dvi vs component video

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

I read the thread here on "Is DVI much better than Component" and have
one question. Upon reading the reviews for the HDTV I bought people
said that the picture is great with component video, and after
connecting the DVI the picture was "AMAZING". From what I read in the
thread, one person said there he "doubts there is any visible
difference" and I read other comments about the d/a conversions not
making the DVI worth it unless it is a pure digital signal. So my
question is this: why did those reviewers notice such a difference?
The tv is a sony 34" widescreen tube tv.

Thanks,

Eddie G
17 answers Last reply
More about component video
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Eddie G" <mickeddie@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:6799ea2c.0407201433.2c37c84a@posting.google.com...
    >I read the thread here on "Is DVI much better than Component" and have
    > one question. Upon reading the reviews for the HDTV I bought people
    > said that the picture is great with component video, and after
    > connecting the DVI the picture was "AMAZING". From what I read in the
    > thread, one person said there he "doubts there is any visible
    > difference" and I read other comments about the d/a conversions not
    > making the DVI worth it unless it is a pure digital signal. So my
    > question is this: why did those reviewers notice such a difference?
    > The tv is a sony 34" widescreen tube tv.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Eddie G

    It all depends upon the hardware. A DVI and HDMI interconnect enables the
    source to stay digital. If you have a DVD player or a DTV cable or dish box
    it lets the digital TV do all the conversion without any analog to digital
    steps. In general it is best to use a digital interlaced 480 DVD output and
    let the set convert it to progressive scan, rather than let the player do
    the progressive scan conversion, especially if the display does not do
    native 480p display.

    A tube display is analog so the greatest benefit is on a pure digital
    display such as LCD, but again it is highly hardware specific if anyone can
    tell the difference.

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

    I have a 55" Mitsubishi. I get HD channels from Brighthouse via the Pace HD
    box.

    I started with component video cables and was satisifed with the HD quality.
    Being a curious type, I decided to try the $100 Monster DVI cable. I
    immediately noticed a significant difference. The picture seemed brighter
    and sharper.

    I showed the difference to a friend who has a 57" Hitachi. He found a DVI
    cable from Tech Depot for around $20. He says he can see an improvement
    using DVI versus component cables.

    So, in my experience, there is an improvement with DVI that makes DVI
    worthwhile for the HD channels.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    I have seen this before. Many people claim massive improvements between
    component and DVI. In the context of video, its bullshit !!
    If the monitors are adjusted properly and the signal quality is equal and
    the cables are of reasonable quality you get the same picture. The only
    place I have seen it make a difference is on a computer display. That is
    the display generated fonts and graphics where there is no compromise such
    as mpeg the video before you get it. Of course virtually all HD, DVD
    sources are mpeg

    Richard R.

    "Eddie G" <mickeddie@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:6799ea2c.0407201433.2c37c84a@posting.google.com...
    > I read the thread here on "Is DVI much better than Component" and have
    > one question. Upon reading the reviews for the HDTV I bought people
    > said that the picture is great with component video, and after
    > connecting the DVI the picture was "AMAZING". From what I read in the
    > thread, one person said there he "doubts there is any visible
    > difference" and I read other comments about the d/a conversions not
    > making the DVI worth it unless it is a pure digital signal. So my
    > question is this: why did those reviewers notice such a difference?
    > The tv is a sony 34" widescreen tube tv.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Eddie G
  4. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Curious Cat" <nospamcat23@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<84jLc.53038$IX4.6596224@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
    > I have a 55" Mitsubishi. I get HD channels from Brighthouse via the Pace HD
    > box.
    >
    > I started with component video cables and was satisifed with the HD quality.
    > Being a curious type, I decided to try the $100 Monster DVI cable. I
    > immediately noticed a significant difference. The picture seemed brighter
    > and sharper.
    >
    > I showed the difference to a friend who has a 57" Hitachi. He found a DVI
    > cable from Tech Depot for around $20. He says he can see an improvement
    > using DVI versus component cables.

    Follow up question: What is the difference between the $100 Monster
    cable and the $20 Tech Depot cable? Would the average person see a
    visual difference between the two?

    Thanks,

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

    > Follow up question: What is the difference between the $100 Monster
    > cable and the $20 Tech Depot cable? Would the average person see a
    > visual difference between the two?

    Supposedly, there is very little difference. The advantage of digital
    cables is that the signal is either fantastic or totally horrible with very
    little room for in between.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    > Follow up question: What is the difference between the $100 Monster
    > cable and the $20 Tech Depot cable? Would the average person see a
    > visual difference between the two?

    That's a good question.

    I did get a chance to see the $20 DVI cable. It looked "cheaper" than the
    Monster cable, and didn't seem as "sturdy". The Monster cable is gold and
    built like a tank.

    However, I couldn't tell a visual difference in picture quality.

    My friend has a knack for finding bargains.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    I certainly didn't see a "massive" difference when I switched to a DVI
    cable.

    However, I did see a quality improvement. This was on a set that I had
    calibrated with Avia and for which I had adjusted convergence.

    If I had never seen the DVI result, I would have been perfectly happy with
    component video.

    I think you're right that claims of a "massive" difference would be BS.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On 21 Jul 2004 09:02:25 -0700, mickeddie@comcast.net (Eddie G) wrote:

    >"Curious Cat" <nospamcat23@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<84jLc.53038$IX4.6596224@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
    >> I have a 55" Mitsubishi. I get HD channels from Brighthouse via the Pace HD
    >> box.
    >>
    >> I started with component video cables and was satisifed with the HD quality.
    >> Being a curious type, I decided to try the $100 Monster DVI cable. I
    >> immediately noticed a significant difference. The picture seemed brighter
    >> and sharper.
    >>
    >> I showed the difference to a friend who has a 57" Hitachi. He found a DVI
    >> cable from Tech Depot for around $20. He says he can see an improvement
    >> using DVI versus component cables.
    >
    >Follow up question: What is the difference between the $100 Monster
    >cable and the $20 Tech Depot cable? Would the average person see a
    >visual difference between the two?


    $80
  9. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    I heard they use a lower grade of plastic in the low priced DVI cable.
    I saw there may be a mid priced cable that's better. Monster being the
    best with the ultimate flex glass or plastic is the most expensive.
    But i'm sure your paying 10% to 15% for the name. I'm using component
    now but may look at some web sites and order the mid-range DVD.

    hdtvfan

    On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:22:13 -0400, the_professor@attbi.com wrote:

    >On 21 Jul 2004 09:02:25 -0700, mickeddie@comcast.net (Eddie G) wrote:
    >
    >>"Curious Cat" <nospamcat23@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<84jLc.53038$IX4.6596224@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
    >>> I have a 55" Mitsubishi. I get HD channels from Brighthouse via the Pace HD
    >>> box.
    >>>
    >>> I started with component video cables and was satisifed with the HD quality.
    >>> Being a curious type, I decided to try the $100 Monster DVI cable. I
    >>> immediately noticed a significant difference. The picture seemed brighter
    >>> and sharper.
    >>>
    >>> I showed the difference to a friend who has a 57" Hitachi. He found a DVI
    >>> cable from Tech Depot for around $20. He says he can see an improvement
    >>> using DVI versus component cables.
    >>
    >>Follow up question: What is the difference between the $100 Monster
    >>cable and the $20 Tech Depot cable? Would the average person see a
    >>visual difference between the two?
    >
    >
    >$80
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:55:48 -0600, hdtv <hdtvfan@aol.com> wrote:

    >I heard they use a lower grade of plastic in the low priced DVI cable.
    >I saw there may be a mid priced cable that's better. Monster being the
    >best with the ultimate flex glass or plastic is the most expensive.

    Not really. There's much more pricey stuff out there. ;-)

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

    For what it's worth, I mentioned this conversation to my friend who is using
    the $20 DVI cable.

    He says that he has noticed an improvement on the non-HD channels as well as
    the HD.

    I took another look, and I guess he's right. I hadn't really noticed a
    difference because on a 55" rear-projection TV, the non-HD channels aren't
    all that great with or without a DVI cable.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Not to pound your posts, but you're wrong repeatedly about this. I can
    watch the same DVD through the two setups and tell the difference in a (no
    pun intended) blind test.


    "Richard R" <jwerir@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
    news:HbGdnehdF5dD5mPdRVn-jA@wideopenwest.com...
    > I have seen this before. Many people claim massive improvements between
    > component and DVI. In the context of video, its bullshit !!
    > If the monitors are adjusted properly and the signal quality is equal and
    > the cables are of reasonable quality you get the same picture. The only
    > place I have seen it make a difference is on a computer display. That is
    > the display generated fonts and graphics where there is no compromise
    such
    > as mpeg the video before you get it. Of course virtually all HD, DVD
    > sources are mpeg
    >
    > Richard R.
    >
    > "Eddie G" <mickeddie@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:6799ea2c.0407201433.2c37c84a@posting.google.com...
    > > I read the thread here on "Is DVI much better than Component" and have
    > > one question. Upon reading the reviews for the HDTV I bought people
    > > said that the picture is great with component video, and after
    > > connecting the DVI the picture was "AMAZING". From what I read in the
    > > thread, one person said there he "doubts there is any visible
    > > difference" and I read other comments about the d/a conversions not
    > > making the DVI worth it unless it is a pure digital signal. So my
    > > question is this: why did those reviewers notice such a difference?
    > > The tv is a sony 34" widescreen tube tv.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > Eddie G
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:fWDPc.2013048$ef4.234533@news.easynews.com...
    > Not to pound your posts, but you're wrong repeatedly about this. I can
    > watch the same DVD through the two setups and tell the difference in a (no
    > pun intended) blind test.

    Richard is partially right in a theoretical sense. Where he makes his
    mistake is to assume that the processing in the source and the display are
    equivalent. This may or may not be the case, so it is necessary to try it.

    That said, the actual differences are often not so much in quality as
    quantity, so to speak. Many times the level differences are very
    noticeable, where ability to resolve detail is essentially the same.

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

    Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:fWDPc.2013048$ef4.234533@news.easynews.com...
    >
    >>Not to pound your posts, but you're wrong repeatedly about this. I can
    >>watch the same DVD through the two setups and tell the difference in a (no
    >>pun intended) blind test.
    >
    >
    > Richard is partially right in a theoretical sense. Where he makes his
    > mistake is to assume that the processing in the source and the display are
    > equivalent. This may or may not be the case, so it is necessary to try it.
    >
    > That said, the actual differences are often not so much in quality as
    > quantity, so to speak. Many times the level differences are very
    > noticeable, where ability to resolve detail is essentially the same.

    As anyone who has sold speakers can tell you, louder is better. That's
    just the way humans work.

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

    "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
    news:10h0b88mbnfasd1@corp.supernews.com...
    > Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > > "Cody k" <codykg@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:fWDPc.2013048$ef4.234533@news.easynews.com...
    > >
    > >>Not to pound your posts, but you're wrong repeatedly about this. I can
    > >>watch the same DVD through the two setups and tell the difference in a
    (no
    > >>pun intended) blind test.
    > >
    > >
    > > Richard is partially right in a theoretical sense. Where he makes his
    > > mistake is to assume that the processing in the source and the display
    are
    > > equivalent. This may or may not be the case, so it is necessary to try
    it.
    > >
    > > That said, the actual differences are often not so much in quality as
    > > quantity, so to speak. Many times the level differences are very
    > > noticeable, where ability to resolve detail is essentially the same.
    >
    > As anyone who has sold speakers can tell you, louder is better. That's
    > just the way humans work.
    >
    > Matthew

    So you own a pair of KlipschHorns? Best speaker ever made, right?

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

    Leonard Caillouet wrote:

    >
    >
    > So you own a pair of KlipschHorns? Best speaker ever made, right?

    Nah. I'm perfectly happy with my old JBL speaker:-)

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

    I recently bought the Sony 50" LCD for $3124 (plus a $300 rebate) and
    I see it in the Circuit City ad this weekend for $2999 with no rebate.
    I look at my main receipt and see nothing relating to the rebate, so
    I figure I would take a shot. Next thing I know, I have another $140
    in my pocket from Circuit City's 110% price match guarantee (I guess
    they don't look at rebates or the employee made a mistake). So I pick
    up the Monster DVI cable for $90 (I got 10% off because I bought 3
    monster cables when I picked up the Onkyo last week and the salesman
    added this one to that purchase to get the deal).

    My immediate reaction was that the difference on my TV was very
    slight. It seems like the DVI is "more real" or sharper. But it is
    tough to notice without watching the DVI for a long time, then
    switching back to the component. If you try to just go back and forth
    you won't notice as much of a difference. But after watching the DVI
    for an hour, I accidentally hit the video button on my remote and as I
    switched back through, I saw the component video and it was brighter
    and less sharp...almost seemed blurry. But is was still a great
    picture. I may return it and order a cheaper cable on the web, but I
    think the DVI does give a MUCH better picture than the component
    video. It is just hard to notice right away.
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV TV DVI Video Components Home Theatre