Home Theatre becoming very expensive to keep up with HDMI revisions...

[betty boop]

 

21 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

Yes, exactly.   A 10 year old computer doesn't have any limitations in what audio formats it can play..... so you can use all content.

 

 

 

Except Atmos, as mentioned.  Although - everyone knows that no computer* can decode it

 

blarddy hell. so it cant handle video off today or audio of today...as i said ...  

 

21 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

*  No computer except Trinnov.    Trinnov AV processors are actually PCs inside .... and they have been provided exclusive Atmos decoder firmware for the PC from Dolby.

 

no one had a flippin trinov 10 years ago masquerading as a PC. and if OP can afford a trinov now am sure they wouldnt be here posting the point they did ! 

 

I think i will pass, at this point further partaking in discourse....

 

reminder to self to not get drawn into utterly meaningless theoretical discussions with absolutely no grounding in practicalities of the day ....  

[davewantsmoore]

18 minutes ago, betty boop said:

blarddy hell. so it cant handle video off today or audio of today...as i said ...

Well... we're just covering audio formats....  and I figured you'd be aware that no PC (not today, or 10 year) can decode Atmos from ThueHD.

 

.... but as a typical player, it can output Dolby Atmos just fine to a decoder.

 

18 minutes ago, betty boop said:

no one had a flippin trinov 10 years ago

Yes, you seem to have misunderstood.    I realise they weren't around 10 years ago.

 

I said... no computer (not even one made today) can decode Atmos.

 

... but just to be completely complete - there is one exception to identify.  Trinnov.

 

Quote

reminder to self to not get drawn into utterly meaningless theoretical discussions with absolutely no grounding

Yes - It would be wise, to not make statements about computers which are false.   It will really confuse people - and someone will need to correct you.

 

Quote

as i said ...

No Al.

 

What you said, is essentially that a 10 year old computer isn't good enough to do the audio of today (ie. it does worse than a computer made today, because technology moves on etc.)

 

.... but the reality is that there is not ONE SINGLE audio format which a new computer can play today .... that a 10 year old computer can't play.

 

You're full of it.    I'm disappointed I wasted such a patient reply on you.

Edited May 21, 2019 by davewantsmoore

[Brian Sore]

I have a Primare SP 33 and Primare BD 32 disc player running through an Epson tw 9200 projector with 112 firmware and the 1080p picture is great. I recently had a demo of the Epson TW 9300 with 4K upscale and to be honest I could not see any differences to 1080p.

[Brian Sore]

Yes it is very expensive to keep up with the latest hdmi format for those with high end processors I will stay with what I have until hdmi format is more stable.

[cwt]

9 hours ago, Sp 33 said:

I have a Primare SP 33 and Primare BD 32 disc player running through an Epson tw 9200 projector with 112 firmware and the 1080p picture is great. I recently had a demo of the Epson TW 9300 with 4K upscale and to be honest I could not see any differences to 1080p.

I would compare to the latest TW9400 SP33 ; Epson doesn't have projector upgrades with the frequency of some others and you need the latest model to evaluate UHD Bd;s  heres a short review ;

https://www.avhub.com.au/product-reviews/sound-image/epson-eh-tw9400w-projector-review-523898

[betty boop]

9 hours ago, Sp 33 said:

I have a Primare SP 33 and Primare BD 32 disc player running through an Epson tw 9200 projector with 112 firmware and the 1080p picture is great. I recently had a demo of the Epson TW 9300 with 4K upscale and to be honest I could not see any differences to 1080p.

what cwt says is quite right. the 9300 had capability with UHD and if experienced with it you get benefit of WCG, HDR, and also additional resolution... fed the right material and presuming its been setup properly to take advantage. over just blu-ray ie 1080p you woudl likely not see huge gains but most definitely if not seeing benefit with uhd, id be asking why  keeping in mind just like with blu-ray there are certainly some uhd discs that provide more benefit for the uhd format than others. 

6 hours ago, Sp 33 said:

Yes it is very expensive to keep up with the latest hdmi format for those with high end processors I will stay with what I have until hdmi format is more stable.

yes and no sp33. if you bought at the dawn of the formats eg blu-ray there was really only one update ie 3D all else were covered for. unless buying something pre format  and why as i indicated I managed with av processor some 8 years ... only update was the 3D update which my maker provided. same goes with the format now.

 

similarly if you bought in 3 years ago ? for gear to support uhd ? then you are likely still supported. infact with many gear even earlier in 2015 when uhd was announced makers brought out gear that woudl support the format going forward. eg my av pre pro from 2015 fully supports the format. doing everything can throw at it. the maker in my case provided updates to keep maintained both hard ware and soft ware. 

 

as far as settling down going forth ? only thing coming is HDMI 2.1 what does it support ? not much more .... and really only variable frame rates which might be useful for gaming ? not that much if anything supports it now in any case. there is some 8k capability and eARc it brings. 8k complete waste with anything  have now and dubious of any use going forward ? as to eArc is it really essential. none of these things are. like for many you wont see any need to update as such. especially if what have does everything can throw at it ... now ... 

 

as far was waiting for things to   settle down. you cant hold back progress. but only you can decide what is most important and whether worth updating or not

 

 

[Serpeant]

On 02/06/2019 at 2:01 PM, Sp 33 said:

Yes it is very expensive to keep up with the latest hdmi format for those with high end processors I will stay with what I have until hdmi format is more stable.

Will it ever be "more stable"?

 

HDMI 2.1 has a ridiculous bandwidth of 48 Gbps and supposedly can handle up to 10k.

 

However, I still suspect there will be HDMI 2.2 within a few years...

[EZYHD]

At this point in time 8k HDMI cable to suit the coming HDMI 2.1 TV's and devices  will be very expensive, currently HDMI copper cbales can go to 3m over that HDMI Fibre is the go, however there is no 8k content, but gamers will enjoy the max bandwidth oh 48Gbps.

[Snook]

@davewantsmoore

 

I think you miss the point of an AVR and why it absolutely shits on a frankenstein "I know better than everyone else" setup.

 

1. You can actually play Dolby TrueHD, DTS Master HD etc. which is crucial to modern cinema and blu-ray concerts. This single reason alone makes frankenstein pointless.

2. For basic TV with the missus, you can use ARC with usual dolby standard 5.1 and use the TV apps. FAR nicer for simplicities sake.

3. No one can use or troubleshoot frankenstein and you spend more time ******* around with it than actually just enjoying the entertainment.

4. Your power useage, space and clutter becomes an absolute mess with frankenstein. 

5. Subwoofer integration. Using LFE channel with ARC (Anthem) Dirac (Emotiva etc.) is FAR superior for an 'all around' easy solution for room correct and crossover setup of subs (or multiple subs!)

6. Everything 'Just Works' while providing the highest quality experience overall so long as you can afford a decent system such as an anthem/emotiva level or higher.

 

Using a reciever to me (Or seperates with a processor) is a no brainer. Tried the frankenstein route, absolute pain in the ass just spend the money.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Snook

[davewantsmoore]

Double posting...

Edited June 23, 2020 by davewantsmoore

[davewantsmoore]

2 hours ago, Snook said:

@davewantsmoore

 

I think you miss the point of an AVR

No... not at all.

 

What I was saying is that a computer is able to output the audio needed (eg. surround formats.... of all types) to an surround processor (eg. an AVR, or an "AV preamp).

 

The reason I was mentioning this is to content with Betty Boops claim that a 10 year old computer couldn't do that as well as a computer of today.    He is wrong about that.  a 10 year old computer, and a current computer, will both output do either:

 

1. Decode audio, where it is possible.... and play the audio through analogue or digital outputs
2. Bitstream audio, to a decoder.....  this way it can handle any audio format (as it is just a bitstream), as you're likely already aware

 

Here is the quote/response I was specificlly addressing.

 

Quote

 

 On 21/05/2019 at 12:11 PM, Primare Knob said:

We are getting a bit off topic here, but updates and upgrades are 2 different things. You really don't need a fancy PC for a HTPC setup, as even the ones that are 10 year old will perform this task. Besides you can prevent your OS from updating, as the risk with a HTPC are rather slim.

absolutely impossible. 10 years ago PCs had no support for audio formats let alone Picture formats we have now. as you say you still dont have support for the audio side.

 

 

 

Betty is very wrong about this.    A 10 year old PC can do #1 (from my points above) just as well as a PC made today..... A 10 year old PC can do #2 (from my points above) just as well as a PC made today.

 

 

2 hours ago, Snook said:

"I know better than everyone else" setup.

LOL, you misunderstand.

Quote

1. You can actually play Dolby TrueHD, DTS Master HD etc. which is crucial to modern cinema and blu-ray concerts. This single reason alone makes frankenstein pointless.

A computer (a "HTPC") will output these formats to a decoder.

Quote

2. For basic TV with the missus, you can use ARC with usual dolby standard 5.1 and use the TV apps. FAR nicer for simplicities sake.

Many people just run everything through their HTPC.

Mine does liveTV/recordedTV.... has all other apps you could want .... all with a little AppleTV remote.

 

... but simplicity is subjective.   My mussus prefers it that everything has a consistent look (ie. Plex) for live, recorded, movies, music, etc..,....  Your might like a different looking app for everything  

Quote

3. No one can use or troubleshoot frankenstein

My HTPC boots right to plex....  there;s nothing to support.   In fact I've had more "support" issues with my FetchTV box.

Quote

and you spend more time ******* around with it than actually just enjoying the entertainment.

Nope.

Quote

4. Your power useage, space and clutter becomes an absolute mess with frankenstein. 

My PC is very small.    My TV is mounted on the wall, and between the TV and the wall there is an AppleTV and a HTPC (they're similar sizes)

 

Quote

5. Subwoofer integration. Using LFE channel with ARC (Anthem) Dirac (Emotiva etc.) is FAR superior for an 'all around' easy solution for room correct and crossover setup of subs (or multiple subs!)

My decoder is a NAD T753 v3 ....    It doesn't matter whether the source is a TV, a HTPC, a BDP, or something esle.

 

Quote

6. Everything 'Just Works'

Everything just works using a computer as your source too.... if you use the right software/hardware.

 

Quote

Tried the frankenstein route

Perhaps when you say "frankenstein" .... you're thinking of something different to me.

 

What I was talking about is the source being a computer (ie. a "HTPC").

 

 

Betty said you need to keep getting a new computer to keep audio and video support working.

 

What actually happened is somebody uttered the word "HTPC" .... and Betty doesn't actually understand what one of those really is  (which is why he replied saying this:)

 

On 21/05/2019 at 4:37 PM, betty boop said:

really now ? pray tell how a 10 year old pc has ANY capability for 11.2.5 audio I am running off current AV processor. We didnt even have that let alone know it would eventuate all those years ago. point me to a 10 year old pc with 11.2.5 analog pre outs.... post me a pc from 10 years ago with such 1.2.5 pre outputs to feed power amps 

Love the tone eh?!  Pray tell....

 

The computer/HTPC is the source (ie. replaces a BDP, or other media player) .... not the decoder/pre/amp.

 

He doesn't understand that computer fall into two categories...... and a computer 10 years old can do it just as well as a computer today.

 

1.   Bitstream audio to a decoder via HDMI (just like a BDP or other media player does)

 

2.   Get a computer with multiple analogue outputs (I have a PC with 16) .... Betty thinks they don't exist .... and you can play any formats except Atmos/DTSX  (the software decoders for this will never be released).

 

Most people do #1 .... but #2 is not

On 21/05/2019 at 12:28 PM, betty boop said:

absolutely impossible. 10 years ago PCs had no support for audio formats

 

Grab any 10 year old computer.... and it will play all formats except Atmos.    If you buy a nice audio interface for it, you can have lots of channels.

 

 

 

LOL

Edited June 23, 2020 by davewantsmoore

[Essence]

On 20/05/2019 at 8:42 PM, Primare Knob said:

Downside, it's not workable for the whole family and no Atmos or DTS-X decoding possible on a PC yet.

Except for Trinnov and Storm Audio.

 

FFmpeg's dca now native encoder has been able to decode DTS-HD surround sound losslessly since forever ago. What it cannot decode is the DTS:X and Dobly Atmos 3d objects metadata. Or how Bob Pariseau describes it extra "sprinkles".

 

Your average AVR can barley provide proper functionality due to the excess amount of channels Atmos asks of it to provide, most of which barley ends up being used, all for the sake of better marketability. Do you really trust it to properly implement DTS:X/Atmos which is majority height information and very latency/setup dependant? 

 

I also don't see the need for HT to be needing the bandwidth requirements of the latest HDMI revision. Majority of the content is at 1080p, newer titles at 4k and a tiny amount at higher resolutions for those forunate enough to be part of writers guild. 

 

On 04/06/2019 at 9:24 AM, EZYHD said:

At this point in time 8k HDMI cable to suit the coming HDMI 2.1 TV's and devices  will be very expensive, currently HDMI copper cbales can go to 3m over that HDMI Fibre is the go, however there is no 8k content, but gamers will enjoy the max bandwidth oh 48Gbps.

My monitor bypass the bandwidth limiting bottleneck (as connectivity standards catch up) by bonding 2x DisplayPorts 1.4 to output 144hz @ 4k 10bit (8bit + FRC).

Edited June 26, 2020 by Essence

[davewantsmoore]

1 hour ago, Essence said:

EZYHD said: At this point in time 8k HDMI cable to suit the coming HDMI 2.1 TV's and devices  will be very expensive,

LOL.   I bought one from monoprice about a year ago for like $10.

[Guest DrSK]

Agreed it has/is expensive. 

 

I'm a cynic on all this and believe this is the only way they can sustain their industry, by making things continually obsolete.

 

I dropped out early and invested in good stereo and make do with dual stereo now for 4.0 for HT. At some point I may hack a sound bar to pieces or other to try atmos.

 

Fully believe in AV you need to either suck it up and keep forking out money every few years, as this is what your masters dictate. Or sit back and relax. 

[davewantsmoore]

54 minutes ago, DrSK said:

I'm a cynic on all this and believe this is the only way they can sustain their industry, by making things continually obsolete.

 

Device manufacturers certainly do this (they need to keep selling) ..... but as a whole, surround and video formats haven't been too bad (althought they've threatened to be at times).

 

... Dolby has had 4 generations spanning 30 years.

 

Dolby AC3/Surround

Dolby Digital (EX)

Dolby Plus/TrueHD

Dolby Atmos

 

HDMI1 infrastrcuture has lasted 20 years..... although HDMI have really dropped the ball on the implementation and rules of HDMI 2  (letting the manufacturers get away with a mishmash of feature support).   I suspect the whole things has been co-optd by manufacturer interests...... That being said, things are always a bit iffy at the beginning of a new series/change.

 

1 hour ago, DrSK said:

Fully believe in AV you need to either suck it up and keep forking out money every few years, as this is what your masters dictate. Or sit back and relax. 

Yep... don't make the jump to newly introduced things until they've settled down, unless you want to play on the merry-go-around. 

 

Although it might seem that manufacturers chop and change things quite a lot (they do - their interest is in marekting/selling the current buzz) ...... from a standards perspective things actuall move quite slowly and surely.    HDMI2 is still young and new.   UHD is still new.   Think back to HD, where 720p displays were out for a long time in the market before 1080p (and most broadbast hadn't even adopted HD at all).   That's where we are now with 8k only just starting to appear, and most broadcast not even adopting UHD at all yet.

[EZYHD]

On 26/06/2020 at 7:31 PM, davewantsmoore said:

LOL.   I bought one from monoprice about a year ago for like $10.

Yeah over 10m the $10 one work great for 4k@60Hz cant see the picture but you know its there 

[betty boop]

56 minutes ago, EZYHD said:

Yeah over 10m the $10 one work great for 4k@60Hz cant see the picture but you know its there 

yep apart from imagining the picture also have to imagine a 10m $10 hdmi cale that can do full bandwidth hdmi does also exist... like unicorns  

[davewantsmoore]

2 hours ago, EZYHD said:

Yeah over 10m the $10 one work great for 4k@60Hz cant see the picture but you know its there 

"Active" cabling is obviously much more expensive.

Quote

HDMI (on HDMI 2 spec cables):    It is likely the maximum lengths for passive cables will be approximately 2 to 3 meters

 

FWIW.  The monoprice cable works great not just at pedestrian resolutions like 4k @ 60 .... but right up in 8K 4:2:0/8  (40+ gbps)

I think the 2.4m cables are more like 40 bucks.

[davewantsmoore]

2 hours ago, betty boop said:

 10m hdmi cale that can do full bandwidth

It was never planned.