Nvidia finally loses.

[FMod]

Yet uyou atill don't see that in Blu ray form, the 1080P stuff downscaled. Why not uncompressed 2k or 4k video. Surely with todays blu ray disk sizes it wouldn't be impossible to do.

 

A bluray would fit about 2 minutes of uncompressed video, but of course you can't play it as you can't read a bluray in 2 minutes.

 

Uncompressed video only exists briefly for editing, and you store the source file on 2x Velociraptors in RAID0, write to another empty RAID0, takes 2 drives to hold 1 movie.

 

 

Speaking of 4k does anyone recommend a 4k HD receiver preferably with SD, 1080p, 4k upscaling, at a decent price. Trust me HD receivers is the way to go when it comes to upscaling. I might as well be future proof when it comes to Home theatre.

 

You wouldn't want a HDMI 1.4 receiver with only nominal 4K support.

Most 4K TV are actually very capable at upscaling and 1:2 upscaling is very simple, it's done the same way, you don't need a receiver just for upscaling. Plus, 4K TV usually offer more flexibility when working with 1080p video than with 4K. So having 4K pass-through via HDMI 2.0 is actually all that's really required. A drawback of pass-through only can be no OSD.

 

Most companies are yet to release their 4K, 60fps receivers, currently you'd be picking between Pioneer and Onkyo. I personally strongly prefer Onkyo among the two, it's not as cheap in terms of sound, but Pioneer can save you a little if that's not important.

 

TX-NR636 is probably the optimal model that has both pass-through and upscaling. NR535 is cheaper, but has less sound output power and 4K pass-through only. Higher models, NR737 and NR838, basically just add more sound output and pile on "more the same" in connectivity.

 

Pioneer VSX-524K is the cheapest receiver with HDMI 2.0 pass-through, I don't know how it sounds, but at $250 you can make an educated guess. Its audio features are also essentially all limited to two stereo channels, and control is through receiver's text screen. So... it's not an audio device, and considering you don't actually need a receiver just for video, not a good option. Other Pioneers cost as much as Onkyo, at which point they lose.

[JimboUK]

I agree its stupid the way the industry made tv's first instead of content. What is the point of 4k if there no content available for it even, not even 2k so why jump to 4k.

 

35mm film usually has enough detail for 4K and 70mm certainly does so there's plenty of content available to put out when they decide it's commercially viable to do so, of course the problem with grain and seeing details you shouldn't be seeing are going to get worse.

[Thor.]

 

Yet uyou atill don't see that in Blu ray form, the 1080P stuff downscaled. Why not uncompressed 2k or 4k video. Surely with todays blu ray disk sizes it wouldn't be impossible to do.

 

A bluray would fit about 2 minutes of uncompressed video, but of course you can't play it as you can't read a bluray in 2 minutes.

 

Uncompressed video only exists briefly for editing, and you store the source file on 2x Velociraptors in RAID0, write to another empty RAID0, takes 2 drives to hold 1 movie.

 

 

Speaking of 4k does anyone recommend a 4k HD receiver preferably with SD, 1080p, 4k upscaling, at a decent price. Trust me HD receivers is the way to go when it comes to upscaling. I might as well be future proof when it comes to Home theatre.

 

You wouldn't want a HDMI 1.4 receiver with only nominal 4K support.

Most 4K TV are actually very capable at upscaling and 1:2 upscaling is very simple, it's done the same way, you don't need a receiver just for upscaling. Plus, 4K TV usually offer more flexibility when working with 1080p video than with 4K. So having 4K pass-through via HDMI 2.0 is actually all that's really required. A drawback of pass-through only can be no OSD.

 

Most companies are yet to release their 4K, 60fps receivers, currently you'd be picking between Pioneer and Onkyo. I personally strongly prefer Onkyo among the two, it's not as cheap in terms of sound, but Pioneer can save you a little if that's not important.

 

TX-NR636 is probably the optimal model that has both pass-through and upscaling. NR535 is cheaper, but has less sound output power and 4K pass-through only. Higher models, NR737 and NR838, basically just add more sound output and pile on "more the same" in connectivity.

 

Pioneer VSX-524K is the cheapest receiver with HDMI 2.0 pass-through, I don't know how it sounds, but at $250 you can make an educated guess. Its audio features are also essentially all limited to two stereo channels, and control is through receiver's text screen. So... it's not an audio device, and considering you don't actually need a receiver just for video, not a good option. Other Pioneers cost as much as Onkyo, at which point they lose.

 

You don't understand, the double precision is what you want. I am a firm believer in HD receivers, plus its the only way to go when it comes surround sound, if you don't have one your missing out on something grand.

I was hoping Onkyo would come out with 2.00, but that might be a little longer to wait, they have some of the best video processing ever made.

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/AV-Receivers/Pioneer+Receivers/VSX-1124-K

 

One cool thing about HD receivers you can program it to turn on and off every device thats attached to it. HDMI only of course, handshake capable.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Thor.

[FMod]

You don't understand, the double precision is what you want. I am a firm believer in HD receivers, plus its the only way to go when it comes surround sound, if you don't have one your missing out on something grand.

Actually it's true, I indeed don't understand what are you talking about in this passage.

 

It makes borderline sense out of context, but none when it comes to choosing between different models that are all HD receivers all with surround sound.

 

 

I was hoping Onkyo would come out with 2.00, but that might be a little longer to wait, they have some of the best video processing ever made.

Onkyo TX-NR636 and NR535 that I suggested are HDMI 2.0 models.

 

You don't have to wait for them, you can buy them tomorrow.

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR636-7-2-Channel-Network-Receiver/dp/B00IQ0SE22/

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR535-5-2-Channel-Receiver-Monster/dp/B00JQHZ152/

So what's the issue again?

[Thor.]

Well you don't have to point out he fact, i was unaware of those particular models. Not easy to find if you are in the market for certain feature sets like SD upscaling, sure there is 2.00 out now but with the certain features I'm looking for is very hard to come by.

 

Brilliant find

 

it takes 3 steps for the encoding process, sd to 1080P, 1080P to 4k. The wonders of the qdeo chip

 

http://www.eu.onkyo.com/en/features/marvell-qdeo-video-chip-29025.html

 

Thats a really good price for 4k -upscaling HD receiver, may be my next upgrade in the future, even though i don't have 4k the video processing alone can't be beat by anything.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR636-7-2-Channel-Network-Receiver/dp/B00IQ0SE22/

 

42% Off an Onkyo 7.2-Channel Network A/V Receiver: For a limited time, get the Onkyo HT-RC560 for $349--over 40% off the list price of $599. An advanced A/V hub, the HT-RC560 has built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, six HDMI inputs, two outputs, and can upscale all your standard video to brilliant 1080p/4K with QdeoTM processing technology. Shop now

Edited June 18, 2014 by Thor.

[FMod]

 

Not easy to find if you are in the market for certain feature sets like SD upscaling

Pretty much everything has this. Even 4K pass-through models will upscale SD content internally, though to 1080p rather than to 4K, but that doesn't really matter.

 

Anyway, NR636 like suggested initially is generally the optimal 4K model to get at this time. Models above only add more audio output power (you have a Boston set, right? 636 can more than handle it) and mostly unimportant features. Pioneers just aren't as good and most other companies are yet to release comparable models.

[Thor.]

Yes i own a Boston acoustic set, best speakers on the market. I know the Onkyo's are the best for sound quality, a friend of mine goes by them, though right now i am using a Pioneer. The upscaling in the pioneer receivers is crap as i found out. Don't ever buy pioneer, its not worth it. The best wattage for the Boston set would be 140 per channel, anything weaker than that it doesn't have that clarity as it should. I really notices the difference, between 90 watt per channel vs 140 watt per channel, more power to the speakers is better. Its a good thing that receiver has decent dynamic range, maximum output 140 watts per channel.

 

http://www.onkyo.ca/Products/model.php?m=TX-NR636&class=Receiver

Edited June 20, 2014 by Thor.

[FMod]

Yes i own a Boston acoustic set, best speakers on the market.

 

You sure about that? The owners of Adam Olympus or Wilson Alexandria might not be so positive...

 

 

 

I really notices the difference, between 90 watt per channel vs 140 watt per channel, more power to the speakers is better.

 

Actually, the difference you're hearing is between 20 watts with soft clipping distortion and 20 watts without clipping.

 

Receivers don't put out anywhere near what they claim they do. Or rather they do, but only for 0.001 of a second and only into 2 ohm speakers and only if just 2 speakers are connected and just one requests full power.

 

A real class AB amplifier that can continuously push 140 watts RMS into each channel at once - that's 980 watt total - would weigh 50+ lbs with big heatsink fins on the sides or 35+ with cooling fans, draw a lot more power from the wall, and cost well over $1,000.

Claimed power outputs can only be compared within one manufacturer's model line, never between them, and even with more than a grain of salt.

 

That said, the speakers in question only need 20-30 watts of real power to drive, and the receiver in question will easily provide it without distortion from overload. 210-240 watts is for a single 3-4 ohm speaker, real power is 95W into fronts only, but that's still 30-40 watts with all channels driven.

Edited June 19, 2014 by FMod

[Thor.]

The Boston acoustic speakers are 8 OHM-minimum wattage 90. They have built in tweeters as well so they need more power to drive the internal amplifier, they are no slouch. They are not your average bookshelf speakers, they weigh a lot considering they are bookshelf speakers.. If you are looking to buy a single speaker, they could cost you 200$.

 

Lucky i got a complete set for 600$, on sale at the time. Everything else was free.

 

the receiver was a freebie, and was severely underpowered for the speakers, was not the right model or power to drive them. They advertised them wrong.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Denon-DHT-1513BA-Channel-Theater-Acoustics/dp/B007R8U5RG/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1403138739&sr=8-3&keywords=boston+home+theatre

 

Optimal power is 140 watts per channel-1000 watt receiver required.

 

lol but now sense we have a carpeted living room, the down firing amp isn't as great as it should be, may need to put some wood under it or buy a better amp. I heard LG makes some insane amplifiers.

 

Though the lack of bass does not interfere with the sound quality, they have built in amps as mentioned but they will have to do until i get a better amp.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Thor.

[FMod]

The Boston acoustic speakers are 8 OHM-minimum wattage 90. They have built in tweeters as well so they need more power to drive the internal amplifier, they are no slouch. They are not your average bookshelf speakers, they weigh a lot considering they are bookshelf speakers.. If you are looking to buy a single speaker, they could cost you 200$.

I kind of have an idea, used to have $200/piece speakers two upgrades ago. If you were to connect them to a 30W class A amp, you'd notice not only better, but louder sound.

 

It's the same as how power supplies that do 250W are advertised as "450W". Only PSU makers can't get away with too much exaggeration, because when someone overloads their unit, they get smoke and RMA and anger.

But when a "100W" receiver gives 15W (into 40W max speakers), it doesn't overload, it's just quiet, so people buy a "200W" (25W) receiver, think their speakers need 200W, feel good about it, and everyone's happy.

 

The practice is absolutely commonplace in home audio and only serious hi-fi brands with most their lines well past $1,000 per component don't subscribe to it.

 

Regarding your speakers, I presume it's Boston A26, not tiny ones from the amazon link you've posted, right?

 

 

lol but now sense we have a carpeted living room, the down firing amp isn't as great as it should be, may need to put some wood under it or buy a better amp. I heard LG makes some insane amplifiers.

Though the lack of bass does not interfere with the sound quality, they have built in amps as mentioned but they will have to do until i get a better amp.

By "amp" you seem to mean a subwoofer. "Amp" is amplifier, thing you plug into a wall socket to drive speakers, or have built into the receiver.

 

Anyway, LG has no audio expertise, it's a joke when it comes to sound, not a reputable brand.

Since you're running BA speakers, you might as well get a BA subwoofer, so as not to mix brands, and BA does produce decent subwoofers for next to nothing.

 

This one is sold for half the MSRP, at $265 it's not much to think about, 10" front-firing.

http://www.amazon.com/Boston-Acoustics-ASW650-Front-Firing-Subwoofer/dp/B004M2A02K/

 

Another option could be this - http://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-12-Inch-Powered-Subwoofer/dp/B000092TT0/ - it generally won't be as good, but will give deeper bass extension.