Holy Crap! HDTV comes to the Jinks house!
- Thread starter JINKSTER
- Start date
HDMI all the way baby for the picture, optical out for the sound... I wouldn't do it any other way. Hook em' both up and swap back and forth, you'll see the diff...
Charter 3 Meg High speed, 1 regular DVR, 1 HD DVR, 2 regular boxes, every movie channel, every HD channel they offer $158 month. Yes it hurts...
You don't need the "monster" cables though, those are a waste.
Charter 3 Meg High speed, 1 regular DVR, 1 HD DVR, 2 regular boxes, every movie channel, every HD channel they offer $158 month. Yes it hurts...
You don't need the "monster" cables though, those are a waste.
one of my little secrets ....
http://www.pccables.com/
My picture is only 1080i ...but I have never seen any picture so much better than what I have, to even consider an upgrade.
but in all honesty ... seems like with the other issues you've had lately...this isn't worth worrying about. just get something that functions and be done with it until things turn around.
standard RCA... are OK
RGB RCA better...
Optical & HDMI are what's best at this point.
http://www.pccables.com/
My picture is only 1080i ...but I have never seen any picture so much better than what I have, to even consider an upgrade.
but in all honesty ... seems like with the other issues you've had lately...this isn't worth worrying about. just get something that functions and be done with it until things turn around.
standard RCA... are OK
RGB RCA better...
Optical & HDMI are what's best at this point.
mis-information my friend.
the signal transfered over the RGB component cables is the same as the HDMI cable but through 1 cable vice 3. is the picture quality any better? not at this point in time. especially with the limited bandwidth of the cable and Sat. companies have to transmit on. you will notice compression/pixelation on movies or sports with alot information/action that has to be shown. if you do notice a difference between RGB cables and HDMI then my friend you have bad cables.
right now and for the near future, the bandwidth just isn't there to send out needed XX Meg/sec, per channel to each devoted channel for maximum viewing. so a compromise is made for maximum channels, hence the compression/pixelation during high data segments. how they plan to spread this out with the 2009 deadline for the proposed high def switch, who knows?
Mr. Anderson...while i'm not an expert on the subject of cutting edge home entertainment systems by any means?...i have been doing quite a bit of info gathering the past few days and gleening much from knowledgable folks on the net such as yourself...giving me what i feel is a very basic and rough idea of what's what in this mind bending state of transition home media is curently under-going.
That said?...I've read quite a few reviews concerning "HDMI VS Component Cable" fron AV/Techy websites and the majority of what i've read is in-line with much of what you have stated here...however...i've encountered more than several "mixed reviews" that begs i ask the following question...
Many state (much like you have here) that it just doesn't matter and makes no difference whatsoever wether one uses HDMI cables or Component Cables as the component cables are more than capable (as is the HDMI) of handling the limited bandwidth which the cable co. (servicing the majority of users) is able to provide...however...
1. Could it be that those few who are getting their HD signals "Over-Air" or "Via High End Satellite" may in fact be pulling in more bandwidth than your average cable user?..hence the mixed reviews/opines?
and...
2. For a person such as myself who sports a rather smallish livingroom area and who's 10 year old, analog only pioneer home theatre is so antiquated that the new HD sets sound system kicks it's fake, simulated surround sound azz....would not the "Digital Audio" the HDMI feed provides be a huge AUDIO improvement over RCA jack composite/analog cables of yesteryear?
To note....i've also taken notice that many feel that the HDMI systems long term primary intent is to provide "Copy Protection"....which sorta pi$$es me off to think that the industry is hyping some sort of bogus benefits that HDMI is supposed to provide when in reality?...we the consumer wind up paying for their dang copy protection security system...where's Ralph Nader when we need'im?
Thanks and L8R, Bill.
hey Jinkster, no problem happy to answer your questions!
To answer what I can of you first question: Even the high end sat systems are limited with the bandwidth and you will see the some compression. OTA not sure anymore, I stopped following at which data rate they transmit at since I stopped trying to pick up the signals since I live in the sticks here in Maryland and have been slaved to the cable systems, yuk. FIOS is on its way though(I check monthly and when it does get into the neighborhood I will make the switch, even if it costs more.)
As for the opinions of the many, there are to many variables from what you have read but I would take them with a grain of salt. who are they after all? if they were professional A/V installers that were qualified ISF system calibrators, then yes I would pick up a ear to what they have to say, but for the most part many are internet and advertising lemmings and follow what the masses say, perfect example of this is bose audio( I won't get into it here, this is a subject into itself). Back to the subject at hand though. With the two types of cables and ideal data being transfered, the perfect example of this would be a HD-DVD being played on a HDTV. It will have maximum data transfer over either cables. And as for right now with current technology, there is no loss or difference of data between the two, hence you should have the same picture quality. Now this does not include the AASC(Advanced Access Content System) encryption that may or may not rear it's head into HDMI. it's there now, but it may get worse, can you say fake grain being injected into playback of a HD-DVD movie. Wtf@!?!?! The new security system also is a subject into itself, but for now since they are trying to spark HD sales, they are not fully implementing system measures.
the second question, the classic red/white or red/black RCA cables Vs Toslink(optical), coaxial(RCA look-a-like) or HDMI.
in short, yes all the later cables are superior to RCA's. The information that can be sent over all three are superior to regular RCA's. which is best is subjective. all have their disadvantages. but in the end, all are superior.
hope this helps answer some questions. sorry for the book for the answers.
To answer what I can of you first question: Even the high end sat systems are limited with the bandwidth and you will see the some compression. OTA not sure anymore, I stopped following at which data rate they transmit at since I stopped trying to pick up the signals since I live in the sticks here in Maryland and have been slaved to the cable systems, yuk. FIOS is on its way though(I check monthly and when it does get into the neighborhood I will make the switch, even if it costs more.)
As for the opinions of the many, there are to many variables from what you have read but I would take them with a grain of salt. who are they after all? if they were professional A/V installers that were qualified ISF system calibrators, then yes I would pick up a ear to what they have to say, but for the most part many are internet and advertising lemmings and follow what the masses say, perfect example of this is bose audio( I won't get into it here, this is a subject into itself). Back to the subject at hand though. With the two types of cables and ideal data being transfered, the perfect example of this would be a HD-DVD being played on a HDTV. It will have maximum data transfer over either cables. And as for right now with current technology, there is no loss or difference of data between the two, hence you should have the same picture quality. Now this does not include the AASC(Advanced Access Content System) encryption that may or may not rear it's head into HDMI. it's there now, but it may get worse, can you say fake grain being injected into playback of a HD-DVD movie. Wtf@!?!?! The new security system also is a subject into itself, but for now since they are trying to spark HD sales, they are not fully implementing system measures.
the second question, the classic red/white or red/black RCA cables Vs Toslink(optical), coaxial(RCA look-a-like) or HDMI.
in short, yes all the later cables are superior to RCA's. The information that can be sent over all three are superior to regular RCA's. which is best is subjective. all have their disadvantages. but in the end, all are superior.
hope this helps answer some questions. sorry for the book for the answers.
HT_USMC
Registered
Jinks
Basically you will see and hear at the lowest common factor of your component and cable combo.
For example, if you use RCA cables but have a high def cable box... you will not be watching high def (I'm not even sure this is possible as I don't think they have RCA video connectors on the high def cable boxes - but you get the idea). If you use HDMI from the high def cable box, you'll see the best high def picture your cable box and TV combo can support but your sound will be basically "analog" in comparison to what you would have if you went with optical for sound and a decent surround sound system. Likewise, you probably would not see much visual difference between component cables (RGB) and the HDMI in that setup as the lowest common factor at that point would be the cable feed.
So you have a balancing act between your components more than you do with your cables. Cables give you the capability to do the things they are made for from one component to the next. Your actual hardware and its capabilities (TV, Sound system, DVD Player, Cable Box, etc) plays as much a roll in that balancing act if not more.
With that said, and to help you understand possibly... a person with a Bose 5.1 (or greater) Surround Sound system would notice a huge change from RCA audio to HDMI. This is simply because the hardware in use allows the cable selection to have meaning and thus the hardware can achieve it's potential. If your hardware has limited potential, cable selection won't help to surpass it's potential. So you're stuck at lowest common factor...
Basically you will see and hear at the lowest common factor of your component and cable combo.
For example, if you use RCA cables but have a high def cable box... you will not be watching high def (I'm not even sure this is possible as I don't think they have RCA video connectors on the high def cable boxes - but you get the idea). If you use HDMI from the high def cable box, you'll see the best high def picture your cable box and TV combo can support but your sound will be basically "analog" in comparison to what you would have if you went with optical for sound and a decent surround sound system. Likewise, you probably would not see much visual difference between component cables (RGB) and the HDMI in that setup as the lowest common factor at that point would be the cable feed.
So you have a balancing act between your components more than you do with your cables. Cables give you the capability to do the things they are made for from one component to the next. Your actual hardware and its capabilities (TV, Sound system, DVD Player, Cable Box, etc) plays as much a roll in that balancing act if not more.
With that said, and to help you understand possibly... a person with a Bose 5.1 (or greater) Surround Sound system would notice a huge change from RCA audio to HDMI. This is simply because the hardware in use allows the cable selection to have meaning and thus the hardware can achieve it's potential. If your hardware has limited potential, cable selection won't help to surpass it's potential. So you're stuck at lowest common factor...
Mr. Anderson: Thank you once again for your response...and i might add that it was real easy to segragate the ham & egg'ers from the pro responses on the AV websites...cause if anyone posted anything that was even close to being "mis-information" the mods and admins were very quick to point it out...and it's almost comical how meticulous intellectual/obsessives can be regarding "mis-information" on an "technical information based" website.
HT USMC: I thought that by going to HDMI that the HDMI cable supports "Digital Audio" VS the Red/White RCA composite cable "Analog Audio"...am i wrong?
etal: anyways...I had to swing by wallyworld on my way home from work tonight and following the advice of someone who posted here in this thread?...who said walmarts have the HDMI cables for far less than $70-$100?...they were correct...so i went ahead and sprung for the Phillips 6' HDMI cable with the braided sheilding and 24ct Gold Plated ends...sorry...couldn't resist....it was a whopping $31.44 + Tax.
Even if it doesn't make a noticable improvement in the audio end of things?...it opens up an extra AV port and lets me 86 the 12' long RBG cables the cable company supplied.
Thanks all and L8R, Bill.
HT USMC: I thought that by going to HDMI that the HDMI cable supports "Digital Audio" VS the Red/White RCA composite cable "Analog Audio"...am i wrong?
etal: anyways...I had to swing by wallyworld on my way home from work tonight and following the advice of someone who posted here in this thread?...who said walmarts have the HDMI cables for far less than $70-$100?...they were correct...so i went ahead and sprung for the Phillips 6' HDMI cable with the braided sheilding and 24ct Gold Plated ends...sorry...couldn't resist....it was a whopping $31.44 + Tax.
Even if it doesn't make a noticable improvement in the audio end of things?...it opens up an extra AV port and lets me 86 the 12' long RBG cables the cable company supplied.
Thanks all and L8R, Bill.
Similar threads
