Official Playstation 5 thread

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I still fail to see how any of this is Sony (or any other TV maker) issue, wouldn't the problem lay with AVR manufacturer (if specific functionality was indeed promised and not possible)?

and if it was not promised (and people assumed ) then it is on people - i.e. i have Denon AVR from 2016 that I am still happy with. it does what they say it would do then. they also released firmware updates over the years increasing functionality (with no cost to me). It does not do some ulta fancy brag whatever stuff (16K@480Hrz , etc) and as consumer I know it. If I want new capabilities, I would have to buy new equipment.

The only bummer for me is that I usually buy the last year's model whenever I upgrade my receiver, and that would mean that the 2020 model that I'd purchase in 2021 would not be a good upgrade with the Xbox Series X or a HDMI 2.1-supporting GPU. Of course, Denon and other affected manufacturers may release updated models to fix it? I'm not entirely sure, but I assume that Panasonic would fix the chip and it should just be a drop-in.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,498
560
126
They released the firmware update last week.

BTW: HDTVTest is a great channel

Little too late, already bought a TV. I've bought things on the promise of a firmware update before, getting screwed over. Motherboards come to mind. Or games, promised of a patch down the road to fix known problem, only to get screwed over too. Not falling for that anymore. It's ridiculous that they released the TV without this feature.

Thanks for the advice on the av forums, I do visit regularly. Not an expert in the area but I do try to keep up. General consensus is that OLED's are the best (has been), and LG is the best brand. Ive had a 65" LG OLED for a bit over 3 years, it doesnt have the specs to run the PS5 like I would want, so I upgraded.

Speaking, a little OT but in the realm of updates. Some Samsung TV's have been updated to have a VERY annoying add every time that you turn on the TV. No more just going to a screen with apps on it, no. It plays horrendous adds that you cannot disable. Both of ours do this now and its infuriating. I will not buy another Samsung until this is reversed. And Im a Samsung fanboy.

Size of the console doesnt really matter to me, its going to sit on a shelf. Loudness matters far more. Playing a quiet game with a fan whirring in the background is annoying. Hopefully its on the quiet side.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I still fail to see how any of this is Sony (or any other TV maker) issue, wouldn't the problem lay with AVR manufacturer (if specific functionality was indeed promised and not possible)?

and if it was not promised (and people assumed ) then it is on people - i.e. i have Denon AVR from 2016 that I am still happy with. it does what they say it would do then. they also released firmware updates over the years increasing functionality (with no cost to me). It does not do some ulta fancy brag whatever stuff (16K@480Hrz , etc) and as consumer I know it. If I want new capabilities, I would have to buy new equipment.

You should read up on it. The chipset can only pass the signal with 4K 120hz and HDR or 8k 60hz and HDR if it is sent a specific way. This incompatibility was not known until we had devices outputting HDMI 2.1.

The work around is to use eARC from the TV. In other words plug everything into the TV and pass the audio to the AVR that way. Problem is TV manufacturers cheaped out and only provide one or two HDMI 2.1 ports on the TV. Some of those ports also happen to be the eARC port which makes them unusable for this. The only manufacturer who provided HDMI 2.1 for all the ports is LG. So I’m saying that while this sucks, I can work around it because my LG CX has 4 HDMI 2.1 ports while someone’s Samsung Q series TV only has 2 and one will be used by eARC and they have no work around.
 

simas

Senior member
Oct 16, 2005
412
107
116
You should read up on it. The chipset can only pass the signal with 4K 120hz and HDR or 8k 60hz and HDR if it is sent a specific way. This incompatibility was not known until we had devices outputting HDMI 2.1.

The work around is to use eARC from the TV. In other words plug everything into the TV and pass the audio to the AVR that way. Problem is TV manufacturers cheaped out and only provide one or two HDMI 2.1 ports on the TV. Some of those ports also happen to be the eARC port which makes them unusable for this. The only manufacturer who provided HDMI 2.1 for all the ports is LG. So I’m saying that while this sucks, I can work around it because my LG CX has 4 HDMI 2.1 ports while someone’s Samsung Q series TV only has 2 and one will be used by eARC and they have no work around.

Thank you sir. Again, respectfully - is Sony the maker of the said chip in question?
if not, then why are folks quick to jump on someone acting as TV manufacturer for a problem elsewhere not caused by them?
Just because some work around for some problem somewhere else does not work for all possible combination that in my book is not tv's fault..

trying to be reasonably here. assign fault there fault is due.

Also, my TV just died so I am in the market to shop for one. I would be getting console(s) when available (xbx and ps5) and it is my Denon from 2016 max out at 4K/60Hz so thank for bringing my attention to this. I may buy up a new receiver as well once I know what does work properly.

P.S. so I read up on it. I can not assign fault to anyone here other than companies not talking to each other (which they are not forced to).

- can existing chip in those receives handle 4k/120hz source. yes (if sent in compressed form).
- can console manufacturers (Microsoft, Sony) send the same source compressed/uncompressed ? probably to very likely. when? who knows, whenever they do it in firmware

a bunch of noise about nothing imho.. normal birthing pains of newer tech. if one wants to avoid dealing with it, one can wait out 6-12 months and get initial fixes come in to both xbox x and ps5...
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Thank you sir. Again, respectfully - is Sony the maker of the said chip in question?
if not, then why are folks quick to jump on someone acting as TV manufacturer for a problem elsewhere not caused by them?
Just because some work around for some problem somewhere else does not work for all possible combination that in my book is not tv's fault..

trying to be reasonably here. assign fault there fault is due.

Also, my TV just died so I am in the market to shop for one. I would be getting console(s) when available (xbx and ps5) and it is my Denon from 2016 max out at 4K/60Hz so thank for bringing my attention to this. I may buy up a new receiver as well once I know what does work properly.

P.S. so I read up on it. I can not assign fault to anyone here other than companies not talking to each other (which they are not forced to).

- can existing chip in those receives handle 4k/120hz source. yes (if sent in compressed form).
- can console manufacturers (Microsoft, Sony) send the same source compressed/uncompressed ? probably to very likely. when? who knows, whenever they do it in firmware

a bunch of noise about nothing imho.. normal birthing pains of newer tech. if one wants to avoid dealing with it, one can wait out 6-12 months and get initial fixes come in to both xbox x and ps5...

No I guess Panasonic provided the chips and it works but only with a specific transmission method. I guess they didn’t think anyone was using the other method, I cannot say.

What IS the fault of TV manufacturers like Sony is they only give you a single HDMI 2.1 port on some models. That’s just being cheap. I will pull no punches regarding that. 2.1 is fully compatible with 2.0 and 1.4 so to only give one port is penny pinching to the worst degree. LG gets a huge thumbs up from me for providing HDMI 2.1 from every port on the tv.

I’m not placing blame on anyone for the incompatibility but I am simply saying that selling a TV and advertising it as 120hz with VRR etc for new consoles but only giving you enough ports to connect one is pretty lame.
 
Last edited:

Dranoche

Senior member
Jul 6, 2009
302
68
101
It sounds like there may be an issue with the new FRL signaling but there aren't any real details on it yet so no way to say for sure. Somewhere, possibly avsforum, I saw that the problem may be that the Panasonic chips are compressing higher bandwidth signals with DSC (display stream compression, a VESA feature that HDMI 2.1 has adopted), which the TVs do not support. They don't have to support it though because it's an optional feature. The sources are providing an uncompressed signal which is why they work when connected directly to the TV. It seems to be related to 8k settings in the receiver, which in some cases will need DSC, and 4k/120 is getting lumped in with it. It must be compressing whenever FRL kicks in over TMDS.

Either way blame lies primarily with Panasonic but the receiver manufacturers and TV manufacturers can probably take a little as well. The Panasonic chip is needlessly compressing some signals. DSC isn't needed for 4k/120 10-bit, so I'm sure there was some small cost savings in not implementing it in the TVs. Additionally, until recently there weren't any readily available consumer TV's that could do more. Looks like there are a few 8k TVs from Samsung now that aren't stupid expensive, but I just found out googling around and don't know anything about them. The receiver manufacturers either didn't test properly or they did but somebody swept the issue under the rug because they didn't understand the entire market. Take Panasonic out of the equation and we still have to ask how much of HDMI 2.1 we're getting when we purchase a device.
 

simas

Senior member
Oct 16, 2005
412
107
116
It sounds like there may be an issue with the new FRL signaling but there aren't any real details on it yet so no way to say for sure. Somewhere, possibly avsforum, I saw that the problem may be that the Panasonic chips are compressing higher bandwidth signals with DSC (display stream compression, a VESA feature that HDMI 2.1 has adopted), which the TVs do not support. They don't have to support it though because it's an optional feature. The sources are providing an uncompressed signal which is why they work when connected directly to the TV. It seems to be related to 8k settings in the receiver, which in some cases will need DSC, and 4k/120 is getting lumped in with it. It must be compressing whenever FRL kicks in over TMDS.

Either way blame lies primarily with Panasonic but the receiver manufacturers and TV manufacturers can probably take a little as well. The Panasonic chip is needlessly compressing some signals. DSC isn't needed for 4k/120 10-bit, so I'm sure there was some small cost savings in not implementing it in the TVs. Additionally, until recently there weren't any readily available consumer TV's that could do more. Looks like there are a few 8k TVs from Samsung now that aren't stupid expensive, but I just found out googling around and don't know anything about them. The receiver manufacturers either didn't test properly or they did but somebody swept the issue under the rug because they didn't understand the entire market. Take Panasonic out of the equation and we still have to ask how much of HDMI 2.1 we're getting when we purchase a device.

And it is not even Panasonic itself - it is a different company doing business as Panasonic solutions or something (Panasonic proper sold that business).
And i do not get 'a little as well' at all - same way , we should assign a lot more blame than 'a little as well' to the actual consumer getting TV. if person buying TV does not read the actual spec (and can not tell how many HDMI ports it has), they only have themselves to blame.

I prefer to think of people as adults and stop with childish 'blame belongs everywhere but not me'.

it is what it is, nothing is broken, everything is technically true. if you want a specific very custom unique scenario of tech that is not even released yet, then you wait.


on a personal front, I did some searches for 65 inch OLED TV. surprised how little actually reviewed good on things like AV forum (which I trust more than paid review sites). buggy firmware messes, build quality issue, weird design decisions omitting features, urghh. as consumer ready to spend few $k on TV for next 3-5 years, I dont see much to buy..
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I was poking around AVSForum, and one user reported that while 4K120 + HDR (10-bit) did not work, he was able to get 4K100 10-bit to work. One important thing that the user notes is that while 4K60 also worked, 4K60 did not allow for G-Sync with the 3000-series GeForce card, but 4K100 did work with VRR/G-Sync.

As for the number of ports, I did see an interesting remark from Denon that part of the reason why they only include a single 8K-capable port is because it's apparently prohibitively expensive to use all 8K. I don't really know the validity behind this, but I guess I would say that if they're going to sell higher-end models, then they should consider maybe providing more as you scale up. For example, the lower-end 2000 series could have one, and it goes up to two on the 4000 series.

on a personal front, I did some searches for 65 inch OLED TV. surprised how little actually reviewed good on things like AV forum (which I trust more than paid review sites). buggy firmware messes, build quality issue, weird design decisions omitting features, urghh. as consumer ready to spend few $k on TV for next 3-5 years, I dont see much to buy..

What sort of issues are you seeing? I'm personally tempted by features such as ALLM and VRR that just don't exist in my 930e. I found an awkward work-around that involved running another cable that was on a TV input that was dedicated to Game Mode, but given that I run all my cables through the wall, that came with its own challenges. Rtings has fairly good reviews for the LG CX series, and the only negative remarks being the typical suspects for OLED TVs such as lower maximum brightness, potential burn-in, etc.

EDIT:

Although, I did see an interesting difference with the CX that might present a problem to some people. A photo of the rear of the TV at Best Buy showed that the VESA mounting holes are closer toward the bottom of the TV. In my experience, LCD TVs typically place the VESA mount around the middle, which means that trying to use the same mount position will likely place your TV too high.
 
Last edited:

simas

Senior member
Oct 16, 2005
412
107
116
What sort of issues are you seeing? I'm personally tempted by features such as ALLM and VRR that just don't exist in my 930e. I found an awkward work-around that involved running another cable that was on a TV input that was dedicated to Game Mode, but given that I run all my cables through the wall, that came with its own challenges. Rtings has fairly good reviews for the LG CX series, and the only negative remarks being the typical suspects for OLED TVs such as lower maximum brightness, potential burn-in, etc.

EDIT:

Although, I did see an interesting difference with the CX that might present a problem to some people. A photo of the rear of the TV at Best Buy showed that the VESA mounting holes are closer toward the bottom of the TV. In my experience, LCD TVs typically place the VESA mount around the middle, which means that trying to use the same mount position will likely place your TV too high.

Visio OLED - bunch of issues with firmware
LG CX (currently my likely selection ) - list of features removed, 503 pages long (!) separate thread on banding and uniformity issues in which CX is also mentioned in many posts. This does not inspire confidence .


Post like below give me pause

spacemanvt said:
I have returned by first LG CX 65 panel and I am on my second panel, but posted pics of both below. , its very very similar to the first panel I got, maybe slightly worse. Remarkably similar. The screenshot is from TV show called the OA netflix at 14:30 which does a great job of showing the banding and black blob issue.

TV 1 (returned) about 60-70 hours of use and 7 or so Pixel refreshes run.

View attachment 3029024

View attachment 3029025

Second TV: About 10 hours of use
View attachment 3029026


View attachment 3029027

I plan to run a pixel refresh tonight (after 12 hours of use) to see if it evens things out and it seems as though there a bit of yellow and blue tinting I need to look into. Weird how similar they are. Just to be clear, in most content, i dont see anything, just the ones from the front page and the OA .

I am likely to keep this one though, doesn't seem like its worth the trouble to try for another panel or get an LED instead.. not sure what to do at this point.
Thoughts?
I bought 77cx, it was worse than yours... i replaced it for another one, second 77cx also had patchiness .... i returned it. And bought 65GX... black patches looks like yours.... also i bought 55GX... its flawless, no bands, patches... i suppose only 65”+ panels suffer this problem
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I was poking around AVSForum, and one user reported that while 4K120 + HDR (10-bit) did not work, he was able to get 4K100 10-bit to work. One important thing that the user notes is that while 4K60 also worked, 4K60 did not allow for G-Sync with the 3000-series GeForce card, but 4K100 did work with VRR/G-Sync.

As for the number of ports, I did see an interesting remark from Denon that part of the reason why they only include a single 8K-capable port is because it's apparently prohibitively expensive to use all 8K. I don't really know the validity behind this, but I guess I would say that if they're going to sell higher-end models, then they should consider maybe providing more as you scale up. For example, the lower-end 2000 series could have one, and it goes up to two on the 4000 series.



What sort of issues are you seeing? I'm personally tempted by features such as ALLM and VRR that just don't exist in my 930e. I found an awkward work-around that involved running another cable that was on a TV input that was dedicated to Game Mode, but given that I run all my cables through the wall, that came with its own challenges. Rtings has fairly good reviews for the LG CX series, and the only negative remarks being the typical suspects for OLED TVs such as lower maximum brightness, potential burn-in, etc.

EDIT:

Although, I did see an interesting difference with the CX that might present a problem to some people. A photo of the rear of the TV at Best Buy showed that the VESA mounting holes are closer toward the bottom of the TV. In my experience, LCD TVs typically place the VESA mount around the middle, which means that trying to use the same mount position will likely place your TV too high.

On 4k60 + GSync. I've seen reports in the CX threads I frequent over on AVSForum that this does work directly to the TV. Was this "not working" something that only showed a problem through an AVR?

Issues: There is a near black gamma shift when using VRR on ALL TVs. Vincent Teoh of HDTV Test showed this in a recent video. The issue affects VRR at the source so it's not something specific to any single TV model. The LG OLED set showed it less than a Samsung QLED but both had some. There is also an issue with raised blacks when playing Dolby Vision content from some sources. I have yet to experience this, but others have reported on it. Lowering the brightness from 50 to 49 fixes it. The third issue is related to gsync. If you have an LG CX TV and use gsync from a 3080 card you will get stuttering and uneven frames between 100-120fps. Some have mentioned capping the framerate to 100 alleviates the issue, some say 90. The stuttering goes away when you turn off gsync in the Nvidia control panel. Best bet IMO is to use vsync, cap the FPS to something you know you can solidly hit and go that way. The difference is that input lag is supposed to be 6ms with VRR enabled and 11ms at 120hz vsync. 60hz has zero issues but the input lag is 13ms.

Mounting: Yes I saw this with my B7 OLED a few years back and could not wall mount the TV. I have a shelf above the TV that would prevent me from mounting it in the location I had used previously and I have an AV rack below that didn't allow me to drop the mount on the wall. I ended up removing the wall mount and using the stand on top of my AV rack and rearranging some things to accommodate. All LG OLED TVs have been this way for a few years.
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Visio OLED - bunch of issues with firmware
LG CX (currently my likely selection ) - list of features removed, 503 pages long (!) separate thread on banding and uniformity issues in which CX is also mentioned in many posts. This does not inspire confidence .


Post like below give me pause


I bought 77cx, it was worse than yours... i replaced it for another one, second 77cx also had patchiness .... i returned it. And bought 65GX... black patches looks like yours.... also i bought 55GX... its flawless, no bands, patches... i suppose only 65”+ panels suffer this problem

I have a 65" CX and no issues with the panel. One thing about that post you found. You are not supposed to run the pixel refresh manually multiple times like that. You artificially age the pixels and can actually make the TV worse. If it's bad out of the box, return it.
 

simas

Senior member
Oct 16, 2005
412
107
116
I have a 65" CX and no issues with the panel. One thing about that post you found. You are not supposed to run the pixel refresh manually multiple times like that. You artificially age the pixels and can actually make the TV worse. If it's bad out of the box, return it.

Would you be willing to give a quick/summary review of your thoughts with it? Do you like it? Are there things you wish you knew before you bought?

I am planning to connect this to Denon 3300W receiver (which does not support HDMI 2.1) and feed receiver primarily from nvidia shield TV.

Thank you
 

Dranoche

Senior member
Jul 6, 2009
302
68
101
And it is not even Panasonic itself - it is a different company doing business as Panasonic solutions or something (Panasonic proper sold that business).
And i do not get 'a little as well' at all - same way , we should assign a lot more blame than 'a little as well' to the actual consumer getting TV. if person buying TV does not read the actual spec (and can not tell how many HDMI ports it has), they only have themselves to blame.

I prefer to think of people as adults and stop with childish 'blame belongs everywhere but not me'.

it is what it is, nothing is broken, everything is technically true. if you want a specific very custom unique scenario of tech that is not even released yet, then you wait.


on a personal front, I did some searches for 65 inch OLED TV. surprised how little actually reviewed good on things like AV forum (which I trust more than paid review sites). buggy firmware messes, build quality issue, weird design decisions omitting features, urghh. as consumer ready to spend few $k on TV for next 3-5 years, I dont see much to buy..
I agree that consumers are often to blame for making assumptions, particularly at the launch of new hardware, but the problem in this case isn't something you could identify looking at published device specifications. The devices all technically meet HDMI specification, but due to the specific implementation of optional features there are some incompatibilities. IMO this comes down to basic HDMI 2.1 functionality not working as it should, and it's primarily due to the chip in the receiver. Those of us who are aware will certainly be watching carefully before we buy something, but the average consumer shouldn't have to do anything more than check that there's at least one HDMI 2.1 port on each of the source, receiver, and TV.
 

simas

Senior member
Oct 16, 2005
412
107
116
I agree that consumers are often to blame for making assumptions, particularly at the launch of new hardware, but the problem in this case isn't something you could identify looking at published device specifications. The devices all technically meet HDMI specification, but due to the specific implementation of optional features there are some incompatibilities. IMO this comes down to basic HDMI 2.1 functionality not working as it should, and it's primarily due to the chip in the receiver. Those of us who are aware will certainly be watching carefully before we buy something, but the average consumer shouldn't have to do anything more than check that there's at least one HDMI 2.1 port on each of the source, receiver, and TV.


I hear you and agree. Few minor items
- 'average consumer' has zero awareness of HDMI 2.1 , basic vs optional features, compressed vs raw signal, and what support (decode ,bitstream, something else) means. This is not an issue at all for 'average consumer' - they go to their local electronics store and get what salesperson gives them or what brother in law recommends.
- in the phrase consumers are often to blame for making assumptions , I removed the 'often' part . Consumers (adults) are responsible for their choices.
- lawyers would have their field day arguing whether support in compressed stream constitutes 'support' (technically it does, what? your device does not send it? go talk to your device manufacturer!). They get their fees, we get costs passed to us a buyers of this technology.

if I were just having bought a receiver this year I would watch this closely expecting new consoles to add support for relevant stream in its OS/firmware releases (along with surely tons of bugs they will find and would have to patch in the next 6-12 months for both consoles).

If I have not just bought a receiver, I would not care at all.

At the end to me this is an AV receiver specific item, nothing to do with TVs themselves (which is how the conversation started with people blaming Sony). Your shiny new receiver is not currently compatible with your shiny new console on one very specific scenario - big deal! wait until AV receiver manufacture does something ,console maker does something, Nvidia pushes it in driver update for GPUs for those who game with PC, or all of the above. Move to the next world problem to solve..
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Would you be willing to give a quick/summary review of your thoughts with it? Do you like it? Are there things you wish you knew before you bought?

I am planning to connect this to Denon 3300W receiver (which does not support HDMI 2.1) and feed receiver primarily from nvidia shield TV.

Thank you

It’s an upgrade from my B7 OLED in every way. 120hz is really nice for my gaming. Only thing I hope they can fix is Gsync stuttering over 60fps. It may affect all forms of VRR though. There are some funky eARC handshake issues at times but that can be fixed in firmware and it doesn’t support DTS audio on eARC for some reason m. If you can find a c9 it’s arguably better because of more mature firmware and it supports DTS over eARC. I don’t plan to use DTS audio through the eARC (just LPCM or Atmos) so that’s not a deal breaker. It’s just odd
 
Reactions: simas

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
At the end to me this is an AV receiver specific item, nothing to do with TVs themselves (which is how the conversation started with people blaming Sony). Your shiny new receiver is not currently compatible with your shiny new console on one very specific scenario - big deal! wait until AV receiver manufacture does something ,console maker does something, Nvidia pushes it in driver update for GPUs for those who game with PC, or all of the above. Move to the next world problem to solve..

Forget the AVR situation.

Think about it this way in regards to TVs. The number of people hooking their consoles and other equipment up through an AVR is small. The number of people hooking up directly to the tv is large. Why have a TV that does all the 120hz, VRR, and gaming stuff if you have 1 HDMI 2.1 port? It’s only usable for one device and there are up to 3 devices this year that can use it.

Again I go back to my original argument. It’s manufacturers being cheap. Heck Sony released a statement about their 120hz mode on their new 900 series tv that just got updated for HDMI 2.1 and say that the blurry image during motion is on purpose. Think about that. How can other manufacturers not have a blurry picture when using 120hz and they can’t do that? Also why did they have to do a firmware update to make HDMI 2.1 usable? That’s just shady.
 

simas

Senior member
Oct 16, 2005
412
107
116
Forget the AVR situation.

Think about it this way in regards to TVs. The number of people hooking their consoles and other equipment up through an AVR is small. The number of people hooking up directly to the tv is large. Why have a TV that does all the 120hz, VRR, and gaming stuff if you have 1 HDMI 2.1 port? It’s only usable for one device and there are up to 3 devices this year that can use it.

Again I go back to my original argument. It’s manufacturers being cheap. Heck Sony released a statement about their 120hz mode on their new 900 series tv that just got updated for HDMI 2.1 and say that the blurry image during motion is on purpose. Think about that. How can other manufacturers not have a blurry picture when using 120hz and they can’t do that? Also why did they have to do a firmware update to make HDMI 2.1 usable? That’s just shady.

on the bolded part ->that that is what you as consumer bought and that is what they as manufacturers had to sell (in turn buying from various vendors doing R&D on various components of the system). Each chip has a specific bandwidth and compute requirements, if manufacturer had something that would give you HDMI 2.1 with *whatever feature* and wanted to put it into device then you would have something to buy. until they do, they sell what they sell and you as consumer make decision to buy or wait. same applies to all features - want 16K screens? no problem, just wait half a decade. want one cable with 100GB bandwidth for video, similarly wait. cant wait, want you TV now? then I can not complain as a consumer..

As manufacturers are 'cheap' - they are trying to have a product to sell at the price we (as consumers) would buy. this is how supply/demand (aka 'market') works. hardly a 'fault'. if I do not think it is a good value, I dont buy. if enough of 'I' do that then another maker positions to address the demand (mid range phones, lower version of consoles, whatever).

lastly on the TV

1. I never got why people who are willing to spend thousands of dollars 'for best experience' don't spend a fraction of that on basic sound. real positional/surround sound is making experience so much more immersive than any transition from 60Hz to 120Hz. same thing on PC - people spend many hundreds on good video card and rely on trashy sound that comes with their motherboard.. *shaking head*

2. for those connecting console into TV directly, they currently have many solutions including this very difficult and strenous thing called get off the couch , walk 5 steps and move HDMI cable end by 3 inches (if you really really really care about this thing you never heard off for lotz of hertz and super resolution -then move the cable that goes into your TV from your XBOX to PS5). and if you , as consumer, are not willing to undergo this very difficult physical activity then you don't care enough about it. problem solved either way.


Thank you for the commends earlier on LG CX. I went out to Costco and brought one phone (65 inch model). Kids are happy as they have their youtube/netflix again on big screen.
 
Reactions: cmdrdredd

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
on the bolded part ->that that is what you as consumer bought and that is what they as manufacturers had to sell (in turn buying from various vendors doing R&D on various components of the system). Each chip has a specific bandwidth and compute requirements, if manufacturer had something that would give you HDMI 2.1 with *whatever feature* and wanted to put it into device then you would have something to buy. until they do, they sell what they sell and you as consumer make decision to buy or wait. same applies to all features - want 16K screens? no problem, just wait half a decade. want one cable with 100GB bandwidth for video, similarly wait. cant wait, want you TV now? then I can not complain as a consumer..

As manufacturers are 'cheap' - they are trying to have a product to sell at the price we (as consumers) would buy. this is how supply/demand (aka 'market') works. hardly a 'fault'. if I do not think it is a good value, I dont buy. if enough of 'I' do that then another maker positions to address the demand (mid range phones, lower version of consoles, whatever).

lastly on the TV

1. I never got why people who are willing to spend thousands of dollars 'for best experience' don't spend a fraction of that on basic sound. real positional/surround sound is making experience so much more immersive than any transition from 60Hz to 120Hz. same thing on PC - people spend many hundreds on good video card and rely on trashy sound that comes with their motherboard.. *shaking head*

2. for those connecting console into TV directly, they currently have many solutions including this very difficult and strenous thing called get off the couch , walk 5 steps and move HDMI cable end by 3 inches (if you really really really care about this thing you never heard off for lotz of hertz and super resolution -then move the cable that goes into your TV from your XBOX to PS5). and if you , as consumer, are not willing to undergo this very difficult physical activity then you don't care enough about it. problem solved either way.


Thank you for the commends earlier on LG CX. I went out to Costco and brought one phone (65 inch model). Kids are happy as they have their youtube/netflix again on big screen.

Glad you are happy with the TV. LG is really taking it to everyone else in terms of value and initial quality at the high end. Nothing is without its faults of course but at least it has 4 ports you can use for HDMI 2.1 devices and really is only lacking a couple things (no DTS pass through is an odd one).

I still disagree that any manufacturer should ask nearly $2000 for a TV (65” Samsung Q90t) and advertise gaming features that require HDMI 2.1 and only have 1 actual port for it. We will leave it at that.
 
Reactions: simas

Dranoche

Senior member
Jul 6, 2009
302
68
101
Just like most people will connect straight to the TV instead of through a receiver, most people will only have 1 device that can utilize those features, and the manufacturer can save a few pennies on hardware. Sucks but it's what it is. I agree though, if they're going to put it in there and ask that price, do it with every port.
 

JPB

Diamond Member
Jul 4, 2005
4,064
89
91
Me too. Like 90% of that shit I don't care about at all. I cannot STAND the Xbox One dashboard there is so much crap on there and it is so unorganized. This looks to be going more that direction than what the PS4 did.
I am another. The only game I have ever played online was Doom 3. And that was 13 years ago. I don't need anything social / sharing apps. Ive never even used 80% of the things on my PS4.

And the all digital versions, can just go live under a rock. If and when discs disappear, that is when Ill hang it up on new consoles.
 

JPB

Diamond Member
Jul 4, 2005
4,064
89
91
Just got this email from Gamestop about my PS5 preorder.



They wanted like $30 for launch day delivery so screw that.
Just two days ago I bought a collectible figure online from a toystore...7 inch figure. Was $36 to ship securely. But hey, I wanted it as soon as possible. I know people ship gouges...I think im just an impatient person.
 

Ricky T

Member
Oct 31, 2020
48
22
41
Any word on the PS5 supporting 1440p like the Xbox? Sorry if this has already been mentioned as I did not want to look through 15 pages.
 

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,172
725
126
This looks so much better than the default PS5.


Sony threatened them so they cancelled the product. Looks like they are selling skins only now.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I wonder if it's something weird like Sony having a patent on the mechanism that attaches the shell to the console's body?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |