HD DirecTivo HDMI vs componen output, is there a big difference in picture quality?

[Leila]

HD DirecTivo HDMI vs component output, is there a big difference
in picture quality? (for 1080i programs)
Thanks!

[Runch Machine]

No, but depending on your TV there may be a noticable difference. If your TV is not CRT based try the HDMI output. On my TV I get a slightly sharper picture via HDMI.

[Dssturbo1]

use a calibration disc like avia or home theather essentials to get both component and hdmi to look the best they can on your display and source. then see which one you like better.

[mr.unnatural]

I've compared both outputs on my Hitachi 60" LCD HD RPTV and can't see a noticeable difference between the two.

[videojanitor]

On my set, a Sony XBR910 (CRT), the component input actually looks better. The HDMI input is "washed out" for lack of a better term -- the black level is too high, and the luminance level is too low. I've plugged several different HDMI devices into it, and they all look the same. Unfortunately, this set has no way to adjust the picture settings "per input," so if I adjust it to make the HDMI input look right, then the other inputs are wrong (crushed blacks and hot luminance).

So, from my experience, this is one of those things where the right answer depends on the particular display being used.

[SpankyInChicago]

This is an interesting question. I am surprised it has never been asked here before.

[HomieG]

I would think that the PQ has a lot to do with the quality of the decoder in the TV. And that probably varies from TV to TV and manufacturer to manufacturer.

I definitely noticed an improvement from component to HDMI, but YMMV.

[mr.unnatural]

A recent DVD player survey conducted by The Perfect Vision magazine revealed that virtually all but a handfull of high end DVD players actually exhibited a better picture via component outputs than via HDMI connections. I find this completely perplexing and confusing since HDMI is supposed to transmit the original digital signal from the source component to the digital component in an unmodified form whereas the component video output is converted to analog first and then digitized in the monitor for display.

Rational thought tells me that the image should be best using the HDMI connection but reality indicates otherwise in most cases. I'm sure there has to be a great deal of interaction between the source component and the display device that is causing this discrepency to occur. The moral to the story is to check both connections on your particular brand of display device and see which works best for you. This is starting to make me wonder whether or not using a high quality cable for HDMI is required for the best display. OTOH, I'm using good quality aftermarket HDMI cables (i.e., expensive upgrades) with my setup but I still can't tell the difference between HDMI and component.

[TyroneShoes]

This is an interesting question. I am surprised it has never been asked here before. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Spank, have you been away, or in rehab? This question comes up here so often it should be a sticky. :) Or was that subtle sarcasm I just fell for?

And as the answers here illustrate, the true answer is "it depends". Which makes the best advice "try both, use what works best."

The reason it depends is primarily due to the DAC used. Component out of a HR10 means the DAC in the HR10 does the conversion, while HDMI out implies that the DAC in the display does the conversion. But, the DACs in both the HR10 and in most modern sets are pretty damned good, and usually virtually identical in quality. Occasionally a set (usually older models) will not have a DAC that performs up to that level, and it is possible for some sets to have DACs that exceed the level of performance of that in the HR10, so certain scenarios will result in better performance with one or the other.

But exceptionally rarely. Most folks will see no difference. There is certainly not enough difference to invest in expensive component or HDMI distribution amps as long as you have enough HDMI and component destinations all totaled.

There is also some confusion surrounding a belief that HDMI might be better, simply because it carries a digital signal. But as it turns out, component cabling that is working properly can preserve the integrity of analog HD just as precisely as HDMI can preserve the integrity of digital HD, and even if digital can be considered "better" than analog, all is eventually analog by the time it exits the display and hits your eyeballs, so that would really not matter. HDMI does have a convenience factor of integrated audio, and sometimes 1 cable can be "better" than 5 or 6 cables.

[Leila]

Thanks for all the replies! :)

I have a follow-up question:

Will it make any difference in picture quality if the
component cable is 25 or 30 feet long?(assuming I'm
using good quality cable... such as Monster Cable)

[mr.unnatural]

You will always run the risk of degradation due to signal loss with long cable runs. Still, a quality cable shouldn't suffer from noticeable loss even at that length. FYI - Monster Cable isn't all it's cracked up to be and is highly overrated and overpriced. It just happens to be a brand name that people recognize and automatically assume is the best available, sort of like Bose speakers (don't even get me started there). Check out some of the sponsors over at the AVS Forums for dealers with great cables at reasonable prices.

[TyroneShoes]

...Will it make any difference in picture quality if the
component cable is 25 or 30 feet long?(assuming I'm
using good quality cable... such as Monster Cable)
That also assumes that Monster Cable is actually good quality cable. I think you will pay a "quality" price for it, but I don't think that guarantees that it is any better than anything else you could get.

There is one difference between analog (over component, in this case) and digital (over HDMI, in this case) in that analog signals suffer from attenuation over distance, and the attenuation is not equal at all frequencies. This can cause chroma and higher frequencies (which translates to sharp images) to be rolled off, resulting in a bit less sharpness, a bit less brightness, and a bit less chroma. Of course all of those can be compensated using user controls in the display. There also might be a tiny bit of time smear, which is not correctable (nor does it really need to be).

When cables are 3-12 feet long, the losses are negligible, possibly not even measurable. When they are 30 feet long, they probably still aren't really noticeable (but as I say, mostly correctable anyway). Professional video cable can run a couple of hundred feet before an equalizing amp needs to be employed, and many "professionals" run analog video 500-1000 feet without such correction. Consumer cable pretty much obeys the same laws of physics, so 30 feet should not really be a problem.

[tubsone]

I bought my plasma and my HD-Tivo at the same time and set it up via the HDMI hook up that came in the box with the HR10-250. The picture was great! Then I bought a Denon 2910 that could only be hooked up via the HDMI if I wanted to get 1080i on the Denon. This leaving me with only one HDMI hookup on my plasma for 2 sources. So I heard from a few home audio guys about Impact Acoustics.com and there cables and build quality and good prices. So I bought a HDMI cable for my Denon and 6' Component for my TV from them......hooked it up and I thought the picture on my TV was better then before! At the least there is no way I could tell it was worse(like it's suppose to be ;) ). So I thought it was a great switch considering all the horror stories I had read in here about the shady HDMI slot/card on the HD Tivo from D*.

[joetoronto]

i've yet to see anything that compares to a good DVI cable but as far as HDMI and component, i can't see a difference.

i'm wondering how many of the few that said they noticed a difference between the two actually saw it, as opposed to assumed it to be better.

[SpankyInChicago]

Or was that subtle sarcasm I just fell for?


:up: