Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MarkedZuckerPunch t1_j389llo wrote

Reply to comment by sybesis in LG’s latest Signature OLED TV receives all of its audio and video wirelessly by randburg

  1. Streaming sticks exist for more reasons than that. Choice being one of them. Replaceability another. Imagine building the tech required for this to work without problems directly into one, skipping the connect box while keeping the small form factor and the 50$ price tag. Not gonna happen.

  2. The tech is gonna be proprietary. So get ready for every device incorporating it directly to be vendor-locked. Or buying expensive transmitters to plug into the HDMI PORT of every device you own, which will still require an uncompressed signal because its still HDMI. Or, you know, a single connect box, just like what LG just presented.

  3. HDMI IS the bottleneck for anything other than streaming services. That and storage space. Even movies on Blurays are compressed because storage space for uncompressed video would be insane. And even those require the full hdmi bandwidth. Sure they could be compressed even further, but with added latency on top of the wireless latency and even worse quality than direct netflix streams because of real-time encoding an already degraded source. Which brings me to

  4. Incredibly high latency and video degradation on video games even IF consoles incorporated the tech directly, which they won't (because of all the reasons above)

And don't even try to compare this to high-compression, audio-only tech like bluetooth, which no audiophile would ever use in their home cinema. If this is going to be like that, they might as well not do it.

  1. The power cord, nuff said
1

sybesis t1_j38uq9c wrote

Ok, you clearly don't understand what bottleneck means. If the HDMI cables can handle up to 48Gbps... the cable clearly can't be the bottleneck when all other medium don't have those kind of bandwidth.

That's why we compress video because if we didn't. We'd need many more terabytes of storage or more than 48Gbps of bandwidth on network to be able to transmit them.

When you're able to compress, the bottleneck will still remain the slowest part of your system. In case of streaming, it's your internet connection. If you don't have the required internet speed to download the stream, you can't hope to be able to watch it even if you have 48Gbps capable cables.

Just to show how ridiculous the claim is. If we had a video that requires 2Gbps of bandwidth. That would require an internet connection of at least 2Gbps or more than 17GB of storage for a 60second footage.

In reality, the footage is compressed and can be compressed in a lossless format so quality doesn't degrade and doesn't induce necessarily any latency. One example is like having a frame and having 90% of the pixels identical to the previous frame. There's no point sending all of the pixels. You'd send the 10% of the pixels that changed and only update those. We're not even starting to compress the 10% we send but the frame size will be 90% smaller than the previous one and it won't be slower because if you spend time only updating 10% of a frame you spend less time than updating a whole frame.

> The tech is gonna be proprietary. So get ready for every device incorporating it directly to be vendor-locked.

It's possible, but I sincerely doubt it. Creating vendor-locked technology like that means nobody would want to integrate with their TVs... then it's just a matter of time until a consortium is created to replace their vendor-locked technology to replace it with an alternative that's used by everyone. That's why USB is used everywhere instead of firewire, that's why bluetooth is so common nowadays, how we had RCA cables then HDMI cable instead of vendor locked cables, just like wireless charging support a common protocol instead of reinventing the wheel. Having a vendor-locked system would be a terrible move nowadays. I'd imagine they'll build a consortium and use their basis to build a future standard backward compatible with what they currently made.

1

MarkedZuckerPunch t1_j39j7zb wrote

I know how lossless compression works. Netflix doesn't use lossless compression because the file size would still be way too large. blurays can't be further compressed losslessly because they already use lossy compression. Trying to compress them losslessly would best case do nothing, worst case it larger. So I don't even know why you mentioned lossless compression, unless you were either actually suggesting that or thought that netflix uses lossless compression.

Also I don't know why you're acting like netflix streams are in any way representative of the speed this connect box would need to reliably and with near zero latency transmit (can't buffer video games), while 4k 120hz 4:4:4 Chroma wasn't possible with HDMI 2.0 (sound like a bottleneck to you?). This means that for that you need more than the 14gbps, quite a bit more actually. 20gbps or more. That's double the wifi 6 max speed. There's also TVs now with 240hz, which even HDMI 2.1 can't do at 4k and once we get to 8k TVs those 42gbps probably won't be enough anyway. That' more than 4 times wifi 6 max speed. Remember: reliable and near zero latency.

Why did those

>That's why USB is used everywhere instead of firewire, that's why bluetooth is so common nowadays, how we had RCA cables then HDMI cable instead of vendor locked cables, just like wireless charging support a common protocol instead of reinventing the wheel.

Why did those even have to be replaced? Because some companies were doing it before everyone else and tried to profit off of it. Why did they get replaced? Because the technology got important enough to warrant the building of consortiums and standards. Will this eventually be the same? Probably. Are we there yet? No. Why? Because it's still experimental. Did other TV manufacturers announce a similar feature? No. So they probably didn't work together on a new standard. Also you act like no company would do anything proprietary these days, which is just false.

Note: I'm not saying they'll create vendor lock-in. I'm saying they won't do it as you described at all. At least not any time soon.

Note 2: we had open HDR10 at first, but the proprietary Dolby Vision Codec won against HDR10+ and Samsung doesn't want to pay royalties for it.

1