Samsung calls it quits on 4K Blu-ray players

[bandit8623]

Well this sucks because I bought Samsung's top of the line 4K Blu-ray player in 2017. I hope they don't stop making the 4K Blu-ray discs because that would suck.

it will happen eventually. it will be like all the dvd and vhs collections people have

 

[Puiu]

That will be an interesting call, considering how much flak the Xbox One got when it was first revealed to be trying to go that route. And then there have always been rumors of a cheaper, disc-less console release that never materialized...

I doubt gamers will be all that receptive to it (yet), considering how fickle they can be...

2013 is not 2020
Back then the majority of console gamers got their games on disc, now the majority buy them online and the internet speeds did increase somewhat. That's why I said 2 versions, with and without. It's much easier to accept it like that.
You are forced to download huge patches anyway

 

[brucek]

Audio quality is more then just data on a file.

Are you trying to bring some "high end" audio snake oil onto a place like Techspot? I know there are people who will buy $5,000 cables, but I'm guessing they aren't engineers, or sound professionals.

The input to the DAC is ultimately ones and zeroes. The internet can bring down those ones and zeroes accurately enough for executable programs, for which there is not tolerance for even a single bit to be incorrect. Yes, there are errors along the way, but the point is they are corrected, and since you are playing from a buffer, they are corrected by the time they leave that buffer.

OP was correct. If there's bandwidth for 4K video, there's certainly bandwidth for high quality audio.

 

[brucek]

DVD's are still being bought in large numbers. BR was less successful and UHD is flopping almost as badly as BR-3D due to a combination of reasons including:-

1. Upgrade fatigue.
2. Excessive premium pricing.
3. Excessive level of DRM.

All true. I'd add also that the DVDs were the generational leap in important improvements other than video quality too: there was no rewinding, they took up less shelf space, they didn't wear down, and you could quickly jump to a favorite scene. You didn't have to be an enthusiast to understand those benefits.

In some ways the newer formats actually moved backwards, particularly with the cumbersome start up process. It can take literally minutes between inserting a Blu Ray and when you are at the scene you wanted to see, compared to seconds on YouTube. No thanks.

 

[r00x00r]

Thats not a relatable comparison, your still missing the boat on this. Audio quality is more then just data on a file.
Even if you have 1,000,000 GB's down, and all the same equipment as I do, same receiver, digital cable, everything, the direct source to source content from the disc would be clearer, crisper and superior. It's not about size, or bandwidth. It's about what it has to go through to get there.

Sorry but this is nonsense, my friend. You are arguing that the issue is compression/not being "direct digital to digital" but this isn't true. In fact, the "uncompressed" data on your discs is actually compressed as well.

Also, this statement about "more than just data on a file" is false. When it comes to digital data, it is LITERALLY just data and reproduction of that data is 100% accurate. This is true whether you read it directly off a disc or stream it thousands of miles over the Internet.

So what gives with the poor streaming quality, then? Well, streaming services don't bother to stream the top-quality audio data you can find on the disc, that's all.

Yep. It's as simple as that. They could, they just don't.

It has nothing to do with the disc being in your house and directly connected to your TV, that's nonsense. If the streaming companies involved wished it, they could easily stream full quality DTS-HD Master Audio to your house along with the video. You'd need about 30Mbps to do so, which is within the realms of some home Internet connections these days.

Why don't they do it, then? Because it's not worth their time and money. It costs more to store that extra-high-quality data in their datacenters, and it costs more bandwidth to stream that extra data to your house. That costs money. And lots of people using their services still don't have fast enough Internet anyway and couldn't stream the data in real-time if they wanted to.

Streaming services take the view that their customers can't/won't notice the difference if they drop the quality a little, or at least won't be bothered by it sufficiently to stop using the service. Sometimes this gamble doesn't pay off (Crunchyroll got in trouble not long ago for a sudden drop in quality on their service which plenty of people did notice, for instance).

Once again: it has NOTHING to do with the fact it's compressed, they make a deliberate choice to use more highly compressed audio and save on bandwidth and storage, it's not a limitation of compression itself. The audio on your discs are compressed as well, just using more bandwidth-intensive, lossless algorithms. It would be easily possible to stream a full-quality blu-ray experience if you had enough bandwidth and you WOULD NOT notice the difference, guaranteed. But you would need a 150Mbps home broadband connection to do it.

 

[LNCPapa]

"HD-DVD was technically superior in every way.

WHAT?

 

[wiyosaya]

3. Excessive level of DRM. Even standalone BR 4K players need Internet connections and constant firmware updates, software players for PC's come with stupid restrictions, eg, can't take screencaps, etc. DVD is pretty much a BS-free format these days with free software like VLC or MPC-BE playing it out of the box without the multi-layered DRM of BR (HDCP, AACS, BD+, Cinavia, etc) throwing a hissy fit along the way. In fact, I know two people who've had a standalone UHD BR player (one Samsung, one Toshiba) actually bricked from firmware updates (that were only required for DRM).

This is pretty much it for me. I have BR in my HTPC right now, and it still is far superior to DVD, IMO, in every aspect.

However, with the extreme controls on UHD-BR, it is a non-starter for me. To go so far as to require specific sIntel processors is just plain stupid. They are so concerned about people pirating their material that they are killing the format up-front. Get rid of requiring a sIntel processor and I am in all the way. I already have a UHD BR drive.

Any manufacturer bricking players with firmware updates should be required to replace them free-of-charge.

 

[dirtyferret]

Hardly shocking. Laser Disc had better consumer penetration back in the day then 4k blue ray (or even HD blue ray).

 

[amstech]

Sorry but this is nonsense, my friend. You are arguing that the issue is compression/not being "direct digital to digital" but this isn't true. In fact, the "uncompressed" data on your discs is actually compressed as well.
Also, this statement about "more than just data on a file" is false. When it comes to digital data, it is LITERALLY just data and reproduction of that data is 100% accurate.,

Incorrect. It doesnt matter if the disc and streamed version have the same bitrate or quality, or if both are uncompressed, the fact its coming through as a packet means it loses clarity. Direct from a disc there is a much cleaner, shorter route. Audio is more then just data on a file, which is why there is still a huge difference to this day, even the fastest connection and highest quality content.

 

[brucek]

Incorrect. It doesnt matter if the disc and streamed version have the same bitrate or quality, or if both are uncompressed, the fact its coming through as a packet means it loses clarity. Direct from a disc there is a much cleaner, shorter route. Audio is more then just data on a file, which is why there is still a huge difference to this day, even the fastest connection and highest quality content.

Please stop posting this "fake news" here. There's enough of that in less reputable and/or sane places than this blog. When the only two states are zero or one, there is no "more," and there is no cleaner or shorter. What you're saying makes no more sense than if you were advising people not to buy their discs at shops more than 1.5 miles away from their home to avoid this fictional Digital Degradation from Distance phenomenon you're making up. The "packet" the ones and zeroes are in no more degrades them than does the cellophane wrapper on the disc case.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Audio is more then just data on a file

Audio can be perfectly recorded and stored lossless in digital format. You are making it sound, as if this feat is impossible.

You are also making is sound as if audio is some how different than video, in the way it is digitally stored. The perception of ones ears are no different that the perception of ones sight. There are limits to both, and everyone has a different threshold. Perfect clarity is not needed in either area.

 

[amstech]

This discussion is not whether it's true, what I am saying is absolute fact... this discussion is about why it's true. If we both have identical sound systems and you stream Lord of the Rings and I have a disc, my audio quality is going to be better. And it is.
You're suffering degradation through packet loss in transportation, I am not.
Even if I ripped my Blu-ray copy and you stream the exact same thing, my local version would still be clearer. Audio and video are not the same thing and not the same type of data. You actually do lose video quality through degradation, I notice more pixelation when I stream Lord of the Rings then when I watch it on disk but the difference is much more minimal than it used to be, but what you're missing is you think these are a relatable comparison and they are not. This is not up for debate.
Audio streamed will always be less quality than audio that isn't.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Please stop posting this "fake news" here.

The data degradation mentioned would prevent us from communicating at faster frequencies. I'm also glad our file downloads are corrupted the moment we get them from packet loss. I think what they are referring to is real time data integrity loss. Where there are no error corrections.

 

[wiyosaya]

This discussion is not whether it's true, what I am saying is absolute fact... this discussion is about why it's true. If we both have identical sound systems and you stream Lord of the Rings and I have a disc, my audio quality is going to be better. And it is.
You're suffering degradation through packet loss in transportation, I am not.

That's mainly because the format is different. Netflix, for instance, only has DD+ while BR typically has a more modern format - not to mention streamed is compressed.

As to video, streaming is also typically far more compressed than on disk.

It really does not have anything to do with loss of data due to streaming, it is the simple fact that audio/video is compressed from what ever was the original format before it is ever sent out by a streaming service.

This is relatively easy to verify. Post the question on some site like https://www.avsforum.com/ and you will get a factual answer.

Audio streamed will always be less quality than audio that isn't.

"Always" is a long time.

As network speeds increase, there will be less of a reason to compress - but given the way that internet speeds remain piddling, especially in the US, it may be a long time before high quality streamed audio/video is the norm.

 

[brucek]

You are correct that the practical reality is that streaming services today use a lower bit rate, meaning more compression, than what you find on your disc at home. That is why the disc looks and sounds better.

You are wrong that an identical bit rate of the identical data would look or sound any different if it was delivered over the network vs over an optical reader. By the time it is fed to the DAC chip inside your gear, it has been prepared into the identical stream of electrical input signals.

If you do not believe networks can reliably transmit digital data, how do you account for the text in your posts appearing as you typed them? Or any program that you've ever downloaded working correctly?

 

[Mister_K]

This is terrible news because you lose a lot of audio and video quality when you stream. The video quality certainly gotten better lately with the 4K streaming and upscaling, but audio will never be anywhere close.

Meh, not noticeable enough for me to not use streaming services.

320 kbps is good enough, specially if you are not driving an amp and even then.. I never really noticed 320 kbps vs 1.4 Mbps lossless.

Also:

PS: People had this war for a while. But still play their audio through shitty outputs. Upgrade your hardware, then care about bit-rates

 

[wiyosaya]

Meh, not noticeable enough for me to not use streaming services.

Compare Hulu streaming "Arrival" and/or "Interstellar" vs the Blu-ray versions. For me, it is hard not to notice the difference - especially in the audio.

 

[amstech]

You are wrong that an identical bit rate of the identical data would look or sound any different if it was delivered over the network vs over an optical reader. By the time it is fed to the DAC chip inside your gear, it has been prepared into the identical

Thats not correct.
They DO look different and they DO sound different.
What we are discussing is, why?
It we both listen to a 320kpbs mp3 with identical sound systems, and your streaming it, and im playing it from a file, your audio will be of less quality.
And yes some data is lost during transportation, its bounced around until it reaches its destination, its not something as noticable or (noticeable at all) with certain types of data, like a.docx.

 

[brucek]

OK. A number of us, all of whom clearly know more about this subject matter than you do, have tried to explain it with patience and diplomacy. At this point I do not know if you are intentionally trying to troll us, or mislead others, or what your motive might be. Maybe this is somehow all related to the flat earth article.

If you are sincere in your mis-beliefs, and are unwilling to learn from us, I hope you can find a source for whatever reason you trust better. If there is anyone else who feels in danger of being misled, do keep seeking the right information.

One last point, you should know that the discs you are extolling for never having been "degraded" by "packets" were almost certainly mastered and produced in a modern environment that included networks and packets. Or likely multiple environments, the outputs from which were brought together via, once again, a network.

 

[amstech]

One last point, you should know that the discs you are extolling for never having been "degraded" by "packets" were almost certainly mastered and produced in a modern environment that included networks and packets. Or likely multiple environments, the outputs from which were brought together .

You have no argument. Sorry you dont understand, Ive explained things quite clearly, its a difficult thing to understand, dont feel bad you cant grasp it.
Bluray audio is superior to streaming audio, period, and myself and the sources Ive posted explain why.
This discussion is not about 'if' it is, but 'why' it is.
Ive posted sources backing my point. People arguing have not...why? cause there are none.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Bluray audio is superior to streaming audio, period

Bluray audio can be streamed, period. There are no reasons why it can not be streamed. The only problem is pissa-ss Internet connections like I have will not allow for it. You are confusing the way things are with the way they can be. Just because there are issues does not mean those issues can not be resolved. As long as there is adequate buffer time, those packets can be reassembled without data loss.

And for the last time. If there are packet errors in audio. There will also be packet errors in the video. If you have a flat tire. The whole tire will be flat, not just 10% of the tire. You started this whole charade with Video being just fine while audio suffers packet loss. As far as quality in bit transfer there is no difference.

You are trying to pin audio problems on the fact it was streamed. That is not the case. The way it is streamed is the problem, and it effects the video the same way.

 

[amstech]

Bluray audio can be streamed, period.

This statement implies you still do not understand.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Anyone with a PS4 or Xbox One has a Blu Ray player.

Because of streaming services and the lowered demand- sales of players are low and make it unprofitable.

 

[cliffordcooley]

This statement implies you still do not understand.

This is my very first search. I'm not searching for more. I'll not waste any more of my time trying to explain this to you.
https://hometheaterreview.com/why-blu-ray-is-still-better-than-streaming-today/

2. Blu-ray has much better audio quality.
Picture isn't everything, either. Even when you are getting excellent video quality through a streaming service, you're not getting the uncompressed multichannel audio that you could get through Blu-ray. A large number of new, big-ticket Blu-ray movies offer either a Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack. These higher-resolution formats allow for up to 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio...and they would require a lot of bandwidth to stream that way. The audio soundtrack offered by a streaming service will depend on the service, the device it's playing through, and the movie you're watching; audio can often be limited to PCM stereo, or it might be Dolby Digital 5.1. At best, you'll get Dolby Digital Plus, which offers slightly better sound quality than Dolby Digital and can give you up to 7.1 channels but is still not as good as uncompressed Dolby TrueHD. (VUDU announced support for DD Plus 7.1 in late 2011, but there are still not a ton of titles that include 7.1). If you love the DTS format, forget about it; it is rarely offered as an option for streaming services.

I want you to read that very carefully. Now I will quote the part I really want you to concentrate on.

A large number of new, big-ticket Blu-ray movies offer either a Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack. These higher-resolution formats allow for up to 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio...and they would require a lot of bandwidth to stream that way.

Nowhere does it say impossible. In fact it is the bandwidth being limited which prevents uncompressed audio streaming. I humored you with the notion of packet loss. I will flat out call BS to that notion now. I couldn't imagine how badly gaming would be if packet loss was as bad as you seem to imply. Actually I can. My gaming flat out sucks half the time. But I don't think that is packet loss.

 

[captaincranky]

Meh, not noticeable enough for me to not use streaming services.

320 kbps is good enough, specially if you are not driving an amp and even then.. I never really noticed 320 kbps vs 1.4 Mbps lossless.

I'm a devotee of CD, but I'm nowhere near foolish enough to get sucked into the vinyl resurgence.

A couple of points your first video failed to touch on in the CD's favor, was signal to noise ratio and overall dynamic range. The surface noise in vinyl limits its S/N ratio to about 65 Db. CD normally has in excess of 90 Db SN and dynamic range.

To come closest to reproducing a live performance the entire audio bandwidth has to be reproduced at the same volume as the original. That pretty much leaves those "high fidelity blue tooth speakers" completely out of the running.

The Who set a record for "world's loudest concert". http://ultimateclassicrock.com/who-loudest-band/ (That record has since been surpassed).

Arguably you could use an expander to restore the missing dynamic range. Unfortunately, if you were exposed to those Db levels constantly, you'r be deaf in a matter of years, possibly months.

PS:

People had this war for a while. But still play their audio through shitty outputs. Upgrade your hardware, then care about bit-rates

This is an absolute truth bound by the physics of sound reproduction. The inverse square affects the amount of air any given "X" diameter / cone area loudspeaker is capable of moving.

Which means, in practical terms, that 4" diameter turd they just sold someone as a "subwoofer", would have to make 2" of cone excursion to produce the amount of bass produced by a 15" woofer moving its cone less than 1/8".

And don't get me started on the massive flux density and narrow voice coil gap required to provide accurate transient response from any driver..