Funny... There were much the same discussions about 2K and 4K
It's different. We would see signals from HOLLYWOOD and the wider movie and TV industry if 8K was at all able to be a permeable product in home video. Ang Lee trying his heart out but he's among the only visible/relevant trying to push 8K mastering. No one else cares.
There was 4K scanning by the mid-late 2000's so 4K content in mainstream movies was a frontrunner of that venture. And so much content was mastered and ready before the format even materialized.
In contrast there have only been very select and expensive cost to 8K scans since that became a thing. All of them were 65mm film. Which is already a small library of mainstream content.
Nature and documentaries and sport is good for "broadcast" on 8K TV's like in Japan and select markets and all; but it won't follow on to demand a disc format. Nor would be successful if they even tried.
Ultimately I think 8K upscale digital files will one day be common. But I join many who say in terms of the "next thing" I'd prefer it to be DCP like masters. Maybe 4K Dolby Vision at full 12 bits and 4:2:2 as has been floated as a concept.
That would be better than 8K masters at 4:2:0 10-bit, for instance.
Just found the A/V processor/amplifier combo that I want when the switch to 8K comes. We all know it's coming soon, right? About $18K for the pair. Probably another $15K for the Sony Bravia Z9K TV. Gotta start saving my pennies!
That processor is a Denon with McIntosh body. I can’t believe people fall for that.
I fall for anything in a cheap skirt I don't think McIntosh is part of Sound United. It's all handmade stuff out of Binghamton, NY. Impeccable reputation and quality. Marantz and Denon are part of Sound United, though. So my Marantz could be a repackaged Denon? Sacrilege! I condemn this outrage!
That processor is a Denon with McIntosh body. I can’t believe people fall for that.
Given how terrible high-end boutique companies are with modern A/V processors and receivers, "basically just a Marantz/Denon" is probably actually a best-case outcome that will make it more reliable than the alternative.
For some reason, my ISP has, for the last 2 months, bumped my fiber to the home up from 50 Mbps to 1 Gbps, free of charge. Bring on the 8K! JK about the 8K part, but the free speed bump is both real and nice.
My ISP bumped my connection to 250Mbps during the pandemic and I thought it had uncapped to that figure since I was on the highest tier before business ones. Turns out I used to only get 50Mbps then it went to 100 for the same price and they offered "free upgrade" on top of that for a 6 month period starting early 2021 I just never saw the email saying this.
It is now back down to 100Mbps and there are more tiers above in increments of 20$. Too much to justify changing on my budget even for 2.5x speed. 250Mbps is $110 and 1Gbps is $130; but I don't know if my building can even get the latter... its "up to" for that extreme tier.
I don't care about download so much as wanting decent upload to go with decent download. If my connect could get 1Gbps theoreticals, though? I'd trade half that speed or more to get close to parity upload. I hope for a 250/250 to become price competitive within years, and dream of a 500/500 connection one day. Then I could realistically, without taking literal years; back up my array of externals, and stack of 4 and 8 TB internals that power my media library.
Don't get me wrong, every few years it is good to replace your router and stay current on tech. But people do reaalize that wifi is limited to your house. It won't change your connecttion speed to your ISP for cloud gaming and unless we are talking about home distribution servers and players like kaleidescape it won't have an effect on streaming.
It is good to see that WI-FI 7 is coming but it might not arrive until around the year 2026 (or 2024 at the earliest), since new technologies usually get delayed (Wi-FI 7 and WI-FI 6 both use the secure WPA3 encryption technology). Personally, I do not like WI-FI and I am on a 100% wired network for speed, reliability, and security. Almost all new homes built in the last 20 years has a minimum of CAT5e wiring ran to every room, which offers a minimum of a constant 1,000Mbps upload and download speed (around 946Mbps for 328 feet runs). If one needs faster speed then there is CAT8 that can do up to 40,000Mbps speeds. If one needs more speed then the latest fiber in the home can do up to 400,000Mbps. So, one can create a 400,000Mbps home network if 10,000Mbps is not fast enough. All desktop computers, Notebook computers, Smart TV’s, Blu-ray players and other devices have a wired ethernet option. The only reason one would need to create a hybrid wired and wireless home network is if people are walking around the home or office with handheld tablet PC’s and Smartphones. Walking around with handheld PC’s needs WI-FI.
WI-FI 7 claims 46,000Mbps speeds and WI-FI 6E claims 9,600Mbps speeds, and WI-FI 5 claims 3,500Mbps speeds. However, the reality is people that use WI-FI 6E and WI-FI 5 can usually under ideal conditions only get a maximum speed of around 490Mbps. In fact most people that use WI-FI 5 or 6E can only get around 248Mbps speed when they have installed professional expensive commercial access points in their home or office. The further one gets away from the wireless access point the lower the signal and speed. People in the industry have seen speed drop from 490Mbps to 12Mbps when getting far away. Adding more ceiling mounted access points will give people a solid 248Mbps to 490Mpbs speed in their home or office. I am sure WI-FI 7 will be better when it comes out around 2026 (or 2024), however under real world conditions its not going to offer 46,000Mbps (46Gbps) speeds. People will be happy if WI-FI 7 can offer over 1,000Mps since most people are in the 248Mbps to 490Mbps range for WI-FI under real world conditions.
100% fiber Internet providers are now offering residential Internet speeds up to 10,000Mbps. However, in order to get 10,000Mbps speeds the home or condo would have needed to be wired for a minimum of CAT6A for the 328 feet run. If the run is 328 feet to the router/switch and only CAT5e cable is used then a maximum of 1,000Mbps speed is possible (If the CAT5e run is under a 100 feet maybe under ideal conditions 2,500Mbps to 5,000Mbps with special equipment).
So, my point is that since people have 10,000Mbps home networks and 10,000Mbps Internet service, WI-FI technology is far behind in the quality when compared to a 100% wired home network or hybrid wired/wireless network. It does no good to subscribe to 10,000Mbps, 6,000Mbps, 2,000Mbps, or 1,000Mbps Internet service if one is on a 100% wireless home network. Many of the latest CAT6e wireless adapters can only offer around 246Mbps speed under real world conditions due to limitations in the wireless technology being sold to consumers. Once and a while a consumer might get around 490Mbps speed if they are a few feet from the access point. To make a long story short, wireless has terrible performance when compared to a wired network. Almost every Cable TV company and telephone company offers a minimum of 1,000Mbps speeds, but the reason consumers can not get those speeds is because they are trying to use wireless instead of wired. With a speed test if one is able to get between 750Mbps to 940Mbps download speed over their wired Internet connection, then the 1,000Mbps (1Gbps) Internet service is working fine. The problem with people’s home networks today is the poor quality wireless performance from so called top of the line wireless products on the market, and uneducated consumers blame their Internet provider because they are only getting around 248Mbps download speed instead of the around 920Mbps download a wired network can provide.
So hopefully WI-FI version 7 when released around 2026 (or 2024) will get people closer to the 1,000Mbps speed under real world conditions (WI-FI 7 might instead get people to around 600Mbps under real world conditions). Some people believe wireless is harmful to human health, however one may not know the answer to that question for another decade or so (more research needs to be done on the health issue when it comes to wireless). For the last 20 years I have enjoyed a 100% wired 1,000Mbps home network two decades before 1,000Mbps Internet was offered in my area. In the future I am looking at upgrading the home network to 10,000Mbps speed.
in the US the mean for fixed connection (mobile is less) is 211.41 Mbps and more importantly the median 136.53 Mbps and Monaco highest mean at 288.47Mbps and Singapore with highest median at 192.17 Mbps.
for those that don't know the difference between median and mean
[Show spoiler]
if we have 100, 30,20 the mean is (100+30+20)/3 =50
30 is the one in the middle of the three so median is 30 (if you have an even number it is the average of the two in the middle 100,30,20,10 the median will be (30+20)/2
the mean is heavily influence by the CEO off the ISP that has the fastest package that he does not even need to pay for which is a lot farther from what real people have as speeds)
Don't get me wrong. Where I live there is Gb and above packages as well (though if I remember correctly last time I looked the tops was 3Gb). I just don't know anyone that has them in their home. And even if one has a 10Gb wired to a 10Gb internet connection it still won’t make a difference. Netflix does not stream at 10Gb and neither does any other streamer or cloud gaming service.
In some big cities and rural areas residential 10,000Mbps upload and download is offered for around $399 a month. $300 a month for 6,000Mbps upload and download. $150 a month for 2,000Mbps upload and download. And for around $70 to $80 a month for 1,000Mbps upload/download. Plus unlimited local and long distance calling for around $20 a month using VOIP. Plus digital cable boxes with cable service for many people in the USA.
Around 50% of the United States has 100% fiber optic to the side of ones house, condo, and apartment which has a cable capacity of 10,000Mbps upload/download. However the problem is some of the Internet providers do not offer 10,000Mbps speed yet, and consumers have a choice of 2,000Mbps or 1,000Mbps. Also why most 100% fiber Internet providers offer the same upload as download speed, some Internet providers on fiber only offer 100Mbps upload and 1,000Mbps download. But the normal is the same upload speed as the download speed for providers like Vezizon FIOS and many others that are 100% fiber.
The majority of Americas have access to a minimum of 1,000Mbps download speed using either fiber or a copper coax cable modem. When a cable modem over a RG6 cable is used with fiber a mile down the road the upload speed is limited to 35Mbps with 1,000Mbps download speed. While the latest cable modems over coaxial RG-6 cable can do up to 10,000Mbps download, that type of speed I have only seen over a 100% fiber connection so far. There are some areas of the United States where in a rural area when doing a speed test to a speed test server a few hundred miles away in a big city people are able to see download and upload speeds of around 9,940Mbps over a 100% fiber connection (The fiber inside the house gets converted to CAT6A RJ45 cable going into the desktop computers RJ45 10GB ethernet jack).
Some big cities if one has a commercial account they can subscribe to 100,000Mbps upload and download using a internal 100GB fiber optic networking card connected to the desktop computer.
Uploading and downloading 100GB 4K Blu-ray images using Kaledidecape is ideal for 1,000Mbps speed since it takes around 10 to 12 minutes to download the movie. Now when and if a 10GB networking jack is used then it would take around 1 minute to download the 100GB file over a 10,000Mbps connection.
Uploading and downloading 100GB 4K Blu-ray images using Kaledidecape is ideal for 1,000Mbps speed since it takes around 10 to 12 minutes to download the movie. Now when and if a 10GB networking jack is used then it would take around 1 minute to download the 100GB file over a 10,000Mbps connection.
That also depends on hard drive speed. Don't know what's in the K hardware but single drive is max at about 150MBps sequential write speed for 7,200rpm drive and 100MBps for 5,400rpm drive. NAS write speed depends on the RAID type, drive speed, and number of drives but I wouldn't expect the write speed to be more than 300-400MBps.
Some solid state drives have a write speed of 7,000Mbps. However the ideal solution is to use 128GB of DDR4 memory as a fast data buffer with UPS power backup. Then when the 100GB or larger file is sent at 10,000Mbps it will take 1 minute or less to get the download. Then the 128GB DDR4 memory is dumped to the 72TB hard drive server.
My old year 2015 computer that has a X99 motherboard has 128GB of DDR4 memory with a 10,000Mbps networking card. Problem is I am located in what is considered an extreme rural area and 100% fiber Internet offered is 100Mbps upload (95.7Mbps actual) and 1,000Mbps download (946Mbps actual). In the years to come maybe I might see 10,000Mbps upload and 10,000Mbps download in my area. If I was to drive to a small town 40 minutes away on another Internet provider I can get 10,000Mbps upload and 10,000Mbps download.
The current version of Kaleidescape has 800Mbps download speed with its 1,000Mbps network card and fast memory buffer. Hopefully a future version of Kaleidescape might use a 10,000Mbps networking jack with 128GB of DDR4 memory as a buffer before being dumped to the 72TB hard drive server.
The majority of Americas have access to a minimum of 1,000Mbps download speed using either fiber or a copper coax cable modem.
if by have access you mean tan ISP in their area offers 1Gbps if the person is willing to pay a lot more that could be true but clearly like I showed before
Quote:
in the US the mean for fixed connection (mobile is less) is 211.41 Mbps and more importantly the median 136.53 Mbps
half have under 136.53 Mbps and by the mean being 211.41 the vast majority do not have anywherre near a 1Gbps plan.
Quote:
Uploading and downloading 100GB 4K Blu-ray images using Kaledidecape is ideal for 1,000Mbps speed since it takes around 10 to 12 minutes to download the movie. Now when and if a 10GB networking jack is used then it would take around 1 minute to download the 100GB file over a 10,000Mbps connection.
agree but the article was not "WiFi 7 will support up to 40 Gbps, offer improved Kaledidecape Download speeds" it was "WiFi 7 will support up to 40 Gbps, offer improved cloud gaming and 8K streaming "
now granted it is 8k streaming that no one really offers. But If we look at Youtube and the few small clips they offer in 8K it tops off at 120Mbps, like you said even a terrible wifi-5 connection would leave you with enough BW for a couple of streams (assuming the person's internet connection does.)
Ha ha ha!! Sorry to laugh, not at you guys, but at me! We can barely watch the lower youtube videos with our internet. Everyone is all, high speed, Fiber, T1, 5G etc, while we're still sitting here being forced to use a 15 year old DSL line and average 11mb download (last week the speed one day was 3.13!!!!) and just over 1mb for upload! If my husband has to upload music he's working on for the band he has to do it at work! It sucks. We've tried for years to get them to upgrade us and they kept saying "oh fibers coming don't worry!" yeah, well they stopped fiber at the bottom of our hill (less than 1/10mile from our house, I think it's like 3 electric poles away) so all our neighbors down there have fiber and we won't get it. (we also don't have cell service up here)
if by have access you mean tan ISP in their area offers 1Gbps if the person is willing to pay a lot more that could be true but clearly like I showed before
half have under 136.53 Mbps and by the mean being 211.41 the vast majority do not have anywherre near a 1Gbps plan.
agree but the article was not "WiFi 7 will support up to 40 Gbps, offer improved Kaledidecape Download speeds" it was "WiFi 7 will support up to 40 Gbps, offer improved cloud gaming and 8K streaming "
now granted it is 8k streaming that no one really offers. But If we look at Youtube and the few small clips they offer in 8K it tops off at 120Mbps, like you said even a terrible wifi-5 connection would leave you with enough BW for a couple of streams (assuming the person's internet connection does.)
Since 10Gbps (10,000Mbps) upload/download, 6Gbps, and 2Gbps residential Internet packages are now offered in both big cities and some rural areas, 1Gbps (1,000Mbps upload/download) will in the future become the entry level package for Internet. When some Internet providers offer 250Mbps upload/download for $60 a month and for only $20 more at $80 a month one can get $1,000Mbps upload/download, many consumers choose the 1Gbps package. Now some consumers might not want to spend $399 for 10,000Mbps upload/download or $150 for 2,000Mbps upload/download, however the speed of Internet keeps increasing while at the same time prices are getting cheaper for the faster packages. It use to cost $300 a month for residential 2,000Mbps upload/download, now it only costs around $150 a month. It use to cost around $800 for 10,000Mbps upload and download, now many providers offer that speed for $399 a month.
While the norm is to offer the same upload and download speed for a 100% fiber connection. People that are on copper or copper/fiber hybrid networks with a cable modem only get around 35Mbps upload and 1,000Mbps download in some areas of the country with their cable TV provider.
So if the average speed is under 256Mbps, it is because consumers are not choosing to pay for the higher Internet plans like 1,000Mbps and above. So those statistics should be looking at what is the highest speed the Internet provider offers in the service area, and should not be looking at what the person subscribes too (if the majority of people only subscribes to 1,000Mbps and their Internet provider offers 10,000Mbps, it would be unfair to pulldown the statistics for that Internet provider). These statistics need to look at the highest packages available and not what people are subscribing too. There are many people that have access to 1,000Mbps and above over fiber or cable modem but they choose not to subscribe to that level of service. But that is not a fair statistic on Internet speed in the United States. It is the people that do not have fiber or a cable TV in their area that have slow Internet. I feel sorry for the people that have no cable TV company and no fiber Internet, they are forced to get ADSL2+ Internet service over telephone lines at speed around 14Mbps download and 1Mbps upload. Some hybrid fiber/copper telephone companies have the latest DSL technology that does between 300Mbps to 1,000Mbps download if less then a quarter of a mile from the fiber.
Wired Internet is the King of speed, reliability, and security. Problem with WI FI 5 and 6 is that most people get around 246Mbps and sometimes up to 490Mbps per stream where as wired Internet gives people the full 946Mbps with 1Gbps Internet or around the full 9,400Mbps on a 10Gbps Internet connection. If one cannot get the full 1,000Mbps speed over wireless, they might be limited to 490Mbps. Therefore if they are the only person in the house or condo 1,000Mbps Internet is not that useful. My point is if one is on a 100% wireless home network and they are only able to get between 246Mbps to 490Mbps over WI-FI 6 or 5, then it is a waste of money to have one computer with WIFI. However if there was several people in the house using WIFI at once with each computer connected between 246Mbps to 490Mbps to the access point, then WI FI makes sense with a 1,000Mbps or higher service plan. The problem with WI FI is that from a single PC people are limited at 490Mbps per each stream, where as wired Internet one gets the full 946Mbps with a 1Gbps Internet plan. Maybe WI FI 7 when released in the future might fix this issue and have download and upload streams of at least 600Mbps to 1,000Mbps per each stream. But one will have to wait and see. I am not a fan of WIFI and that is why I am on a 100% wired connection.
Ha ha ha!! Sorry to laugh, not at you guys, but at me! We can barely watch the lower youtube videos with our internet. Everyone is all, high speed, Fiber, T1, 5G etc, while we're still sitting here being forced to use a 15 year old DSL line and average 11mb download (last week the speed one day was 3.13!!!!) and just over 1mb for upload! If my husband has to upload music he's working on for the band he has to do it at work! It sucks. We've tried for years to get them to upgrade us and they kept saying "oh fibers coming don't worry!" yeah, well they stopped fiber at the bottom of our hill (less than 1/10mile from our house, I think it's like 3 electric poles away) so all our neighbors down there have fiber and we won't get it. (we also don't have cell service up here)
I am sorry to hear that you only have access to slow Internet. In order to get fast and reliable Internet in the United States you either need to have a 100% fiber Internet provider or a cable TV provider that has a hybrid copper/fiber network. While the latest DSL technologies can offer 300Mbps to 1,000Mbps download speed, the problem is 99% of the DSL providers in the United States do not have that type of hybrid fiber network.
Around 50% of the United States has fiber and has access to a minimum of 1,000Mbps download speeds. The majority of the rest of the United States has access to cable TV service with a copper/fiber solution using a cable modem.
If you do not have 100% fiber Internet yet, and also have no cable TV provider with a cable modem then you will not have access to 1,000Mbps or higher until that actually does happen at your location. People that do not have access to cable TV are considered to be living in a extreme rural area. But there is hope. For many years my family members and I could only get a maximum of 14Mbps download speed with 1Mbps upload over ADSL2+. But when the telephone company upgraded to 100% fiber in this extreme rural area the Internet speed instantly went from 14Mbps download to 946Mbps download and the upload speed went from 1Mbps upload to 95.7Mbps upload with fiber directly on the side of the house. Now in the future in my area the next upgrade in the years to come might be to make the upload the same as the download by offering 1,000Mbps upload/download and then maybe 5 to 10 years down the road possible 10,000Mbps upload and download. I have to travel 40 minutes to a small town to get access to 10,000Mbps upload and download. So my point is more and more extreme rural areas of the United States are getting upgraded with fiber and/or cable TV service. I do not know where you live but one day you might have high-speed Internet after a fiber upgrade (maybe a year or two for your location). Some people might have to wait 3 to 5 years. Or some people might have to wait 5 to 10+ years for the upgrade to fiber. One day in theory the entire United States will have 100% fiber Internet instead of 50%. It might take another 20 years for some people to get fiber Internet. With the fiber most of the time comes unlimited local and long distance calling for $20 a month and true cable TV service with a cable box.
Off the topic, I do not like some websites that use special text and pictures that make one verify that they are not a computer or not a robot before login in. Even some humans have trouble with some weird looking pictures and text when login in to certain websites. I like many other people fail the verification that is used to prove one is a human being.
I am sorry to hear that you only have access to slow Internet. In order to get fast and reliable Internet in the United States you either need to have a 100% fiber Internet provider or a cable TV provider that has a hybrid copper/fiber network. While the latest DSL technologies can offer 300Mbps to 1,000Mbps download speed, the problem is 99% of the DSL providers in the United States do not have that type of hybrid fiber network.
Around 50% of the United States has fiber and has access to a minimum of 1,000Mbps download speeds. The majority of the rest of the United States has access to cable TV service with a copper/fiber solution using a cable modem.
If you do not have 100% fiber Internet yet, and also have no cable TV provider with a cable modem then you will not have access to 1,000Mbps or higher until that actually does happen at your location. People that do not have access to cable TV are considered to be living in a extreme rural area. But there is hope. For many years my family members and I could only get a maximum of 14Mbps download speed with 1Mbps upload over ADSL2+. But when the telephone company upgraded to 100% fiber in this extreme rural area the Internet speed instantly went from 14Mbps download to 946Mbps download and the upload speed went from 1Mbps upload to 95.7Mbps upload with fiber directly on the side of the house. Now in the future in my area the next upgrade in the years to come might be to make the upload the same as the download by offering 1,000Mbps upload/download and then maybe 5 to 10 years down the road possible 10,000Mbps upload and download. I have to travel 40 minutes to a small town to get access to 10,000Mbps upload and download. So my point is more and more extreme rural areas of the United States are getting upgraded with fiber and/or cable TV service. I do not know where you live but one day you might have high-speed Internet after a fiber upgrade (maybe a year or two for your location). Some people might have to wait 3 to 5 years. Or some people might have to wait 5 to 10+ years for the upgrade to fiber. One day in theory the entire United States will have 100% fiber Internet instead of 50%. It might take another 20 years for some people to get fiber Internet. With the fiber most of the time comes unlimited local and long distance calling for $20 a month and true cable TV service with a cable box.
Off the topic, I do not like some websites that use special text and pictures that make one verify that they are not a computer or not a robot before login in. Even some humans have trouble with some weird looking pictures and text when login in to certain websites. I like many other people fail the verification that is used to prove one is a human being.
Funny thing is, while yes we're technically rural, we're 10miles from a grocery store, but we're also not really. We're 20-25 miles from 4 fairly large towns/small cities, 50-60 miles from 2 large cities and <70 miles from a HUGE city. It seems like every day more and more people are commuting and/or working from home around here and the demand would go way up. But they don't care, the new people across the street came here from LA (he originally grew up around here and is now back) and he telecommutes from here to his old job. They do have cable internet, but the last time we called them about hooking it up they flat out refused unless we bought cable from them too, which we don't want, we have an antenna on our roof that gets like 30 channels for free from the city about 50 miles from here, we only watch maybe an hour of TV (news) a day the rest is movies and TV on DVD. Plus the basic, basic cable was $75 a month!! For less channels than we get with the antenna! Who knows how much higher that price is now! Plus their internet is about $65 a month starting, for I think it's 50mb download and 2mb upload, which still isn't very good! We used to live in the house across the street so we knew the previous owner of this house, he worked and telecommuted most days at IBM, he said even though it's SUPER slow the phone company was WAY WAY WAY better with internet than the cable company is, he had it and canceled it right away not caring about their contract it was that bad! There is a small very local phone company who has cable to the bottom of our hill as well (they're slowly expanding from just the town they're in) and when we called they said they need FCC permission to come up our hill. We contacted our rep from the house, who is big on internet expansion, and his office dealt with the FCC but their form letter back to me was basically we hear you and we'll contact the company about your problem. What problem? We're not customers of theirs yet, we have no problem aside from you not giving them permission to come up here! I mean it's literally 4 poles away (because they cross another neighbors yard from an odd angle), counting our pole in front of our house! The "good" thing is when we lived across the street we demanded a DSL line since the people in this house had one and they were just past our house on the road, so there were then two lines coming up here and since the older people who lived there between us and the people who live there now didn't want internet they swapped things around and gave us both lines to this house, and that's still only giving us 12mb as a best case day! They said they have higher tiers but then looked at our address and said nope, you're lucky to get what you get out of those lines. So even though there are about 10 houses up here (some are farm workers who don't use internet access) we're the only ones who have it through the phone company, they probably don't think it's worth it for one house. Even though the others don't have it because it's expensive and slow. We'd really prefer the local company since whenever our internet goes out, theirs really doesn't ever go out. They're a VERY good company. But at the bottom of our hill the phones change (including area codes) along with a lot of other things, so we're kind of in a weird end of the line spot.
I can't even imagine what even 100mb would be like!!! Let alone 1,000 or 10,000!!
Last edited by gardengirl1331; 02-09-2022 at 03:06 PM.
8K displays will become more popular around the year 2026, when in theory 8K streaming apps and 8K optical disc format should be on the market. If things get delayed 8K streaming could happen in 2026 and 8K optical disc format in or around 2028. There is a 10 year cycle for resolution improvements. That 10 year cycle should hold. In 1997 the 720 x 480i DVD format launched, 9 years later in 2006 the 1920 x 1080P Blu-ray format launched (2010 for Blu-ray 3D that uses same 1080P resolution as regular Blu-ray). Then exactly 10 years later in the year 2016 the 3840 x 2160P 4K Blu-ray format launched. Therefore, if the 10 year cycle holds 8K streaming should arrive between the years 2023-2026, then a new 8K optical disc format sometime between the years 2026-2028. The 10 year cycle is not exactly 10 years. Plus or minus one or two years. While chip shortages and COVID related issues can delay new products, 8K native material should happen in 2026 or 2028 at the latest. We are already seeing over 80 TV’s coming to market that are 8K certified, and these TV companies know native 8K material is around the corner. The new improved resolution TV’s and projectors always have to come first before native material is released on the market. Both 1080P and 4K displays came a few years before native 1080P and 4K formats.
QUOTE
"Over 80 TVs are now 8K-certified. Certification allows manufacturers to use an 8K Association Certified logo that consumers will recognize."
The 10 year cycle is not exactly 10 years. Plus or minus one or two years. While chip shortages and COVID related issues can delay new products, 8K native material should happen in 2026 or 2028 at the latest.
The emphasis of "AI upscaling" for the 8K sets tells you that there won't be an 8K physical media. There wouldn't need to be all this marketing lingo to justify the product if all of Hollywood was on board with 8K content deliverables for the future.
There is gonna be none for TV and movies for a long time. Even if there is it will be streaming stuff like netflix originals or w/e. For a streaming spec. Not a BDA physical media format.
We just would already know if there was gonna be 8K DI's commonly coming to the industry. They are so rare and they cost so much more than Hollywood sees any benefit from. Unless you want to build an entire format around Ang Lee's filmography, and nature documentaries?
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
About $18K for the pair. Probably another $15K for the Sony Bravia Z9K TV. Gotta start saving my pennies! 
I don't think McIntosh is part of Sound United. It's all handmade stuff out of Binghamton, NY. Impeccable reputation and quality. Marantz and Denon are part of Sound United, though. So my Marantz could be a repackaged Denon? Sacrilege! I condemn this outrage! 
Linear Mode
