Reply With QuoteFor 4k you need minimum stable 25 meg with that I mean no buffering.If you start a film on Netflix or Amazon and they detect you do not have sufficient Speed they automatically send it down the line in HD
Not the easiest thing to search for on the forum but I've had a bit of a look at previous threads.
I'm debating upping to a 65" TV (Samsung UE65KU6400) which is on offer at present for £1099 including a Samsung Soundbar worth £300. I realise I may be better waiting a few weeks for the release of the 2017 TV's which may reduce prices further but this seems a really good deal.
I have Netflix and would upgrade to 4k, also have Amazon prime and would buy a 4k fire TV box. May even go for SkyQ
However, a thought crossed my mind earlier re: the streaming of such content - I live in a rural area with 2.5mbps broadband at best. I can stream HD netflix and Amazon no problem - but will this be no good for 4k? I've read you need about 15mbps but wonder if anyone has any real life examples of similar?
We don't even have a fibre roll out plan yet although its in design phase. Am I better waiting until I get this before upgrading? I don't need to upgrade but just a bit bored with my current TV and the android software (Sony Bravia 55).
For 4k you need minimum stable 25 meg with that I mean no buffering.If you start a film on Netflix or Amazon and they detect you do not have sufficient Speed they automatically send it down the line in HD
Last edited by hilly10; 29th March 2017 at 18:36.
I get perfect 4K streaming but just did a test and am getting somewhere North of 30Mbps so that's no use really... I would imagine it won't be a good experience with 2.5Mbps.
Unless you are planning to watch a load of 4K blurays or use it for Xbox or similar in 4K, I wouldnt bother.
2.5Mbps is bad in this day and age!
Thanks. Thought as much. Glad I realised now and not after buying!
Surprisingly the speed is fine for work and normal streaming but I then thought this may be pushing it. Downloading is when I do notice the slow speed but as I say streaming is fine.
Damn. Oh well saved me some coin I suppose.
I've got a Sony with android and have to say I think it's the best TV operating system out there.
I've been disappointed in mine since it updated to marshmallow. It seems clunky. Also all of a sudden the sync with my soundbar (ct380) has completely gone. I have it connected via hdmi and it used to switch on with tv but although it does the sound is out. It's driving me mad.Originally Posted by r.dawson
This doesn't help with the broadband speed question but...
Depending on the TV you probably wouldn't need the Fire TV box, I bought a Panasonic TV recently which has an Amazon app that will stream in full 4K HDR. I had no idea that they worked in this way but I'm very impressed.
If I'm not wrong, most 4K TVs will upscale HD videos. So theoretically a HD video would look sharper on a 4K TV vs a Full HD TV.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Not really as its done by interpolation as far as I'm aware which is essentially a best guess algorithm
Some video can actually look worse with upscaling.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I suppose my other issue is that it would be daft not to get a 4K tv if buying a new one (can you these days?).
Annoyingly a better model has just come up on offer (£400 off) and I'm very tempted as it so much nicer than my current one and comes with a 4K blu ray. Altho I'd probably sell that on to recoup.
It would future proof me as I hope we get fibre next year.
But is it a daft purchase if I don't have the right setup yet?
Also - my current tv is 55. The one I want is 65 and a lot bigger obviously. I have it wall mounted on a big wall but am wondering if it may be too big. Has anyone gone up to 65 and thought the same or will it be ok? The height is roughly the same as I have now as I have a wall mounted soundbar that I won't have with a new one but the width is about 280mm wider.
Depends how far away from it you sit... when you unbox it you will question your sanity but after a week it will seem like it's always been that size.
I agree with you, if you're getting a new TV anyway there's no way I wouldn't buy a 4K panel.
Which model is it?
I agree totally with that, we went from 42 to 55 at Christmas and it seemed huge initially but very used it now. ( and yes, you really should get 4k now for when you get better speeds, the picture is stunning )
Current viewing setup - seated position approximately 9ft from TV, where I took the photo from.
As I say, the Soundbar will go and I'll run without a soundbar for a bit or then get the HWK-650 which is wireless So the height will be roughly the same just wider (and is slightly wider than the cabinet below it).
Its the Samsung UE65KS8000 - this is the one on offer (£400 less than other places I've seen). Saw it on HUKD earlier today. The free player is further down the page for the same price.
http://www.prcdirect.co.uk/euronics-...4k-led-tv.html
Size wise you'll be fine with a bigger set there.
TV looks lovely - just don't talk about anything you don't want the NSA to know about in that room...
Yeah that does worry me a tad - although my echo dot probably catches all that already. Is this still an issue?
Thanks
Realistically I wouldn't worry about it unless you're a spy, celebrity or multinational CEO.
If the NSA want to video me sat on the sofa watching Match of the Day in my pants or listen to the kids incessant arguing, I feel sorry for the analyst that has to review the data :)
The 8000 series one is technically much superior to the 6000 series, particularly wrt HDR performance - which is more noticeable than 4k in a lot of ways.
hahaha - same here (minus the kids).
Lol
Just got Richer Sounds to price match so off to order it now, sod it. I've worn the mrs down about TV's (she now doesn't care what I'm doing) so strike while the iron is hot and this fully future proofs me going forward hopefully.
Sorry missed the earlier but thanks for this - the TV I'm after does have the amazon 4k app built in, so no need for the additional box.
I've got an updated firestick on order but may not need that now either (bought it for the voice options)
I'd be surprised if 2.5meg could cope reliably with HD, zero chance with 4k as others have noted.
So clever my foot fell off.
My 65" is on the wall as soon as you mount a TV on the wall it looks small. The wall my TV is on is 3.5 mtrs and i sit 3 mtrs from the screen, its perfect, so much so the next big boy going on that wall will be a OLED 75"
HD content streams fine. Never had any issues with Netflix Amazon or YouTube. Looks like I'll not be steaming 4K for a while though.
Nice one. Would love to splash out on OLED myself.
Just ordered the telly anyway from Richer sounds so a 6yr guarantee too. I might actually keep the DVD player as it comes with 3 4K DVDs anyway.
Now just to deal with the wife's reaction later.
I think you are genuinely doing well then - half way down here is a table giving minimum speeds for streaming video services.
https://www.cable.co.uk/guides/what-...eed-for-skype/
So clever my foot fell off.
Just to add to the streaming debate, I have a ok connection 20 ish meg but I found recently when watching IPlayer, I would get occasional buffering when watched through the Samsung app in the TV, but through the same app in a NOW TV box it would be fine. Most odd.
I'll be honest and say I was surprised when we moved in (it was one worry I had and looked at satellite broadband) but its been fine. I also work from home regularly and have Skype conferences on a regular basis - these do drop occasionally though.
I was led to believe when we moved here (end of 2015) that fibre was coming in by mid 2017. However, that hasn't/isn't going to happen but I do keep a regular eye on things
Holy jesus. these things are big.
Set it up to test - and now can't move the ruddy thing on my own. Only realised about 30 mins before delivery I've no chance of wall mounting it myself. Not looking forward the ear bashing I'm going to get in an hour or two when her indoors is home!
However, my streaming seems to have taken a hit. All my usually good sources (Youtube, Netflix and Amazon) look very poor ala SD quality, blocky and jittery. Any idea what would cause this when they worked fine on the other TV and still do on laptop/mobile? Is it because its trying to play 4k content? I would have thought it would have switched to HD if the speed wasn't sufficient?
Not tried 4k disc yet as not going to use the 4k player (sell it sealed) and buy a games console instead.
I do feel though that the size is better and makes my 55 look too small
Last edited by senwar; 6th April 2017 at 14:43.
I think this goes with the territory. Big TVs like quality content. I find DVD resolution and SD stuff looks pretty poor on my 55", so it's going to look terrible on 65". 720p is the lowest resolution that looks good for me, and there seems to be a bit of blocking, even with that. Conversely 4K stuff looks fantastic - get Planet Earth 2 on UHD, and prepare to be blown away! The Grand Tour is also amazing in 4K HDR, but you definitely need about 30 meg for that to run - I get high 30's and it buffers occaisonally.
As previously mentioned 2.5 meg is pretty sketchy for HD, never mind 4K. You might want to check your TV is getting a decent wifi signal though.
Also the bigger the telly, the more you notice artifacts. You're barely going to notice on a laptop/phone. Plus a 4K tv is going to have to do more upscaling so even if you compared two 65" TVs, a 1080 and a 4K, the SD theoretically will have more artifacts. (I haven't ever made that comparison myself, so can't say for sure).
I'm playing (streaming) specific HD content, so selecting HD programmes or clips. Playing on my 55 side by side on the 65 there's a huge difference even when you stand directly in front. SD content looks poor on the 55 and I expected it to be worse on the 65. But as I say, I expect to see a decent HD picture? It obviously looks fine via Sky HD.
I've actually stuck an ethernet cable in for the moment although I was getting full 5ghz wifi signal no problem.
Things no bloke has ever said, 'That TV looks too big'
Love Trailer Park Boys as well.
Time to look at a 5.1 surround system now as good sound definitely adds another dimension to your viewing pleasure.
First text from the mrs when I sent her the pic 'That looks too big already!!!'. My reply, 'It makes the other one look too small you mean'. I think the fit looks better, I know she'll have a differing opinion.
I'm on the lookout now for surround. I'm thinking of some standing speakers as don't really have the option to put a soundbar anywhere at the moment now. I currently use a Sony soundbar/subwoofer on the current TV.
Damn you ££
I started on the road to AV damnation about 20 years ago, I'd just bought a new TV and thought about getting a little surround system, so with a maximum budget in my head of about £500 I went out and bought What HiFi magazine (first mistake), read that cover to cover and then went to visit my local AV dealer to audition some equipment (second fatal mistake), so 10k later I had a new sound system. I've upgraded since then too.
It's a very slippery slope, especially if you're not married as there is no one to tell you No.
Show your wife this and tell her she got off lightly
If you're connected via ethernet, it can't be a relatively poor bitrate. (The reason I mentioned this is that I had that problem intially with my new TV - the wifi bitrate was terrible, so I switched to homeplug ethernet and everything was ok).
If it's blocky, then I suppose it has to be the TV "downgrading" the resolution. I can't imagine the difference in scaling being that obvious. You wonder if Samsung apps are fussier? The OS generally gets positive reviews though. I've not used a Sony smart TV, only Samsung and LG, but I don't notice any difference in streaming quality/sensitivity to bitrate between them.
With the Amazon app, it will normally say HD/HD1080/UHD at the bottom, depending on whether you've got 720/1080/4K. Might be worth comparing the two TV's in that way.
Lovely lovely setup. I can imagine it becoming a bit of a money pit once you get into it! Very nice thoughI started on the road to AV damnation about 20 years ago, I'd just bought a new TV and thought about getting a little surround system, so with a maximum budget in my head of about £500 I went out and bought What HiFi magazine (first mistake), read that cover to cover and then went to visit my local AV dealer to audition some equipment (second fatal mistake), so 10k later I had a new sound system. I've upgraded since then too.
It's a very slippery slope, especially if you're not married as there is no one to tell you No.
Show your wife this and tell her she got off lightly
I've always been Samsung myself until getting the Sony 18 months ago. There's nothing wrong with it and has many years left but once I get an idea in my mind......
I'll check the details as you mention via Amazon later and see what it says, thanks for the info.
Thanks, Yes I agree it's not a cheap hobby but I love music and movies so get a lot of pleasure from it.
I tend to do a major overhaul every 8 years roughly, when you work it out to a per year basis and how much use it gets it's really not that bad. Still much less than the depreciation on my car per year.
That's a fair point (or two!).
Annoyingly I'm having to have the TV replaced. There's a few marks beneath the panel. Didn't notice initially but the late afternoon soon caught it when the TV was still on the floor. Thankfully
I've steered clear of this topic because it's a subject that a lot of peeps are fooled into. The bare facts are that you will not notice the difference between HD and UHD on a 60" screen unless you are sat less than 3 feet away from the screen with perfect 20/20 vision. It is fruitless at the moment to buy a 4K screen until content is widely available and the price of an 80" HDR UHD TV is about a grand. In the meantime peeps you are wasting your money. They haven't even settled on the correct format for it. So my advice is leave it two years and then buy.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Utter nonsense. Content is widely available - I barely watch broadcast TV and all of the Netflix, Sport, Amazon and YouTube stuff I watch is available in 4K. Everyone who watches it can tell the difference, even my wife...
I wouldn't take 'expert advice' from someone who thinks 20/20 vision is perfect.
Relevant username, peeps.
Not nonsense at all. You only have to google it to find the scientific evidence. Most people are fooled by upscaling and effects applied by the TV itself. And I really don't inderstand your 20/20 vision comment. It was merely a given as to what is regarded as perfect sight. Google it, then come back to me with some actual facts that make sense. 1080p is absolutely perfect for domestic purposes and until you have an 80" telly and sit 6 feet away there is no need AT ALL for UHD. HDR and OLED on the other hand... definitely.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Relevant username, peeps.[/QUOTE]
That was a bit mean. Just voicing my opinion. No need to be a bellend.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
There is no up-scaling to a 4K TV if you are watching 4K content, and there is plenty to choose from now, 4K Blu-Ray being the best
6 feet would be way to close to a 80" TV unless you were putting 4K content into it. The higher the resolution the closer you can sit and not see the pixels.
1080p is good no doubt, but 4K is better, especially on large panels.
You'll be waiting a long time if you're holding your breath for a 80" 4k TV for a grand as well.
Not holding my breath at all because it's lunacy until you can get a ridiculously large screen and then sit at appropiate distances from it.
Most 4K blu rays are 2K upscales. (Again google it).
And again... google the 80" 6 feet thing. There are actual charts pointing out how 4K is very silly.
I'm not trying to argue with you all, I'm pointing out facts so you don't get sucked into "higher pixels means better".
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Nope...still nonsense. You're presenting your opinion as the definitive fact and final answer. I'm telling you that I can absolutely tell when a source is 4K and not using the sources I use.
Vision, like hearing, is individual and subjective. The Nyquist theorem may tell us why 16-bit 44.1KHz is the effective optimum for audio but many people would disagree.
Google it.And I really don't inderstand your 20/20 vision comment.
Oh behave. Just putting my opinion out there which is what forums are for. No hard feelings. Oh and don't get into nyquist etc... professionally trained sound engineer. Personally... 48khz 24 bit is my preference... no point in 96khz... which actually in a weird way... makes my point.
You can understand when people take issue with something represented as "FACT - and you're all idiots if you think otherwise", particularly if their experience is different. I genuinely can see the difference between HD content and 4K via Amazon, Netflix and to a slightly lesser degree YouTube. My wife (who is the least AV-interested person I know) can even spot it.
But that also proves my point - "Scientific Analysis" (tm) tells us that 16-bit sampling at a rate of 44.1KHz is sufficient. You don't think so - and that's good. You quite likely have a keen ear given it's your trade. Many TV enthusiasts have a keen eye - and quite possibly better than 20/20 vision (which is a measure of 'normal' eyesight)Oh and don't get into nyquist etc... professionally trained sound engineer. Personally... 48khz 24 bit is my preference... no point in 96khz... which actually in a weird way... makes my point.
All the googling, what tv do you currently have?
- - - Updated - - -
All the googling, what tv do you currently have?
A 4K 65" Samsung. But it's pretty much as good as a 1080p one for all the hype
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I'm not trying to anger anyone. Just trying to help. Sorry if I've got people's back up
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Understood - but I think you presented it poorly. You could have just said "I can't see a difference between 4K and HD, but your mileage may vary"
Still. It's the Internet and we all present things poorly from time to time :)
I don't really want to start this one again, but although there will be a point at which you are too far away to appreciate the higher resolution, it's often further away than you think.
Most of the charts seem to be based on 1' arc (20/20 or 6/6). A lot of people (esp under 50's) can see 6/4, and this is for letter recognition (at 100% contrast admittedly). Simple discrimination of points can even be 30" (6/3). This means the charts have an error of 50-100% i.e. the 5/6 feet can become 10/12 feet - a much more usual viewing distance.
Hence when someone says they can see the difference, "no you can't - google the chart!" isn't really a valid counter-argument! The charts often seem to be made by people who don't fully understand the issue.
Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it right!!
Posting Permissions
