HDMI port coming to the Xbox 360?

We've been wondering when we'd see HDMI for the Xbox 360. Partly for the future HDCP needs of HD DVD (though for now we're safe on that front), and partly for the sheer convenience of it. Microsoft has stayed fairly silent on the subject, but this week's blurry image-based rumor points to its inclusion in a future version of the console. Tipped by an anonymous source, the image shows an HDMI port firmly ensconced on an Xbox 360 motherboard. If it's real, this probably rules out the possibility of an HDMI cable adapter providing this functionality, leaving current 360 owners SOL. But minus the fanboy outcry, it could be a nice little jab at Sony if Microsoft has an HDMI version of their console just in time to compete with the high-end HDMI PS3. Of course, there's no word if this will come as a third configuration, or if it'll just act as a spec bump to the current Premium package, but again, there's no word if this is real at all. We'll keep you posted.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[matt malone @ Jul 8th 2006 2:24PM]

microsoft would do it via the a/v multi out, not some standalone port.

[slackpiv @ Jul 8th 2006 2:38PM]

A/V multi out on the 360 is most likely akin to the av multiout on the current and next ps systems. It is most likely to be analog thus ruling out that possibility.

[SRD @ Jul 8th 2006 2:39PM]

It may not be possible to do it through the av out. HDMI will require certain chips to be on the motherboard. If MS didnt plan ahead then it may not be possible. I really cant see them adding a big hardware feature to a new version of the xbox. Its never been done before to change a gaming console design not so soon at least even then they normal just get smaller like the slim PS2 never more features.

[shirizaki @ Jul 8th 2006 2:39PM]

MY OPINION:

I see an attachment that goes right in their proprietory port. It'll cost around $50 itself, and you have to supply your own cable.

Rebuilding their motherboards, plastic, and programming just to ship HDMI isn't worth it. They can release an attachment and provide a firmware update via Marketplace.

Or there can simply be HDMI output on the HD-DVD attachment.

[Jason Gourley @ Jul 8th 2006 2:41PM]

I think its a fake.. I Mean the mobo itself is flipped. The Heatsink is on the left side of the A/V outputs. Not the Right. Prolly a DEBUG or DEV board

[X Budd @ Jul 8th 2006 3:06PM]

Microsoft would NOT have a seperate HDMI port because:
People could buy a third Party HDMI cable. Thus MS would not make money.

So MS would have an AV-to-HDMI cord and Make $$$!

------I Hope!

[John @ Jul 8th 2006 3:14PM]

I truely doubt microsoft would release a second version of their console with HDMI. I believe they would either make a new AV cable to plug into the existing xbox port, with a possible firmware update, OR they will have it on the HD DVD drive (which I think is not as likely to happen). I do not know a whole lot about how much data is sent through an HDMI cable and a USB cable per second, but it sounds slightly foolish to make a USB adapter of have it on the HDDVD drive itself.

If they DID release a new version on the console with HDMI, they better be offering a very reasonable swap up if there is no other way to get HDMI. But it would seem Microsoft would want to keep their early adopters of their console, so I believe they would just release an adapter of some sort.

[James Farley @ Jul 8th 2006 3:14PM]

HDMI is OVERRATED!

Only real benefit it has over DVI is that it also can carry audio and video. However, anybody that has a decent HDTV that supports HDMI will likely have a decent sound system as well with at least 5.1; meaning the HDMI cable will be going to the receiver first(unless that person wants to hear crappy stero sound from his expensive TV). Meaning you will need a HDMI receiver and you won't really need the audio output to the TV once it goes to the receiver.

DVI can already do 1080p, and component can do 1080p as well (since they aren't implementing HDCP for half a decade at least). Problem is, these new 1.3spec HDMI cables are going to be incredibly expensive, current generics at Bestbuy/Circuit City are around a hundred dollars each, and if you pass through your receiver you will need as least two (decent cables from Monster are much more expensive).

I have a Phillips HDTV with HDMI(not 1080p), but if I were to buy a PS3 I would stick with the $500 version. I see no reason to get the $600 version or any benefit to the XB360 having HDMI as this point.

[Brad @ Jul 8th 2006 3:40PM]

Ok...Will someone please explain to me what exactly this would do? I have a 360 and a HDTV. What would a HDMI port add to the "experience"?

Sorry for my lack of knowledge...

[Hmmm @ Jul 8th 2006 4:33PM]

Farley, you have no idea what you're talking about.

HDMI 1.3 is way superior to DVI-I. It provides more than double the bandwidth HDMI 1.1 did and it will simply become the standard over DVI in the next few years. PS3 will use HDMI 1.3 to provide up to 48 bit colour for Blu-ray playback and, to name an application. Future-proofing is the main reason.

Component could do 1080p30, but not 1080p60. HDMI can do 1080p60 and go much beyond.

And current HDMI cables can carry HDMI 1.3.

[KawF @ Jul 8th 2006 4:49PM]

It's obviously fake as nobody needs HDMI, and Microsoft knows that. That is also why they include no hardware in the current 360-models that is capable of outputting a digital video image.

Only Sony seems to be behind on this and pushing for true digital output through HDMI and so on. Which is obviously not needed. Analouge 720p is good enough for everyone.

[Chef @ Jul 8th 2006 5:10PM]

>>HDMI 1.3 is way superior to DVI-I. It provides more than double the bandwidth HDMI 1.1 did and it will simply become the standard over DVI in the next few years. PS3 will use HDMI 1.3 to provide up to 48 bit colour for Blu-ray playback and, to name an application. Future-proofing is the main reason.

Sorry Hmmmm, you're the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.

DVI can do 1080p50/60 as well. There is very little that HDMI provides over DVI from a video standpoint, especially when you consider what an XBox360 can do. For a game to do 1080p50 it will need to run at 1980x1080 resolution at 60fps, which is beyond the performance of 360 for most games.

Future proofing? Thats just bollocks. It'd be daft to consider buying a product that is a fraction of the price so that you can "future proof" youself over a HDTV that can do 1080p with 48bit colour that would still cost several grand by the end of the 360s lifespan.

HDMI is may be the future, but it shouldn't have any effect on your purchasing decisions for quite awhile.

[Guruboy @ Jul 8th 2006 5:25PM]

HDMI is the future and it's still being made better and better. DVI is old and will soon not be able to be made any better. Investing in HDMI is investing in the support of multiple industry leaders in a technology that will soon become the standard. It's funny reading all the crap that 360 fans say to defend sticking with DVI.

Basiclly, if this comes out for the 360 at all, everyone who bought the original will have an outdated console. So when will the actual 360 be available on the market with the 65nm die and HDMI and HD DVD?

[CrackinBacks @ Jul 8th 2006 5:40PM]

If M$ did this, I'd sell my Xbox 360, and buy a PS3 the day it comes out. They should included that $hit in the first place instead of alienating their core customers !!! What a load of crap.

[Gorek @ Jul 8th 2006 5:42PM]

For the HDMI vs. DVI debate. DVI and HDMI have the EXACT same video signal the electrical signaling is exactly the same, that is why you can get a HDMI to DVI cable it is simply and cable conversion if the signals were the same some processing would have to be performed as with a PS/2 to usb adapter. HDMI is just smaller and adds audio.

[Nick @ Jul 8th 2006 7:04PM]

Fake! These guys need to take a lesson from the Apple Photoshop faking team. They do much better work and don't leave obvious smudge marks.

[Shmoe @ Jul 8th 2006 8:11PM]

Well, if MS does upgrade the 360, they should do what I've said they should do all along with HD-DVD. Have a swap program in place before they launch the updated version. Anyone with a current 360 could register with a credit card/checking account and have a new 360 sent overnight at MS's expense to their house. Included would be a box to ship your old 360 back, which MS could then upgrade and sell at a discounted price. If you didn't send it back, and decided to keep the new 360 and the old one, you credit card would be charged or your checking account would be debited. Yeah, it might be expensive for MS, but they have the cash and it's the price they should pay for not having enough foresight to include HDMI and/or HD-DVD in the first place if it's true they don't have a way to add HDMI with HDCP via an adapter.

[Todd @ Jul 8th 2006 8:22PM]

Is it me, or does the acronym SOL and the word Microsoft ALWAYS appear together in the same paragraph?

[sfras @ Jul 8th 2006 8:24PM]

its not gonna happen

1. the USB and internet plugins are on the wrong side

2. if you look at regular input you will notice that no 360 cable will fit in it as it has vertical sides not angled. ya it looks agled but when u look close u notice its not, and it looks totally different that the input on my 360

[djphatjive @ Jul 8th 2006 8:29PM]

Does no one remember anything? They already said that they won't use the token thing until 2010 or something. By then we are going to be playing on the Xbox 720. So who cares. We can get full resolution over Component. No one out there now except for a few people have those HDMI ports on there TV anyway!

[simon @ Jul 8th 2006 9:04PM]

couldnt the picture be of the PS3s mainboard? it could be thefinal layout.

[Guruboy @ Jul 8th 2006 10:39PM]

Good idea Simon but the PS3 HDMI port is not centered with anything.

[hey alex @ Jul 8th 2006 10:45PM]

The existing port on the back of the current 360 was designed to accept any future interface. As someone pointed out earlier, you can't simply plug in a HDMI interface directly into the 360. Instead, such an option would have to be licensed through Microsoft, should they decide to make it available.

With the exception of the iPod and some keyboards, I'm not sure what you can plug into the 360 that isn't sanctioned by Microsoft.

I suspect you won't see an HDMI interface from Microsoft or third parties until the external HD DVD drive appears.

[sputnik @ Jul 8th 2006 11:02PM]

It's interesting to see people complain about something so trivial. I have my 360 attached to my 360 via Component and am able to get 1080i just fine to my HDTV. HDMI is not needed. The ICT (Image Constraint Token) will not be enforced on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray for another 4 years and then it will be phased in slowly over another few years. Which means HDMI is not necessary for another 4 years at minimum. You will be able to purchase the HD-DVD add on for the 360 and watch movies in 720p or 1080i just fine without HDMI.

HDMI cables are rediculously expensive and uneccessarry at this point. It's something great to look forward to in 5 years...but by then the 360 will be replaced by it's successor.

Sony had hoped to have the PS2 out for a 10 year lifespan...but Microsoft ruined that plan for them by releasing 2 consoles in less than 5 years. Sony wants to think they can stretch the PS3 over a 10 year lifespan...but they are sorely mistaken. Producting an expensive overhyped console that would be profitable over a longer lifespan just is not a reality in todays competetive market. By the time that thing is affordable, Microsoft will have another console ready to go.

[KawF @ Jul 9th 2006 1:45AM]

Sputnik, you are so correct. It's much better to spend 2x$400+4x$50 on each console and just wait 4 years instead of paying $500 up front and then wait six long years for the next version.

Microsoft really figuered this out. Much simpler for the consumer and so much cheaper.

[KawF @ Jul 9th 2006 1:52AM]

Oh, sorry, in that previous calculation, I forgot to mention that the 2x$400 stood for minor revisions, such as HD-DVD addons, bigger harddrive, and so on, that people might want to buy.

Still definetly cheaper though!

[K_G @ Jul 9th 2006 2:33AM]

From a tactical standpoint, a HDMI port would make sense, both for servicing the HD-DVD drive and to even up the 360 specs to the PS3. As for pissing off the early adapters, that shouldn’t be a factor in MS’s decision making. Those folks quite happily bought it without at HDMI port, so apparently they are fine with component level output. The early PS2s didn’t have progressive scan in the PS2 DVD functionality and nor did the early or mid PS2 have a integrated network port either….I forget when the integrated IR port was introduced in the PS2, but it wasn’t on the first or second year’s batch of PS2s. People who wait will get better (although systems often have some features stripped out as well such as firewire on the PS2) and cheaper systems than those people who bought in the launch period. Personally, I bought a Xbox 360 two months ago, got my game on for a while, and then recently sold it on Ebay because I expect a better and cheaper 360 will be out by Christmas/spring 07 along with some decent 360 games, which are pretty scarce at the moment.

[Jerry @ Jul 9th 2006 7:09AM]

Not sure if this is real or fake but.

Microsoft cant release an AV plug in HDMI cable. The AV port is analog. HDMI is digital. Also HDMI would require chipset support on the motherboard. It will need HDCP encryption keeys, and TDMS. There is no way to after the fact throw on an HDMI port so there are three possibilities

1) xbox360 does not and never will have HDMI
2) xbox360 already had all the built in HDMI support and the AV port is both digital and analog. Then microsoft could release an HDMI cable that plugs into AV port but if so why didn't they do it till now?
3) xbox360 either this board or some board in future will simply add a dedicated HDMI port for two reasons. First to make Xbox360 look equal to PS3 and shut up sony fanboys. Secondly it will allow HD playback for HD-DVD.

One point to remember and nobody seems to get this.
Dolby Digital True HD and other lossless compresses 7.1 soundtracks CAN ONLY be ouput either with 8 analog cables to receiver or by HDMI. The older spdif/toslink doesn't have the bandwidth to support it.

Me personally I have no interest in hooking up a HD-DVD player (or xbox360 w/ HD-DVD upgrade) to my receiver with 9 to 11 cables.

[Ben Hobbs @ Jul 9th 2006 8:58AM]

HDMI doesnt add anything, it merely 'supports' higher bandwidth, bandwidth that the 360 OR the PS3 will never be able to use.

Not sure how many people really need to hook up to a Dolby True HD amplifier (are there even any out yet) as 5.1/7.1 is more than fine for movie watching/games. Hands up how many people have and use DVD-Audio for example?

[n2 @ Jul 9th 2006 10:02AM]

Is it published somewhere the AV port is analog? It's outputing digital now with component HD and digital audio cables.

[ChrisXS @ Jul 9th 2006 10:09AM]

A fiber optic cable doesn't have the bandwidth to support it?! Funniest statement I've heard all day. Its all about the content protection and taking advantage of the extra space available to a blueray disc.

Also, I do not understand the HDMI vs DVI debate going on in this thread when the 360 has neither.

[Jerry @ Jul 9th 2006 11:34AM]

"A fiber optic cable doesn't have the bandwidth to support it?! Funniest statement I've heard all day. Its all about the content protection and taking advantage of the extra space available to a blueray disc."

Sure the fiber has tons of capacity. However SPDIF is a set standard. It has about 1.8Mbit/sec of bandwidth. Remember SPDIF came out when CD Audio and Dolby DVD were common both use well less than 500k.

Dolby Digital Plus runs at up to 3Mbits/sec and can be sent over SPDIF/Toslink connections however the source (ie. HD-DVD player) will down sample the audio to fit on the lower bandwidth channel.

Dolby True HD runs about 11-18Mbits/sec and is compressed losslessly. There would be no reason to take a 18Mbps lossless stream and losslessly reduce it to 1.8Mbps then try to restore the full soundstage.

So there is a technical reason why toslink cant be used. This is same reason why DVD-Audio players & SACD players needed to be hooked up by analog. There is a encryption/copyprotection method built into spdif but it has never been used in the US (at least not at consumer grade equipment).

Regardless is you think the problem is technical, encryption, or black magic the original point remains the same.

You can NOT listen to Dolby True HD soundtracks with toslink. Your audio will be downsampled if you listen to SACD, DVD-Audio, or Dolby Digital Plus through toslink.

HDMI allows full playback on any audio/video source. It also has plenty of bandwidth to allow upgrades in future (although I doubt we really need more than 8 channel lossless audio @ 18Mbits).

Every HDTV produced in 2006 was required to have HDMI inputs. Every HD-DVD / BR players will have HDMI outputs. Receivers now do HDMI switching. Most high end TV now have 2+ HDMI inputs. Some video cards have HDMI outputs. The first HDMI capable computer monitors are hitting shelves. See a picture.

HDMI replaces Component, DVI & SPDIF with one scalable interface. The license cost for HDMI is about 20 center per connector (for HDMI & HDCP both). So why would someone NOT want HDMI? Even if you dont use it today it would be a good idea to have it when ICT starts ruining your day.

[Hmmm @ Jul 9th 2006 1:05PM]

"Sorry Hmmmm, you're the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.

DVI can do 1080p50/60 as well."

I didn't say it couldn't. I just said HDMI 1.3 >> DVI, and that component can't do 1080p60. Just tell me where exactly I denied DVI-I could do 1080p60 or that it was inferior to HDMI 1.1

[Dave @ Jul 9th 2006 1:51PM]

It's not unheard of for a console to be improved over time. For those angry few who would attempt to punish Microsoft for improving their console by buying a PS3, remember that Sony did the same thing--I'm sure early adopters would have preferred the slimmer, sleeker version. Not only is it possible that Microsoft will add an HDMI port--but it's also conceivable that they will eventually lower the price. Try not to be shocked.

[Jimmie Gotthardt @ Jul 9th 2006 4:57PM]

Just another note about the HDMI 1.3 standard, which means a billion more colors, go to HDMI.COM answers to alot of your concerns. Unknown when HDTV manufacturers are to use this new chip. As of now, no manufacturer is installing this chip. The PS3 will be the first and like stated earlier it will be used for the Blu-ray dvd player. Understand no HDMI cables are on the market today. They will be $$$$$$$$

[David Anthony @ Jul 9th 2006 7:11PM]

If Microsoft leaves it's current consumer base for dead without an upgrade path to support HDMI then I'll happily by a Sony PS3; I refuse to be screwed into buying another xbox 360. This is the type of bulls--t that stops customer loyalty.

Again if Microsoft leaves the early adopters out in the cold, I'll happily trade in my xbox 360 for whatever I can get and buy the PS3. The hell with Microsoft!

[Dorian @ Jul 9th 2006 7:28PM]

>>I didn't say it couldn't. I just said HDMI 1.3 >> DVI, and that component can't do 1080p60. Just tell me where exactly I denied DVI-I could do 1080p60 or that it was inferior to HDMI 1.1

Dude, I think the point is that DVI can do above and beyond whatever the XB360 can ever possibly do.

I mean, seriously man, tell me what HDMI can do on the XB360 that can't be done with DVI (hell, even component may be enough for XB360). Shit, why would anybody pay extra to buy a $5,000+ TV. Future proofing is for idiots like you.

[Raptor @ Jul 9th 2006 8:42PM]

JUST MAKE ONE F'EN SYSTEM AND STAY WITH IT!!! NO ONE CAN BUY THE SAME FREAKEN SYSTEM TWICE! JESUS! F'EN MONEY HUNGERY MOTHERS! DAMN IT! I mean come on! This is why the 29 year old had gotten out of gamen! Its not about the entertainment any more! Its about how much money we can soak out of these people! So freak it!

[Dave @ Jul 9th 2006 9:50PM]

I don't believe that, if this HDMI update is real, that it's designed to get current 360 owners to upgrade. It's not a performance improvement--nor would it cause compatibility issues. It's just another type of connector. It shouldn't make a very big difference, if any, on the picture--so chill.

[Scott @ Jul 9th 2006 10:29PM]

This addition of HDMI could give a bit of credibility to the possiblity of an Internal HD-DVD- Driven Xbox 360.

[wisman @ Jul 10th 2006 6:19AM]

@Jerry
"There is a encryption/copyprotection method built into spdif but it has never been used in the US (at least not at consumer grade equipment)."

SCMS (Serial Copy Management Sytem) was used in the US, too (see AHRA - "Audio Home Recording Act"). It was active since the dawn of (CD-) days, every digital recorder (MD, DAT, CDR) supports it. Only thing most people don't notice this was because it only stopped you from making copies from a digitally recorded source.
Pro audio equipment always had the possibility to switch SCMS bits off.
There are only a fistful mostly rather expensive solutions to filter both SCMS-bits out of your s/pdif data stream on consumer equipment.

[aBs0lut30 @ Jul 10th 2006 8:19AM]

All of the M$ fanboys that are screaming about customer loyalty are absolutely nuts. And all of you talking about a HDMI cable are eaqualy as nuts, and misinformed on top of that. First, when has Micro$hi- ever been worried about customer loyalty?? NEVER just look at their software line. Second, you want to talk about making money, which should i be more concerned with? you buying a 40 dollar cable from me or monster, or making you buy a new 400 to God only knows how much they will want for the HDMI version, game console? i mean come on, its a no brainer. Microsoft is out to try and keep us honest, and keep their oversized thumb on us so that they can control all the technology market. Thats the reason there is no digtal output on the current AV cables(save the SP/DIF for audio.) Its their typical game, if you dont like it, then get off the M$ train...
My 10c worth

[Jerry @ Jul 10th 2006 9:37AM]

@wisman

Learn something new everyday.

Hopefully the point of the point of my msg wasn't lost by incorrect information.

To get higher resolution audio out of HD-DVD & BR devices you will have 3 choices:
HDMI, firewire (assuming u have both a player & receiver that support firewire) or 6/8 analog cables.

As HDMI switcing becomes more common & cheaper expect HDMI to be the standard output for both audio/video. With 10Gb/sec of bandwidth and copy protection support (HDCP) it has the ability to become the single Digital connection.

Current HD-DVD drives have about $100 worth of decoders and DAC in them. Plus analog chips to generate component output. Imagine a 3rd or 4th gen HD-DVD player that simply has HDMI, firewire, and toslink (for legacy receivers). The devices can be made simpler and cheaper to build.

[aaron @ Jul 10th 2006 4:06PM]

1) The current XBox 360 can NOT do HDMI through it's AV port as others have mentioned.

2) While there is really no technical advantage to HDMI for games (other than the handy cable) the one thing you guys aren't talking about is the MARKETING behind it.

Even though HDMI is pointless for gaming really (and even for HD-movies for several years to come) I'm sure Sony will be doing their best to make it seem like the 360 is completly inferior to the PS3.

For that reason alone I'm sure MS is AT LEAST looking into the idea.

3) I have it on pretty good word that the HD-DVD add-on will have it's onw HDMI out. Meaning the drive will have to send the video signal back and forth between the 360 over USB to then send the signal to the TV. This is certainly possible (USB has enough bandwidth) but still didn't seem likely to me.. although I was told this by someone who gave me some good early info on 360 specs well before anyone else could confirm them.

In the end? Who knows.. this image means nothing tho.

[Chris @ Jul 10th 2006 5:48PM]

I would just add that I have found that a lot of 'cheap' HD sets don't support 720p over the analog input (especially the cheap Mitsubishi sets which sell incredibly well. Hard to believe, but true. These sets will 'upscale' a digital signal to 1080i but won't support 720p over analog. The downside for a lot of people will be that without a digital output, they will be forced to play xbox games at 480p. Not that big of a deal but it is one argument for a digital signal.

[John @ Jul 20th 2006 8:53PM]

http://www.techtoysus.com

[Gavin @ Jul 27th 2006 5:08PM]

"HOLY #@($&(#@$& MICROSOFT IS RELEASING AN UPDATE!!! #&!*@$ NOW I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BUY IT! THOSE CO#$ S#*&(# @*#($&(#&!!! FORCING THEIR SH*#$ ON ME!!!!!!!!"

Dear lord people... if you wanted HDMI so bad... why did you buy the 360 in the first place? You're making it sound like Microsoft is going to come into your home, steal your 360, sleep with your girlfriend and then smash your car. You aren't going to *lose* anything by the *possible* addition of a new feature. If you're happy with your 360, why would you be unhappy with a new version out in the wild? I don't throw my computer out a window with a wave of profanity every time AMD releases a new chip.

[mark @ Jul 30th 2006 3:37AM]

DVI vs. HDMI vs. Component Video -- Which is Better?

As DVI and HDMI connections become more and more widely used, we are often asked: which is better, DVI (or HDMI) or component video? The answer, as it happens, is not cut-and-dried.

First, to clear away one element that can be confusing: DVI and HDMI are exactly the same as one another, image-quality-wise. The principal differences are that HDMI carries audio as well as video, and uses a different type of connector, but both use the same encoding scheme, and that's why a DVI source can be connected to an HDMI monitor, or vice versa, with a DVI/HDMI cable, with no intervening converter box.

The upshot of this article--in case you're not inclined to read all the details--is that it's very hard to predict whether a digital DVI or HDMI connection will produce a better or worse image than an analog component video connection. There will often be significant differences between the digital and the analog signals, but those differences are not inherent in the connection type and instead depend upon the characteristics of the source device (e.g., your DVD player) and the display device (e.g., your TV set). Why that is, however, requires a bit more discussion.

What are DVI, HDMI and Component Video?

DVI/HDMI and Component Video are all video standards which support a variety of resolutions, but which deliver the signal from the source to the display in very different ways. The principal important difference is that DVI/HDMI deliver the signal in a digital format, much the same way that a file is delivered from one computer to another along a network, while Component Video is an analog format, delivering the signal not as a bitstream, but as a set of continuously varying voltages representing (albeit indirectly, as we'll get to in a moment) the red, green and blue components of the signal.

Both DVI/HDMI and Component Video deliver signals as discrete red, green, and blue color components, together with sync information which allows the display to determine when a new line, or a new frame, begins. The DVI/HDMI standard delivers these along three data channels in a format called T.M.D.S., which stands for "Transmission Minimized Differential Signaling." Big words aside, the T.M.D.S. format basically involves a blue channel to which horizontal and vertical sync are added, and separate green and red channels.

Component Video is delivered, similarly, with the color information split up three ways. However, component video uses a "color-difference" type signal, which consists of Luminance (the "Y", or "green," channel, representing the total brightness of the image), Red Minus Luminance (the "Pr," or "Red," channel), and Blue Minus Luminance (the "Pb," or "Blue," channel). The sync pulses for both horizontal and vertical are delivered on the Y channel. The display calculates the values of red, green and blue from the Y, Pb, and Pr signals.

Both signal types, then, are fundamentally quite similar; they break up the image in similar ways, and deliver the same type of information to the display, albeit in different forms. How they differ, as we'll see, will depend to a great extent upon the particular characteristics of the source and display devices, and can depend upon cabling as well.

Isn't Digital Just Better?

It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a factor at distance.

So What Does Determine Image Quality?

Video doesn't just translate directly from source material to displays, for a variety of reasons. Very few displays operate at the native resolutions of common source material, so when you're viewing material in 480p, 720p, or 1080i, there is, of necessity, some scaling going on. Meanwhile, the signals representing colors have to be accurately rendered, which is dependent on black level and "delta," the relationship between signal level and actual as-rendered color level. Original signal formats don't correspond well to display hardware; for example, DVD recordings have 480 lines, but non-square pixels. What all of this means is that there is signal processing to go on along the signal chain.

The argument often made for the DVI or HDMI signal formats is the "pure digital" argument--that by taking a digital recording, such as a DVD or a digital satellite signal, and rendering it straight into digital form as a DVI or HDMI signal, and then delivering that digital signal straight to the display, there is a sort of a perfect no-loss-and-no-alteration-of-information signal chain. If the display itself is a native digital display (e.g. an LCD or Plasma display), the argument goes, the signal never has to undergo digital-to-analog conversion and therefore is less altered along the way.

That might be true, were it not for the fact that digital signals are encoded in different ways and have to be converted, and that these signals have to be scaled and processed to be displayed. Consequently, there are always conversions going on, and these conversions aren't always easy going. "Digital to digital" conversion is no more a guarantee of signal quality than "digital to analog," and in practice may be substantially worse. Whether it's better or worse will depend upon the circuitry involved--and that is something which isn't usually practical to figure out. As a general rule, with consumer equipment, one simply doesn't know how signals are processed, and one doesn't know how that processing varies by input. Analog and digital inputs must either be scaled through separate circuits, or one must be converted to the other to use the same scaler. How is that done? In general, you won't find an answer to that anywhere in your instruction manual, and even if you did, it'd be hard to judge which is the better scaler without viewing the actual video output. It's fair to say, in general, that even in very high-end consumer gear, the quality of circuits for signal processing and scaling is quite variable.

Additionally, it's not uncommon to find that the display characteristics of different inputs have been set up differently. Black level, for example, may vary considerably from the digital to the analog inputs, and depending on how sophisticated your setup options on your display are, that may not be an easy thing to recalibrate.

The Role of Cable and Connection Quality

Cable quality, in general, should not be a significant factor in the DVI/HDMI versus Component Video comparison, as long as the cables in question are of high quality. There are, however, ways in which cable quality issues can come into play.

Analog component video is an extremely robust signal type; we have had our customers run analog component, without any need for boosters, relays or other special equipment, up to 200 feet without any signal quality issues at all. However, at long lengths, cable quality can be a consideration--in particular, impedance needs to be strictly controlled to a tight tolerance (ideally, 75 +/- 1.5 ohms) to prevent problems with signal reflection which can cause ghosting or ringing.

DVI and HDMI, unfortunately, are not so robust. The problem here is the same as the virtue of analog component: tight control over impedance. When the professional video industry went to digital signals, it settled upon a standard--SDI, serial digital video--which was designed to be run in coaxial cables, where impedance can be controlled very tightly, and consequently, uncompressed, full-blown HD signals can be run hundreds of feet with no loss of information in SDI. For reasons known only to the designers of the DVI and HDMI standards, this very sound design principle was ignored; instead of coaxial cable, the DVI and HDMI signals are run balanced, through twisted-pair cable. The best twisted pair cables control impedance to about +/- 10%. When a digital signal is run through a cable, the edges of the bits (represented by sudden transitions in voltage) round off, and the rounding increases dramatically with distance. Meanwhile, poor control over impedance results in signal reflections--portions of the signal bounce off of the display end of the line, propagate back down the cable, and return, interfering with later information in the same bitstream. At some point, the data become unrecoverable, and with no error correction available, there's no way to restore the lost information.

DVI and HDMI connections, for this reason, are subject to the "digital cliff" phenomenon. Up to some length, a DVI or HDMI cable will perform just fine; the rounding and reflections will not compromise the ability of the display device to reconstruct the original bitstream, and no information will be lost. As we make the cable longer and longer, the difficulty of reconstructing the bitstream increases. At some point, unrecoverable bit errors start to occur; these are colloquially described in the home theater community as "sparklies," because the bit errors manifest themselves as pixel dropouts which make the image sparkle. If we make the cable just a bit longer, so much information is lost that the display becomes unable to reconstitute enough information to even render an image; the bitstream has fallen off the digital cliff, so called because of the abruptness of the failure. A cable design that works perfectly at 20 feet may get "sparkly" at 25, and stop working entirely at 30.

In practice, it's very hard to say when a DVI or HDMI signal will fail. We have found well-made DVI cables to be quite reliable up to 50 feet, but HDMI cable, with its smaller profile, is a bit more of a puzzle. Because the ability to reconstitute the bitstream varies depending on the quality of the circuitry in the source and display devices, it's not uncommon for a cable to work fine at 30, 40, or 50 feet on one source/display combination, and not work at all on another.

The Upshot: It Depends

So, which is better, DVI or component? HDMI or component? The answer--unsatisfying, perhaps, but true--is that it depends. It depends upon your source and display devices, and there's no good way, in principle, to say in advance whether the digital or the analog connection will render a better picture. You may even find, say, that your DVD player looks better through its DVI or HDMI output, while your satellite or cable box looks better through its component output, on the same display. In this case, there's no real substitute for simply plugging it in and giving it a try both ways.

[Pork @ Jan 25th 2007 9:38AM]

Google this!!!! Xbox 360 HDMI in full action
Looks lick vga to hdmi? You tell me??

[crazyrayjr @ Jan 30th 2007 8:31PM]

Whats wrong with all you people who get mad when a company upgrades a product.This is the microchip era computers are always getting a new version about every 6 months it has been over a year for the 360 so what do you expect .When you buy a new car do you get mad when they come out with next years model no you keep your 1 year old car or sell it and get the newer version.Besides people everyone knows that the first new systems always have problems just like a new car model each gen is always tried to be made better.So stop your crying and get over it, YOU DONT ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT!