11 Myths About Buying a New 4K TV

"Myth #8
Pricey HDMI Cables Are Worth It"

Actually, I was using my 4K TV with a MacBook, and the troubles I had when using the full 4K resolution settings using a dollar store HDMI cable only went away after I used an Amazon Basic HDMI cable. So, yes, depending on the use, you may want to spend a LITTLE bit more on your cable.
 
4K refers to the horizontal width of the screen in pixels, which 4K TVs aren't actually anyways only 3820 pixels wide instead of the 4000 pixels which truly describes the format. Who do you know that thinks 4K refers to the vertical pixels? However, I'm sure that the average punter will think that 4K=4000 and to them 4000 is about 4 x bigger than 1080 ;-).
4k = 3840x2160=8.3 million pixels, HD = 1,800x1,080=1.9 million pixels or 4.3 x as many pixels so, oddly, 4K= 4xHD actually kind of works out ... :)
 
I agree one needs the best HDMI cable quality for high resolution displays but you cannot judge a cable by it's price. No one in this forum has a clue about the challenges of long high quality RF cable (Gigahertz scale signals) function over many wavelengths over 1GHz without echos bit errors and imperfections from mismatched characterisitc impedance over the wide spectrum. Unfortunately none of the suppliers will quote it or publish the specs or production test results. But with error correction and group delay equalization, the driver is supposed to adapt to imperfections with training signals like fax modems did except this is a million times higher spectrum meaning a million times smaller wavelength and small kinks or even slight bends in a new cable shave off noise margin and no one will be the wiser until you start to see sparklies on the screen where there is rapid changing. So if it works consider yourself lucky, but I've had 2 suppliers fail on HDMI2.1 cable. They need to be semi-rigid to not go oval which affects the signals. But as with satellite TV in the rain, it either works or it doesn't with blotchy noise and the more pixels per image the higher speed is required and less margin for noise. So do your homework on cables for 4K TV or even 1080p. Gold plating is cheap but high quality-controlled Japanese teflon core cables are best with a high quality plastic semi-rigid multi-core construction jacket. Lower resolution TV's are easy to accomodate but treat the cables like glass not because of visible damage but due to invisible wave reflections. Tony EE since 1975.
 
We have a recent 4K Samsung 40" set.

I have noticed that even on less than 1080P content, there is some signal processing going on that sharpens the image even better than any 1080P set I have ever seen, even on such as low-quality XviD files on my flash drive. It is palpable, and this is totally apart from the lack of 4K content.

second issue: 4K is not 4096 x 4096 as a computer guy like me would expect, but a very "stretched " number, while apparantly 8K is more like it and certainly can handle 4K movie prints [should that format be available]. I think the numbers game is somewhat backfiring on the now more-confused public.
 
An important consideration is your internet connection. Is it unlimited use? You'll sure burn through data faster with 4k content as opposed to HD. And check the availability of 4K broadcast/ondemand content for the services you use, upscaling and make HD content look better but I encountered this lack of content and lower res content looking poor with Sony's first full HD tv and had to wait years for HD broadcast channels in the UK.

Arris: Do you have anything to do with high-speed cable modems?
 
It's been my experience that modern LCD LED TV's will easily pass 100,000 hours (over 8 years).
Some brands are prone to failure (all this stuff is made in China basically). I don't think you need a warranty, but peace of mind having one can't be discounted. I usually get one if it isn't too expensive.

I like Vizio - personally. I have bought a 42 inch, a 50" and an 80". So far, no problems. My 50" is a great bedroom TV and my 80 is great in the living room. Personally, I couldn't see going lower than 70" if you have a big room for a lot of people.

As for 4K TV, they are basically the standard now till the industry tries to force us into 8K or whatever. Most equipment is running 1080p so there's no rush. In 2 years 4K will be even cheaper.

I would not say 4K are standard since they offer a lot of 1080p but it is certainly going that way. I guess it depend where you are coming from. I must say the price of 4K is a lot cheaper than when I bought my last 1080p LED TV like 2-3 time cheaper. The thing is that damn thing is not dying lol ;)
There is a lot bull about 4K. First you have to be very close to you're TV like 20 to 30 inches to see the difference in pixels. Second you're eyes cannot distinguish the difference between the pixels of 1080 and 2160 Pixels. Only if you have Eagles eyes. It is an optical illusion. When you create a photo from 8x10 to 24x30 you use 300 dpi, but if you create a larger photo you use between 240 150 dpi. Because you looking at at the photo from farther away and want see the pixilation. It holds true also to a TV monitor. My point is, so farther the distance from a TV you watching from so less you see pixels. As a photographer I like a 4K monitor because I sit close to the monitor. And yes it makes a different. I use a 44 inches monitor for watching TV with a distance of 6 feet and happy with my 1080 monitor.
 
They have actually different standards, and if you want to actually guarantee the experience you want, never buy 1.4. Are you sure you're not thinking of display port?

The standard isn't being debated, it's the fact that there is usually 0 difference in the construction of a HDMI v2.0 cable vs a HDMI v1.4 cable. There may be some really bargain bin junk cables out there which may not be suitable to handle the v2.0 standard, but in general any quality cable is capable of delivering without any issues. Over a long length possibly you'll start to see problems if the cable isn't HDMI v2.0 "Certified" but not for a regular 6ft cable.
 
Back