Im seriously considering a Hanns-G monitor (see widescreen for sub £130 thread). This monitor is the cheapest available with a DVI connector. Now, a decent DVI cable is £20+, whereas i have a VGA cable already. so, i open the floor, is the quality of a DVI worth the £20+ additional cost?
DVI Lovers, Make Your Case!
- Thread starter Skeeter
- Start date
The biggest advantage from my point of view is that on digital mode there is no adjustment to be done on the display.
Graphics card talks to the monitor, monitor talks back - sets the optimum display size and refresh rate, fills it to the edge of the screen. Done.
If you buy a digial display, chances are that it will come with a functional cable to hook it up... so I wouldn't spend the £20 on a fancy one if you don't need it.
Is this like all the people who claim they need gold-plated connectors for their standard definition DVD player or amplifier? Sure if you're at the high-end it might be worth it, but for most users it's just a waste of money.
Graphics card talks to the monitor, monitor talks back - sets the optimum display size and refresh rate, fills it to the edge of the screen. Done.
If you buy a digial display, chances are that it will come with a functional cable to hook it up... so I wouldn't spend the £20 on a fancy one if you don't need it.
Is this like all the people who claim they need gold-plated connectors for their standard definition DVD player or amplifier? Sure if you're at the high-end it might be worth it, but for most users it's just a waste of money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,376
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
They'll be fine.Skeeter said:
Digital: 1/0 or nothing.... can't really go wrong!
Whilst I agree with you about digital cables I'm going to have to disagree with you on the part I quoted. Every Saturday I connect up one or two dvd players and every now and then I try using the SCART cable that came in the box - trust me the difference between a really rubbish scart cable and a decent fully-wired gold SCART cable is really obvious - even on small televisions. When you start talking about amps - well it depends on what you call high-end - but certainly you've opened a can of worms.PobodY said:
fini
Skeeter said:
Buy a good DVI cable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVI
Digital
- Minimum clock frequency: 21.76 MHz
- Maximum clock frequency in single link mode: Capped at 165 MHz (3.7 Gbit/s)
- Maximum clock frequency in dual link mode: Limited only by cable quality (more than 7.4 Gbit/s)
- Pixels per clock cycle: 1 (single link) or 2 (dual link)
- Bits per pixel: 24
but hey, maybe, just maybe wiki have got it wrong, quick email them and tell them! use your posts has proof!
EDIT* found this site before, which was a good read, here is a paragraph from the site, i believe this is mostly on long run cables and nothing to worry about with such a short run of cable, but it does prove that DVI has signal loss and the reason i know of this info, is because i wanted to know if it was worth the cost myself on a better cable.
http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/dvi_info.html
Last edited:
Fair enough - I'm used to using RCA and S-Video connections on DVD and stereos. You get a seperate co-axial cable for each one.fini said:
I just see people buying gold-plated everyting; cat5 cables, phone lines, RCA cables... it feels a bit like "Pimp My Stereo"
I think I may have the issue confused. Is this for a monitor or a TV?
Yes this is true any cable will do the job for the task in hand but there is a difference in quality and from my opinion if it takes a good cable to reach fasters speeds on DVI dual link, then thats the cable i want for slower speeds not being flossy, just a matter of assurance that this is the cable to have.stormy said:
It's all personal choice, thats why the expensive cables are along side the cheap ones.
So Mr.Skeeter,
i suggest you buy a good DVI cable.
Digital is digital - it either works or doesn't.
And if you think buying a more expensive DVI cable is worth it because somehow the signal travels faster - then they've bought you...
You only need to look at some of the £70 HDMI/DVI cables made by Monster that a well known electronics store stock to see that people are buying into the more must be better mentality. As said, digital is digital, as long as you can handle the bandwidth and the signal gets to the other end then it doesn't matter how it gets there.
Analogue is a different kettle of fish but even then, not to the extent of many of the solutions.
And if you think buying a more expensive DVI cable is worth it because somehow the signal travels faster - then they've bought you...
You only need to look at some of the £70 HDMI/DVI cables made by Monster that a well known electronics store stock to see that people are buying into the more must be better mentality. As said, digital is digital, as long as you can handle the bandwidth and the signal gets to the other end then it doesn't matter how it gets there.
Analogue is a different kettle of fish but even then, not to the extent of many of the solutions.
Magic Man said:
Not 100% true, but it does depend on how robust the signalling protocol is. SPDIF 'operates' over a proverbial piece of wet string, but is prone to jitter, and several other digital issues. Better cables can be usefull in the right place.
Regarding a computer screen, I've never had any trouble with the freeby ones that came with my Viewsonic, or Dell montitors, so I wouldnt buy a DVI cable. DVI's better than VGA because the signal remains digital longer.
Better shielding on a cable will help avoid interferance and bit errors being introduced by nearby devices (including the PC itself)... But as I said the cables supplied with most monitors are sufficient for the job.