"RokuMarkn" wrote:
I hope he's not wasting his money on those cheap $5000 cables. He needs something like this.
--Mark
"RokuMarkn" wrote:
I hope he's not wasting his money on those cheap $5000 cables. He needs something like this.
--Mark
May cause slight problems
By AndrewCJ on October 16, 2014
I decided to pull the trigger and purchase this cable because my Samsung 85 inch 4k HD 3D TV ($40,000 if you are curious, fantastic TV, only had to re-finance my house 4 times and sell a kidney. I only need one so why not right?) just wasn't getting the best with its supplied cable.
When the product arrived, which it did so in a timely manner (2 days 4 hours 26 minutes 41 seconds) I was surprised at how superb the packaging was. When I released it from its restraints I gently plugged the cable into the required ports.
This is where I was amazed. The picture looked better than it had before which was already fantastic. Now I could literally touch the characters and feel their pain and happiness in movies (this became a problem in several war movies as my wife took 3 rounds to the chest and in the arm, don't worry she is in ICU being patched up). The audio sounded like that of a cascading waterfall while an orchestral symphony played Beethoven's 7th. I shed tears just thinking about it.
Now the reason I am giving it an average 3 stars is because of one major issue that may be ,to others, a deal breaker. After 2 weeks of enjoyment the Samsung TV I mentioned earlier and my blue ray player both absorbed the power of this cable to the extent they transformed into fighting robots and have destroyed my beloved house. I am now living in my parents house and lost all my possessions.
"RokuMarkn" wrote:
I hope he's not wasting his money on those cheap $5000 cables. He needs something like this.
"EnTerr" wrote:
I think it's safe to guess that no Roku player currently in existence will ever play 4K content. For multiple reasons, like memory and bandwidth requirements. Encoding guide lists player at H.264/AVC high profile level 4, which requires memory for at least 4 reference frames + 1 currently decoded + 1 on screen, x8MB each = ~50MB for 1920x1080 video. In the case of 4K that will require 4x more, 200MB RAM. I read that the high-efficiency video coding (H.265) can do 4K with "as little as 20-30 Mbps of bandwidth" and the maximum Roku does is 8 Mbps... over USB. Over network, Netflix's "SuperHD" 5-6Mbps has recently been implicated in causing player reboots.
And as personal opinion goes, i think Roku shouldn't even try to, unless 4K becomes broadly available, which i doubt. It's my impression that RokuCo follows the "law of the vital few" (or 80/20 rule if you will), by satisfying most existing needs with a minimal complexity solution.
"El Jefe" wrote:
- Third, we announced the availability of a Roku TV 4K reference design for our Roku TV manufacturing partners. This means that our TV OEM partners can begin development of Roku TV 4K models that merge the latest in TV viewing technology with the Roku operating system and experience. TCL is an initial partner working to deliver a TCL Roku TV 4K model in the future while Netflix is our initial 4K content partner.
"EnTerr" wrote:
My guess is it will take 12 to 24 months to bring product to market, so a 4k RokuTV will be available some time in 2016... say Summer 2016.
"squirreltown" wrote:
To be fair, the difference between 24/192 and 24/96 gets into the area where you need equipment that I could certainly never afford, so I don't want to imply i could hear the difference between those two formats. However, I certainly can hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/48, and really hear it between 16/44 and 24/96. As far as blind tests go, its important to remember that sound happens over time, and the brain needs to "learn" a particular sound to examine it.