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

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Remarkable improvements to internet infrastructure may have occured in urban areas like where you live, but not everyone lives in population centers like Chicago. No improvements to internet service have occurred in my region and many here can not get anything better than 25 Mbps ADSL internet.

You're doing exactly what Wendell did. You're making my point for me.

A few years ago people - even people in the Emerald City - would have killed for 25 mps but now we look at that as a floor. And why? Because stuff gets better.

This is part of an article from 2016...

Over 15 Years, Average Internet Speed Ceilings Have Become Floors

Progress is very swift in the Internet access business. In 2009, the average Internet access speed in Australia was about 12 Mbps. So at the time, a boost to 25 Mbps, the minimum national speed promised by the National Broadband Network, sounded pretty good.

In 2009, the average Internet access customer In the United Kingdom was getting 4 Mbps. So a boost to “superfast” (24 Mbps to 30 Mbps) likewise sounded pretty good.

That same year, typical U.S. speeds were in the 5 Mbps range. By 2015, though, average U.S. downstream speeds had climbed to nearly 36 Mbps.

So we don’t hear much about 24 Mbps or 30 Mbps being “superfast.” The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, in fact defines broadband as being a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream.

Originally Posted by Vilya

They can barely stream what passes for 4K on Netflix now...

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Here I am in the middle of nowhere with nothing but copper telephone lines and I can barely stream a 4k video. Good help is just so hard to find.

More to the point, how ridiculous do you think that would have sounded to you five or ten years ago?

Originally Posted by Vilya

...and the internet service providers have shown no signs that they plan to improve anything anytime soon.

Yeah, they're probably just going to stop. All those graphs showing absolutely ridiculous increases in average broadband speeds over the past ten (or fifteen or twenty-five) years are probably going to just flatten out because is everybody is full. We all have all the data we could possibly want.

Originally Posted by Vilya

If better codecs come along they will benefit discs every bit as much as they will streaming.

Umm, what does that have to do with whether or not streaming will continue to improve?

Originally Posted by Vilya

Streaming quality has been stagnant since 2015...

You keep saying this but what's it based on? Is it just based on bitrates? If so, is it measured bitrates or recommended broadband speed for various video resolutions?

And if you are just focusing on bitrates, do stagnant bitrates mean stagnant quality?

I honestly don't know. Unlike most of the disc advocates in this thread I don't have any streaming accounts. I've been looking into them and I've seen streaming video at relative's houses but I can't say from personal experience whether streaming has gotten any better over the past few years.

You stream stuff. What do you think? Has the streaming experience gotten any better over the past several years?

Originally Posted by Vilya

Not one streaming provider has taken advantage of that bandwidth and increased their bitrates. Why is that?

Is that true though? Like I said, I don't stream and have done my utmost to steer clear of the Apple ecosystem (though I did find an ipod on the street once, it was kinda cool, actually) so I don't really know but isn't Apple TV supposed to have crazy high bitrates? Was that always the case?

Originally Posted by Vilya

Your comment about speakers is just uncharacteristically stupid of you. A true multi-channel surround sound home theater trounces any soundbar in existence...

True enough but buying more speakers doesn't put one on the bleeding edge. It's just buying more speakers.

Originally Posted by Vilya

...and while speakers do move air it is not that simple. A mere fan moves air; speakers do a hell of a lot more than that. Speakers vary in quality immensely and almost all of us know this.

Yes, speakers - like virtually every other product in the history of ever - vary in quality. Speakers are also a very mature technology. For all the titanium this and copper that speakers today move air in the same fundamental way they did fifty or more years ago.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Enthusiasts drive innovation; they always support it first when it is in its infancy and at its most fragile economic state of deployment. The masses come along years later when there's a sale and a bargain to be had. They ride on the backs of the enthusiasts.

Yes, you're the wind beneath the wings of progress, you're the straws that stir the drink, you're the hands up Mona Lisa's skirt.

Feel better?

But that does raise an interesting question.

Who drove the rise of streaming in the first place? It started in dial-up days. I still remember when we could start watching a video before it completely downloaded. It felt like a magic trick. Then came webcams (those were the days) and then of course Netflix made a splash and now streaming is a huge multi-billion dollar market with studios and startups and networks all tripping over each other trying to get a piece of that pie.

Who drove that?

Surely not enthusiasts.

[Steedeel]

Seems you guys are giving me the week off! Christmas spirit and all.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

You're doing exactly what Wendell did. You're making my point for me.

A few years ago people - even people in the Emerald City - would have killed for 25 mps but now we look at that as a floor. And why? Because stuff gets better.

This is part of an article from 2016...

Over 15 Years, Average Internet Speed Ceilings Have Become Floors

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

Here I am in the middle of nowhere with nothing but copper telephone lines and I can barely stream a 4k video. Good help is just so hard to find.

More to the point, how ridiculous do you think that would have sounded to you five or ten years ago?

Yeah, they're probably just going to stop. All those graphs showing absolutely ridiculous increases in average broadband speeds over the past ten (or fifteen or twenty-five) years are probably going to just flatten out because is everybody is full. We all have all the data we could possibly want.

Umm, what does that have to do with whether or not streaming will continue to improve?

You keep saying this but what's it based on? Is it just based on bitrates? If so, is it measured bitrates or recommended broadband speed for various video resolutions?

And if you are just focusing on bitrates, do stagnant bitrates mean stagnant quality?

I honestly don't know. Unlike most of the disc advocates in this thread I don't have any streaming accounts. I've been looking into them and I've seen streaming video at relative's houses but I can't say from personal experience whether streaming has gotten any better over the past few years.

You stream stuff. What do you think? Has the streaming experience gotten any better over the past several years?

Is that true though? Like I said, I don't stream and have done my utmost to steer clear of the Apple ecosystem (though I did find an ipod on the street once, it was kinda cool, actually) so I don't really know but isn't Apple TV supposed to have crazy high bitrates? Was that always the case?

True enough but buying more speakers doesn't put one on the bleeding edge. It's just buying more speakers.

Yes, speakers - like virtually every other product in the history of ever - vary in quality. Speakers are also a very mature technology. For all the titanium this and copper that speakers today move air in the same fundamental way they did fifty or more years ago.

Yes, you're the wind beneath the wings of progress, you're the straws that stir the drink, you're the hands up Mona Lisa's skirt.

Feel better?

But that does raise an interesting question.

Who drove the rise of streaming in the first place? It started in dial-up days. I still remember when we could start watching a video before it completely downloaded. It felt like a magic trick. Then came webcams (those were the days) and then of course Netflix made a splash and now streaming is a huge multi-billion dollar market with studios and startups and networks all tripping over each other trying to get a piece of that pie.

Who drove that?

Surely not enthusiasts.

I would like to go a day without posting a wall of text, but duty calls.

The wondrous improvements in internet speeds have occurred in population centers and that's just bully for you, but it hasn't reached us out here in the sticks. The telecoms don't find us to be worth the investment, apparently.

Five to 10 years ago 4K videos essentially did not exist and thus there was little consumer need for this increased bandwidth. Now that 4K video streams are commonplace, many of us outside of urban areas can barely stream them and more than a few can not at all.

Progress in internet bandwidth is wonderful- if the telecoms deem your area worthy of it. Internet speeds have been dormant in my region for years, but the cost of that internet service has certainly been active rising over 40% in just three years with no increase in data caps- just more cost for the same old service.

I think streaming generally looks quite good; if it didn't I would not use it. The biggest improvements to streaming are the addition of HDR and Dolby Vision to 4K streams.

Bitrates and codecs are unchanged since 2015. Apple, MA, Disney+ offer the best streaming bitrates at approx. 30 Mbps, about twice that of Netflix and Vudu, and I have only seen video reviews of these higher bitrate services. I don't do Apple.

Artifacts are still quite noticeable even with these higher bitrate services, as these review videos point out, and that should come as no surprise as a 30 Mbps bitrate is about one third of the bitrate average of a 4K disc. A 4K disc disc bitrate conservatively averages 80-90 Mbps with peaks reaching as high as 108 Mbps for a 100 GB 4K disc.

If new improved codecs come along that allow streaming to squeeze more quality out of those same bitrates, they will do the same for the bitrates of disc playback. I point this out because discs will remain with the quality advantage even if better codecs come along.

Streaming providers are loathe to raise their bitrates because that increases their cost and, ultimately, the cost to their customers. More bandwidth and more data usage means more expense. More efficient codecs are thus a far more attractive idea; the attempt to get more quality out of existing bitrate levels.

You are really trivializing the many design innovations incorporated into speakers over the years. Top end speakers cost in the range of six figures each. Like with luxury cars, speakers have nearly no limit to their design variations and the quality heights to which they aspire. Faithfully replicating sound is a science far beyond simply moving some air around.

Reiterating that speakers just move air like they always have is just ridiculous. It makes no more sense to say that than to say that TVs just emit light like they always have and cars just move along roads like they always have. Vast improvements have occurred with all of these and no one with any sense would suggest otherwise.

Joke all you want, but I maintain that enthusiasts and early adopters drive most of the advancements in technology. Those that want the best are willing to pay for the best and they buy it first when their financial support is most needed. If not, many innovations would die right on the vine.

Right now avid enthusiasts are the ones buying new 8K TVs; they are the ones paying the high price for this first generation technology. They are the risk takers along with being among the first to benefit from what it offers. If these are successful, it will in no small part be due to their blazing the trail for the rest of us. I'd like to blaze that trail right along with them, but I lack the price of admission. An 85" 8K Sony sells for $13K and I can't go with a smaller screen now that I have an 85" 4K TV. I done been spoiled.

I would postulate that streaming's early adopters were also enthusiasts and they were the ones that first recognized its potential, largely unrealized even now, and bought into the idea long before the masses were even aware of it. I, and others like me, were exploring the internet in the mid 90s well before most people had a home computer, yet alone an internet connected one.

Once the general public gets onboard, a tech idea can explode in popularity, but they are rarely the first ones to the party. They come later after the early adopters help work out the bugs and lower the costs. Enthusiasts, geeks, and nerds are tech pioneers, life long beta testers if you will, while the rest of the herd follows later after the risk of a new tech failing has been minimized and all of the heavy lifting has been done for them.

Seeing as you asked, I feel great...today. Thanks for asking; how are you doing?

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by octagon

You're doing exactly what Wendell did. You're making my point for me.

A few years ago people - even people in the Emerald City - would have killed for 25 mps but now we look at that as a floor. And why? Because stuff gets better.

Sorry, I made no point for you. You can believe cheapskates drive development and research all you want but you have not provided any data to back this statement up.

As for streaming speeds, no matter what any of us as individuals may get the populace seems satisfied with low bit rates as seen here. The average has only changed about 1.5 Mbps in the last five years.

Think you have saw the best Blu-ray has to offer, only if you have viewed on a Sony BVM-HX310 (about $24,000 and up) or similar. For projectors, Christie and Barco have models that make luxury cars look cheap.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Seems you guys are giving me the week off! Christmas spirit and all.

We're considering doing a podcast of our little debate. If we do, you'll thank your stars for high speed playback.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

We're considering doing a podcast of our little debate. If we do, you'll thank your stars for high speed playback.

Never.

[alchav21]

Well between Octagon and Vilya they can write a book on this Thread Topic, but is there a bottom line somewhere? I found something on my Sound & Vision Magazine that might be a Game Changer. Take a look and you guys tell me, having to do with Home Media Servers. They will give Kaleidoscope a run for their money.

https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-system-review

I do feel that this is the direction Home Media will take. Especially now that UHD Players are down to a few Manufactures, Panasonic, LG, and Sony. Let me know what you guys think.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Well between Octagon and Vilya they can write a book on this Thread Topic, but is there a bottom line somewhere? I found something on my Sound & Vision Magazine that might be a Game Changer. Take a look and you guys tell me, having to do with Home Media Servers. They will give Kaleidoscope a run for their money.

https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-system-review

I do feel that this is the direction Home Media will take. Especially now that UHD Players are down to a few Manufactures, Panasonic, LG, and Sony. Let me know what you guys think.

Order now and the first 100 copies of our book will be autographed!

I have no interest in this extravagantly overpriced device. There are far, far cheaper ways to rip a disc. Plus, with a collection as large as mine, it would take forever and a day to get it all done or even a fraction of it all done.

Worse still, it says right away at the start of the article that the ripped files lose the HDR and/or Dolby Vision of the 4K disc; why in the hell would I want to do that? HDR and Dolby Vision are among the greatest benefits of the 4K format; losing them is entirely unacceptable.

At $4739 "as tested" this ain't gonna change any game. Adding those eight 16 TB hard drives ups the cost even further. Few people will want to buy discs and then take the time to rip them. If people want to rip their discs there are much cheaper ways to do it and without buying this vastly overpriced device. There are much better ways for me to spend $4739, too- like on more 4K discs which happen to include the blu-ray and the digital copy each of which can serve as a back-up to the 4K disc itself. I don't see this device ever being a popular choice anymore than the similarly expensive Kaleidescape system.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

This is simply another case of alchav not reading or not understanding the links he posts. I highly doubt that he actually thinks that the "direction that Home Media will take" is people buying more discs and ripping them using super expensive equipment.

You give him more credit than I do; I have little doubt that he believes what he wrote.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Order now and the first 100 copies of our book will be autographed!

I have no interest in this extravagantly overpriced device. There are far, far cheaper ways to rip a disc. Plus, with a collection as large as mine, it would take forever and a day to get it all done or even a fraction of it all done.

Worse still, it says right away at the start of the article that the ripped files lose the HDR and/or Dolby Vision of the 4K disc; why in the hell would I want to do that? HDR and Dolby Vision are among the greatest benefits of the 4K format; losing them is entirely unacceptable.

At $4739 "as tested" this ain't gonna change any game. Adding those eight 16 TB hard drives ups the cost even further. Few people will want to buy discs and then take the time to rip them. If people want to rip their discs there are much cheaper ways to do it and without buying this vastly overpriced device. There are much better ways for me to spend $4739, too- like on more 4K discs which happen to include the blu-ray and the digital copy each of which can serve as a back-up to the 4K disc itself. I don't see this device ever being a popular choice anymore than the similarly expensive Kaleidescape system.

Surprised he ruled me out! Then again, I do have Atmos and a nice HT but I’m nowhere near you with my collection!

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Well between Octagon and Vilya they can write a book on this Thread Topic, but is there a bottom line somewhere? I found something on my Sound & Vision Magazine that might be a Game Changer. Take a look and you guys tell me, having to do with Home Media Servers. They will give Kaleidoscope a run for their money.

https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-system-review

I do feel that this is the direction Home Media will take. Especially now that UHD Players are down to a few Manufactures, Panasonic, LG, and Sony. Let me know what you guys think.

This system is similar to what I already do with my blu rays. It’s a turn key system instead of a user configured system so like kaleidoscope it’s over priced for those end users who can’t set this up with regular software.

I wouldn’t say this would become more popular as most people who want to do this already do.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The wondrous improvements in internet speeds have occurred in population centers and that's just bully for you, but it hasn't reached us out here in the sticks. The telecoms don't find us to be worth the investment, apparently.

Wait, are you saying that folks in your neck of the woods were getting 25 mbps service over copper telephone lines ten years ago? That's actually pretty cool. My company's first attempts to get us broadband at home were ISDN and DSL and the results were not particularly impressive. Granted, that was a bit more than ten years ago.

Originally Posted by Vilya

You are really trivializing the many design innovations incorporated into speakers over the years.

You picked up on that, did you?

Yes, there are new materials and there have been refinements to enclosure designs and the like but speakers today move air in the same fundamental way they moved air fifty years ago. The parts might be made of different materials and the enclosures might look a little different but speaker technology is very mature.

Which is not a knock on speakers or speaker manufacturers or even speaker buyers. My point is simply that people who buy five speakers instead of two or eleven speakers instead of five are not taking risks or blazing trails or helping move speaker designs into the 21st century.

They're just buying more speakers and as such don't really belong in this conversation. There are better examples than soundbars of what you're trying to say.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Right now avid enthusiasts are the ones buying new 8K TVs; they are the ones paying the high price for this first generation technology. They are the risk takers along with being among the first to benefit from what it offers.

What risks are they taking? That their SOs might find out how much they spent on a freaking TV?

Originally Posted by Vilya

If these are successful, it will in no small part be due to their blazing the trail for the rest of us.

I actually agree with that. Early adopters definitely play a part. Hence the words 'they definitely play a part' in each of my first three posts on this topic.

But the cheapskates move the ball forward too.

Streaming is going to continue to improve and those improvements will be driven by the masses.

Originally Posted by Vilya

I would postulate that streaming's early adopters were also enthusiasts...

Are we now defining enthusiast as anybody who does anything that isn't widely popular?

If so, then sure, the first people to try anything are by that definition 'enthusiasts'.

But they weren't video or audio enthusiasts, right? They weren't the type of people who put a premium on quality.

They were just average consumers, no? Netflix rolled out streaming by basically just adding it to their existing subscriber base and talking DVD and BD manufacturers into adding their interface to their players.

It wasn't like these 'early adopters' faced significant barriers to entry. They didn't have to spend, well, anything really.

And yet streaming has gone from an interesting experiment to a multi-billion dollar a year industry and that was driven almost exclusively by cheapskates. It was driven by the same people who made Napster a thing. Those weren't bleeding-edge, trail-blazing, risk-taking pioneers either.

They were just average people who wanted free music. And in the process, they not only made Napster a thing, they actually wound up significantly changing an entire industry.

And they did it not only without the help of but while being sneered at by audio enthusiasts.

Don't dismiss the power of cheapskates to move the ball.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Sorry, I made no point for you. You can believe cheapskates drive development and research all you want but you have not provided any data to back this statement up.

I'm not trying to write a dissertation, I'm just making an argument. If I stumble across any data that supports my position I'll let you know. Similarly, if you have any data that undercuts my argument please let me know.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

As for streaming speeds, no matter what any of us as individuals may get the populace seems satisfied with low bit rates as seen here. The average has only changed about 1.5 Mbps in the last five years.

If I'm reading those charts - and I very well might not be - that amounts to what? Something like a fifty percent increase over those five years?

I wish my wages could stagnate like that.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Think you have saw the best Blu-ray has to offer, only if you have viewed on a Sony BVM-HX310 (about $24,000 and up) or similar. For projectors, Christie and Barco have models that make luxury cars look cheap.

Yes, Wendell. Nice toys are nice.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I do feel that this is the direction Home Media will take.

Not likely, folks at AVS have been using Zappiti products for several years, thread here. Have had an account with them for sometime but never bought any of their devices.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm not trying to write a dissertation, I'm just making an argument. If I stumble across any data that supports my position I'll let you know. Similarly, if you have any data that undercuts my argument please let me know.

There is plenty of data that undercuts your argument but I am not going to dig it up for you. If you want to see some, search color TV authorization year, cost vs year and adoption vs year. I can assure you it was a long time after the introduction of color TV before the cheapskates owned one. The same for most other home theater devices. How many members here have 5.1 sound or 7.1 sound or DTS:X/Dolby Atmos/Auro. I bet few have immersive audio, yet it has been around for several years now.

If I'm reading those charts - and I very well might not be - that amounts to what? Something like a fifty percent increase over those five years?

Surely that tactic is beneath you. If you did not see the point of that link then I am wasting my time with you.

Yes, Wendell. Nice toys are nice.

They are nice. The point is, nice toys is what leads the way to cheap toys. Click the link in my signature, some of that equipment is > 47 years old and still going strong. Look over the list and see how much can be bought at a box store. Most can not, a very few may be available at Best Buy Magnolia Design Centers (very few stores).

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by bhampton

This system is similar to what I already do with my blu rays.

What do you use as a media player?

I use the Oppo UDP-203 (and app with music) and Sony UBP-X1000. Thinking of getting a Nivida Shield 2019.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

Wait, are you saying that folks in your neck of the woods were getting 25 mbps service over copper telephone lines ten years ago? That's actually pretty cool. My company's first attempts to get us broadband at home were ISDN and DSL and the results were not particularly impressive. Granted, that was a bit more than ten years ago.

You picked up on that, did you?

Yes, there are new materials and there have been refinements to enclosure designs and the like but speakers today move air in the same fundamental way they moved air fifty years ago. The parts might be made of different materials and the enclosures might look a little different but speaker technology is very mature.

Which is not a knock on speakers or speaker manufacturers or even speaker buyers. My point is simply that people who buy five speakers instead of two or eleven speakers instead of five are not taking risks or blazing trails or helping move speaker designs into the 21st century.

They're just buying more speakers and as such don't really belong in this conversation. There are better examples than soundbars of what you're trying to say.

What risks are they taking? That their SOs might find out how much they spent on a freaking TV?

I actually agree with that. Early adopters definitely play a part. Hence the words 'they definitely play a part' in each of my first three posts on this topic.

But the cheapskates move the ball forward too.

Streaming is going to continue to improve and those improvements will be driven by the masses.

Are we now defining enthusiast as anybody who does anything that isn't widely popular?

If so, then sure, the first people to try anything are by that definition 'enthusiasts'.

But they weren't video or audio enthusiasts, right? They weren't the type of people who put a premium on quality.

They were just average consumers, no? Netflix rolled out streaming by basically just adding it to their existing subscriber base and talking DVD and BD manufacturers into adding their interface to their players.

It wasn't like these 'early adopters' faced significant barriers to entry. They didn't have to spend, well, anything really.

And yet streaming has gone from an interesting experiment to a multi-billion dollar a year industry and that was driven almost exclusively by cheapskates. It was driven by the same people who made Napster a thing. Those weren't bleeding-edge, trail-blazing, risk-taking pioneers either.

They were just average people who wanted free music. And in the process, they not only made Napster a thing, they actually wound up significantly changing an entire industry.

And they did it not only without the help of but while being sneered at by audio enthusiasts.

Don't dismiss the power of cheapskates to move the ball.

I'm not trying to write a dissertation, I'm just making an argument. If I stumble across any data that supports my position I'll let you know. Similarly, if you have any data that undercuts my argument please let me know.

If I'm reading those charts - and I very well might not be - that amounts to what? Something like a fifty percent increase over those five years?

I wish my wages could stagnate like that.

Yes, Wendell. Nice toys are nice.

No, what I am saying is that 10 years ago, there was little need for 25 Mbps internet service because there was little content that data intensive to access online; there was no 4K content to stream and no 4K video games to play.

Internet speeds have been dormant in my region for years. Even though 4K TVs were first launched in 2012, many people in my area still can not stream 4K content even today at the end of 2019. 25 Mbps is the bare minimum that Netflix recommends for its 4K streams. The telecoms have done nothing to bring higher speed internet to many people in my area presumably because there are not enough of us to be worth their investment in infrastructure upgrades. There is no internet utopia here.

A speakers primary purpose is to faithfully reproduce sound, not to move air, just like a TV is supposed to display an accurate image, not just emit light. A fan's primary purpose is to circulate air and a light bulb to emit light. A speaker is much more than a fan and a TV is much more than a light bulb.

A multi-channel surround sound home theater is considerably more involved than just placing a bunch of speakers around a room. Buying existing speaker technology helps to fund research and development of future speaker designs the same as buying a TV today helps to pay for the research and development of future TV designs.

If you do not see any risk in spending $13K on a first generation 8K TV, then you have a great tolerance for taking risks. Buy one and let us know what you think of it; just don't connect it to a cheap soundbar. I hear that these 8K TVs emit even more light than all previous models; you should be thrilled.

With technology, being the first to try something usually incurs much more expense and risk. First generation tech is costly and it may, or may not, succeed. Later models are all but certain to have refinements, too, that makes buying the first generation models a bit of a gamble.

The first video code standard for streaming was H.261 that debuted in November of 1988. The first streamed movie was Wax or the Discovery of Television Among the Bees and it streamed over the internet on May 22, 1993 almost 12 years before Youtube uploaded its first video in April of 2005. Streaming actually has its roots as far back as 1972 when the discrete cosine transform, DCT, a form of lossy compression was first proposed. It was introduced in 1974 and it has been called: " the most important data compression technique that later enabled practical video streaming."

Netflix streaming launched in 2007, almost 14 years after the first movie was streamed over the internet. Their customers would ultimately make streaming a phenomenon, but these eventual Netflix subscribers did not lay the foundation for this; the early adopters did.

Even with Netflix offering streaming as early as 2007, it was nine years before SVOD took in more money than disc purchases; SVOD first overtook disc sales in 2016. The general public was kinda slow to adopt streaming even with the advent of Netflix and Youtube (2005) before it. Widespread adoption of streaming was extremely slow when you remember that the first movie was streamed in 1993.

Buying into all of that early computer and networking hardware to utilize streaming was a HUGE expense that was borne by enthusiasts and geeks. These pioneers paved the way for today's affordable streaming, not the masses who reaped the benefits so many, many years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_online_video

Streaming also required that people get broadband internet service, so adopting streaming was not free of expense on that front, either. If I didn't stream, I could get by with minimal internet service reducing my monthly internet bill by more than half. I would save $564 per year by dropping broadband internet and going with a basic plan.

Streaming had, and still has, the potential to offer content in the same quality as that from a disc, but due to the amount of bandwidth necessary to do so and the costs involved, streaming offers us a very heavily compressed version instead. Streaming customers won't pay to get this level of quality, not even in internet heavens like where you live that offer internet speeds sufficient to deliver it. Streaming services do not offer these premium quality levels, even though the infrastructure is there to do it in large markets like yours, because they know that most streaming customers want cheap and convenient.

Likewise, in every post on this topic, I have mentioned the importance of marketing to the masses. When they finally get around to embracing a new technology it is a win for enthusiasts and casuals alike.

Of course streaming makes billions; it is cheap and convenient, the same reason why the fast food industry has higher sales than do gourmet restaurants. The highest quality product is rarely the best selling product. For all the billions streaming takes in, Netflix has yet to make a profit from it. If Netflix's pricing truly reflected their costs, they would likely lose a lot of their subscribers.

Napster shut down in July of 2001 and they ultimately went bankrupt. Hardly an example of a lasting tech revolution. Music downloads yes, Napster not so much. Also, not all audio downloads are lossy MP3s; that's just what many people chose.

[Steedeel]

Happy Christmas to all, see you in the new year.

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yes, there are new materials and there have been refinements to enclosure designs and the like but speakers today move air in the same fundamental way they moved air fifty years ago. The parts might be made of different materials and the enclosures might look a little different but speaker technology is very mature.

Which is not a knock on speakers or speaker manufacturers or even speaker buyers. My point is simply that people who buy five speakers instead of two or eleven speakers instead of five are not taking risks or blazing trails or helping move speaker designs into the 21st century.

They're just buying more speakers and as such don't really belong in this conversation. There are better examples than soundbars of what you're trying to say.

The innovation in your example is not within the speakers, but actually the capabilities of the processor. Any time a new surround format with additional speakers is introduced to the market, early adopters (who are usually enthusiasts) are the first ones plunk down their hard earned cash.

The risk is in whether the new formats will be supported or not.

Every time a new format came out with additional speakers required, I jumped in right away. From 6.1 all the way through 9.2.4, I was upgrading my processor to take advantage of the new technology. Each time, the risk was worth it as only 1 time did I buy into something that did not take off. That was DTS NEO X where width channels came in but only 2 movies were released, so those sat idle for awhile....until 9.2.4 came along. I even added speakers in the Auro configuration and we don’t even have titles released in the US. But fortunately their upmixer is the best, so I use those often.

To say someone who is adding speakers doesn’t belong in this conversation is pretty damn shortsighted.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Happy Christmas to all, see you in the new year.

Enjoy your holidays and your annual mega movie purchase!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by gotmule

The innovation in your example is not within the speakers, but actually the capabilities of the processor. Any time a new surround format with additional speakers is introduced to the market, early adopters (who are usually enthusiasts) are the first ones plunk down their hard earned cash.

The risk is in whether the new formats will be supported or not.

Every time a new format came out with additional speakers required, I jumped in right away. From 6.1 all the way through 9.2.4, I was upgrading my processor to take advantage of the new technology. Each time, the risk was worth it as only 1 time did I buy into something that did not take off. That was DTS NEO X where width channels came in but only 2 movies were released, so those sat idle for awhile....until 9.2.4 came along. I even added speakers in the Auro configuration and we don’t even have titles released in the US. But fortunately their upmixer is the best, so I use those often.

To say someone who is adding speakers doesn’t belong in this conversation is pretty damn shortsighted.

My next hardware upgrade will either be to buy a new AVR or to buy new front speakers. I am having a hard time deciding upon a brand for either one and there are no decent stores within a 100 mile radius of me to audition anything. Audio products really need to be auditioned before purchasing. I have a budget in mind for both, but that's all. I like the peace and quiet of a rural area, but you won't find good home theater stores anywhere near here. Nor good restaurants.