S-Video Question

[Soron]

Hey got a question, does S-video cable really make that much of a difference? I recently aquired an a/v auto switch for my birthday from my dad and I have been thinking about upgrading the video cables to s-video on the output side. It would go from (1) 2 stereo cables and an S-video cable combo from the auto a/v switch to a 4-way distribution amplifier then from there (2) more combo cables would connect to both the tv and tv tuner card on the computer. I know this setup will work but even if I assemble the cables myself and bought the 4-way amp ($45), it comes out to $90 and I was wondering if it would be worth the cost, especially since I create dvd's from the recordings I grab off of the cable or vcr and I want the best "percievable" video quality, if I can't see a difference between normal composite video and S-video then I would have wasted alot of cash that could have been used for a trunk lighting upgrade, yes I know how they work and to me its just theory as the video signals are separated and should perform better but I rely upon the actual experiance of others so is there any real percievable difference? Any thoughts?

[paki]

in theory, you're supposed to get a better picture.. just like you said

in reality, there really is not much of a difference between the RCA yellow video cable and the S-video cable. its really hard to tell a difference.. now if you're talking composite cables.. then yes you'll see a big difference

$90 for 2-3 more lines of resolution? not worth it :P

[Soron]

Thanks, you saved me some bux! But then again I light do it later on anyways in the winter when I make tons o cash via overtime lol! (I usually get anywhere from 5 - 30 hours overtime)

[Dust]

As a video editor, I can suggest that you spend the $90 on Noloby Super Ultra Mega Grounded wires, and maybe a Tornado fuel saver, will do you more better. Have used them both, tried switching one night between the two while watching a movie on the TV. I would be lying if I said there was a difference. Also, like stated above, if it was for composite, hell yeah, drop the cash and sit back and smile. That makes a difference. S-video and RCA is not enough to make a difference.

[2loud2k2xd]

i beg to differ. i am and audio/video junkie. weather its in the car or in my house. s-video is 1496794161x better than crappy *** rca's. component video and optic are the way to go. the ranking on cables goes, rca's, s-video, component video, then fiber optic. you pay what you get. spend the extra money and you get quality cables. i have a 54" big screen, all wired s-video and component video and optic for my dvd player. all signals come thru digital. its like going back to regular tv, compared to a digital satellite signal which i have. digital is better :D

[Leviathant]

If you're not capturing through S-Video before you put them to DVD, then you've already degraded the signal well before it goes from your DVD to your TV, so just go with RCA cables. If you do S-Video every step of the way, though, you will notice a difference.

[Mr. Dan]

I use my computer as my entertainment system, and I do notice a difference between the RCA and the S-Video connection. Not huge mind you, but when you turn off the lights and sit down to watch a movie you can notice a difference. Just looks a bit better.

[2loud2k2xd]

i use a combonation of s-video, component video and fiber optic. i have a digital feed form my satellite receiver, then my dvd is wired digitally with optical and component wires. only my vcr uses rca wires. crystal clear pic on a rear projection, well about as crystal clear as you can get.

i have some extra s-video cable if you need some. i think i have a 3' and a 6'. lmk
dave

[SuperGLS]

I use S-video for my Gamecube and it made a noticible difference.

[Leviathant]

Think of it kind of like speakers.

Boomboxes, cheaper computer speakers, etc, use one speaker for the left, one speaker for the right.

On the other hand, larger speakers for component systems separate the bass, midrange, and highs into two or three separate speakers per channel.

Some people don't care. They just want to listen to music, and the difference in quality doesn't really phase them. Other people woud balk at the notion of not having separate subs and tweeters.

Whatever the least-quality connection is in your signal chain, that's what you should go with to connect everything else, to do otherwise would be wasting money.

[KeWLKaT]

nice, i've always wondered about the difference myself.

[Kenshin]

I'll say it again and again and again, your system is only as good as your wires and interconnect cables. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If there's an RCA connection anywhere between the input source and the monitor, that's the picture quality you'll get. If you have the capability to upgrade EVERY SINGLE interconnect between source and monitor to S-video, DO IT!!!! It WILL make a difference in clarity. If any one link in the system is of lesser quality, then that's the quality that will show on the monitor. Going from RCA to S-video does make a difference in sharpness, contrast, and color seperation, but only if every connection between the source and the monitor are upgraded. I can't remember all the technical terms, as it's been a few years since I dealt with this stuff on a daily basis, but basically, an RCA cable is a coaxial cable. Your entire video signal is carried along 1 wire, whereas an S-video cable has 4 conductors - Red, Green, and Blue are all carried on separate signal paths, causing better color seperation and less bleed with better contrast. (I can't remember specifically what information the 4th wire carries - brightness, contrast, something like that.) Anyways, I hope this information is useful.