Component cables v HDMI - DVI

Just to be clear, the difference between component and HDMI or DVI is more than just a little, its substantial. Component can transmit HD signal but in analog NOT digital. HDMI and DVI are the only cabling that will transmit HD in digital.

Its my understanding too that DVI sends a digital video signal rather than an analog, and that HDMI also sends a digital audio signal. The difference between an analog and a digital signal is substantial but does that mean that its better? Vinyl records are analog and CDs are digital yet most audiophiles prefer vinyl.

Digital is used to make the damaged or lost part of a signal more likely to resemble what it was than what it has become. But even more it is used to compress the signal so more can be sent cheaper. The more compressed the digital audio/video signal is the more you hear/see what the programmer 'thinks' should be there. That does not mean that it 'is' what was there.

Think of taking a photo and running it through a paper shredder very carefully so that it comes out flat and completely visible instead of twisted with some strips overlapped and twisted, or turned over. Now take out every other strip and slide the remaining ones together, thus 'compressing' them. Easy to see that if you had to ship several billion of these somewhere you would save a lot of money by compressing them so that only half had to actually be shipped.
But it won't look very good when it gets there will it? Well luckily the people looking at it have a computer program that can look at the strips and fill in where the removed strips were with information that blends well with the strips on each side of it and fills the middle with images that make sense.
Now those looking at this may well think this looks pretty good. Especially compared to one sent in its entirety (read as analog) that was scraped,smeared, and maybe even has small tears in it. Which might well be the case if the shipper wanted to ship basically twice the volume and weight of the previous ones (read digital) for the same price.
But if you are on the receiving end only, while what you see may look good, you really don't know what it looked like to start! Its just possible that no matter how well it was shredded and how well it was put back together and how good the guess of what the missing information was and how well that was combined with the actual information that was sent, (breathing break), if you saw one that was never shredded and was sent without any damage, you might think it was better. Maybe not but at least it would be what was originally created.

'Digital' is simply a method to make information easier to manipulate, store, transport, and retrieve. Its not magic. At its very best you end up with exactly the same information which you started. It can be absolutely wonderful for making sense of damaged information and can make great reductions in the price of having information delivered. But it isn't something you can throw information into one end and have it come out the other end somehow 'better' information.

Can I live with something that looks close to what it was to start with in order to have my cable or satellite bill be $150 a month instead of $300? But bet I can. But I don't have to pretend that I'm always getting something better because it has the buzz word 'digital' applied to it.

The signal I watch has been digitalized to a satellite, from it to my cable company, and to my DVR tuner. So just how analog is it going from there into my TV via component cables? Is it going to be much different from the digital one traveling out the hdmi on the DVR to the DVI on the TV?

I've spent three months agonizing over the fact that I couldn't get any picture through the 'wonder cable' for unknown reasons. I suspect its a copy guard caused problem that Sony would blame on Scientific Atlanta and vice versa leaving them happy and me in the same place.

Anyway on one of my more recent attempts it worked for about ten minutes. I would be very hard pressed to pick one picture as being better or even different from the other. Granted I didn't have a chance to recalibrate the TV. But I don't think that really should make much difference. As a retired TV dealer I realize that probably over 99% of all TV's are never calibrated the first time.

While HD is a great improvement over STD its nowhere near the quality of the HDTV demo I saw at a CES way back in the 80's. Of course that was a DEMO and didn't have to include a STD signal, nor did any compromises have to be made at that time to met the government's approval.

My advice would be that if you are happy with the picture using component cables, then don't even think about buying even the cheapest dvi cable.

I broke down frew months back and upgraded my video connections to HDMI looking to improve on, what was an already quality picture. Since I still had my component cables still connected, I was able to compare the difference. In my case, what I got was only a slight improvement with the HDMI cables. Considering the cost and hype of these type of cables, I was disappointed.

From what I understand, HDMI/DVI cables are used to maintain the picture quality from a HD source that MAYBE lost if the signal has to be converted into analog and back again.

I was wondering if someone could fill me in on some info, I am apparently not very educated on the subject. I just bought a Sony KFE42A10 Lcd Projection TV and had originally thought about buying HDMI to HDMI cables from my satelitte reciever to the TV. I later found out that it could only be DVI to HDMI. I then found out that my old audio equipment and DVD player wasn't up to par with the TV so I am now going to buy a DENON amp receiver (the AVR1506 I believe)
and a Paradigm (Cinema 110CT) speaker set, with the new Sony DVD player(DVPNS70H) that upconverts to HD

From what I had been told at the store, a very respectabel local store, the salesman told me that DENON amps or recievrs or whatever they are called allow you to put in say component cables and get higher quality equal to say some digital. Is this correct?

Many receivers will convert composite or S-video inputs to Component or DVI outputs. But, the quality will be no better than the input source. You will not get HD quality out of a SD signal or a VHS tape, or a DVD for that fact until we start getting high-def DVDs. What you get is the convenience of video switching via your receiver. You would only need to make one high quality connection to you TV instead of switching (and running out of) inputs.

I have two surround systems set up in my house, one with video switching and one without. The downside to video switching is that if you just want to watch regular TV or view a home video, you have to also turn on you sound system to switch sources. With my non-switched setup, I can watch the news and weather etc with the TV speakers and turn on the surround sound for movies or concerts. If it were my main or only TV, I would take the non-switching approach if you have enough inputs.

Your higher end receivers will not necessarily sound better, but will give you a lot more features. Buy what you will use. Remember, you hear the speakers, not the receiver. Concentrate on a good set of speakers first. If you want a Denon, check out the models that can automatically set themselves up to your speakers and room acoustics. Now, that is a great feature.

I have; a Sony KFE42A10 42" Grand WEGA LCD Projection TV. I am looking at getting and probably will the Sony, RDRGX315 DVD Recorder. I have a Denon AVR1906, and Paradigm Cinema 110CT Speakers.

I had originally planned to buy DVI to HDMI cables from my sattelite receiver to the TV. But then purchased the receiver and speakers and was told that they upscale. The salesman who I have known for alongtime is someone I trust to guide me correctly. He then set me up with 3 sets of component cables for the setup, an optical, fiber optic type cable for the sattelite receiver some sub cableing and speaker wire. I think the problem was a lack of spots on the TV for HDMI. I am not very technically inclined. Should this work well enough? Will this give me great quality, I was told I won't be able to see a difference. What do you think?