The HDMI Arms Race - get ready for HDMI 2.1

One of the reasons i will not jump into 4k. Most movies now are filmed in 5-6k right now and down converted to 4k for market.

I don't think Plasma's are coming back, from my understanding it was the CE mandate of power usage that did them in. Correct me if I'm wrong please. I also do not like any of the LED sets I have seen. My Panasonic Plasma is the best TV I have ever spent money on.

Having had a Kuro myself, I can honestly say the newer 4k sets are better in every aspect. I didn't buy a 4k set for 4k viewing, I bought it for the better picture in 1080i-1080p which is what the majority of what you'll watch is in.

Regular programing isn't even up to snuff with 1080 yet, let alone 4-8k, so I don't put too much stock in it. Certainly not going to run out and buy all new 4k-8k certified gear and cables, even though that might be the intention of the manufacturers anyway. I always wait until technology offers leaps and bounds rather than incremental benefits before I drop coin on it.

I've been reading/hearing the arguments/complaints about the industry moving too fast ever since home theater receivers made their debut back in the early eighties and we made the jump from Dolby Surround to Dolby Pro Logic. That ain't never gonna change. Japan's NHK is already doing 8k,so you KNOW it's going to make its way here eventually. You can't stop progress no matter how much you resist it or complain about it.

honestaquarian wrote: »

I've been reading/hearing the arguments/complaints about the industry moving too fast ever since home theater receivers made their debut back in the early eighties and we made the jump from Dolby Surround to Dolby Pro Logic. That ain't never gonna change. Japan's NHK is already doing 8k,so you KNOW it's going to make its way here eventually. You can't stop progress no matter how much you resist it or complain about it.

I don't think it is the progress itself that anyone is complaining about as much as it is the tiny incremental steps being taken.

But the driving factor behind it all, the almighty dollar, praises the marketing arms that get people out to buy the next best thing...even if it is a minuscule step up instead of a major advancement in technology.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

honestaquarian wrote: »

I've been reading/hearing the arguments/complaints about the industry moving too fast ever since home theater receivers made their debut back in the early eighties and we made the jump from Dolby Surround to Dolby Pro Logic. That ain't never gonna change. Japan's NHK is already doing 8k,so you KNOW it's going to make its way here eventually. You can't stop progress no matter how much you resist it or complain about it.

I don't think it is the progress itself that anyone is complaining about as much as it is the tiny incremental steps being taken.

But the driving factor behind it all, the almighty dollar, praises the marketing arms that get people out to buy the next best thing...even if it is a minuscule step up instead of a major advancement in technology.

Exactly.....not to mention the costs of it all to the consumer. People are just tired of having to throw big coin at this stuff when so many other things in life require it. Handshake issues, this or that component not working with another, cables not up to current spec, lack of available material to watch in 4k-8k, least stuff you don't have to pay extra for.

From my perspective, the industry is trying to create that addictive nature cell phones have created for themselves by including apps for everything and synergy with cell phones, incorporating internet services and features. By creating that addictive nature, people will pay for it no matter what. Just like some who can't afford to feed themselves but have no problem shelling out for an IPhone every year.

Eh, that's just life though, the constant battle for their share of your wallet. You just have to decipher the B.S. marketing from real world applications and decide for yourself.

Sounds like they didn't set it up and just took it out of the box and plugged it in.

tonyb wrote: »

Having had a Kuro myself, I can honestly say the newer 4k sets are better in every aspect. I didn't buy a 4k set for 4k viewing, I bought it for the better picture in 1080i-1080p which is what the majority of what you'll watch is in.

Regular programing isn't even up to snuff with 1080 yet, let alone 4-8k, so I don't put too much stock in it. Certainly not going to run out and buy all new 4k-8k certified gear and cables, even though that might be the intention of the manufacturers anyway. I always wait until technology offers leaps and bounds rather than incremental benefits before I drop coin on it.

And what TV did you buy that you think it looks and performs better for 1080 then the Kuro? I haven't seen one. The Sony XBR's come damn close but still are not as smooth and natural. They also don't calibrate perfectly for the gray scale. I have not seen another TV other then the Kuro's pass the 0-100 IRE scale test.
If my Kuro does go which it could it's getting up there in age, I will go Sony. I don't like the LG OLED's as they look remarkable still and with some 4k content but something doesn't seem quite right with the blacks when they come out of Black. They seem to react slow.

LED technology will never be better then what Plasma was. The artificial look of the screen bugs the hell out of me.

Bingo!

Thing is though that LCD/LED has been around for so long now that people think that's the way a TV should look.

My take on 4k/8k is; it depends on how you want to use the display as.
If you are using it as a computer monitor, you want 4k with 4:4:4 chroma and what not. But if you are using it for regular TV/movie viewing, unless you have a large enough screen for the given distance, you wont notice much difference in 1080p and 4k.

I am on the other end of the spectrum with 4k TV and xbox one S but an age old 1080p receiver (yamaha rx-v667) being a bottleneck. I waited sometime to upgrade my TV for the 4k HDR dust to settle. I bought a 60" samsung 4k TV with HDR recently and sure it upscales 1080p and lower resolution content pretty good and the available 4k content from amazon/netflix looks pretty stellar. Much better than my 50" 1080p set I had before. My viewing distance to the TV is about 9 feet, so 60" 4k made sense. If I was at 20 feet from my TV, I wouldnt know the difference in resolution unless I super large screen.

The main difference I found was HDR though. The HDR enabled shows look tons better than regular 4k shows. My bluray player(sony with 4k upscaler) goes through receiver to the TV, so the upscaler in bluray player is useless. I compared sony's upscaler to the samsung's upscaler with a familiar BD disk. I liked the upscaler in the sony. But to take advantage of sony, I will have to run HDMI to TV and then arc or optical back to receiver. This will render my 7.1 system useless because arc or optical passes 5.1 Dolby or DTS only. So, I compromise and run xbox to TV and run arc(for games I dont need 7.1) and run bluray through receiver (for proper 7.1 sound and let samsung handle 4k upscaling). I am not ready to upgrade my receiver because, I dont have any use for atmos at my current apartment and buying a receiver with preouts will bring me to upper end of 4k/HDR capable receiver which I wont be using the features of. By the time I buy a house in a year and be able to make use of the features, the technology would have changed so much that the top of the line receiver I buy today will be just useless. So, I am deciding to wait till I actually move and then buy a receiver and who knows, another TV, disc player and all the cables. The only thing that will be constant are the speakers and amplifier(may be they will bring in something new on that too).

TLDR: I dont like how a new format/technology completely renders the old tech useless. Now, to have a proper 4k setup, a person has to upgrade the TV, receiver, player, may be cables too. HDMI 2.1 or 8k will do the same thing, forcing the consumer to upgrade everything. Its a constant upgrade battle.

trj wrote: »

My take on 4k/8k is; it depends on how you want to use the display as.
If you are using it as a computer monitor, you want 4k with 4:4:4 chroma and what not. But if you are using it for regular TV/movie viewing, unless you have a large enough screen for the given distance, you wont notice much difference in 1080p and 4k.

I am on the other end of the spectrum with 4k TV and xbox one S but an age old 1080p receiver (yamaha rx-v667) being a bottleneck. I waited sometime to upgrade my TV for the 4k HDR dust to settle. I bought a 60" samsung 4k TV with HDR recently and sure it upscales 1080p and lower resolution content pretty good and the available 4k content from amazon/netflix looks pretty stellar. Much better than my 50" 1080p set I had before. My viewing distance to the TV is about 9 feet, so 60" 4k made sense. If I was at 20 feet from my TV, I wouldnt know the difference in resolution unless I super large screen.

The main difference I found was HDR though. The HDR enabled shows look tons better than regular 4k shows. My bluray player(sony with 4k upscaler) goes through receiver to the TV, so the upscaler in bluray player is useless. I compared sony's upscaler to the samsung's upscaler with a familiar BD disk. I liked the upscaler in the sony. But to take advantage of sony, I will have to run HDMI to TV and then arc or optical back to receiver. This will render my 7.1 system useless because arc or optical passes 5.1 Dolby or DTS only. So, I compromise and run xbox to TV and run arc(for games I dont need 7.1) and run bluray through receiver (for proper 7.1 sound and let samsung handle 4k upscaling). I am not ready to upgrade my receiver because, I dont have any use for atmos at my current apartment and buying a receiver with preouts will bring me to upper end of 4k/HDR capable receiver which I wont be using the features of. By the time I buy a house in a year and be able to make use of the features, the technology would have changed so much that the top of the line receiver I buy today will be just useless. So, I am deciding to wait till I actually move and then buy a receiver and who knows, another TV, disc player and all the cables. The only thing that will be constant are the speakers and amplifier(may be they will bring in something new on that too).

TLDR: I dont like how a new format/technology completely renders the old tech useless. Now, to have a proper 4k setup, a person has to upgrade the TV, receiver, player, may be cables too. HDMI 2.1 or 8k will do the same thing, forcing the consumer to upgrade everything. Its a constant upgrade battle.

Eh, depends....you don't always have to buy everything new to take advantage of newer technologies. Buy an Oppo as a BDP with the dual HDMI outputs. One can go directing to the TV for 4k viewing and the sound goes to the receiver from the other output. The sound formats haven't changed so you can still use your receiver. You just can't run the video through an outdated receiver.

Also agree on the distance thing, if your sitting farther away than say 12 feet, the differences become less noticeable....unless you have an 80 inch screen that is but most don't.

trj wrote: »

The problem with that approach is, the oppo itself will cost half as much as the top of the line receiver plus you still have to put up with ARC 5.1 for other devices(xbox one in S in my case). Receiver essentially acts as a central meeting point for every device you have in the chain. Unless every device in the chain meets the new specs, the integration will never be seamless. To me having a receiver or pre-pro is to have as less cables as possible and do the heavy lifting of processing. I got rid of my SACD player to use HDMI from my BD player and let the receiver do DSD decoding. That is 6 less cables and the same decoder in the works (yamaha/yamaha). If I am going to be feeding pre-processed signals(ARC 5.1) to the receiver then it is acting just as a distributor rather than a processor.

My situation: My TV only has one port that accepts HDR signals, other 2 are just plain 4k ports. If I have two sources that are HDR capable, I dont have any other choice than to upgrade the receiver or switch the cable on the TV.
With introduction of HDMI 2.1, I am 99% sure that the same will be the case with the TVs supporting only one or two ports for HDMI 2.1 and early receivers doing the same.
I dont mind changing the receivers/TVs every 5-6 years. But every 2-3 years is just a little too much. The entry level receiver will not have pre-outs for external amps so whether you want or not, you are bound to pay up for higher tier receivers just to get those pre-outs whether you are going to be using atmos or not.

OT: Watched hacksaw ridge on 4k yesterday. There is some reference level audio video in that movie.

A brand new UDP-203 is $550. Top of line receivers can run up to $4,000...

Not a lot of people want to dump multi thousand dollar receivers every time HDMI specs change. That's where the Oppo solution really comes in handy. Hell, you can usually sell the old Oppo for close to what you paid for it if you want to.

As for the single HDR input on the TV, there is usually several ways around that issue. Many people use built in streaming apps for anything offered from streaming services. I believe it's also expected that the HDMI input on the 20X series Oppo's are going to accept HDR.

afterburnt wrote: »

I don't have 1080 eyes anymore let alone 4k.

More reason to upgrade

Upstatemax wrote: »

A brand new UDP-203 is $550. Top of line receivers can run up to $4,000...

Not a lot of people want to dump multi thousand dollar receivers every time HDMI specs change. That's where the Oppo solution really comes in handy. Hell, you can usually sell the old Oppo for close to what you paid for it if you want to.

As for the single HDR input on the TV, there is usually several ways around that issue. Many people use built in streaming apps for anything offered from streaming services. I believe it's also expected that the HDMI input on the 20X series Oppo's are going to accept HDR.

I agree that for some instances oppo is the answer but not all. The top of the line receivers can be had for around $2000 (still a lot to be spending every 2-3 years). Now the question becomes, should someone spend $500 for an oppo and deal with extra cables by keeping the receiver constant, or they better be spending on a cheaper player and spend more on the receiver with whatever bells and whistles the next best thing has.
With the standards changing, the oppo (or any BD player) will have to be updated too. My issue is not with changing one single component, but the whole system has to be overhauled as soon as the new standard comes into picture. Think about the people who run HDMI cables in wall without the conduit in place. They are stuck with whatever standard they chose or go through the expensive process of running the cables again. In some cases, remove the drywall.
Online streaming is not a problem for me because I can stream it on the TV, but if I have multiple sources that are HDR capable, I am forced to upgrade the receiver because there is just not enough ports on the TV. The HDMI splitters/adapters that are available right now are not really reliable and not even cheap.

With dolby vision HDR and UHD HDR, the verdict is still out. Same with atmos and DTS:X. If you want both, you pay a premium on the TV. Receivers manufacturers are still fighting to play catch up. Too many variables right now