Why 4K Television?

[Jism]

I'm impulsive on the other hand and very simple with I want a TV > boom lets get one. And compare on the spot. I never had any regret with buying a sony TV brand, always worked, always clear image compared to the others. The only downside is that for example, the HDMI ports on Sony TV's die pretty quick. But the design is good, the sound is OK but for movies i'm using a 6.1 setup, and the picture with blueray is good enough.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I actually had a terrific experience with best buy and my TV costs the same no matter where you get from.... Actually it cost 7.25% more for sales tax..

The sales people were fucking awesome.
I did go to two different best buy stores though because one had the LG UH7700 and I wanted to see it and the Samsung 8000 series..
They actually explained that what I was seeing was a perfect feed specifically demoed for each model to show stuff that it's capable of but yet will never be achieved at home until they start making content... Lol
That was before Samsung and Amazon announced HDR10+ which is basically free Dolby vision.

They weren't pushy... They didn't try to sell the most expensive model they had they were however pushing the models with the highest customer ratings... More down to earth approach.

LGs space scene for the OLed TV's make every TV on display look cheap... Lol

 

[Jism]

Every TV has a demo feature that puts the settings at best possible way so the TV always looks better when compared back to home. When set on demo, the brigness and contrast for example is tilted all the way up.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Sometimes you're better off without sales people's advice.

In many stores, they get a commission, a percentage of the profit. So in some stores, they may push you towards the model with the largest profit margins. BestBuy salesman, FTR, do not get paid commissions though there may be other incentives to push one model or brand over another.

Every TV has a demo feature that puts the settings at best possible way so the TV always looks better when compared back to home.

Some TVs have a demo mode, but not all do. But even so, most (if not all) TVs are improperly calibrated at the factory anyway (regardless if they have a demo mode) so they provide the brightest picture on the saleroom floor. This is because humans tend to see the brightest as the best. Of course, I can "personally" see the total logic in that and agree 100% but not with TVs.

So because they are tuned to look great in the store, not in your living room (or, just may not be properly calibrated at the factory for whatever reason) you really have to go more by the professional reviews and not what you see in the showroom. Then, when you get your set home, you definitely need to recalibrate your TV.

 

[Jism]

Brightness is not a factor, image sharpening and colors are my primary goal for getting the best possible TV.

I mean when it's all dark you want a lower brightness going on onto your TV, having it too bright actually hurtens your eyes in the dark. I've compared various TV's and the one that came out with best possible 'image' was the Sony.

 

[yogurt_21]

Come'on, your entering a store to be advised, and want to see a working TV as well. I dont mind paying some extra for service, you know? As long as the service is good. You always have to pay attention because salesman always trying to shove you the most expensive one with features you dont really need, but with some good advice a TV can be bought easily. That mentality of people buying elsewhere on the net is exactly the reason why more and more stores are becoming a thing of the past. I'm not sure where you got the 33% price difference from but the extra price compared to the store vs online was only ~ 70 euro. That's no hundreds either.

I'm not going to spend a 1499 for a TV with features that i dont need. I'd rather see a TV work for years seamless as they where in the past.

you paid 700 euro for a 466 euro value TV, that's where the 33% came from. Maybe is was only 70 euro cheaper from that same retailer...but there are more out there. You add in the fact that you said 4k tvs were 1500 euro or above and I'd say that retailer is about the last place you should shop. You got screwed. That same 700 euro is a decent 4k tv anywhere else.

 

[trparky]

BestBuy salesman, FTR, do not get paid commissions though there may be other incentives

Yeah, like if you don't sell enough stuff on the floor you get no hours the next week. I used to work there a number of years ago, we may not have worked for commission but believe you me, if you wanted to work the next week you made damn sure that you pushed as much useless shit as you could including their useless "Idiot Squad Black Tie Protection" plans. I used to work there, it felt like I was selling my soul to get the sale sometimes.

 

[Jism]

you paid 700 euro for a 466 euro value TV, that's where the 33% came from. Maybe is was only 70 euro cheaper from that same retailer...but there are more out there. You add in the fact that you said 4k tvs were 1500 euro or above and I'd say that retailer is about the last place you should shop. You got screwed. That same 700 euro is a decent 4k tv anywhere else.

The TV is almost 589 online listed on various stores. Where you get the 466 from is a mystery. You are proberly picking on the cheapest model you can find based upon the Bravia WD75 serie's. It has a build in DVB tuner which makes my decoder for HD TV obsolete.

We can wine all day about me paying too much for a TV cause it's listed elsewhere cheaper, but the same online buying can conflict a few problems as well:

- TV might be DOA, need to ship back, who's paying shippping costs?
- TV might be a refurbished model, the shop did'nt told you
- TV might be damaged upon delivery or damaged upon returnal
- Warranty program might take weeks.

You see if my TV would have any of those problems listed above, i'd simply drive less then 5km to return it. There's nothing wrong with comissions either. It stimulates the workers in a company and it might drive more / better sales. When i goto a store, i usually know what i want. There's nothing much a salesman can convince me to get the most expensive model, since there is'nt any more room on the wall to hang something larger then 50" anyway.

4K is obsolete. If you dont have a carrier or device that spits out 4K resolutions, then all that happens is your original (1080p) source being upscaled.

 

[Gasaraki]

This is going to sound like a rant and that's right... it is a rant. Good God, all I hear about is 4K this and 4K that. Will we please fix HDTV first and then talk about 4K?

Why do we even have 4K television to begin with? We can't even get 1080 done right in the United States.

Warning, before you do this I have to warn you that you will never be able to watch your cable TV quite the same after you do this experiment. You have been warned!

Seriously, when was the last time you looked at your television that's being fed a signal from your local cable company? I mean really looked at it! Take the time to really look at the picture. Notice something? I'll give you a hint... it's not HD. Well, it is "HD" in the sense that it's better than 480 but not by much when you start seeing the compression artifacts such as crushed blacks, macroblocks, etc. Yep, start looking for them. This is the part where you will never be able to look at cable TV quite the same anymore, you're going to find yourself picking the picture quality apart after this. Trust me, I do and it's annoying as hell.

You see, I know what HDTV is supposed to look like. I have seen it! Where? Blu-Ray of course! Go find yourself a copy of Avatar on Blu-Ray and be prepared to have your mind blown. That's because the Avatar Blu-Ray is the considered by HDTV enthusiasts as the gold standard by which all other Blu-Ray discs are measured up against and fail. Why? Because the encoding was just that damn good! HDTV is supposed to take your breath away with vivid colors and sharp and pristine picture quality, none of which is what you get when you subscribe to most pay-TV providers.

Why is this? There must be a reason! Well, the reason is that we just don't have enough bandwidth going to our homes in the United States to be able to support a properly encoded HDTV broadcast video stream. Most video encoding experts agree that to provide a well encoded HDTV broadcast video you need at the very least 12 Mbps for acceptable video quality, 16 Mbps to provide superb video quality. Guess what? None of the providers in the United States provide HDTV video streams that come even close to this. Most compress down to 8 Mbps, some even worse than this (*cough* uVerse *cough*). Even the lauded DirecTV, the once gold standard when it comes to HDTV broadcast, still can't provide anywhere close to the required bandwidth for a properly encoded HDTV video.

So here it comes to the question... Why are we even talking about 4K television when we can't even do 1080 correctly? Why are we talking about 4K which requires nearly four times the bandwidth that a 1080 video stream needs and we don't even have that?

Yes, I know... NetFlix and Amazon are providing 4K, this I understand. But the difference is that it's pre-encoded so the encoder has had a lot more time to be able to really crunch that video stream down to an acceptable stream size while still maintaining superb picture quality. This is all thanks to something called multi-pass encoding along with variable bitrate encoding. Obviously multi-pass encoding cannot be done with broadcast video because the encoding has to be done in real time. Variable bitrate can be done but most cable companies don't do this, the only provider than does this is DirecTV and still they can't even get 1080 done right. So to compensate for the fact that we can't do multi-pass encoding to real time broadcast video we need to have a higher bandwidth profile to be able to provide for a superb picture quality.

So why 4K? Well... I think that it's much like 3D. We need to get people to buy new TVs since most people already have a 1080p set.

In the future we may all have enough bandwidth but that will require the providers to lay down fiber to all homes across the United States but lets face facts here, that's at the very least 10 or 15 years down the road. Crap.

Umm, so you are basically saying that they shouldn't make newer and better TVs until Cable/ISP increase bandwidth to all of people's homes and/or have higher quality encoding? OK....

 

[Bill_Bright]

Brightness is not a factor, image sharpening and colors are my primary goal for getting the best possible TV.

You missed my point. I know brightness is not a factor. But to most people buying a TV, if they don't already know what to look for (and most people don't) they are attracted to the brightest image. That is just natural, like a moth to a flame. For those who do their homework (and understand it), brightness is not big factor. Between brightness and contrast, contrast is by far, more important. But optimal contrast is now how most TVs are adjusted when they leave the factory.

 

[Jism]

Simply take a few minutes and start watching some screens that put out demo images or movies. Pick the one that matches your budget and matches the best possible view for you personally. Not what the salesman thinks is what is best for you.

Soundbars also sound like shit. I've listened to a few minutes to a soundbar demo stand (ofcourse made in such a way that that soundbar would sound utterly best) but it will never come close to a real home entertainment with proper (THX) speaker setup and amplifier. Everything has to be as compact as possible these days.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Soundbars also sound like shit. I've listened to a few minutes to a soundbar demo stand (ofcourse made in such a way that that soundbar would sound utterly best) but it will never come close to a real home entertainment with proper (THX) speaker setup and amplifier.

Well of course a sound bar will never come close to a real home entertainment setup. They are not meant to. A "real" home entertainment speaker setup and the electronics to go with it costs many $1000s (even 10s of $1000s) just for the audio.

And "critical" listening for soundbar quality in a showroom is pointless anyway, in most cases. In most home viewing rooms, big screen TVs are mounted on the wall, or sitting on a TV stand against a wall. They are not sitting out in the open floor, or jammed next to other TVs on either side (and maybe above and below too) all blaring out the same sounds.

But soundbars still sound many times better than the traditional integrated speakers - especially those that fire out the back as most large screen TVs do.

Everything has to be as compact as possible these days.

Bigger does NOT automatically imply better! This was taught to us way back in the late 1960s when Acoustic Research released the great AR-3a with it 3/4 inch tweeter. The AR-3a was widely regarded the finest speaker of its day (and I have to say, I am the proud owner of a pair - though they need re-foaming). Even today, they can hold their own with some of the best out there.

And of course, the "premium" audio packages offered in today's automobiles deliver great sounds from "compact" drivers too.

So compact size is not the problem, if done right. That said, a 3/4 inch speaker just cannot move enough air on the low end for decent bass and LFEs. So even the best soundbars (and car audio systems) need a decent and separate woofer/subwoofer for the low ends.

 

[yogurt_21]

The TV is almost 589 online listed on various stores. Where you get the 466 from is a mystery. You are proberly picking on the cheapest model you can find based upon the Bravia WD75 serie's. It has a build in DVB tuner which makes my decoder for HD TV obsolete.

We can wine all day about me paying too much for a TV cause it's listed elsewhere cheaper, but the same online buying can conflict a few problems as well:

- TV might be DOA, need to ship back, who's paying shippping costs?
- TV might be a refurbished model, the shop did'nt told you
- TV might be damaged upon delivery or damaged upon returnal
- Warranty program might take weeks.

You see if my TV would have any of those problems listed above, i'd simply drive less then 5km to return it. There's nothing wrong with comissions either. It stimulates the workers in a company and it might drive more / better sales. When i goto a store, i usually know what i want. There's nothing much a salesman can convince me to get the most expensive model, since there is'nt any more room on the wall to hang something larger then 50" anyway.

4K is obsolete. If you dont have a carrier or device that spits out 4K resolutions, then all that happens is your original (1080p) source being upscaled.

at the bolded. No, 720P is and 1080 is on its way. Shopping around is a consumer essential. You like driving 5k to got to a physical store where you won't listen to the salesman. Fine. almost 589 indicates you looked around to find the highest price you could find for the unit...and it was still 111 euro less than you paid. You got screwed. Plain and simple.

You speak of keeping a television for a long time and yet invest in a 1080P tv. 1080 can't upscale to 4k. 4k is already on its way to becoming the standard. In 5 years or less your purchase will seem even more foolish than it is right now.

but hey that wouldn't even be a discussion point if you paid 1080P pricing for the unit. You didn't. You spent well into the decent 4k range. Had you picked it up for the sub 500 Euro it likely wouldn't be an issue. You could pick up another in a few years. But spending significantly more than you had to and still getting last gens tech, no oled, no 4k, isn't what I'd call a well informed consumer decision.

You like your TV that's great. I'd put my Samsung 40ku6300's imaged quality right up next to it and I will beat it in most metrics plus I'm watching amazon and Netflix in 4k. And yet I paid less than 400US for it.

You spent twice as much as I did to end up with old tech.

That's like spending 1000$ to buy a 780 Ti when the 1080 is faster and half the price.

 

[Jism]

Dude,

stop trying to tell me that i paid too much. I can actually afford upgrading a tv every 2 ~ 4 years. I'm not buying a tv to withlast this for a minimum of 6 years. Many channels do NOT have 1080P yet, so why is 4K so important to have right now? And even if they have within 5 years a 4K standard, i'm sure technology now requires something new OVER 5 years already which makes your upgrade now go obsolete anyway. I'm buying what i need, and what i think is sufficient anyway. I dont need your opinion on what i need to buy anyway.

Caps in TV's for example dont last long enough for 5 + years. And if they do they will give troubles in the future. They dont make TV's these days no more where a specific brand is able to outlast for many many years as they did in the past. If you buy a printer of lets say, 60 euro or 60 pound, and the thing dies within 1.5 year, it's cheaper to buy a new one rather then fixing the old one. Welcome to the western culture where good shit is more expensive to fix rather then buying a new product.

Great for you going for 4K. I'm sure that your carrier is not even able to provide a proper 1080 signal anyway.

 

[yogurt_21]

don't have a "Carrier". I listed out my 4k providers. My last TV was 9 years and the caps were fine, the only issue was the speakers. The age of the unit combined with a sound issue netted a new TV. So I don't share your experience with electronics lasting 1.5 years. My printer is 6 years old in fact, still works fine.

The technology behind a 1080 tv vs the technology behind a new 4k does matter. And the newer standard will have newer components. As such it will last longer both in physical longevity and programming longevity.

I fart in the general direction of this thread even being on TPU.

People are still running around with i5-2500K's because they were awesome and still provided 80% of the gaming performance of a 7700K. Yet I see no rants about "why the hell would you buy a 7700K?"

Some people (myself) still have R9 200 series GPUs. Yet I see no threads on "why the hell would you buy a 1080 Ti?"

This is a tech forum, not a "stick with the old, the new sucks" forum.

somehow TPU has been confused with getoffmylawn.com

 

[Bill_Bright]

Many channels do NOT have 1080P yet, so why is 4K so important to have right now?

That's a tunnel vision look at 4K. You assume watching programming designed for "TV" viewing is the driving force for selecting a TV. For some viewers that may be true. And in that case, it is true that 4K content is currently limited - expanding, but still limited in comparison.

But many many TV buyers also buy their TVs to watch "movies" and major sporting events (like the upcoming 2018 Olympics) that do come in 4K format in their home theater setups and that is significant.

And also, according to presenters at the 2016 CES, 4K content increased 10 fold leading up to the 2016 CES and expected to increase another 10 fold in 2017. And over-the-air 4K content is still happening in larger market areas, and will trickle down to smaller markets as broadcasting equipment is replaced through natural attrition.

So to focus only the channels available via cable is not looking at the big picture (pun intended).

Caps in TV's for example dont last long enough for 5 + years.

That's a bunch of BS - unless maybe you buy the cheapest generic brand TV on the shelf. Same with your printer scenario. If you buy a 60 Euro printer, you can probably expect it to die in a year or two. But if you buy a 200 Euro printer, you can expect it last much longer. But printers are a bad analogy anyway many printers are intended to be a "sales loss" because printer makers know they can make up the money on expensive consumables (ie, ink).

"Western" culture??? Wow. "Western" culture? Yeah right. That's one of the most misinformed things I have ever heard. When did "Made in China" become known for quality and longevity?

And please tell us what brand of TV makes TVs designed in, manufactured in, and made with parts made in "Western culture" countries.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

In case anyone's interested in trying such services, I just started free trials of Sling TV and Playstation VUE. The Sling package I'm trying is Orange plus Blue, which runs $40 for 44 channels. The Vue package I'm trying is the Core Slim, which runs $35 for 61 channels.

I've read Sling uses Microsoft Silverlight, but it was working even without it installed. So it either doesn't use it or their app doesn't require it being installed separately. Sling doesn't need to launch via a browser, so it may use it in it's own app. I'm not sure if Vue uses Silverlight, but the PC version requires launching via a browser, which IMO is less desirable.

IMO Sling wins on interface. It's much easier to navigate than Vue. It also wins on content. I not only get less channels on Vue, many of them that are supposed to be accessible say cannot be played outside your home, and I'm only using the service at home on my PC. I also had a recap of an NBA basketball game just suddenly stop playing. It wouldn't resume and the only way to watch it again was from the start, so I said screw it. Plus the tile for it shows the final score, which is something you really don't want to know before watching.

Performance wise I was expecting Vue to win, as most Sling vs Vue feedback I'd read leaned toward Vue having better IQ and less buffers, freezes and hitches. Sony also has a higher bitrate requirement, stating 10Mb download speed, vs Sling's 5MB. Since my ISP is 15MB down, I figured surely Vue will look better. At first glance, on TV shows and movies, Vue seems to have better IQ. It's main Achilles heel is it hitches constantly. Whether it was watching Blackhawk Down, or that NBA finals game (Cavs vs Celtics), it would have a noticeable hitch whenever someone moved fast. Plus the Warriors vs Spurs game I watched the day prior on Sling had better IQ and smooth motion.

Another annoyance of Vue is they insist you have cookies enabled and no adblockers, making you feel even more vulnerable since PSN has suffered major hacks in recent years. Sling on the other hand will even work with a proxy. This means you actually can pickup shows that are not specific to your area if you like. The only downside of that is the speed drops, so it can affect IQ. When I disabled proxy it suddenly looked pristine by comparison, even though my ISP speed only increased 1.5MB. For movies and a lot of TV shows, Vue has better IQ and doesn't suffer from black crush, which is a bit of a problem on movie channels with Sling, but the hitching Vue suffers is not worth it at all.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure either service in the end is worth it as used. If you put it up against say renting full season discs at Netflix of popular TV shows, there's no comparison. It also looks noticeably worse than HDTV broadcasts, especially 1080i broadcasts. I may try Sling again once I upgrade to a better TV (now considering a Sony XBR49X900E when price drops well below $1000). I'm thinking with Sling, Sony's excellent upscaling and processing might be able to make it look better. Ironically though, I'm skeptical it could do anything to improve their own streaming service, since it hitches so badly. That may be due to it being primarily designed to stream on devices vs PCs though. They only recently offered browser streaming on a PC, so I may have to compare the two again on a Sony smart TV.

Clearly Sling's interface and lack of detection and streaming glitches makes it far easier and more enjoyable to use though. No one wants to be told they don't have access because they're not at home, when they are sitting at home. Best case scenario, even IF a Sony smart device clears up the stream stability, they still need to work on content (or pricing) and the interface. I'm about to call Vue support just to give them some feedback and ask if they've noticed any disparity in stream quality complaints between PC and Sony device users. They definitely didn't try to hard sell me on buying a Sony device to use the service when I asked questions about Vue prior to signing up. However, while that makes me feel like they'd answer questions about browser vs device streaming honestly, their support people seem to be young kids that aren't too technically knowledgeable about the service.

 

[dirtyferret]

lol up scaling, that's the biggest crock of !@#$ I've seen people get suckered into. Wow my DVD player now has an HDMI port, therefore it must be up-scaling that 480p image to 720p..... Upscale your 720p cable feed to 4K with this new TV.

I worked in cable sports for number of years and used to get the direct feed to my office from live sports' events. It was stunning, then we would send the sat feed off to the cable companies and they would compress the crap out of it until it would look as bland as what you see on your sets today.

In case anyone's interested in trying such services, I just started free trials of Sling TV and Playstation VUE. The Sling package I'm trying is Orange plus Blue, which runs $40 for 44 channels. The Vue package I'm trying is the Core Slim, which runs $35 for 61 channels.

I've read Sling uses Microsoft Silverlight, but it was working even without it installed. So it either doesn't use it or their app doesn't require it being installed separately. Sling doesn't need to launch via a browser, so it may use it in it's own app. I'm not sure if Vue uses Silverlight, but the PC version requires launching via a browser, which IMO is less desirable.

IMO Sling wins on interface. It's much easier to navigate than Vue. It also wins on content. I not only get less channels on Vue, many of them that are supposed to be accessible say cannot be played outside your home, and I'm only using the service at home on my PC. I also had a recap of an NBA basketball game just suddenly stop playing. It wouldn't resume and the only way to watch it again was from the start, so I said screw it. Plus the tile for it shows the final score, which is something you really don't want to know before watching.

Performance wise I was expecting Vue to win, as most Sling vs Vue feedback I'd read leaned toward Vue having better IQ and less buffers, freezes and hitches. Sony also has a higher bitrate requirement, stating 10Mb download speed, vs Sling's 5MB. Since my ISP is 15MB down, I figured surely Vue will look better. At first glance, on TV shows and movies, Vue seems to have better IQ. It's main Achilles heel is it hitches constantly. Whether it was watching Blackhawk Down, or that NBA finals game (Cavs vs Celtics), it would have a noticeable hitch whenever someone moved fast. Plus the Warriors vs Spurs game I watched the day prior on Sling had better IQ and smooth motion.

Another annoyance of Vue is they insist you have cookies enabled and no adblockers, making you feel even more vulnerable since PSN has suffered major hacks in recent years. Sling on the other hand will even work with a proxy. This means you actually can pickup shows that are not specific to your area if you like. The only downside of that is the speed drops, so it can affect IQ. When I disabled proxy it suddenly looked pristine by comparison, even though my ISP speed only increased 1.5MB. For movies and a lot of TV shows, Vue has better IQ and doesn't suffer from black crush, which is a bit of a problem on movie channels with Sling, but the hitching Vue suffers is not worth it at all.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure either service in the end is worth it as used. If you put it up against say renting full season discs at Netflix of popular TV shows, there's no comparison. It also looks noticeably worse than HDTV broadcasts, especially 1080i broadcasts. I may try Sling again once I upgrade to a better TV (now considering a Sony XBR49X900E when price drops well below $1000). I'm thinking with Sling, Sony's excellent upscaling and processing might be able to make it look better. Ironically though, I'm skeptical it could do anything to improve their own streaming service, since it hitches so badly. That may be due to it being primarily designed to stream on devices vs PCs though. They only recently offered browser streaming on a PC, so I may have to compare the two again on a Sony smart TV.

Clearly Sling's interface and lack of detection and streaming glitches makes it far easier and more enjoyable to use though. No one wants to be told they don't have access because they're not at home, when they are sitting at home. Best case scenario, even IF a Sony smart device clears up the stream stability, they still need to work on content (or pricing) and the interface. I'm about to call Vue support just to give them some feedback and ask if they've noticed any disparity in stream quality complaints between PC and Sony device users. They definitely didn't try to hard sell me on buying a Sony device to use the service when I asked questions about Vue prior to signing up. However, while that makes me feel like they'd answer questions about browser vs device streaming honestly, their support people seem to be young kids that aren't too technically knowledgeable about the service.

We use Vue on the roku, I have two little kids so Disney Jr is a must and sling doesn't carry it. Sling also doesn't carry two of my local TV broadcast channels yet Vue does. I've looked at DirectTV, googles, and Hulus streaming offerings yet none offer all of the few channels my family watches (big four TV broadcasters, Disney, AMC, and food network).

 

[Frag_Maniac]

@dirtyferret
I'm not a TVoholich per se, but I agree that AMC is essential. Got to have my The Walking Dead, and Better Call Saul. You can have anything Disney and food network though. In fact if you ask me, Fox is better than food network because it still carries the best food shows, Gordon Ramsay's. The problem is, none of the stream TV services carry Fox except in certain cities like NY, Chicago, San Fran, etc.

I forgot to say above one of my biggest nit picks about Vue on a browser is it puts you through extra hoops every time you try to login. Even though I signed up for it with no proxy, no adblockers, and cookies enabled, and my browser saved my username and password, it asks if I'm a bot. That would be all fine and good if when you click to verify you're not it didn't also ask you to listen to a recorded 10 digit number and type it in, because you can't even hear the number. You have to click on a button below the text box, have it download an mp3 file, and it's a crap quality recording of ten different people saying a one digit number. I swear it sounds like they're all at a drunken Twitch party, even noises going on in the background. You're lucky if you can hear it well enough to get it right the first try, usually not. So 10 minutes later, you may or may not be logged in.

In speaking to Vue phone support just now, I also found out the reason I'm seeing so much content blocked because I'm "not at home", is because it detects ALL PCs as mobile devices. I find it ironic they ask you to fill out a ton of personal info when PSN is know for being as unsecured as a curbside mailbox, and that many stream devices are tiny compared to my mammoth PC tower, yet they are not treated as "mobile devices". It's even more insulting that they do not warn you whatsoever that you will be blocked from a lot of content if you use Vue on a PC. It also has nothing to do with copyright or FCC laws, because Sling is not treating all PCs as mobile devices. If you ask me they really do need to get better at understanding these things, because anyone trying Vue on PC, especially before considering buying a Sony smart TV, is going to be put off by Sony about this. It's the opposite of good advertising.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If there was a service that let me pick and choose everything I wanted, I would be happy. But you have to pick plans with 100+ channels to get the 15 channels you want to watch.

I still like the big 3 broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) with local news and weather - and Fox too. But I also like TNT, BBC America (so I can watch Doctor Who and Sherlock) , and HLN (which I watch every morning to learn what is going on in the world around me), NatGeo, History and Smithsonian. I also like Gordon Ramsay's cooking shows, but I like Iron Chef too so the Food Network is essential. And occasionally the SciFi channel has something I like. And once in a while Palladia has something I want to see/listen too from Live from Daryl's House or Later with Jools Holland.

But to get those, I have to subscribe to a plan and for more money, extra options that include the extra channels I want, but that gives me (shoves down my throat) dozens of channels I never, as in NEVER EVER watch. And if I want to watch House of Cards or Grace and Frankie, or Jessica Jones in HD, I have to pay another $12/month for Netflix.

IMO, it is all a rip off - not ready to call it a conspiracy but certainly a rip off. Especially since I still have to put up with commercials even when I am paying good money for the privilege (cough! cough!) for this service.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I currently have Sling and thus far if you want best experience it comes with an Android TV device...must be Nvidia shield if you want Amazon Prime video

PS Vue is best on PS4 and FireTv.

Roku is best for Cable or satellite apps... And general ease of use but It's to limiting.. Also good for Amazon Prime video.

I get local broadcast TV NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC via hdhomerun on my Android TV

Edit: parenting break...

I'm hoping that with the upcoming update for Android TV they are able to combine Sling TV with their Live Channels app or something similar... If they do they win... Having all my sources into one feed would be awesome...
Right now it's a little inconvenient to have to switch between apps.... Although it only takes 15-20 seconds to go from Live Channels to Sling or Netflix or Hulu etc...

 

[Static~Charge]

I got a job at a PBS television station in 2001. They were in the process of overhauling their equipment for HD. At that time, PBS was broadcasting a test channel in full, uncompressed 1080p. The picture quality was fantastic! Compare that to the sorry-ass signal that Time Warner/Spectrum tries to pass off as HD in my area....

The cable TV providers don't want to upgrade their bandwidth to handle decent-quality signal because that would eat into their outrageous profits (since Charter bought Time Warner, my bill has gone up 25% with no additional services). They love to throw around the buzzwords, but they lack the substance to back it up.

 

[Blueberries]

Go to CostCo and watch 1080p side by side with an HDR 4k TV. Even if the broadcast is terrible, it looks much better.

Bandwidth restrictions will exist as long as the FCC allows it.

 

[Static~Charge]

Bandwidth restrictions will exist as long as the FCC allows it.

But that would be government regulation, and it's all eeeeeevil!!!

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I got a job at a PBS television station in 2001. They were in the process of overhauling their equipment for HD. At that time, PBS was broadcasting a test channel in full, uncompressed 1080p.

You sure that wasn't 1080i? Pretty sure all TV broadcasts are compressed too. If they aren't there are huge problems.