HDMI vs Component / Coax vs Optical

[stevecon]

I have read in several DTV HD products that describe connections as something like good, better and best.

The manuals always seem to say the the HDMI connection is best - and the DTV HD+DVR (R20-700) even goes so far to say the the VIDEO from the HDMI jack is superior to the Component ("better").

This goes against what I recall learning elsewhere - and what's on the jacks of my Mitsu HDTV. The HDMI jack is labeled 480i thru 1080i inclusive, as are the Component jacks. The S-Video and Composite jacks are labeled 480i only.

Is this info from DTV factual - for the OUTPUT of their DVR; or are they heavily invested in the way overpriced HDMI cable market??

On an unrelated to video note, I also seem to recall being directed in the onscreen setup to use the audio Coaxial jack instead of the Optical jack - for the same "better / best" suggestions. The optical seemed the best way to go for me due to it's inherent ability to reject "noise" from outside of the cable far better than any shielded cable could.

[JimSpence]

Although HDMI and component are labeled the same, the difference is that HDMI is digital and component is analog.

S-video and composite are both 480i, but s-video is considered better.

As for the optical and coax audio, both of these are digital. It's just that the optical won;t be affected by electrical interference.

[rminsk]

There are several factors to look at. If anywhere in the display path does the signal go analog? Believe it or not some digital displays actually do there image enhancement/processing on an analog signal. If it does go analog which has the better D/A converter.

The HR20 manual saying that HDMI is superior to component is not correct.

As for coaxial AC3 vs. optical AC3... it is a digital signal. The DVRs that DirecTV ship do not a coax AC3.

[phox_mulder]

Everyone seems to say HDMI is superior to component.

Of course they are going to say this, they were forced to include HDMI outputs on their boxes and inputs on their TV's by the Hollywood copyright goon squad, and if no one uses it, they've wasted time and money implementing it.

I know I can't tell a difference, I've had both my HR10 and S3 hooked up both ways trying to see which was better, and couldn't.
HR10 is component, S3 is HDMI, only because the S3 is newer so HDMI is more reliable, in my mind.

Same with coaxial and optical.
My DVD player has both, I'm currently using the coaxial only because everything else is using optical, and my receiver has both inputs, might as well make use of both of them.

There are purists who'll swear by whichever one they think is best, and you'll never get them to sway from their opinion.

The only person who's opinion matters is yourself.


phox

[stujac]

I also have both hdmi and component hooked up and the hdmi is better; not by much but it is better. I'm on Comcast cable.

[TyroneShoes]

Aside from the fact that HDMI supports HDCP and that it carries audio, HDMI and component are both virtually equal in terms of quality. The largest difference is that since HDMI is digital, it uses the DAC in your HDTV to get the signal back to analog (which is inevitable), while component uses the DAC in your PVR/STB/DVD. But modern DACs are fairly interchangeable, and all have virtually the same quality of analog output quality, so rarely will there be a noticeable difference, and even then it is difficult to say which will come out on top.

Analog processing in this application is preferable to digital processing, because the kinds of cumulative artifacts that come with digital processing at a consumer level are actually worse than those that might come from analog processing. When there is a lot of hostile environment to traverse or a necessity for compression, digital always wins out. When there isn't, and there is a lot of processing involved, analog typically wins out, and this situation is that kind of situation.

Virtually all HDTV's use analog processing, especially notable even in the one's with the better-rated PQ, and this is precisely why. There may be a lot of hype out there touting "digital processing", but that is typically nothing more than hype. Digital is not inherently better than analog in many cases, in fact quite the opposite, just like HDMI is not inherently better than component.

RF or electrical interference ingress into a copper cable will have zero appreciable affect on digital signals, which is one of the reasons we use digital audio in many applications. This makes copper no worse than glass in that regard. Quality of the signals coming through each are identical and are never compromised by the cabling itself, so coax vs. optical is a non-issue.

[SpankyInChicago]

I have a Mits WS-65815 with a HR10-250 hooked up to it via component. There is no difference between component and HDMI (I have tried both). I continue to believe that, except in rare cases, people that claim to see a difference have only convinced themselves of that rather than it actually being the case. I would imagine if they did a study that 999/1000 people couldn't reliably tell the difference in an "all other things being equal" taste test. Even the one who could tell the difference probably wouldn't say that HDMI is always better.

I just had my ISF calibration touched up because I knew it was pushing red. The guy came over and it was 4% high. He was shocked that I could tell. I have 20/20 vision plus an ability to see colors well. And I just can't tell the difference between HDMI and component.

Of course there are people who I believe actually can tell the difference (when / if there is one), but I just think that the number is exceedingly small.

[bpratt]

Here are a couple of links that provide additional info:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/hdmi-cables.htm

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/whats-the-matter-with-hdmi.htm

[A J Ricaud]

Quality of the signals coming through each are identical and are never compromised by the cabling itself, so coax vs. optical is a non-issue.

There are "golden ears" technophiles who claim that SPDIF coaxial has less digital "jitter" distortion. I guess I'm not one of them.

[TyroneShoes]

There are "golden ears" technophiles who claim that SPDIF coaxial has less digital "jitter" distortion. I guess I'm not one of them.
Me either, A J. There are also "golden ears" technosnobs who claim that running a green magic marker around the edge of a CD will improve the reproduced sound. I've never been one of those, either.

SPDIF may well indeed have more or less jitter in certain instances, but not due to the delivery protocol itself and not due to the fact it is delivered over copper rather than glass. If it does have more (or less) jitter, that would have to be due to an active electrical process such as A-to-D conversion or the process that generates the streaming SPDIF protocol from the digital signal, and it is completely believable that there may be inherent issues with SPDIF compared to other protocols due to the hardware involved, even though A-to-D is a separate process.

I've never heard of it being an issue, but then I don't hear of everything. All I can contribute to that discussion is my skepticism that it is true. Typically when one method trumps another, the trumped method falls out of favor and dies out.

In a situation where reclocking occurs, jitter is essentially a non-issue. But does that potential problem relate to the issue of whether an end user should prefer optical over coax? Who knows? My best guess would be probably not.

[JTAnderson]

One clear advantage of optical S/PDIF over coaxial S/PDIF is that optical will never introduce a ground loop.

[TyroneShoes]

True, but then ground loops can't degrade digital audio.

[purwater]

I just switched my D* box from HDMI over to component due to purchasing an upconvert DVD player. The DVD needs the HDMI to upconvert which I don't actually understand since component is capable of showing the 1080i or 720p. Anyway, I didn't notice any difference in my D* pic quality from HDMI to component. Of course it is HD-lite, but it looked the same after the switch. I'm a firm believer in people being told something is better so they start to see it even if it's not true. I have a friend that will never accept that anything less than HDMI is sufficient, but when he comes to my house he talks about how much better my HD channels look than his at home. He never knew when I switched from HDMI to component so I guess it's all in what he thinks rather than what he sees with his own eyes.

[ShiningBengal]

Aside from the fact that HDMI supports HDCP and that it carries audio, HDMI and component are both virtually equal in terms of quality. The largest difference is that since HDMI is digital, it uses the DAC in your HDTV to get the signal back to analog (which is inevitable), while component uses the DAC in your PVR/STB/DVD. But modern DACs are fairly interchangeable, and all have virtually the same quality of analog output quality, so rarely will there be a noticeable difference, and even then it is difficult to say which will come out on top.

Analog processing in this application is preferable to digital processing, because the kinds of cumulative artifacts that come with digital processing at a consumer level are actually worse than those that might come from analog processing. When there is a lot of hostile environment to traverse or a necessity for compression, digital always wins out. When there isn't, and there is a lot of processing involved, analog typically wins out, and this situation is that kind of situation.

Virtually all HDTV's use analog processing, especially notable even in the one's with the better-rated PQ, and this is precisely why. There may be a lot of hype out there touting "digital processing", but that is typically nothing more than hype. Digital is not inherently better than analog in many cases, in fact quite the opposite, just like HDMI is not inherently better than component.

RF or electrical interference ingress into a copper cable will have zero appreciable affect on digital signals, which is one of the reasons we use digital audio in many applications. This makes copper no worse than glass in that regard. Quality of the signals coming through each are identical and are never compromised by the cabling itself, so coax vs. optical is a non-issue.

HDMI doesn't carry audio on my HR10. I tried HDMI into my Denon 2807, which has two HDMI inputs and I cannot get audio. I have to run a separate Toslink cable to the Denon (no biggie--it has 7 optical inputs) to get digital audio.

This may be related to the fact that it was an early model. I think they may have changed this in later releases.

[dougfetter]

HDMI doesn't carry audio on my HR10. I tried HDMI into my Denon 2807, which has two HDMI inputs and I cannot get audio. I have to run a separate Toslink cable to the Denon (no biggie--it has 7 optical inputs) to get digital audio.

This may be related to the fact that it was an early model. I think they may have changed this in later releases.
It is not the HR10-250 causing your problem. Here (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4047895#post4047895) is what I reported finding when trying to connect the HR10-250 & Denon 4306 via HDMI. At the time of this discussion, there was another user who was having the same problems as I was with getting audio via HDMI from the HR10-250 into a Denon 2807.

[bilbo]

Most (~95%) of up-convert DVD players cripple the component output (up-conversion only over HDMI). I believe this has something to do with the licensing of the HDMI technology (the MPAA is strong-arming the electronics manufacturers into "dis-abling" features over component).

Some of those (~95%) DVD players can be hacked to up-convert over component.

I just switched my D* box from HDMI over to component due to purchasing an upconvert DVD player. The DVD needs the HDMI to upconvert which I don't actually understand since component is capable of showing the 1080i or 720p.

[bilbo]

Actually I believe it has to do with the DVD licensing (not HDMI).

What's worse though is how they might cut resolution by 75% on Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD:

"High-def ‘down-converting’ forced"
1/19/2006
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6300812.html
"In a deal reached this week after tense negotiations, the eight-company consortium behind the Advanced Access Content System, created for use by both high-def formats to prevent unauthorized copying, has agreed to require hardware makers to bar some high-def signals from being sent from players to displays over analog connections, sources said.
Instead, the affected analog signal must be 'down-converted' from the full 1920x1080 lines of resolution the players are capable of outputting to 960x540 lines—a resolution closer to standard DVDs than to high-def. Standard DVDs are typically encoded at 720 horizontal by 480 vertical lines of resolution."

"Hands on: Watch Blu-ray discs on a media PC"
19 Apr 2007
http://www.whatpc.co.uk/personal-computer-world/features/2188076/hands-watch-blu-ray-discs-media

"Hollywood Agrees to Postpone Image Constraint Token until 2012?"
May 22, 2006
http://gear.ign.com/articles/709/709653p1.html

Most (~95%) of up-convert DVD players cripple the component output (up-conversion only over HDMI). I believe this has something to do with the licensing of the HDMI technology (the MPAA is strong-arming the electronics manufacturers into "dis-abling" features over component).

Some of those (~95%) DVD players can be hacked to up-convert over component.