HDMI interconnects: what are the advantages & disadvantages vs. component video vs. composite video?

Question

HDMI are the newest entry into the arena of high-end A/V equipment. They look like USB-interfaces on your computers & allow for simultaneouos transmission of both audio & video signals between your A/V hardware. However, doesn't this increase the potential for cross-channel interference? How does the audio & video fidelity compare against component video + separate audio interconnection vs. composite video + separate audio interconnection?

Answer 1

Yes - cross-channel interference IS a problem. HDMI used to start to have issues with lengths about 15 ft. They discovered using slightly thicker wires with better inner insulation solved the problem. This is why you see the wire gauge listed on a lot of HDMI cables.



There are also copy protection issues that sometimes crop up and switching between 2 HDMI sources can take 20-30 seconds while the TV establishes handshake.



But it is the wave of the future and can show a reduction of artifacts as the component jacks on many TV's do ... less than perfect analog to digital conversion. HDMI is much easier for budget TV's to process because it arrives digital.

Answer 2

Personally Grant; If you had a controlled situation, one with your setup, and another with hdmi... I would bet even money that 5 out of 10 people, if all things were equal, would pick the wrong one, if asked which one had the hdmi. It is difficult to even get two identical HDs, again all things being equal, to emmulate the same picture. I went with HDMI cables this past January, on two Phillips big screens. a 42" and a 47". Went to a friends house last week who had bought the same model # at my recommendation and had component cables running. We have the same satellite company. Dish. I saw no advantage to my cables. I've found that after the 200 channel package. the HIDEF package, two receivers ( because you only get HIDEF to one television per receiver..a little fact they failed to tell me when I jumped on board) That there are in fact very few channels that actually send a 1080i my way. My Phillips jump it up to 1080p, but I am truely disappointed in my sat company. Truly. So, if you are happy with the pic.... stay with what you have. Spend the money in the freakin gas tank to get to work to pay your comcast bill. My vote is for the status quo. Let well enough alone...But, the only true way to find out is to spend the dough to see if you would be impressed. I wasn't, but since the money is over the dam on my HDMI cables...Ill let it rest. Happy CSI Miami, and Crossing Jordan to ya.

Answer 3

HDMI is much better than component/composite. HDMI carries both audio and video so it is all in one cable. And most HDMI cables are shielded so interference is not an issue. HDMI is currently the only way you can transfer a true 1080P signal and uncompressed full 7.1ch audio. I can't think of any advantages component/composite has over HDMI. Basically, if you can use HDMI, by all means use it!

Answer 4

With an high end receiver and HDMI connections, you" ll get the best video and HD sounds like DTS-HD MA or Dolby True HD. The receiver also does upconversion and upscaling your analog video to 1080p, you just need one HDMI cable output from receiver to TV. Some high end receivers support SACD multi-channel sound via HDMI.

Answer 5

At best, it avoids using the DACs and ADCs used for component, feeding a totally digital signal to the display. Audio is a bonus.

Answer 6

hdmi just rocks....there arent really any drawbacks to this.....they are higher quality and carry HD video and multi channel surround