here is what i know..
if the transport method itself is trimming quality.. then the most expensive digital to analog convertor isnt going bring the quality back without the help of some type of 'up-scaling' to re-grow whatever was trimmed short.
but
this leads to some things being brought back to original, and other things being exaggerated.
(lack of teamwork proves to add the exaggeration above, as well as any trimmed quality missed/ignored)
the HDMI output is digital, and that should mean there is no digital to analog conversion done by the cable box.
and that means the quality would be totally dependant of the television itself.
when you use an analog connection, does the television have to convert the signal to digital before it can be processed by the video processor to be sent to the screen?
that is one question, and since most televisions like to do some 'enhancements' .. the answer is usually yes.
could a cable box digital to analog convertor be worse than the convertor in the television?
it is not impossible.
people use HDMI and have been happy with it.. but consumers dont really know if HDMI is trimming some of the quality down.
there might be a rare few that have done the comparison themselves and noticed a difference.
but it might have been the cable
might have been the television's HDMI input being junk (and not the display itself)
maybe it was the device that was outputting the HDMI
none of them are impossible.
and what about all of the hard work that was done to get the three rca cord connection working and running perfect?
does all that design go to waste now?
if the YPbPr connection is really that bad.. then get rid of it completely, dont offer it on televisions or receivers anymore ever.
but i know i will certainly miss the rca connections, i dont know about any of you.. but i think the rca connection is really cute and would be sad to see it go.
it dates back to the 1980's when i was a child looking at the vcr.
all of the extension features for the vcr (or the television for that matter) connected with an rca cord.
so if YPbPr connection is not perfect.. but it is better than HDMI, are you going to keep it until HDMI is just as good as YPbPr connections?
or
do you scrap the YPbPr connections to save money on one less input/output 'port' that costs additional money to build the electronics hardware?
(and if you dump the YPbPr connection.. will those savings bring us higher quality pieces inside that really matter? )
i havent compared the two since the release of HDMI .. so dont get me started on whether the YPbPr connection is really better or not.
i dont want to participate in the conversation if you do decide to say something about it.
but anyways..
i think it is a whole lot easier to split a YPbPr connection than it is to split an HDMI connection.
since HDMI is digital.. you have to allow each television to make the 'data handshake'
and if one television is slower with the handshake than the other.. it might mean one television is showing video faster than the other.. but that would require a buffer inside the HDMI splitter.
and
if one television decodes the HDMI signal faster than the other, one of the televisions will be early (and the other one will be late)
not a really really big deal if both televisions are in seperate rooms.
but if the audio is coming from the same amplifier, then you cant adjust the audio to video synchronization for one and expect it to work with the other one.
the YPbPr connection would resolve all of those issues.
sure, maybe the extra connection weakens the signal and you need to boost those signals to keep the video clarity and colors.. but that seems to be less than messing around with data packets.
if electrical design isnt your highest strong point, maybe it takes more time to design the little amp to boost the signals.. but once you are done, it should all be well worth it.
but, that is for the designers of the hardware splitter.
for the person buying the splitter.. consider what i said about what it takes to make them work.
Facebook
Twitter