OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 356 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 120Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #10651 of 10653 Old Today, 08:48 AM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 245
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.

Again, there is no mass market for quality.

What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.

So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.


The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.
I'd say that the things are worst for audio than anything else, basically because truly lossless audio can only be found on torrents.


Try finding a legal version of Nirvana in lossless/studio quality and you'll end up with zilch. On most torrents Nirvana and countless others can be easily found in Lossless Quality like this (thanks to lossless audio buffs):


General
Complete name : D:\Nirvana - Nevermind (ORG Pallas)\11 - On A Plain.flac
Format : FLAC
Format/Info : Free Lossless Audio Codec
File size : 77.4 MiB
Duration : 3mn 17s
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 3 289 Kbps
Album : Nevermind
Track name : On A Plain
Track name/Position : 11
Performer : Nirvana
Genre : Rock
Recorded date : 1991


Not that I would download it


For high quality video there's iTunes where there's almost everything in 1080p 5000kbps, not quite Blue ray but really close to it( ITunes uses HiP (5.1 or even high10) for compression which is tantamount to 10000 to 15000 BP (baseline 3.0 or main 3.0) which is used for streaming)


P.S if you truly care about quality of your audio than torrents are the only places where you can find really high quality audio. I guess it is this way because most people care about quality only when comes for free.

....

Last edited by stas3098; Today at 09:13 AM.
stas3098 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #10652 of 10653 Old Today, 09:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 56
I haven't tried to sit down and really listen to differences between AC3 and DTS HD MA. My speakers probably aren't optimally placed and I care more about dialogue than effects or soundtrack most of the time.

But I know a lot of AVS members are more exacting on this.


As for the general consumer, even if 4K OLED looked way better, say comparable to the jump between old NTSC and ATSC, unless the prices are under $1k for a 42-inch display (and $1500 or less for 60-inch), people generally aren't going to be motivated enough to upgrade on a scale similar to the SD to HD transition, which was driven partly by the shutting off of analog broadcasts.

More than movies and TV shows, a new display type would have to demonstrate noticeable improvements for live sporting events (especially the spectacles like the Superbowl, Olympics, World Cup, etc.) at the same or lower price point.

Can OLED deliver equal or better motion resolution as plasma? Then again, most people are watching sports on LCDs and they don't seem to care.
stas3098 likes this.
wco81 is online now  
post #10653 of 10653 Old Today, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 245
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
I haven't tried to sit down and really listen to differences between AC3 and DTS HD MA. My speakers probably aren't optimally placed and I care more about dialogue than effects or soundtrack most of the time.

But I know a lot of AVS members are more exacting on this.


As for the general consumer, even if 4K OLED looked way better, say comparable to the jump between old NTSC and ATSC, unless the prices are under $1k for a 42-inch display (and $1500 or less for 60-inch), people generally aren't going to be motivated enough to upgrade on a scale similar to the SD to HD transition, which was driven partly by the shutting off of analog broadcasts.

More than movies and TV shows, a new display type would have to demonstrate noticeable improvements for live sporting events (especially the spectacles like the Superbowl, Olympics, World Cup, etc.) at the same or lower price point.

Can OLED deliver equal or better motion resolution as plasma? Then again, most people are watching sports on LCDs and they don't seem to care.
No OLED can't deliver better motion than plasma, but for me the motion on OLEDs is ok as is(certainly better than on LCD), but than again I'm not a big sports fan.


For me there's a quite noticeable difference between AC3 and DTS especially where dialogues are concerned. On DTS voices sound more natural at least in Game of Thrones. I have the third season of Game of Thrones in two qualities one HBO on demand (AC3) and the other BD rips from my Blu Ray (DTS) and DTS sounds noticeably better (more depth and clearer which is great for voices)

....

Last edited by stas3098; Today at 09:40 AM.
stas3098 is online now  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Led Hdtv , Lcd Hdtv , Plasma Hdtv , Oled Tv , Lg , Samsung

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off