|
|
Post by Priapulus on Dec 25, 2015 10:09:13 GMT -5
> I will go for an upgrade but not immediately.
Though I won't need the 4k upgrade for at least a year, I will get the upgrade board immediately. I won't risk it becoming unavailable; don't forget EMO's propensity to discontinue items unannounced and abruptly. I agree that it sounds expensive, for something promised "at cost".
I was in the store the other day and was pleasantly surprised to see how cheap 4k TVs have become; definitely the next standard; content be damned.
Sincerely
/b
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Dec 25, 2015 10:12:15 GMT -5
For another perspective, the Krell Foundation had an introductory $1000 price tag for it's upgrade to HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2. Now that the introductory price is over to upgrade the Krell Foundation to 4K, the current price stands at $2500. While the $299 price tag for the XMC-1 is not a drop in the bucket for me, I still consider it a more than fair price to bring my XMC-1 up to the current standards for 4K. Just my perspective and I can understand others thoughts on the upgrade. This is a great idea. If they offered an introductory upgrade for $120 with the price going up to $300 after March 2016 (so about 3 months), I think 80% of the XMC-1 early adopters would upgrade. |
|
|
|
Post by wizardofoz on Dec 25, 2015 11:49:11 GMT -5
one issue I don't think has been mentioned is that if you don't upgrade will future firmware updates still work. I certainly hope they will.
I won't be in a position to send 2 units from Singapore back to the states...fortunately I do most of the repair work in Singapore for Emotiva so I will be doing the DIY route and no doubt offering the same service to my fellow owners here when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlieu on Dec 25, 2015 12:57:14 GMT -5
I'd say $300 is probably either at cost or close. When you consider the cost of components, board design and manufacture, and software development, none of this is cheap. This isn't a case where they are starting from scratch and can cut corners elsewhere to make the overall system price fall into a certain range. (Like the receivers hitting the market now.) The board has to work with the XMC-1 and there is little economy of scale. Krell upgrade $1000, same problem for them.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,035
|
Post by cawgijoe on Dec 25, 2015 13:34:14 GMT -5
I'd say $300 is probably either at cost or close. When you consider the cost of components, board design and manufacture, and software development, none of this is cheap. This isn't a case where they are starting from scratch and can cut corners elsewhere to make the overall system price fall into a certain range. (Like the receivers hitting the market now.) The board has to work with the XMC-1 and there is little economy of scale. Krell upgrade $1000, same problem for them. May very well be, but let's also consider that the XMC-1 at launch was $1220 shipped, with discount card. The price was increased to $2499. That's quite an increase. It could very well be that the original price was at a loss to attract sakes, who knows. I may be in the minority, but to me it seems high. I'll most likely get it, but certainly not right away. at the price, it's not an impulse buy. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 25, 2015 13:43:04 GMT -5
I'd say $300 is probably either at cost or close. When you consider the cost of components, board design and manufacture, and software development, none of this is cheap. This isn't a case where they are starting from scratch and can cut corners elsewhere to make the overall system price fall into a certain range. (Like the receivers hitting the market now.) The board has to work with the XMC-1 and there is little economy of scale. Krell upgrade $1000, same problem for them. May very well be, but let's also consider that the XMC-1 at launch was $1220 shipped. The price was increased to $2499. That's quite an increase. It could very well be that the original price was at a loss to attract sakes, who knows. I may be in the minority, but to me it seems high. I'll most likely get it, but certainly not right away. at the price, it's not an impulse buy. Given the long development time of the XMC-1 (long ago seem the days when the common complaint was how much longer is it going to take, especially given how the preorder list had been out for years) and all the changes that took place (remember, something else was originally going to be used instead of Dirac), and the 40% discount so many people used, the XMC-1 was probably not a wildly profitable product. It's understandable why they had to raise the price. I have no desire for the upgrade since I have no desire for 4K TV but I think the upgrade price is reasonable considering the circumstances. I paid $250 plus tax and shipping ($284 in total) to upgrade my Schiit Bifrost DAC to the multibit version and so have a lot of others. Not cheap, but I have not come across many complaints about the price and from what I've read, most are pleased. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 25, 2015 15:19:01 GMT -5
Don't forget that every 4k TV can play regular HD content, and pretty well all of them can even upsample it to 4k (although, depending on how well they do it, it might not make any difference, and many current players can also do that) - so there's no real reason NOT to buy a 4K TV - whether there's any real 4k content any time soon or not (unless, of course, they've sacrificed so much picture quality somewhere else in order to get the price down that it actually gets a worse picture than an HD TV of equivalent price). In the volume market world of TVs, most manufacturers are going to assume (probably correctly) that most people who wanted an HD TV already bought one last year, so they figure the only ones they're going to be able to sell at all next year will be the 4k ones that people who already have HD will buy as an "upgrade". And, since maintaining a lot of different model numbers costs money, it's pretty obvious that the HD models will be cleared out, and all the new models will be 4k (what will be interesting to see will be whether 3D sticks around or not - since it seems to be less than overwhelmingly successful lately). > I will go for an upgrade but not immediately. Though I won't need the 4k upgrade for at least a year, I will get the upgrade board immediately. I won't risk it becoming unavailable; don't forget EMO's propensity to discontinue items unannounced and abruptly. I agree that it sounds expensive, for something promised "at cost". I was in the store the other day and was pleasantly surprised to see how cheap 4k TVs have become; definitely the next standard; content be damned. Sincerely /b |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 25, 2015 15:35:20 GMT -5
I have a bigger question about Netflix and 4k. As of last year, only about 1/3 of Netflix customers had an Internet connection fast enough to allow them to reliably receive HD content. In general, when things are working right, a 4k picture gives you about four times the resolution of an HD picture - but requires about twice the bandwidth (you get proportionally more resolution because the CODEC is more efficient). However, just like with any other type of lossy compression, if you don't have enough bandwidth, you can only maintain the resolution by using more compression. (Because the CODEC IS slightly better, if you don't have enough bandwidth, a 4k system SHOULD give you at least a SLIGHTLY better picture if it's set up properly....) If you already have barely enough bandwidth to get Netflix in HD, trying to get it in 4k may actually give you a slightly better picture - but not much. And, depending on how they "tune" the system, trying to get 4k on a system with insufficient bandwidth for even HD may actually result in a worse picture. And, of course, simply upsampling Blu-Ray HD content to 4k so they can claim "4k programming" doesn't gain you anything you wouldn't get by simply letting your TV do the upsampling. (In fact, because the upsampled 4k content may actually need more bandwidth, if your connection is barely adequate, you may get a better picture and less dropouts if you let your TV uspample it locally.) In other words, it will be interesting to see how many people can actually receive Netflix in 4k, how many of them end up with a picture that really looks better in 4k - even under optimum conditions, and how much program content Netflix can manage to come up with that actually looks better that way. Interestingly, one theoretical benefit of the 4k system is that, at least in theory, it can give you better color depth at HD resolution - but, of course, that depends on the encoding and conversion quality along the way. (Seeing a "This picture is presented in 4k" logo on the screen isn't going to impress me much at all - unless it has visibly improved picture quality to go with it.) That could be true. But how long ago were those products released? I doubt they were released when the XMC-1 was released. At least there will be an update from Emotiva where most other processors will not have that option. I'm in no rush as I don't have a 4k TV or source. You may not, but many do. The Shield is a cheap and good way to get 4k Netflix, and we were told the XMC upgrade would come out "well before any playback device would be available", or something to that effect. But crickets.... even though new products were just announced for CES. |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,035
|
Post by cawgijoe on Dec 25, 2015 16:17:02 GMT -5
The other reason to buy a 4K tv is if your's dies. That happened to me a couple weeks ago. The HDMI board went on my Vizio. Eight years old and hard to find the part. I decided to give it to a friend who is giving it to his son. He will use the component and RGB inputs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hifiaudio2 on Dec 25, 2015 18:14:31 GMT -5
I have a bigger question about Netflix and 4k. As of last year, only about 1/3 of Netflix customers had an Internet connection fast enough to allow them to reliably receive HD content. In general, when things are working right, a 4k picture gives you about four times the resolution of an HD picture - but requires about twice the bandwidth (you get proportionally more resolution because the CODEC is more efficient). However, just like with any other type of lossy compression, if you don't have enough bandwidth, you can only maintain the resolution by using more compression. (Because the CODEC IS slightly better, if you don't have enough bandwidth, a 4k system SHOULD give you at least a SLIGHTLY better picture if it's set up properly....) If you already have barely enough bandwidth to get Netflix in HD, trying to get it in 4k may actually give you a slightly better picture - but not much. And, depending on how they "tune" the system, trying to get 4k on a system with insufficient bandwidth for even HD may actually result in a worse picture. And, of course, simply upsampling Blu-Ray HD content to 4k so they can claim "4k programming" doesn't gain you anything you wouldn't get by simply letting your TV do the upsampling. (In fact, because the upsampled 4k content may actually need more bandwidth, if your connection is barely adequate, you may get a better picture and less dropouts if you let your TV uspample it locally.) In other words, it will be interesting to see how many people can actually receive Netflix in 4k, how many of them end up with a picture that really looks better in 4k - even under optimum conditions, and how much program content Netflix can manage to come up with that actually looks better that way. Interestingly, one theoretical benefit of the 4k system is that, at least in theory, it can give you better color depth at HD resolution - but, of course, that depends on the encoding and conversion quality along the way. (Seeing a "This picture is presented in 4k" logo on the screen isn't going to impress me much at all - unless it has visibly improved picture quality to go with it.) You may not, but many do. The Shield is a cheap and good way to get 4k Netflix, and we were told the XMC upgrade would come out "well before any playback device would be available", or something to that effect. But crickets.... even though new products were just announced for CES. Bring over a new HDMI board to my house here in Nashville and lets take a look on my Sony 1100ES and Nvidia Shield!! (I have 50/10 cable internet (no usage cap) so we should be good on bandwidth). In all seriousness (well I actually am serious about the first part as well) I would likely get the $299 upgrade... seems pretty fair to me actually. BUT... we have a probable buyer for my home and it's possible that either the theater equipment stays, or I sell it all while we are in a rental and build a new house. Its unlikely I am still here by the time its ready to ship. But who knows! |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Dec 25, 2015 20:20:47 GMT -5
I have a bigger question about Netflix and 4k. As of last year, only about 1/3 of Netflix customers had an Internet connection fast enough to allow them to reliably receive HD content. In general, when things are working right, a 4k picture gives you about four times the resolution of an HD picture - but requires about twice the bandwidth (you get proportionally more resolution because the CODEC is more efficient). What are the bandwidth recommendations for Netflix in HD, and in UHD? |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Dec 25, 2015 21:12:16 GMT -5
The other reason to buy a 4K tv is if your's dies. That happened to me a couple weeks ago. The HDMI board went on my Vizio. Eight years old and hard to find the part. I decided to give it to a friend who is giving it to his son. He will use the component and RGB inputs. My Sammy DLP was dying but I was able to replace the DLP chip and with 13K hrs left on the LEDs, I think I'm good for now. 4K (while having a working 1080p set) isn't worth it to me considering the amount of native 4K material out now. But of course I can't speak for everyone's situation, just mine. |
|
|
|
Post by sycraft on Dec 25, 2015 21:19:30 GMT -5
So does the XMC-1 support 18gbps with the existing board, or does it need the new board? Reason I ask is that mine is hooked to a computer so if I do 4k, it'll be without HDCP, but needs to be 60Hz 4:4:4. When I tested it, it would only do 4k@30 but it could be the HDMI cable, since it is a long one and I never bought it for 4k support.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,035
|
Post by cawgijoe on Dec 25, 2015 22:08:12 GMT -5
The other reason to buy a 4K tv is if your's dies. That happened to me a couple weeks ago. The HDMI board went on my Vizio. Eight years old and hard to find the part. I decided to give it to a friend who is giving it to his son. He will use the component and RGB inputs. My Sammy DLP was dying but I was able to replace the DLP chip and with 13K hrs left on the LEDs, I think I'm good for now. 4K (while having a working 1080p set) isn't worth it to me considering the amount of native 4K material out now. But of course I can't speak for everyone's situation, just mine. When you go to buy a new TV, you will quickly realize a couple of things, most of the larger sets are now 4K and the prices are unbelievable. These sets also up convert which helps. If you are happy with your 1080p set, it's still a bit early to go 4K because of the lack of content, but if you have to buy one, you might as well get the 4K. Why buy a 1080p on a set that you may keep for eight to ten years. |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Dec 25, 2015 22:48:05 GMT -5
At this time, only a handful of 4K televisions, at the high end, can be projected to be HDR capable. It is generally understood that HDR capability will require full backlighting, not edge lighting, and the ability to produce a very bright image. They will also require HDCP 2.2 copy protection capability and, of course, HDMI 2.0. HDR may well be a more important advance in technology than 4K resolution. Sony and some others have nice HDR presentations. Google and check it out.
Unless a manufacturer can guarantee a specific set is HDR compliant you are taking a major risk relative to the long term viability of the 4K TV you buy.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,269
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Dec 26, 2015 5:22:26 GMT -5
Has the cost of swapping the board for EU clients been disclosed somewhere? It seems a lot of bother to send the XMC-1 to Tennessee... And it's not something I would dor myself. Is the Dutch repair shop an option?
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,035
|
Post by cawgijoe on Dec 26, 2015 6:38:00 GMT -5
At this time, only a handful of 4K televisions, at the high end, can be projected to be HDR capable. It is generally understood that HDR capability will require full backlighting, not edge lighting, and the ability to produce a very bright image. They will also require HDCP 2.2 copy protection capability and, of course, HDMI 2.0. HDR may well be a more important advance in technology than 4K resolution. Sony and some others have nice HDR presentations. Google and check it out. Unless a manufacturer can guarantee a specific set is HDR compliant you are taking a major risk relative to the long term viability of the 4K TV you buy. You are always taking a risk with anything you buy because the latest and greatest is always on the horizon. If you have to buy a new set today because your's died, you can buy a Samsung SUHD 55" set at Costco for $979, or a 1080p set in that size for maybe $800. You can also purchase 65" 4K sets for less than $1,500. Yes, things are always in flux and if you don't need to buy today, it's a good idea to wait, but it's not the end of the world if you have to. |
|
|
|
Post by junchoon on Dec 26, 2015 7:50:00 GMT -5
If you have to buy a new set today because your's died, you can buy a Samsung SUHD 55" set at Costco for $979, or a 1080p set in that size for maybe $800. You can also purchase 65" 4K sets for less than $1,500. Maybe my math has gone down the drain here but that means a 55" suhd is roughly 3x the xmc-1 upgrade price IMHO USD$299 is not a sensible upgrade price. Likely in 6 months time the xmc-1 upgrade remains and you may get the 65" the same price as 55" now. |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,035
|
Post by cawgijoe on Dec 26, 2015 9:06:11 GMT -5
If you have to buy a new set today because your's died, you can buy a Samsung SUHD 55" set at Costco for $979, or a 1080p set in that size for maybe $800. You can also purchase 65" 4K sets for less than $1,500. Maybe my math has gone down the drain here but that means a 55" suhd is roughly 3x the xmc-1 upgrade price IMHO USD$299 is not a sensible upgrade price. Likely in 6 months time the xmc-1 upgrade remains and you may get the 65" the same price as 55" now. Prices of TVs these days always go down. Maybe even better deals around Super Bowl. To put things in perspective, I paid about $300 less for Samsung UHD 65" set compared to my previous 1080p 55" Vizio. |
|
|
|
Post by charlieu on Dec 26, 2015 9:22:09 GMT -5
May very well be, but let's also consider that the XMC-1 at launch was $1220 shipped, with discount card. The price was increased to $2499. That's quite an increase. It could very well be that the original price was at a loss to attract sakes, who knows. I may be in the minority, but to me it seems high. I'll most likely get it, but certainly not right away. at the price, it's not an impulse buy. The original $1999 price was probably optimistic for a piece of gear stamped with Made in the USA. It got the ball rolling though. The great thing about Emotiva is that you are paying for the product and not the name stamped on the faceplate. I'm going to get the upgrade after I read about the experiences here. I have a perfectly good Pioneer Kuro, but I have seen OLED. I want to be ready when the price of those TV's comes down from the stratosphere. 4K Blu-ray should be ready by then and I'll be ready to start rebuying my movie collection.  |
|
