[mythtv-users] HDMI or DVI

[Michael T. Dean]

On 09/12/2007 12:39 PM, Eric Robinson wrote:
>> 3.  Which 'cheap' cables i was going to get a DVI cable from
>> Monoprice.com <http://Monoprice.com>  for ~$50.  The hdmi cable is
>> $80.  If its the same why pay more?
>
> - Hide quoted text -

?

> 1) HDMI is newer.

True.  Newer = better in the minds of the huddled masses; therefore,
companies can charge more (even for inferior products).

> 2) HDMI is built to carry Video, Audio, or both.

Which means that HDMI needs additional cables (and appropriate
shielding).  Often, because of this requirement, the cable manufacturer
chooses to use smaller-gauge cables so the cable is still just as
pliable as a DVI cable.  Smaller gauge typically means more problems
with the signal transfer, so depending on the cable you get, it's
possible that a DVI cable could actually be better than an HDMI cable. 
However, there are also small-gauge DVI cables...


> 3) My understanding is that HDCP protection,
> while doable over DVI, is more widely available on HDMI connections.


4) HDMI spec allows for 8-channel uncompressed PCM audio.  HDMI and
DisplayPort are the only digital audio connections that I've ever seen
that allow for more than 2-channel uncompressed PCM audio.  Once i can
find a sound card/video card that will allow this, I'll be going to
DisplayPort (at least for the audio portion).

5) DisplayPort isn't generally available, so they need to run up the
HDMI cable prices while they can.  :)


> As you're coming from a PC, I would guess that the digital signal
> would be preferable to the analog one.  You'll have to test to be
> certain, though.

Most would guess the same, but ...

I have to admit that the link that Eric Robinson posted to the Tom's
Hardware article ( resolves to
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2007/09/11/hdmi_vs_component/ ) looked like
(at a glance) a pretty good article (something I haven't seen for years
from that site) that actually seemed to get things right.

Mike "didn't realize I was this cynical" Dean