Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

19" Flat panel VGA or DVI cable

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 6, 2005 6:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I bought a 19" Samsung panel and it works great but was wondering If I would
see any improvement by using a DVI cable instead of my VGA cable. Anyone
have any words of wisdom on this? Best buy wants $52 for a DVI cable so I
don't want to through my money away.

Thanks,
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 8:15:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

The signal that the LCD monitor actually uses is a digital signal. But
using the VGA cable you are sending an analog signal which must then be
converted to digital. Not good. Results in a reduced quality image.
Get a DVI cable so that you are sending a digital signal to the LCD for
superior imaging.

--
DaveW



"DB" <bone@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Ve6dnYIo19R1zMnfRVn-vg@newedgenetworks.com...
>I bought a 19" Samsung panel and it works great but was wondering If I
>would
> see any improvement by using a DVI cable instead of my VGA cable. Anyone
> have any words of wisdom on this? Best buy wants $52 for a DVI cable so I
> don't want to through my money away.
>
> Thanks,
>
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 10:35:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

DB wrote:

> I bought a 19" Samsung panel and it works great but was wondering If I
> would see any improvement by using a DVI cable instead of my VGA cable.
> Anyone
> have any words of wisdom on this? Best buy wants $52 for a DVI cable so I
> don't want to through my money away.

(a) Never, ever buy a cable from BestBuy or CompUSA or the like unless (a)
you need to see it before you buy it for some reason or (b) you've
absolutely, positively got to have it _today_.

The same identical cables (same brand, same part number, same packaging,
everything) are available online for much, much better prices.

In the particular case, a DVI-I dual-link cable is available online for
under 8 bucks, while the Belkin brand that BestBuy likely carries can be
had for 20. Froogle "DVI Cable".

(b) I'm surprised that your Samsung didn't come with a DVI cable.

(c) Whether you see a difference depends on the system--sometimes you do,
sometimes you don't. With the last Samsung I looked at and a Matrox
display adapter there was not a noticeable difference.
>
> Thanks,

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Related resources
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 2:07:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

DaveW wrote:

> The signal that the LCD monitor actually uses is a digital signal. But
> using the VGA cable you are sending an analog signal which must then be
> converted to digital. Not good. Results in a reduced quality image.
> Get a DVI cable so that you are sending a digital signal to the LCD for
> superior imaging.

Sez the guy who has never been right once in his life.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 7:14:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> DaveW wrote:
>
>> The signal that the LCD monitor actually uses is a digital signal.
>> But using the VGA cable you are sending an analog signal which must
>> then be converted to digital. Not good. Results in a reduced
>> quality image. Get a DVI cable so that you are sending a digital
>> signal to the LCD for superior imaging.
>
> Sez the guy who has never been right once in his life.

I agree with this poast!

Spent a bunch of money to get DVI and SO WHAT!!! There is not a whole lot
of difference betwen the analog LCD on this system and the DVI on the other.
BIG F***** deal.

S
April 7, 2005 11:19:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

sbb78247 wrote:
>Spent a bunch of money to get DVI and SO WHAT!!! There is not a whole lot
> of difference betwen the analog LCD on this system and the DVI on the
>other. BIG F***** deal.

In my experience, the difference is *significant*. Yet it's not really that
apparent unless you're able to compare properly.

When I got an LCD at work I originally plugged it into the VGA. I thought
the image was stellar. Then, out of curiosity, I got a DVI cable and
plugged that in as well. I didn't really see much of a difference. Until I
switched back and forth between them a few times. There difference in
clarity was huge. The same was the case when I got an LCD at home later on.


- --
Frode

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQlTC0uXlGBWTt1afEQKeggCfaERSfEsN7h/OSl6Uucq3vgG0R1oAoOMP
xwC0NY0xw98fYKvjVaH089ee
=KoqC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:01:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Yes, the DVI cable is better, the amount of the difference varies. It
may be anything from minor to tremendous.

That's an outrageous price for that cable. You can probalby find one
for $15 or so.

www.pimfg.com
www.computergate.com
www.cyberguys.com
E-Bay

most monitors that have DVI inputs come with a DVI cable.


DB wrote:

> I bought a 19" Samsung panel and it works great but was wondering If I would
> see any improvement by using a DVI cable instead of my VGA cable. Anyone
> have any words of wisdom on this? Best buy wants $52 for a DVI cable so I
> don't want to through my money away.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Well, his perfect record is then no longer intact, because he's right on
this one.


J. Clarke wrote:

> DaveW wrote:
>
>
>>The signal that the LCD monitor actually uses is a digital signal. But
>>using the VGA cable you are sending an analog signal which must then be
>>converted to digital. Not good. Results in a reduced quality image.
>>Get a DVI cable so that you are sending a digital signal to the LCD for
>>superior imaging.
>
>
> Sez the guy who has never been right once in his life.
>
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:03:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Well, his perfect record is then no longer intact, because he's right on
> this one.

He's possibly right in some theoretical sense, but by no means in a
practical sense. You may never have experienced a display that gives the
same output when connected using DVI or analog cabling--if so you should
broaden your experience.
>
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> DaveW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The signal that the LCD monitor actually uses is a digital signal. But
>>>using the VGA cable you are sending an analog signal which must then be
>>>converted to digital. Not good. Results in a reduced quality image.
>>>Get a DVI cable so that you are sending a digital signal to the LCD for
>>>superior imaging.
>>
>>
>> Sez the guy who has never been right once in his life.
>>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:10:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Most of the people who don't see a difference don't know how to evaluate
a monitor. I've been in the display business, and the difference to a
trained eye is usually significant. Put up a test pattern of
alternating black and white vertical bars, each one single pixel wide,
and with an analog input there is usually some bad moire distortion
present. Also, there is usually some "ghosting" or "ringing" around
very sharp transitions -- like the vertical parts of white or black
characters on a black or white background, when the character component
is only a single pixel wide.

Lots of people don't see these things, just like lots of people can't
tell the difference between a $50 radio and a $2,000 stereo system. But
if you show them to people, they will never again be happy with things
that they used to be perfectly satisfied with. In any case, however,
DVI images are totally free of these problems, so why fight it.

By the way, a test program that will put up the bar display is available
free. It can be used to correctly adjust the dot clock on an analog
monitor:

http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?500000030936

This program is variously known as CRTAT, CRTAT2, and CRT Align
(crtalign), and was written by Stephen Jenkins in about 1992 or 1993.

To use the program for this purpose, after installation, select the
leftmost of the 3 functions in the "Test" group and then check both
check-boxes. This is a very old Windows 3.1 program written in visual
basic. It runs under XP just fine, absolutely perfectly in fact, even
with today's high resolution monitors (you do need VBRUN300.DLL (the
Visual basic version 3 runtime DLL library), which it may or may not
come with it depending on where you download it from, but if you don't
have VBRUN300.DLL, it can be easily found on the web).

This program is totally non-invasive, it's "installation" makes NO
changes to your registry or to ANY system components or files. In fact,
if you just unzip the program and double click the exe file, it will run
fine without actual "installation" (but the program and the help file
need to be in the same directory, and VBRUN300.DLL needs to be available).

When you display this pattern, you should see an absolutely perfect and
uniform field of alternating (but very, very fine) black and white
vertical bars each only one single pixel wide. If you see "moire"
distortion, or smearing, your display isn't adjusted correctly. Digital
monitors (with DVI interfaces) will always be "perfect". Analog
monitors will usually show an initial moire distortion pattern until
they are adjusted (dot clock frequency and phase). In most cases,
perfect adjustment can be achieved (and is "remembered" by the display),
but in some cases you can't achieve this. Note that the "auto"
(auto-adjust) function on almost all analog LCD monitors gets "close"
but usually does not get to the best possible adjustment.

If you have an analog monitor and you don't use this program to adjust
your monitor, you are doing yourself a real disservice.


sbb78247 wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>DaveW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The signal that the LCD monitor actually uses is a digital signal.
>>>But using the VGA cable you are sending an analog signal which must
>>>then be converted to digital. Not good. Results in a reduced
>>>quality image. Get a DVI cable so that you are sending a digital
>>>signal to the LCD for superior imaging.
>>
>>Sez the guy who has never been right once in his life.
>
>
> I agree with this poast!
>
> Spent a bunch of money to get DVI and SO WHAT!!! There is not a whole lot
> of difference betwen the analog LCD on this system and the DVI on the other.
> BIG F***** deal.
>
> S
>
>
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:10:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Most of the people who don't see a difference don't know how to evaluate
> a monitor. I've been in the display business, and the difference to a
> trained eye is usually significant. Put up a test pattern of
> alternating black and white vertical bars, each one single pixel wide,
> and with an analog input there is usually some bad moire distortion
> present.

Which means that the timing is not properly adjusted.

> Also, there is usually some "ghosting" or "ringing" around
> very sharp transitions -- like the vertical parts of white or black
> characters on a black or white background, when the character component
> is only a single pixel wide.

If the video board or cables are of poor quality.

> Lots of people don't see these things,

Or when they see them they fix them instead of assuming that they are
insurmountable obstacles.

> just like lots of people can't
> tell the difference between a $50 radio and a $2,000 stereo system. But
> if you show them to people, they will never again be happy with things
> that they used to be perfectly satisfied with. In any case, however,
> DVI images are totally free of these problems,

Oh? I see mucho moire on my LCD connected via DVI if I don't have the
timing right.

> so why fight it.
>
> By the way, a test program that will put up the bar display is available
> free. It can be used to correctly adjust the dot clock on an analog
> monitor:
>
> http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?500000030936
>
> This program is variously known as CRTAT, CRTAT2, and CRT Align
> (crtalign), and was written by Stephen Jenkins in about 1992 or 1993.
>
> To use the program for this purpose, after installation, select the
> leftmost of the 3 functions in the "Test" group and then check both
> check-boxes. This is a very old Windows 3.1 program written in visual
> basic. It runs under XP just fine, absolutely perfectly in fact, even
> with today's high resolution monitors (you do need VBRUN300.DLL (the
> Visual basic version 3 runtime DLL library), which it may or may not
> come with it depending on where you download it from, but if you don't
> have VBRUN300.DLL, it can be easily found on the web).
>
> This program is totally non-invasive, it's "installation" makes NO
> changes to your registry or to ANY system components or files. In fact,
> if you just unzip the program and double click the exe file, it will run
> fine without actual "installation" (but the program and the help file
> need to be in the same directory, and VBRUN300.DLL needs to be available).
>
> When you display this pattern, you should see an absolutely perfect and
> uniform field of alternating (but very, very fine) black and white
> vertical bars each only one single pixel wide. If you see "moire"
> distortion, or smearing, your display isn't adjusted correctly. Digital
> monitors (with DVI interfaces) will always be "perfect". Analog
> monitors will usually show an initial moire distortion pattern until
> they are adjusted (dot clock frequency and phase). In most cases,
> perfect adjustment can be achieved (and is "remembered" by the display),
> but in some cases you can't achieve this. Note that the "auto"
> (auto-adjust) function on almost all analog LCD monitors gets "close"
> but usually does not get to the best possible adjustment.
>
> If you have an analog monitor and you don't use this program to adjust
> your monitor, you are doing yourself a real disservice.
>
>
> sbb78247 wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>DaveW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The signal that the LCD monitor actually uses is a digital signal.
>>>>But using the VGA cable you are sending an analog signal which must
>>>>then be converted to digital. Not good. Results in a reduced
>>>>quality image. Get a DVI cable so that you are sending a digital
>>>>signal to the LCD for superior imaging.
>>>
>>>Sez the guy who has never been right once in his life.
>>
>>
>> I agree with this poast!
>>
>> Spent a bunch of money to get DVI and SO WHAT!!! There is not a whole
>> lot of difference betwen the analog LCD on this system and the DVI on the
>> other. BIG F***** deal.
>>
>> S
>>
>>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:06:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:
> Yes, the DVI cable is better, the amount of the difference varies. It
> may be anything from minor to tremendous.
<snip>

That was the point i was making, in my case it was minor.

S
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:07:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Re: "Which means that the timing is not properly adjusted."

Dot clock frequency and/or phase. Right, exactly

Re: "If the video board or cables are of poor quality."

The cable is the usual culprit. First, they are often not of very good
quality, but more to the point, many people have no choice but to use an
extenstion cable. And, unfortunately, because price can be seen on the
shelf, while quality can't, most of the cables sold are of poor quality.

Re: "I see mucho moire on my LCD connected via DVI if I don't have the
timing right."

You and I are mostly on the same page, but not here. There is no timing
adjustment or issue with a digital interface on any display that I have
ever seen or used (and I was a display product manager for 7 years).
DVI interfaces don't have to recover a dot clock to sample the pixels.
The pixels are sent digitally and discreetly.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:05:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Re: "Which means that the timing is not properly adjusted."
>
> Dot clock frequency and/or phase. Right, exactly
>
> Re: "If the video board or cables are of poor quality."
>
> The cable is the usual culprit. First, they are often not of very good
> quality, but more to the point, many people have no choice but to use an
> extenstion cable. And, unfortunately, because price can be seen on the
> shelf, while quality can't, most of the cables sold are of poor quality.
>
> Re: "I see mucho moire on my LCD connected via DVI if I don't have the
> timing right."
>
> You and I are mostly on the same page, but not here. There is no timing
> adjustment or issue with a digital interface on any display that I have
> ever seen or used (and I was a display product manager for 7 years).
> DVI interfaces don't have to recover a dot clock to sample the pixels.
> The pixels are sent digitally and discreetly.

And yet the moire remains.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:31:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:06:46 +0000, sbb78247 wrote:

> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> Yes, the DVI cable is better, the amount of the difference varies. It
>> may be anything from minor to tremendous.
> <snip>
>
> That was the point i was making, in my case it was minor.

I got a Dell 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor. My AIW 9600 has two
VGA outputs. No DVI. I was surprised to discover the picture
was just fine. The dot registration is better than my glasses
will allow :-);

I am still getting used to the corners being as sharp anywhere else.
And 1920x1080 HDTV is awesome.

This is with the VGA cable that came with the monitor.

--
Chuck Forsberg caf@omen.com www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665
April 13, 2005 5:37:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Ok, I thought I would share my results. I ended up getting a DVI cable for
$17.50 from
Cable makers inc. I notice that there is no longer any adjustments available
for auto focus
either on the Flat screen or via software. I guess because of the Digital
signal. I think I
can tell the difference especially in text. I think for $17.50 this was a
worthwhile
purchase. Thanks again for all your input guys.

Dave

"Chuck Forsberg" <caf@omen.com> wrote in message
news:Kv-dnUj-X_IFLMbfRVn-hw@giganews.com...
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:06:46 +0000, sbb78247 wrote:
>
>> Barry Watzman wrote:
>>> Yes, the DVI cable is better, the amount of the difference varies. It
>>> may be anything from minor to tremendous.
>> <snip>
>>
>> That was the point i was making, in my case it was minor.
>
> I got a Dell 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor. My AIW 9600 has two
> VGA outputs. No DVI. I was surprised to discover the picture
> was just fine. The dot registration is better than my glasses
> will allow :-);
>
> I am still getting used to the corners being as sharp anywhere else.
> And 1920x1080 HDTV is awesome.
>
> This is with the VGA cable that came with the monitor.
>
> --
> Chuck Forsberg caf@omen.com www.omen.com 503-614-0430
> Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
> Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
> 10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:21:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

There are not any adjustments because the digital signal is inherintly
"perfect" in the aspects of things that you were previously adjusting.


DB wrote:
> Ok, I thought I would share my results. I ended up getting a DVI cable for
> $17.50 from
> Cable makers inc. I notice that there is no longer any adjustments available
> for auto focus
> either on the Flat screen or via software. I guess because of the Digital
> signal. I think I
> can tell the difference especially in text. I think for $17.50 this was a
> worthwhile
> purchase. Thanks again for all your input guys.
>
> Dave
>
> "Chuck Forsberg" <caf@omen.com> wrote in message
> news:Kv-dnUj-X_IFLMbfRVn-hw@giganews.com...
>
>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:06:46 +0000, sbb78247 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Barry Watzman wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes, the DVI cable is better, the amount of the difference varies. It
>>>>may be anything from minor to tremendous.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>That was the point i was making, in my case it was minor.
>>
>>I got a Dell 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor. My AIW 9600 has two
>>VGA outputs. No DVI. I was surprised to discover the picture
>>was just fine. The dot registration is better than my glasses
>>will allow :-);
>>
>>I am still getting used to the corners being as sharp anywhere else.
>>And 1920x1080 HDTV is awesome.
>>
>>This is with the VGA cable that came with the monitor.
>>
>>--
>>Chuck Forsberg caf@omen.com www.omen.com 503-614-0430
>>Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
>> Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
>>10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665
>>
>
>
>
!