Originally Posted by DejaVue
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Skippy722 said:
Upgrade to 4K UHD, Why?
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Samsung handles upscaling really well. I didn't realize it but I have some old shows on my Plex Server and I stream them to our 4K Samsung and they look quite good. Well I was at my folks and was streaming it to their 1080p TV that doesn't really have a good upscaler (old sharp) and it was horrible.
duplicate
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by HangFire
4K is pointless if you're using typical highly compressed cable TV for content delivery.
When I put up antenna's to get broadcast HDTV, I was stunned at the difference between 1080p broadcast and 1080p Comcast/Xfinity, switching back and forth on the same programming.
Just like the Color TV and HDTV transitions, it will be a while before a lot of content is available in the new format, and that truly takes advantage of the new format. But if you're using Cable for your content, it may say 4K, but the compression will kill the detail.
The ATSC OTA HD broadcast standard is 1080i (or 720p), not 1080p. All network HD programs are recorded and/or transmitted in either 1080i or 720p and that is the resolution you will get, regardless of the source. On-line streaming videos that "advertise" 1080p aren't really even true 1080p because they are so compressed, and this includes modern digital cable and satellite TV. You can only get true 1080p from a blu-ray player playing a blu-ray disc. Compare the picture from a 1080p blu-ray source to a 1080p picture from ANY other source and you will see what I mean.
Forget about compressed streaming 4k content being any better than true 1080p content. Personally, I just don't see any difference. IMO the only advantage that I can see from a 4k UHD TV is that the display has a LOT more pixels so it is not as grainy. This is definitely advantageous on the bigger screens and does display an improved 1080p picture.
Ugh, its early morning here .. .let me try this one more time, I agree with the posts above ... and also with hangfire's comments on OTA broadcast TV.
FREE Broadcast TV/over the air also know as OTA is superior to any PAY 1080p TV picture.
We knew this gosh almost something like 7 years ago when we cut the cable.
ANY pay TV service compresses their signals in order to squeeze through as many channels as they can within the bandwith that they have available to them, doesnt matter if its cable or Satellite. They compress it enough so most of the public doesnt notice it, until joe public one day looks at a free OTA picture. The difference is almost night and day.
720p or 1080 over the air is much better then 1080 pay TV, Our new Sony 65 inch will upconvert to 4 K and some of the free OTA programs almost look 3D with the clarity and detail.
AS far as 4K streaming, its very good too but again, any streaming content will be compressed and I havent seen enough 4K Blu Ray movies to directly compare, wish they were easy to rent. Anyway in my thoughts, 4K Blu is the standard to beat, next would come OTA, 4k streaming and 1080 streaming in that order. All good but you can see a difference.
Originally Posted by HangFire
4K is pointless if you're using typical highly compressed cable TV for content delivery.
When I put up antenna's to get broadcast HDTV, I was stunned at the difference between 1080p broadcast and 1080p Comcast/Xfinity, switching back and forth on the same programming.
Just like the Color TV and HDTV transitions, it will be a while before a lot of content is available in the new format, and that truly takes advantage of the new format. But if you're using Cable for your content, it may say 4K, but the compression will kill the detail.
The ATSC OTA HD broadcast standard is 1080i (or 720p), not 1080p. All network HD programs are recorded and/or transmitted in either 1080i or 720p and that is the resolution you will get, regardless of the source. On-line streaming videos that "advertise" 1080p aren't really even true 1080p because they are so compressed, and this includes modern digital cable and satellite TV. You can only get true 1080p from a blu-ray player playing a blu-ray disc. Compare the picture from a 1080p blu-ray source to a 1080p picture from ANY other source and you will see what I mean.
Forget about compressed streaming 4k content being any better than true 1080p content. Personally, I just don't see any difference. IMO the only advantage that I can see from a 4k UHD TV is that the display has a LOT more pixels so it is not as grainy. This is definitely advantageous on the bigger screens and does display an improved 1080p picture.
Ugh, its early morning here .. .let me try this one more time, I agree with the posts above ... and also with hangfire's comments on OTA broadcast TV.
FREE Broadcast TV/over the air also know as OTA is superior to any PAY 1080p TV picture.
We knew this gosh almost something like 7 years ago when we cut the cable.
ANY pay TV service compresses their signals in order to squeeze through as many channels as they can within the bandwith that they have available to them, doesnt matter if its cable or Satellite. They compress it enough so most of the public doesnt notice it, until joe public one day looks at a free OTA picture. The difference is almost night and day.
720p or 1080 over the air is much better then 1080 pay TV, Our new Sony 65 inch will upconvert to 4 K and some of the free OTA programs almost look 3D with the clarity and detail.
AS far as 4K streaming, its very good too but again, any streaming content will be compressed and I havent seen enough 4K Blu Ray movies to directly compare, wish they were easy to rent. Anyway in my thoughts, 4K Blu is the standard to beat, next would come OTA, 4k streaming and 1080 streaming in that order. All good but you can see a difference.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Anyway in my thoughts, 4K Blu is the standard to beat, next would come OTA, 4k streaming and 1080 streaming in that order. All good but you can see a difference.
I agree, except that you forgot 1080p blu-ray. I would put it between 4k blu-ray and OTA.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard. IMO, one should not invest big money in anything until it is fully adopted. We should see this in the next 3 to 4 years.
Anyway in my thoughts, 4K Blu is the standard to beat, next would come OTA, 4k streaming and 1080 streaming in that order. All good but you can see a difference.
I agree, except that you forgot 1080p blu-ray. I would put it between 4k blu-ray and OTA.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard. IMO, one should not invest big money in anything until it is fully adopted. We should see this in the next 3 to 4 years.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
I like that Sony alarmguy! But I can't afford the 65 and may settle for the 55".
I was about to buy a 65" VIzio. But not a single model has a 3.5 corded headphones jack on it...... Bummer!
I was about to buy a 65" VIzio. But not a single model has a 3.5 corded headphones jack on it...... Bummer!
Originally Posted by alarmguy
ANY pay TV service compresses their signals in order to squeeze through as many channels as they can within the bandwith that they have available to them, doesnt matter if its cable or Satellite. They compress it enough so most of the public doesnt notice it, until joe public one day looks at a free OTA picture.
Around here, the remaining OTA channel was interlaced MPEG-2, which needs far more bandwidth to produce the same picture quality as newer compression algorithms. I don't even have an antenna any more, so I don't know whether they've switched to something more modern.
That said, Netflix on our TV generally has far less compression artifacts than when I watch cable at a friend's place. So maybe they are compressing it much more than they should be.
ANY pay TV service compresses their signals in order to squeeze through as many channels as they can within the bandwith that they have available to them, doesnt matter if its cable or Satellite. They compress it enough so most of the public doesnt notice it, until joe public one day looks at a free OTA picture.
Around here, the remaining OTA channel was interlaced MPEG-2, which needs far more bandwidth to produce the same picture quality as newer compression algorithms. I don't even have an antenna any more, so I don't know whether they've switched to something more modern.
That said, Netflix on our TV generally has far less compression artifacts than when I watch cable at a friend's place. So maybe they are compressing it much more than they should be.
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Anyway in my thoughts, 4K Blu is the standard to beat, next would come OTA, 4k streaming and 1080 streaming in that order. All good but you can see a difference.
I agree, except that you forgot 1080p blu-ray. I would put it between 4k blu-ray and OTA.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard. IMO, one should not invest big money in anything until it is fully adopted. We should see this in the next 3 to 4 years.
Ugh, your right! I forgot Blu-ray, absolutely, right in that order. We watch a Blu-ray Redbox almost every weekend, wish they would get 4k Blu-rays to rent.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Anyway in my thoughts, 4K Blu is the standard to beat, next would come OTA, 4k streaming and 1080 streaming in that order. All good but you can see a difference.
I agree, except that you forgot 1080p blu-ray. I would put it between 4k blu-ray and OTA.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard. IMO, one should not invest big money in anything until it is fully adopted. We should see this in the next 3 to 4 years.
Ugh, your right! I forgot Blu-ray, absolutely, right in that order. We watch a Blu-ray Redbox almost every weekend, wish they would get 4k Blu-rays to rent.
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
I like that Sony alarmguy! But I can't afford the 65 and may settle for the 55".
I was about to buy a 65" VIzio. But not a single model has a 3.5 corded headphones jack on it...... Bummer!
I would check out the TCL 6 series around 1k for a 65. But honestly with research you should be able to find a set that makes you happy in the 65 inch range, There are many models under 1k and I am sure I would be tempted on a 65 over a 55 even if it meant a lower level set.
I was read to buy a 65 inch TCL 6 series for 1k ... wife was hoping for the Sony which I am glad I did, one thing and only one thing that bothered me with the TCL is Roku remote. Meaning I was unsure if it was possible to use the TV as just a TV and not have to have Roku interfering in my life.
We have 4 Roku players in our house that connect to the TVs but I dont want the TV controlled by a built in Roku,. Anyway, never got that far, wife and I watch and enjoy our weekend movies so the difference in price was justifiable but I know for sure I could be happy with something for much less money too.
I like that Sony alarmguy! But I can't afford the 65 and may settle for the 55".
I was about to buy a 65" VIzio. But not a single model has a 3.5 corded headphones jack on it...... Bummer!
I would check out the TCL 6 series around 1k for a 65. But honestly with research you should be able to find a set that makes you happy in the 65 inch range, There are many models under 1k and I am sure I would be tempted on a 65 over a 55 even if it meant a lower level set.
I was read to buy a 65 inch TCL 6 series for 1k ... wife was hoping for the Sony which I am glad I did, one thing and only one thing that bothered me with the TCL is Roku remote. Meaning I was unsure if it was possible to use the TV as just a TV and not have to have Roku interfering in my life.
We have 4 Roku players in our house that connect to the TVs but I dont want the TV controlled by a built in Roku,. Anyway, never got that far, wife and I watch and enjoy our weekend movies so the difference in price was justifiable but I know for sure I could be happy with something for much less money too.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
I looked at TCL and Hisense in the $500-$700 range. Both were eliminated when I discovered that when I stand back around 8-10 feet and move 45 degrees to my left or right, the vivid picture becomes cloudy. It's crystal-clear standing in front of those TVs. But not off to the sides.
My recliner-rocker is about 45 degrees-left of where my current TV points at. I gotta have a more vivid picture at that recliner-angle. My 2-seat sofa is to the right-side of our current TV. It's also 45 degrees, but to the right. The only seating space directly in front of our current TV is our three-seater couch and I hardly ever sit there watching TV. My wife and grand-kid sprawl out there.
My recliner-rocker is about 45 degrees-left of where my current TV points at. I gotta have a more vivid picture at that recliner-angle. My 2-seat sofa is to the right-side of our current TV. It's also 45 degrees, but to the right. The only seating space directly in front of our current TV is our three-seater couch and I hardly ever sit there watching TV. My wife and grand-kid sprawl out there.
That's a good point... Our two couches face each other with the TV perpendicular to the couches and if I'm standing in the kitchen where I can see the TV in a straight line from me I notice it's much clearer.
I forgot to mention that, we always made sure to get TVs with good viewing angles. Normally there is not much to worry about with the more expensive midrange models ex. 65 inch @ $1,500.
But I am sure you need to be more careful in the lower price. But those numbers are normally available in reviews and I expect the TL6 series would be fine.
Its important to note we are talking TL6 which is the $1000.00 65 inch TCL. Not the $500.00 one.
Im sure there are other good ones too, if looking in the lower price ranges I still think anyone would be fine with almost anything but just my opinion.
A safe bet for sure, if you can swing it, would be a midrange price of $1,500.00 or so for a 65 Inch.
As you read the Sony F900X and I am sure there are good ones from LG, Samsung and Vizio. Again, always research and read reviews so you get the best value for features tath are important to you.
I would try to skip features such as APPs like Roku, google crap, etc. I would like to repeat, I think, if not in your budget, you dont have to spend $1,500 on a 65 inch TV, I am convinced the viewing angle would still be acceptable, maybe not perfect but better then what you have, even on a $700. 65 inch.
Of Course, yes, IN looking at the midrage price of 1500.00 for a 65 inch for the Sony, you very well may still super enjoy the 55inch Model at $1000.00. Nothing wrong with that thinking at all.
The Sony comes with Android TV and I did not allow the TV to install it, I refused everything and I skipped the Wi-fi set up. I want my TV for myself, I did not buy it for companies to send me advertisements, track me, record me or control what I see.
I hook up separate devices and I control what takes place with teh TV. Hooked up 4K Roku Player, Sony 4K Blu Ray player, Channel Master DVR+ for OTA.
The Sony is awesome.
But I am sure you need to be more careful in the lower price. But those numbers are normally available in reviews and I expect the TL6 series would be fine.
Its important to note we are talking TL6 which is the $1000.00 65 inch TCL. Not the $500.00 one.
Im sure there are other good ones too, if looking in the lower price ranges I still think anyone would be fine with almost anything but just my opinion.
A safe bet for sure, if you can swing it, would be a midrange price of $1,500.00 or so for a 65 Inch.
As you read the Sony F900X and I am sure there are good ones from LG, Samsung and Vizio. Again, always research and read reviews so you get the best value for features tath are important to you.
I would try to skip features such as APPs like Roku, google crap, etc. I would like to repeat, I think, if not in your budget, you dont have to spend $1,500 on a 65 inch TV, I am convinced the viewing angle would still be acceptable, maybe not perfect but better then what you have, even on a $700. 65 inch.
Of Course, yes, IN looking at the midrage price of 1500.00 for a 65 inch for the Sony, you very well may still super enjoy the 55inch Model at $1000.00. Nothing wrong with that thinking at all.
The Sony comes with Android TV and I did not allow the TV to install it, I refused everything and I skipped the Wi-fi set up. I want my TV for myself, I did not buy it for companies to send me advertisements, track me, record me or control what I see.
I hook up separate devices and I control what takes place with teh TV. Hooked up 4K Roku Player, Sony 4K Blu Ray player, Channel Master DVR+ for OTA.
The Sony is awesome.
Last edited:
Personally, I wouldn't invest $1500 on a new TV when ATSC 3.0 is on the near horizon. One should be able to find an acceptable TV available for 1/3 to 1/2 of this price. ATSC 3.0 will revolutionize TV and is going to eventually replace the current ATSC 1.0 OTA broadcast standard. There won't be backwards compatibility. When ATSC 3.0 is fully implemented, current TVs will need an external tuner/converter box in order to receive an OTA signal (like NTSC TVs needed 10 years ago). ATSC 3.0 should begin in the US in about 2 to 3 years, which is not that far off. For the first 2 or 3 years, ATSC 3.0 broadcasters will be likely be broadcasting ATSC 1.0 signals simultaneously, but eventually the ATSC 1.0 signals will disappear entirely. Samsung and LG are already selling ATSC 3.0 TVs in Korea. Dual tuner TVs and external tuners/converters are expected to be available in the US by next year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
I am real close to purchasing the 65" Sony 850, which was recommended by a couple members here. BestBuy has it for 999.99 today.
What's holding me back is..... I have never purchased a living room TV, while the current one still works great.
BTW - that current one is a eight year-old 42" 1080P Sharp
Having a new one that's significantly bigger, with Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix available on it - plus the capacity for internet on it - plus it's Android based, which my wife and I both have with our phones. Makes me want to run over to Best Buy this very minute....lol
What's holding me back is..... I have never purchased a living room TV, while the current one still works great.
BTW - that current one is a eight year-old 42" 1080P Sharp
Having a new one that's significantly bigger, with Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix available on it - plus the capacity for internet on it - plus it's Android based, which my wife and I both have with our phones. Makes me want to run over to Best Buy this very minute....lol
I'm still enjoying my 2 2010 Samsung LCDs...a 46 inch 1080p and a 32 inch 720p. There is nothing about them that makes me dissatisfied in any way and as long as my only source is Spectrum's 1080i/720p there is no reason for me to change. Nothing that I have seen in the store makes me anxious to have a new tv.
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
I am real close to purchasing the 65" Sony 850, which was recommended by a couple members here. BestBuy has it for 999.99 today.
What's holding me back is..... I have never purchased a living room TV, while the current one still works great.
BTW - that current one is a eight year-old 42" 1080P Sharp
Having a new one that's significantly bigger, with Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix available on it - plus the capacity for internet on it - plus it's Android based, which my wife and I both have with our phones. Makes me want to run over to Best Buy this very minute....lol
If you can afford the TV go for it.
What great upgrade,a quantum leap.
I am real close to purchasing the 65" Sony 850, which was recommended by a couple members here. BestBuy has it for 999.99 today.
What's holding me back is..... I have never purchased a living room TV, while the current one still works great.
BTW - that current one is a eight year-old 42" 1080P Sharp
Having a new one that's significantly bigger, with Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix available on it - plus the capacity for internet on it - plus it's Android based, which my wife and I both have with our phones. Makes me want to run over to Best Buy this very minute....lol
If you can afford the TV go for it.
What great upgrade,a quantum leap.
Originally Posted by wag123
Personally, I wouldn't invest $1500 on a new TV when ATSC 3.0 is on the near horizon. One should be able to find an acceptable TV available for 1/3 to 1/2 of this price. ATSC 3.0 will revolutionize TV and is going to eventually replace the current ATSC 1.0 OTA broadcast standard. There won't be backwards compatibility. When ATSC 3.0 is fully implemented, current TVs will need an external tuner/converter box in order to receive an OTA signal (like NTSC TVs needed 10 years ago). ATSC 3.0 should begin in the US in about 2 to 3 years, which is not that far off. For the first 2 or 3 years, ATSC 3.0 broadcasters will be likely be broadcasting ATSC 1.0 signals simultaneously, but eventually the ATSC 1.0 signals will disappear entirely. Samsung and LG are already selling ATSC 3.0 TVs in Korea. Dual tuner TVs and external tuners/converters are expected to be available in the US by next year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0
1. For the benefit of others this isnt accurate. NO TV will be need to upgrade as ATSC 3.0 is not a mandatory standard, strictly optional standard that will be fully backward compatible with current TV tuners, so if broadcasters want to spend huge amounts of money upgrading to a voluntary standard which means, much like 3d TV it might be dead before it even starts.
Translated = there is no plans to replace the current TV standard.
2. Some people do not think $1,500 for a TV is expensive and again certainly not wait for a non mandatory TV standard that may or may not come out over time and if it does, its strictly voulantary and must be comparable with the 1.0.
I dont use the TV tuner in my Sony x900f because I have a Channel Master DVR+ plugged into a HDMI port.
The Channel Master with its own 2 tuners gives you exactly the same experience as a pay TV box with complete program guide and recording. So I dont need the TV tuner and in a decade, if the government finally makes the ATSC 3.0 mandatory (which they wont) I wont need a new TV, simply replace the current Channel Master Box that I use and if I dont replace it, it will still keep working anyway. Also in ten years I will have a new TV by then.
I do not think Channel Master is making the box anymore but Tivo does, bought my son and his wife one, better, then awesome = means it acts exactly like a pay TV box only you dont pay.
OTA recorder and schedule
3. As far as one should be able to find an acceptable TV for 1/3 to 1/2 the price, I agree, absolutely you can find an acceptable TV for much less, however, your promoting putting off the purchase of a TV because of a new ATSC Standard being developed but in the meantime, if you want a truly awesome picture then you will need to find a good value/sale TV in the $1500 dollar range as these TVs deliver superior HDR over the cheaper rivals and deliver superior picture quality no matter what the source is, OTA, BluRay, 4 k Bluray, streaming ect.
Personally, I wouldn't invest $1500 on a new TV when ATSC 3.0 is on the near horizon. One should be able to find an acceptable TV available for 1/3 to 1/2 of this price. ATSC 3.0 will revolutionize TV and is going to eventually replace the current ATSC 1.0 OTA broadcast standard. There won't be backwards compatibility. When ATSC 3.0 is fully implemented, current TVs will need an external tuner/converter box in order to receive an OTA signal (like NTSC TVs needed 10 years ago). ATSC 3.0 should begin in the US in about 2 to 3 years, which is not that far off. For the first 2 or 3 years, ATSC 3.0 broadcasters will be likely be broadcasting ATSC 1.0 signals simultaneously, but eventually the ATSC 1.0 signals will disappear entirely. Samsung and LG are already selling ATSC 3.0 TVs in Korea. Dual tuner TVs and external tuners/converters are expected to be available in the US by next year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0
1. For the benefit of others this isnt accurate. NO TV will be need to upgrade as ATSC 3.0 is not a mandatory standard, strictly optional standard that will be fully backward compatible with current TV tuners, so if broadcasters want to spend huge amounts of money upgrading to a voluntary standard which means, much like 3d TV it might be dead before it even starts.
Translated = there is no plans to replace the current TV standard.
2. Some people do not think $1,500 for a TV is expensive and again certainly not wait for a non mandatory TV standard that may or may not come out over time and if it does, its strictly voulantary and must be comparable with the 1.0.
I dont use the TV tuner in my Sony x900f because I have a Channel Master DVR+ plugged into a HDMI port.
The Channel Master with its own 2 tuners gives you exactly the same experience as a pay TV box with complete program guide and recording. So I dont need the TV tuner and in a decade, if the government finally makes the ATSC 3.0 mandatory (which they wont) I wont need a new TV, simply replace the current Channel Master Box that I use and if I dont replace it, it will still keep working anyway. Also in ten years I will have a new TV by then.
I do not think Channel Master is making the box anymore but Tivo does, bought my son and his wife one, better, then awesome = means it acts exactly like a pay TV box only you dont pay.
OTA recorder and schedule
3. As far as one should be able to find an acceptable TV for 1/3 to 1/2 the price, I agree, absolutely you can find an acceptable TV for much less, however, your promoting putting off the purchase of a TV because of a new ATSC Standard being developed but in the meantime, if you want a truly awesome picture then you will need to find a good value/sale TV in the $1500 dollar range as these TVs deliver superior HDR over the cheaper rivals and deliver superior picture quality no matter what the source is, OTA, BluRay, 4 k Bluray, streaming ect.
Last edited:
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted by marine65
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
I am real close to purchasing the 65" Sony 850, which was recommended by a couple members here. BestBuy has it for 999.99 today.
What's holding me back is..... I have never purchased a living room TV, while the current one still works great.
BTW - that current one is a eight year-old 42" 1080P Sharp
Having a new one that's significantly bigger, with Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix available on it - plus the capacity for internet on it - plus it's Android based, which my wife and I both have with our phones. Makes me want to run over to Best Buy this very minute....lol
If you can afford the TV go for it.
What great upgrade,a quantum leap.
The sale ended at midnight and my 50% vote to buy it wasn't matched by my wife.
This is how we stayed married for over 40 years now. When it comes to making mid-level money purchases like this, we either both agree, or we remain without the product.
I'll bug her again, the next time I see it on sale for $999 or less.
Shucks.
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
I am real close to purchasing the 65" Sony 850, which was recommended by a couple members here. BestBuy has it for 999.99 today.
What's holding me back is..... I have never purchased a living room TV, while the current one still works great.
BTW - that current one is a eight year-old 42" 1080P Sharp
Having a new one that's significantly bigger, with Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix available on it - plus the capacity for internet on it - plus it's Android based, which my wife and I both have with our phones. Makes me want to run over to Best Buy this very minute....lol
If you can afford the TV go for it.
What great upgrade,a quantum leap.
The sale ended at midnight and my 50% vote to buy it wasn't matched by my wife.
This is how we stayed married for over 40 years now. When it comes to making mid-level money purchases like this, we either both agree, or we remain without the product.
I'll bug her again, the next time I see it on sale for $999 or less.
Shucks.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
For the benefit of others this isnt accurate. NO TV will be need to upgrade as ATSC 3.0 is not a mandatory standard, strictly optional standard that will be fully backward compatible with current TV tuners[/b], so if broadcasters want to spend huge amounts of money upgrading to a voluntary standard which means, much like 3d TV it might be dead before it even starts.
Translated = there is no plans to replace the current TV standard.
As of right now, the switchover to ATSC 3.0 has not been made mandatory, YET. It will be, just like the switch from NTSC to ATSC 1.0 was. Your statement that the ATSC 3.0 standard "will be fully backward compatible with current TV tuners" is 100% incorrect, it is a completely different broadcast technology. It is no more backward compatible than ATSC 1.0 was to NTSC. In order for TVs to be able to receive both ATSC 3.0 signals and ATSC 1.0 signals the TV would have to have dual independent tuners (the first ATSC 3.0 tuner equipped TVs will).
The broadcasters are actually pushing hard for ATSC 3.0 and have been very active in it's development. ATSC 1.0 is highly flawed and is obsolete 1990's technology. It was flawed from the start. It can't be used in portable/mobile environments, this is one of the important things that ATSC 3.0 will accomplish (among other things like... robust error correction, elimination of multi-path, 4k transmissions, and even 8k transmissions), and this is why the broadcasters are pushing so hard for it. They want people to be able to view OTA TV from smart phones, in moving vehicles/boats, and at longer distances from the transmitters, multiplying their viewers (and add revenue) substantially. The TV manufacturers are also pushing for it so they can sell everyone a new TV. Something that the broadcasters aren't talking about is the fact that ATSC 3.0 has provisions built-in to be able to charge subscription fees.
Once the broadcasters start transmitting the ATSC 3.0 signals and TVs start coming with ATSC 3.0 tuners, the changeover will happen VERY quickly because viewers will watch it, prefer it, and demand it. The FCC may not even have to mandate the switch to ATSC 3.0 because ATSC 1.0 will eventually loose favor and fall off the cliff.
For the benefit of others this isnt accurate. NO TV will be need to upgrade as ATSC 3.0 is not a mandatory standard, strictly optional standard that will be fully backward compatible with current TV tuners[/b], so if broadcasters want to spend huge amounts of money upgrading to a voluntary standard which means, much like 3d TV it might be dead before it even starts.
Translated = there is no plans to replace the current TV standard.
As of right now, the switchover to ATSC 3.0 has not been made mandatory, YET. It will be, just like the switch from NTSC to ATSC 1.0 was. Your statement that the ATSC 3.0 standard "will be fully backward compatible with current TV tuners" is 100% incorrect, it is a completely different broadcast technology. It is no more backward compatible than ATSC 1.0 was to NTSC. In order for TVs to be able to receive both ATSC 3.0 signals and ATSC 1.0 signals the TV would have to have dual independent tuners (the first ATSC 3.0 tuner equipped TVs will).
The broadcasters are actually pushing hard for ATSC 3.0 and have been very active in it's development. ATSC 1.0 is highly flawed and is obsolete 1990's technology. It was flawed from the start. It can't be used in portable/mobile environments, this is one of the important things that ATSC 3.0 will accomplish (among other things like... robust error correction, elimination of multi-path, 4k transmissions, and even 8k transmissions), and this is why the broadcasters are pushing so hard for it. They want people to be able to view OTA TV from smart phones, in moving vehicles/boats, and at longer distances from the transmitters, multiplying their viewers (and add revenue) substantially. The TV manufacturers are also pushing for it so they can sell everyone a new TV. Something that the broadcasters aren't talking about is the fact that ATSC 3.0 has provisions built-in to be able to charge subscription fees.
Once the broadcasters start transmitting the ATSC 3.0 signals and TVs start coming with ATSC 3.0 tuners, the changeover will happen VERY quickly because viewers will watch it, prefer it, and demand it. The FCC may not even have to mandate the switch to ATSC 3.0 because ATSC 1.0 will eventually loose favor and fall off the cliff.
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by alarmguy
For the benefit of others this isnt accurate. NO TV will be need to upgrade as ATSC 3.0 is not a mandatory standard, strictly optional standard that will be fully backward compatible with current TV tuners[/b], so if broadcasters want to spend huge amounts of money upgrading to a voluntary standard which means, much like 3d TV it might be dead before it even starts.
Translated = there is no plans to replace the current TV standard.
...
Once the broadcasters start transmitting the ATSC 3.0 signals and TVs start coming with ATSC 3.0 tuners, the changeover will happen VERY quickly because viewers will watch it, prefer it, and demand it. The FCC may not even have to mandate the switch to ATSC 3.0 because ATSC 1.0 will eventually loose favor and fall off the cliff.
Your just speculating on the future of OTA TV, I was just stating fact, in no way is the ATSC standard going away in the coming decade and even if it did, the new ATSC 3.0 standard will be compatible with old TVs forever.
So there is no reason what so ever to put off the purchase of a TV in your speculation of a product where no broadcasts currently take place in any part of the USA.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
For the benefit of others this isnt accurate. NO TV will be need to upgrade as ATSC 3.0 is not a mandatory standard, strictly optional standard that will be fully backward compatible with current TV tuners[/b], so if broadcasters want to spend huge amounts of money upgrading to a voluntary standard which means, much like 3d TV it might be dead before it even starts.
Translated = there is no plans to replace the current TV standard.
...
Once the broadcasters start transmitting the ATSC 3.0 signals and TVs start coming with ATSC 3.0 tuners, the changeover will happen VERY quickly because viewers will watch it, prefer it, and demand it. The FCC may not even have to mandate the switch to ATSC 3.0 because ATSC 1.0 will eventually loose favor and fall off the cliff.
Your just speculating on the future of OTA TV, I was just stating fact, in no way is the ATSC standard going away in the coming decade and even if it did, the new ATSC 3.0 standard will be compatible with old TVs forever.
So there is no reason what so ever to put off the purchase of a TV in your speculation of a product where no broadcasts currently take place in any part of the USA.
Last edited:
- Status
