HDMI vs. component
In the mad rush for the latest and greatest, it's easy to categorize older technologies as inferior just because they're older. We've covered the topic of HDMI vs. component before, and there's definitely a lot of FUD behind the widespread belief that the newer HDMI standard is always "better." The bottom line is this, the gear on either side of the cable often has a far larger effect on final image quality than the cable itself. With well designed equipment, that old-school component connection may perform just as well as the HDMI one. Factor in HDMI's shorter reach, higher priced switching equipment, and mechanical stability issues, and you may end up with an inferior overall solution. Trust your own eyes and ears more than any marketing speak, as some of the push behind HDMI has nothing to do with image quality.
Filed under: Cables
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DJBro @ Sep 13th 2007 5:24PM
I'm still not sure about the "HDMI Cables cant run as far" bit. My 50' Cables To Go component cables still show more visual noise than my 65 foot off brand HDMI.
Peter @ Sep 13th 2007 6:03PM
Why is that a pic of a Component-DVI and not a Component-HDMI?
Peter @ Sep 13th 2007 6:04PM
Nevermind it is HDMI, it just looked really big so I got confused for a second. Man am I retarded, please don't flame me!
SimbaDogg @ Sep 13th 2007 6:07PM
hahhaa, for a second i was like, what the hell is this guy thinking? then i saw your following post, and you have totally redeemed yourself. good flip flop
Peter @ Sep 13th 2007 6:13PM
Ha, thanks. Anyone know why I got an email saying you replied but it doesn't show up as a reply?
Hank @ Sep 13th 2007 6:32PM
I tried both and to my eyes (very picky) they look exactly the same on my HDTV. I guess is a testament to how good my HDTV is, they both look awesome!
Mike @ Sep 13th 2007 6:42PM
The HDMI is better because it is the only solution if you have devices that require an HDCP compliant cable. Plus on some HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players if you don't have the HDCP compliant cord picture quality can be lost or even unavailble. That only applies to the movie studios who actually take advantage of that copyright HDCP stuff. The whole reason for HDCP is to stop people from making illegal copies of the new HD movies.
Ryan P @ Sep 14th 2007 11:49AM
I agree. Who cares if component is capable of the same signals? You can't push 1080p with it and never will for HD Disks. Sure, everyone loves making their own cables (sarcasm), but don't expect everyone to just nod their head.
Lumpmoose @ Sep 13th 2007 6:48PM
The reason HDMI is necessary is the DRM cocktail of HDCP and 5C. It's the reason I won't buy an Xbox 360 HD DVD player; with the 360's component output, I'm stuck at 720p with HD DVDs (no VGA in). And it's the reason my Tivo Series3 takes 10 seconds to sync up with my HDTV every freaking time I turn it on. If I use component, it turns off half my channels. My point is, with many modern, DRM'd sources, component isn't even an option.
Steven Kim @ Sep 13th 2007 6:55PM
@Mike, @Lumpmoose - I agree completely, the HDMI connection is more about DRM than anything. Check out the last link in the post. Luckily, the ICT hasn't been invoked yet. Unfortunately, many consumers are hoodwinked by an overly simplistic "digital is higher quality / digital is better than analog" pitch.
joe @ Sep 13th 2007 7:07PM
One problem I've seen with component vs HDMI is that many dvd players won't upscale dvd's over component. They will only do so over HDMI. I find this annoying since I can get my BluRay disks to play in full HD resolution over the same connection.
HDMI does have some advantages over component but the hardware handshaking issues with pieces of kit that are at spec wipes them out. HDMI routing is very problematic.
JeffDM @ Sep 13th 2007 7:37PM
I haven't had any problems with HDMI so far, I'm quite happy with it. Both my projector and player are the latest version. I do think it's stupid that DVD players require it for upscaling. Protecting DVD player output is very silly given how easy it is to rip a DVD in the first place. Encrypting upscaled DVD video in the name of protecting it is an absurd faade.
sr1329 @ Sep 13th 2007 10:22PM
Did anyone read the article? That author is a moron. He says that component cables convert digital to analog and back to digital. Well the cable doesn't do it, your player has to convert to analog and the component cable carries that analog signal where your TV converts it back to digital (assuming a fixed pixel digital TV). Who wants those 2 conversions if they can avoid it? Whenever a signal goes into the analog domain it becomes susceptible to degradation that cannot be recovered. With digital there is error correction.
He talks about HDMI cables losing quality over time and about "less than perfect" standards, but he mentions nothing about what the hell he talking about. He needs to be more specific if he is trying to make a point. It's like saying DVD is worse than VHS because it is "less than perfect" whatever that is supposed to mean.
Yes, HDMI has it's issues, there's no doubt about that. They primarily involve the handshake process that is HDCP, not HDMI. HDCP is optional and is a real pain in the ass sure, but it is not HDMI at fault here.
I connect my PC to my TV with a DVI to HDMI cable. Nobody has ever said DVI is worse than VGA in some cases, because it is never worse than VGA. HDMI is basically evolved DVI that adds audio and higher bandwidth.
As for cost, when you transmit analog signals over distance you need expensive, quality cables to not degrade that analog signal. That is the nature of the analog signal and it always has been. With digital, errors do occur but error correction is designed to take out those errors. Usually in a digital link, when the signal gets really degraded that receiving device (TV in this case) will just display a blank or some kind of error. So generally with digital you get all or nothing.
Keeping the signal in the digital domain from start to finish is really the ideal in this situation. Otherwise if you want to believe this guy, go ahead and switch out your DVI cables and go back to VGA. Going from HDMI to Component is essentially the same thing.
Look at the discussion for that article, where people are tearing that "article" to shreds.
Be educated, read up on this stuff on your own and form your own educated conclusions.
kcjones @ Sep 14th 2007 1:12AM
This is the one time I actually agree with the writer. As an ISF calibrator, I constantly see standard definition DVD players connected to HDTVs via HDMI. Most upconverting DVD players have poor scalers and the user will get a better picture, running component video to than HDMI, allowing the HDTV use its internal scaler.
Its similar with audio, most CD players have better D/A converters than Surround receivers. So one will get better quality running analog cables than digital cable. The transmission of the signal is almost never the limiting factor for picture quality or audio quality.
sr1329 @ Sep 13th 2007 10:27PM
Also, I am very disappointed that an Engadget HD writer would cite, leave alone back a stupid article as this. What a disgrace. He should be carrying boxes for UPS instead of writing here.
I agree that component can be very good, but it takes very expensive equipment to do a perfect Digital to Analog conversion and then very expensive cables to preserve that analog signal and then an expensive high end TV to do a good conversion back to digital. Even after all that money is spent, a $5 monoprice HDMI cable will likely outperform it.
Read the discussion here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/53050-1-hdmi-component-what-difference
Steven Kim @ Sep 13th 2007 10:48PM
@sr1329 - I had real issues with the article itself, which is why the post for EngadgetHD didn't directly cite anything from it. I puzzled over what the author was trying to say in the following paragraph, where I think they mixed signal timing, cable length, and cable construction all into a mess:
"HDMI has also been panned because it's much easier for the signal to degrade over time. Long-range HDMI cables are also known to lose quality because of a less-than-perfect set of standards for the format. Analog cables, on the other hand, can last decades and stretch for dozens of feet without any sort of automatic degradation."
The original article did, however, bring up the topic that IS worthy of consideration, and what the EHD post covered - the myth behind HDMI being perceptibly better just because it's digital.
sr1329 @ Sep 13th 2007 11:09PM
It was this that got me: "and there's definitely a lot of FUD behind the widespread belief that the newer HDMI standard is always "better."
There is no FUD, and honestly HDMI is better in pretty much every case. If not, then show me a case where VGA beats DVI. It's really the same argument.
Yes digital signals by their nature degrade over distance. However you don't usually see degradation because error correction kicks in. When it gets so bad that error correction cannot correct the signal it will just error out.
So for long 100ft runs you will have problems. However the solution is very simple - get an amplifier or repeater. They are not cheap but neither is a 100ft of HIGH QUALITY component cable. For an analog signal the quality of cable is paramount over such long runs. With HDMI, you can get a repeater and a 100ft cable for less than a quality run of 100ft component cable and you will get better results. There will be degradation in even the best built most expensive component cable, that being the nature of an analog signal.
With HDMI you get an amplifier and you can rest easy that you are getting a quality signal.
BTW, it is not a myth that HDMI is better because it is digital. It is pretty much fact. Why the heck would you convert a signal from a digital source (DVD player, Blu-Ray, whatever) to analog and then transmit it in analog where it will degrade by nature of an analog signal, only to convert it back. These D/A and A/D converters also make errors. There is no error correction for an analog signal. With digital, you can employ error correction. There are issues with digital too, like timing and latency, but today with the error correction and buffering we can employ it is not really an issue. Long distances, as I said can be a problem but the solution is simple - get a repeater.
In digital audio, digital cables are not always better, but that is because those standards are ancient. They didn't have the error correction and redundancy we have today.
Really arguing that component can ever be better than HDMI is the same as saying VGA is better than DVI and that DVI is necessarily better because it is digital. Well, NEWSFLASH: It is better because it is digital. It take the D/A and A/D conversion out of the loop and it preserves that signal like analog could not do on it's best day. The best part is that my $5 Monoprice HDMI cable outperforms those $200 fancy Component cables.
But for more information, read the discussion over there. Nobody is buying this article or any part of it.
Steven Kim @ Sep 13th 2007 11:19PM
@sr1329 - I don't think you and I disagree at all, really. When it comes to signal transmission, digital is a much better choice, all other things being equal. And analog should not outperform digital transmission, ever. Analog signals leave lots of room for getting things "not quite right," where digital is not forgiving. But in many cases, the difference between component and HDMI is imperceptible at the display. The component may not be better, but it's not worse, either.
sr1329 @ Sep 13th 2007 11:34PM
Believe it or not there are differences. When I was using VGA, even turning on a simple tubelight caused visible interference on the monitor, but this will never happen with DVI.
However, I agree that the PUSH for HDMI is primarily motivated by Hollywood wanting everyone to get on board with HDCP. That is really the problem - HDCP. However, if the content is unprotected HDMI is always better. Even with HDCP enabled the quality is always better but you can have problems with handshakes and such. That may be the only argument for component, but getting better quality is not. I personally have not had any problems with HDCP handshakes, but I've heard of others having that problem with longer runs. The better solution is to try to rectify the HDCP problem with shorter runs or a repeater and not switching to component. Switching to component may put an image on the screen again but it won't be better quality.
Ben @ Sep 17th 2007 12:48PM
He states HDMI isn't ALWAYS better than component, and he's right.
If you want an example, you're welcome to come by the house whenever. I have a Series3 TiVo connected via both HDMI and component to my Pioneer 60" Kuro 6010.
I can't tell the difference in picture quality, I don't send audio to my TV; and my HDMI cable falls out, gets in the way, and I can't find an HDMI matrix switch that is 8x3.
The only thing I've noticed HDMI can do that component can't, is to allow me to use the video processor in my Blu-ray player to send 1080p to my TV.
JBDragon @ Sep 14th 2007 3:48AM
The whole Digital connection is better is a Myth. Your EYE's would NEVER tell the differance in a blind test as long as the HDTV you were hooked up to had GOOD Inputs for both formats. HDMI is all about closing that last Analog Loop hole. You can't really Copy Protect a Analog Signal. There was Microvision, but that can be easyily cured.
Most of it has to do with COPY PROTECTION. DRM. A small part is making it easier for all the really stupied people out there that can't plug a cable in because it's so hard to match up RED, GREEN, and Blue plugs. Those are the same people that could never program their VCR clock as so was alwasys blinking 12:00. Also adding Audio help maki things easier for people also. It also has many flaws. The PLUG to start with. It's a crappy Design. It should have been like DVI, with Screw in posts, or at least a much better way to locking the plug in! It has compatibility problems, it's getting better, but it's still a problem. It's SLOW to link up, it's also Expensive, say you want a HDMI switch Box, quite costly.
Personally, I think it should be gotten RID OF, and to go with something better, Possibley Display Port.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/04/vesa-approves-displayport-1-1-kiss-those-dvi-and-vga-ports-good/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
Galley @ Sep 14th 2007 9:28AM
Joe Six Pack prefers HDMI because there's only one cable.
Mischa Lockton @ Sep 14th 2007 1:33PM
You can too push 1080p with component. You just need the gear. The ONLY reason for HDMI besides trying to combine audio in the cable, is the copy protection., so no thanks.
gt350 @ Sep 14th 2007 8:24PM
HDMI when it works is fine---that is the key point WHEN IT WORKS. We can say because of this or that it doesn't work, but at the end of the day who cares, HDMI is a unreliable standard and that most can agree. so maybe get luckily with hdmi, or just use component and know it will work.
Ants @ Sep 14th 2007 11:36PM
I am definitely not a videophile, but what type of cable is pictured for this article? It looks like you will plug in the male into a HDMI device like a DVD player or Satellite box and the output would go into component inputs on your TV. If that is correct where can I get them and how much are these types of cables? Thank you.
Ben Hobbs @ Sep 15th 2007 3:27PM
I run an Audio Visual company, we do lots of HD installs, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, Xbox360 etc...
Personally we are moving BACK to using Component cables, HDMI is turning out to be very glitchy, we are having problems with sound dropping out, screens blanking out and handshake problems that mean resetting display or source equipment.
Component is FULLY CAPABLE of a 1080P signal, the image is slightly softer but that is nothing compared to an install that doesn't work properly because of HDCP DRM crap.
HDMI is unreliable, which is ridiculous considering its supposed to simplify things by keeping the signal in the digital domain, I'm doing my own home cinema soon and I'll be using component cables, sure th image may be slightly softer (not always a bad thing) but at leats I know it will work - ALL THE TIME.
sr @ Sep 18th 2007 1:52PM
A lot of people here are blaming HDMI for the failings of HDCP. There is a difference.
sr @ Sep 18th 2007 1:50PM
Hey if you can't tell a difference and your cable is cheap enough to not stay in, that's your problem. It is better for quality always.
"The only thing I've noticed HDMI can do that component can't, is to allow me to use the video processor in my Blu-ray player to send 1080p to my TV."
kc @ Sep 21st 2007 3:19AM
If it doesn't work, blame who ever! or what ever! is it the consumers problem because they bought a product that works intermittently. That was not on the BOX or the wasted calls to a tech line that will have them test every piece of equipment only to say its HDCP. HDMI is only good if it works as well as COMPONENT, and it doesn't. I think if U ask some installers, It will be apparent what works all the time. When HDMI is fixed go for it. But its not, and thats REAL.
Maceop @ Sep 27th 2007 3:52PM
I have had a problem with my HDMI hookup for about a year. The problem occurs when I set the my cable box SA8300hd audio setting to "digital audio out" (while using an hdmi cable from cable box to tv - sony kds55a2000). I have an optical cable hooked up directly from my SA8300hd to my sony stereo. If i leave audio setting on SA8300hd to "hdmi" - (hdmi to tv) , i get pcm on my stereo (no dolby), however no problem changing channels. When I change audio setting on SA8300hd to "digital audio out", i get great dolby through my receiver, however when changing channels from an hd 1080i to 720p channel or 720p channel to 1080i channnel (espn -cbs etc), i get snow and no picture (TV loses the handshake). I have to shut the tv off and re power up.. then the picture is fine. The kds55a2000 digital audio out output does not output dolby (only if you are using the tv tuner).
One solution I found to get dolby in my stereo and no handshake problem is to fix the output on the SA8300hd to either 720p or 1080i. Of course that presents another isssue of having the cable box convert a 1080i signal to 720p or 720p signal to 1080i and then the tv reconverts to 1080p.. Another soulution is to just get the component cables and try that. I don't know what solution would be preferred. Any ideas on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Jon @ Dec 9th 2007 11:18PM
I have a Sony Bravia 40 LCD with HDMI input, Time Warner Digital Cable with HDMI input, Sony STR DG510 A/V Receiver with HDMI inputs and a DVD player with no HDMI. Can someone help me configure this so that DVD works and audio works thru the receiver? The receiver works, I tested the radio, but the DVD player and audio from the TV or DVD doesn't work. Where do the Component cables from the DVD player go? into the receiver? doesn't work.