Can you guys please help me choose between these two component cables? (1 Viewer)

[Chris Chang]

This is going to be going from an a/v switchbox for my game consoles to the tv.

GE component cables - $15
THX cables - $30

Are the GE ones supposed to be really crappy or is paying twice as much not going to be worth it? Thanks.

 

[Alf S]

Dude!

Don't blow your money!

Get the GE's...you'll probably never notice the difference! (Although many will claim the differences will be night and day..blah blah blah)

SAVE YOUR MONEY

Alfer

 

[Bob McElfresh]

It's a difficult thing to say.

You did not tell us if you are running standard component video to a 19" TV or Progressive/HD video to a 60 HDTV projection unit. One system really wont matter because the cable wont be a limiting factor. The other - could be a different story.

Just saying "GE" or "THX" also does not give us any information. GE is a brand just like GM is a brand. There is a world of difference between a Chevy Geo and a Corvette, but both are "GM".

And THX is a ... good housekeeping certification, not a brand.

Limited by your 2 choices, I'd go with the THX rated cables. At least the cable-builders made some cables then had a third-party run them through tests. This extra attention probably makes the build-quality of the THX cable superior.

If it were my system, I'd bump the budget to $45 and get a custom cable made with Canare or Belden HD rated coax and Canare RCA plugs. The specifications on the coax are available (and I'll even help you understand them if you want).

 

[Chris Chang]

Well, this is going to a 47" Panasonic HDTV.

I went ahead and bought the GE cables, but can always return them. Honestly, I can't tell the difference when my PS2 and Cube are plugged directly into the tv and when they're going through this cable.

The only thing I don't like about them is that the connections are kind of loose and feel like they can come off easily. Also, this could be the "weakest link" since it's connecting these other components.

For the GE cables, I figured telling you that they're $15 would be enough info. The Circuit City website doesn't really tell you anything else. And the THX cables are Monster cables...sorry about that. Thanks for the help. I never know which way to go when it comes to picking out cables.

 

[Bob McElfresh]

the connections are kind of loose and feel like they can come off easily.

That is a killer in my book. Some people complain about Monster having 'turbine-grip-of-death' RCA plugs, but they made them tight for a reason.

 

[Chris Chang]

Thanks again for the help. I'll take em back and see what else they have. Then do a few comparisons when I get the new ones.

 

[Stephen Tu]

The GE cables are going to be perfectly fine. Analog HD component signals aren't running anywhere near the limit of what these cables can carry.

On the car analogy, if you are only going to be driving 20MPH, you won't get there any faster in a Porsche than in a Geo.

 

[Bob McElfresh]

Analog HD component signals aren't running anywhere near the limit of what these cables can carry.

And what criteria do you base this on may I ask?

Video engineers typically specify a cable that handles 4 times the max expected frequency with less than a 3 db loss (50%).

While Component Video runs at 4 Mhz max, Interlace goes up to 12 Mhz and 720/1080 is around 35 Mhz.

This means you need to find a coax that can handle 140 Mhz signals with less than a 3 db loss.

Not exotic, but not your generic component cables or store-bought RG6 CATV coax.

Note: Yes modern RG6 broadband coax has bandwidth into the GigHz range. But this is for a DIGITAL signal, not analog. Look at the analog response.

 

[Matt_Doug]

...Bob, could you clarify this please. How do digital and analog signals at the same frequency differ? thanks

 

[Stephen Tu]

Yes, Bob, please clarify. What makes you believe generic component cables can't handle this?

 

[Bob McElfresh]

What makes you believe generic component cables can't handle this

I hate to do a cheap-shot, but why do You think it can?

Cables are like roads: they are built for different speeds. You can look at a twisty road and tell you can't drive 55 mph on it, but you CANNOT look at a coax cable and tell what frequency it was designed for.

So I fall back to the package. It says "Component" video. This is a 1940's standard designed for a B&W video signal and televisions that had 9" tubes.

That's the standard the cable has to conform to when the package says "Component".

If the manufacturer put "HDTV" or "High Def" compatible on the package - different story.

In truth - you can use the inexpensive cables for your HDTV, and it will appear to work! But if you throw up a fine-line test pattern (like some of the ones on Video Essentials/Avia) with a Progressive Scan DVD player, you may notice a lack-of-focus. It's easier to spot with a test pattern, the the focus problem will exist on all high-contrast areas of the screen because of the cable.

Here is my favorite brand of HDTV compatible video cables:



See the 3 db line? Two of the cables hit at about 150 Mhz and the better cable (red line) hits at about 240 Mhz.

This stuff is designed to carry HD video that tops out at ...35 Mhz. Seems like over-kill, but it's not.

You can find LOTS of component-video coax that stops at about 20-50 Mhz. You will even find receivers that do component video switching with a "24 Mhz" bandwidth. This is what 'Component' cables are designed to handle.

So this is why I dont trust a "Component" cable to correctly carry a HD signal - the manufacturer does not promise this capacity, why should I?

 

[Stephen Tu]

This "generic store bought RG-6 coax" that you claim can't handle the bandwidth, say like at Radio Shack, specs at -2.2dB at 100 Mhz at *100 feet*. Why do you feel it is a problem at 35 Mhz at 6-12 feet?

You can find LOTS of component-video coax that stops at about 20-50 Mhz.

Where? Do you have any links that show generic component video cables attenuating too much at those frequencies? If this was such a big problem, why aren't these boutique cable manufacturer's plastering graphs all over their web site showing the comparative performance of the cheaper competition? It would be a great selling tool. I'll tell you why - there's not a significant difference.

Printing "HD compatible" on the packaging doesn't make a difference when the dimensions & materials of the cable are basically the same. Generic cables are perfectly fine; HD analog component video at these short distances just isn't very challenging.

 

[Chu Gai]

To be fair, and my apologies in advance for speaking when not spoken to, I believe when Bob said the following:

Not exotic, but not your generic component cables or store-bought RG6 CATV coax.

he's addressing a particular concern dealing with particular frequencies. Now if the lengths are short, a few meters, decent (and it's not that hard to find decent, inexpensive cables) cables will do the job at the frequencies that Bob cited.
In the case of 'store-bought RG6 CATV coax' that product is typically copper over steel as it's dealing with frequencies well above 50 MHz. It was never engineered with the thought that it was supposed to handle DC to whatever frequency. To my mind, this is not an elegant solution for component video cables when one could just as easily and cost-effectively choose copper (solid or stranded) which does handle DC to gigahertz (depending upon length).
Look, it's like you making a choice between using Saran Wrap or condoms. While they both may work, the latter is a far more elegant solution, no?

 

[PaulT]

Look, it's like you making a choice between using Saran Wrap or condoms. While they both may work, the latter is a far more elegant solution, no?

Well Chu, it depends if I want to put a sandwich in the fridge or have sex

 

[Chu Gai]

busted me up there Paul!