Component cables

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hello

Has anyone done a double blind study comparing component cables of
different makes/qualities to see if it actually makes any difference? I
wonder if there's even a difference between the cheapest Chinese made
knockoffs vs. the brand names vs. the outrageously expensive.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Not much. Anyone who buys Monster component cables is throwing their money
away. Some people might rise up to debate this, their wrong. I've compared
$15 Philips component cables to $12 generic no-brand cables to $90 monster
component cables (borrowed from a friend). You know what? The picture
quality is the same. Maybe technically one conducts a little better or keeps
out interference a bit better. Maybe depending on where you're equipment is
located some of the better insulated brands might be worth it, but I'm
betting this need is a very small percent. If your eyes can't see it there
is no point.

With the jump from component to say DVI you most likely would see a
difference, just as the jump from s-video to component is different. You can
actually pay $25-$30 for a three foot Monster brand s-video cable or you
could pay $12 for generic brand component cables Which do you think can
deliver a better quality image?

I see Monster (and I'm just using them as an example here) as a company that
just preys on people new to this technology.

-Jeremy



"darius" <noone@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:92191752782.8554256396.38149@news.verizon.net...
> Hello
>
> Has anyone done a double blind study comparing component cables of
> different makes/qualities to see if it actually makes any difference? I
> wonder if there's even a difference between the cheapest Chinese made
> knockoffs vs. the brand names vs. the outrageously expensive.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mr Fixit" <MrFixit@msn.com> wrote in message
news:tm2mc0p637kch2sduabdlf22bi3prn5oct@4ax.com...
> It merely underscores the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon
> parted."
>
> In article <IPDyc.9734$ar2.9351@fe2.texas.rr.com> "Jeremy Deats'"
> <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
>
> >Not much. Anyone who buys Monster component cables is throwing their
money
> >away. Some people might rise up to debate this, their wrong. I've
compared
> >$15 Philips component cables to $12 generic no-brand cables to $90
monster
> >component cables (borrowed from a friend). You know what? The picture
> >quality is the same. Maybe technically one conducts a little better or
keeps
> >out interference a bit better. Maybe depending on where you're equipment
is
> >located some of the better insulated brands might be worth it, but I'm
> >betting this need is a very small percent. If your eyes can't see it
there
> >is no point.
> >
> >With the jump from component to say DVI you most likely would see a
> >difference, just as the jump from s-video to component is different. You
can
> >actually pay $25-$30 for a three foot Monster brand s-video cable or you
> >could pay $12 for generic brand component cables Which do you think can
> >deliver a better quality image?
> >
> >I see Monster (and I'm just using them as an example here) as a company
that
> >just preys on people new to this technology.
> >
> >-Jeremy
> >
> >
> >
> >"darius" <noone@here.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:92191752782.8554256396.38149@news.verizon.net...
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> Has anyone done a double blind study comparing component cables of
> >> different makes/qualities to see if it actually makes any difference?
I
> >> wonder if there's even a difference between the cheapest Chinese made
> >> knockoffs vs. the brand names vs. the outrageously expensive.
> >
>
> --
> Help Support Satellite Radio!
> Your local radio broadcasters through their powerful NAB lobbyiests
> are currently pushing a bill through Congress that if passed, would block
> the Satellite Radio services from carrying local content (Traffic &
Weather)
> Please call your elected representatives at (202) 225-3121 and urge them
to
> Oppose HR 4026. We need your help, please.
> <http://www.xmradio.com/grassroots/index.jsp>

I have tried various sets. Most telling was a switch from OEM cheap, thin
interconnects with a set of Gold Monster's. On my 32 inch XBR Sony with a
DVD feed I could see no difference at all. Length was 10 feet.

Richard.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9506607C85119doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...

> I DID notice a slight improvement in 1080i when I went from plain-jane
> audio-visual cable to a proper component cable (a cheap one, but with
> gold ends and good coax).

Component should NEVER be carried on an AV cable

AV cables typically don't have the bandwidth - especially in the audio lines
which may be twisted pair and not even coax

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <yMGyc.5902$qg.4655@lakeread06>, no@no.com says...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qOednRX5uNW1q1bdRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9506607C85119doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> >
> > > I DID notice a slight improvement in 1080i when I went from plain-jane
> > > audio-visual cable to a proper component cable (a cheap one, but with
> > > gold ends and good coax).
> >
> > Component should NEVER be carried on an AV cable
> >
> > AV cables typically don't have the bandwidth - especially in the audio
> lines
> > which may be twisted pair and not even coax
>
> Actually, they usually do have the bandwidth and are rarely twisted pairs.
> There may be some differences in the characterisitics of the video and audio
> cables that could cause some phase shift between the component signals, but
> not likely to be much of a problem in most cases. It depends on the cable
> for sure, but I have experimented with several kinds and it is hard to
> detect any difference unless the cables are really bad or are defective.

A simple examination, if you're willing to sacrifice a cable, is to
slit the outer insulation with a knife or razor blade. Good cable
will have braded (intertwined) outer shielding (and in some
cases,foil) that completly covers the inner layers. Cheap cable will
have sparse braded converage or worse. The worse I've seen was a RS
cable that six strands of extremely fine gage copper spiral-wrapped
(not braded) along the length of the cable. This cable, as you would
guess, was extremely sensitive to external interference. I had
originally used it to connect a cable box to my TV's RF input, and it
picked up so much OTA interference that some cable channels were
unwatchable.

I don't generally see any value in high-end cables, but some very
cheap cables really are so poorly made that they cause problems.

/Chris, AA6SQ

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5WJyc.151992$hY.58554@twister.nyroc.rr.com...


> Exactly the point Chris. For RF a good quad shield RG-6 or RG-11 cable
can't
> be beat. But a component interconnect does not carry RF and does not have
> the demands placed upon it when used as a component interconnect. In this
> application I have not seen a difference when fed component output from a
> DVD player.
>
> Richard.


Why do you believe that delivering HD component is not radio frequency?
I'd like to see your math.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6OXyc.334915$M3.37237@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

> > Why do you believe that delivering HD component is not radio frequency?
> > I'd like to see your math.
> >
> RF requires shielded coax such as RG-6, etc.

What do you mean by "requires"? The reason for the shielding is to prevent
leakage in or out of the signal path.

>RF modulation for video has a
> very high or ultra high frequency carrier. Component "merely" has to
provide
> a pathway for the basic frequency response and voltage of a video output
> from a device.

Either signal will pass on an unshielded pair of conductors. Again, the
reason for the sheilding is to prevent picking up stray interfering signals
and to prevent propogating such.

The fact is that you can use just about any cable to connect audio, RF, and
video and get a signal. The degree to which shielding and impedance make a
difference varies, and it is, of course, best to use the best shielded cable
you can on any application. The visible differences between most are,
however, rarely noticeable.

Notice that I did not say that there are no differences. There certainly
are, but they are typically not the source of problems that people assume
they are unless the connection is defective.

Leonard

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:qOednRX5uNW1q1bdRVn-vw@comcast.com:

>
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns9506607C85119doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>
>> I DID notice a slight improvement in 1080i when I went from
>> plain-jane audio-visual cable to a proper component cable (a cheap
>> one, but with gold ends and good coax).
>
> Component should NEVER be carried on an AV cable
>
> AV cables typically don't have the bandwidth - especially in the audio
> lines which may be twisted pair and not even coax

Oh, I agree, but you know, the difference was not that great. And that AV
cable was only a stopgap while I waited for my component cable to arrive.


--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:5WJyc.151992$hY.58554@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

> The worse I've seen was a RS cable that six strands of extremely
> fine gage
> copper spiral-wrapped (not braded) along the length of the cable.
> This cable, as you would
> guess, was extremely sensitive to external interference. I had
> originally
> used it to connect a cable box to my TV's RF input, and it picked up
> so much OTA interference that some cable channels were unwatchable.
>>
> I don't generally see any value in high-end cables, but some very
> cheap
> cables really are so poorly made that they cause problems.
>>
>> /Chris, AA6SQ
>
> Exactly the point Chris. For RF a good quad shield RG-6 or RG-11 cable
> can't be beat. But a component interconnect does not carry RF and does
> not have the demands placed upon it when used as a component
> interconnect. In this application I have not seen a difference when
> fed component output from a DVD player.

Most DVD players put out 480p or 480i. They do not consume as much
bandwidth as a 1080i signal. At the higher frequencies, the baseband
signal overlaps with many RF signals that may be in the vicinity, ranging
all the way from ship-to-shore transmissions up to Voice of America
multi-megawatt broadcast transmitters. This includes all your local AM
radio stations, and no small amount of gratuitous power line and computer
noise. Poor shielding will let these into your video signals.

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
news:R8Wdnain9vm_PFHdRVn-uA@comcast.com...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:II-dndOcEfzPGlHdRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:6OXyc.334915$M3.37237@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:lYydnaI914MiAlbdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:5WJyc.151992$hY.58554@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Exactly the point Chris. For RF a good quad shield RG-6 or RG-11
> cable
> > > > can't
> > > > > be beat. But a component interconnect does not carry RF and does
not
> > > have
> > > > > the demands placed upon it when used as a component interconnect.
In
> > > this
> > > > > application I have not seen a difference when fed component output
> > from
> > > a
> > > > > DVD player.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why do you believe that delivering HD component is not radio
> frequency?
> > > > I'd like to see your math.
> > > >
> > > RF requires shielded coax such as RG-6, etc. RF modulation for video
has
> a
> > > very high or ultra high frequency carrier. Component "merely" has to
> > provide
> > > a pathway for the basic frequency response and voltage of a video
output
> > > from a device.
> > >
> > > Richard.
> >
> > This is a rather unusual definition of radio frequency.
> >
> > Perhaps you should think of what is going down the component cable.
> >
> > Imagine you are watching a 720P image that consists of a white/black
> > crosshatch 1 pixel wide.
> > Every 1/60 of a second 1280x720 pixels of video alternating from min to
> max
> > amplitude are sent down the cables.
> >
> > the analog signal for 55 million pixels per second are coming down the
> > wire... something that looks almost identical to a CB radio signal.
> >
> > Why don't you consider this RF?
> >
>
>
> It's high frequency video. High frequency does not necessarily mean radio
> frequency.
>
> Bearman

Yes it does. Content means nothing... frequency means everything.

Do you consider AM broadcast radio at 0.5 to 1.6 MHz to be "radio
frequency"?

the term radio frequency has actual meaning in electronic engineering...
they're frequencies that radiate effectively from conductors into space and
back again - unlike lower frequencies that tend to stay put (or at least
only couple inductively near field).

Radio frequency once started right above the old "audio frequencies" but now
actually overlaps a bit since audio has gotten up well over several KHz
where it once stopped.

Rather than heading to the university and signing up for intro EM fields (a
class that took many an aspiring engineering into business school)... you
might want to check out the simple tutorial at
http://electronics.howstuffworks.c [...] ctrum1.htm

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I've used the cheapest possible rca cables from radio shack vs the most
expensive ones they sell and there is no difference. This was on a
toshiba 40h80 widescreen hdtv.

Jeremy Deats' wrote:
> Not much. Anyone who buys Monster component cables is throwing their money
> away. Some people might rise up to debate this, their wrong. I've compared
> $15 Philips component cables to $12 generic no-brand cables to $90 monster
> component cables (borrowed from a friend). You know what? The picture
> quality is the same. Maybe technically one conducts a little better or keeps
> out interference a bit better. Maybe depending on where you're equipment is
> located some of the better insulated brands might be worth it, but I'm
> betting this need is a very small percent. If your eyes can't see it there
> is no point.
>
> With the jump from component to say DVI you most likely would see a
> difference, just as the jump from s-video to component is different. You can
> actually pay $25-$30 for a three foot Monster brand s-video cable or you
> could pay $12 for generic brand component cables Which do you think can
> deliver a better quality image?
>
> I see Monster (and I'm just using them as an example here) as a company that
> just preys on people new to this technology.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
> "darius" <noone@here.invalid> wrote in message
> news:92191752782.8554256396.38149@news.verizon.net...
>
>>Hello
>>
>>Has anyone done a double blind study comparing component cables of
>>different makes/qualities to see if it actually makes any difference? I
>>wonder if there's even a difference between the cheapest Chinese made
>>knockoffs vs. the brand names vs. the outrageously expensive.
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ztednTHSvt_5fVHdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>
> "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> news:WOydnZjnwraLTVHdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > It's high frequency video. High frequency does not necessarily mean
> > radio
> > > > frequency.
> > > >
> > > > Bearman
> > >
> > > Yes it does. Content means nothing... frequency means everything.
> > >
> > > Do you consider AM broadcast radio at 0.5 to 1.6 MHz to be "radio
> > > frequency"?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it is. It's an electromagnetic wave. When I was in the Navy,
there
> > was a high powered transmitter at Jim Creek, Washington that radiated an
> EM
> > wave at 18 kilohertz (used to communicate with submarines under the
> water).
> > That is in the VLF radio frequency band.
> >
> > The very first page of the link you provided (the simple tutorial)
> explains
> > what a radio wave is.
> >
> > Frequency means nothing without some sort of information modulated on it
> > (content), otherwise we would just have CW.
> >
> > Bearman
>
> In terms of propagation (as in down a coax), modulation has very little to
> do with it.
> The dominant influence is frequency since it is from frequency that
complex
> impedance, and thus losses and phase shifts, are driven.
>
> HD component video transmission is for all intents and purposes a radio
> frequency application approaching VHF.
>
> Just as audio matured and expanded to cover what were once radio
frequencies
> (such as your VLF application), analog video has grown up to be quite a
> bandwidth hog.
>
>
You think we're talking about two different things?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CeydneLrneSpmFDdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>
> "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> news:G8ydnTc2FPf4b1HdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:ztednTHSvt_5fVHdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:WOydnZjnwraLTVHdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's high frequency video. High frequency does not necessarily
> mean
> > > > radio
> > > > > > frequency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bearman
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it does. Content means nothing... frequency means everything.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you consider AM broadcast radio at 0.5 to 1.6 MHz to be "radio
> > > > > frequency"?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is. It's an electromagnetic wave. When I was in the Navy,
> > there
> > > > was a high powered transmitter at Jim Creek, Washington that
radiated
> an
> > > EM
> > > > wave at 18 kilohertz (used to communicate with submarines under the
> > > water).
> > > > That is in the VLF radio frequency band.
> > > >
> > > > The very first page of the link you provided (the simple tutorial)
> > > explains
> > > > what a radio wave is.
> > > >
> > > > Frequency means nothing without some sort of information modulated
on
> it
> > > > (content), otherwise we would just have CW.
> > > >
> > > > Bearman
> > >
> > > In terms of propagation (as in down a coax), modulation has very
little
> to
> > > do with it.
> > > The dominant influence is frequency since it is from frequency that
> > complex
> > > impedance, and thus losses and phase shifts, are driven.
> > >
> > > HD component video transmission is for all intents and purposes a
radio
> > > frequency application approaching VHF.
> > >
> > > Just as audio matured and expanded to cover what were once radio
> > frequencies
> > > (such as your VLF application), analog video has grown up to be quite
a
> > > bandwidth hog.
> > >
> > >
> > You think we're talking about two different things?
>
> I think I am talking about component HD being a RF application and the
need
> for VHF capable coax cables for HD component video instead of lower
> frequency AV cables.
>
> How about you?
>
> I agree with the need for VHF-capable coax because the bandwidth of the
component signal is quite wide as it is in most video applications.

I don't agree that the component signal is an RF signal. Do you think the
signal from a video card to a monitor is an RF signal?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
news:UeKdnbokCf05k1DdRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:CeydneLrneSpmFDdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> >
> > "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:G8ydnTc2FPf4b1HdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ztednTHSvt_5fVHdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:WOydnZjnwraLTVHdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's high frequency video. High frequency does not
necessarily
> > mean
> > > > > radio
> > > > > > > frequency.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bearman
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes it does. Content means nothing... frequency means
everything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you consider AM broadcast radio at 0.5 to 1.6 MHz to be
"radio
> > > > > > frequency"?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it is. It's an electromagnetic wave. When I was in the
Navy,
> > > there
> > > > > was a high powered transmitter at Jim Creek, Washington that
> radiated
> > an
> > > > EM
> > > > > wave at 18 kilohertz (used to communicate with submarines under
the
> > > > water).
> > > > > That is in the VLF radio frequency band.
> > > > >
> > > > > The very first page of the link you provided (the simple tutorial)
> > > > explains
> > > > > what a radio wave is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Frequency means nothing without some sort of information modulated
> on
> > it
> > > > > (content), otherwise we would just have CW.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bearman
> > > >
> > > > In terms of propagation (as in down a coax), modulation has very
> little
> > to
> > > > do with it.
> > > > The dominant influence is frequency since it is from frequency that
> > > complex
> > > > impedance, and thus losses and phase shifts, are driven.
> > > >
> > > > HD component video transmission is for all intents and purposes a
> radio
> > > > frequency application approaching VHF.
> > > >
> > > > Just as audio matured and expanded to cover what were once radio
> > > frequencies
> > > > (such as your VLF application), analog video has grown up to be
quite
> a
> > > > bandwidth hog.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You think we're talking about two different things?
> >
> > I think I am talking about component HD being a RF application and the
> need
> > for VHF capable coax cables for HD component video instead of lower
> > frequency AV cables.
> >
> > How about you?
> >
> > I agree with the need for VHF-capable coax because the bandwidth of the
> component signal is quite wide as it is in most video applications.
>
> I don't agree that the component signal is an RF signal. Do you think the
> signal from a video card to a monitor is an RF signal?

Yes... put it into a dipole antenna and it will radiate quite nicely. Put a
bad cable on it and you will see ghosts on your screen.

I guess being a electronic engineer has made me sensitive to the technical
meaning of terms.

It's why modern digital electronics design is more an issue of RF design
than anything else.
The DC guys can't hack it anymore.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tfOdnXHHbcPKi1DdRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> news:UeKdnbokCf05k1DdRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:CeydneLrneSpmFDdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:G8ydnTc2FPf4b1HdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:ztednTHSvt_5fVHdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "bearman" <noyb@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:WOydnZjnwraLTVHdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's high frequency video. High frequency does not
> necessarily
> > > mean
> > > > > > radio
> > > > > > > > frequency.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bearman
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes it does. Content means nothing... frequency means
> everything.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you consider AM broadcast radio at 0.5 to 1.6 MHz to be
> "radio
> > > > > > > frequency"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it is. It's an electromagnetic wave. When I was in the
> Navy,
> > > > there
> > > > > > was a high powered transmitter at Jim Creek, Washington that
> > radiated
> > > an
> > > > > EM
> > > > > > wave at 18 kilohertz (used to communicate with submarines under
> the
> > > > > water).
> > > > > > That is in the VLF radio frequency band.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The very first page of the link you provided (the simple
tutorial)
> > > > > explains
> > > > > > what a radio wave is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frequency means nothing without some sort of information
modulated
> > on
> > > it
> > > > > > (content), otherwise we would just have CW.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bearman
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of propagation (as in down a coax), modulation has very
> > little
> > > to
> > > > > do with it.
> > > > > The dominant influence is frequency since it is from frequency tha
t
> > > > complex
> > > > > impedance, and thus losses and phase shifts, are driven.
> > > > >
> > > > > HD component video transmission is for all intents and purposes a
> > radio
> > > > > frequency application approaching VHF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just as audio matured and expanded to cover what were once radio
> > > > frequencies
> > > > > (such as your VLF application), analog video has grown up to be
> quite
> > a
> > > > > bandwidth hog.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > You think we're talking about two different things?
> > >
> > > I think I am talking about component HD being a RF application and the
> > need
> > > for VHF capable coax cables for HD component video instead of lower
> > > frequency AV cables.
> > >
> > > How about you?
> > >
> > > I agree with the need for VHF-capable coax because the bandwidth of
the
> > component signal is quite wide as it is in most video applications.
> >
> > I don't agree that the component signal is an RF signal. Do you think
the
> > signal from a video card to a monitor is an RF signal?
>
> Yes... put it into a dipole antenna and it will radiate quite nicely. Put
a
> bad cable on it and you will see ghosts on your screen.
>
> I guess being a electronic engineer has made me sensitive to the technical
> meaning of terms.
>
> It's why modern digital electronics design is more an issue of RF design
> than anything else.
> The DC guys can't hack it anymore.
>
>

Doesn't it "become" an RF signal when it radiates? Before that, it's just a
video signal.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"darius" <noone@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:92191752782.8554256396.38149@news.verizon.net...
> Hello
>
> Has anyone done a double blind study comparing component cables of
> different makes/qualities to see if it actually makes any difference? I
> wonder if there's even a difference between the cheapest Chinese made
> knockoffs vs. the brand names vs. the outrageously expensive.

The biggest advantage of high quality cables is in the connections. The
cheaper cables are more likely to develop problems with the connections in
terms of conductivity or faults where the wire attaches to the connector.
You can buy a set of GE brand component cables from Target for $10. They
will work perfectly fine. Connection problems are usually quite obvious and
if you experience one then you just throw out the cable and go buy another
set. Economically it's a good choice, because if an expensive cable
develops a connection problem then you are out a lot of bucks.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Component needs coax... it should not be put down an audio cable.
>
>
> This is the second time you have emphatically stated something that is just
> wrong.
>
> Audio cable != coax is *not* universally true. It's not even true most of
> the time.
>
I dont have a single AV cable in my rather complex system that doesn't
have coax cables for L and R. I use a rather nice AV cable from Allegro
as my "component" cable. I can't tell the difference from that and the
expensive cable I borrowed. The guy I borrowed it from couldn't see a
difference, either.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b36edd68777ac189896d5@news.nabs.net...
> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Component needs coax... it should not be put down an audio cable.
>
> This is the second time you have emphatically stated something that is
just
> wrong.
>
> Audio cable != coax is *not* universally true. It's not even true most of
> the time.

One can not guarantee that an audio cable is in fact coax nor coax of
sufficient quality to handle the component signal.

Sure, you can get lucky and have a cable where all three lines are identical
coax, but why take a chance on guessing what's inside the wire.

Not to mention that the plug colors are wrong .

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"darius" <noone@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:92191752782.8554256396.38149@news.verizon.net...
> Hello
>
> Has anyone done a double blind study comparing component cables of
> different makes/qualities to see if it actually makes any difference? I
> wonder if there's even a difference between the cheapest Chinese made
> knockoffs vs. the brand names vs. the outrageously expensive.

I replaced the cheap component cables that came with my Akai 42" plasma
panel with some RCA DT12DC component video cables with gold connectors ($25)
and the difference was immediately obvious. I was getting diagonal "beat"
lines on the screen before, now they are gone. (Admittedly the lines were
faint, you could only see them up close, but they should not have been there
in the first place.)

Brad Houser