[mythtv-users] *huge* difference in picture quality..

[Maarten]

On Wednesday 26 May 2004 17:24, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 05:04:11PM +0200, Henk Poley wrote:
> >> just thought I'd share.. I wasn't aware of the fact that
> >> composite is *so* much better than coax...
>
> I'm curious. I know what composite video is, and I know what
> coax is.  All the composite cables I have are coax.  Here in
> the US, composite video connectors on AV gear are always
> coaxial connectors (commonly called "RCA jacks").

Yes, it's confusing.  Most people say coax when referring to antenna signals. 
But you are right, composite is also using 75 Ohm coax officially.

The difference is, if you use any other type wire for composite it will still 
work, abeit with worse quality.  But if you try to use such wires for the HF 
antenna signals just about all you will see will be snow...

> > It shouldn't... Coax is shielded and has thicker wires,
> > composite cables are regularly not shielded. Though it's
> > probably that the cable box just has really bad coax output,
> > possibly even with something like macrovision applied.
>
> In this usage what do you guys mean by "coax" and "composite"?
>
> Are composite video connectors and cables in the UK not
> coaxial?

They should be, and I believe they are.

Maarten

-- 
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding hardware.