According to a report in the Media Daily News, a research study by Futurescape predicts that 54% of all flat panel televisions shipped worldwide in 2014 will have network connectivity so that they can access content from the Internet. The study also forecasts that by five years from now, 40% of all U.S. homes will [...]
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/12/hdtv-almanac-netvs-to-dominate-by-2014.php]Read Column[/url]
HDTV Almanac - NeTVs to Dominate by 2014
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
-
ANonemoose
- Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:24 am
NetTVs
Will the TVs have at least an optical output port that will supply 5.1 sound to sound systems? My Panny plasmas have that optical port, but I can't get 5.1 sound out of them. Only PCM.
Moose
Moose
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
We've got you surrounded
Interesting question; will we see a way to get 5.1 out of a NeTV and into your sound system on the average television? I don't know; I see that it could go either way.
On the "pull" side, I suspect that the number of television sets in this country that are connected to a home network and a surround sound system is a tiny fraction of the installed base. (If most consumers are satisfied watching DVDs on the HDTVs, then I suspect that they're comfortable with the two-speaker sound from their sets as well.) The number consumers who would even understand the problem of getting surround from the TV to a home theater sound system is probably very small. So I don't see a lot of incentive for manufactures to pay to put this feature into a set.
On the "push" side, however, it is possible that the added connector and circuitry could cost so little that manufacturers could add them without too much pain. In a market where the set makers are struggling to come up with differentiating features, and where four HDMI ports and 120 Hz refresh are just about standard already, it's possible that adding surround sound output could make a difference in sales.
My best guess is that demand is too small for manufacturers to bother, but I've been wrong before and I've no doubt that I will be again in the future.
Alfred Poor
On the "pull" side, I suspect that the number of television sets in this country that are connected to a home network and a surround sound system is a tiny fraction of the installed base. (If most consumers are satisfied watching DVDs on the HDTVs, then I suspect that they're comfortable with the two-speaker sound from their sets as well.) The number consumers who would even understand the problem of getting surround from the TV to a home theater sound system is probably very small. So I don't see a lot of incentive for manufactures to pay to put this feature into a set.
On the "push" side, however, it is possible that the added connector and circuitry could cost so little that manufacturers could add them without too much pain. In a market where the set makers are struggling to come up with differentiating features, and where four HDMI ports and 120 Hz refresh are just about standard already, it's possible that adding surround sound output could make a difference in sales.
My best guess is that demand is too small for manufacturers to bother, but I've been wrong before and I've no doubt that I will be again in the future.
Alfred Poor
-
ANonemoose
- Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:24 am
-
ccclvib
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:35 pm
A comment I'm fully aware of. An acquaintance was talking about the fact none of the local channels are available in HD on DirecTV. I said, "OK, so put up a small antenna and receive all the locals that way - and in HD." He looked at me with a completely blank expression. "You mean you can do that?", he said. My response was I've been watching HD over-the-air for at least the past five or six years with my antenna. Although my AT&T U-verse service does provide all the locals - and an out-of-the-area feed for ABC in HD, I still keep my antenna and Tivo running because I get two secondary digital feeds (25.2 and 46.2) which U-verse DOESN'T carry. And, when something goes wrong with my cable feed the antenna keeps right on plugging.alfredpoor wrote:These numbers are not surprising to me. 100% of all televisions sold in the U.S. have tuners capable of getting signals over the air with an antenna. In spite of this, a small fraction are actually connected to an antenna.
What came of the conversation, BTW, was an offer to help the acquaintance install an antenna!
Mike Richardson
Capitola, CA
On the shores of the blue - and cold - Pacific
Capitola, CA
On the shores of the blue - and cold - Pacific
-
Roger Halstead
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:13 pm
I doubt it.
I seriously doubt that any where near that many will be connected to the net and of those that are connected only a few well settle on using the net much, in fact I'd bet on it.
I see several things happening. Satellite, Cable, and even the entertainment industry is grousing about low cost to free streaming TV and particularly the low rates they gave NetFlix in their current contract. Other than bootleg I'd bet the low cost programming over The Net is going to dry up. That will put companies like Net flx closer to an even footing with cable and satellite. If that happens, the networks are going to want their fair share for rebroadcasts over the Net.
On top of that, I really don't think the average viewer really cares much.
But to take the other track: Suppose these millions of HD sets do connect to The Net and want to watch streaming HD video. Would The Net be capable of handling that much traffic? Right now I'd have to give a resounding, no. Trunklines, and delivery systems would be well beyond capacity unless the present capacity were increased several fold. Cable companies could not deliver that much traffic without expansion, nor could the major trunklines. There's a tremendous amount of "Dark Fiber" out there, but is it in the right place and could it be used.
This past week I've been looking at download speeds that exceeded over 30 Mbs at times and most files downloaded at over 20, yet streaming video was inconsistent, most likely due to server loads or loading of specific trunks close to those sites. Tonight I watched a half hour, historical B & W video (actually WWII film on radio construction) that only had one hiccup and that could have been in the original documentary. Last night I watched a 45 minute video on historic aircraft from U-tube. These two are the first videos of any length I've watched that didn't have problems. So maybe things are improving, but I still have no desire to watch/rent movies or programs from the Net.
There are those of us who really use broadband's capabilities while working and surfing on the Net, but I think we are a small number compared to the average computer user and "TV watcher".
I see several things happening. Satellite, Cable, and even the entertainment industry is grousing about low cost to free streaming TV and particularly the low rates they gave NetFlix in their current contract. Other than bootleg I'd bet the low cost programming over The Net is going to dry up. That will put companies like Net flx closer to an even footing with cable and satellite. If that happens, the networks are going to want their fair share for rebroadcasts over the Net.
On top of that, I really don't think the average viewer really cares much.
But to take the other track: Suppose these millions of HD sets do connect to The Net and want to watch streaming HD video. Would The Net be capable of handling that much traffic? Right now I'd have to give a resounding, no. Trunklines, and delivery systems would be well beyond capacity unless the present capacity were increased several fold. Cable companies could not deliver that much traffic without expansion, nor could the major trunklines. There's a tremendous amount of "Dark Fiber" out there, but is it in the right place and could it be used.
This past week I've been looking at download speeds that exceeded over 30 Mbs at times and most files downloaded at over 20, yet streaming video was inconsistent, most likely due to server loads or loading of specific trunks close to those sites. Tonight I watched a half hour, historical B & W video (actually WWII film on radio construction) that only had one hiccup and that could have been in the original documentary. Last night I watched a 45 minute video on historic aircraft from U-tube. These two are the first videos of any length I've watched that didn't have problems. So maybe things are improving, but I still have no desire to watch/rent movies or programs from the Net.
There are those of us who really use broadband's capabilities while working and surfing on the Net, but I think we are a small number compared to the average computer user and "TV watcher".
-
jordanm
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:17 pm
- Location: Arizona
I am using an HPTC now with nVidia GT 430 hooked HDMI into my AVR, which feeds to my TV HDMI as well. The PC says its sound is a Pioneer TV, and provides the choice of 2, Quad, 5.1, and 7.1 channels. I get all that net stuff, now, blip.tv, Crackle TV, Hulu, Slacker Radio, EpixHD.com, in glorious 7.1, while VLC Media player, set to SPDIF, sends DD and DTS of various media files, just fine, and
PowerDVD passthrough settings play BDs with TrueHD and DTS-HA MA now.
The "old" Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD has an Ethernet connection, but is just older DLNA enabled, so it can see LAN stuff, not Internet. The HTPC takes up the slack there, at full 1080p and 7.1.
PowerDVD passthrough settings play BDs with TrueHD and DTS-HA MA now.
The "old" Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD has an Ethernet connection, but is just older DLNA enabled, so it can see LAN stuff, not Internet. The HTPC takes up the slack there, at full 1080p and 7.1.
-
Richard
- SUPER VIP!
- Posts: 2578
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:28 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Contact:
-
jordanm
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:17 pm
- Location: Arizona
Richard,
Provided the nVidia driver is loaded, not the Win7 one, but the real nVidia one, the HTPC's 1080p can be set to 24 fps versus 60 (the Pioneer says 1080p 36bit on cable TV and PC BD play, but 1080p/24 when the PC comes on), and the only cable connecting the PC to the AVR is an HDMI one. The MB audio ports are unused, even the driver for them in not installed (they only seemed to support 2-channel, unless all those little 1/8" ports are used).
BTW, my media box, the XTreamer Pro, puts out only 108p/24fps HDMI through the AVR too, but it only has 6 Tbs of HDD (about 5 Tb of media play). It taught me what HTPC to build.
A WHS 2003 server I am building, connected through a 1 Gb LAN to the HTPC and our network, will have a bit more than 6 TB on Monday, and more than 10, when I get two more 2 TB drives when the price is lower than $79.00 (the one in the HTPC was $69 the day before T'giving). Why WHS 2003? Drive Connector says my OS 160GB, and my first 2 Tb drive has 20XX Gbs of storage, so it will say 60XX, when I add the next two 2 Tb drives. The HTPC runs Win 7 Ultimate x64; you should see and hear WMC and for example, HD Nation, via that HTPC; it is a wow!
I tried a tuner in the HTPC connected to our cable box, the TV worked but the HDR would not. I have since reinstalled the OS to rid all of that, and now I run movies via BD and PowerDVD or VLC Media player for files, and WMC gets me Internet TV, and there is lots of it. We have cable because my wife watches all that reality TV in HD, but I could get rid of it at the drop of a hat, now.
I read all over the web, if you want HD play and audio, get a GT 430 or a GTX 460. The smallish HTPC I built can't power a GTX 460, so I got the GT 430, and it works great. I heard but cannot verify, the new ATI 6XXX cards can do this too, but like I said, I can't verify that. The ATI 5770 I have in my PC cannot do all what the GT 430 can.
Provided the nVidia driver is loaded, not the Win7 one, but the real nVidia one, the HTPC's 1080p can be set to 24 fps versus 60 (the Pioneer says 1080p 36bit on cable TV and PC BD play, but 1080p/24 when the PC comes on), and the only cable connecting the PC to the AVR is an HDMI one. The MB audio ports are unused, even the driver for them in not installed (they only seemed to support 2-channel, unless all those little 1/8" ports are used).
BTW, my media box, the XTreamer Pro, puts out only 108p/24fps HDMI through the AVR too, but it only has 6 Tbs of HDD (about 5 Tb of media play). It taught me what HTPC to build.
A WHS 2003 server I am building, connected through a 1 Gb LAN to the HTPC and our network, will have a bit more than 6 TB on Monday, and more than 10, when I get two more 2 TB drives when the price is lower than $79.00 (the one in the HTPC was $69 the day before T'giving). Why WHS 2003? Drive Connector says my OS 160GB, and my first 2 Tb drive has 20XX Gbs of storage, so it will say 60XX, when I add the next two 2 Tb drives. The HTPC runs Win 7 Ultimate x64; you should see and hear WMC and for example, HD Nation, via that HTPC; it is a wow!
I tried a tuner in the HTPC connected to our cable box, the TV worked but the HDR would not. I have since reinstalled the OS to rid all of that, and now I run movies via BD and PowerDVD or VLC Media player for files, and WMC gets me Internet TV, and there is lots of it. We have cable because my wife watches all that reality TV in HD, but I could get rid of it at the drop of a hat, now.
I read all over the web, if you want HD play and audio, get a GT 430 or a GTX 460. The smallish HTPC I built can't power a GTX 460, so I got the GT 430, and it works great. I heard but cannot verify, the new ATI 6XXX cards can do this too, but like I said, I can't verify that. The ATI 5770 I have in my PC cannot do all what the GT 430 can.