Suhit Gupta
09-14-2007, 12:00 AM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2007/09/11/hdmi_vs_component/' target='_blank'>http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2007/09/11/hdmi_vs_component/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"If you talk to any half-witted video enthusiast or ask an associate at your local big box retailer - bearing in mind that the two groups are pretty much the same - they'll unmistakably tell you that HDMI is better than component, case closed, end of story. This is just based on tired assumptions of the entire audio/visual industry. HDMI is based on a digital technology while component is analog, HDMI is a more recent development and HDMI costs more. Conventional wisdom says that newer formats are better, digital is always the best and a higher price tag equals higher quality. Living under the guise of these kinds of stereotypes will eventually tear your brain to shreds. They're just not true. Component video cables can deliver really high quality pictures, just like HDMI. They also tend to be a bit more robust, especially if you need a really long cable."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/cables-unlimited-hdmi.jpg" /><br /><br />Before I started reading this article, I was thinking about how it is going to be near impossible to declare a winner. Each has its own positives. And it turns out that that is exactly what the article concludes. I use component for my regular TV watching needs and HDMI for my DVD player. But when choosing which way to go with the DVD player, between the HDMI or component, I tried both and honestly couldn't tell the difference. So I went with HDMI since I find the integrated audio incredibly convenient.