View Full Version : DVI versus Component
wasntme
04-04-2005, 12:30 PM
The cable guy just showed up and installed my HD cable box. He used Component video and audio. I was wondering if I would notice a difference going to DVI.
I have a Hitachi 50v500. Let me know! Thanks!
flyonthewall
04-04-2005, 12:33 PM
I did not notice a difference on mine. But you should try it and see. My cable company gave me both cables. Since they are expensive, maybe they can give you one to test it.
wasntme
04-04-2005, 12:37 PM
I did not notice a difference on mine. But you should try it and see. My cable company gave me both cables. Since they are expensive, maybe they can give you one to test it.
I tried. I asked the cable guy (not Jim Carrey) if DVI was better and he said, "I been doin' dis fors aboutst a four years now and I ain't ever seen no thing special bouts no DVI. Da cable costs lot o money, dem DVI." He told me he doesn't carry DVI cables. The Component cables look like they are very good quality though.
mjones73
04-04-2005, 12:47 PM
On CRT based sets, the differences in PQ is usually not noticeable.... If you really want a DVI cable, check out someplace like newegg.com or hdtvsupply.com, you can get one at a decent price that will work.
flyonthewall
04-04-2005, 01:09 PM
On CRT based sets, the differences in PQ is usually not noticeable.... If you really want a DVI cable, check out someplace like newegg.com or hdtvsupply.com, you can get one at a decent price that will work.
True. On a DLP set like mine they say you may see a difference - something to do w/ the fixed pixel technology. The cables I got from Comcast look well made to me. In order to get the extra HDMI/DVI cable I needed I had to go get it at local office (tech who came to house would only give me one). Maybe that would work for you. Worth a try to save $100.
Read the HDTV FAQ on "DVI/HDMI Information". It may or may not make a difference.
Lots of links to places with inexpensive cables there too.
tbenson81
04-04-2005, 09:13 PM
I disagree with the previous posters. I have a CRT based mits and a samsung DLP and the difference of DVI vs Component is tremendous. DVI looks a hell of a lot better on both sets.
The issue of whether DVI or component video cables will give the best results
on a non-fixed pixel monitor depends highly on whether the DACs in the source component are worse/equal/ better than the DACs in the monitior. With DVI/HDMI connection to the monitior the monitor DACs are being used, with component video cables connection, the source component DACs are being used.
TheAntMan
04-05-2005, 02:18 AM
I have not seen any majority on this issue. There are those like benson who choose DVI, and those like fly who think there are no big pq differences. If you are curious wasntme, try the DVI cable out. If you are connected now with component and PQ is good, try dvi. If PQ is great...leave it the way it is. I had component cables first, but was itching for the DVI...I get the DVI, tried it out, went back with component cables. Are you happy with your PQ, or think it could be better??
tonelocdog
04-05-2005, 02:30 AM
I disagree with the previous posters. I have a CRT based mits and a samsung DLP and the difference of DVI vs Component is tremendous. DVI looks a hell of a lot better on both sets.
I agree, I think dvi looks better on a dlp, also on dvi, you can use 6 different stretch modes on my samsung. Unlike component, which you only have 2, 4:3 and stretch. Also, I think using dvi vs, component, dvi looks a little shaper, or a more crisper image than component, but by no means, component is a great hd connection as well.
Just my .02 cents
TheAntMan
04-05-2005, 02:34 AM
Tone, I agree with DVI looking a little shaper. When I did my comparison. DVI looked a little sharper, but component looked, to me, a little richer in color. I guess just in the eye of the beholder.
tonelocdog
04-05-2005, 02:36 AM
Tone, I agree with DVI looking a little shaper. When I did my comparison. DVI looked a little sharper, but component looked, to me, a little richer in color. I guess just in the eye of the beholder.
Your probably right, or if you have the monster thx component cables too. :D
I was a bit taken aback by tbenson81's post. I had not "taken sides". I had stated that it may or may not be better.
If you read the FAQ on DVI/HDMI, you'll see that the difference can often be due to the calibration of the input, and not the cable or DACs, or display type. That's why the results are all over the map.
If anyone's actually had their TV professionally calibrated for both inputs and then done a comparison, then they have a valid point to make (but even then, one output from the STB could be better than the other, so it could be dependent on the STB as well ;) )
Saying DVI or HDMI is better than component, is similar to saying digital is better than analogue, which is clearly not always the case.
tonelocdog
04-05-2005, 03:08 AM
So which stb, would have the better hd output of the 2. Eg. Sa 8300hd dvr?
One would think that the more recent STB and the more expensive STB would be more likely to have the better output, but then another manufacturer of STB may have a "better" output (for your TV)
tonelocdog
04-05-2005, 03:36 AM
I just think dvi looks better on hd channels, and component looks better on analogue.
cnyreject
04-05-2005, 11:37 AM
Well, I can only attest to my own situation in this matter. I have found a very noticable improvement in my analog signal when I use DVI-> HDMI cable verses the component cables.
dons459
04-05-2005, 06:59 PM
I get 6 different modes on my hitachi 51s715 when i have my 6412 box set up to have the overide on 480i, but get only 3 modes having the overide set to stretch on the box. Haven't tried my hdmi cable yet as the box only has a dvi output and i am not buying a converter. I will wait for the new boxes to have a hdmi jack in the future.
To further elaborate on my post #8, I also believe the quality of the actual HD monitor used will make a difference too. If the set is not of the highest quality, the differences if any of the DACS in use may not be visible so the DVI vs. Component connection may look the same. But if the set IS of the highest possible quality available any differences will be more visible and those sets are more likely to have better DACs than
cheap CATV/SAT boxes so there would be more to be gained with DVI in those circumstances.
Personally, if I have a really high end HDTV, I would much rather have the HDTV do the DAC rather than rely on a cheapo box to do it. Why do you think the DIGITAL inputs exist in the first place? Its the best way to handle the signals becuase there is no loss from the CATV/SAT box to the TV with digital and as long as the DAC in the HDTV is of high enough quality to be better than the sets capability it seems to me that this would be the ideal way to do things ( at least where the original signal is digital ).
Assuming the highest possible quality equipment, DVI/HDMI video connection is better than component video which is better than S-Video which is better than composite video which is better than good ole' CHANNEL 3 "RF" connection, remember that, early VHS fans?
S-Video which is better than composite videoAssuming a digital signal, however, with an analogue signal a composite video connection can be superior due to the better comb filter in the TV.
This is why the best connection for laserdiscs and analogue stations from a STB is composite video, despite the "superiority" of the S-video connector.
JCO would be correct if there were an excellent comb filter in the LD player or in the STB, but that's not likely.
tbenson81
04-05-2005, 08:26 PM
57 - I was not referring to you, but rather mjones and flyonthewall.
You didnt take any sides, but rather just stated the facts and pretty much said that its all in the eye of the beholder -which it is
Technically speaking, DVI probably has the edge but if someone thinks the picture is better or as good with component then there is no reason to change.
I also agree with the statement that component looked a little richer in color. I had the same impression but opted for DVI because it seemed like a Truer color if that makes any sense.
Assuming a digital signal, however, with an analogue signal a composite video connection can be superior due to the better comb filter in the TV.
This is why the best connection for laserdiscs and analogue stations from a STB is composite video, despite the "superiority" of the S-video connector.
JCO would be correct if there were an excellent comb filter in the LD player or in the STB, but that's not likely.
I WAS correct and you have misinterpreted what I wrote because you have overlooked the very first qualifier, "Assuming the highest possible quality equipment" that I wrote which would mean the comb filter would not matter because there wouldnt be a better one in any components, all same equal quality was assumed. I never stated or recommended using a connection level (DVi/component/S,etc.) higher than the base signals you have from the source. That is often counterproductive. And analog OTA/CATV and LD are composite level sources so using S-Video connection level for that may have no value....
Ratman
04-05-2005, 08:41 PM
:rofl2:
And the beat goes on...
So, by your reasoning, one should not use a component video connection for a DVD player set to interlaced? Or an HDMI connection for an upconverting DVD player, because the source is 480i?
I didn't misinterpret what you said - I understood it fully as evidenced by my post. I simple explained what happens in the real world. You can talk all you like about theory - which is better, etc, but theory goes out the window once you apply it in the real world and that's what I was explaining.
In theory, the original source would be the best possible quality, probably digital, and it would be transmitted wirelessly to a digital display without any interference or compression or loss of quality, but that doesn't happen! We've got antennae, satellites, cables, STBs, compression, converters, calibration of inputs, etc, etc, all in way of this "theory utopia".
That's the reason that the answer to the original question is not cut and dried.
So, by your reasoning, one should not use a component video connection for a DVD player set to interlaced? Or an HDMI connection for an upconverting DVD player, because the source is 480i?
I didn't misinterpret what you said - I understood it fully as evidenced by my post. I simple explained what happens in the real world. You can talk all you like about theory - which is better, etc, but theory goes out the window once you apply it in the real world and that's what I was explaining.
In theory, the original source would be the best possible quality, probably digital, and it would be transmitted wirelessly to a digital display without any interference or compression or loss of quality, but that doesn't happen! We've got antennae, satellites, cables, STBs, compression, converters, calibration of inputs, etc, etc, all in way of this "theory utopia".
That's the reason that the answer to the original question is not cut and dried.
DVD base signal is DIGITAL quite unlike analog TV or LD so there is an advantage to using even DVI ( with fixed pixel displays) or component video or S-video or even composite video (instead of RF channel 3). The fact that DVD is encoded as 480i has NOTHING to do with which connection is better to use. DTV can be 480i and so can VHS that doesnt mean the signal connection has to be or should be the same for both to HD monitor.
Regarding the "real world", yes some people dont buy matched quality stuff so they may end up using inferior connections with superior equipment or superior connections with inferior equipment and have to pick there poison but for the most part, most people DONT do that and if you buy good equipment the conventional connection hierarchy works best MOST of the time, thats why those connections were developed in the first place.
Ratman
04-05-2005, 09:24 PM
DVD base signal is DIGITAL quite unlike analog TV or LD .
LaserDisc isn't a 'base' digital signal?
tonelocdog
04-05-2005, 11:19 PM
Well, I can only attest to my own situation in this matter. I have found a very noticable improvement in my analog signal when I use DVI-> HDMI cable verses the component cables.
I disagree, using just 720p on my samsung, with dvi/hdmi cable, analogue stations look awful. The picture is soft and grainy, and has too much noise increasion in picture.
LaserDisc isn't a 'base' digital signal?
NO, laserdisc was developed in the 1970's and the recorded signal is analog composite video. It uses FM modulation techniques for recording and playback. Since its a composite video signal out of the disc there isnt much gained by using a S connector on a LD player unless the comb filter in your TV was worse than the one used in your LD player to convert composite to S-video.
flyonthewall
04-06-2005, 12:15 PM
57 - I was not referring to you, but rather mjones and flyonthewall.
You didnt take any sides, but rather just stated the facts and pretty much said that its all in the eye of the beholder -which it is
Technically speaking, DVI probably has the edge but if someone thinks the picture is better or as good with component then there is no reason to change.
I also agree with the statement that component looked a little richer in color. I had the same impression but opted for DVI because it seemed like a Truer color if that makes any sense.
I don't think I took "any sides." Just related my experience - no benefit from this type of connection - and suggested he try it both ways and see what looks better. In theory, if he has a DLP set, he may get better pix from DVI/HDMI connection, but with all the variables involved in practice this may not be the case. Let your eyes decide.
