|
|
Post by Snoman on Jan 23, 2023 10:38:31 GMT -5
I hope this the right spot for this I apologize in advance if not, and please move if necessary. HDMI 2.1 was certified on January 4th 2017. I need a new Processor, I have been using a Yamaha CX-5000 that was given to me and works awesome for me now and feel fortunate to have it. I bought an Emotiva XPA gen 3 11 channel recently, as I am a one stop guy for now. Should I need more power or speaker connections I will just get another amp some day and or have Emotiva modify my current XPA 3. I currently run 7.2 and I am going to at most, for now, add to 11.2. However, I have a TV with EARC and HDMI 2.1 ( an LG C9 OLED ) and I want to be able to use the HDMI with EARC. I want to be able to fully use it. I realize Blu-ray only needs HDMI 2.0 so that is a non issue. But if I ever upgrade or or want to upgrade to 8k ( not worth it to me now) or be happy for awhile I would like to have it in my new processor. Spending 17K on a Trinnov Alt 16 or 10K-12K on a Lyndorf is NOT going to happen. I am regular guy with an okay salary but does not have that kind of spare change for my hobby, so buy once and cry will not apply. Reality has a place in my life. ( I am NOT jealous of those who or can, I am quite happy for them ) I can do 5K with a bit of work AND Emotiva lets me use AFFIRM to pay for things and that changes the ball game for me making 5K doable! There is the 8805A Marantz that has can be upgraded, 2 of the Anthems ( AVM 70 or 90) and a couple of others. Even Monoprice has the the HTP1 which has DIRAC, has a way to get to HDMI 2.1 all 5K or under. Roon and DIRAC even play nicely together sometimes in some units. Plus if you read the Audio Science Review forums Emotiva's processor has been taken to task not really sure if fair or not to be honest. I am well aware of chip shortages etc. but shouldn't Emotiva at least have SOMETHING on board or coming??? I really want my XPA and Processor to match and I am kind of a brand loyal guy when I can be!!! So given all that, where is Emotiva on HDMI 2.1 on a new processor or upgradeability on their current processor as it will soon be 5 years since HDMI 2.1 has been certified???
Thanks to all who read through all this.
Actually, 6 years now. Everyone seems to be holding their breath with the MR1 today.
|
|
|
|
Post by KimbaWLion on Jan 25, 2023 21:57:54 GMT -5
And as you saw, it has HDMI 2.0B. Makes no sense given many receivers having HDMI 2.1. I have 2 a Yamaha and a Denon!!!! Go figure!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Jan 25, 2023 23:32:55 GMT -5
Hi all,
The eARC upgrade is right around the corner for the 4k boards. Been shipping eARC hardware enabled units since last year, they will activate with the next FW release. The upcoming major upgrade that includes an 8k HDMI path for those who want/need it will be released it in the late summer. There are older units out there that will need a new 4k board for eARC, and we'll be taking care of those customers in a FAIR and equitable manner, just like we have for the last 18 years. Keep the faith.
We'll go into SPECIFIC details very shortly.
BTW, the new MR1 is a beast and has eARC. The MC1 has eARC. They too will have an 8K upgrade path. We don't make disposable products like the vast majority of brands. Don't obsess on 2.1, it's a fools errand for most folks. IMO, eARC IS THE THING. If you're a gamer, you should be going straight into your display for many reasons that Lonnie and I will be discussing in the next week or two. And, I'll still be saying that when the new 8K boards release!!
Peace and love,
Big Dan
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by cawgijoe on Jan 26, 2023 8:17:00 GMT -5
And as you saw, it has HDMI 2.0B. Makes no sense given many receivers having HDMI 2.1. I have 2 a Yamaha and a Denon!!!! Go figure! I sort of agree here even though Big Dan states that 2.1 is a fools errand. Even if it is, 2.1 would help with sales I would think, no? |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 9,960
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 26, 2023 11:46:02 GMT -5
In case you didn't know... Even though they don't have full HDMI 2.1 support, both the MC1 and MR1 DO support eARC...
(And, considering the current status of 8k HDMI video sources, that's the reason why most people really want HDMI 2.1 at the moment.) And as you saw, it has HDMI 2.0B. Makes no sense given many receivers having HDMI 2.1. I have 2 a Yamaha and a Denon!!!! Go figure! I sort of agree here even though Big Dan states that 2.1 is a fools errand. Even if it is, 2.1 would help with sales I would think, no? |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by cawgijoe on Jan 26, 2023 12:05:12 GMT -5
In case you didn't know... Even though they don't have full HDMI 2.1 support, both the MC1 and MR1 DO support eARC...
(And, considering the current status of 8k HDMI video sources, that's the reason why most people really want HDMI 2.1 at the moment.) I sort of agree here even though Big Dan states that 2.1 is a fools errand. Even if it is, 2.1 would help with sales I would think, no? Understood, but just curious from a design/marketing/sales point of view why HDMI 2.1 would not be included especially since everyone else seems to be hyping it. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,960
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 26, 2023 12:30:47 GMT -5
The short answer is that it's not quite as simple as "plugging in a different chip"... It involves new chips... And major differences in the design that goes with them... And potentially new problems and issues to solve... This makes sense for a really big company, who's going to put that chip in a whole slew of products once they get it figured out... Even if all it gets them is another logo for the trophy wall and a few more sales... They get to spread that cost out over a lot of products... And, even if all they get out of it is to raise the price on each unit by a few bucks, the math works out if they sell enough product. However, since our resources are somewhat more limited, we need to choose our battles more carefully. Which usually translates to putting the things that actually matter at the top of the list. At the moment we KNOW that eARC is really useful, to a lot of people, for several different reasons. We're seeing a lot more people using apps on their TV... Or connecting one or two 4k sources directly to their TV and using ARC... This gives you the lowest latency... It also brings back the option of having a single remote control (your TV's remote)... And, while ARC has some significant limitations there, most of those are entirely gone with eARC... So, in short, when those 8k sources finally do appear, how many people will still even want to connect them through the processor is unknown. (The current trend seems to be that apps on the TV are getting better and more people are going that way.) (And, if that trend continues, the next big thing may be a processor that has an eARC input and no regular HDMI inputs at all.) In case you didn't know... Even though they don't have full HDMI 2.1 support, both the MC1 and MR1 DO support eARC...
(And, considering the current status of 8k HDMI video sources, that's the reason why most people really want HDMI 2.1 at the moment.) Understood, but just curious from a design/marketing/sales point of view why HDMI 2.1 would not be included especially since everyone else seems to be hyping it. |
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Jan 26, 2023 12:35:43 GMT -5
Apparently, there are many issues going on with HDMI 2.1 and 8K-capable devices. Here's an example from the AVS Forum for the latest JVC projectors, which are 8K capable. Interesting that the latest Anthem processor appears to be part of the problem.
Person 1 said:
I think it is one of those magic HDMI issues. I currently have one going on right now with my AppleTV. It worked fine for years with my old Marantz receiver. I updated to a newer 8K Anthem AVM70 which is a big upgrade over the Marantz by the way. But now sometimes my AppleTV will put itself in 720p resolution and when I go to the settings-> Video settings menu there is no option to select a 4K output. For some reason it must think that my display doesn't support 4k. So I have to reboot the AppleTV and then it will fix the problem and start outputting 4K again.
The issue must be some sort of HDMI handshake issue between the AVM70, AppleTV and the JVC but I don't know what it is. It will work fine for a week or so and then suddenly it will be back locked into 720P output. Very strange!
Person 2 replied:
I had a similar problem with the AVM70 8k. Everything was fine with my old Yamaha but the AVM70 8k was all kinds of trouble. I could reproduce the issue at will - just turn on the AVM 70 and the AppleTV, Shield, Roku would downgrade video from 4k to 1080p. Turn off the AVM70 with HDMI pass thru and instantly back to 4k. I changed out all cables, etc. Connecting directly to the JVC worked every time. Rebooting gear would work some of the time.
My ultimate fix was to switch to an AVM70 4k unit which has been rock solid from day one. The dealer was able to reproduce the exact issue with separate gear on their end but could not come up with a fix. Anthem was no help.
That was months ago and I cannot recall the firmware rev on the AVM. The JVC was pre 2.0. I hope you find a better fix than I did!
My conclusion is that we are not alone in experiencing issues with our AV equipment. Others are having similar issues with "no help" apparently. I'm happy that Emotiva is working with users to improve the issues we expereience and report.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 26, 2023 13:34:29 GMT -5
How is 2.1 a fools errand? We have 8k hdmi 2.1 sets out right now under $2 grand and 75-85 inch 8k models under $3 grand .
|
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Jan 26, 2023 14:31:26 GMT -5
How is 2.1 a fools errand? We have 8k hdmi 2.1 sets out right now under $2 grand and 75-85 inch 8k models under $3 grand . Because there are no 8k sources out yet. And if it’s like 4K was when actual 8K sources come out it’s very likely that you will need HDMI 2.2 (or whatever they call it) to make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Jan 26, 2023 14:37:23 GMT -5
What 8k content are you going watch on it, upscaled 2k and 4k content? What's the point? More pixels than your eyes can resolve at normal viewing distances and screen sizes? They've answered the question that no one asked. Do you think you're going to get better overall video presentation out of a low end 8k display than a top of the line 4k model at a similar price point? I don't think so. Now factor in all of the connectivity and bandwidth issues you encounter if you are trying to move "real" 8k content around, that is, if it ever materializes in a meaningful way. And it's not going to for a long time... and then to what end in a typical home environment with home sized displays? Most people have never even see what full bandwidth, full bit-depth, HDR 4k content is capable of delivering. It's stunning. 4k IMAX viewing on a GIANT theater screen is unbelievably sharp and rich. Do you think you need more pixels for your 75" or 85" display at home to make it "better"?. I've got a 100" Sony 4K direct view display in my theater at home and it can bring me to tears. It is absolutely amazing. Forget the resolution number and pay attention to overall display performance. That's is where you're going to see real world improvements. We're all being sold a bunch of unrealized hype on the 8k bandwagon. Go ahead and pile on, but this my opinion on the matter. At the end of the day it's your money. Spend it as you see fit!  |
|
|
|
Post by Hair Nick on Jan 26, 2023 14:39:47 GMT -5
Dan is right when specifically talking about gaming and the need for 4K 120 in the 2.1 spec. about eArc. Even when 8K 2.1 boards are available, we will still recommend users to go straight into the monitor/tv with the game system/source then bring the audio via eArc to reduce latency.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jan 27, 2023 2:03:52 GMT -5
Kudos to those who had the foresight to get reputable hi bandwidth hdmi cables installed for E-ARC  Better than 2.0'S ARC.. Those who didnt good luck with ripping out cables from the plaster board Its a very good idea to bypass the pre pro/avr when playing games ;specifically 2.1 features like ALLS ; QFT ;VRR ;QMS www.lifewire.com/hdmi-2-0-vs-2-1-5203868 |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 27, 2023 10:05:53 GMT -5
How is 2.1 a fools errand? We have 8k hdmi 2.1 sets out right now under $2 grand and 75-85 inch 8k models under $3 grand . Not only what David and Dan have mentioned, but no one is filming in 8k, nor will they for a long time - probably a decade or more. 8K source will likely be video games, not TV/movies; TV/movies will just be upscaled. The only reason you'd want 8k is if there is some added technology with it. 4k, from a pixel/view standpoint, isn't noticeably superior to 1080p, however dynamic HDR is a big win compared to SDR, so going 4k is a good thing. Unless 8k has something substantially superior than HDR, or some other similar game-changing enhancement, Dan is right and it's a marketing ploy only to get people to upgrade their perfectly good tv's/displays. As of now, there's no such game-changer. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jan 27, 2023 10:57:30 GMT -5
How is 2.1 a fools errand? We have 8k hdmi 2.1 sets out right now under $2 grand and 75-85 inch 8k models under $3 grand . Not only what David and Dan have mentioned, but no one is filming in 8k, nor will they for a long time - probably a decade or more. 8K source will likely be video games, not TV/movies; TV/movies will just be upscaled. The only reason you'd want 8k is if there is some added technology with it. 4k, from a pixel/view standpoint, isn't noticeably superior to 1080p, however dynamic HDR is a big win compared to SDR, so going 4k is a good thing. Unless 8k has something substantially superior than HDR, or some other similar game-changing enhancement, Dan is right and it's a marketing ploy only to get people to upgrade their perfectly good tv's/displays. As of now, there's no such game-changer. Agreed on 8K and HDR. Here's a reference point: If you have 20:20 vision, to actually see 4K resolution with "cinematic" field of view, you have to sit 8-10ft from a 77" screen. Who (besides me) does that? I bet most people put a 77" screen 12-15ft away ... where you may push the limit of 1080. To actually see 8K you'd have to sit so close you could touch the screen with your toes |
|
|
|
Post by Hair Nick on Jan 27, 2023 11:15:26 GMT -5
Not only what David and Dan have mentioned, but no one is filming in 8k, nor will they for a long time - probably a decade or more. 8K source will likely be video games, not TV/movies; TV/movies will just be upscaled. The only reason you'd want 8k is if there is some added technology with it. 4k, from a pixel/view standpoint, isn't noticeably superior to 1080p, however dynamic HDR is a big win compared to SDR, so going 4k is a good thing. Unless 8k has something substantially superior than HDR, or some other similar game-changing enhancement, Dan is right and it's a marketing ploy only to get people to upgrade their perfectly good tv's/displays. As of now, there's no such game-changer. Agreed on 8K and HDR. Here's a reference point: If you have 20:20 vision, to actually see 4K resolution with "cinematic" field of view, you have to sit 8-10ft from a 77" screen. Who (besides me) does that? I bet most people put a 77" screen 12-15ft away ... where you may push the limit of 1080. To actually see 8K you'd have to sit so close you could touch the screen with your toes To me thats the same person that complains about hearing hiss in his speakers but only when he puts his ear directly to the speaker. Nobody listens that way. |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by cawgijoe on Jan 27, 2023 11:36:57 GMT -5
Not only what David and Dan have mentioned, but no one is filming in 8k, nor will they for a long time - probably a decade or more. 8K source will likely be video games, not TV/movies; TV/movies will just be upscaled. The only reason you'd want 8k is if there is some added technology with it. 4k, from a pixel/view standpoint, isn't noticeably superior to 1080p, however dynamic HDR is a big win compared to SDR, so going 4k is a good thing. Unless 8k has something substantially superior than HDR, or some other similar game-changing enhancement, Dan is right and it's a marketing ploy only to get people to upgrade their perfectly good tv's/displays. As of now, there's no such game-changer. Agreed on 8K and HDR. Here's a reference point: If you have 20:20 vision, to actually see 4K resolution with "cinematic" field of view, you have to sit 8-10ft from a 77" screen. Who (besides me) does that? I bet most people put a 77" screen 12-15ft away ... where you may push the limit of 1080. To actually see 8K you'd have to sit so close you could touch the screen with your toes I can easily see and tell the difference between 1080p and 4K on my 65" Samsung from about 12ft away. It's not a "cinematic" field of view, but it's easily discernable. And that's not just me, anybody who comes over can see the better picture. As to 8K, no idea, as the only 8K I've seen has been in stores like Best Buy and I really haven't paid much attention to it. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 27, 2023 14:15:28 GMT -5
Not only what David and Dan have mentioned, but no one is filming in 8k, nor will they for a long time - probably a decade or more. 8K source will likely be video games, not TV/movies; TV/movies will just be upscaled. The only reason you'd want 8k is if there is some added technology with it. 4k, from a pixel/view standpoint, isn't noticeably superior to 1080p, however dynamic HDR is a big win compared to SDR, so going 4k is a good thing. Unless 8k has something substantially superior than HDR, or some other similar game-changing enhancement, Dan is right and it's a marketing ploy only to get people to upgrade their perfectly good tv's/displays. As of now, there's no such game-changer. Agreed on 8K and HDR. Here's a reference point: If you have 20:20 vision, to actually see 4K resolution with "cinematic" field of view, you have to sit 8-10ft from a 77" screen. Who (besides me) does that? I bet most people put a 77" screen 12-15ft away ... where you may push the limit of 1080. To actually see 8K you'd have to sit so close you could touch the screen with your toes I would be most wanting it for PC use and future movies that come out in 8k. I currently have two screens hooked up - 65 inch oled and 50 inch led. In a few years I hope to have an 83 inch OLED and a 65 inch OLED hooked up to my PC (and other media devices as well). I sit about 8-10 feet away Youtube already has plenty of 8k videos if you look - none that are must-haves though. As for the whole 1080p is all you need, that hasn't really panned out has it? It's not just about pixels. When one is doing streaming video the data rate available on higher res streams is substantially better than the lossy compression used on 1080p video. That by itself is worth the jump to extra bandwidth. Compare a 1080p youtube video to a non-hdr 4k youtube video and you'll notice a quality difference. It's that datarate. I would also argue that audio is important for game consoles as well. |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Jan 27, 2023 21:26:54 GMT -5
As for the whole 1080p is all you need, that hasn't really panned out has it? It's not just about pixels. When one is doing streaming video the data rate available on higher res streams is substantially better than the lossy compression used on 1080p video. That by itself is worth the jump to extra bandwidth. Compare a 1080p youtube video to a non-hdr 4k youtube video and you'll notice a quality difference. It's that datarate. Again, it's either HDR that's the difference or the fact it's a true 4k source (cameras) for the filming. It's not the pixels/display. 1080P has panned out just fine if HDR isn't part of the equation. A 4k camera/source is noticeably superior than a 1080P camera/source. An 8k will be better than a 4k but there will be no true 8k source that isn't a video game for a loooooong time. By then Emo will be supporting HDMI 6.2 boards. A 4k display without HDR isn't noticeably superior to a 1080p display, regardless of the source. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 27, 2023 21:33:12 GMT -5
As for the whole 1080p is all you need, that hasn't really panned out has it? It's not just about pixels. When one is doing streaming video the data rate available on higher res streams is substantially better than the lossy compression used on 1080p video. That by itself is worth the jump to extra bandwidth. Compare a 1080p youtube video to a non-hdr 4k youtube video and you'll notice a quality difference. It's that datarate. Again, it's either HDR that's the difference or the fact it's a true 4k source (cameras) for the filming. It's not the pixels/display. 1080P has panned out just fine if HDR isn't part of the equation. The video we watch is heavily lossy when it’s streaming. take a look at YouTube 4K and 1080p 4K videos. They both usually don’t have hdr. The. 4K is substantially better even without hdr. |
|
Better than 2.0'S ARC..
