My slow journey to upgrade to 4K

My plan is to slowly upgrade my system to 4K by the end of 2019.

The first step is to get the Denon AVR-X6400H. Then sell my Marantz SR7009 and PM6005 and get a 4K blu ray player with it (perhaps Oppo or Panasonic). I'll wait for Easter deals.

My still waiting for a decently priced 4K capable projector (not too fussed about pseudo or native 4K because the reviewers themselves aren't discerning the difference that much). Optoma UHD51A is due to be released shortly, will wait for reviews.

Lastly, I'll upgrade my TV to a Philips OLED next year.
 
D

Deleted member 2457

Guest
Nice one BB. I am sure it will be great.
thumbs_up.png
 

Diamond Joe

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2008
88
6
18,545
Visit site
Am I the only one who gets aggravated by the use of an upper case K in 4K? It's referring to 4 thousand horizontal pixels (or thereabouts) so it should be a lower case k, to me 4K means 4 Kelvin, brrrr chilly!
 

Benedict_Arnold

New member
Jan 16, 2013
661
3
0
Visit site
In still waiting for 100 inch plus 4k (maybe 8k?) wallpaper TVs to become affordable. Right now 85 inches seems to be as big a TV as you can get without spending like a Saudi prince in Harrods.

IMHO a TV firing photons straight at your eyeballs is always going to give a brighter sharper image than an image reflected off a hyped up piece of plastic sheet.

Genuine 4k PJs have come down in price ( but by the time you add a screen a very long 4K HDMI cable, a ceiling mount and painting the room pitch black they're still an arm and a leg plus a foot off the other leg) but I would like to see a genuine 4K (or 4k) vs faux K shootout before I took the plunge for a cheaper faux K PJ.
 

Diamond Joe

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2008
88
6
18,545
Visit site
I'm aware that the industry seems to have adopted the label 4K, but it's not right. I'm going to continue calling it 4k until the standard is obsolete.

Edit: and then I'll probably rant about 8K/8k
 

abacus

Well-known member
Benedict_Arnold said:
In still waiting for 100 inch plus 4k (maybe 8k?) wallpaper TVs to become affordable. Right now 85 inches seems to be as big a TV as you can get without spending like a Saudi prince in Harrods.

IMHO a TV firing photons straight at your eyeballs is always going to give a brighter sharper image than an image reflected off a hyped up piece of plastic sheet.

Genuine 4k PJs have come down in price ( but by the time you add a screen a very long 4K HDMI cable, a ceiling mount and painting the room pitch black they're still an arm and a leg plus a foot off the other leg) but I would like to see a genuine 4K (or 4k) vs faux K shootout before I took the plunge for a cheaper faux K PJ.

This may help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeFUsR056SA

Bill
 

Q5

New member
Oct 2, 2015
60
0
0
Visit site
Hi BB,

I took the plunge whilst refurbishing the whole downstairs late last year.

Fortunately i did it in one fell swoop and glad i took the plunge. Good luck with your journey.
 

Series1boy

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2013
355
13
18,895
Visit site
This is what ive been doing.

ive got the amp, Sky Q, Netflix, amazon prime, Xbox one just need the telly now.. will probably purchase a dedicated 4k BD player such as the oppo 203.

it is an expensive game though!
 
Cheers! Yes, it is an expensive process to upgrade everything to 4K. At some point, I need to make a start and the 6400 seems to be the best way to begin with, now that it's keenly priced. I'm not too fussed about the TV because my viewing distance is too large to discern any difference. It's the projector mainly.
 

abacus

Well-known member
Looking at the Tech Specs I would avoid the 6400 unless your speakers are very easy to drive, as the power supply is not meaty enough for 11 channels and will give a dynamically compressed sound if used with speakers like the Kef R series, MA Golds etc.

Bill
 

Benedict_Arnold

New member
Jan 16, 2013
661
3
0
Visit site
^ If the 6400 doesn't turn out to be powerful enough for your Albert Hall sized space, you can always add a power amp or route your FL and FR through your "proper stereo".

Emotiva's XPA series is modular, so you could start out with 3 channels, then add additional channels as you decide, possibly leaving the 6400 to power just the Atmos channels.

Personally I've had no issues running nine channels of a similarly powered Marantz 7010 with a cheap Onkyo power amp used to run the rear Atmos speakers in my 7.2.4 system in a 12 ft 6 x 17 ft space.
 

Benedict_Arnold

New member
Jan 16, 2013
661
3
0
Visit site
^ If the 6400 doesn't turn out to be powerful enough for your Albert Hall sized space, you can always add a power amp or route your FL and FR through your "proper stereo".

Using a power amp takes the load off the power supply, enabling the remaining internally amplified channels to soar.

Emotiva's XPA series is modular, so you could start out with 3 channels, then add additional channels as you decide, possibly leaving the 6400 to power just the Atmos channels.

Personally I've had no issues running nine channels of a similarly powered Marantz 7010 with a cheap Onkyo power amp used to run the rear Atmos speakers in my 7.2.4 system in a 12 ft 6 x 17 ft space.
 
abacus said:
Looking at the Tech Specs I would avoid the 6400 unless your speakers are very easy to drive, as the power supply is not meaty enough for 11 channels and will give a dynamically compressed sound if used with speakers like the Kef R series, MA Golds etc.

Bill
My speakers are Monitor Audio Trimless 200 series of in-wall and in-ceiling speakers which are pretty easy to drive. Also, my lounge isn't very big (17' X 12.5'). If I'm not happy with the performance of the 6400, I'll swap it to Marantz SR8012.
 

Benedict_Arnold

New member
Jan 16, 2013
661
3
0
Visit site
^ Read my post regarding the relationship between watts and decibels.

The only advantage I can think of in adding more power would (possibly) be more headroom and dynamics, but I'm not convinced going from a 6400 (750 watts consumption) to an 8012 (780 watts consumption) would make a blind bit of difference.
 
Benedict_Arnold said:
^ Read my post regarding the relationship between watts and decibels.

The only advantage I can think of in adding more power would (possibly) be more headroom and dynamics, but I'm not convinced going from a 6400 (750 watts consumption) to an 8012 (780 watts consumption) would make a blind bit of difference.
Thanks. You may not have noted, but I have been advocating the same regarding relationship between Watts and loudness in my posts.

The reason for Marantz isn't the extra wattage (as you can see, there's little difference). It's this:

"It's clear by the massive toroidal power supply, dual heatsinks, and monobloc amplifier construction that Marantz is returning to its roots with emphasis on "sound quality first" in AV receivers. We saw a decline lately in AV receiver power supplies since the introduction of Atmos. Unlike the other models in the Marantz line, the SR8012 does NOT share a common architecture to sister company Denon counterparts. Instead, this appears to be a completely new design exclusive to Marantz at this time. Seeing the build quality of the SR8012 restores our faith that solid amplification isn't dead in AV receivers."

I do not know whether this makes a discernable difference. The monetary difference is huge (£1100).
 

Benedict_Arnold

New member
Jan 16, 2013
661
3
0
Visit site
Wiki on toroidal transformers:

Toroidal transformers are built around a ring-shaped core, which, depending on operating frequency, is made from a long strip of silicon steel or permalloy wound into a coil, powdered iron, or ferrite.[60][61] A strip construction ensures that the grain boundaries are optimally aligned, improving the transformer's efficiency by reducing the core's reluctance. The closed ring shape eliminates air gaps inherent in the construction of an E-I core.[20] The cross-section of the ring is usually square or rectangular, but more expensive cores with circular cross-sections are also available. The primary and secondary coils are often wound concentrically to cover the entire surface of the core. This minimizes the length of wire needed and provides screening to minimize the core's magnetic field from generating electromagnetic interference.

Toroidal transformers are more efficient than the cheaper laminated E-I types for a similar power level. Other advantages compared to E-I types, include smaller size (about half), lower weight (about half), less mechanical hum (making them superior in audio amplifiers), lower exterior magnetic field (about one tenth), low off-load losses (making them more efficient in standby circuits), single-bolt mounting, and greater choice of shapes. The main disadvantages are higher cost and limited power capacity (see Classification parameters below). Because of the lack of a residual gap in the magnetic path, toroidal transformers also tend to exhibit higher inrush current, compared to laminated E-I types.

Ferrite toroidal cores are used at higher frequencies, typically between a few tens of kilohertz to hundreds of megahertz, to reduce losses, physical size, and weight of inductive components. A drawback of toroidal transformer construction is the higher labor cost of winding. This is because it is necessary to pass the entire length of a coil winding through the core aperture each time a single turn is added to the coil. As a consequence, toroidal transformers rated more than a few kVA are uncommon. Relatively few toroids are offered with power ratings above 10 kVA, and practically none above 25 kVA. Small distribution transformers may achieve some of the benefits of a toroidal core by splitting it and forcing it open, then inserting a bobbin containing primary and secondary windings.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts