AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   OLED Technology and Flat Panels General (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/)
-   -   Battle of the OLEDs (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/3079396-battle-oleds.html)

bfocussvt 07-18-2019 02:19 PM

Battle of the OLEDs
 
So, I've looked at tons of reviews, gone through a lot of threads and am debating on this issue:

So I've got an offer for a LG 65C9 for $XXX, the 65E9 for $XXX plus $600, or a Sony 65A9G for $XXX plus $700.

Personally, I'm partial to Sony but I dont mind saving a buck.

A) Is the E9 worth $600 over the C9? I've got a surround sound system but am digging the E9s design over the simpler C9.
B) I really, personally, like Sony, AndroidTV more than LG. Many review websites have been 50/50 with Sony winning some and LG C9 (E9 as same panel) winning some. So basically, does the Sony bring something extraordinary to the table over the C9 for the extra $600-$700?

I know a lot will inherently say, "go with C9 and save money" but I am looking at the bigger picture with my personal thought/opinions mentioned above.

Thoughts?

Reflex-Arc 07-18-2019 03:35 PM

It sounds like you want the Sony.

Buy the Sony.

bfocussvt 07-18-2019 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reflex-Arc (Post 58312612)
It sounds like you want the Sony.

Buy the Sony.

I want Sony but not if I'm paying a premium for nothing.

bfocussvt 07-18-2019 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reflex-Arc (Post 58312612)
It sounds like you want the Sony.

Buy the Sony.

I would gladly take the E9 over both if it offers more, besides styling, over the C9 and Sony, for that matter.

DaveyMac 07-18-2019 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfocussvt (Post 58312650)
I want Sony but not if I'm paying a premium for nothing.


You are paying a premium to avoid always thinking "I wish I bought the Sony" because you favor Sony products. :)


I have LG OLED and freaking love it. But I've never had a Sony so I can't comment any further.

Reflex-Arc 07-18-2019 03:57 PM

In my opinion, any picture quality differences are going to be negligible to the point of nitpickery. Outside of that, if comes down to other factors, like the OS, and that's going to be preference based. You've already stated your preference, and based on that, I'd buy the Sony.

Don't second guess yourself out of the product you already want to buy based on the opinions of random strangers on a message board. Any of the options you've listed are going to have great picture quality, but you want one of them specifically. If you don't get it, you're just going to kick yourself later.

...though I may be projecting just a tad based on personal experience. ;)

spyboy 07-18-2019 04:02 PM

Buy the Sony.

bobknavs 07-18-2019 04:11 PM

The C9 and E9 use the same video processor. The E9 offers better onboard sound. (Worthless with an external sound system.) If the "design" of the E9 is worth an extra $600 to you, go for it.

The C9 and E9 support an HDMI 2.1 feature: 4k at 120 fps. (Not worth much if you don't have a source that gives that.) Does the Sony?

Kenbar 07-18-2019 04:24 PM

Sony may offer better motion processing. At least that's what some claim around here. And if so that might be a reason to spend a bit more...if you can find a good deal on one.

bfocussvt 07-18-2019 04:27 PM

Okay, Sony is out. C9 or E9?

Cam1977 07-18-2019 04:43 PM

^first...the Sony and LG are excellent choices but are the differences really worth the Sony premium, that comes down to personal choice...second why pay more for the E9 unless you like the style...both C9 and E9 will provide the same pq the only difference being panel variations.

Kenbar 07-18-2019 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfocussvt (Post 58312784)
Okay, Sony is out. C9 or E9?

Wow, Sony got the boot quick. Between those two...it would be the C9 for me. Put the savings into a surround sound setup...

Menarini 07-18-2019 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobknavs (Post 58312734)
The C9 and E9 use the same video processor. The E9 offers better onboard sound. (Worthless with an external sound system.) If the "design" of the E9 is worth an extra $600 to you, go for it.

The C9 and E9 support an HDMI 2.1 feature: 4k at 120 fps. (Not worth much if you don't have a source that gives that.) Does the Sony?

What source gives 4k 120 fps? And what's the point of hdmi 2.1 right now when there are no hdmi 2.1 source devices like graphics cards or consoles available presently? eARC, vrr and allm (features i dont use) but i can understand the use of these features for some people because a few hdmi 2.0b devices currently available support them, but apart from that what's the use of 2.1 right now?

To me, as a movie watcher (not next gen console or pc gamer), hdmi 2.1 would only be relevant when i look to upgrade to a 8k tv. On a 4k tv i see it as useless. 4k hdr movies are 4k 24hz , 4:2:0 , 10 or 12 bit (10 bit for hdr10 , 12 bit for dolby vision). For this resolution, chroma and bit depth used for 4k hdr movies, hdmi 2.0b is more than enough. hdmi 2.0b can do upto 4k 24hz 4:4:4, 12 bit.

alexcoluzzi32 07-18-2019 10:23 PM

Hey remember that movie with the crazy people doing advertising?

Sony

.
.
.
.
.
.

Bony!

LOL

My A1E has been rock solid since I picked it up almost two years ago. Open box as well saved a ton. Guess the previous owner bought it and immediately returned it. Ridiculously good picture and the OS is getting snappier with each release. Sony for me all the way!

Menarini 07-18-2019 10:28 PM

A1E was a little too dim.

bfocussvt 07-19-2019 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenbar (Post 58312854)
Wow, Sony got the boot quick. Between those two...it would be the C9 for me. Put the savings into a surround sound setup...

Again, I like sony but not enough to pay almost $1k more for little (if any) gain over LG.

Micolash 07-19-2019 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfocussvt (Post 58314192)
Again, I like sony but not enough to pay almost $1k more for little (if any) gain over LG.

The gain in image processing isn't "little".

But it's your money, spend it on what you want. If the C9 makes you happy that's all that matters.

Kewler 07-19-2019 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfocussvt (Post 58312296)
B) I really, personally, like Sony, AndroidTV more than LG.

Before my LG C8, I had a Sony (forgot the model). Compared to Android TV OS, I find LG WebOS underwhelming regarding app choices and a bit too flashy GUI-wise. LG picture settings are easier to manage since you can setup SDR (or HDR10 or Dolby Vision) on a source and apply it to all sources. On the Sony, all sources have to be configured independently (as far as stated by Rtings.com).

Also, this year C9 as a specific setting to reduce banding contrary to last year C8. If it was my choice, I would go for the C9.

Stuntman_Mike 07-19-2019 08:08 AM

As someone that owns a an E6 LG OLED, I say, don't choose the E9. Unless you needed the better sound, which it sounds like you don't. The styling is nice, but not worth the extra cash, to me. If you don't care about the extra cost and really think it looks better, then go for it. I went with the E6 only because I didn't want a curved TV (C6) and the B6 had a "worse" processor. I think the design of the C series has gotten better since 2016 also, so it's a pretty good looking TV in its own right.

If you care about HDMI 2.1, then go with the C9 over the Sony. If the Sony had HDMI 2.1, I'd personally pay the extra for the Sony (or maybe wait a little for the price to come down more), but that's just me.

Stuntman_Mike 07-19-2019 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58313722)
What source gives 4k 120 fps? And what's the point of hdmi 2.1 right now when there are no hdmi 2.1 source devices like graphics cards or consoles available presently? eARC, vrr and allm (features i dont use) but i can understand the use of these features for some people because a few hdmi 2.0b devices currently available support them, but apart from that what's the use of 2.1 right now?

To me, as a movie watcher (not next gen console or pc gamer), hdmi 2.1 would only be relevant when i look to upgrade to a 8k tv. On a 4k tv i see it as useless. 4k hdr movies are 4k 24hz , 4:2:0 , 10 or 12 bit (10 bit for hdr10 , 12 bit for dolby vision). For this resolution, chroma and bit depth used for 4k hdr movies, hdmi 2.0b is more than enough. hdmi 2.0b can do upto 4k 24hz 4:4:4, 12 bit.

It's mostly about future proofing. If HDMI 2.1 sets were more expensive than comparable HDMI 2.0 sets, then that would make the line in the sand a lot deeper. Since the only thing that getting an HDMI 2.1 set costs you is time waiting for more than just the 9 series OLEDs to include it, I think that a good number of people would rather wait to have the new standard, even if they don't use it immediately, or even ever. Fear of missing out is real...

Me personally, I'm pretty confident that Nvidia's GPUs next summer will be HDMI 2.1, in addition to the next gen consoles that are most likely coming November, or so, of next year. As a hardcore gamer, that's enough reason for me to wait. Even lower prices, and other improvements would also, most likely, accompany that, as well.

If I needed a set, it would be different, but I'm just looking to upgrade size, mostly. Minor PQ improvements and QoL are also welcome, but I'm not exactly hurting watching my E6 ATM.

Menarini 07-19-2019 08:37 AM

There is nothing called future proofing in today's tech world, in 2-3 years native 8k tv's with hdmi 2.1 will become more common, then your c9 would look dated in front of it. hdmi 2.1 has support for 8k 60/120 (which 8k tv's with hdmi 2.1 will be able to do, from a 2.1 gfx card), of course a c9 cant do that. And besides, buying into the first generation implementation of any tech is not something i do. the c9 , according to vincent teoh, is employing a hybrid hdmi 2.1/2.0 solution , it has two chipsets, hdmi 2.1 devices in coming years wont do this , they'll use only a 2.1 chipset.

Stuntman_Mike 07-19-2019 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58314658)
There is nothing called future proofing in today's tech world, in 2-3 years native 8k tv's with hdmi 2.1 will become more common, then your c9 would look dated in front of it. hdmi 2.1 has support for 8k 60/120 (which 8k tv's with hdmi 2.1 will be able to do, from a 2.1 gfx card), of course a c9 cant do that. And besides, buying into the first generation implementation of any tech is not something i do. the c9 , according to vincent teoh, is employing a hybrid hdmi 2.1/2.0 solution , it has two chipsets, hdmi 2.1 devices in coming years wont do this , they'll use only a 2.1 chipset.

There is no such thing as future proofing in tech, but when a new standard/feature/improvement is imminent, then it makes sense to wait if you can.

And no where did I say that I was getting a 9 series OLED. I am waiting for the very reasons that you said, among others, so no idea why you're saying "my" C9 will look outdated. It won't, cause I don't have a C9 and have no desire to get one...

Menarini 07-19-2019 09:09 AM

My comment wasn't directed at you particularly, it was in general terms about people wanting hdmi 2.1`when no source hdmi devices exist yet, maybe i should've worded that better instead of saying 'your' c9.

Stuntman_Mike 07-19-2019 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58314782)
My comment wasn't directed at you particularly, it was in general terms about people wanting hdmi 2.1`when no source hdmi devices exist yet, maybe i should've worded that better instead of saying 'your' c9.

Understood on the "your" C9.

Totally understand why someone wouldn't want to wait. Furthermore, totally get that many people won't have any use/interest in a lot of the things that HDMI 2.1 brings. For me, I want my next set to have fully baked HDMI 2.1, even if there are no HDMI 2.1 devices when I buy it, because I know that those devices are coming, and that I will be using them.

avernar 07-19-2019 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58314658)
There is nothing called future proofing in today's tech world, in 2-3 years native 8k tv's with hdmi 2.1 will become more common, then your c9 would look dated in front of it. hdmi 2.1 has support for 8k 60/120 (which 8k tv's with hdmi 2.1 will be able to do, from a 2.1 gfx card), of course a c9 cant do that. And besides, buying into the first generation implementation of any tech is not something i do.

I'm buying a C9 in two weeks. I want the expanded colour gamut and HDR that I currently don't have. Going from 1080p to 4K is a bonus. Don't really care for 8K and I'm not going to buy a new TV when HDMI 2.1 sources show up in a year (game consoles).

I really don't see a reason to wait as there will always be a something new and improved the year after. I'm biting the bullet this year and it would be silly not to get something without HDMI 2.1 when HDMI 2.1 consoles are around the corner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58314658)
the c9 , according to vincent teoh, is employing a hybrid hdmi 2.1/2.0 solution , it has two chipsets, hdmi 2.1 devices in coming years wont do this , they'll use only a 2.1 chipset.

If it can take and display a HDMI 2.1 signal, what would anyone care if a different chip is handling it?

gutcheck2001 07-19-2019 10:12 AM

rtngs says they prefer the picture of the C9 over the Sony, but just barely. If I were buying a TV now, I would get the LG just because of HDMI 2.1 as long as the picture is on par with Sony. I mean why not? I know it doesn't really offer anything now but in a year or two you don't want to be wishing you had it....

Otto Pylot 07-19-2019 10:36 AM

I would forget about HDMI 2.1 this year. It's all about grabbing sales with the new technology. I would wait until the dust settles, probably next year, before getting too concerned about HDMI 2.1. Even eARC (which and work on HDMI 2.0) is having issues because it's just too new.

Yukon Trooper 07-19-2019 11:23 AM

I have a C9 and A1E currently. The A1E has a better SDR picture to me eye, even on high quality 1080p content. Better motion, better upscaling, better processing, more cinematic colors. Some people may prefer the slightly pushed colors on the LG though.

Unfortunately, my A1E has terrible uniformity. My C9 has really good uniformity, so that's what I'll probably end up keeping.

avernar 07-19-2019 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Pylot (Post 58315112)
I would forget about HDMI 2.1 this year. It's all about grabbing sales with the new technology. I would wait until the dust settles, probably next year, before getting too concerned about HDMI 2.1.

If you're not a gamer I wouldn't worry about HDMI 2.1 on a 4K set at all, now or in the future. But buying an 8K set without it is just dumb.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Pylot (Post 58315112)
Even eARC (which and work on HDMI 2.0) is having issues because it's just too new.

I think being too new has less to do with it than a few manufacturers being incompetent and/or making some stupid design decisions.

Otto Pylot 07-19-2019 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58315448)
If you're not a gamer I wouldn't worry about HDMI 2.1 on a 4K set at all, now or in the future. But buying an 8K set without it is just dumb.

I think being too new has less to do with it than a few manufacturers being incompetent and/or making some stupid design decisions.

All 8k sets will have HDMI 2.1 so that's not an issue. I think it's safe to say that most OLED's sold are to non-hardcore gamers so options like VRR means nothing to them. Too new just points to the rushing of some of the HDMI 2.1 options just to garner sales before they were fully tested in real world setups and not on some QA/QC bench.

avernar 07-19-2019 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Pylot (Post 58316386)
All 8k sets will have HDMI 2.1 so that's not an issue.

Yes, but other than the two new LG ones, all the ones available now don't have it. My point was that 8K and gamers want/need HDMI 2.1 . No need to wait until next year if you're committed to buying a TV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Pylot (Post 58316386)
I think it's safe to say that most OLED's sold are to non-hardcore gamers so options like VRR means nothing to them. Too new just points to the rushing of some of the HDMI 2.1 options just to garner sales before they were fully tested in real world setups and not on some QA/QC bench.

I would not be buying a TV this year if the LGs did not have HDMI 2.1 available. I was disappointed that Sony and Panasonic don't offer it this year. If they loose sales over not including it that's their problem. It's really a chicken and egg issue. If they wait for devices, who are the device manufacturers going to test against?

Even if LG waited until next year, I think they still would have botched eARC. The hardware looks like it works fine. It's the firmware that they've messed up (tying eARC enable to ARC enable, missing EDID info, etc).

bfocussvt 07-19-2019 06:37 PM

Thanks for all the advice. Ended up ordering the A9G from Greentoe.

dabrit 07-19-2019 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58313722)
What source gives 4k 120 fps? And what's the point of hdmi 2.1 right now when there are no hdmi 2.1 source devices like graphics cards or consoles available presently? eARC, vrr and allm (features i dont use) but i can understand the use of these features for some people because a few hdmi 2.0b devices currently available support them, but apart from that what's the use of 2.1 right now?

To me, as a movie watcher (not next gen console or pc gamer), hdmi 2.1 would only be relevant when i look to upgrade to a 8k tv. On a 4k tv i see it as useless. 4k hdr movies are 4k 24hz , 4:2:0 , 10 or 12 bit (10 bit for hdr10 , 12 bit for dolby vision). For this resolution, chroma and bit depth used for 4k hdr movies, hdmi 2.0b is more than enough. hdmi 2.0b can do upto 4k 24hz 4:4:4, 12 bit.

I would imagine PC gamers would be very enthusiastic about HDMI 2.1 as it will allow 4K HDR up to 120fps via HDMI. Also there is a bunch of HFR movies which are produced which are going to try and move the movie scene away from 24fps which is pretty juddery in panning shots. The big thing is with HDMI 2.0 you are capped at 4K HDR 30FPS if you want 4:4:4 chroma. This is no longer the case with HDMI 2.1

avernar 07-20-2019 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabrit (Post 58316912)
I would imagine PC gamers would be very enthusiastic about HDMI 2.1 as it will allow 4K HDR up to 120fps via HDMI.

Don't forget about us console gamers! We outnumber the PC gamers when it comes to using a TV as a display device. :)


I'll be happy with 4K 4:4:4 HDR at 60fps. If the upcoming game consoles could hit 120fps with VRR that would be a bonus.

JD23 07-20-2019 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58318570)
Don't forget about us console gamers! We outnumber the PC gamers when it comes to using a TV as a display device. :)


I'll be happy with 4K 4:4:4 HDR at 60fps. If the upcoming game consoles could hit 120fps with VRR that would be a bonus.


I'd be pretty happy with native 4k/HDR 4:2:0 and a locked frame rate of 60 fps. That is already a massive improvement over the current consoles' capabilities.

avernar 07-20-2019 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD23 (Post 58318754)
I'd be pretty happy with native 4k/HDR 4:2:0 and a locked frame rate of 60 fps. That is already a massive improvement over the current consoles' capabilities.

That can be done using HDMI 2.0 . Since 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 take the same amount of processing power on the console, going to HDMI 2.1 will get us 4:4:4 for “free”.

JD23 07-20-2019 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58318790)
That can be done using HDMI 2.0 . Since 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 take the same amount of processing power on the console, going to HDMI 2.1 will get us 4:4:4 for “free”.


I know, but I only have an HDMI 2.0b TV (I have an A9G). HDMI 2.1 will obviously bring additional benefits, but I think the next-gen consoles will offer a good experience even with the limitations of HDMI 2.0, as the PS4 Pro I have been using for the past few years is not nearly powerful enough to render 4k at a stable 60 fps.

Menarini 07-20-2019 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58316492)
I would not be buying a TV this year if the LGs did not have HDMI 2.1 available. I was disappointed that Sony and Panasonic don't offer it this year. If they loose sales over not including it that's their problem. It's really a chicken and egg issue. If they wait for devices, who are the device manufacturers going to test against?.

I'm not discarding sony or panasonic just because they dont have a fancy hdmi 2.1 feature, and yes i consider hdmi 2.1 a 'fancy feature' right now because no source devices exist on the market. And Panasonic's line of thinking is that hdmi 2.1 is not needed on a 4k tv, it's relevant on 8k tv's. That is the answer their engineers gave at a 2019 tv reveal event this year in asia (when asked by a reporter of the lack of hdmi 2.1).

The c9 can have this fancy feature, and have a prettier looking OS and faster gaming input lag, where the c9 isnt beating a panasonic GZ oled is core picture quality- video processing and OOTB color accuracy. I would take a HCX pro over a alpha 9 gen.2 on monday, friday and twice on sunday.

Menarini 07-20-2019 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabrit (Post 58316912)
I would imagine PC gamers would be very enthusiastic about HDMI 2.1 as it will allow 4K HDR up to 120fps via HDMI. Also there is a bunch of HFR movies which are produced which are going to try and move the movie scene away from 24fps which is pretty juddery in panning shots. The big thing is with HDMI 2.0 you are capped at 4K HDR 30FPS if you want 4:4:4 chroma. This is no longer the case with HDMI 2.1

Where are those HFR 4k120 HDR movies, show me. The current 4k blu ray spec does not even support it. And if they come out with a revised spec in the future, they could run into space issues with triple layered discs, 4k 120hz with good bitrates might well require larger sized discs which dont exist yet.

Cam1977 07-20-2019 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58318998)
I'm not discarding sony or panasonic just because they dont have a fancy hdmi 2.1 feature, and yes i consider hdmi 2.1 a 'fancy feature' right now because no source devices exist on the market. And Panasonic's line of thinking is that hdmi 2.1 is not needed on a 4k tv, it's relevant on 8k tv's. That is the answer their engineers gave at a 2019 tv reveal event this year in asia (when asked by a reporter of the lack of hdmi 2.1).

The c9 can have this fancy feature, and have a prettier looking OS and faster gaming input lag, where the c9 isnt beating a panasonic GZ oled is core picture quality- video processing and OOTB color accuracy. I would take a HCX pro over a alpha 9 gen.2 on monday, friday and twice on sunday.

Man thats such a cool story the member your responding to said he wished it provided that feature...it wasnt a deliberate bash, however too bad Panasonic doesnt sell their product here in the U.S. or we would all abandon are measily piece of crap C9 with its worthless features You dont care about. These are features some folks care about whether you do or not. Fyi the differences between all these Oleds are very small, something you conveniently omit to bellitle the LG. Way to go turning another one of these threads into your personal bashing of the LG:rolleyes:

Menarini 07-20-2019 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58318790)
That can be done using HDMI 2.0 . Since 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 take the same amount of processing power on the console, going to HDMI 2.1 will get us 4:4:4 for “free”.

I have heard 4:2:0 vs 4:4:4 for movies is basically lossless (so movies still get encoded in 4:2:0), but do 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 really take up the same processing power? When i force 4:4:4 from my nvidia graphics card as opposed to 4:2:0, my graphics card shows being pushed harder, using a monitoring software. Why would this be different for consoles and they would use the same processing power, do you have a link for what you said?

avernar 07-20-2019 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58318998)
I'm not discarding sony or panasonic just because they dont have a fancy hdmi 2.1 feature, and yes i consider hdmi 2.1 a 'fancy feature' right now because no source devices exist on the market.

They will exist next year. What do you suggest I do? Buy a Sony or Panasonic now and replace it one year later with a Sony or Panasonic that has HDMI 2.1?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58318998)
And Panasonic's line of thinking is that hdmi 2.1 is not needed on a 4k tv, it's relevant on 8k tv's. That is the answer their engineers gave at a 2019 tv reveal event this year in asia (when asked by a reporter of the lack of hdmi 2.1).

That's what every competitor says when their competition beats them to the market with a feature. "That's not really needed". Heard it a million times before.

I have been waiting to buy a 4K HDR TV for almost 2 years. I am not going to buy a HDMI 2.0 TV. I have a Panasonic plasma. I'm in Canada. I would have more than likely bought a Panasonic OLED if they had HDMI 2.1 available this year. They lost a customer. Making excuses will not win me back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58318998)
The c9 can have this fancy feature, and have a prettier looking OS and faster gaming input lag, where the c9 isnt beating a panasonic GZ oled is core picture quality- video processing and OOTB color accuracy. I would take a HCX pro over a alpha 9 gen.2 on monday, friday and twice on sunday.

I'm a gamer. I will have one and possibly two consoles next year that support HDMI 2.1 input. I will take the TV with the HDMI 2.1 and gaming feature over one with better processing and colour accuracy any day of the week.

Menarini 07-20-2019 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58319200)
They will exist next year. What do you suggest I do? Buy a Sony or Panasonic now and replace it one year later with a Sony or Panasonic that has HDMI 2.1?


That's what every competitor says when their competition beats them to the market with a feature. "That's not really needed". Heard it a million times before.

I have been waiting to buy a 4K HDR TV for almost 2 years. I am not going to buy a HDMI 2.0 TV. I have a Panasonic plasma. I'm in Canada. I would have more than likely bought a Panasonic OLED if they had HDMI 2.1 available this year. They lost a customer. Making excuses will not win me back.


I'm a gamer. I will have one and possibly two consoles next year that support HDMI 2.1 input. I will take the TV with the HDMI 2.1 and gaming feature over one with better processing and colour accuracy any day of the week.

I would have suggested waiting an year or two more, also because i never recommend anyone to hop onto a first generation technoogy or do that myself. c9 according to vincent teoh is using a hybrid 2.1/2.0 solution, future hdmi 2.1 devices wont be like that, they'll only have a 2.1 chipset. And since source devices dont exist yet, we cannot test complete functionality yet. So if i want to test if the c9 works with QMS, how can i test if it does or not, until there is a hdmi 2.1 equipped 4k blu ray player on the market?

To me, hdmi 2.1 will only be relevant when i buy a 8k tv. Suppose i get a hdmi 2.1 graphics card in 2021 and want to output 8k 60hz from it, can i do it on a lg c9 or any 4k tv? The answer is no. So that's not future proofing.

Far as panasonic goes, you may make anything of what they said, but that's what it is. Panasonic will bring out 2.1 with 8k tv's, and panasonic unlike sony and samsung hasnt stepped foot into the 8k market this year. Heck, their GZ950 oled this year has released in a few countries very recently and it doesnt even have eARC. But still the picture quality is getting rave reviews.

If you're a gamer , i can understand you may value the gaming features more, but i just buy these tv's for home theater where image processing and accuracy is key, so i will be looking at a panasonic gz oled before the end of the year, even though i already own an oled. Picture quality will always reign supreme in my books over anything else. That's the way i chose tube tv's and plasmas, that's how i choose tv's now.

avernar 07-20-2019 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319108)
I have heard 4:2:0 vs 4:4:4 for movies is basically lossless (so movies still get encoded in 4:2:0), but do 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 really take up the same processing power? When i force 4:4:4 from my nvidia graphics card as opposed to 4:2:0, my graphics card shows being pushed harder, using a monitoring software. Why would this be different for consoles and they would use the same processing power, do you have a link for what you said?

It's not lossless. They're tossing 75% of the colour information when mastering the movie. That loss is not that noticeable in real life scenes.

Not sure why your graphics card is doing more with 4:4:4. Maybe the made the subsampling part of the texture/shader units. More complicated to do it that way but might have been worth it to them.

On a console you want to keep things simple. On the PS4 the 4:2:0 subsampling I believe is done on the HDMI encoder chip, but don't quote me on that. I also think the screenshots are done 4:4:4/RGB regardless of the output setting.

Menarini 07-20-2019 01:09 PM

Quote:

4:2:0 is almost lossless visually, which is why it can be found used in Blu-ray discs and a lot of modern video cameras. There is virtually no advantage to using 4:4:4 for consuming video content. If anything, it would raise the costs of distribution by far more than its comparative visual impact. This becomes especially true as we move towards 4k and beyond. The higher the resolution and pixel density of future displays, the less apparent subsampling artifacts become.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling

And for the other part, about 4:2:0 vs 4:4:4 processing power on console, i would still like to see a game developer's link stating that choosing 4:4:4 results in virtually no processing overhead.

avernar 07-20-2019 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319258)
I would have suggested waiting an year or two more

Uh, no. I've been missing out on HDR movies and games and you want me to miss out on them for another 2 years? Right. There's a TV with the features I want available now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319258)
also because i never recommend anyone to hop onto a first generation technoogy or do that myself.

Calculated risk. I've waited too long to upgrade my TV so it's worth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319258)
c9 according to vincent teoh is using a hybrid 2.1/2.0 solution, future hdmi 2.1 devices wont be like that, they'll only have a 2.1 chipset.

Again, why does this matter? If it works with a HDMI 2.1 signal I don't really care how many chips it has inside.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319258)
And since source devices dont exist yet, we cannot test complete functionality yet. So if i want to test if the c9 works with QMS, how can i test if it does or not, until there is a hdmi 2.1 equipped 4k blu ray player on the market?

More likely there will be a HDMI 2.1 graphics card or DP to HDMI converter out first. Are you betting that the HDMI 2.1 input on the LG won't work? I think it will. They'd have had to test it on a signal generator so it's going to accept the greater than 18Gbps data rate. That's really the only critical thing that's changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319258)
To me, hdmi 2.1 will only be relevant when i buy a 8k tv. Suppose i get a hdmi 2.1 graphics card in 2021 and want to output 8k 60hz from it, can i do it on a lg c9 or any 4k tv? The answer is no. So that's not future proofing.

I don't care for 8K. I'd only buy an 8K if it were the same price as the equivalent 4K. I'd rather have 4Kp120 than 8Kp60 especially since with HDR you'd have to go 4:2:0 or use DSC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319258)
Far as panasonic goes, you may make anything of what they said, but that's what it is. Panasonic will bring out 2.1 with 8k tv's, and panasonic unlike sony and samsung hasnt stepped foot into the 8k market this year. Heck, their GZ950 oled this year has released in a few countries very recently and it doesnt even have eARC. But still the picture quality is getting rave reviews.

If the PQ crowd is their target market that's fine with me. I'm not part of that market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319258)
If you're a gamer , i can understand you may value the gaming features more, but i just buy these tv's for home theater where image processing and accuracy is key, so i will be looking at a panasonic gz oled before the end of the year, even though i already own an oled. Picture quality will always reign supreme in my books over anything else. That's the way i chose tube tv's and plasmas, that's how i choose tv's now.

I understand your priority is movies. But why are you so against people wanting HDMI 2.1?

avernar 07-20-2019 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319316)

So you give me a link that says what I just wrote? Thanks, I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319316)
And for the other part, about 4:2:0 vs 4:4:4 processing power on console, i would still like to see a game developer's link stating that choosing 4:4:4 results in virtually no processing overhead.

Irrelevant since it doesn't affect FPS. A game developer would not really have any insight into this anyways. That's a Sony/Microsoft/AMD thing.

Traditionally on a console the main chip outputs RGB and the encoder chip(s) convert it to the appropriate output signal. Things may have changed and I'll have to look into it more.

But my point is that it doesn't lower FPS so it's for "free".

Menarini 07-20-2019 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58319342)
Uh, no. I've been missing out on HDR movies and games and you want me to miss out on them for another 2 years? Right. There's a TV with the features I want available now.


Calculated risk. I've waited too long to upgrade my TV so it's worth it.


Again, why does this matter? If it works with a HDMI 2.1 signal I don't really care how many chips it has inside.


More likely there will be a HDMI 2.1 graphics card or DP to HDMI converter out first. Are you betting that the HDMI 2.1 input on the LG won't work? I think it will. They'd have had to test it on a signal generator so it's going to accept the greater than 18Gbps data rate. That's really the only critical thing that's changed.


I don't care for 8K. I'd only buy an 8K if it were the same price as the equivalent 4K. I'd rather have 4Kp120 than 8Kp60 especially since with HDR you'd have to go 4:2:0 or use DSC.


If the PQ crowd is their target market that's fine with me. I'm not part of that market.


I understand your priority is movies. But why are you so against people wanting HDMI 2.1?

So you know you're taking a calculated risk by buying a first generation technology. No im not against people wanting hdmi 2.1, i just advise to wait a couple more years for a more "mature" hdmi 2.1 implementation. hdmi 2.1 tv's arent going anywhere in the future, there'll be a lot more options in the coming years. I would rather recommend someone to get a 2021 lg c11 with hdmi 2.1 than get a c9 with a first generation, 'beta' version of hdmi 2.1, the majority of whose features cannot be tested right now because source devices dont exist. I asked you does QMS work with the c9, nobody has a way to confirm it yet.
Also the downside of hdmi 2.1 on a 4k tv is that you cannot use the resolution upgrade that hdmi 2.1 offers. 8k60 can work without DSC on 2.1, you'd need DSC for 8k 120hz. Regardless, a 4k tv with 2.1 cannot support any 8k resolution irrespective of the refresh rate. I would like that functionality, to be able to output 8k from a future hdmi 2.1 graphics card.

As for the part about panasonic, im sure you know the PQ crowd has always been panasonic's target market, it isn't anything new. And I like that they are keeping it that way.

avernar 07-20-2019 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319406)
So you know you're taking a calculated risk by buying a first generation technology. No im not against people wanting hdmi 2.1, i just advise to wait a couple more years for a more "mature" hdmi 2.1 implementation. hdmi 2.1 tv's arent going anywhere in the future, there'll be a lot more options in the coming years. I would rather recommend someone to get a 2021 lg c11 with hdmi 2.1 than get a c9 with a first generation, 'beta' version of hdmi 2.1, the majority of whose features cannot be tested right now because source devices dont exist. I asked you does QMS work with the c9, nobody has a way to confirm it yet.

QMS is a nice to have. No big loss to me if it doesn't work. As long as it takes 4Kp120 4:4:4 HDR I'll be happy. Otherwise LG swaps the board out or I return it as defective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319406)
Also the downside of hdmi 2.1 on a 4k tv is that you cannot use the resolution upgrade that hdmi 2.1 offers. 8k60 can work without DSC on 2.1, you'd need DSC for 8k 120hz. Regardless, a 4k tv with 2.1 cannot support any 8k resolution irrespective of the refresh rate. I would like that functionality, to be able to output 8k from a future hdmi 2.1 graphics card.

I'm buying a 4K TV because I want the expanded colour gamut and HDR. I'm not buying it to use ever HDMI 2.1 feature available. I don't want 8K now. Too expensive and the content is not available yet. In 5-7 years when I buy a new TV then 8K will possibly be relevant to me. You're suggested I wait years for 4K HDR. I'll take your advice but with 8K.

As I said, you can do 8Kp60 HDR at 4:2:0 but not at 4:4:4 without DSC. I really don't want to debate if that's worth it or not. But I already said I'd rather have 4Kp120 than 8Kp60 for games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319406)
As for the part about panasonic, im sure you know the PQ crowd has always been panasonic's target market, it isn't anything new. And I like that they are keeping it that way.

I don't. I'd rather they include the PQ and gaming markets. But it's their choice and it's my choice not to buy from them.

Menarini 07-20-2019 02:14 PM

^I'd rather have a full tested implementation of hdmi 2.1 where i know all the new individual features , such as QMS, work. And that's why i choose (and advise others) to not immediately hop onto a first generation technology and rather wait 2-3 years before making the jump to a more mature and tested implementation when source devices are around. But again if you are willing to risk it and dont mind if a 'few' 2.1 features dont end up working on the c9, then so be it.
And our perspectives in how we are looking at this are different, in that you are looking from a gaming angle, i'm not. 4:4:4 with 8k is not needed for movies, (though you will still be able to display it with compression on a 8k 2.1 tv, on a 4k tv you cannot display 8k at any refresh rate or chroma).
Lastly you may have never bought panasonic's plasmas or not been around during the plasma days, if you say you don't know that panasonic targets the PQ/home theater crowd. Their plasmas like the ZT60/VT30 were aimed at the PQ crowd, and now with oleds, they are keeping the same trajectory. If you dont care about stuff like video processing, colorimetry and color accuracy, motion..then you are in the wrong place to be even considering panasonic. there are many other options for people whose primary thing is gaming and to whom accuracy is just an afterthought.
Good luck with your lg c9 gaming i guess and be prepared for some 'gotcha' moments in the future when 2.1 source devices become available and you learn that some hdmi 2.1 feature doesnt behave on the c9 the way it should.

avernar 07-20-2019 02:52 PM

That's not condescending at all. Panasonic is too good for me, eh? :rolleyes:

If you've bothered to read what I wrote I said I currently own a Panasonic plasma. A P60GT50 to be precise and professionally calibrated. I do care about PQ. Which is why the fact that I'm missing out on some of the bigger advances in PQ (HDR and Rec 2020) is driving me crazy. While PQ is high up there in my priorities, the minor PQ improvement that Panasonic made on LGD's panel is not worth the lack of HDMI 2.1 .

As for HDMI 2.1 features, VRR and ALLM work. QMS is a nice to have but don't care too much about it. QFT is also nice to have. We know they made some stupid decisions regarding eARC but an HDMI 2.1 AVR can make eARC unnecessary if they for some reason can't correct it via firmware. All that leaves is 48Gbps which I seriously doubt they screwed up.

Again, many people including myself do not care about 8K. I personally do not believe that in the next few years the 8K OLEDs will reach the price of 4K OLEDs so no point in waiting for that.

So despite your anti-early adopter position, I will be future proofing myself.

Menarini 07-20-2019 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58319700)
That's not condescending at all. Panasonic is too good for me, eh? :rolleyes:

If you've bothered to read what I wrote I said I currently own a Panasonic plasma. A P60GT50 to be precise and professionally calibrated. I do care about PQ. Which is why the fact that I'm missing out on some of the bigger advances in PQ (HDR and Rec 2020) is driving me crazy. While PQ is high up there in my priorities, the minor PQ improvement that Panasonic made on LGD's panel is not worth the lack of HDMI 2.1 .

As for HDMI 2.1 features, VRR and ALLM work. QMS is a nice to have but don't care too much about it. QFT is also nice to have. We know they made some stupid decisions regarding eARC but an HDMI 2.1 AVR can make eARC unnecessary if they for some reason can't correct it via firmware. All that leaves is 48Gbps which I seriously doubt they screwed up.

Again, many people including myself do not care about 8K. I personally do not believe that in the next few years the 8K OLEDs will reach the price of 4K OLEDs so no point in waiting for that.

So despite your anti-early adopter position, I will be future proofing myself.

It is a fact that panasonic's priority is picture quality and accuracy and not input lags or other gaming oriented features. They target the PQ/home theater crowd, not the xbox crowd, there are no two ways about it. If you used a panasonic plasma, you should be knowing that. And i did not say panasonic is 'too good ' for you, i said panasonic doesn't make tv's with gaming as a priority and you're a gamer, so there are other choices more suited to you than panasonic.

VRR and ALLM work on some hdmi 2.0b tv's too, like the high end samsung qleds. But the point with this first gen. hdmi 2.1/hdmi 2.0 hybrid solution that lg is using on c9 , we cannot confirm by testing that all the individual features (i gave QMS as an example only) work on the c9 because there are no source devices to test and confirm. Which is why to be on the safer side, it's a better idea to be investing into hdmi 2.1 two or three years later , when source devices are easily available to test all the features. But like you admitted, you are taking a 'calculated risk'.

And i have an anti early adopter policy on any technology or hardware, i will not be buying first gen hdmi 2.1 AVP's either. And again, i told you i dont see 2.1 on a 4k tv as future proofing. In a couple of years, 8k tv's will be available in larger numbers than now (8k already stepped foot into the market this year), then a 4k tv with 2.1 would look dated next to it.

And the advances panasonic made with the panel do matter to movie enthusiasts more than a connectivity feature for which source devices dont exist yet. To you it may not. But then again, you prioritize gaming. I and many others don't, dont feel like blowing up nerds on xbox live in call of duty is cool anymore. Still love retro gaming consoles though, for which an hdmi connection is redundant.

Edit: And just to touch upon this 'I do not care about 8k' , there is a trend here. Virtually every generation people say the same just when a new resolution is headed to the market, in 2015 many people were like '4k does not matter', in 2006 it was 'i dont care about 1080p'. But eventually, everybody gets on board. All the 8k naysayers right now eventually will be adopting 8k. This plays out the same every generation.

avernar 07-20-2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319810)
It is a fact that panasonic's priority is picture quality and accuracy and not input lags or other gaming oriented features. They target the PQ/home theater crowd, not the xbox crowd, there are no two ways about it. If you used a panasonic plasma, you should be knowing that. And i did not say panasonic is 'too good ' for you, i said panasonic doesn't make tv with gaming as a priority and you're a gsmer, so there are other choices more suited to you than panasonic.

Having gaming features and great PQ are not mutually exclusive. I said I have a Panasonic plasma. And surprise surprise, it has a game mode.

Sony and Panasonic goofed. They both thought the other two big OLED manufacturers would not have HDMI 2.1 ready this year. They were half right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319810)
VRR and ALLM work on some hdmi 2.0b tv's too, like the high end samsung qleds. But the point with this first gen. hdmi 2.1/hdmi 2.0 hybrid solution that lg is using on c9 , we cannot confirm by testing that all the individual features (i gave QMS as an example only) work on the c9 because there are no source devices to test and confirm. Which is why to be on the safer side, it's a better idea to be investing into hdmi 2.1 two or three years later , when source devices are easily available to test all the features. But like you admitted, you are taking a 'calculated risk'.

Yes, you are risk averse with technology. You just don't realize that that's a minority position around here. Again you've failed to answer my question on why a hybrid solution is bad. Sigh. I'll chalk that one up to you just using it as FUD.

So I've told you that I want 4K, SDR and Rec 2020 with HDMI 2.1 as a nice to have and your advice is to wait 2-3 years until HDMI 2.1 is "perfected". Uh huh. Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319810)
And i have an anti early adopter policy on any technology not just hdmi 2.1, i will not be buying first gen hdmi 2.1 AVP's either. And again, i told you i dont see 2.1 on a 4k tv as future proofing. In a couple of years, 8k tv's will be available in larger numbers than now (8k already stepped foot into the market this year), then a 4k tv with 2.1 would look dated next to it. I would consider a 8k tv with 2.1 as future proof, one that would allow me to make use of the 8k resolution that hdmi 2.1 allows.

My 4K TV playing 4K content is going to look "dated" next to an 8K TV playing 4K content? You and I have different ideas on how much 8K content is going to be available in a couple of years.

Anyone buying an expensive 4K TV now has implicitly made it clear that they don't care about 8K for the next 4-6 years. You still fail to understand that what one person considers future proof and what another person considers future proof can be two entirely different things depending on what features they actually care for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319810)
And the advances panasonic made with the panel do matter to movie enthusiasts more than a connectivity feature for which source devices dont exist yet. To you it may not. But then again, you prioritize gaming. I and many others don't, dont feel like blowing up nerds on xbox live in call of duty is cool anymore. Still love retro gaming consoles though, for which an hdmi connection is redundant.

I have made it perfectly clear that if you don't care for gaming then you don't need HDMI 2.1 on a 4K TV. For gamers who are purchasing a TV now, getting one with HDMI 2.1 is future proofing for them. It will let them use the new features of the consoles coming out next year.

But for those of us who like movies and games, Panasonic's calculated decision or lack of foresight (I favour the latter possibility) is a big disappointment. Your argument that they can't do great PQ and add gaming features simultaneously is flat out wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58319810)
Edit: And just to touch upon this 'I do not care about 8k' , there is a trend here. Virtually every generation people say the same just when a new resolution is headed to the market, in 2015 many people were like '4k does not matter', in 2006 it was 'i dont care about 1080p'. But eventually, everybody gets on board. All the 8k naysayers right now eventually will be adopting 8k. This plays out the same every generation.

Yeah, I've heard that before. But we're getting into diminishing returns here. But I do think that 4K does not matter as much as people thing it does. If we took two identical TVs with HDR, Rec 2020, low black levels, etc. but one 1080P and one 4K, I think people would buy the 1080P if there was a decent price difference. Same with 8K, it's the price that really matters. Get the prices close enough and people will get the 8K because "8K is more than 4K".

People buying 4K TVs now, including myself, believe that there will not be a significant ammount of 8K content up to the time of their next TV purchase.

Menarini 07-20-2019 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avernar (Post 58319946)
Having gaming features and great PQ are not mutually exclusive. I said I have a Panasonic plasma. And surprise surprise, it has a game mode.

Sony and Panasonic goofed. They both thought the other two big OLED manufacturers would not have HDMI 2.1 ready this year. They were half right.


Yes, you are risk averse with technology. You just don't realize that that's a minority position around here. Again you've failed to answer my question on why a hybrid solution is bad. Sigh. I'll chalk that one up to you just using it as FUD.

So I've told you that I want 4K, SDR and Rec 2020 with HDMI 2.1 as a nice to have and your advice is to wait 2-3 years until HDMI 2.1 is "perfected". Uh huh. Right.


My 4K TV playing 4K content is going to look "dated" next to an 8K TV playing 4K content? You and I have different ideas on how much 8K content is going to be available in a couple of years.

Anyone buying an expensive 4K TV now has implicitly made it clear that they don't care about 8K for the next 4-6 years. You still fail to understand that what one person considers future proof and what another person considers future proof can be two entirely different things depending on what features they actually care for.


I have made it perfectly clear that if you don't care for gaming then you don't need HDMI 2.1 on a 4K TV. For gamers who are purchasing a TV now, getting one with HDMI 2.1 is future proofing for them. It will let them use the new features of the consoles coming out next year.

But for those of us who like movies and games, Panasonic's calculated decision or lack of foresight (I favour the latter possibility) is a big disappointment. Your argument that they can't do great PQ and add gaming features simultaneously is flat out wrong.

LOL then why are you having this elongated discussion with me? I told you, gaming isn't my concern, i would never touch an xbox, i have no plans to buy a future ps5 and have never been a pc gamer. i only do retro gaming and emulators on pc. My priority is movie watching, i have a dedicated room. And for that hdmi 2.0b is more than enough, simply because movies are 4k 24hz , 4:2:0 10/12 bit and hdmi 2.0b can handle upto 4k 24hz 4:4:4:4 12 bit.

And as for panasonic, just because they don't have hdmi 2.1, they have a 'lack of foresight'? Well then all manufacturers except lg according to you must have a lack of foresight :rolleyes: No manufacturer except lg has 2.1 on their 4k tv's, are you going to blame all of them? And secondly, like i told you panasonic's stance is that 2.1 is not needed on a 4k tv, you will not see 2.1 on their 4k tv's, only when they do 8k tv's. If you dont like it, then stop complaining and dont buy their products. They still sell enough among the home theater crowd. Non gamers outnumber gamers anyway.

And yes your 4k tv in terms of technology will look dated to a hdmi 2.1 equipped 8k tv which will be able to do 8k resolution from a hdmi 2.1 graphics card, while your 4k tv cannot. Your 4k tv with hdmi 2.1 misses out on the resolution upgrade that hdmi 2.1 offers, you are still stuck on 4k resolution with a hdmi 2.1 equipped 4k tv, all you get is a chroma and refresh rate boost over 2.0. Meh. Half baked upgrade is how i'd put it.

And i did not say a hybrid solution is bad, i said we do not have any source devices around to test yet whether all the hdmi 2.1 features work like they should or there are some of the 'gotcha' implementations, all you as an early adopter have right now is optimism rather than confirmation to bank upon ;)

avernar 07-20-2019 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58320010)
LOL then why are you having this elongated discussion with me?

Takes two to tango. You're the one that continued the discussion when I wrote my reasons for buying the C9.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarini (Post 58320010)
Same old. Same old.

I'm getting off this merry go round. Have a nice day.

Menarini 07-20-2019 04:51 PM

Have a nice weekend. I did make it clear in one of my earlier posts that our perspectives are different, im not looking at this from a gaming POV while you are. seems you missed that part. But nvm though, enjoy your c9 and xbox.

gorman42 07-20-2019 04:57 PM

Sweet jeebus... didn’t realize AVS had arrived to this level of trolling being allowed.

@avernar , enjoy your set for the next three years and ignore naysayers. People can basically claim anything if all they care is trolling.

avernar 07-20-2019 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman42 (Post 58320120)
@avernar , enjoy your set for the next three years and ignore naysayers. People can basically claim anything if all they care is trolling.

I'm hoping for 5 years. We'll see what the state of OLED and MicroLED are at that point.



I wouldn't call that trolling. Just a very strong and stubborn opinion on what others should be doing. :D

Cam1977 07-20-2019 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman42 (Post 58320120)
Sweet jeebus... didn’t realize AVS had arrived to this level of trolling being allowed.

@avernar , enjoy your set for the next three years and ignore naysayers. People can basically claim anything if all they care is trolling.

Yup...thats all that member does, its almost like clockwork especially when their are comparisons being made.

Viking 29 07-21-2019 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cam1977 (Post 58320292)
Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman42 (Post 58320120)
Sweet jeebus... didn’️t realize AVS had arrived to this level of trolling being allowed.

@avernar , enjoy your set for the next three years and ignore naysayers. People can basically claim anything if all they care is trolling.

Yup...thats all that member does, its almost like clockwork especially when their are comparisons being made.

If everyone went by certain people's standards nobody would ever by a TV! Why? Because there are improvements made almost every year! Also to say that the C9 will look outdated in a couple years is absurdly laughable. My C8 will look great for years to come as long as it's working as it should. My B6 still looks great with HD content. My 2008 FALD Samsung set looked better than the "LED" lcds for years and years. The hyperbole is out of control around here sometimes.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.