

Skip all the tech talk and just use HDMI because it's easier cabling to deal with.

As for the actual discussion, from own personal experience I can say the difference is virtually non-existent as long as you don't get any interference. I had a launch 360, none of which had HDMI, and ran it 1080p over component. Later I swapped it out for a newer system with HDMI and the picture looked the same. No, I didn't waste my time swapping back and forth actually trying to spot a difference, but just doing a straight one-time swap I didn't see one bit of difference.

 

[zerocool84]

Skip all the tech talk and just use HDMI because it's easier cabling to deal with.

As for the actual discussion, from own personal experience I can say the difference is virtually non-existent as long as you don't get any interference. I had a launch 360, none of which had HDMI, and ran it 1080p over component. Later I swapped it out for a newer system with HDMI and the picture looked the same. No, I didn't waste my time swapping back and forth actually trying to spot a difference, but just doing a straight one-time swap I didn't see one bit of difference.

99% of people won't notice a difference at all. Sure HDMI will be better cus it's digital but it's prone to lose information just as much as Component is. It's just like how people will say bottled water tastes better than any other type of water but when they do a blind taste test, they are the same.

 

[BenSkywalker]

99% of people won't notice a difference at all.

Seriously people are saying this in this forum? Really?

HDMI, it is nothing remotely close to comparable.

1080p on your BluRays? Gone with component.

Upscaling DVDs? Not on component.

Signal quality differences you aren't going to notice unless you have some higher end gear with some decent internal optical hardware(ie- your eyes don't suck).

It's just like how people will say bottled water tastes better than any other type of water but when they do a blind taste test, they are the same.

Lots of people say BluRay and DVD look the same too. Some people are borderline blind, doesn't mean everyone is(btw- I've tried the bottled water test, I could tell what brand it was 😛 ).

 

[R Nilla]

Seriously people are saying this in this forum? Really?

HDMI, it is nothing remotely close to comparable.

Maybe they are playing on 20" monitors? Otherwise I don't understand either. Component devices are soft and fuzzy compared to the crispness of HDMI. My PS3 looks gloriously crisp over HDMI and this is immediately apparent on the XMB. My component 360 is soft and fuzzy and not as impressive.

 

[marmasatt]

don't forget your virtual dynamics 7 foot power cord for only $9582.50

http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/genesis-2-0-vanquish

I thought you were playing - then I went to the link, lol.

Lots of people say BluRay and DVD look the same too. Some people are borderline blind, doesn't mean everyone is(btw- I've tried the bottled water test, I could tell what brand it was 😛 ).

You know what's funny, is my wife will be watching like food channel or whatever in SD on our 42" HDTV. And I'll go to her "why aren't you watching this in HD?" Her reply: "I thought this was HD" And the whole time, I'm like you can't be serious. I always wonder if she plays it up now on purpose...