Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

dvi vs component video

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 20, 2004 7:33:28 PM

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

More about : dvi component video

July 21, 2004 2:38:09 AM

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.
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 4:49:08 AM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 12:21:17 PM

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
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 1:02:25 PM

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
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 3:23:12 PM

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.
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 8:24:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 8:31:03 PM

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.
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 12:22:13 PM

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
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 9:55:48 AM

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
>
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 2:58:09 PM

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
Anonymous
July 23, 2004 8:01:34 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 7:48:27 AM

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
>
>
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 11:38:38 AM

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
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 12:25:46 AM

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
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 12:35:41 AM

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
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 10:43:51 PM

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
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 10:01:45 AM

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.
!