|
|
|
Yes you will need a new receiver.
MrFlower:
Yes you will need a new receiver.
Thanks for that... this was in the back of my mind...
Marantz SR5009 would be good match? or any other recommended HT receiver? budget is about $1600-$1800.
Cheers :)
MrFlower:
Yes you will need a new receiver.
Thanks for that... this was in the back of my mind...
Marantz SR5009 would be good match? or any other recommended HT receiver? budget is about $1600-$1800.
Cheers :)
MrFlower: We (actually the wife) have decided to go with the 75" 1080p for now. Will see how the 4K goes by end of the year.
I think this is easier as I don't need to upgrade the receiver and can spend more on the speaker( if wifey allows).
tangerz:MrFlower: We (actually the wife) have decided to go with the 75" 1080p for now. Will see how the 4K goes by end of the year.
I think this is easier as I don't need to upgrade the receiver and can spend more on the speaker( if wifey allows).
Maybe a bit late but thought I'd add my 2 cents anyway!
I think you'll regret going for only 1080p an a screen that size (75") that you'll be watching from 3.5m, pixels will be visible! You'd be better going smaller (65") with 4k ability for the same or less $$$. Or spend a little more and get the same size with 4k.
And you don't HAVE to upgrade your receiver if you go for a 4k TV. This will only be an issue if you get a new 4k source component (ie UHD Blu-ray player or 4k media player) that you want to connect through the receiver with HDMI. Even then you could still just connect directly to the TV's HDMI inputs, (although sound will have to be sent to the receiver via optical/coax)
However, just like when 3D came along and most receivers were incompatible, I would expect many of the early UHD Blu-ray players will have two HDMI outputs to allow direct connection to the TV HDMI for video with the first HDMI output, and connection to the AV receiver HDMI for sound with the second HDMI output, like this one http://www.samsung.com/us/video/home-audio/UBD-K8500/ZA
Go 4k.... my guess is you'll regret only buying a 1080p screen in a year or two...
tangerz:MrFlower: We (actually the wife) have decided to go with the 75" 1080p for now. Will see how the 4K goes by end of the year.
I think this is easier as I don't need to upgrade the receiver and can spend more on the speaker( if wifey allows).
Maybe a bit late but thought I'd add my 2 cents anyway!
I think you'll regret going for only 1080p an a screen that size (75") that you'll be watching from 3.5m, pixels will be visible! You'd be better going smaller (65") with 4k ability for the same or less $$$. Or spend a little more and get the same size with 4k.
And you don't HAVE to upgrade your receiver if you go for a 4k TV. This will only be an issue if you get a new 4k source component (ie UHD Blu-ray player or 4k media player) that you want to connect through the receiver with HDMI. Even then you could still just connect directly to the TV's HDMI inputs, (although sound will have to be sent to the receiver via optical/coax)
However, just like when 3D came along and most receivers were incompatible, I would expect many of the early UHD Blu-ray players will have two HDMI outputs to allow direct connection to the TV HDMI for video with the first HDMI output, and connection to the AV receiver HDMI for sound with the second HDMI output, like this one http://www.samsung.com/us/video/home-audio/UBD-K8500/ZA
Go 4k.... my guess is you'll regret only buying a 1080p screen in a year or two...
Jaxson:tangerz:MrFlower: We (actually the wife) have decided to go with the 75" 1080p for now. Will see how the 4K goes by end of the year.
I think this is easier as I don't need to upgrade the receiver and can spend more on the speaker( if wifey allows).
Maybe a bit late but thought I'd add my 2 cents anyway!
I think you'll regret going for only 1080p an a screen that size (75") that you'll be watching from 3.5m, pixels will be visible! You'd be better going smaller (65") with 4k ability for the same or less $$$. Or spend a little more and get the same size with 4k.
And you don't HAVE to upgrade your receiver if you go for a 4k TV. This will only be an issue if you get a new 4k source component (ie UHD Blu-ray player or 4k media player) that you want to connect through the receiver with HDMI. Even then you could still just connect directly to the TV's HDMI inputs, (although sound will have to be sent to the receiver via optical/coax)
However, just like when 3D came along and most receivers were incompatible, I would expect many of the early UHD Blu-ray players will have two HDMI outputs to allow direct connection to the TV HDMI for video with the first HDMI output, and connection to the AV receiver HDMI for sound with the second HDMI output, like this one http://www.samsung.com/us/video/home-audio/UBD-K8500/ZA
Go 4k.... my guess is you'll regret only buying a 1080p screen in a year or two...
This.
You can always go video straight to TV and a different audio output to receiver separately. You simply don't need to route it all through a receiver; which will save you dollars now.
4K really is the way for a screen that size.
Super8: And if you go 4K make sure whatever set you go with is HDR compliant/ready. These will be more readily identifiable as the 2016 models hit but not so apparent in the 2015 line up.
MrFlower:Super8: And if you go 4K make sure whatever set you go with is HDR compliant/ready. These will be more readily identifiable as the 2016 models hit but not so apparent in the 2015 line up.
Yeah been down to AV world yesterday. Need HDCP 2.2 or something like that.... Apparently a new receiver is only like $1200-1500. Think I paid $3000-$4000 for my Yamaha RXV3900 back in 2009/2010
|
|
|