AV Receivers Discussion

Finding the video handling or image enhancing with AV receiver being bit weird.
TV’s generally have more hardware to do so and i would let AV’s just handle the audio side of business.
You just could hook the 8k (source) to a 8k tv. Probably will give the optimal change for the picture, then just direct audio to AV receiver. It’s really easy.
So good amp with sound is the key or just Preamp/processor to handle audio signals.
Still, i would not get anything 8k related in the 5years, minimun. Too soon at this point. Maybe in 5-10y period (ps6 or ps7 ?)?

Yes I agree about 8k, not that interested in it, I’m more interested in 4k 120hz compatibility at the moment.
He wasn’t impressed with the sound either though, will be interesting to see what other reviewers think about it.

Rotel is launching a high-end “Surround Amplified Processor” - which sounds like an AVR without a tuner. Spec’s at 7.1.4 processing with 7 onboard amp channels.

Thats some sound & vision schiit right there.

Lol. Yep. That’s where I first learned of it.

Thing is problably worth more than my car.

Hahaha. Same here. '98 Honda Civic with 245K miles on it for me. I’m sure this Rotel SOUNDS way better than my car too :laughing:

Will probably cost bit more than current MKI or a good set rim’s and tires. :crazy_face:
Overall quality should be tip top. Marketing pictures show pretty nice speakers hooked with it.

new denon 13.2 8k reciever called the AVR-A110 MSRP: 5,500.

I saw that one too. I have :roll_eyes: just a bit about a company that says “Help us celebrate a milestone by giving us $5500 of your hard earned money.” Even so, I’m sure it’s an excellent product.

As with every flagship and other more premium products as well, it starts with Skim-the-Cream.
Price is right if sales are made.
Still have to agree the 5.5k is bit over the edge. High 3k or lower 4k would be more in sweet spot.
Since it has more licensed toys, in visual and sound. Kinda gives it a pass… but no.

Are there any 4k 120 processors out there or have been announced?

Pro tip: Wait 5 years and get it for 500$. Or buy a 5-year-old one 5000$MSRP used for 500$ on eBay. Lol.
Depreciation for AVRs is worse than smartphones.

Also, 8K… https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/ shows you need to be at 2 meters (or 6.5 ft) maximum, of a 100 inch 4K screen, to see all the pixels. You want a 100 inch 8K screen, maybe? You face will need to be at 3ft of a more than 8ft wide screen to see 8K.

Honestly… 8K is the new “hi-res audio”, lol.

8k is also largely functionally impossible right now
no hard media can hold it
the tvs can generate a huge amount of heat.
it can barely be streamed without horrific levels of compression.
It’s entirely a scam being marketed by tech youtubers to dinguses and bestbuy sellers to rich dinguses

1 Like

Hmmm, this conversation went a direction I didn’t expect. Let me grab my soapbox and be right back… :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Kidding aside, there are a couple things I want to comment on.

I’m reserving judgment on 8K for awhile. I agree with @PABastien that 8K tech isn’t ready to go yet, but I don’t think that makes it a scam, it just means it’s too early to say. 8K isn’t even in its infancy yet, more like 3rd trimester. This Sound & Vision article cites a study that says in a ‘blind test’ - a hilarious phrase for comparing visual technologies - 8K sets were rated as being “35% more lifelike than 4K sets.” What’s infuriating here (and one of many problems with science reporting in the media generally) is the S&V article only says “a study” and talks a little bit about the study, never links to it. If what they say about the study is true, then it sounds like it was done by an indepedent research team at a university and maybe not by a private R&D department. But it also mentions the results of the study were presented at a summit promoting 8K so that research may still have been privately funded. How do we know? We don’t. Thanks for helping us get to the truth, S&V.

@LeDechaine is also right that 8K resolution on most real-world screen sizes is too many pixels for the human eye to take in. I’m not sure how much that matters, TBH. We don’t go through real life seeing pixels anyway. Pixels are used as a tool to reproduce captured images or generate new ones. If we assume for a moment that the study mentioned above has some validity, that 8K resolution really is perceived as being some noticeable amount ‘more realistic’, then the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle: the ‘ideal’ resolution the human eye can detect to make things look hyper-realistic exists somewhere north of 4K but not all the way up to 8K. So why 8K? Seems like factors of 2 are really common in advancing technology: resolutions, memory capacities, etc. seem to double or halve. Powers of 2 are very common: 8mb, 16mb, 32mb, 64mb… Yes, there are occasionally the 24mb or 48mb oddballs, but they are more exception than rule. It might just be more economical in terms of development and manufacturing cost to keep doubling pixels rather than figure out and make manufacturing dies to multiply 1920x1080 by 6.4137985… or whatever the “ideal factor” may be.

Food for though. Cheers, all. :beers:

The best 4k blu ray title to date is lawrence of arabia from the colombia box set it seems. Got the digital copy and it dont look like a polaroid, still pretty though.
Waiting to see what yamaha comes out with for a 7.2.4 .

Samsara is also impressive, apparently.

The crew used three 70 mm cameras for filming; two cameras manufactured by Panavision and one specialty time-lapse camera designed by Fricke. While the scenes were captured on 65 mm negative film, they were output to Digital Cinema Package (DCP), a digital output. Magidson described the process, “We’re doing a combination of what we think is the best of both technologies, the best way to image capture and then the best way to output. Once we get into the digital environment, we’re able to refine the imagery, we’re able to save shots that we’d have to otherwise trash really for various reasons.” Where they cut their negatives for Baraka , the negatives for Samsara were scanned then worked on digitally. The pair used the Telecine process to format the film to ProRes for the editing process and used Final Cut for editing.[3]

I’m honestly still buying DVDs and already paid a few bucks more for a DVD instead of a Bluray just because I don’t want multiple boxes of different sizes. Exceptions are when HD really matters (for me), like Baraka, Samsara, or animated movies. But I don’t even see the appeal of buying… the Eurotrip bluray or whatever lol. I’d rather have a great movie with a great plot filmed in 854x480 than a beautiful but forgettable full HD mess. It’s an audio forum and for audio I’m like “gimme all the details! all the truth! everything!”, but for TV I honestly don’t care much. I’m like… “your 1080p TV will look better with two floorstanding speakers”. :stuck_out_tongue:

But for the hype about 4K and 8K… The main problem is, yeah, technology is not there. Hell, most people can’t even have decent 1080p quality TV yet (“cable” TV, netflix streaming + data caps etc…) unless, maybe, we buy bluray discs absolutely every time we want to watch something in high quality. But the only reason 4K is useful here right now is because “cable 4K” looks like good 1080p on a 1080p TV, and “cable 1080p” is compressed AF. Probably looks worse than a 16/9 DVD here actually – and in a lot of places, and I’m only talking about north america even.

I don’t even know if cameras are able to record “8K pixels” reliably at 24fps. Or even 4K. Like, raw, uncompressed, full, realistic detail and color accuracy? Maybe excellent 1080p cameras can give you a more life-like experience than the 8K cameras we have now even.

As someone who works in this field, it’s complicated. On a pure technical level, Higher resolution is better for color accuracy overall. The Red Channel due to RGB on Sensor pixels tend to be a 1/4 of the resolution of the Green and Blue Channels. The higher the resolution the better the effective quality of red channel and thus the more accurate colors.
From an experience angle, color science in the cameras are even more important. Each camera company has its own flavor of color science which effects what you can do with the image and this color science varies wildly from camera to camera. Basically every red camera line has its own look with the Helium sensors differing from the gemini, differing from the komodo which in turn are all effected by the various OLPF filters that are over the raw sensor to filter and control red channel data and highlight roll off. The Arri’s have the most filmic look out of the box BUT the Alexa 65 has a fundamentally different sensor than everything else and as a result has a sharp… hard to describe. Like its refined to the point where the image can look very sterile if you dont know what you’re doing because it cuts out so much IR/UV bleed.
Kinefinety and Blackmagic Cameras have great internal color science, and the kinefinety has a naturally filmic look with its Mavo LF but struggle in other factors, namely dynamic range

as for 8k pixels… that’s not a thing in the Capture chain
You just have sensor resolution.
Your sensor size/resolution ratio has an effect on noise though, but 90 Percent of people will never notice that. At most a LF sensor has less noise but lower light sensitivity than a s35 sensor

1 Like