|
John Wick of Dogs posted:I assume then that that is higher than cat6 As far as I am aware, Cat6 maxes out at 10Gbps, but I could be wrong
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Even USB 4 is maxing out at 40Gbps. 8K was a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
qirex posted:Even USB 4 is maxing out at 40Gbps. 8K was a terrible idea. 8k is kind of dumb, you have to be within like 2 feet of the screen to tell the difference between it and 4k.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Bum the Sad posted:8k is kind of dumb, you have to be within like 2 feet of the screen to tell the difference between it and 4k. That's what they said about HD-Ready and Full HD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:58
|
|
|
evobatman posted:That's what they said about HD-Ready and Full HD. They also said it about 4k and 1080p. They're right for a huge percentage of the customer base. I know countless people that used an old composite video cable to hook up their $mediasource to a new HD TV a while back who would rant and rave about how amazing and wonderful the picture quality was and how sharp and detailed. Plenty of other people misconfigure something and set their source to 720p and hoot and holler about it. My parents wouldn't know the difference between 720p and 4k unless you made them start actively looking for differences, and even then they wouldn't give a flying gently caress. They would be fine with 480p. Lots of people just don't notice or care about any of that even when it's pointed out. For myself, I can tell the difference between 4k content and 1080p content on my 75" P-Series from my normal watching point which is about 6-8 feet away, but I have to put some effort into it if it's not an A/B test where I see one after the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:13
|
|
|
Dogen posted:As far as I am aware, Cat6 maxes out at 10Gbps, but I could be wrong 10 megabit - Cat3 required 100 megabit - Cat5 required. 1 gigabit - Cat5 required, Cat5e preferred. 2.5 gigabit - Cat5e required. 5 gigabit - Cat5e required, Cat6 preferred. 10 gigabit - Cat6a required for full length (100m) runs, half-length runs supported on Cat6. 25 gigabit - Cat8 required, 30m maximum. 40 gigabit - Cat8 required, 30m maximum. There's no copper wiring interface for 50 gigabit and beyond, you get the standard twinax DACs but for runs much further than the same cabinet you use fiber. I was actually thinking to myself last night while messing around with my new 40G ethernet cards that display interfaces could really stand to benefit from adopting the "SFP" style modular transceivers used in high speed networking. A QSFP28 twinax DAC costs $29 for the first meter and $10 per meter from there up to 5m. This is technology that already exists and you can buy from a variety of resellers right now, and it has the bandwidth to support all current HDMI or DisplayPort modes with headroom to spare. There's almost enough bandwidth for 8K120 without any kind of compression. Both 40G and 100G interfacess make use of four lanes of communication so they would be really easy to adapt DP or HDMI 2.1 to in that way as well. On top of all that, using a SFP-style interface would then mean that those who need longer runs could trivially use fiber rather than requiring weird proprietary converters. The obvious issue of course would be that SFP type modules and DACs are designed for datacenter use and are probably less than ideal for being handled by random idiots in a lot of ways, but that doesn't seem like it should be the hardest thing to solve if the industry actually wanted to. evobatman posted:That's what they said about HD-Ready and Full HD. At the extreme end you can literally count the pixels on my 1080p projector from the kitchen. Obviously anyone who says there wouldn't be a benefit from me upgrading is on crack. 8K, I'm still unsure about. You almost certainly can't pick out individual pixels at reasonable distances from an 8K TV, but as anyone who's played around with supersampling in videogames or even compared a Blu-ray to a DVD on a SDTV knows there is still value in detail even if you can't entirely see it. What I'm not sure about though is whether doubling the pixel count is all that helpful when we're compressing everything to hell anyways. Take whatever bitrate they're considering distributing 8K content in and encode 4K for that rather than current targets and I'll bet it becomes a lot harder to tell apart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
SFPs and especially QSFPs are too deep to go into consumer equipment. Imagine how thick a TV would have to be to support that. It's also too easy to gently caress up the ports.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
KillHour posted:SFPs and especially QSFPs are too deep to go into consumer equipment. Imagine how thick a TV would have to be to support that. It's also too easy to gently caress up the ports. They could easily go in sideways the same way USB ports and HDMI ports do. It wouldn't be more than 3/4" depth needed for that, most of which is there already. That said, it's not gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Gonna rule to go back to optical cabling to get the necessary bandwidth for our ridiculous resolution screens soon. Speaking of resolution, it always used to be measured vertically, why was the standard changed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Gonna rule to go back to optical cabling to get the necessary bandwidth for our ridiculous resolution screens soon. 4k sounds much bigger than 2160p
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
And here I thought 4K meant 4320p. (I don't keep up on the state of the art unless I'm looking to buy something.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:4k sounds much bigger than 2160p I mean I know that's the answer and it makes me irrationally angry. Marketing has so much to answer for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Gonna rule to go back to optical cabling to get the necessary bandwidth for our ridiculous resolution screens soon. gently caress yeah I would be totally stoked on replacing HDMI with Fiber. Then again, I'd prefer that every cent of my purchase went solely to picture quality rather than including all sorts of smart TV features and tuners and such. Just gimme that sweet sweet 90" display connected directly to my computer via fiber.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
evobatman posted:That's what they said about HD-Ready and Full HD. No but at this point I think we are literally dealing with the limits of the human eye.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Marketing has so much to answer for. AMAB GnarlyCharlie4u posted:Then again, I'd prefer that every cent of my purchase went solely to picture quality rather than including all sorts of smart TV features and tuners and such. God, seriously this. Someone just make a top notch screen, with no speakers, various inputs all with audio pass-through, and six buttons. Four for picture adjustment, one for input selection and one for power. Oh, and a headphone jack maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Seriously. A roku is worlds better than anything built into a TV these days, obviously discounting the TVs that have a roku built in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
Hipster_Doofus posted:AMAB I don't even want that. Just give me a power button and a single input. I'll pass everything through a proper home theater receiver and use that to control my inputs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
lol if you guys think smart features are the thing that’s keeping us from $2k 90 inch TVs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:lol if you guys think smart features are the thing that’s keeping us from $2k 90 inch TVs. shut up idiot
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:lol if you guys think smart features are the thing that’s keeping us from $2k 90 inch TVs. Don't the smart features bring income for the TV manufacturers as fees to get included in their interface (and as data to sell)? Kinda like how Roku makes money from companies that want good placement and not from the $30 boxes they sell. It actually drives the cost of TVs down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Uthor posted:Don't the smart features bring income for the TV manufacturers as fees to get included in their interface (and as data to sell)? Kinda like how Roku makes money from companies that want good placement and not from the $30 boxes they sell. Yeah but it also means it takes my TV 5 minutes to "boot up" before I can even change the input source.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
I mean, I don't think removing smart features would make a meaningful difference in the price of TVs. It's more that I wish there was a "Display Only" option that doesn't have the smart stuff, doesn't have any speakers, and effectively is just a huge TV-size monitor but is a TV LCD rather than a monitor LCD. I feel it would probably have fewer weird HDMI problems and other strange firmware issues that TVs that have all that crap have. It's wishful thinking because while there's a bunch of nerds that want this, they would only be able to sell it via mail order direct after confirming up and down that you understand what you're getting because there would be too many returns to stores or Amazon from people not reading that it doesn't have that crap and it would end up with lovely reviews as well because someone would buy it and complain that it isn't a smart TV and doesn't even have a speaker! Can you believe it?!?! Not even a speaker!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
Roku is poo poo compared to FireTV don’t @ me For real though, I spent 2018 with TV with built-in Roku and the Firestick 4K in my current TV blows it away
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:They could easily go in sideways the same way USB ports and HDMI ports do. It wouldn't be more than 3/4" depth needed for that, most of which is there already. That said, it's not gonna happen. I assumed they would be sideways, but they're so long, you can't just stick a little box on the side like modern high end TVs do now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Roku is poo poo compared to FireTV don’t @ me Weirdly, I hated my firetv so much that I gave it to my parents and got a roku ultra. At the time, Google stuff (YouTube etc) wasn't working on firetv during their spat, I dunno if that ever resolved, but even without that I actively disliked the firetv compared to the roku. I suspect there's a significant amount of personal preference with this because I used the firetv 4k for like a year before ditching it and it's night and day for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 12:20
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:I mean, I don't think removing smart features would make a meaningful difference in the price of TVs. It's more that I wish there was a "Display Only" option that doesn't have the smart stuff, doesn't have any speakers, and effectively is just a huge TV-size monitor but is a TV LCD rather than a monitor LCD. I feel it would probably have fewer weird HDMI problems and other strange firmware issues that TVs that have all that crap have. They make big flat panel monitors. You see them at fast food restaurants and airports all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 12:53
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:They make big flat panel monitors. You see them at fast food restaurants and airports all the time. Where can I buy a 4K HDR one with top-end picture quality? Legitimate question. I've never seen any that weren't bottom-end panels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Even commercial signage displays are “smart” now because it’s cheaper for the manufacturer to have a single hardware platform across all product lines. Professional mastering monitors are still dumb but they’re around 5 figures. I can use my Sony without using any Android biz at all, it’s completely unintrusive and since I have working CEC and input buttons on most of my device remotes I don’t even need to touch the TV remote itself, it stays in a drawer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Where can I buy a 4K HDR one with top-end picture quality? Legitimate question. I've never seen any that weren't bottom-end panels. They're used for digital signage and prioritize brightness and longevity over literally everything else. They're also going to be super expensive because commercial pricing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Weirdly, I hated my firetv so much that I gave it to my parents and got a roku ultra. A super important feature I discovered for my personal use case is I bought an old A/V receiver with no remote and the FireTV can control the volume a la universal remote which is all I need. Saved me a bunch of money buying the OEM remote on eBay and obviously more convenient.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Chromecast for life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
My mom just moved into a new place and she's a music fan, and this apartment believe it or not has 18 speakers in the ceiling. What would be the easiest way to hook them all up to a receiver? I know receivers top out at like 9 speakers. Some sort of "second amp" that would connect to the first receiver and "add" a bunch of speaker outputs or something? I don't even know what to Google for this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Chumbawumba4ever97 posted:My mom just moved into a new place and she's a music fan, and this apartment believe it or not has 18 speakers in the ceiling. Learn about parallel and series resistance calculations and connect them all up to zone 2 or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
A Lone Girl Flier posted:Learn about parallel and series resistance calculations and connect them all up to zone 2 or something. I have no clue what the ohms are; they are all the way up in a painted ceiling. There's 18 sets of wires going to where the receiver or whatever used to be. I just have no idea how the previous owner had them all hooked up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Chumbawumba4ever97 posted:I have no clue what the ohms are; they are all the way up in a painted ceiling. You could measure them to get a ballpark figure. Alternately, assume they're 8ohm and work from there, but try and get each channel of speakers to come out at 12ohm overall for some fudge factor. Edit: also you might want to with adjustable volume for each room, in which case you'll need a distribution amplifier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:They make big flat panel monitors. You see them at fast food restaurants and airports all the time. We have those in my workplace, but they're just normal Samsung TVs with the bezels and speakers taken off. E: I guess "digital signage" is the proper term. empty baggie fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jun 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
A Lone Girl Flier posted:You could measure them to get a ballpark figure. Do you know of a receiver with the zone 2 feature that would be able to handle that many speakers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
There’s big amps that do 8-12 channels, distributed audio stuff tends to be expensive which is probably why the previous owner took the electronics along with them. Something like this, or two of them I guess, but no clue how you’d get 18 preamp outputs. Honestly calling an installer is probably the best thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Chumbawumba4ever97 posted:Do you know of a receiver with the zone 2 feature that would be able to handle that many speakers? Depends what you mean by "handle". Run them all at the same time? Any amp can do that, up to a certain volume level. Control them all individually? None of them can do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
qirex posted:There’s big amps that do 8-12 channels, distributed audio stuff tends to be expensive which is probably why the previous owner took the electronics along with them. Thanks a ton! I guess this coupled with a 7 channel receiver should get the job done? A Lone Girl Flier posted:Depends what you mean by "handle". Yeah just to run them all at the same time so she can listen to her records and stuff utilizing all 18 speakers at once. They do not need to be controlled individually at all. I don't even think she cares if it's stereo separated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 18:43
|
|