Posts: 90
Threads: 21
Joined: Apr 2004
we just got a new tv i see its got s-video cables with it they look might cheap looking though..
how will the picture look if i use them?? are all s-video cables the same?? i know the shack has got some for 10 dollars and then the premium ones for 35 bucks.
but i am thinking the expensive cables will produce the same picture as the cheap ones..
anyway if you have a regular tv have you used cheap s-video cables and do they look the same as the expensive ones like monster's brand??
Posts: 1,083
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2003
Erm...personally I had used Monster cables b4 so I have no idea about the other brands.
You do see that the pictures are sharper. However, it isn't really a BIG BIG difference.
Posts: 1,489
Threads: 47
Joined: May 2002
the difference is that RCA and Coax are both analog, whereas S-Video is digital. This basically means that with RCA, the picture can degrade on the way from the source (and more often than not, does with old, long or dirty cables). The difference isn't going to be night and day, however, a little grain may clear up. As for the difference between regular and super thick, premium, gold-coated cables, it won't be really noticeable (if at all). Stick with the regular cables, and look online for the gold plated wires if you're really concerned about it.
(just checked online. Professional audio studios use mega-gold plated cables only to maintain as low amount of signal degredation as possible. Any home user wouldn't notice the extra fidelity. So, no need for ultra-expansive cables).
Posts: 121
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2003
this really depends on the size of your tv and the length of the cable your running. 42in tv, 12ft cable - youll probably notice. but a 25in tv and a 6ft cable, probably not at all. the bigger your tv, the easier it is to see the imperfections. if it is a nice tv (and probably is if you bought it new) and over like 32in or so, you should probably go with the more expensive cables. you already splurged on the tv, might as well make it as good as you can.
Look, maybe you just saw a one headed monkey carrying two watermelons.
Posts: 83
Threads: 8
Joined: Nov 2003
Erm, some of the stuff that the others are saying is well...false. This is the difference between S-Video and composite:
Have you ever noticed the edges of objects and lines "moving" in the picture? This is known as dot crawl. It is a result of interference between the chrominance and luminace in the picture signal, because composite video combines the two. Also, the brightness and color are distorted, usually resulting in a picture that is oversaturated or bland. S-Video separates the picture signal into two separate signals: chrominance and luminance.
This effectively separates the light and color of the picture, significantly reducing distortion in the color and brightness, eliminating dot crawl, and producing an image much closer to the original source. Contrary to what kakomu said, S-VIDEO IS NOT DIGITAL (and neither is component video). It is a very old analog connection method, but it became more popular with the invention of the DVD player and as S-VHS players became more popular.
The difference between composite video and S-Video is HUGE. You should replace your cables and upgrade to S-Video as soon as you can. You'll see an obvious change in picture quality. Radioshack gold-plated S-Video cables are a good choice for the money.
NEVER BUY CHEAP CABLES. EVER. Buying cheap cables will give you crappy picture and audio quality, and it will prevent your system from producing sound and image at its full potential, which is actually a waste of money.
Posts: 1,489
Threads: 47
Joined: May 2002
Quote:Originally posted by BobDoleX
NEVER BUY CHEAP CABLES. EVER. Buying cheap cables will give you crappy picture and audio quality, and it will prevent your system from producing sound and image at its full potential, which is actually a waste of money.
I disagree with you. I don't think you will find a noticeable difference between gold and non-gold plated cables. It all depends on the cinstruction and more expensive doesn't typically mean better construction. More often than not, more expensive cables are either just gold plated or thicker (neither of which will affect the quality too much. As for digital, I was thinking DVI.
Posts: 83
Threads: 8
Joined: Nov 2003
Quote:Originally posted by kakomu
I disagree with you. I don't think you will find a noticeable difference between gold and non-gold plated cables. It all depends on the cinstruction and more expensive doesn't typically mean better construction. More often than not, more expensive cables are either just gold plated or thicker (neither of which will affect the quality too much. As for digital, I was thinking DVI.
Well, it really depends on your setup. Using crap cables on an HD setup is a sin, and a complete waste of money on the HDTV. Try watching an R1 anime DVD from a progressive scan DVD player using cheap component cables, then swap with monster component and compare. The difference is pretty obvious to me at least. It also depends on how sensitive you are to the picture.
I wish my TV had DVI or HDMI, because all the upconversion DVD players require that connection to display DVDs upconverted to 1080i :mad: .
Posts: 1,489
Threads: 47
Joined: May 2002
inexpensive does not equal crap.
Posts: 83
Threads: 8
Joined: Nov 2003
05-15-2004, 10:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2004, 10:22 AM by BobDoleX.)
Quote:Originally posted by kakomu
inexpensive does not equal crap.
You can't find good component/S-Video cables for under $15-20, and in most cases of home theater equipment, the cheaper it is, the more it sucks. You can find more expensive items that are inferior to their less expensive counterparts, but these are exceptions. If you were to analyze the relationship between cost and quality in cables and home theater equipment, and graph it, you'd get a series of plots that would yield a best-fit line with a positive slope.
Inexpensive might not always equal crap, but it is usually inferior to the more expensive components. And decent, inexpensive cables might result in a picture that is crap compared to a more expensive hookup.
Posts: 1,489
Threads: 47
Joined: May 2002
I'm not disputing that more expensive is better, but it's not always to a degree that is noticeable. Getting an S-Video cable is more often than not, satisfactory and quite good. Getting thick as hell gold plated $50 cables isn't going to make the video that much better.
Posts: 83
Threads: 8
Joined: Nov 2003
Quote:Originally posted by kakomu
I'm not disputing that more expensive is better, but it's not always to a degree that is noticeable. Getting an S-Video cable is more often than not, satisfactory and quite good. Getting thick as hell gold plated $50 cables isn't going to make the video that much better.
I agree with you there. The difference between a $25 cable and a $70 cable is negligible. It's the difference between the $25 cable and the bargain bin nickel-plated cable that is huge.
Posts: 90
Threads: 21
Joined: Apr 2004
thanks for all the info i think i will buy some s-video cables instead of using teh ones that came with my dvd since i can get some for like 12 bucks at lowes i checked them out.
the desription on the box say its gold plated double insulated and some spring thing on it to stop it bending sounds good to me..
from what ive heard i definately will get a better picture using the store bought ones instead of the supplied freebie thats flimsy as hell and looks cheaply made..
Posts: 252
Threads: 12
Joined: Jan 2004
Depends on the TV too...
<a href="http://elotroladodelburro.tripod.com">Website</a>
Posts: 1,358
Threads: 17
Joined: Feb 2003
Quote:Originally posted by casshan83
from what ive heard i definately will get a better picture using the store bought ones instead of the supplied freebie thats flimsy as hell and looks cheaply made..
How about letting us know if there's any difference when you've set it all up?
Posts: 90
Threads: 21
Joined: Apr 2004
|
