|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Mar 30, 2012 8:58:33 GMT -5
You say processing for 4k is needed? Is the industry about to debut new flat panel models that are capable of 4k? If so, I'm guessing cable and satellite companies will again need to catch up in technologies, as their feeds are mainly 720p and 1080i at this point. Personally I don't see native resolutions of this quality becoming mainstream in the next few years. reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/+1 And I wonder what the benefit of 4k at normal viewing distances would be. 1080 looks pretty good on a 59" display from 9' away. 4k projectors are already out - when you get to 110" and bigger, the extra resolution is definitely a "nice to have" and the content will come. We've already got pretty good PQ on sets, if the extra res can be added at existing or better quality for not much of a premium, the set you buy today will still be good when we do get the content. On a ~42" it would be a waste though IMO as people already seem to sit too far away from smaller sets - unless you are using it as a computer monitor which is another valid use and I would LOVE a 120Hz input capable 40" 4k on my desk.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Mar 30, 2012 8:59:54 GMT -5
Champagne dreams and beer money... I want Desmodromic valves on my Ninja 250. I want AWD, 4-wheel steering, and active aero on my Yaris. I want a RAID array and dual i7 processors on my $400 laptop. I want bleeding edge technology on a HT processor that cost 1/4 of what brand-X's top-of-the-line HT processor. And, dammit, if it doesn't have it I won't be buying it. sarcasm free of charge ;D A lot of that isn't that far out there IMO and quite doable.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Mar 30, 2012 10:02:49 GMT -5
It's doable, but defeats the purpose or is otherwise a waste. If you want a Ferrari buy a Ferrari, not a Mustang and wish it was a Ferrari.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Mar 30, 2012 10:20:44 GMT -5
If everyone thought that way Emotiva would likely not be in business.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Mar 30, 2012 16:05:20 GMT -5
I've never thought of Emotiva as a high end, exotic, boutique brand. I don't think you caught my reference.
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Mar 30, 2012 17:37:44 GMT -5
Over the years, since +/-1980, I have read/seen where those in the A/V press who obviously seem to have an aversion to new technology, try to tell us (consumers) what it best for us. I saw it with the introduction of the CD (Vinyl is better). I saw it with the introduction of DVD (lazer disc was good enough). I saw it with Bluray (HD-DVD has sufficient capacity). I saw it with LCD (Plasma is better - There is still truth to that. Even a broken clock is correct twice each day). I see it with1080p/60 (too video-like, (1080p/24 is superior). Here we are with the potential for 4K (1080p is more than sufficient). I say, let the consumer decide for themselves. Current TV/video technologies have reached their build outs. There is a need to move the barrier and introduce new technologies. Let them fail or succeed by the market like DAT. Why don't they use their immense clout to try and accellerate the development of Blu ray music. Now that would be something useful
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Mar 31, 2012 3:08:19 GMT -5
I've never thought of Emotiva ... I don't think you caught my reference. Ditto. ;D
|
|
HiRez
Seeker Of Truth
Posts: 4
|
Post by HiRez on Mar 31, 2012 7:40:22 GMT -5
Hi,
Does the XMC-1 have HD Radio capability? Did not saw in the specs but ... If not are there any plans for it like an add-on card or a seperate tuner.
Regards
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Mar 31, 2012 7:51:33 GMT -5
Everyone has their priorities in how much they are prepared to spend on various things in life and in things A/V in particular. Based on my perception of current A/V technology and my personal preferences, I am willing to spend more on a good HDTV rather than buying a projector. My family room is where my H/T system is set up. I don't have a dedicated H/T room. My family and I watch a lot of TV that would be simply too taxing for a projector. I will spend good money for a good pre/pro because of its importance (the center piece/brains) of the system. I will not over spend on wires, BRP, DAC, etc. because these are available cheap and with very little performance differences that separate the standard from the excellent. I will spend good money for good speaker value. But I have no interest in towers. I am a book shelf & sub guy. I don't buy by label either. I am not likely to run out and get the lastest "audiophile fad" whether that be amp, speakers, pre/pro or whatever. I do my own research and buy what I like regardless. There are certain A/V elitists who like to thumb their noses on folks who "don't have what I have" or "who don't have what I like" They like to pontificate how much you should spend in order to have "a good system" which is pure b/s. They like to brag about their latest obscure purchases and tastes that "separate them from common people" As you read print and online media, you will see these utterances that pervade their articles. Following closely are some audiophiles who buy into this crap then regurgitate as A/V wisdom. Pity the fools!
|
|
|
Post by merlinwerks on Mar 31, 2012 10:08:14 GMT -5
uhh... He just asked about a HD Tuner ;D
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Mar 31, 2012 10:39:46 GMT -5
uhh... He just asked about a HD Tuner ;D I was not responding to post #107 simply because my post followed his You've got to read the entire thread to figure out the reason for my post ;D
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,261
|
Post by stiehl11 on Mar 31, 2012 12:21:51 GMT -5
Everyone has their priorities in how much they are prepared to spend on various things in life and in things A/V in particular. Based on my perception of current A/V technology and my personal preferences, I am willing to spend more on a good HDTV rather than buying a projector. My family room is where my H/T system is set up. I don't have a dedicated H/T room. My family and I watch a lot of TV that would be simply too taxing for a projector. I will spend good money for a good pre/pro because of its importance (the center piece/brains) of the system. I will not over spend on wires, BRP, DAC, etc. because these are available cheap and with very little performance differences that separate the standard from the excellent. I will spend good money for good speaker value. But I have no interest in towers. I am a book shelf & sub guy. I don't buy by label either. I am not likely to run out and get the lastest "audiophile fad" whether that be amp, speakers, pre/pro or whatever. I do my own research and buy what I like regardless. There are certain A/V elitists who like to thumb their noses on folks who "don't have what I have" or "who don't have what I like" They like to pontificate how much you should spend in order to have "a good system" which is pure b/s. They like to brag about their latest obscure purchases and tastes that "separate them from common people" As you read print and online media, you will see these utterances that pervade their articles. Following closely are some audiophiles who buy into this crap then regurgitate as A/V wisdom. Pity the fools! I agree: it comes down to the person signing the check to be happy with what they are buying for the reasons they are buying it. Very few people that I interact with on a daily basis have a system anywhere near what I have. When they talk about getting a new and/or better system a few of them actually ask me my recommendations. But, they always preface their inquiry, "I don't want to spend over $X/as much as you." I usually find them a solution within their dollar figure that they are happy with. The only thing that I hate is when someone wants what I have for $300 (actually had that asked of me). Oy!!!
|
|
|
Post by moparmudder on Apr 2, 2012 12:57:45 GMT -5
Everyone has their priorities in how much they are prepared to spend on various things in life and in things A/V in particular. Based on my perception of current A/V technology and my personal preferences, I am willing to spend more on a good HDTV rather than buying a projector. My family room is where my H/T system is set up. I don't have a dedicated H/T room. My family and I watch a lot of TV that would be simply too taxing for a projector. I will spend good money for a good pre/pro because of its importance (the center piece/brains) of the system. I will not over spend on wires, BRP, DAC, etc. because these are available cheap and with very little performance differences that separate the standard from the excellent. I will spend good money for good speaker value. But I have no interest in towers. I am a book shelf & sub guy. I don't buy by label either. I am not likely to run out and get the lastest "audiophile fad" whether that be amp, speakers, pre/pro or whatever. I do my own research and buy what I like regardless. There are certain A/V elitists who like to thumb their noses on folks who "don't have what I have" or "who don't have what I like" They like to pontificate how much you should spend in order to have "a good system" which is pure b/s. They like to brag about their latest obscure purchases and tastes that "separate them from common people" As you read print and online media, you will see these utterances that pervade their articles. Following closely are some audiophiles who buy into this crap then regurgitate as A/V wisdom. Pity the fools! All your opinions, not realling meaningfull at all. It is my opnion that the power coming out of your wall is good enough, yet "some" seem to think they need a power conditioner......so it make me right?
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Apr 2, 2012 16:33:30 GMT -5
All your opinions, not realling meaningfull at all.So why did you feel the need to respond to it. Obviously, it must have been important to you. It is my opnion that the power coming out of your wall is good enough, yet "some" seem to think they need a power conditioner......so it make me right? Your response does not remotely address anything in my post. I am addressing certain folks in the A/V community who like to dictate to consumers what components what are best for them. You are addressing some audiophiles subjective opinions about the performance needs of their system. Read it again, carefully !
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Apr 3, 2012 3:11:11 GMT -5
I use my projector for ALL my TV viewing and it's not taxing on the projector other than bulb-life. If one is happy with the bulb-use cost, there is no problem using it for TV. For more "action packed" stuff like e.g. "Justified" it's much better than a smaller TV experience IMO. Lower end TVs are pretty cheap these days (<$500 for a 42") so why not have a great projector and a cheapo TV, so you can choose which is best for the given content?
|
|
|
Post by ausman on Apr 3, 2012 3:34:40 GMT -5
well people will ask questions and some will answer them,
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Apr 3, 2012 16:57:01 GMT -5
I use my projector for ALL my TV viewing and it's not taxing on the projector other than bulb-life. If one is happy with the bulb-use cost, there is no problem using it for TV. For more "action packed" stuff like e.g. "Justified" it's much better than a smaller TV experience IMO. Lower end TVs are pretty cheap these days (<$500 for a 42") so why not have a great projector and a cheapo TV, so you can choose which is best for the given content? That is exactly what I meant that it would be too taxing on the projector. I watch an average of approx 5 hours of TV daily. But with other family members, the TV could be on more than 10 hours per day. So how often would youn need to change your bulbs if your projector was in use at my home? You did not quantify your viewing habit. Not everyone has your entertainment budget or habits. I see no need for 2 TVs in the same room. I have a TV in every room of my house (except living room, bathrooms, washroom, kitchen & garage). I also have no interest in a projector (sorry for the offense) ;D
|
|
|
Post by 2muchht on Apr 3, 2012 19:25:28 GMT -5
Everyone has their own needs and system requirements. A projector may not be right for you and your specific needs, and that is fine. However, it does not mean that others don't want or enjoy the FPTV experience. A good proof point of this is the following: www.pacificmediaassociates.com/press-releases/pacific-media%e2%80%99s-end-user-survey-finds-consumers%e2%80%99-interest-in-home-theater-projectors-up-by-two-thirds-in-last-two-years/YEARS ago I had a three-tube FPTV in my family's main viewing room/den and we loved it. Used it at least five hours a day on average as our daughter was younger then and used it for endless "Little Mermaid" sessions. Expensive? Sure. Was the fixed, curved, reflective screen a pain and ugly? Sure. But, it was needed for best image in a relatively bright experience. Expensive if we had to re-tube, something I assure you as being more costly than a new bulb in an LCD, DLP or LCoS unit today. In fact, having to re-tube was one reason we took it down, along with changes to the family needs. HOWEVER, in today's world, if the need for a big screen in the room was there, I'd put in a modern FPTV in a moment. Given that, having a "second set" for use when you don't need the projector or when the abmient lighting is high is something many people, myself included, would see dual HDMI (with same output and default to lowest common denominator resolution) is kind of a must have. But that's only for me...
|
|
jamrock
Emo VIPs
Courtesy Costs Nothing. Give Generously!
Posts: 4,750
|
Post by jamrock on Apr 3, 2012 20:53:15 GMT -5
I agree with you whole heartedly. I never ever mentioned that using a projector was in anyway negative. It is just not for me. The whole issue about projector use came about because a magazine reviewer feels that 4K resolution for TVs was unnecessary. But it could find use in a projector. My contention was that you should not frustrate technological advancements. Let the market place decide its success or failure. And as per usual, some miss the entire argument and instead resorted to promoting what they like.
|
|
|
Post by jerrin on Apr 4, 2012 0:39:32 GMT -5
Over the years, since +/-1980, I have read/seen where those in the A/V press who obviously seem to have an aversion to new technology, try to tell us (consumers) what it best for us. I saw it with the introduction of the CD (Vinyl is better). I saw it with the introduction of DVD (lazer disc was good enough). I saw it with Bluray (HD-DVD has sufficient capacity). I saw it with LCD (Plasma is better - There is still truth to that. Even a broken clock is correct twice each day). I see it with1080p/60 (too video-like, (1080p/24 is superior). Here we are with the potential for 4K (1080p is more than sufficient). I say, let the consumer decide for themselves. Current TV/video technologies have reached their build outs. There is a need to move the barrier and introduce new technologies. Let them fail or succeed by the market like DAT. Why don't they use their immense clout to try and accellerate the development of Blu ray music. Now that would be something useful +10
|
|