bigboss
Moderator
*biggrin*. There must be other people too? I know Simon Lewis has too. On AV Forums there is loads. Must be some more on here?bigboss said:
Not yet. Probably around Chrimbo before I can afford it.
Don't like the curved front on the Samsung anyway, and waiting for there to be more competition in the market. Possibly wait for 2nd generation too.
Don't like the curved front on the Samsung anyway, and waiting for there to be more competition in the market. Possibly wait for 2nd generation too.
daveh75
Well-known member
No. It's the 21st century, and about time the industry caught up. I will never buy another disc spinner
jjbomber
Well-known member
gel said:
So who (ELSE) has pre-ordered a 4K blu-ray player then?
I'm glad your tax haven in Panama is still alive and hasn't slowed down your spending Gel. Enjoy.
chebby
Well-known member
I am about to replace a 5 year old 32" 1080P HD television with another 32" 1080P HD television just to benefit from another 5-years of John Lewis's guarantee cover and a TV that is a bit smaller and lighter (less bezel).
My budget is up to £500 (if it's absolutely perfect in every way) but - in reality - more like £400.
I will look again at 4K, OLED etc. in another 5 year's time (when I replace the TV again) and see if I need it. It's hardly that important, just a TV after all.
(Until 20 years ago 32" would have been colossal and it's still plenty for us given that most of what's on is ####.)
My budget is up to £500 (if it's absolutely perfect in every way) but - in reality - more like £400.
I will look again at 4K, OLED etc. in another 5 year's time (when I replace the TV again) and see if I need it. It's hardly that important, just a TV after all.
(Until 20 years ago 32" would have been colossal and it's still plenty for us given that most of what's on is ####.)
gel said:
You do seem to get an inordinate frisson from your serial purchasing, gel: do you think you may be buy-sexual? ;-)
65-inches is that big to be honest, I was quite happy with my Philips 32-inch LCD. Can you get a 32-inch 4K or HDR TV then?chebby said:
I am on low rent and still living at home, no other costs. I don't drive either although I have a licence. I don't drink or smoke either.spiny norman said:
Series1boy
Well-known member
daveh75 said:
i don't think the industry needs to catch up; I think the broadband industry needs to catch up so that you can run full 4K premium and and HD audio non compressed. The infrastructure just isn't quick enough unless you are in a Virgin cable area...
daveh75
Well-known member
Nonsense.Series1boy said:
There's nothing stopping them from offering UHD with uncompressed m/c audio as downloads...
daveh75
Well-known member
Aside from the 'investment' (read 'expense') of a UHD Bluray player at £400-£600 and the 4k TV (with all the HDR, HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 banners stuck on it), at current prices at least, do you really think the extra experience is worth another tenner per disc?
There are no sonic benefits to UHD Bluray (Atmos and DTS-X are possible on 1080p Blurays), and over the course of a year say, you could buy an awful lot more HD Blurays for the same cost. Maybe the pricing at present is out there to take advantage of the 'must have the latest kit now' brigade (no offence Gel, but you'd probably admit you're one of them) and the cost may come down to something more reasonable in time. But £25 a shot? Ouch! Actually for the same price you could buy the HD Bluray AND go to the cinema and save the extra cost of the hardware (although you would have to sit in the cinema on your own for the tenner saved, maybe that's not so appealing after all).
The one thing I did find interesting about the new format however is the Region-Free encoding. Maybe the powers that be eventually realised the only way it might catch on in the light of streaming's increasing popularity is to stop the regional silliness. Although the caveat to that is that if your UHD disc comes with a standard HD disc, then the HD disc bundled with it will NOT be region-free.
There are no sonic benefits to UHD Bluray (Atmos and DTS-X are possible on 1080p Blurays), and over the course of a year say, you could buy an awful lot more HD Blurays for the same cost. Maybe the pricing at present is out there to take advantage of the 'must have the latest kit now' brigade (no offence Gel, but you'd probably admit you're one of them) and the cost may come down to something more reasonable in time. But £25 a shot? Ouch! Actually for the same price you could buy the HD Bluray AND go to the cinema and save the extra cost of the hardware (although you would have to sit in the cinema on your own for the tenner saved, maybe that's not so appealing after all).
The one thing I did find interesting about the new format however is the Region-Free encoding. Maybe the powers that be eventually realised the only way it might catch on in the light of streaming's increasing popularity is to stop the regional silliness. Although the caveat to that is that if your UHD disc comes with a standard HD disc, then the HD disc bundled with it will NOT be region-free.
Series1boy
Well-known member
daveh75 said:
not on my sky fibre broadband, which is only fibre to the exchange and from there it's the old copper wire to my house. We only have 20 meg download and its adsl which is contented at 50 users in the sky/bt network and no guarantee of 20meg..... So, no chance mate, not a prayer of matching a native 4K bluray disk... With Virgin media cable, then yeah you have a chance.
daveh75
Well-known member
Series1boy said:
If it's copper all the way back to the exchange it's ADSL not 'fibre'.
If you're on Sky Fibre as you claim that's VDSL2, aka FTTC (fibre to the cabinet) which as the name implies uses fibre between the exchange and cab, then copper from cab to your property
Of course it could. It would just take a while for you to download
bigboss
Moderator
Streaming and downloads aren't an option for me until they provide lossless HD audio including immersive audio.
bigboss
Moderator
Leeps said:
£400-600 is stupid money to spend, the price you pay for being an early adopter. The price will come down by Christmas to £250, and to £150 by next year. Within 2-3 years, the price of UHD players will come to blu ray player levels.
UHD blu rays are already available for £20, and the price will continue to fall. The biggest advantage of UHD isn't the resolution, it's HDR capability. So I can see how people will find the difference significant when compared to blu ray.
buzz_lightclick
Well-known member
bigboss said:
yes but surely you will need a tv that is compliant to the new HDR standard to realise that advantage?
Series1boy
Well-known member
daveh75 said:
but you can't download a 4K film to your tv because you will need a large hard disk or massive memory stick. I
my point is this; streaming 4K will not work on the majority of broadband connections. I'm not on about downloading because this option is only viable using a PC. The majority of people won't want a PC connected to their tv, the minority.. So BD for native 4K is only the option at this time due to broadband restrictions..
No.
I still have my 7+ year old 32" HD Ready (1360×768) TV.
Does what I need it to.
Blu-Ray is high enough resolution for me.
I've seen Blu-Ray on 1080 TV's, it's better but not enough for the compromise in connections I’ve got and need on my old TV.
If my TV breaks I'll get it fixed.
I still have my 7+ year old 32" HD Ready (1360×768) TV.
Does what I need it to.
Blu-Ray is high enough resolution for me.
I've seen Blu-Ray on 1080 TV's, it's better but not enough for the compromise in connections I’ve got and need on my old TV.
If my TV breaks I'll get it fixed.
bigboss
Moderator
Good luck with that!FennerMachine said:
You'll find that buying a new TV will be far cheaper that repairing it, it's crazy I know!
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram