Which is better? Using HDMI or Component cables?

[PurdueRy]

Oh boy, the ol' Optical vs. Digital coax argument has somehow managed to rear its ugly head.

There are pluses and minuses to both...but anyone that uses a blanket statement saying that one is better than the other is just being ignorant in my personal opinion. Possibly one was better implemented on one device...but that doesn't mean that method of connection is better for everyone.

As for the OP's question. Try both, the implementation of HDMI has improved but there were cases in the past where component looked better. In most cases I bet most people would notice very little difference without very trivial comparisons

 

[Shadowknight]

HDMI is better; for progressive, upscaling players you need to use an HDMI cable to scale the resolution up. With component, I was stuck solely with 480p. With HDMI, I get access to 720p and 1080i.

 

[Gulzakar]

Depending on your TV size, you'll probably not notice a difference...If anything, the Component will seem more colorful. At this point in time there really isn't a huge difference in PQ. Should you decide on HDMI, don't pay a lot of money.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
HDMI is better; for progressive, upscaling players you need to use an HDMI cable to scale the resolution up. With component, I was stuck solely with 480p. With HDMI, I get access to 720p and 1080i.

The source may have restricted the higher-resolution outputs to HDMI, but component can definitely handle resolutions higher than 480p.

 

[Howard]

dp

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
HDMI is better; for progressive, upscaling players you need to use an HDMI cable to scale the resolution up. With component, I was stuck solely with 480p. With HDMI, I get access to 720p and 1080i.

The source may have restricted the higher-resolution outputs to HDMI, but component can definitely handle resolutions higher than 480p.

exactly, i can get 1080i out of component from my cable box and hdtvs have been out for some time, before hdmi what do you think the olders sets that are 3yrs old have? they all have component to input 1080i.

hdmi is just now starting to penetrate but still only the higher end receivers have hdmi switching, where other, lower to mid range receiver have component switching.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I would use component on a CRT hdtv, and HDMI for LCD or Plasma. Reason? CRT is native analog, but LCD and Plasma are digital. So its logical...

lol

 

[ForumMaster]

HDMI. one cable for video and audio is better then three for the video and up to 6 for audio? also, digital is better then analog.

 

[KrillBee]

digital component FTW

 

[Rubycon]

The whole coax vs. digital debate doesn't start at the theory level of photons vs. electrons. My experience with consumer stuff is rather limited, however in the professional field a lot of the rules apply.

A chip cannot use an optical connection. Therefore it must be converted back to electrons. Using coax eliminates this electro-optical conversion which in itself on many (consumer) products can have a plethora of issues that will affect the sound. Remember this conversion takes place in TWO places! At your deck and your DAC! :Q

Ultra high end transports actually have this componentized where the CD transport is discrete and sends raw data from the photodetector of the laser pickup to a dedicated processor that takes care of CIRC (Cross Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding) and conversion to Analog in a package to keep signal paths as short as possible. The analog output is fed to a balanced connection (as it SHOULD be) for preamplification/post processing. The fidelity of this is superb and surpasses other CD players including using SPDIF to offboard DAC's. It's also very expensive!

Obviously optical connections are electrically isolated so no ground loops however if the studio/listening room is set up properly and correct wiring methods are employed (star grounding, for example) the ground loop currents are infinitesimal and such leakage noise is below the threshold of perception.

With a coax connection one must also remember the importance of proper termination. The cable is typically 75O and with carrying merged data and clock signals the cable carries high frequencies and sharp edges. Electrically it's a floating differential 75O system running at 500mVpp.

Optical and coax would be very very close to one another from a sonic standpoint if the optocoupling is done carefully with high grade components (i.e. the use of index guided or multiple quantum well visible diode lasers instead of LED's) and RAM buffering synchronization is employed. Problem (again) is cost! It's expensive to do it right. This is why studios are expensive. Quality can only go downhill so one must start as high as they possibly can for a good product.

I won't even get into the jitter that's caused by things out of the users' control such as the processing components that run at clock frequencies not related to audio signal clocks. :Q

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
The whole coax vs. digital debate doesn't start at the theory level of photons vs. electrons. My experience with consumer stuff is rather limited, however in the professional field a lot of the rules apply.

A chip cannot use an optical connection. Therefore it must be converted back to electrons. Using coax eliminates this electro-optical conversion which in itself on many (consumer) products can have a plethora of issues that will affect the sound. Remember this conversion takes place in TWO places! At your deck and your DAC! :Q

Ultra high end transports actually have this componentized where the CD transport is discrete and sends raw data from the photodetector of the laser pickup to a dedicated processor that takes care of CIRC (Cross Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding) and conversion to Analog in a package to keep signal paths as short as possible. The analog output is fed to a balanced connection (as it SHOULD be) for preamplification/post processing. The fidelity of this is superb and surpasses other CD players including using SPDIF to offboard DAC's. It's also very expensive!

Obviously optical connections are electrically isolated so no ground loops however if the studio/listening room is set up properly and correct wiring methods are employed (star grounding, for example) the ground loop currents are infinitesimal and such leakage noise is below the threshold of perception.

With a coax connection one must also remember the importance of proper termination. The cable is typically 75O and with carrying merged data and clock signals the cable carries high frequencies and sharp edges. Electrically it's a floating differential 75O system running at 500mVpp.

Optical and coax would be very very close to one another from a sonic standpoint if the optocoupling is done carefully with high grade components (i.e. the use of index guided or multiple quantum well visible diode lasers instead of LED's) and RAM buffering synchronization is employed. Problem (again) is cost! It's expensive to do it right. This is why studios are expensive. Quality can only go downhill so one must start as high as they possibly can for a good product.

I won't even get into the jitter that's caused by things out of the users' control such as the processing components that run at clock frequencies not related to audio signal clocks. :Q

is this why the higher end components my buddies use have xlr connections on his anthem preamp->multiple amps?

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: bob4432

is this why the higher end components my buddies use have xlr connections on his anthem preamp->multiple amps?

Yes XLR is a balanced connection and is will stay noise free over long runs. All pro equipment is balanced and this is seen on audiophile equipment as well.

 

[fLum0x]

HDMI IMO

 

[Thraxen]

The vast majority of people would never be able to tell the difference... including nearly everyone here. HDMI provides less cable mess, so I'd go with that if possible.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
If you dislike the DACs in the Sony, why would you use that to A/B test the fiber and coax? I'm not making the connection between the two.

Sorry. I disliked the DACs in the receiver and just thought I'd play around with them to see if I really was hearing what I was hearing. The DACs in the sony are far superior. I've always used the analog out from a decent source, but wanted to play around.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I would use component on a CRT hdtv, and HDMI for LCD or Plasma. Reason? CRT is native analog, but LCD and Plasma are digital. So its logical...

lol

why is this funny to you?

 

[MaxDepth]

I think I'm in love! Would you like to come to my place and set up my HTPC, A/V, and TV?
I can cook, you know!

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
The whole coax vs. digital debate doesn't start at the theory level of photons vs. electrons. My experience with consumer stuff is rather limited, however in the professional field a lot of the rules apply.

A chip cannot use an optical connection. Therefore it must be converted back to electrons. Using coax eliminates this electro-optical conversion which in itself on many (consumer) products can have a plethora of issues that will affect the sound. Remember this conversion takes place in TWO places! At your deck and your DAC! :Q

Ultra high end transports actually have this componentized where the CD transport is discrete and sends raw data from the photodetector of the laser pickup to a dedicated processor that takes care of CIRC (Cross Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding) and conversion to Analog in a package to keep signal paths as short as possible. The analog output is fed to a balanced connection (as it SHOULD be) for preamplification/post processing. The fidelity of this is superb and surpasses other CD players including using SPDIF to offboard DAC's. It's also very expensive!

Obviously optical connections are electrically isolated so no ground loops however if the studio/listening room is set up properly and correct wiring methods are employed (star grounding, for example) the ground loop currents are infinitesimal and such leakage noise is below the threshold of perception.

With a coax connection one must also remember the importance of proper termination. The cable is typically 75O and with carrying merged data and clock signals the cable carries high frequencies and sharp edges. Electrically it's a floating differential 75O system running at 500mVpp.

Optical and coax would be very very close to one another from a sonic standpoint if the optocoupling is done carefully with high grade components (i.e. the use of index guided or multiple quantum well visible diode lasers instead of LED's) and RAM buffering synchronization is employed. Problem (again) is cost! It's expensive to do it right. This is why studios are expensive. Quality can only go downhill so one must start as high as they possibly can for a good product.

I won't even get into the jitter that's caused by things out of the users' control such as the processing components that run at clock frequencies not related to audio signal clocks. :Q

 

[jtvang125]

Originally posted by: akshatp

Originally posted by: FoBoT
what is the difference?
will the picture be smaller with the component cable?

No. The HDMI is a fiber cable I beleive and transmits up to 5gb of data on the single cable using light. It will be a much clearer sharper picture.

I seriously doubt it's using fiber optics. I have a DVI to HDMI cable I use for my computer to hook up to my tv. There is no way my video card is sending out light signals through its DVI port. I do know HDMI is an all digital connection with the ability to send both video and audio signals simu.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: jtvang125

Originally posted by: akshatp

Originally posted by: FoBoT
what is the difference?
will the picture be smaller with the component cable?

No. The HDMI is a fiber cable I beleive and transmits up to 5gb of data on the single cable using light. It will be a much clearer sharper picture.

I seriously doubt it's using fiber optics. I have a DVI to HDMI cable I use for my computer to hook up to my tv. There is no way my video card is sending out light signals through its DVI port. I do know HDMI is an all digital connection with the ability to send both video and audio signals simu.

It's a standard copper connection

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: akshatp

Originally posted by: FoBoT
what is the difference?
will the picture be smaller with the component cable?

No. The HDMI is a fiber cable I beleive and transmits up to 5gb of data on the single cable using light. It will be a much clearer sharper picture.

HDMI is copper wire, not fibre optic. Digital transmission though, compared to Component. I would pick HDMI, if your display is digital. Otherwise I don't see too much diff between the 2.

 

[edro]

Because HDMI is all digital, would I be wrong saying that $100 HDMI cables should not produce better results than a $20 HDMI cable?

I just can't see spending $100+ on a video/audio cable.

I just got a 42" 1080i LCD TV and I will be hooking it up to an 8300HD Time Warner DVR box (it has HDMI).

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: edro
Because HDMI is all digital, would I be wrong saying that $100 HDMI cables should not produce better results than a $20 HDMI cable?

I just can't see spending $100+ on a video/audio cable.

I just got a 42" 1080i LCD TV and I will be hooking it up to an 8300HD Time Warner DVR box (it has HDMI).

With longer lengths, getting a cable with thicker gauge wires could help you out, but for short runs a cheap cable from monoprice would certainly be a good bet.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&style=

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I would use component on a CRT hdtv, and HDMI for LCD or Plasma. Reason? CRT is native analog, but LCD and Plasma are digital. So its logical...

lol

why is this funny to you?

Because everything (except arguably DLP) is analog on the output stage.

Really the question is what device has the best digital/analog conversion processing, along with how bad the degredation is in the analog stage past that point.

 

[Cattlegod]

I'm sorry but as a Computer Engineer I can't fathom any difference between transferring a digital signal over coax or optical other than bandwidth and speed.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

sweet my ban has expired