Comcast install question - HDMI vs Comp.

Duffman · 01-23-2006, 08:58 PM

Interestingly enough, when I went ot my local high(er) end audio video stereo store all they had were really expensive Audioquest DVI/HDMI cables.

The salesman told me that almost all of his Comcast customers had returned the HDMI cable and gone with the component cable because there was no perceptible difference at all. In fact he told me that some people had experienced worse pictures with the HDMI (he used the word "noise") cable than with compoonent. Not sure how that would word unless there's something inherently wrong with the comcast HD output itself, but whatever.

I ended up keeping my $140 in my jeans and I'll just see how the comp. cable works.

puck71 · 01-24-2006, 01:04 PM

It's personal opinion and it depends on what specific equipment you have. Just because HDMI is newer don't assume it's necessarily better. HDMI and Component cables carry the same resolution, so the only difference really is analog vs. digital, the quality of which depends on what kind of equipment you're using.

I ended up keeping the $140 in my jeans and getting an $8 HDMI cable from monoprice.com. Since it's a digital signal there's not as much variance in quality as there could be for analog cables.

RSawdey · 01-24-2006, 10:46 PM

That's not correct. Both the 'analog' and 'digital' signals are based on ANALOG electricity... but error corrected with a digital signal. Since in both cases only 8 bit resolution is sent (256 digital brightness levels per channel) it's easy for the analog connection to exactly reconstruct the digital source. The digital signal is more resistant to analog interferance - but not immune to it!

Spending a zillion bucks on super cables is wasted, but the worst quality POS el cheapo cables are ALSO to be avoided. When going with the lowest bidder, you get what you pay for.

01-23-2006, 08:58 PM	#16
Duffman What is HD? Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	Interestingly enough, when I went ot my local high(er) end audio video stereo store all they had were really expensive Audioquest DVI/HDMI cables. The salesman told me that almost all of his Comcast customers had returned the HDMI cable and gone with the component cable because there was no perceptible difference at all. In fact he told me that some people had experienced worse pictures with the HDMI (he used the word "noise") cable than with compoonent. Not sure how that would word unless there's something inherently wrong with the comcast HD output itself, but whatever. I ended up keeping my $140 in my jeans and I'll just see how the comp. cable works.

01-24-2006, 01:04 PM	#17
puck71 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 303	It's personal opinion and it depends on what specific equipment you have. Just because HDMI is newer don't assume it's necessarily better. HDMI and Component cables carry the same resolution, so the only difference really is analog vs. digital, the quality of which depends on what kind of equipment you're using. I ended up keeping the $140 in my jeans and getting an $8 HDMI cable from monoprice.com. Since it's a digital signal there's not as much variance in quality as there could be for analog cables.

01-24-2006, 10:46 PM	#18
RSawdey Mr. Wizard Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ferndale, Michigan Age: 61 Posts: 5,981	That's not correct. Both the 'analog' and 'digital' signals are based on ANALOG electricity... but error corrected with a digital signal. Since in both cases only 8 bit resolution is sent (256 digital brightness levels per channel) it's easy for the analog connection to exactly reconstruct the digital source. The digital signal is more resistant to analog interferance - but not immune to it! Spending a zillion bucks on super cables is wasted, but the worst quality POS el cheapo cables are ALSO to be avoided. When going with the lowest bidder, you get what you pay for.