HDMI vs Component Cables with 722

[hometheaterman]

I ordered a 722 and haven't gotten it yet but trying to plan ahead. How much better would the picture be with a HDMI cable over a set of component cables? Would it be worth the extra? The reason why I ask is my projector only has one HDMI input and right now I have the PS3 hooked up to it with a HDMI cable. So I have my 211 connected with component cables. Would I be better off to get a component cable for the PS3 and hook the 722 up with HDMI or just use component cables with it? Just trying to figure out how I should hook it up. Thanks.

 

[KAB]

I ordered a 722 and haven't gotten it yet but trying to plan ahead. How much better would the picture be with a HDMI cable over a set of component cables? Would it be worth the extra? The reason why I ask is my projector only has one HDMI input and right now I have the PS3 hooked up to it with a HDMI cable. So I have my 211 connected with component cables. Would I be better off to get a component cable for the PS3 and hook the 722 up with HDMI or just use component cables with it? Just trying to figure out how I should hook it up. Thanks.

Component is just as good as HDMI and about equal the cost if you buy from HDMI Cable, Home Theater Accessories, HDMI Products, Cables, Adapters, Video/Audio Switch, Networking, USB, Firewire, Printer Toner, and more!. Don't buy Monster Cables.....EVER!

 

[noremac]

The answer may depend on your particular setup and video device, but the overall concensus is that there is very little difference between the two cable setups. This question has been asked and answered with many opinions over the years. My crude survey of the answers may suggest a slight preference for analog component connection, but as they say: it all depends. I suspect a bigger issue in picture quality is how your set deals with aliasing between 480i/p, 720p and 1080i. Since the 722 doesn't have native passthrough, you have to pick an output format, and the box then does the format transcoding. This alone potentially compromises what might be an ideal HDMI digital signal. YMMV, but I would recommend that you base your decision on convenience of connections and available input jacks, and not on possible picture quality issues...

 

[steve4810]

My experience with two different flat screens is that you can't see the difference but I'm sure someone will tell you that they can. I use component for the short run to one TV and a 25 foot HDMI for the other and both pictures are perfect.

 

[hometheaterman]

Don't buy Monster Cables.....EVER!

Hate to admit this but the majority of my cables are Monster Cables. For the most part I've been impressed with the quality. I will say though I wouldn't buy them if I had to pay regular price. The only reason I have Monster cables is a family member works at a store that sells them so gets them at slightly over cost. Being that the discount applies to his family members I can get them at that price too and they seem to be marked up quite a bit. This is the only reason I own any Monster Cables. I don't think I'd buy them if I couldn't get them cheap through him however they do seem pretty decent. I had a HDMI cable from another brand and it broke so I replaced it with a Monster HDMI cable hoping it will hold up better.

I'm not sure how long my component cables are. I can't remember but they are fairly long as they have to run from the floor to the ceiling and I think I got a bit of extra. Both the component and HDMI cables are fairly long.

The reason I'm leaning towards doing this is if I switch the PS3 to component I have to buy an extra cable versus if I set up the 722 with component I can use the cables I have now.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

On my set, the image using HDMI was slightly sharper and colors seemed slightly more vibrant, once I calibrated on both. I went back and forth between them more than a dozen times, over a period of 3 months, making comparisons on test screens.

I use an HDMI cable from monoprice.com, one of their better ones. Inexpensive yet of excellent quality.

 

[ncted]

I use HDMI for my PS3 and AppleTV. I just can't get it to work with my 722 and Samsung LCD. The PS3 and AppleTV have controls for overriding the color-space selection, but the 722 does not. As a result the image from the 722 looks washed out no matter what I do to the color settings on the TV, even after a firmware update that was supposed to fix color-space problems.

I found the Monster cable that came with my Samsung TV works better for the PS3 than the Monoprice cable as it doesn't fall out randomly. The Monoprice cable works just fine on the AppleTV.

Ted

 

[CopyChief]

I ordered a 722 and haven't gotten it yet but trying to plan ahead. How much better would the picture be with a HDMI cable over a set of component cables? Would it be worth the extra? The reason why I ask is my projector only has one HDMI input and right now I have the PS3 hooked up to it with a HDMI cable. So I have my 211 connected with component cables. Would I be better off to get a component cable for the PS3 and hook the 722 up with HDMI or just use component cables with it? Just trying to figure out how I should hook it up. Thanks.

Your mileage may vary, depending on what you watch and what you watch it on. I tried both, with my 722 and 42" Samsung Plasma. Once calibrated, there's very little difference between the two with HD content. But for SD content, component looked much better. There were weird digital artifacts along the pillarbox or letterbox screen image edges with the HDMI. More than that, any blocking or pixelation - primarily in SD content - seemed to be exacerbated by the HDMI connection.

So for now, I'm sticking with component.

 

[hometheaterman]

Thanks looks like I wont be missing out on too much by sticking with component cables like I wanted to. I'm kind of excited to get this new receiver.

 

[DK6732]

HDMI is digital and is uncommpressed when transfering Vidio and Audio. Component, while still good, is analog, so its not the best quality, to where the TV has to change the analog signal to digital to show it on the TV. Good HDMI cables are cheap on the internet, just shop around.

 

[KAB]

HDMI is digital and is uncommpressed when transfering Vidio and Audio. Component, while still good, is analog, so its not the best quality, to where the TV has to change the analog signal to digital to show it on the TV. Good HDMI cables are cheap on the internet, just shop around.

As the majority has stated, no difference.

 

[tigerfan33]

I tought Dish was going to down rez component on thier VIP boxes sometime this year???

 

[steve4810]

I tought Dish was going to down rez component on thier VIP boxes sometime this year???

There was a rumor, nothing more, that if broadcasters require HDCP protection then one thing they might ask is for non-HDMI (with it's HDCP coding) outputs be limited to 480i.

But I repeat, this is only a rumor. Don't anyone go hang themselves yet.

 

[hometheaterman]

HDMI is digital and is uncommpressed when transfering Vidio and Audio. Component, while still good, is analog, so its not the best quality, to where the TV has to change the analog signal to digital to show it on the TV. Good HDMI cables are cheap on the internet, just shop around.

It's not the lack of a HDMI cable thats holding me back from using one it's the fact my projector only has one HDMI input and the PS3 is already using that.

 

[primetimeguy]

HDMI is digital and is uncommpressed when transfering Vidio and Audio.

Not true. Digital yes, uncompressed no.

As others have said, both are comparable so pick what looks good and is convenient for you.

 

[navychop]

Get an HDMI switchbox cheap. I did. Worked fine. Later moved up to a better receiver with multiple HDMI inputs to feed my single HDMI input HDTV.

As touched on above, as DRM spreads, your picture over component cables will be intentionally degraded.

Most future proof choice is the switchbox and HDMI cables.

 

[Carl B]

It's not the lack of a HDMI cable thats holding me back from using one it's the fact my projector only has one HDMI input and the PS3 is already using that.

Manual HDMI switches are relatively inexpensive (i.e., cheaper than Monster cable). Here is one for under $40 (see the item marked DVI / HDMI + Audio Switch):
Markertek Video Supply

Digital is the future, component is a 90s hanger-on. No one I know would trade their DVI connection on their PC/Mac to LCD monitor for a RGB/D-Sub connection, but many folks still use component (the TV world equivalent of RGB/D-Sub) to feed signals to their high-end HDTVs. To each his own, but I go digital whenever I have the option.

 

[DK6732]

Monoprice.com also sells good switches. And hasa good reviews from cnet.com.
For only $34.50 each when QTY 50+ purchased - 4X1 Enhanced 1.3b Certified HDMI Switch with built-in Equalizer and Remote (REV.3.0) | Auto/Powered HDMI Switch

4 in 1 is around 30 and 5 in one is a bit more.

and cnet
Monoprice 5x1 HDMI switcher TV/HDTV Tuners & Receiver reviews - CNET Reviews

Not true. Digital yes, uncompressed no.

Actually HDMI is actually a uncompressed signal. The HD feed may not (MPEG4 comp. format) but the signal from the source (ie 722 box) is uncompressed.

From HDMI :: Resources :: Knowledge Base

Q. What is HDMI?
HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) is the first and only industry-supported, uncompressed, all-digital audio/video interface.

But let bygons be bygones (is that how you say it?). What matters more is the swithcher

 

[kg4ozx]

Just for the record Digital does not always equal better... Many recording artists are going back to recording their masters onto tape before editing in a digital environment because of the superior tone they get from the analog tape. Digital tends to have a less listenable tone to the trained ear, and the untrained ear reacts in ways you might not think of (shorter listening times because the digital versions have more artifacts that are unpleasant to the ear)

I'm not really a video guy, so I can't speak to the specifics of what that translates to in the eyes, but the broad statement that HDMI is better because it is digital doesn't carry weight with me.

Sure, digital makes our lives better in plenty of ways but sometimes there is no comparison to a good old fashioned analog signal.

 

[tpautler]

When this issue comes up (which it does a LOT) I always encourage folks to test it out on their equipment. I held out a long time before going to HDMI cause of the reports of "no difference". Then I switched over my 622 to HDMI and my TV worked better. I ended up upgrading my AV receiver to do the HDMI switching (it also "upconverts" any input to HDMI) . So my Samsung DLP 61" has only one input going to it (HDMI)

My XBOX 360 picture noticeably improved in my eyes. I never had the PS3 on anything other than HDMI so I can't say. The picture with the 622 only seems slightly better if at all with the HDMI set up. However, my TV interacts better with the 622 with the HDMI connection. On the component it would periodically "glitch" and not have the right aspect ratio or have a messed up pic in the SD mode. Once the connection was HDMI, it has not hiccupped even once.

Not everyone has a "happy ending" with HDMI but due to my set up (and maybe the way the sun spots hit my house) it has been great. And, you should have seen the pile of cables I was able to get rid of when my change-over was completed.