Quality Component vs Mediocre HDMI

PSOVLSK

I recently got a Denon DVD557 and I have it hooked up with the ViperAV component cable that my old player was hooked up with, as well as a new HDMI cable. The DVD player only upconverts via HDMI, thus the reason for buying the new cable. When I do switch from Component to HDMI, I can't tell a difference. I'm guessing the reason I can't tell a differnce is one of the following:
1) There really isn't much difference between component and HDMI.
2) I'm using a quality component cable, but my HDMI cable is mediocre. (I know this is true of my cables, just didn't know if that's the reason for my lack of impovement in PQ).
3) I'm blind as a bat and need to quit wasting my money on decent cables.

Here's my room specs, etc:
Dedicated HT room, dark walls, completely dark inside
Panasonic AE900U projector
I've never measured it, but my screen is about 110"
Viewing distance of 12'-13'

Sami

The answer is #1.

steveinaz

The only difference I noticed when switching from component cables to HDMI:
1. Picture was centered a little better (DVE)
2. The halo you see in certain scenes around Marlin in "Finding Nemo" finally disappeared.

VSchneider

#1 +1

I did a similar test with my DVD557, and there's a slight difference, but not a " :eek: what was I watching before :eek:" difference. Diagonals on the screen are straighter and less jagged, fine detail like hair looks better, the image is slightly sharper overall. The main benefit by far is hookup convenience for me.

- Val

AndyGwis

I just picked up a Sony DVP-S9000ES for my bedroom setup. My previous player was an upconvert hooked up HDMI - DVI. This one only does component.

Is it worth dropping some cash on new component cables instead of the gimme's I had laying around? What are some good options on the cheap? Only need 1M / 3ft.

shack

AndyGwis wrote:

Is it worth dropping some cash on new component cables instead of the gimme's I had laying around? What are some good options on the cheap? Only need 1M / 3ft.

Problem solved....cheap!

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50752

AndyGwis

I'm on it. That just might be the ticket. . . if my bro can't come up with some in his bag of tricks.

shack

AndyGwis wrote:

I'm on it. That just might be the ticket. . . if my bro can't come up with some in his bag of tricks.

That's a quality set of component cables for what you would pay at Wal-Mart for generic stuff. Street price is usually around $50.

Monster Jam

PSOVLSK wrote:

2) I'm using a quality component cable, but my HDMI cable is mediocre. (I know this is true of my cables, just didn't know if that's the reason for my lack of impovement in PQ).

I don't know about the rest of the post, but the "quality" of an HDMI cable should never be part of an equation. It works - or it doesn't work.

AndyGwis

Maybe someone can expand on Monster Jam's claim. I know HDMI is digital and loseless (I think that's the right word). So, that means signal degradation, interference, etc. doesn't come into play at all, right?

How does Monster (cable, not jam) get away with $120 hdmi cables? I just got a $20 BJ cable HDMI, cheap and looks good.

steveinaz

You can have both quality/low price. Blue Jeans cable made my HMDI (24awg) cable, $24.99.

Sami

There is error correction in HDMI standard, not sure how (well) it works though. A cheap cable will work just as well as an expensive cable, especially if you're not running it long lengths.

PSOVLSK

I guess my #2 statement should read: My component cable is relatively expensive and my HDMI cable is relatively inexpensive. I was making the assumption that higher price=higher quality. I had never heard what Monster Jam said about HDMI. I could have saved $15 and gone with an even less expensive cable than I got.

FYI: I've bought a few cables from overstock.com at pretty good prices. BaggedLancer posted a thread a few months back about an otical cable there so I checked it out. Decent selection on a variety of cables...with low shipping cost.

And by the way, it's nice to see that no one suggested option #3 was the problem:D

disneyjoe7

My feeling is cheap HDMI cables can cause problems like impedance, capacitance in the cable. Thus causes errors in the overall picture. Maybe on a short length cable these errors don't add up to much so no-one really picks up on it?

goingganzo

i like it beacues it dues audio and vid it is easy to conect and you have less cables
the downfall no pres do hmdi 1.3 with the new hd audio and olny a few have more than 3 switching and with 2 dvd players a ps3, comp and cabble there is 5 and if i get the new xbox 360 with hdmi i am sol with my 5x1 switcher

Sherardp

I agree, a cheap HDMI cable will show no different than a longer one. I tested this out with my HD DVD player, I bought a nice thick audio technica HDMI cable off the Japanese market, total price was 12,000 yen (108.00 US). When my HD DVDp showed I tried both cables and had the same reult. Now my Blu Ray player on the other hand, thats a total different animal, simply due to the fact that they dont come with a HDMI cable. Save yourself the buck and get a cheaper quality cable unless you want something that looks good.

Holydoc

Psolv,

When you hooked the HDMI cable up to your source did you then set your source up so that it would upconvert? Did you upconvert to 720p or 1080i? When you upconverted did you get the same resolution as when you used component hookup?

If you are feeding the same resolution to the projector via component and HDMI, you are going to get nearly the same picture since your projector will be doing all the upconversion for you instead of your source.

Once you experiment and you still see no difference, then you can say that it does not matter on your particular source which connection you use. Now you just need to decide which connection is most convenient for you to use.

danger boy

i vote for answer #1 too.. there really isnt' much difference between comp and HDMI.. picture quality wise.. lots of people think there is because HDMI is digital while component is analog.

PSOVLSK

Holydoc,

I have my DVD player set to upconvert to 720p, which should be a higher resolution than my component hookup. I think I have everything set up correctly, but since were talking about me, there could be something set up wrong.

As for convenience, I'm making things inconvenient for myself for no good reason. I'm running my video straight from my source to the projector, bypassing the AVR. If I were a smart man, I'd run component from DirectTV and DVD to my AVR and then component on to the projector from the AVR. This would save a couple of button pushes on the remote and I'm sure the PQ would be the same.

shack

PSOVLSK wrote:

As for convenience, I'm making things inconvenient for myself for no good reason. I'm running my video straight from my source to the projector, bypassing the AVR. If I were a smart man, I'd run component from DirectTV and DVD to my AVR and then component on to the projector from the AVR. This would save a couple of button pushes on the remote and I'm the PQ would be the same.

I run straight from my DVD player to my RPTV. My thought is anytime I can avoid another switch of the signal, the better.

adam2434

With my upconverting DVD player, HDMI at 720p or 1080i looks better than component because of the upconverting/resolution - not because of the cable type.

I believe this to be true because when I switch back and forth between HDMI and component with high def cable TV (same resolution for both), I can't see a difference.

BTW, both cables are from Blue Jeans - good quality for the money.

disneyjoe7

Then I think the difference is also not by cable type being Component or HDMI but the TV. As some one stated here (Sorry don't remember who) maybe the component circuit is skipped on where the HDMI is not.