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

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

Why did all those people complain? They don't care about quality. They just want quick and easy, right?

And why did Amazon fix it after those many people complained? Amazon wants lower bit rates, don't they?

It seems like everybody in that equation should have been content, no?

And yet, they weren't.

Interesting, don't you think?

Still doesn’t change the fact that those bitrates were (allegedly) reduced? If no one complained, imo they wouldn’t have improved things. That tells me this will happen again until Amazon strikes a balance of very low bit rate with just acceptable quality. No more, no less. Kind of works against this ‘all will be rosy’ streaming future you guys dream of, dont ya think?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Still doesn’t change the fact that those bitrates were (allegedly) reduced?

An allegation is not a fact until it has been proven at which point it is no longer an allegation, but instead a fact. If you have proof that Amazon lowered their bitrates, please provide a citation.

Your prediction has been that streaming providers will lower the quality of their services in order to save money and that their sheep-like customers won't care. These sheeple will just keep paying the same amount, even more, and will happily accept whatever they get. All without a shred of evidence to support any part of it. The basis for this prediction of yours, like most of them, is nothing but fear and that you have in abundance.

Whatever caused those customers to complain was apparently addressed, which clearly shows that their customers DID care about the quality they received and that Amazon cared enough to fix it or at least to respond to their concerns.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

An allegation is not a fact until it has been proven at which point it is no longer an allegation, but instead a fact. If you have proof that Amazon lowered their bitrates, please provide a citation.

Your prediction has been that streaming providers will lower the quality of their services in order to save money and that their sheep-like customers won't care. These sheeple will just keep paying the same amount, even more, and will happily accept whatever they get. All without a shred of evidence to support any part of it. The basis for this prediction, like most of them, is nothing but fear and that you have in abundance.

Whatever caused those customers to complain was apparently addressed, which clearly shows that their customers DID care about the quality they received and that Amazon cared enough to fix it or at least to respond to their concerns.

Dont you understand? Lowering bit rates is s priority for ALL streaming services imo. Why do you think they are constantly researching/developing codecs that get bit rates down to single figures for full HD and eventually 4K? Quality is not a cincern, savings most certainly are imo.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Dont you understand? Lowering bit rates is s priority for ALL streaming services imo. Why do you think they are constantly researching/developing codecs that get bit rates down to single figures for full HD and eventually 4K? Quality is not a cincern, savings most certainly are imo.

Every business wants to minimize costs and to maximize profits, but you do not accomplish that by sabotaging the very product you are trying to sell.

Quality is absolutely a concern, both for businesses and their customers. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. It is why Quality Control departments exist in every industry. Unhappy customers take their business elsewhere- if you don't please them, you will lose them. Loss of sales negates any hoped for savings.

There is nothing wrong with the research and development of more efficient codecs. Both disc based content and digital rely on codecs to deliver their content. If 8k ever gets a physical media release, it will likely be the result of a new and advanced codec and likewise with 8K streamed content.

More efficient does not have to mean lower quality; this is the false equivalency that you steadfastly embrace. Many modern products are both more efficient and of higher quality than that of their predecessors. Lower quality is NEVER an improvement and customers will reject it.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Ender14

I stream 4K content over a wireless connection with zero problems. ZERO.

That poster has been provided with wireless speeds (N and AC) by me on at least two occasions, the methodology used and where to find the same apps.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

That poster has been provided with wireless speeds (N and AC) by me on at least two occasions, the methodology used and where to find the same apps.

I have done the same regarding router speeds, both theoretical and real world results for each type all the way down to G routers, several times as well, but that one dismisses all facts that he dislikes, citations be damned.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Ender14

For the love of all that is holy and sacred in this world, will you please stop with the wired connection nonsense. I am begging.

Your theory has been disproven by several here so please stop spewing your falsehoods. I stream 4K content over a wireless connection with zero problems. ZERO. Groot even stated that her other services stream with no problems. It is only Amazon. Why do you refuse to accept evidence that your antiquated beliefs are wrong?

It's not a theory it's fact, Wired is superior to Wireless. Here is a Google Link comparing the two, and the experts go with Wired:

https://www.google.com/search?source....0.KdlXTq7J95w


You Wireless people might not get Buffering, but I'm sure your PQ will not be as good as someone who is Wired. The Wireless people are more likely to complain about Degradation.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

More efficient does not have to mean lower quality;

I agree only in a way. IF during testing only 5% of the test subjects noticed a reduced quality of audio or video then I would wager the provider would implement a reduction in data rates if it meant significant cost savings. I'm sure that 5% audience notations would be thoroughly scrutinized.

Have you listened to SiriusXM on a good sound system? For me, stopped my auto subs because it sounds so bad now. Got rid of it in the media room years ago. When it comes to these folks normal logic does not apply .

IMO, video codecs (encoders) are approaching a plateau of low data rates vs quality. I know Netflix started almost 4-1/2 years ago with UHD at 16Mbps, not sure if there will be a significant reduction anytime soon. X265 makes claims they are one of the best encoders yet I don't see any of the major streamers on their site. Some disputed their claims for X264.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

It's not a theory it's fact, Wired is superior to Wireless. Here is a Google Link comparing the two, and the experts go with Wired:

You Wireless people might not get Buffering, but I'm sure your PQ will not be as good as someone who is Wired. The Wireless people are more likely to complain about Degradation.

I know several experts, software engineers, computer engineers, system programmers, and a CIO, and they DO NOT use a wired home network for streaming videos. A wired network is not necessary for this task.

There are numerous articles that have already been provided to you that clearly state that a wireless network with a N router or better is easily capable of reliably streaming 4K video content. Even a G router can suffice. These are among the many facts that you just dismiss reflexively. Facts are only facts if you like them. Your obstinance would test the patience of Job himself.

There are reasons why a wired network would be preferred, such as hardcore gamers concerned with latency or people who experience signal interference due to features unique to their locality. Most of us do not have these concerns.

The picture quality from content streamed over a properly set-up wireless network looks and sounds every bit as good as that received over a wired network. This is a quantitative and objective fact. The bitrates received are measurable over either network type. If you are receiving the data, you are enjoying the data.

Image degradation can occur for many reasons and you have no idea why most people experience it. Go on another road trip and collect anecdotes from the dozen people you visit and extrapolate that to encompass all of humanity like you do with every other single subject. Again, I get the same degradation when streaming from Amazon over BOTH a wired connection and over my wireless one. All other streaming sources work fine over both types of connection. Try and comprehend the meaning of that. Try real hard.

I am a disc collector who wants the best quality I can obtain, not just in this hobby but on all the things on which I spend my money. If my wireless network did not deliver the excellent results that I demand, I would have switched to a wired network immediately. My friends in various computer professions would have done the same. Everyone on these forums would likely have done so.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Still doesn’t change the fact that those bitrates were (allegedly) reduced?

According to your own article the change might have been inadvertent. What was it, some variable in a compression header or something?

Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't.

What we do know for sure is that customers complained and Amazon responded.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If no one complained, imo they wouldn’t have improved things.

But why did many people complain? According to you those people don't care about quality. According to you they just care about price and convenience.

So why did they complain?

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That tells me this will happen again until Amazon strikes a balance of very low bit rate with just acceptable quality. No more, no less.

Yeah, Amazon - just like every other company in the history of ever - wants to deliver the products and services their customers demand at the lowest possible cost to themselves.

And that's a Good Thing. Cutting costs is a very effective motivator that's driven all sorts of innovations.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Kind of works against this ‘all will be rosy’ streaming future you guys dream of, dont ya think?

Not particularly, no.

Amazon, intentionally or otherwise, provided a subpar product. Consumers complained. Amazon addressed the issue.

Call me a capitalist pig but that sounds like the system working to me.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Dont you understand? Lowering bit rates is s priority for ALL streaming services imo. Why do you think they are constantly researching/developing codecs that get bit rates down to single figures for full HD and eventually 4K?

Good. Better codecs would be a Good Thing.

More power to them.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Quality is not a cincern, savings most certainly are imo.

Good. A whole lot of really cool innovations were spurred by the desire to save money.

Gordon Gekko had it absolutely right: Greed is good.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You Wireless people might not get Buffering, but I'm sure your PQ will not be as good as someone who is Wired.

You seem to be thoroughly confused, read that article again. Already provided you with one reference where a user was using AC to stream a UHD BD rip (>110Mbps) from his media server using a Sony UBP-X800. That is the equivalent of almost 7, simultaneous, UHD streams (Netflix, Amazon, etc.).

Yes, for some applications wired is much better but in the context being discussed here, wireless is just fine.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

According to your own article the change might have been inadvertent. What was it, some variable in a compression header or something?

Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't.

What we do know for sure is that customers complained and Amazon responded.



But why did many people complain? According to you those people don't care about quality. According to you they just care about price and convenience.

So why did they complain?



Yeah, Amazon - just like every other company in the history of ever - wants to deliver the products and services their customers demand at the lowest possible cost to themselves.

And that's a Good Thing. Cutting costs is a very effective motivator that's driven all sorts of innovations.



Not particularly, no.

Amazon, intentionally or otherwise, provided a subpar product. Consumers complained. Amazon addressed the issue.

Call me a capitalist pig but that sounds like the system working to me.



Good. Better codecs would be a Good Thing.

More power to them.



Good. A whole lot of really cool innovations were spurred by the desire to save money.

Gordon Gekko had it absolutely right: Greed is good.

So cutting costs and cutting bit rates would be beneficial to HT enthusiasts and not just streaming providers? Go on, I’m Intrigued.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So cutting costs and cutting bit rates would be beneficial to HT enthusiasts and not just streaming providers? Go on, I’m Intrigued.

You can ask questions after you've answered mine.

Why did these many people complain?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

You can ask questions after you've answered mine.

Why did these many people complain?

From what I have read, they were pirates mostly who were mocking Amazon. It’s not up to me to prove if that’s true or not. It’s just what I read. Go and read it and form your own opinion.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

From what I have read, they were pirates mostly who were mocking Amazon. It’s not up to me to prove if that’s true or not. It’s just what I read. Go and read it and form your own opinion.

So when you thought this article cut your way an entire community was up in arms about Amazon cutting bitrates. Many people complained.

But now? Now it's just something you read.

Maybe it was an entire community, maybe it was just some pirates. Maybe many complained, maybe they didn't. We have no way of knowing.

That's pretty convenient.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

From what I have read, they were pirates mostly who were mocking Amazon. It’s not up to me to prove if that’s true or not. It’s just what I read. Go and read it and form your own opinion.

So mostly thieves complained to their victim about the quality of the goods they were stealing? I wouldn't try to prove that one, either.

And you weren't asked for proof besides, just to answer the question and that was a very entertaining one

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

So when you thought this article cut your way an entire community was up in arms about Amazon cutting bitrates. Many people complained.

But now? Now it's just something you read.

Maybe it was an entire community, maybe it was just some pirates. Maybe many complained, maybe they didn't. We have no way of knowing.

That's pretty convenient.

You asked me why they complained, I gave you the answer. Your turn.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

So mostly thieves complained to their victim about the quality of the goods they were stealing? I wouldn't try to prove that one, either.

And you weren't asked for prove besides, just to answer the question and that was a very entertaining one

I read that was the reason the issue came to light. What’s so hilarious? It’s not my story, it was reported on several tech sites. I wasn’t participating nor do I pirate so I can only form an opinion on what I read.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So cutting costs and cutting bit rates would be beneficial to HT enthusiasts and not just streaming providers? Go on, I’m Intrigued.

It should be obvious how cutting costs benefits consumers. You've heard of supply and demand, right? Of course you have. And you likely know that in a reasonably functional marketplace prices are set by the interactions between supply and demand.

Well, supply curves are basically just cost curves. And when companies develop cheaper ways to produce their goods or services they effectively shift their cost curves to the right. That means more of that good or service is produced at a lower cost to consumers.

It's a win/win.

With regard to codecs specifically, just to pick one example, do you watch live sports?

I do. I love watching live sports.

So even if I never streamed a single minute of a TV show or a movie I would still benefit from better codecs.

And as it happens in addition to live sports, I watch a lot of other stuff on cable too. For me, better codecs would most definitely be a Good Thing.

[Steedeel]

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2018/04/pir...video-content/