| Author |
Thread: HDMI vs Component |
    
New member Username: Sackohammers
Post Number: 7
Registered: May-06
|
| Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 04:28 pm: |
|
Are HDMI connectors just a consolidation of conductors?
Lets say 2 years from now I have a 1080p television with HDMI input and Component input.
Is there an advantage to using HDMI on my HD cable box and HDMI on my DVD player over simply using Component from my cable box and Component from my DVD player?
Does it offer something that Component does not in the way of bandwidth? For example, will I find out that I can't do 1080p through component, then necessitating HDMI?
If all it's doing is consolidating wires then I'm not going to waste money on making sure my AVR purchase does HDMI switching.
Your help is greatly appreciated. So far you guys have taught me a lot and have steered me in the right direction. Keeping me from making mistakes and quickening my decision process. |
|
|
|
Silver Member Username: Kano
BC
Canada
Post Number: 958
Registered: Oct-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 03:42 am: |
|
The answer is "Who knows."
The final verdict on the future of HDMI/DVI is still out in my opinion.
There is still a question of whether HD-DVD/Blu-Ray will ONLY support true HD through HDMI. The proposal will have all component signals scaled down to 540p, not because of bandwidth, but solely for copy protection. To top this off, every device in the chain will have to not only have HDMI, but will have to be HDCP compliant, and every device in the chain may have to share the same version of HDMI (Versions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 currently exist.)
On the other hand if the next generation players support true HD through component HDMI/DVI may just die because only those with new expensive televisions are going to reap any benefit in video quality. And what percentage have audio systems that will benefit from HDMI? In most cases you must spend quite a bit on a player to see a noticable difference in the way Dolby Digital or DTS through HDMI vs. optical/coax.
HDMI receivers are still on their first few years, and IMO the price of them reflects that. If HDMI switching through the receiver proves to not be of any benefit to you, in most cases you will have wasted $$$, especially since most receivers only take two HDMI and output 1. Currently it's no more of an expense to buy an HDMI switching device that can take 4 and give 1 than it is to buy a receiver that does half that.
HDMI television? Definitely. Receiver? Who knows. |
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 8450
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 01:04 pm: |
|
Just as a note, I would be very surprised if you can buy a 1080p television in two years time. By the time that resolution is available to the "average" consumer, HDMI will, in all likelyhood, have been replaced by yet another "superior" interconenct.
|
Silver Member Username: Usa2k4
Post Number: 157
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 01:14 pm: |
|
Yep, very true!  |
New member Username: Sackohammers
Post Number: 9
Registered: May-06
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 02:26 pm: |
|
Thanks all for the help.
BTW, HP just came out with a 1080p model? Think I saw something in the latest "The Perfect Vision". |
Silver Member Username: Chitown
Post Number: 997
Registered: Apr-05
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 05:23 pm: |
|
"HDMI will, in all likelyhood, have been replaced by yet another "superior" interconenct. "
More secure if not superior; Thanks to the likes of Sony getting into multi-media movies and music and what not, they are now more interested in protecting their copyrights than to give you better technology.
|
|
