# Component vs. Composite -- wow!



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Even though my DVD Player is not Progressive scan (so I've been told, it simply takes the 480i images and upconverts it to 480p), and my TV set is a 20" 480i CRT, the image quality is simply amazing with component. I went to Radio Shack (errr the Source CC) and wanted to buy component cables since both my TV set and DVD player had them... I wanted the salesperson to give his opinion whether it would make a difference since my TV set was only 480i (I didn't find out my DVD player was not progressive scan until I did some research just a few minutes ago), I was still skeptical but wanted to try it out anyway. I would say that the images look extremely crisp, and the colours just seem to be slightly better reproduced. Overall for $30 for a 3' component cable, I thought it would be money wasted and I would return it if I wasn't satisfied, I'm glad to say I'm very satisfied. Now if only they would get component out into Apple computers.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

And my TV set is a Prima TV set that I bought last year at Future Shop for $117 or something when i needed a really really cheap TV and was pretty impressed by the quality for such a cheapie TV. It's been nothing but a great TV set so far, and I still like CRT way better than the other technologies although Sony's Bravia line is almost up to the same colour reproduction as CRT, but my next television set may be a Samsung Slimfit (or whatever it's called) line or just a Toshiba 540p 30" television set. (Panasonic's 34" is rated at 720p but it is pricey at $1700)


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Yup. Composite video is 40 year old technology, shoving all the information down one tiny wire. Component is the way to go for any analog video, if you has the gozintas and gozoutas.

BUT: Don't be sucked into paying $$$ for the overpriced Monster Cable or any of that elite $#!^. IMHO, of course.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Now that I can clearly see that component is way better than composite, could DVI be better than VGA? any takers?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I noticed a big difference too when I went to component video over composite. I didn't really see a big difference between component and s-video though.


----------



## Bosco (Apr 29, 2004)

There's a visible improvement with s-video over composite. If I had composite inputs on my TV, I'd go that route.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Well with component over composite I find that there is less over-saturation of colour particularly red, which then leads to a much more accurate reproduction of skin colours. Also what results is that blues and greens are less overcome by a reddish tint so overall colour reproduction is really awesome. What I also noticed that seemed to be tied in to the over-saturation was that the image in general seemed a lot more sharp, which leads me to the fact that over-saturated colours in composite video signals result in colours bleeding into surround pixels. The cables I got were Nexxtech brand from the Source CC. I may actually have to exchange it become the wires in one of the three lines seem loose, but they're pretty good cables. I do agree that Monster cables are overkill but people still need a decent wire gauge and insulation for their cables. I'm currently driving two of my surround speakers using extremely thin I'm guessing 26 gauge speaker cables (that I got for $1 at the dollar store haha) and one speaker with 14 gauge speaker cables and the difference is astounding, I gotta get my other two speakers up to 14 gauge but I'm pretty much upgrading cabling in steps. This month is component video cables, next month will be a digital coaxial audio cable, then save up for five months and finally get a Divx capable DVD recorder.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Composite (1-cable) has it all jammed in together, S-Video separates it into 2 signal streams and Component separates into 3 so they don't interfere with one another. Component (x3) is pretty close to broadcast quality; probably close enough if you're not in production.

The S-Video and Component are closer to each other, but you can tell them apart. Both are quite obviously better than Composite, however.

For composite (or component) cable, buy "75 ohm" cable. Since it's not particularly easy to make cable at exactly 75 ohms, all cable assemblies will have an "impedance tolerance" (eg +/- 1.5 ohms). Pro cables will tell you what that spec is; cheaper cables won't because either they don't have the QC to stay consistent, or they don't want you to know it's +/- 20 ohms. Although it's not particularly hard to come close with reasonably priced cable, you can't make a true 75 ohm connector without spending some money on materials and construction, and that's usually the weak link with inexpensive cables.

Mismatching the impedance will result in echos of the signal traveling along the cable; with video that usually can be seen as blurriness or softness, and perhaps lower contrast (not-quite-so-black blacks, etc).

The shield will determine how resistant the cable is to interference; a double shield (eg: one braided copper and one foil) are best for maximum resistance.

In general, thicker dielectric (the "insulation" between conductors) resulting in more separation between the centre and the outer shield, better materials for the dielectric (teflon, foamed PE, etc) and more copper (fatter centre conductor) result in better impedance consistency.

The short answer: if you have a choice, a thicker, stiffer cable is more likely to have these features than a thin, limp video cable would; and see if they mention double shielding on the package somewhere. And although Monster cables are not universally bad, they are universally overpriced to an obscene degree. ** Assuming you stay away from the really cheap stuff, any decent cable at the same price as an equivalent Monster is probably twice as good, if not more.

For broadcast, they go further and use 5 cables to transmit all the necessary data without interference with each other, and usually different connectors and cable, with a different impedance (better for long cable runs).

The component method uses some trickery to transmit the same information as the 5 cable pro setup, using only the 3 cables. Instead of Red/ Green/ Blue/ Horizontal Sinc & Vertical Sinc, they send what is called Y, Pb and Pr.

Y is substituted for Green; it carries Luminance (brightness) and both Horizontal and Vertical sync pulses (where to draw the screen).

Pr is substituted for Red, instead carrying Red minus the Luminance signal.

Pb is substituted for Blue, carrying Blue minus the Luminance signal.

When all 3 are transmitted together you can compare them and figure out what the Red, Green and Blue values are supposed to be. It is also very resistant to interference since two of the cables carry a single signal while the Y cable carries signals that are easily added together without interfering with each other.

** I just bought a hifi product that doesn't come with the AC cord. The dealer threw in a Monster AC cord with the deal. Although I can buy cords with identical materials and construction at an electronics supply house for about $ 1.25, the Monster product had a $US 13.99 price tag on it, and it's only an 18 gauge IEC power cord. The package had so much meaningless drivel on it, I kept it as a reminder of how much bull you can write about a product whose materials and construction is, after all, regulated by law and pretty much has to be identical to everyone else's.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

dona83 said:


> Now that I can clearly see that component is way better than composite, could DVI be better than VGA? any takers?


Theoretically DVI is always better than VGA - simply because the DVI signal path between the computer and an LCD monitor is all digital whereas with VGA, the digital video signal in the computer gets converted to analogue (VGA) and then the LCD monitor, which is really a digital device, converts VGA at its input back to digital to drive the LCD panel.
However, how much better DVI is than VGA depends on the input circuitry of the LCD monitor. I bought a 17-inch NEC monitor to go with my Mini and the difference between VGA and DVI is actually quiet small. DVI is crisper, colours are a bit better, but if you didnt compare the two side-by-side, either display would have been just fine.
But I have seen other LCD monitors where the difference is quite noticable.
The downside with DVI seems to be the interface standard that doesnèt always let the computer and LCD monitor work together. Good example of that is the Mac mini, it works gread with some DVI monitors and doesnt work at all with others.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gordguide said:


> The short answer: if you have a choice, a thicker, stiffer cable is more likely to have these features than a thin, limp video cable would; and see if they mention double shielding on the package somewhere. And although Monster cables are not universally bad, they are universally overpriced to an obscene degree. ** Assuming you stay away from the really cheap stuff, any decent cable at the same price as an equivalent Monster is probably twice as good, if not more.
> 
> ** I just bought a hifi product that doesn't come with the AC cord. The dealer threw in a Monster AC cord with the deal. Although I can buy cords with identical materials and construction at an electronics supply house for about $ 1.25, the Monster product had a $US 13.99 price tag on it, and it's only an 18 gauge IEC power cord. The package had so much meaningless drivel on it, I kept it as a reminder of how much bull you can write about a product whose materials and construction is, after all, regulated by law and pretty much has to be identical to everyone else's.


The bottom line is that all cabling in your signal path will affect the outcome. This is as true for images as for sound. To which degree, will depend on your sources and component matching. Yes there is "alchemy" is some claims and they should be scorned. But sometimes something as changing speaker wire in a system can make the world of difference. Length of cable, doppler effect, impedance. material, matching can all change sound/images in a system.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

I use component cables. I am constantly blown away by the picture quality when I put on a dvd. I don't have the greatest tv (Toshiba pure flat), and I don't have a progressive scan player, but I am still amazed by the picture quality. Sometimes I just throw in a specific dvd/scene just to be blown away by the picture. I can't imagine what Blue Ray will look like. I did notice a decrease in picture quality when I switched dvd players. I had a cheapo Koss player and switched to a Phillips 727 (for region/Pal hackability), and I did notice less colour clarity/intensity in the Phillips player. I picked the 'middle' quality component cables. The Monster cables were worth more than my player.

As for DVi (with my mini), I did notice a clarity and 'crispness' difference, albeit subtle. Without a barometer or side by side to compare, I can't say there is a obvious difference I appreciate daily. One thing I do consider is the lack of ability to fine tune with DVI- all of the picture options you get with VGA are mute. I would have to switch back and forth between DVI and VGA to remind me of the difference. It's possible the price/headache of finding a DVI cable 'enhanced' my vision, but I can live with that. Cost and effort alone convince me DVI is superior ; )


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

That there is a performance difference between differing cables is a given. The simplest proof is that every electronic device does it's job based on the very same things that vary between cables; the physical construction, shape and materials determine what happens when electricity is applied.

Perhaps what is most remarkable is how well cables work even when they are wholly unsuited to the job. One could use a damp cotton string and be able to measure a current at one end if you apply a sufficient current to the other.

What is not so obvious is what individuals are willing to demand, what they are willing to ignore, what they are indifferent to, and what they will settle for. Some people use equipment that resolves differences that other equipment simply cannot resolve. Chances are, the latter is fairly indifferent to the cable used, while the better gear ruthlessly reveals any inadequacies.

Let's see what a Monster cable is all about (from the packaging I have in front of me):
"Monster quality AC power cable provides improved flexibility and power delivery over standard power cables."

Say, what? What does "Monster quality" mean? It means that it's a product by Monster Cable, that's what. Nothing more.

What's a "standard power cable". Well, lamp cord is a standard power cable. So is TEK cable. So is the stuff carrying power from Bruce Nuclear to your home. It's meaningless; Monster power cable is certainly more flexible than the high tension wire coming from your local Electric Generating Plant, which is a "standard power cable". Again, words that equal nothing at all.

What does "flexible" mean? That you can use it on a number of devices, since it's an IEC cable and not wired to my lamp or radio? Or it's easy to bend? Monster leaves that to us to decide for ourselves, and that's no accident.

Every line is like that; the package is covered on two sides with what advertising people call "weasel words"; they can mean whatever you want. More importantly, though, is they are words the consumer can interpret to mean certain things without the product literature actually saying those things are true.

Flexible? I'm flexible, the weather is flexible, even a skyscraper is flexible. Meaningless.

"Stranded copper conductors provide superior power delivery." Well, certainly superior to stranded concrete. Superior to what? They don't say, and it's not an accident they don't, either.

"Ultra-flexible Duraflex(r) jacket resists abrasion and chemicals." Yeah, so does PolyVinylChloride, which is what every other inexpensive IEC Power cable uses for a jacket. Wait a minute, could "Duraflex(r)" be PVC? Why, yes, it could! And guess what? It is just that. It's used because it's adequate, is an approved material by the usual regulating bodies, and it's very inexpensive.

Is PVC "ultra-flexible"? Of course, since "ultra-flexible" means absolutely nothing. Words like that, and "superior" and "standard" only mean something when compared or contrasted to something else, and Monster takes special care never to do that.

"Safety ground prevents electric shock". Sure does. The CSA won't approve your cable if it isn't there, but Monster would have us believe their cables are somehow special that way. They're not; it's a minimum requirement of a 3-conductor IEC cable.

"Standard power cables don't withstand the test of time under harsh conditions". Got that right. Burn the building down, and those crappy "standard" power cables burn right with it. But, they're careful not to print that a Monster Cable won't be just as vulnerable to "harsh conditions", whatever they are.

"Until now, shopping for a high quality, replacement power cable could be as difficult as shopping for your first computer."
Wow. That's one wild statement, there. But, naturally, it's all true. "Until now"? Well, the only way you can read that is on the package, so yes, right now, you have the power cable in your hand at the store; your shopping is done. "Could be as difficult"? You betcha. Could be easier too, but I got to give them one here, since making your way through this wall of bull certainly isn't much different that the bull you might encounter as a rookie in a computer store.

It goes on. And on. And on. There's paragraph after paragraph, all just like those quoted above.

But nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does it give us any information whatsoever that specifically describes the product you're buying without resorting to meaningless, unexplained trademarks that simply obscure the fact that it's made of the very same materials and with the very same construction as every other CSA-approved 18 Gauge IEC-15A power cable. Exactly.

Now, there's nothing wrong with this cable. If you want to pay close to $C 20 for it, go right ahead. But, you can buy the same thing for a couple of bucks.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Let me get this straight -
Are you suggesting that the monster AC power cord is not vastly superior to your ordinary AC line cord?   

If I remember right Consumer Reports did a test and review on the Monster Audio cables quite a while back. For audio cables, there could have been a difference compared to other good quality audio cables - but there wasn't.

For speaker cables you want the largest gauge (smallest AWG number) practical to minimize their effect on the damping factor of the amplifier.


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

Yeah, I stay away from Monster. A friend of mine bought Monster's THX-approved line of audio cables for his new home theatre. Except no other component in it was THX-approved. I don't even want to think about how much that cable cost. 

But yeah, in a pinch, anything will work. Back when I used to work at the cafe, we had to plasma tvs going, but the sound system was rigged so the speakers were just connected to the DVD player, so no sound if they were playing TV. During the Euro Cup however, we needed sound, so I hooked up a crappy speaker to the TV using a telephone cable. Crappy sound, oh yes, but it works  .


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> Let me get this straight -
> Are you suggesting that the monster AC power cord is not vastly superior to your ordinary AC line cord?


Apart from the marketing babble speak, it does not mean that Monster is not better than ordinary AC cord which often acts as an antenna to digital noise...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Apart from the marketing babble speak, it does not mean that Monster is not better than ordinary AC cord which often acts as an antenna to digital noise...


Ah.........
Now is that a receiving antenna or a transmitting antenna?
gg didn't mention that "Monster cable advantage' in his long list above.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

lol ok Monster Cables are overpriced but the Nexxtech components I got were $29.99 for the 3', then $34.99 for the 6' and $39.99 for the 12'. They're as thick as Monster but they don't claim to be superior, just that it has "Insulated lines" and "Gold plated connectors". Now did I overpay for my cables? 4' component Monster cables start at $44.99 I believe.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

What type of cables are you talking about?

The cable should be designed for a specific application - a low frequency power cable would have to meet totally different criteria than say a DVI cable which again is different fom a speaker cable.

I find that cable prices are all over the map. Take a USB cable for instance, I have seen them range from $1.00 at the Dollarstore to over $30


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

This thread is mostly about component video cables. :O and somehow became a debate about Monster vs. regular cables.


----------

