[kelly]

Howie

I gave you rather specific examples of when the "lesser" cable is the worse choice between specific components. I could demonstrate this in person, so I don't think I'd be all that hard pressed to find examples. I own examples.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

Howie,

Read the article I posted a link to in my post above. It clearly explains the differences and shows pictures of examples.

 

[Howie]

Now I'm confused. Does the article say Component is better than S-Video?

Kelly. Examples of when the "lesser" cable is the worse choice? You mean component is the worser choice than S-Video?

Are we agreeing here that component is generally better than S-Video though? Cause that's my main point.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Howie Are we agreeing here that component is generally better than S-Video though? Cause that's my main point.

Yes, generalizations are generally true - just not often enough that you should make an assumption without doing the research.

 

[Howie]

In all respect I find that last comment a bit offensive. Lets make an analogy here...

Is SACD better than regular redbook? Yes as a format and in general I don't think anyone one would be afraid to make this comment. Now you can counter by saying "It is not always the case. I have a much better redbook player than an SACD player and I can find a redbook cd that sounds better than an SACD" but that's more like the exception than the rule. Kelly, your examples gave an exception rather than the rule and I agree with you that exceptions can indeed happen.

But they are exceptions nonetheless. Someone is seeking advice here. We've already told them that component is in ALL instances better than S-Video but in MOST INSTANCES it is! That's the answer they seek. I don't know why this answer troubles you so much.

Almost everything here on headfi is subjective but there are some consensus. If someone said "the HD600 are better than Koss KTX - 4s. Would you tell them they shouldn't assume that because you have played both the KTX-4 and the HD600 through your cassette walkman and found the KTX-4 to sound better?

Get my lengthy drift here? Just like it's not common for audiophiles to prefer their KTX-4 in sound to the HD600 it's not common for videophiles to prefer S-Video over Component. Rather than researching the technicalities of component vs s-video perhaps time would be better spent researching better equipment that doesn't have poor component output.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

Quote:

Now I'm confused. Does the article say Component is better than S-Video?

Obviously. Did you read it? Look at the examples?

It is impossible for S-video to look as good as component on the same display with the same source.

In order from worst to first here it goes:
RF
Composite
S-Video
Component and RGB (tie)
DVI and Firewire (tie and new technology)

Those are the hard facts. If you don’t believe me, call an ISF ( Imagining Science Foundation) technician.

[edit] Of course, I'm assuming you know enough to not use **** cables for either.

Besides, if you own an HDTV, you must use component or better to pass a progressive signal from progressive scan DVD player or a HDTV signal from a D-VHS deck or HD set-top box.

 

[kelly]

I've long given up trying not to offend people and particularly in regard to technical discussion. In my view, the easily offended deserve their lot in life.

You just gave another example of a generalization (SACD vs CD) then explained an exception, then at the same time pretended it was invalid. You seem confused. Yes, for a variety of reasons, some SACDs may sound better than other CDs. And, in fact, many people have argued technically that the SACD format itself has inherit flaws that are not present in redbook. This could be debated much further, but not by me, for I lack the interest. If you'd really care to make bold assumptions like "SACD is better than CD (period)", do so in the sources and formats forum and I'm sure the trolls will come out from under the bridge to get your goat.

Now, back to video cables. Your last comment:
Quote:

Get my lengthy drift here? Just like it's not common for audiophiles to prefer their KTX-4 in sound to the HD600 it's not common for videophiles to prefer S-Video over Component. Rather than researching the technicalities of component vs s-video perhaps time would be better spent researching better equipment that doesn't have poor component output.

This illustrates rather plainly that you didn't understand (or perhaps didn't even read) my explanation. You could very well have a DVD player with an *awesome* deinterlacer and a component output that rivals the best of DVD players and still have a TV or projector that has an even better one. In this case, s-video still beats component. It would be stupid and naive to assume that because one piece of your gear is very good that you should not consider the other pieces. The inherit advantage ("all else being equal") of locating the deinterlacer in the player rather than in the projector is that it can be done there in the digital domain and thus has more potential.

Another point of contention is that you should consider what your gear is actually capable of doing. My projector, for instance, accepts component video only for deinterlaced ("progressive scan"). This means that if you have a DVD player that doesn't have progressive scan, even though it has component output, that the component cables not only won't look better than s-video, they won't work at all. By contrast, of course, s-video on my projector is always an interlaced input so if you had a DVD player with progressive output AND the deinterlacer in the DVD player is of higher quality than the (very good) deinterlacer built into the projector, then you would HAVE to use component in order to see this advantage.

Again, the same example can be made for composite vs. s-video with regard to three-comb filters with lesser video signals such as broadcast television, etc.

Also, the format of the media must be considered. Laserdisc is stored as composite video. Therefore breaking it out into s-video prior to sending it across is not inheritly better. Again, it depends on both the laserdisc player and the TV.

Reread this until you understand it, or just stop talking about it. Your post offends me too, but likely for a different reason.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sol_Zhen DVI and Firewire (tie and new technology)

This is what I'd like to see more of.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

The subject of this thread is in regards to the absolute capability of the cable standards technology.

I know LD is composite material on a LD. I know there are variances of quality with line-doublers and comb filters. You’re rallying around the quirks of individual pieces of equipment and how they interact with various types of source media. It’s a design quirk that your projector cannot accept interlaced component inputs. If it did, then you could use the de-interlacer in your projector with component inputs. Which would look better than using the s-video input because video information on the DVD player is stored in the component format and then your de-interlacer would have a better source signal to work with.

My point is that in absolute terms, component is always better than s-video and s-video is always better than composite. It’s inherent in the standards involved.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sol_Zhen My point is that in absolute terms, component is always better than s-video and s-video is always better than composite. It’s inherent in the standards involved. Are you offended again?

No, I just disagree.

I'm funny like that, I can disagree without actually being offended. It's mostly semantics at this point. At least you understood where I'm coming from. In a perfect world, yeah, I think we'd connect everything via DVI or firewire, audio and video, and every component would have the ability to run in every mode to utilize the best parts for the job.

 

[Howie]

Quote:

It is impossible for S-video to look as good as component on the same display with the same source.

Sol. I was confused cause I was the one arguing component is better than S-Video while Kelly was arguing for that not being the case (at last part of the time) so I didn't know why you would want me to read the article that confirms what I was saying.

Kelly you're really not getting my point I don't think. Sol has it right. Since you don't care much for analogies I'll go back to your dvd/tv deinterlacer example. As I've explained I think you're confused. If the TV does have a better de-interlacer than the DVD player... you're imagining that by virtue of using S-Video you're automatically using the TV's de-interlacer rather than the DVD this is true but you're not taking in the fact that you can use component cables and send and run in interlace mode and still be using the TV's de-interlacer. What Sol and I are getting at is that component cable carries a better signal than the S-Video and so if you can use component you should.

 

[kelly]

No, in the example I gave, I specifically stated that the projector only used the projector's deinterlacer in the s-video input and only doesn't in the component input.

 

[Dwagun]

I dont mean to get in the middle of this but I'd like to summarize what we have learned up to this point and you guys can then continue.

1. Component video cables = 3 composite video cables (with RCA terminations) - each cable carries a separate signal

2. Each composite video cable (or each video cable in a component set) is "usually" specced for 75 Ohms

3. Because each signal is in its own cable - component is generally considered to be better than S-video which is better than composite and is infinite better than RF coaxial. Any digital connection is "better" than any of the above mentioned analog connections

Now - there are some specific instances where using S-video or even composite is better than using component such as:

a) when you dont have component or S-video on the display device...

b) when you want to bypass certain features such as the de-interlacer on the DVD player and use the one on the TV/projector if you cannot otherwise force the display device to deinterlace with the "better" connection method...

c) you have run out of the better connection method - i.e. some displays only have one component input and say 2 S-video - unless you get an outboard switcher then obviously you cant all use component video

4. Video cables do not necessarily make good digital coaxial cables and vice versa - but they might...

Hope this little thread summary doesnt offend anyone

 

[Sol_Zhen]

I can tell you one thing for certain. When I get around to investing in a projector, I'm buying an external scaler to scale all my sources to the native rate of the projector. Preferably a scaler with a Faroudja chipset.

 

[Howie]

Kelly so you're saying your projector REQUIRES you to have a progressive DVD player in order to be connected via component?
That's weird. What projector is it? Now this situation is a rare occurence isn't it?

Most projectors don't have a better deinterlacer than a DVD player that's why it is rare that you will find videophiles feeding their projector an interlace signal rather than a progressive signal. I have no knowledge of projectors that uses the projector's de-interlacer in S-Video mode only. Nevertheless it is an important fault of the projector and would be a cause for avoidance in the first place. But then here we are piling on other variables that doesn't disprove the fact that component is the more ideal connection to S-Video.