Tom's Guide: HDMI vs. Component – what is right?

With all of the current options in video monitoring devices and cabling, the video connection used is one thing to consider when hooking your video playback device to your monitor. There is often only one option. My Sony DSR-50 DVCam deck uses component cabling as its high quality connection. The Comcast HD box that I pay $10 a month for has both HDMI and component (not to mention an assortment of Firewire, USB and other connections) but only the component output works (the phone response from Comcast is clueless to why all the other connections are on the box). Most of the new generation of consumer to pro-sumer HD video cameras that are coming out have HDMI. The Apple TV has both connections.

But what is the better of the connections for viewing pristine HD content on your wide-screen tv? One would think that HDMI is best. With its digital connection and ability to carry audio on the same cable, thereby cutting down on the mess of wires that plagues most home theatre systems, that it would be the clear winner. I came across an article on Tom’s Guide that wanted to answer that very question. HDMI vs. Component – What’s The Difference? is a short article that describes some of the pros and cons of each connection and concluded that “there’s not really a winner.” But the most interesting thing about the whole article is the discussion that follows it. Many of those posting in the discussion forums have some very heated and impassioned reasons that the article is all wrong. Who is right and who is wrong? I’m not completely sure. I’ve talked to a number of engineers over the years who say you should never count a tried and true analog format out when a pretty new digital whatever comes along to replace it. I’ve had the same signal coming from the same box before and switched between the two without telling any real discernible difference. If I have HDMI as a choice I would probably use it but I’m not ditching my component connections any time soon.