Steffche Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 Hi all, just wanted to know what the difference is in picture quality when using good quality component leads versus using leads that come with the dvd player eg.
glenncol Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 Hi all, just wanted to know what the difference is in picture quality when using good quality component leads versus using leads that come with the dvd player eg. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Chalk and cheese usually Usually the supplied cables are sheilded by a flee's foreskin and doesnt keep out much interference
glenncol Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 But what do you see on the screen? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You will get a clearer picture and less noise
Steffche Posted October 22, 2004 Author Posted October 22, 2004 Could you define noise for me....just so I can verify what I am seeing....
ijd Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 Glenn, Tell him to wait until you get the Toppy switched over ... 'cos I'm very interested in that result too!
shiny_car Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 Could you define noise for me....just so I can verify what I am seeing.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> what equipment are you using? does it include a CRT, LCD or plasma? the higher the quality the equipment, the more 'revealing' it usually is. so the display/tv will show up more 'noise'. this can be in the form of poor colour saturation, pixels that don't integrate well (esp with moving objects (eg: sport)), and overall degradation in definition. there may be no point overcapitalising on component cables if you only have 'entry level' equipment, but as you get better quality stuff, video cables should make a difference. but not knowing what the component cables are like that came with your DVD player (although typically very cheap) it's difficult to say how much improvement you'll get with a 'better' cable. also, it may take a 'very expensive' cable to notice an improvement.
JasonBB Posted October 22, 2004 Posted October 22, 2004 There was a thread a while ago about how much you should spend on leads, in the end it was between 5 - 7.5% on system value, $10000 system = about $500 - $750 in audio & video cables.
Steffche Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 I have a Panasonic Viera (42") and the philips d1070 (I think...the new HDSTB anyway)....and a Philips DVD recorder/player...can't remember the model off the top of my head.....but suppossedly a reasonable player.
shiny_car Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 you've got some nice quality stuff from what i can gather, so no doubt there's the potential to have the benefit of good quality component cables. as with anything relating to HT, you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns as you climb the ladder in quality and expense. the point at which YOU draw the line has to be your own value judgement: do you spend $50 on component cables or $300? plenty of people report great results with 'decent' generic cables from jaycar or brands like 'connexia' (IIRC). for <$50 for 1~2m these seem to present good value. and given their relative low-expense, even worth trying to see if you are happy with them. but without 'trying' or 'comparing' the mega-$$ cables in your setup i think it's impossible to guess whether you'll 'see' an improvement let alone whether you'll think it's worthwhile. cables like 'monster' MV3CV have a great reputation but are very expensive: campsie hifi: monster cable some stores will allow you to borrow things like cables to try-before-you-buy. maybe find such a store. in general terms, people fall into 2 groups: 1. those that gain comfort in the belief that top quality cables are definitely worth it and are happy to fork out the $$, (almost) to the point where whether there's a visible/audible benefit is irrelevant; and if there's gains to be had, the expensive stuff will yield it 2. expensive cables are extremely poor value and often have no benefit whatsoever over 'decent' modest-priced cables; even if the cheaper cables are 'inferior', they perform at least to 99% the ability of mega-$$ ones so cheaper cables is a smart choice although, it's generally accepted that expensive cables bring higher build quality (eg: more flexible cables, better insulation, better terminals, etc) which can be worthwhile over the long term. and i think it's generally accepted that if you can't afford the expensive stuff, cheaper cables should indeed prove to be at least 99% as good. where do you fit into the scheme of things?
steve_i Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Hi all, just wanted to know what the difference is in picture quality when using good quality component leads versus using leads that come with the dvd player eg. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Before I give my opinion, let me say that "shiny car" has given a great response to your question. I bought a Pioneer 434 Plasma Display recently. When I bought it the dealer gave me some reasonable quality cables to connect it with, (rather than the supplied ones), while I waited for the dealer to make up some good quality cables that were part of the deal. I was told that the original cables with the 434 were OK, but the ones he lent me were much better, and the ones he was making up would be better again. Today I picked up the new cables that were custom made. They have made a significant difference to the picture quality on SDTV and HDTV. I also notice a difference from my DVD Player. The colours on HDTV and SDTV seem to be even more realistic with the new quality cables, and the picture seems to be a bit brighter with more realism to it. HDTV on this Pioneer 434 was always amazing, now it's unbelievably realistic. It sounds like you've bought good quality equipment. I think it's worthwhile investing in good quality cabling to do your investment justice. Of course, there is always "overkill" in everything, but I do believe good quality cables (component, audio etc) do make a difference. Stephen
betty boop Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I've got a maxcable scart and the jaycar response (presentation box) component leads($70). I think both are great products/great value and have got some great pictures off both on my plasma. The jaycar concorde rca leads are pretty good value for ht - not really sure you'll do much better than these with diminishing returns.
glenncol Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 you've got some nice quality stuff from what i can gather, so no doubt there's the potential to have the benefit of good quality component cables.as with anything relating to HT, you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns as you climb the ladder in quality and expense. the point at which YOU draw the line has to be your own value judgement: do you spend $50 on component cables or $300? plenty of people report great results with 'decent' generic cables from jaycar or brands like 'connexia' (IIRC). for <$50 for 1~2m these seem to present good value. and given their relative low-expense, even worth trying to see if you are happy with them. but without 'trying' or 'comparing' the mega-$$ cables in your setup i think it's impossible to guess whether you'll 'see' an improvement let alone whether you'll think it's worthwhile. cables like 'monster' MV3CV have a great reputation but are very expensive: campsie hifi: monster cable some stores will allow you to borrow things like cables to try-before-you-buy. maybe find such a store. in general terms, people fall into 2 groups: 1. those that gain comfort in the belief that top quality cables are definitely worth it and are happy to fork out the $$, (almost) to the point where whether there's a visible/audible benefit is irrelevant; and if there's gains to be had, the expensive stuff will yield it 2. expensive cables are extremely poor value and often have no benefit whatsoever over 'decent' modest-priced cables; even if the cheaper cables are 'inferior', they perform at least to 99% the ability of mega-$$ ones so cheaper cables is a smart choice although, it's generally accepted that expensive cables bring higher build quality (eg: more flexible cables, better insulation, better terminals, etc) which can be worthwhile over the long term. and i think it's generally accepted that if you can't afford the expensive stuff, cheaper cables should indeed prove to be at least 99% as good. where do you fit into the scheme of things? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry Shiny who was this question directed at?
Steffche Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 A big thankyou to all you guys for your responses and comments. I just thought I'd correct my equipment list, as I quoted some incorrect model numbers in a previous thread. Panasonic Viera 42" plasma Philips DTR 7100 HD STB Philips DVDR 75 Recorder/player I saw in Dick Smith a set of Radio Shack component leads....$29. Anyone tried these??? and are they any good??? The guy said as long as I hold on to my receipt I can returen with-in 4 days for a full refund......I'm kinda getting used to this "Returning" game...
ijd Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 I saw in Dick Smith a set of Radio Shack component leads....$29. Anyone tried these??? and are they any good??? The guy said as long as I hold on to my receipt I can returen with-in 4 days for a full refund......I'm kinda getting used to this "Returning" game... Noooooooo! DON'T BUY interconnects from DICK SMITH unless you know what quality you are looking for! Much of their stuff is available from Jaycar for a lot less - or, in other words, a $30 cable from Jaycar or HN or JB or Betta will be muuuuuuch better than a $30 Dick Smith re-badge of a Jaycar $10 job.
shiny_car Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Sorry Shiny who was this question directed at? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> anyone really, although more at Steffche as something to think about. rather than 'preach' about the monster MC3CV i have, i think it's best the 'purchaser' decides for themselves where they stand and what they believe in, to help determine their own perceived value about cables. trying not to open a huge can of worms.
Steffche Posted October 26, 2004 Author Posted October 26, 2004 Noticed something interesting the other day. I had put on Back to the future part 3 and noticed a lot of what I assume to be "noise" in the picture. It wasn't moving pixels, nor pixelation or artifacts. It was just extra information in the picture that shouldn't have been there. The sky for example looked "dirty"...like there was dust on the camera lens or something.....so I went into the Picture menu and noticed the MPEG Noise Reduction option...which was turned off. I cycled through the options for MPEG NR from weak to strong to off....and WOW! All this "noise" magically disappears. The sky is a clean blue sky...no dirt! I guess what I was wanting to know was...is this the sort of noise that might be eliminated through use of quality cables?
ijd Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Noticed something interesting the other day. I had put on Back to the future part 3 and noticed a lot of what I assume to be "noise" in the picture. It wasn't moving pixels, nor pixelation or artifacts. It was just extra information in the picture that shouldn't have been there. The sky for example looked "dirty"...like there was dust on the camera lens or something.....so I went into the Picture menu and noticed the MPEG Noise Reduction option...which was turned off. I cycled through the options for MPEG NR from weak to strong to off....and WOW! All this "noise" magically disappears. The sky is a clean blue sky...no dirt!I guess what I was wanting to know was...is this the sort of noise that might be eliminated through use of quality cables? Maybe 'yes' ... maybe 'no'. It depends on the source of the noise - that is, the quality of every link in the chain! Your MPEG NR will clean up the noise even if it is in the broadcaster's source tape! However, it will also flatten your sharpness and would be more likely to give 'clay face' types of issues. You will never get the best from your video setup unless all RF cables are quad-shielded and all video interconnects are at least of the $30 Jaycar/JB/HN/etc quality standard. Above that minimum the sky (or your wallet) is the limit - and that might only be 5-10% better PQ than the $30 solution. ... and this advice applies even if you have a 20-yr-old VHS VCR connected to a pre-ww2 tele! ____________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: These are my personal views based only on direct personal experience.
Santa1503559644 Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Noticed something interesting the other day. I had put on Back to the future part 3 and noticed a lot of what I assume to be "noise" in the picture. It wasn't moving pixels, nor pixelation or artifacts. It was just extra information in the picture that shouldn't have been there. The sky for example looked "dirty"...like there was dust on the camera lens or something.....so I went into the Picture menu and noticed the MPEG Noise Reduction option...which was turned off. I cycled through the options for MPEG NR from weak to strong to off....and WOW! All this "noise" magically disappears. The sky is a clean blue sky...no dirt!I guess what I was wanting to know was...is this the sort of noise that might be eliminated through use of quality cables? Maybe 'yes' ... maybe 'no'. It depends on the source of the noise - that is, the quality of every link in the chain! Your MPEG NR will clean up the noise even if it is in the broadcaster's source tape! However, it will also flatten your sharpness and would be more likely to give 'clay face' types of issues. You will never get the best from your video setup unless all RF cables are quad-shielded and all video interconnects are at least of the $30 Jaycar/JB/HN/etc quality standard. Above that minimum the sky (or your wallet) is the limit - and that might only be 5-10% better PQ than the $30 solution. ... and this advice applies even if you have a 20-yr-old VHS VCR connected to a pre-ww2 tele! ____________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: These are my personal views based only on direct personal experience. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cant agree 100% with the "unless all RF cables are quad-shielded" ... do you mean the cables from aerial to STB? With digital you CAN afford not to use the best here, as long as you still get perfect signal as far as the STB is concerned (aka "the benefits of digital"). Otherwise, thats right wrt the differences between cheap & expensive, as many sensible people are pointing out ... and remember - the cost:benefit function is LOGARITHMIC!
ijd Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Noticed something interesting the other day. I had put on Back to the future part 3 and noticed a lot of what I assume to be "noise" in the picture. It wasn't moving pixels, nor pixelation or artifacts. It was just extra information in the picture that shouldn't have been there. The sky for example looked "dirty"...like there was dust on the camera lens or something.....so I went into the Picture menu and noticed the MPEG Noise Reduction option...which was turned off. I cycled through the options for MPEG NR from weak to strong to off....and WOW! All this "noise" magically disappears. The sky is a clean blue sky...no dirt!I guess what I was wanting to know was...is this the sort of noise that might be eliminated through use of quality cables? Maybe 'yes' ... maybe 'no'. It depends on the source of the noise - that is, the quality of every link in the chain! Your MPEG NR will clean up the noise even if it is in the broadcaster's source tape! However, it will also flatten your sharpness and would be more likely to give 'clay face' types of issues. You will never get the best from your video setup unless all RF cables are quad-shielded and all video interconnects are at least of the $30 Jaycar/JB/HN/etc quality standard. Above that minimum the sky (or your wallet) is the limit - and that might only be 5-10% better PQ than the $30 solution. ... and this advice applies even if you have a 20-yr-old VHS VCR connected to a pre-ww2 tele! ____________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: These are my personal views based only on direct personal experience. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cant agree 100% with the "unless all RF cables are quad-shielded" ... do you mean the cables from aerial to STB? With digital you CAN afford not to use the best here, as long as you still get perfect signal as far as the STB is concerned (aka "the benefits of digital"). Otherwise, thats right wrt the differences between cheap & expensive, as many sensible people are pointing out ... and remember - the cost:benefit function is LOGARITHMIC! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Santa (and all), I'm not talking about RF signal strength here, I'm talking about the RF that is radiated from a cheapie* RF flylead that is then picked up by a cheapie* Video interconnect as noise and loss of definition. On top of this, every cheapie* Video interconnect is radiating RF energy to every adjacent cheapie* Video interconnect and cheapie* RF flylead. So I'm talking about fixing both to "get the best from your ....." * By cheapie, I mean the ones the manufacturer supplied (99.9% of them) and the ones you pick up at Coles or a weekend market for $2-8.
Santa1503559644 Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Santa (and all),I'm not talking about RF signal strength here, I'm talking about the RF that is radiated from a cheapie* RF flylead that is then picked up by a cheapie* Video interconnect as noise and loss of definition. On top of this, every cheapie* Video interconnect is radiating RF energy to every adjacent cheapie* Video interconnect and cheapie* RF flylead. So I'm talking about fixing both to "get the best from your ....." * By cheapie, I mean the ones the manufacturer supplied (99.9% of them) and the ones you pick up at Coles or a weekend market for $2-8. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Aha. I'm not sure just how much of an issue the broadcast RF signal would be on the video lines, but anyway, it wouldn't be as much of an issue if the video leads are well-shielded as we said. (And if you're using DVI, it shouldn't make any difference at all, should it). Maybe someone (George?) can give us an idea just how much the RF would affect the video (given the RF is at a different frequency range from the video signal).
Saturated Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 1. those that gain comfort in the belief that top quality cables are definitely worth it and are happy to fork out the $$, (almost) to the point where whether there's a visible/audible benefit is irrelevant; and if there's gains to be had, the expensive stuff will yield it <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm yet to see any scientific data on how a "Monster" style cable produces a better quality picture to a well shielded, well terminated no name cable. I see alot of percentages on how much better a picture will be with X$$X brand cable, but see no facts. Have you ever read any of the bullshit written on the back of cable packets? "99.97% oxygen free cables" what a crock... most metal used for cabling is already well over 95% o2 free.... Does anyone have any scientific FACT on this subject? I would have thought the high end cable manufacturers would have taken the time to get independant scientific analysis on their product. The best ones are the "directional" cables....Does anyone truly believe that line? Cheers,
shiny_car Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 I'm yet to see any scientific data on how a "Monster" style cable produces a better quality picture to a well shielded, well terminated no name cable.Does anyone have any info on this? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i think you'll be opening a big can of worms if you try and justify the 'technology' in cables like Monster ones. i'm sure there's theory and scientific data around, but whether it's 'visually or audibly significant' is another matter. i gather their 'gas-injected dielectric' cables offer some (theoretical) benefit. whether you can see or hear an improvement will also depend upon your equipment, how it's calibrated and tuned and installed, and whether you have trained ears and eyes to detect any subtle difference. ...better stop there. oh, and i gather you're from the school-of-thought that 'cheap doesn't necessarily mean crap'.
Saturated Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 hey shiny... the last thing I want is trouble (my hand in the air). I have no drama paying for quality (or my version on it). I just don't have a history of buying crystals or snake oil for healing, Peter Brocks "black box" on the mid 80's commodores, etc... without reading about it, seeing the specs or hard facts, basically. Being the nerdy engineer I am, I stick to the old chestnut " some people say the glass is half full, others say half empty. An Engineer will say the glass has been designed twice as big as it needs to be." Placibo comes to mnd. Hey, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their enjoyment in the fact they have paid for expensive cables if it feels good. All the power too them. I would just like to know .. The truth IS out there, scully cheers,
glenncol Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 hey shiny... the last thing I want is trouble (my hand in the air). I have no drama paying for quality (or my version on it). I just don't have a history of buying crystals or snake oil for healing, Peter Brocks "black box" on the mid 80's commodores, etc... without reading about it, seeing the specs or hard facts, basically. Being the nerdy engineer I am, I stick to the old chestnut " some people say the glass is half full, others say half empty. An Engineer will say the glass has been designed twice as big as it needs to be."Placibo comes to mnd. Hey, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their enjoyment in the fact they have paid for expensive cables if it feels good. All the power too them. I would just like to know .. The truth IS out there, scully cheers, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Guys it all comes down to the individual with cables some will and some wont hear and see the differnce . I have been in many arguments on this topic and hope another does not start. Read back through the threads and you will see some good for and against arguments
Recommended Posts