Just for the record Digital does not always equal better... Many recording artists are going back to recording their masters onto tape before editing in a digital environment because of the superior tone they get from the analog tape. Digital tends to have a less listenable tone to the trained ear, and the untrained ear reacts in ways you might not think of (shorter listening times because the digital versions have more artifacts that are unpleasant to the ear)
No, they like the colorations better. Please define "trained ear" too. Hmmm, I'm a trained musician, with many years experience as an audiophile.
I don't find digital to be any less "listenable" than analog alternatives.
I'm not really a video guy, so I can't speak to the specifics of what that translates to in the eyes, but the broad statement that HDMI is better because it is digital doesn't carry weight with me.
Okay, so let's take the path to your TV.
For a digital display, here's the component video path:
Decode in Sat Receiver --> D/A conversion for component transmission -->
A/D Conversion for processing in display --> Processing in Display --> Display of picture
For an analog display (think CRT or an older LCD rear projection set):
Decode in Sat Receiver --> D/A conversion for component transmission -->
A/D Conversion for processing in display --> Processing in Display --> D/A conversion --> Display of picture
For a digital display with HDMI:
Decode in Sat Receiver --> Processing in Display --> Display of picture.
For an analog display with HDMI:
Decode in Sat Receiver --> Processing in Display --> D/A conversion --> Display of picture.
Yeah, they're roughly the same, aren't they?
Sure, digital makes our lives better in plenty of ways but sometimes there is no comparison to a good old fashioned analog signal.
