Support NeoGAF

[VALIS]

Actually it does matter in practice.

Component cables which run on an analog signal are more succeptible to degradation and information loss.

DVI and HDMI do not suffer from such problems because of their native digital-to-digital conversion method.

The frequency response of component video averages out to about 13mhz whereas the frequency response of DVI/HDMI averages out past 18mhz.

In other words, if you want to push 1080 or 720 you will need cable to reach past 18mhz and that is DVI/HDMI (which run at a higher bandwidth). Component video is best at 480 peaking at 13mhz.

"It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a factor at distance."

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html

 

[mrklaw]

Doesn't HMDI share bandwidth across the cables? I read somewhere that there is potentially limited bandwidth compared to DVI if you also use it to transmit lots of audio. eg if you transmit 7.1, you have less space for high end video signals.

 

[Cold-Steel]

"It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a factor at distance."

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html

Buddy, you're not even reading what I'm saying about bandwidth. Let me highlight where the article does agree with me:

There is an element of truth to this arguement...

The article even admits it. Source is always a factor. End of story.

mrklaw - HDMI is capable of carrying enough bandwidth for 8-channel audio.

HDMI also supports CEC, which is a protocol for universal remotes - in other words you can support multiple devices with one HDMI cable.

 

[Cold-Steel]

Here's another one for you from *your* article:

Additionally, it's not uncommon to find that the display characteristics of different inputs have been set up differently. Black level, for example, may vary considerably from the digital to the analog inputs, and depending on how sophisticated your setup options on your display are, that may not be an easy thing to recalibrate.

Visual difference? Yes.

Bandwidth makes this all the more prominent.

 

[mrklaw]

Why wouldn't I want to use DVI?
Although it is a high-bandwidth connection, DVI does have some limitations. If your home theater setup requires that you run cables longer than 6 feet from source to projector, DVI may not be the best choice for you. Signal degradation in DVI is like most digital devices in that content becomes unwatchable, suffering from "sparkles" or "blue-screening" if the cable has been run too far. Signal amplifiers are available that allow for longer cable runs, but they are not cheap.

..

 

[Cold-Steel]

Yeah with DVI over short runs it really isn't a big problem.

But as with any cable, the longer it is the more your signal breaks down over distance.

Which is why HDMI was created using the native elements of DVI (allowing backwards compatibility between both).

 

[VALIS]

Buddy, you're not even reading what I'm saying about bandwidth. Let me highlight where the article does agree with me:

There is an element of truth to this arguement...

The article even admits it. Source is always a factor. End of story.

You're just conviced that you're right and that's the end of it, huh? Yes, I'm reading what you said about bandwidth, and as I said, in theory, digital is the superior cable. But as this article points out, IN PRACTICE there are other factors to consider. It is possible that your DVD player or satellite/cable box displays a better picture over component than HDMI. Again, from the article,

"'Digital to digital' conversion is no more a guarantee of signal quality than 'digital to analog,' and in practice may be substantially worse. Whether it's better or worse will depend upon the circuitry involved--and that is something which isn't usually practical to figure out. As a general rule, with consumer equipment, one simply doesn't know how signals are processed, and one doesn't know how that processing varies by input."

And there is virtually no signal degredation in component cable runs of the typical 3 feet. Hell, the article said they didn't get signal degredation in runs of 200 feet.

You seem to be married to the idea that because digital cable is theoretically better, that makes it absolutely better. According to this article, that is not the case. Take it up with the author.

 

[Cold-Steel]

You're just conviced that you're right and that's the end of it, huh? Yes, I'm reading what you said about bandwidth, and as I said, in theory, digital is the superior cable. But as this article points out, IN PRACTICE there are other factors to consider. It is possible that your DVD player or satellite/cable box displays a better picture over component than HDMI. Again, from the article,

"'Digital to digital' conversion is no more a guarantee of signal quality than 'digital to analog,' and in practice may be substantially worse. Whether it's better or worse will depend upon the circuitry involved--and that is something which isn't usually practical to figure out. As a general rule, with consumer equipment, one simply doesn't know how signals are processed, and one doesn't know how that processing varies by input."

And there is virtually no signal degredation in component cable runs of the typical 3 feet. Hell, the article said they didn't get signal degredation in runs of 200 feet.

Do me a favor, read the article. You seem to be under the idea that because digital cable is theoretically better, that makes it absolutely better. According to this article, that is not the case. Take it up with the author.

I read your article before you even posted it. Maybe you should try reading my posts before you start taking your article fact-for-fact. Start by reading what I just posted before you jumped onto my first two sentences:

The frequency response of component video averages out to about 13mhz whereas the frequency response of DVI/HDMI averages out past 18mhz.

In other words, if you want to push 1080 or 720 you will need cable to reach past 18mhz and that is DVI/HDMI (which run at a higher bandwidth). Component video is best at 480 peaking at 13mhz.

Then read your article where it admits that in some cases, digital-to-analog conversion (aka: 360 --> Component) more likely results in signal loss and black level which varies between connectors.

I didn't say component cables WILL result in signal loss, I said component cables are more succeptible to signal loss.

Therefore --> Digital has:

1) Higher bandwidth (for higher resolutions)
2) Less signal loss (for picture quality)

The HDMI standard also opens up the ability to provide content protection from Intel (for HD-era movies) and protocols for multimedia devices.