New TV's - what say the Forum

[dtel]

I agree those charts are very solid..............it is talking about pixels and resolution, but there is much more than that going on. What they are talking about is if you can see the pixels from a certain viewing distance, if there noticeable

What it does not talk about is what else goes along with higher resolution Tv's, like DrWho kind of described.  

 

I was not looking for a 4K Tv but when I found one in my price range what I found out was it was not even close to the same spec's. Many more zones for the active back lighting (32)=(better blacks), much high contrast ratios, and a few other things I don't really understand to be honest.

 

Does any of this matter ? I don't know but after much reading i couldn't see going with less for the same price. It could it all be so little it doesn't matter, I haven't got a clue ? But I did notice to get these features on a non 4K Tv I had to go to the top of the line and spend much more money.

[Arrow#422]

I agree those charts are very solid..............it is talking about pixels and resolution, but there is much more than that going on. What they are talking about is if you can see the pixels from a certain viewing distance, if there noticeable

What it does not talk about is what else goes along with higher resolution Tv's, like DrWho kind of described.  

 

I was not looking for a 4K Tv but when I found one in my price range what I found out was it was not even close to the same spec's. Many more zones for the active back lighting (32)=(better blacks), much high contrast ratios, and a few other things I don't really understand to be honest.

 

Does any of this matter ? I don't know but after much reading i couldn't see going with less for the same price. It could it all be so little it doesn't matter, I haven't got a clue ? But I did notice to get these features on a non 4K Tv I had to go to the top of the line and spend much more money.

+1

Edited December 1, 2015 by Arrow#422

[homeskizzle]

Just like auditioning speakers that sound best to your ears, try to see which TV looks the best to your own eyes. Yeah, someone may scoff at your for having a 4K TV...but your eyes may perceive visual quality better than theirs. I love golf and the Golf Channel looks so much better on my sister's 4K TV than it could ever hope to look on my 1080P TV. A piece of measuring equipment may say that something should look better. But to you, does it actually look better?

 

Is 4K mainstream? Nope. But there are also people who give La Scalas 250 watts too. My point? Overkill is underrated. 4K TVs help me view 1080p Blurays in a much higher quality. But that's what I see. 

 

Am I concerned about longevity of a TV? Gimme 5-7 years and I'm good. But that's just me. Paying $1500-2000 every 5-7 years to have something that visually wows me is no problem...because I value it. 

 

I've used the first person "I" and "me" and "my" a lot. Just my point of view. YMMV. 

[DrWho]

Yes, but unlike the audio world these things are measurable.

I disagree with that sentiment...I'd argue the audio world is just as measurable.

And just to be clear, I totally agree with you and those charts in that they describe the ability to identify pixels. I'm just saying that having an excess of resolution improves other facets of perception. A classic example is the fuzziness of text, or other aliasing / filtering problems.

Don't forget all the digital signal processing rules for audio are also at play for video, or really any digital format. The only difference is that video has more dimensions, which exponentially increases the filtering complexity.

[Mallette]

I disagree with that sentiment...I'd argue the audio world is just as measurable.

 

Most engineers do.  It's in your blood.  While there are no real "ear charts" there are eye charts and known limits to gamut, dynamic range, and such in vision that make for much more objective measurements than have been demonstrated in audio. 

 

I always thought that evidence that deafness creates greater depression than blindness was rather profound and indicates just how little we understand about the human minds reaction to the senses. 

 

Dave

[DrWho]

There are models for the human ear, but they're not complete (yet). I just heard an amazing talk a couple months back about the progress in that arena. The focal point was how our ears have a mechanism to intentionally introduce frequency dependent delay to improve our phase detection - which is predominantly used for localization. The second mechanism at play here is some "crazy signal processing" that happens in the brain that allows us to focus on the signal we care about and ignore everything else (this is aided incredibly by the frequency specific delay). You almost have to disregard the concept of "frequency" to better appreciate what our ears are doing here. It turns out that very similar techniques are employed by radar systems to improve their acuity. The details of this mechanism were discovered by a guy trying to understand why hearing aids don't work in the "cocktail party" settings (low signal to noise environments). The hearing aid fixes the amplitude distortions of a damaged ear, but it doesn't fix the phase distortions - and it's that phase info that the brain processing requires to focus in on the person you want to hear - when everything arrives at the same time, then the processing cues get distorted and it all sounds like it's coming from everywhere at once - the ability to focus is removed.

 

Anyways, I feel like this is one of the last remaining pieces in the physical part of the hearing puzzle. The signal processing description of these kinds of mechanisms are incredibly complex mathematically, so the practical implications from a holistic perspective are far more difficult to extract. But just because something is complex doesn't mean it's impossible to understand hearing acuity from a biological model like you're describing with the eye. There are certainly some gaps, but we fill those in with empirical testing (which I believe happens with the vision too). But it's this complexity that doesn't allow one to compute simple "ear charts". There are simply too many competing variables to make across the board simplifications. Maybe when someone figures out how to produce a 4D graph that is easy to view, then we can start looking at those charts.

 

One thing to throw out there....

 

The hearing aid industry is big business, and they're the ones funding a lot of the research....the thing is, a lot of the research isn't getting shared publicly in an attempt to maintain competitive advantage. We have tons of research at Shure that doesn't show up in the public domain too - large enough stuff that it really changes my perspective on audio electronics. It drives me nuts that this stuff can't be discussed freely because it's really quite interesting - and I think it makes me sound like a pompous a$$ when I have to vaguely refer to things. It also drives me nuts when these other guys have to cryptically allude to stuff instead of exploring these things together. It's not that the foundational stuff that is public domain is false - it's just that there are tons of caveats that are often the seed behind some of the "crazy" audiophile nonsense - in other words, there's usually a gram of truth behind the crazy, but that gram of truth requires a really complex model to understand what's happening - and 99% of the time it totally doesn't matter. But it's that occasional corner case that really caught somebody and then it suddenly propagates into a belief that it always matters - and that's just poor reasoning, but it's not apparent to the average audiophile that can't be arsed to understand the greater complexities. The point is that the model behind that gram of truth is sometimes hidden behind the doors of intellectual property, rather than being freely available in the public domain.

 

Most engineers do.  It's in your blood.

 

 

Haha, perhaps....but take off the engineering lens for a second. I'm trying to point out that more exists than what I think the audiophile community gives credit. Heck, we even have people here in this thread totally disregarding the visual science you're referring to without even a surface level understanding of that science. I think a lot more of that happens in the audio world, enough so that it's a defacto audiophile standard that engineers are cold-hearted and oblivious to the richness of the audiophile experience. I don't think that's what you were implying, but my biggest epiphany these last 7 years at Shure is that the audio science understands a crap ton of stuff really really well. Like crazy freaky well. All these years on the Klipsch forum had me honestly believing that the science was just a crutch to justify poor decisions by someone that doesn't understand people and the human condition. The people I've met, the research I've read, and my own personal experiences have taught me otherwise, and so I was just taking an opportunity here to allude to the fact that we understand a lot more than I think is given credit.

 

I would also add that my closest friends have pointed out that I'm not inherently an engineer - I'm very much a free spirited type, and feel absolutely restricted by all these annoying sciencey rules. Maybe it's not actually in my blood? There's many here that think I'm off my rocker too

 

I forgot what this had to do with 4k TVs, haha.

[dtel]

I forgot what this had to do with 4k TVs, haha.

 

Nothing directly but plenty indirectly, also very interesting   ....And to think I knew him when he was just a young engineering type dude stealing (almost) his parent's car and driving 100+ mph to get to a speaker gathering.........   

[Mallette]

I would also add that my closest friends have pointed out that I'm not inherently an engineer - I'm very much a free spirited type, and feel absolutely restricted by all these annoying sciencey rules. Maybe it's not actually in my blood? There's many here that think I'm off my rocker too

 

I think you are crazy off your rocker and it's been a lot of fun to watch your career so far and I look forward to hearing more. 

 

I'm very much a free spirited type, and feel absolutely restricted by all these annoying sciencey rules.

 

And that's why I look forward to seeing what you do.  It's clear you believe in the discipline but draw the line at this peer review crap.  Even if your peers say an idea is not supported by available research or whatever odds are you'll do it anyway if your gut says it's right.  Let them figure out why it's right on their own. 

 

Dave

[JJkizak]

All I salivate for is 4k OLED 21 x 9 around a 60 inch  or more but I don't know how they will figure the size of a 21 x 9. I did find out that the "O" stands for organic in OLED. I bought the 1965 K-horns and Cornwall the same way. And this even though none of the broadcast industry can handle 4K yet and have busted the codecs on 1080P down as far as they can, somewhere around 9 to 12 meg me thinks instead of 25 meg. which is even a compromise from 50 meg. I can see their minds cranking out "How can we bust a 4K signal down to 5 megs and get away with it?"

JJK

[dtel]

I did find out that the "O" stands for organic in OLED.

 

Well that's more than I know about it, I try not to look to much into things i don't need or can't afford. For me I will go with OLED when our TV dies or/and the prices are reasonable and the bugs are worked out.

 

By then they will probably be on some new bandwagon  ?  Like audio it will never end, which is good and bad. The good, most are a nice improvement. The bad, it sometimes completely eliminates formats and you have to start over.

 

It's enough to wear you out.

[Quiet_Hollow]

4K on the big screen (ie. cinema) is a welcome addition if not down right breath-taking, and does wonders for 3D respectively.

 

In the home however? I draw the line at 1080p for any residential screen size I'd ever attempt.

[Mallette]

Not predicting as I don't really know enough...but from what I understand OLED will, probably within 10 years or less, make video a commodity.  Each of those little points is sort of like a transistor...either works or it doesn't.  When it works, it equals or outperforms every other technology.  The difference is that the only reason it's premium priced at the moment is that large scale production is still in its infancy.  The way it's made is a procedure and methodology that when followed yields the same results.  Sort of like making paper. 

 

Some say that eventually it will simply be sold by the square foot on rolls. 

 

Dave 

[Quiet_Hollow]

The difference is that the only reason it's premium priced at the moment is that large scale production is still in its infancy.

It's premium priced only because the manufacturers would cannibalize their own market if sold at lower margins. There's really nothing new at play with OLED.

 

I've been waiting in the weeds 17 years for OLED to hit the consumer TV market. Read the white papers back in '98 when Pioneer, Sony, and Ritek were chattering back and forth about how to bring it to market (right about when everyone was going cuckoo for LCD). Saw my first full color LED Jumbotron shortly after, and knew it'd be worth the wait. Saw the Galaxy cell phones when they arrived, and my suspicions were quickly reaffirmed.

 

It'll be fun. Worth the wait.  but...

 

OLED's potential will only be limited by the GPU hardware and (god forbid) software employed to drive the displays. As Mike pointed out, there's striking similarities between audio and video technologies, and current digital video is essentially one-big FIR filter....unfortunately, things aren't getting faster. Especially with talks of expanding color gamuts in the near future. That poses a major problem when it comes time to interact with any source content, which is a primary function of video outside of home theater or static displays.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Quiet_Hollow

[DrWho]

 

I forgot what this had to do with 4k TVs, haha.

 

Nothing directly but plenty indirectly, also very interesting   ....And to think I knew him when he was just a young engineering type dude stealing (almost) his parent's car and driving 100+ mph to get to a speaker gathering.........   

 

 

Haha, I believe Picky took a picture of the speedometer pegged at 120mph in my Grandpa's Honda Odyssey.....good memories

 

We actually started off that morning with the five of us (Glenn, Verna, Hurd, Jay, and myself) all crammed into my small Imprezza. The backseat had their bags on their lap. I'm so incredibly glad we swapped cars an hour into the trip. If only my Grandpa knew what we were up to, haha.

 

I'm still young as far as engineering goes, and I'm gonna play that young card for as long as my boss lets me (which isn't too often anymore unfortunately).

Edited December 3, 2015 by DrWho

[dtel]

I'm still young as far as engineering goes, and I'm gonna play that young card for as long as my boss lets me (which isn't too often anymore unfortunately).

 

Well that's a sure sign your doing well, don't forget the most important part, have fun, at work and away. Stay inspired, which may be the hard part at times.

[Mallette]

There's really nothing new at play with OLED.

 

Well, while not "new," the technology itself is a paradigm shift waiting on full development.  As you said, the driving of it is entirely outside it and need have nothing but compatibility with it.  Once the big factories fully gear up the stuff will be all pretty much the same other than quality control.  There will be rooms with it on all walls and floors within 10 years.  Combine that with 3D and you have a gen 1 Holodeck.  Now THAT is pretty new...not in concept, but in the real world.  Should be fun.

 

Dave

[richieb]

LG has recently invested billions in new OLED manufacturing facilities. This is obviously their vision for TV in the future. That and a handshake commitment from Apple to buy OLED products from them(LG) in the future. OLED is the new plasma for the production of high quality black contrasts. Hi end plasmas of a few years ago will actually blow the doors edge lit LED for black and life like color saturation. I've found 4K HD seems artificial in its brightness. That's what sunk the plasmas of Panasonic, Pioneer, etc.; they were out marketed by the publics perception that bright was better. For true picture quality OLED is the new plasma.

[dtel]

Hi end plasmas of a few years ago will actually blow the doors edge lit LED for black and life like color saturation.

 

Probably so but edge lit is already on it's way out except on stripped down models, replaced with full active back lighting, this makes the blacks much closer to a good plasma and not even close to the problem it was in the past.

 

Of course OLED will replace regular LED but it will probably be a couple of years at least before the prices are reasonable to honestly compete to the average consumer and completely take over, but it will happen. A plain 50" LED was thousands just a few years ago, well a little more than a few but then the price dropped quickly. Heck I remember paying $350 for our first VHS machine and it did not record !   Or even worse $600 for a built in 8 track with AM/FM in my first new car in 1976, now that really sucks.