Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Nope.

I have lived in nearly every sized domicile offered in this country at one time or another and I have always had room for a TV and that was long before they could be mounted on a wall.

Carrying a 133 lb 62" Mitusbishi DLP TV up to a 900 square foot second floor apartment was a challenge. Wall mounting a 65" TV that weighs about 52 lbs is a piece of cake in any place that I have ever lived.

Domicle is defined as the country that a person treats as their permanent home, or lives in. Shouldn't you be saying every sized residence offered in the country?

Not everyone that sets up their home prioritizes their residence for TV's or necessarily can after the fact. I walked into a lot of homes for sale that presented just really constrictive ways to support that.

Kudo's for moving that DLP beast up/down the stairs.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Domicle is defined as the country that a person treats as their permeant home, or lives in. Shouldn't you be saying every sized residence offered in the country?

Not everyone that sets up their home prioritizes their residence for TV's or necessarily can after the fact. I walked into a lot of homes for sale that presented just really constrictive ways to support that.

Kudo's for moving that DLP beast up/down the stairs.

Semantics now, really? Your definition is one definition, yes, but it is not the only definition:

"Definition of domicile (Entry 1 of 2)

1: a dwelling place : place of residence : HOME

2 law
a: a person's fixed, permanent, and principal home for legal purposes.

Synonyms for domicile:

abode, diggings, dwelling, fireside, habitation, hearth, hearthstone, home, house, lodging, pad, place, quarters, residence, roof.

Domicile traces to Latin domus, meaning "home," and English speakers have been using it as a word for "home" since at least the 15th century."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domicile

What a person prioritizes does not change the fact that anyone that wants a TV can easily find a place for one in almost every type of residence commonly on offer.

I hired a couple of day laborers to tote that monster up the stairs; I love me a big TV, but I love my back more.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Fireplaces? Many folk have their tv above the fireplace these days.

Neck Pain

The ideal viewing experience puts the television at eye-level. Chances are, if you’re mounting your TV, this will not be possible. Nonetheless, the farther up your TV is, the bigger strain you are creating on your neck.


Think of it as sitting in the first three rows of a movie theater. No one sits there because of the poor view, but more so, due to the neck strain many of us get later on. It’s much more comfortable sitting higher up.

https://www.improvenet.com/a/pros-co...er-a-fireplace

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

https://www.improvenet.com/a/pros-co...er-a-fireplace

Oh, I totally agree but that’s the trend here in the U.K., people don’t seem to care. From what people say, it’s a trend in the U.S also?

[JohnAV]

Interesting article
Solved! Why It’s a Mistake to Mount a TV Above a Fireplace - BobVilla

Only mount a TV above a fireplace if temperatures in that spot do not surpass 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
You may have luck with a fireplace that produces less heat, features a deep mantel, and strong blower.

1. Tape a thermometer to the wall in the approximate center of where your flat-screen TV might hang.
2. Then start the fireplace and let it run for several hours.
3. Check the thermometer.

If the temperature reaches or exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the location is too hot for your TV. If the temp remains below 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the TV should be safe in that location—but you still might want to reconsider, for the reasons explained below.

Damage from a fireplace’s heat could void your TV’s warranty.

Today’s new big-screen TVs cost a pretty penny, and if yours goes on the fritz soon after you buy it, you’ll want to call a service technician to fix it. If the technician discovers signs of heat damage, the manufacturer will often refuse to pay for the repairs, even if the TV is still within the warranty period. Read the warranty’s fine print; it may specify that just the act of mounting the TV over a fireplace is enough to void its warranty.

This guy on reddit posted this image

For those of you contemplating mounting above your fireplace.. against the advice of (almost) everyone on this sub I did it. My neck hasn’t broken, my TV hasn’t lit on fire, and it looks great IMO

As you can see its too high as even the heat of the display has no where to go bumping the low ceiling, the fireplace even with a mantle has nothing to prevent heat radiating up.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Interesting article
Solved! Why It’s a Mistake to Mount a TV Above a Fireplace - BobVilla



This guy on reddit posted this image




As you can see its too high as even the heat of the display has no where to go bumping the low ceiling, the fireplace even with a mantle has nothing to prevent heat radiating up.

Madness.

[Vilya]

I will ask my question here as it was ignored elsewhere:

I do have a question for those of you that stream far more often than I do. I have complained about the audio quality of streamed content, but I know some of that is due to how I stream in the first place. I use the built-in apps on my Sony X900F TV, mostly Vudu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, but my TV only supports ARC, not eARC.

Now that I have an AVR that supports Atmos, I would like to take full advantage of it and that means either buying a new TV that supports eARC or buying a dedicated streaming device that supports more audio formats. Which dedicated streaming device would be the best one to buy to get the most out of the apps that I use? I prefer one that has an ethernet connection as I made the effort to run ethernet cable to my viewing room. Is doing this worth the modest expense? Would I hear a noticeable improvement by using a dedicated streaming device over using the ARC function of my TV?

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I will ask my question here as it was ignored elsewhere:

I do have a question for those of you that stream far more often than I do. I have complained about the audio quality of streamed content, but I know some of that is due to how I stream in the first place. I use the built-in apps on my Sony X900F TV, mostly Vudu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, but my TV only supports ARC, not eARC.

Now that I have an AVR that supports Atmos, I would like to take full advantage of it and that means either buying a new TV that supports eARC or buying a dedicated streaming device that supports more audio formats. Which dedicated streaming device would be the best one to buy to get the most out of the apps that I use? I prefer one that has an ethernet connection as I made the effort to run ethernet cable to my viewing room. Is doing this worth the modest expense? Would I hear a noticeable improvement by using a dedicated streaming device over using the ARC function of my TV?

From what I have read the Apple TV is probably the best streaming device available. I have found Netflix, Amazon and Plex all run much smoother on this than the built in apps on my Sony A1. I would however wait to see if Apple release a new version this year, as it is long overdue now.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

https://www.improvenet.com/a/pros-co...er-a-fireplace

Uh unless you recline. Guess all those Imax screens should be shut down that have rock back seats. 3rd world problems there.

Btw got one of those fake fireplace jobs installed in tv stand. It doesn't hurt electronics at all and I have fans anyway. The back is cool to touch. Hot air blows out. Works great for me. Perfect eye level.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I will ask my question here as it was ignored elsewhere:

I actually intended on going back to your post and answering it now. I saw that you had edited it, and then questioned if I imagined you answering it, so did a search for your posts and found you asked it again here:

Originally Posted by Vilya

I do have a question for those of you that stream far more often than I do. I have complained about the audio quality of streamed content, but I know some of that is due to how I stream in the first place. I use the built-in apps on my Sony X900F TV, mostly Vudu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, but my TV only supports ARC, not eARC.

Now that I have an AVR that supports Atmos, I would like to take full advantage of it and that means either buying a new TV that supports eARC or buying a dedicated streaming device that supports more audio formats. Which dedicated streaming device would be the best one to buy to get the most out of the apps that I use? I prefer one that has an ethernet connection as I made the effort to run ethernet cable to my viewing room. Is doing this worth the modest expense? Would I hear a noticeable improvement by using a dedicated streaming device over using the ARC function of my TV?

I'll add my own thoughts, but I agree with Admiral's statements below:

Originally Posted by Admiral

From what I have read the Apple TV is probably the best streaming device available. I have found Netflix, Amazon and Plex all run much smoother on this than the built in apps on my Sony A1. I would however wait to see if Apple release a new version this year, as it is long overdue now.

I strongly recommend the Apple TV 4K, but as Admiral said, there's rumors of a new Apple TV box coming out soon, as early as this month or the next in fact. With the exception of the YouTube app, which I find to be superior on my Roku TV, I find the apps on the ATV to simply be best on the Apple TV.

I also really like the Apple TV TV app which lets you keep a watchlist of shows from most streaming services (as well as owned content from Apple or movies imported into Apple via Movies Anywhere).

They don't have a lot of content on it right now, but the ATV also comes with a year's subscription to Apple TV+, so at the very least, you could check out "Ted Lasso" or "For All Mankind", or the Tom Hanks movie "Greyhound"... all of which are available in Dolby Vision/Atmos.

While I like my Roku TVs, if I were looking at a possible second choice that wasn't the Apple TV due to budget or whatever, I might look into the specs of the new Google Chromecast, as I find the new Google TV UI to be pretty decent.

[lgans316]

Audio bit rates on streaming platforms:

Prime - 192 Kbps DD
D+ - 256 Kbps for DD and 768 Kbps for Atmos
MoviesAnywhere - 256 Kbps for DD and 640 Kbps for Atmos
ITunes - 384 / 640 Kbps for DD and 768 Kbps for Atmos
Netflix - 640 Kbps for DD and 768 Kbps for Atmos
DD -- DD or DD+ 5.1

Not even remotely comparable number wise to discs but quality wise it's down to your hearing. Remember we still have reference quality audio mixes dating back to DVD era where the audio bit rate was 384/448 Kbps.

Also with upcoming TVOS 14.5, Apple TV box will be the only streaming box to do both 23.976 FPS and 24 fps. So if you are a movie fan, ATV box is the way to go.

The next gen ATV box might support HDMI 2.1 and AV1 but release date is unknown

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Uh unless you recline. Guess all those Imax screens should be shut down that have rock back seats. 3rd world problems there.

Btw got one of those fake fireplace jobs installed in tv stand. It doesn't hurt electronics at all and I have fans anyway. The back is cool to touch. Hot air blows out. Works great for me. Perfect eye level.

Never decline a recline.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I will ask my question here as it was ignored elsewhere:

I do have a question for those of you that stream far more often than I do. I have complained about the audio quality of streamed content, but I know some of that is due to how I stream in the first place. I use the built-in apps on my Sony X900F TV, mostly Vudu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, but my TV only supports ARC, not eARC.

Now that I have an AVR that supports Atmos, I would like to take full advantage of it and that means either buying a new TV that supports eARC or buying a dedicated streaming device that supports more audio formats. Which dedicated streaming device would be the best one to buy to get the most out of the apps that I use? I prefer one that has an ethernet connection as I made the effort to run ethernet cable to my viewing room. Is doing this worth the modest expense? Would I hear a noticeable improvement by using a dedicated streaming device over using the ARC function of my TV?

I sense a disturbance in the force again!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I sense a disturbance in the force again!

Not at all.

When I do stream something, I just want the best possible result.

[Vilya]

I have redeemed my Lionsgate and Paramount digital codes at Vudu; will the Apple 4K TV allow me to access movies from a competing digital seller such as Vudu?

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I have redeemed my Lionsgate and Paramount digital codes at Vudu; will the Apple 4K TV allow me to access movies from a competing digital seller such as Vudu?

You could have redeemed on iTunes where the quality and bit rates are higher than Vudu.

Universal, Warner, Fox and Disney codes redeem on MoviesAnywhere and.the movies ports into iTunes, Vudu, FandangoNow, Google Play etc. as long as you link your accounts.

If you have Apple TV 4K box, you can install Vudu app and access your purchases.

Apple restricts bit rates on Apple TV app on TV and non-Apple devices. For best quality, Apple TV 4K box is recommended.

[Steedeel]

^So, if you buy a film via ITunes/Apple tv+, you will get lesser quality compared to the Apple TV box itself if you play it through a tv app or via a console? That seems a bit naff.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

There will always be a niche market for "quality presentations." Been that way since LD was introduced - 40+ years ago.

Exactly and that was my point. Why I had an issue with

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

You and others like you are represent a niche market. And for the foreseeable future, that market segment will continue to spend enough money to keep that market going. It will die when it's supporters die. It's as simple as that.

The issue in essence is DVD, it represented ,as a format for a little while, both niche and mass so to some people it must be mass or niche will disappear.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I ate too much pizza.

I never foresee a time when people will prefer to watch movies on a tiny portable screen; why the hell would they?

for me I always see it more as a "necessity". I have watched a lot off films on my laptop, but that was not because I preferred a small screen but at one point I had a job where I used to spend a lot of time in airports and planes. For some accepting a smaller screen might be due to circumstances (like on a plane) or economy reasons (can't afford a TV or bought a smaller TV....)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Still, it seems that people who seldom, or even never, use digital copies worry more about them disappearing than those that are heavily invested in them. I guess it is only natural as some people that favor digital copies worry about the fate of discs more than I do, too. It might be better if we each just worry about the viability of our own collections.

I agree that it is natural but not your reason behind it. It is all a matter of risk/reward If someone sees something as risky it is natural for them to avoid it.