HDMI v Component (Split from "A/V Sync Question")

[tnsprin]

Didn't the 622 have issues with HDMI a while back or has that been fixed through subsequent software updates? I checked about a year ago and much preferred component as the hdmi looked washed out.

There were a limited number of cases where a software fix was necessary to make the 622 work with certain TV's HDMI connectors. Most cases were Problems with the weak and very breakable hardware connection of the HDMI.

 

[KAB]

It was supposedly fixed hardware-wise. However, my 6 week old 622 has been "flighty" lately, cutting out, coming back, cutting out, etc. Went back to component, but I have to say on my Samsung 56", the picture seems a tad softer. Might try HDMI one more time.

 

[KKlare]

My 622 worked fine with HDMI (sharper) until it stopped one day. The replacement has been working fine, too. There was a problem for some with cable weight breaking the solder connections from the board.
-Ken

 

[8bitbytes]

Here are a few things to consider:

HDMI - digital source to digital display, little to no changes made to signal other than up or downconversion to proper display resolution.

Component - digital source converted to analog signal and sent to display. Display converts analog signal back to digital and renders it based on resolution setting.

Component by default introduces two places where aberrations, artifact, and errors can be created. The key is in the chipset in the signal source equipment creating the analog signal and the chipset used in the display to recreate a digital signal.

Component can LOOK very good BUT most commonly takes on a softer appearance than HDMI. Some folks like this smoother appearance. Panasonic home theater projectors use smoothing to minimize a common digital aberration called Screen Door Effect (SDE).

So which is better? Technically, or on your set? Try both and see what you like, then ignore the rest!

 

[kstuart]

Component by default introduces two places where aberrations, artifact, and errors can be created.

Actually, if you read the article linked above, it says that these days, the A/D conversion is no more or less subject to errors than other parts of the process, including the HDMI system. And, since HDMI has no error correction whatsoever, the analog component cable is less likely to introduce errors than the HDMI cable (see the link for specifics).

Generally, I am finding that differences in PQ in the signal that DISH receives from the channels, is way more than differences between the DVR and the TV screen.

 

[8bitbytes]

Generally, I am finding that differences in PQ in the signal that DISH receives from the channels, is way more than differences between the DVR and the TV screen.

I'll agree with you there, the signal is definitely the most important part of this question.



However, the author of the article you point to is rather ambiguous in his comments along the lines of, "you amateurs can argue all you want but take it from me, its more complex than you can understand so I'll tell you what to think."

No thanks, I deal with "experts" everyday and they tend to be wrong just as often as the layperson and sometimes more because they have an agenda.

I've tried both types of cabling in my environment and HDMI wins hands down every time. BUT, I still use both, depending on the source I have to send from.

Don't be surprised if both look pretty much the same, but if you don't test both you won't know for sure! Your display size could hide the differences as well. I use an HD projector so 90" could show a difference that maybe a 42" LCd might not.