rca component hd video cable for audio

[markpilk]

I’ve ended up with a case full of older rca component hd video cable from a friend. Most all look to be molded and I can’t see the gauge of wire. There’s 5 wires on each set and only two designated for audio. Are the 3 HD video rca cables the same as the audio?

Seems like I remember the older composite video cable were thinner gauge wire and I’ve never cut into the HD component video cables to see if they were the same. I’m thinking I can use them for audio if there all the same.

 

[Audi0]

Another wire thread. Imho I have had some high end compontent video cords that came with complete system buys. No videophile is going to use red green blue anymore early 1080i in other words. There onto what is hdmi 2.0 or better.

I've peeled several cords back taking 3 inputs into 2. All those component cord end should be the same. Doesn't matter. Maybe one has a ferrite choke?

 

[the skipper]

They will work fine. They are probably all 75 ohms which is great for for video. Audio interconnects are usually somewhere between 50 - 110 ohms so all is well.

It's mot economically feasible for mfgrs to use different cables and, besides, I've used these between my universal DVD/SACD player with 5 channels audio outs to my receivers.

 

[swechsler]

I've repurposed several component cables for audio (I actually gave most of them away, though). They're usually pretty thick, and longer than typical audio cables.

 

[mgosdin]

They should work fine as Audio cables. I've been using several sets for the past 6 years, got them at various Thrifts, and have had no issues.

Mark Gosdin

 

[Poultrygeist]

Some might be tempted to pay more for a designated digital coax cable for your DAC, streamer or CDP when one of those forgotten red, green or blue component cables will work just as well.

 

[rothwellaudio]

Most all look to be molded and I can’t see the gauge of wire.

The gauge of wire isn't relevant. Even the thinnest wire's resistance will be so low as to be practically zero.

There’s 5 wires on each set and only two designated for audio. Are the 3 HD video rca cables the same as the audio?

Probably.

Seems like I remember the older composite video cable were thinner gauge wire and I’ve never cut into the HD component video cables to see if they were the same.

Being thinner doesn't matter.

 

[markpilk]

Thanks for the info!

 

[swechsler]

Being thinner doesn't matter.

If the actual cable is thinner, that also implies a thinner shield and dielectric. The latter probably won't make a difference in audio applications, but the former could.

 

[bimasta]

Some might be tempted to pay more for a designated digital coax cable for your DAC, streamer or CDP when one of those forgotten red, green or blue component cables will work just as well.

I'm no expert on Digital nor wires, but I'm not entirely sure that's correct, namely that 75Ω is the only factor. I tried it. My "dedicated" digital cable (between transport and DAC) has 4 layers of braided shield, over a layer of aluminum foil shield, and the center core is insulated by a kind of foam dielectric to resist vibrations. Also, the shielding is soldered to the connector at each end at all points around the circumference of the plug, not just a single tab, as with audio cables — in other words, the shield surrounds the plug 360°.

I've no idea if all those levels of construction are necessary, but that cable sounds notably better than a plain Video 75Ω cable. I tried 3 or 4 different Video Component cables, from Sony to Audioquest. I wanted Video cable to work as well, because it's thin and as pliable as cooked spaghetti, whereas my cable is stiff, fat, and hard to bend into position. But they didn't sound as good: less detail, ambience, "space".

 

[sKiZo]

Not sure what possible use the old universal combo cable would have in a sound system though. I always use separate cables for component connections. That said, decent separate RCA component cables are nice for replacing turntable line cords because of the low capacitance, but that's not watcher got, so ferget I mentioned it, eh ...

 

[swechsler]

I've no idea if all those levels of construction are necessary, but that cable sounds notably better than a plain Video 75Ω cable. I tried 3 or 4 different Video Component cables, from Sony to Audioquest. I wanted Video cable to work as well, because it's thin and as pliable as cooked spaghetti, whereas my cable is stiff, fat, and hard to bend into position. But they didn't sound as good: less detail, ambience, "space".

At the risk of igniting a cable war, do you have any idea how digital works? The purpose of a digital cable is to get the bitstream from the source to the DAC with zero errors. There's nothing inherent in a digital signal where bits dropping would affect detail, ambience or space. It just isn't possible. Errors are either corrected or you'll hear noise or some other byproduct of the DAC trying to recover.

Note that I'm not doubting that you can hear those characteristics; most of us can. I'm only saying that the quality of a digital signal can't affect them.

This video attempts to explain how CDs are encoded. I have to admit that after viewing multiple videos and reading multiple articles, I still don't understand how Nyquist-Shannon works. But I do understand what it isn't; it's not a simple digital representation of the musical waveform.

ETA: Nyquist-Shannon also explains why controlling volume digitally doesn't decrease the resolution of the sound.

 

[Bill Ferris]

No videophile is going to use red green blue anymore early 1080i in other words. There onto what is hdmi 2.0 or better.

While I use 1080P HDMI, for my daily evening`s BR/DVD video watching, I still feed Component(RGB) to 5 of my house`s room`s 1080P flat screen TVs, & a very HQ 4K $25,000.00 Sony projector in the living room along with HDMI 1080P.

Don`t know if I`m considered a "Videophile", but my wired 8 180I camera, & wireless 4 camera HD security camera systems picture quality look exceptional fed through the house`s component distribution system, along with SVGA quality, S-Video, & composite signal feeds to all the same rooms at the same time to be individually selected when desired in whatever room that I happen to be in.

All A/V distribution designed by me & installed in 2009.

My first BR player has HDMI, and Component video outputs, and before I updated my multi format video distribution system to provide HDMI 1080P, I was watching BRs with it(Component video) and my TVs reported 1080P signal resolution when their inputs were selected to Component as fed from that 2009 Sony BR player, and I was able to select between both formats on the fly while playing a 1080P disc, and there was not a great amount of difference between the two signal types, except there were never any HDCP hand shack issues with analog Component 1080P signal video.

 

[bimasta]

Personally, I wouldn't use any cable without knowing what it looks like inside, but that's me.

I looked inside — peeling back the outer insulation to examine the shielding, and taking the plugs apart to see the soldering — and it was impressive, more complex than any of the countless Audio cables I've examined... and for a technical reason, I assume: being completely invisible to the consumer, it couldn't boost the perceived value, or the price he/she was willing to pay.

At the risk of igniting a cable war, do you have any idea how digital works? ... The purpose of a digital cable is to get the bitstream from the source to the DAC with zero errors ... Errors are either corrected or you'll hear noise or some other byproduct of the DAC trying to recover.

Not as good an idea as you have, of course — the first words of my post are "I'm no expert on Digital nor wires..." and your post teaches me.

But I'm puzzled: "Errors are either corrected or you'll hear noise or some other byproduct of the DAC trying to recover."

What, then, is the purpose of a "dedicated" digital cable made specifically to "to get the bitstream from the source to the DAC with zero errors." Why won't any cable do? Why does my "digital" cable sound clearly better than an ordinary interconnect, even the "good ones", and better than cable made for component video? It's not a subjective thing, an "IMO" — everyone who's heard my rig with the digital cable, compared to an ordinary cable, thinks the difference is striking. Please teach me more.

 

[Poultrygeist]

I'm no expert on Digital nor wires, but I'm not entirely sure that's correct, namely that 75Ω is the only factor. I tried it. My "dedicated" digital cable (between transport and DAC) has 4 layers of braided shield, over a layer of aluminum foil shield, and the center core is insulated by a kind of foam dielectric to resist vibrations. Also, the shielding is soldered to the connector at each end at all points around the circumference of the plug, not just a single tab, as with audio cables — in other words, the shield surrounds the plug 360°.

I've no idea if all those levels of construction are necessary, but that cable sounds notably better than a plain Video 75Ω cable. I tried 3 or 4 different Video Component cables, from Sony to Audioquest. I wanted Video cable to work as well, because it's thin and as pliable as cooked spaghetti, whereas my cable is stiff, fat, and hard to bend into position. But they didn't sound as good: less detail, ambience, "space".

You don't have to be an expert to know that RGB video cables are 75 ohms.

 

[swechsler]

What, then, is the purpose of a "dedicated" digital cable made specifically to "to get the bitstream from the source to the DAC with zero errors." Why won't any cable do? Why does my "digital" cable sound clearly better than an ordinary interconnect, even the "good ones", and better than cable made for component video? It's not a subjective thing, an "IMO" — everyone who's heard my rig with the digital cable, compared to an ordinary cable, thinks the difference is striking. Please teach me more.

Well, I haven't heard your setup, but unless you've been doing true double-blind tests, it is a subjective thing. The placebo effect is real and has been demonstrated. I say this not to insult you, but it goes along with everything I've read and with my experience with audio, video and digital.

Now, to your question of why not every cable will do: Digital coax was designed as a 75Ω system, which is the same impedance that video uses. My hunch is that they chose 75Ω specifically so they could use video cables, already readily available (I'm sure there are some other technical reasons as well). Standard audio cables are usually not 75Ω, so with short runs, you could sometimes get away with using an audio cable, but for longer runs, you need one specified as 75Ω or you'll experience dropouts. It's worth pointing out that when separate CD transports and processors (DACs) were first marketed, there were no specialized cables for them. If there was indeed a difference, you can bet the manufacturers would have offered one. Audio manufacturers have never turned down the opportunity to make a buck, especially when it made an audible difference (and even when it didn't. Do you remember Denon's $500 ethernet cable?).

Now, you didn't mention your hardware, but I assume your CD transport and DAC both have optical connections in addition to coax. Have you tried that? How does the sound quality compare to coax?

 

[Jeff449]

I've used them for analog, line level audio. They work fine. In my experience, the ones I have did not sound as good as the cables I have that are designed for audio.
Try them out and run your own A-B tests and report back.

I was just pondering this:
What if HDMI didn't exist and we were all still using RGB coax cables, and the people that build $$$$ audio cable started making $$$$ video cable? Maybe they did but I wasn't aware. I can imagine them claiming that different exotic metals work better for different colors. Like you need OFC copper plated with gold for Red, silver for blue, and rhodium for green.

 

[swechsler]

What if HDMI didn't exist and we were all still using RGB coax cables, and the people that build $$$$ audio cable started making $$$$ video cable? Maybe they did but I wasn't aware.

There certainly were some expensive video cables. I purchased a complete system a few years ago, and the seller included several high-end S-video cables. Not multi-hundred-dollar things, but still a lot fancier and heavier than the standard stuff. S-video was long out of use by the time I got the system, so I never used them, although I saved them in case I wanted to use them to make some good quality audio cables.

I would be willing to bet that the same company made high end component cables as well.

 

[vwestlife]

What, then, is the purpose of a "dedicated" digital cable made specifically to "to get the bitstream from the source to the DAC with zero errors." Why won't any cable do? Why does my "digital" cable sound clearly better than an ordinary interconnect, even the "good ones", and better than cable made for component video? It's not a subjective thing, an "IMO" — everyone who's heard my rig with the digital cable, compared to an ordinary cable, thinks the difference is striking. Please teach me more.

This video should help -- I went to great lengths (literally!) to demonstrate what an inferior digital audio cable actually sounds like. Basically, depending on how your device handles it, a failing digital audio connection either quickly begins to sound like a Commodore 64, or it just mutes entirely.