Yes I was. I’m just in a bad mood because the main message board I hang around has been having several arguments over HD broadcasting lately, and it seems as if the “screw you and your non-HDTV” folks are winning the war against us “4:3 geezers”. I myself have only a 27" Wega, but will probably upgrade to a 42" widescreen LCD sometime this year.
I’ve also been “shouted down” in so many “Why can’t I hook my DVD player up to my 1971 Zenith console TV?” threads that I’ve just about given up.
Lastly, my grandmother got a new 32" Panasonic TV with a Sony DVD\VCR combo for Christmas… which would be cool if she had cable, but she steadfastly refuses to get it. This new set actually replaced a 1971 Zenith console TV, and the tabletop antenna my Pop bought to replace the old one doesn’t work nearly as well as the original antenna. So I - the “electronics wiz” of the family - had to explain to my (almost-senile) grandmother why her old antenna (with the ancient “two screw” type of connector) won’t work on her new TV that has composite, s-video and component video inputs. Which didn’t work worth a damn., so she went around the house turning electrical devices on and off in the hopes of actually picking up channels that are almost pure snow right now. To her, it seems as if the new set is a huge leap backwards, all the while I’m trying to explain to her that she’s “trying to put a Rolls Royce engine into her horse drawn cart”. "But I don’t want cable! All my neighbors say it goes out 30 times a day! Sigh.
So if this subject makes me cranky, I apologize.
And frankly, I don’t disagree with what you say. Certainly, a DVD player hooked up over composite will look much better than one over coax, and the marginal improvement between coax, composite, s-video and component indeed steadily decreases. But I’ve never seen anyone under the age of 40 hook a DVD player up to their TV via coax.
I find it interesting that you are giving me a hard time for having a TV that doesn’t have S-Video (and using Composite-Video), and yet you go on to say that “the marginal improvements between coax, composite, s-video, and component indeed steadily decreases”.
Not everyone has a huge, burning desire to go out and get plasma, widescreen, HD, TV’s right now. Composite works fine for us. We are going to wait a few years until the prices drop, then we will upgrade our “ancient” TV.
The big difference when going from S-Video to Component video comes from being able to use progressive-scan sources. Of course, your TV has to support it as well, but if it has component inputs, it likely does.
Progressive-scan DVDs have greatly increased contrast, perceived resolution, and lack the motion artifacts you see in interlaced sources. It’s a huge improvement.
I was talking to Alvis. I was agreeing with him that DVD over coax looks like crap and that the better connection types (listed in order, BTW) offer decreasing returns over each previous connection type. In other words, going from coax to component would be a “OMG WOW!” improvement, but going from S-video to component would be a “Yeah, it looks a bit better” improvement. The Law of Decresing Marginal Utility comes in to play, I suppose. I don’t know why you’re confused about this.
I’d like to get a new widescreen LCD TV, but hardly have a “burning” desire to get one.
(note to you: plasma TVs have serious longevity issues; LCD is the way to go and that’s why I’m waiting for the prices on LCDs to drop before I buy.)
I have a TV that is surrounded by couches, similar to a normal living room. My friends seem to have living rooms that are setup like theaters where every seat is directly in front of the TV, I prefer the coziness of a more circular pattern. So my question, why would I want an LCD when the brightness of the screen decreases DRASTICALLY if I don’t sit directly in front of the TV. In addition a CRT actually has better color and definition than an LCD, although they have gotten better.
Why not just get a CRT flatscreen or HD. My guests and I can watch the TV from any seat in the living room, and its cheaper. I think you LCD guys are mental. LCD is good for a computer monitor because you sit directly in front of it. As far as TVs I’ll stick with CRT’s until plasmas are drastically cheaper and more reliable.
If you ever get a progressive scan capable TV (either HDTV or EDTV), you will have to use component or DVI cables from your DVD player to send the progressive scan picture to the TV. S-video and composite do not support progressive scan as they cannot carry the video bandwidth necessary for such a signal.
If you have a normal (non HD or ED) TV, a progressive scan DVD player does not offer any tangible benefit over a older “normal-scan/interlaced” player, as your TV cannot display the progressive image.
Differences in image quality on normal TVs may or may not be noticible using composite vs. s-Video, especially in a smaller TV (you’ll likely notice it a lot more in a larger screen, which make the sharper lines and deeper colors more noticible).
Even if your DVD/digital cable box/satellite can output a Dolby Digital soundstream, you will not be hearing Dolby Digital sound unless you are piping it into a system that can decode the digital sound stream and output it to speakers. This is the primary benefit of an audio receiver, which do this and also support the number of speakers necessary for surround sound.
To properly send a Dolby Digital stream to a receiver, you’ll need a digital optical audio cable, or a digital co-axial audio cable. No need to spend the big bucks on the high-end cabling - since its a digital signal, it doesn’t require a whole lot of sheilding against interference - it either gets there, or it don’t
You may want to consider a cheaper “Home Theater in a Box” system to accomplish all this - it makes allows you do optimize your experience without spending a lot of $, and offers a convienient “switchbox” to hook everything to. I have Onkyo’s latest, and am very happy with it:
