4k TVs are so advanced, whats the point of Apple TV 4k?

[vipergts2207]

I don't believe it will give you better audio, certainly not as a blanket statement. I have my smart tvs connected to sound via HDMI ARC (or optical in one case) and the audio system passes the same feed as if I went through a streaming box--even if the audio originated from a streaming box. And this works perfectly with the TVs' own apps, OTA, game consoles, or streaming boxes. The "receiver" is back to handling what it should handle: audio (and not video, combining/switching multiple inputs, etc.). Less wires, less aggravation, and excellent audio.



Mike

A receiver is meant to handle all of that. That’s why it’s a receiver and not just an amplifier. Most TV’s also have inputs with a varying hodge-podge of capabilities. Even on my 2017 Sony, only two inputs can handle enhanced formats like HDR. With a receiver I can have up to 8 devices connected, all capable of getting enhanced formats to the TV. If I have one port on the TV taken up by the receiver for ARC, another by the ATV 4K, where does that leave me with another device like a PS4 or XB1? Either using a stand-alone switching box, which is rather silly consider that it’s part of a receivers job in the first place, or manually plugging in devices anytime I want to use a device with enhanced formats. When used properly and to their full capabilities, receivers are an integral part of any home theater.

 

[Tinmania]

A receiver is meant to handle all of that. That’s why it’s a receiver and not just an amplifier. Most TV’s also have inputs with a varying hodge-podge of capabilities. Even on my 2017 Sony, only two inputs can handle enhanced formats like HDR. With a receiver I can have up to 8 devices connected, all capable of getting enhanced formats to the TV. If I have one port on the TV taken up by the receiver for ARC, another by the ATV 4K, where does that leave me with another device like a PS4 or XB1? Either using a stand-alone switching box, which is rather silly consider that it’s part of a receivers job in the first place, or manually plugging in devices anytime I want to use a device with enhanced formats. When used properly and to their full capabilities, receivers are an integral part of any home theater.

That is how I felt in 2005. Not now. Hopefully never again. Ditto for wiring speakers all over the place for surround sound. It appears I am not alone, by looking at what is selling today: soundbars, soundbars with wireless sats and SWs, etc. A decade ago it was receiver-centric surround systems instead.

I have a game console and Fire TV connected to my most-used TV, with two HDMI ports left over (higher end Samsung 4k). Most of the time the TV is used on its own, with its own apps. There is no reason for me to have to add a receiver to this mix (a term from the days receivers main purpose was to receive radio). Not when I have a nice wireless surround system that only needs a single HDMI cable for connection, seamlessly turns on/off and is controlled via the TV's remote without any configuration needed, and to me sounds as good or better than my Yamaha system, that is now relegated to the garage, at a smaller size and immeasurably easier to setup and use. Just thinking about the Yamaha's remote makes me shudder.

Now I absolutely understand audiophiles still want receivers. I suspect I would be impressed if I listened to your system. But for me they are simply not needed. To get somewhat back to the topic at hand, neither are streaming boxes if your new TV can handle what you need on its own. And Smart TVs are not like they were in 2010: my Samsung TVs' interfaces are actually faster in use than any streaming stick I have used, and that includes (though Roku seems close).





Mike

 

[archer75]

I don't believe it will give you better audio, certainly not as a blanket statement. I have my smart tvs connected to sound via HDMI ARC (or optical in one case) and the audio system passes the same feed as if I went through a streaming box--even if the audio originated from a streaming box. And this works perfectly with the TVs' own apps, OTA, game consoles, or streaming boxes. The "receiver" is back to handling what it should handle: audio (and not video, combining/switching multiple inputs, etc.). Less wires, less aggravation, and excellent audio.



Mike

Yes, but you don't get HD audio. Thus, you don't get the better audio. Most TV's don't do anything other than DD over ARC so then you're missing out on DD+ as well. Wires don't give me aggravation. Not sure why it would. I've been running a home theater for 25 years and currently have 2 receiver based, HD audio capable, home theaters in the house.

I also have a 5.1 soundbar system that is collecting dust. It's just not even in the same league. Which is to be expected. But it's not even really pleasing to use. Nope, i'll take the receivers, speakers and wires any day. After all, I bought this house specifically because it had a good sized room for a 7.1 system and giant screen and projector.

And with CEC I haven't had to configure any remotes. The ATV remote controls the receiver out of the box. I didn't have to do anything.

Streaming sticks are horribly slow. I don't know that a smart tv being faster than a streaming stick is a good measure of performance. I have a samsung tv and it's smart tv interface is slow and horrible. The only smart tv i've seen with an interface that didn't suck and wasn't slow is the LG. And i'll use that if I currently want DV from Netflix or Amazon. But then i'm only getting DD so I don't like to use that. And it's limited on format support for my local content which is very important.

 

[priitv8]

That is how I felt in 2005. Not now. Hopefully never again. Ditto for wiring speakers all over the place for surround sound. It appears I am not alone, by looking at what is selling today: soundbars, soundbars with wireless sats and SWs, etc.

And what might be the reason for that?
I, like archer75 jiust before, do not believe it is the sound. A good quality system with real speakers and real SPL will sound much better than any soundbar with its tiny drivers.
Also not the convenience, because any modern HDMI-connected receiver has it on par with the soundbar.
It must be something else. Is it price? Is it living space?
Can't think of much else...

 

[Tinmania]

Yes, but you don't get HD audio. Thus, you don't get the better audio. Most TV's don't do anything other than DD over ARC so then you're missing out on DD+ as well. Wires don't give me aggravation. Not sure why it would.

Huh? I don't know where you got that from. A comma means a separate item.

I can survive without HD audio. And while I wouldn't say wires cause me aggravation, I would certainly say they can be a pain to run.

Look, in the world of today receivers are not the center of home audio anymore. It is not an admonishment, it is simply an observation. It is not meant to offend.



Mike
[doublepost=1509638489][/doublepost]

And what might be the reason for that?
I, like archer75 jiust before, do not believe it is the sound. A good quality system with real speakers and real SPL will sound much better than any soundbar with its tiny drivers.
Also not the convenience, because any modern HDMI-connected receiver has it on par with the soundbar.
It must be something else. Is it price? Is it living space?
Can't think of much else...

Yea well it is convenience and saying it is not does make it so.



Mike

 

[priitv8]

Yea well it is convenience and saying it is not does make it so.

So where does it come from? In other words - what makes a soundbar more convenient than a good ol' surround amp/receiver?
Let us assume, the price and living space are now excluded. What else?
I am just trying to get the reasoning for opposite opinion.
I personally have advised all my friends away from those "mice cinema" solutions (that's what I call them). Not meant to offend.

 

[Juicy Box]

That is how I felt in 2005. Not now. Hopefully never again. Ditto for wiring speakers all over the place for surround sound. It appears I am not alone, by looking at what is selling today: soundbars, soundbars with wireless sats and SWs, etc. A decade ago it was receiver-centric surround systems instead.

I have a game console and Fire TV connected to my most-used TV, with two HDMI ports left over (higher end Samsung 4k). Most of the time the TV is used on its own, with its own apps. There is no reason for me to have to add a receiver to this mix (a term from the days receivers main purpose was to receive radio). Not when I have a nice wireless surround system that only needs a single HDMI cable for connection, seamlessly turns on/off and is controlled via the TV's remote without any configuration needed, and to me sounds as good or better than my Yamaha system, that is now relegated to the garage, at a smaller size and immeasurably easier to setup and use. Just thinking about the Yamaha's remote makes me shudder.

Now I absolutely understand audiophiles still want receivers. I suspect I would be impressed if I listened to your system. But for me they are simply not needed. To get somewhat back to the topic at hand, neither are streaming boxes if your new TV can handle what you need on its own. And Smart TVs are not like they were in 2010: my Samsung TVs' interfaces are actually faster in use than any streaming stick I have used, and that includes (though Roku seems close).





Mike

A few years ago, I replaced my aging receiver with a sound bar. Not because of the age, but because my neighbor kept complaining about how loud my TV was. I think it was the bass notes in the theme song of the show ARCHER. I am partially deaf too, so I tend to have the volume of things turn up a little loud.

I tried a total of three different sound bars, and none of them sounded anywhere close to the quality of my old receiver. I ended up paying more than I planned to, but ended up getting an open-box-priced sound bar from Best Buy's Magnolia center. It was okay, but still not like my receiver.

I guess sound bars could have improved in the past few years, but I doubt they will match the quality of even a mediocre receiver any time soon.

I have plans on finishing and sound proofing my basement for a entertainment room in my new home. When I do, I plan on getting a receiver.
[doublepost=1509640071][/doublepost]

what makes a soundbar more convenient than a good ol' surround amp/receiver?

The biggest thing that is less convenient to receivers is running the speaker wires, mounting speakers, connecting everything, and setup. I would suspect that this is the number one reason people people would prefer a sound bar over a receiver.

 

[Mac 128]

That is how I felt in 2005. Not now. Hopefully never again. Ditto for wiring speakers all over the place for surround sound. It appears I am not alone, by looking at what is selling today: soundbars, soundbars with wireless sats and SWs, etc. A decade ago it was receiver-centric surround systems instead.

I have a game console and Fire TV connected to my most-used TV, with two HDMI ports left over (higher end Samsung 4k). Most of the time the TV is used on its own, with its own apps. There is no reason for me to have to add a receiver to this mix (a term from the days receivers main purpose was to receive radio). Not when I have a nice wireless surround system that only needs a single HDMI cable for connection, seamlessly turns on/off and is controlled via the TV's remote without any configuration needed, and to me sounds as good or better than my Yamaha system, that is now relegated to the garage, at a smaller size and immeasurably easier to setup and use. Just thinking about the Yamaha's remote makes me shudder.

Now I absolutely understand audiophiles still want receivers. I suspect I would be impressed if I listened to your system. But for me they are simply not needed. To get somewhat back to the topic at hand, neither are streaming boxes if your new TV can handle what you need on its own. And Smart TVs are not like they were in 2010: my Samsung TVs' interfaces are actually faster in use than any streaming stick I have used, and that includes (though Roku seems close).

Mike

I'm with you on the convenience not setting up a home theater audio system. I used to do that, but can't be bothered anymore. I also didn't want a sound bar cluttering up my TV wall, and personally don't find it to be worth the effort either. The built-in TV speakers were fine, after I added a wireless subwoofer to the setup. I can move that unit anywhere in the room (currently behind the couch in an unseen corner).

Where I disagree is the need for a streaming box. I have a 2017 Sony 900E -- state of the art smart TV. But it's running Android TV OS, and it's crap. It causes the basic features of my TV to run sluggishly when I use any of the smart features. Add to that, in order to stream anything to it from my iPhone, it had to support Chromecast, which is none of the native apps. Also Chromecast is crap. While Android TV supports many more apps than my old LG WebOS which was a far superior OS, a lot to them have limited features, even the major ones, and can be buggy. Moreover, they all work differently, meaning controls and display features aren't uniformly implemented across all apps like they are in the ATV. Since I got the ATV 4K, I have ONLY gone back to the native TV apps for Amazon, and Google Play. I'll still have to go back for Google Play, unless Apple adds that app for the Apple TV, but thankfully I don't use it often, and most of the movies I own there are available via Movies Anywhere. Also, recent Sony TV customers are already talking about the lack of updates, and being left behind as Sony moves forward with the current sets. Frankly, that's something I never want to have to face. I bought the TV with the best picture I could find for the money, smart features didn't even enter into it, and shouldn't. With the ATV I never have to worry about them. And ultimately, there's no Apple TV app for Android TV OS, much less WebOS, or Tizen OS so I would lose my entire Apple ecosystem.

 

[jeevestobs]

Since I got the ATV 4K, I have ONLY gone back to the native TV apps for Amazon, and Google Play. I'll still have to go back for Google Play, unless Apple adds that app for the Apple TV

You can watch your Google Play movies and TV shows in the YouTube app:
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/use-this-trick-to-watch-google-play-movies-on-your-apple-tv/

 

[cawgijoe]

To each his own, but I would much rather have a 5.1 or more home theater surround system then just the TV speakers or a soundbar. No contest in terms of sound quality. Some of us go beyond the receiver to an AV pre-pro and a separate multi-channel amplifier.
Yes, it's more wiring, but worth it to me.

As to the point of this thread and having a separate streaming box, I see several advantages to the box versus just using the TV:

1) The TV apps are not always kept up to date.
2) As the TV ages, the processing speed may not keep up with the latest apps.
3) Your Roku or Apple TV can easily be replaced as a new, higher performance unit is replaced.
4) Roku and Apple tend to keep up with firmware updates as needed.
5) The operating system on these boxes is usually much better than what the TV provides.

These are just a few and I'm sure there are more, but I much prefer the separate box to what is built into the TV.

 

[Keebler]

Just a few reasons:

1. Better interface. (as per 360's post above)

2. Integration with iTunes (buy your movies once and watch them on any device - no hassle)

3. Airplay (easily stream photo & video from your iDevice to your TV)

4. Longterm OS support (It's highly doubtful LG, or any TV maker will update your tv's OS & apps after a year or more. Profit margins are stretched way too thin to put R&D into outdated models.)

5. Privacy & security of your personal data. Selling user data is an easy way smart TV makers can make up for tight profit margins. See: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro...vs-are-sharing-your-voice-data-with/index.htm AND https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/vizio-tracked-sold-user-data-millions-smart-tvs-ftc-says AND https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/7/14527360/vizio-smart-tv-tracking-settlement-disable-settings AND on and on...

//

Those reasons above.

I've yet to buy the 4K ATV, but I will be in a few weeks. Just bought a 65" 4K LG OLED TV and with all of my photos on my synology, it will be smoother using the DS app on the ATV. I looked at the LG software instore and wasn't impressed. I know the Apple ecosystem and it works.

Not knocking the tv software itself - it might be fine for others, but for what I'm going to be using the ATV and the TV for, it will (should) be fantastic.

Cheers,
Brian

 

[Mac 128]

You can watch your Google Play movies and TV shows in the YouTube app:
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/use-this-trick-to-watch-google-play-movies-on-your-apple-tv/

Thanks! That’s excellent!

 

[dcorban]

I have the Sony 900E and can’t decide if I want the ATV. I use Plex for all my shows and movies so far, and the native Sony Plex app is decent. The only “problem” is it only supports 1080p, which is actually fine since I don’t watch any 4K video.

The thing is that I have a Mac mini already connected to the TV. I still use the TV Plex app since it has a remote. It feels a bit redundant to use an ATV when I have the Mac right there. Any comments on this?

 

[priitv8]

I have the Sony 900E and can’t decide if I want the ATV. I use Plex for all my shows and movies so far, and the native Sony Plex app is decent. The only “problem” is it only supports 1080p, which is actually fine since I don’t watch any 4K video.

Major shortcoming of that AndroidTV Plex app is the support for stereo audio only. Nothing multichannel.
Actually, no 3rd party app on Sony Android TV plays multichannel.
But it definitely plays UHD, not just 1080p.

 

[dcorban]

Well, that is obviously not true. I tested my setup with a Dolby Digital 5.1 test file and it played fine. So far, I’ve tested DD and DD+, both of which pass through from the plex app directly to my reciever via ARC.

I’ll go test DTS and others right now.

Edit: okay, tested. The only time plex audio is forced as stereo is if I disable audio passthrough, which no one would do. The app even prompts to enable passthrough if you try to disable it.

However, the app doesn’t seem to passthrough the audio untouched. If I play DTS, it passes it along as Dolby Digital. That’s no good. I’ll need more tests. I assume this is a limitation of ARC.

You are right about the 4K, though. I don’t remember why I thought it was stuck at 1080p, maybe because the UI is? Either way, it played 4K HDR files properly.

 

[BuffaloTF]

I have a LG OLED TV 4k. According to CNET it's the very best picture quality available and I agree. https://www.cnet.com/products/lg-oled65b6p/review/

Applications like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are in the webOS of the LG OLD TV 4k and all deliver amazing quality. However, much to my surprise when I watch Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu through the Apple TV 4k applications the quality is slightly better. I don'y why and can't explain it but it is. It appears the Apple TV 4k delivers a little more light and slightly more brilliant color. This could indicate that I have some adjustment not right when using the webOS applications.

While I don't have an LG, maybe it's a similar scenario. The streaming "input" on both of my smart TVs (1 Sony, 1 Vizio) have their own picture calibration settings for that specific input. Perhaps the input your ATV is hooked to should be looked at for what those picture settings are placed at, then start streaming something thru the built in apps and just copy them over.

 

[archer75]

I have the Sony 900E and can’t decide if I want the ATV. I use Plex for all my shows and movies so far, and the native Sony Plex app is decent. The only “problem” is it only supports 1080p, which is actually fine since I don’t watch any 4K video.

The thing is that I have a Mac mini already connected to the TV. I still use the TV Plex app since it has a remote. It feels a bit redundant to use an ATV when I have the Mac right there. Any comments on this?

Maybe try the nvidia shield? 4k HDR, DTS-HD, TrueHD, Atmos, DTS:X. 4k DV movies in vudu if that's your thing. Though I primarily use it for plex.

 

[dcorban]

After more testing it seems that I should just stick with using the Mac mini itself to use Plex. This sends the full uncompressed streams to my receiver instead of transcoded Dolby Digital. It seems the the Plex app and ARC are limited in what they can passthrough. The only downside is that I am stuck at 1080p since the Mac mini doesn’t support 4K resolution. That’s no big deal for now, since I only watch 1080p movies and shows (so far).

Since my receiver has native airplay, the only real advantages for using ATV would be 4K HDR support, the awesome UI, and remote. That still may be worth it.

 

[BODYBUILDERPAUL]

After more testing it seems that I should just stick with using the Mac mini itself to use Plex. This sends the full uncompressed streams to my receiver instead of transcoded Dolby Digital. It seems the the Plex app and ARC are limited in what they can passthrough. The only downside is that I am stuck at 1080p since the Mac mini doesn’t support 4K resolution. That’s no big deal for now, since I only watch 1080p movies and shows (so far).

Since my receiver has native airplay, the only real advantages for using ATV would be 4K HDR support, the awesome UI, and remote. That still may be worth it.

Definitely go for the ATV 4K It'll compliment your Mac Mini and of the course 4K HDR support is awesome. ATV has a lot going for it

 

[archer75]

After more testing it seems that I should just stick with using the Mac mini itself to use Plex. This sends the full uncompressed streams to my receiver instead of transcoded Dolby Digital. It seems the the Plex app and ARC are limited in what they can passthrough. The only downside is that I am stuck at 1080p since the Mac mini doesn’t support 4K resolution. That’s no big deal for now, since I only watch 1080p movies and shows (so far).

Since my receiver has native airplay, the only real advantages for using ATV would be 4K HDR support, the awesome UI, and remote. That still may be worth it.

If you aren't getting DTS-MA HD or Dolby TrueHD then it's all compressed audio. I doubt the mini can pass those. The plex app on other devices can do it.

Dolby Digital, DTS, DD+, all are lossy audio.

And the ATV doesn't transcode audio. It decodes it and sends it out rather than your receiver decoding it.

 

[priitv8]

Well, that is obviously not true. I tested my setup with a Dolby Digital 5.1 test file and it played fine. So far, I’ve tested DD and DD+, both of which pass through from the plex app directly to my reciever via ARC.

I stand corrected.
Seems that either Android TV 7.0 or later versions of Plex client seem to have sorted it out. My statement was from the time when I saw OSD saying that OS does not support AC3 audio passthrough.
Good news is, that now even Atmos metadata is preserved on EAC3 track!

 

[Macalicious2011]

I also have a 5.1 soundbar system that is collecting dust. It's just not even in the same league.

Which soundbar is that?

18 months ago I bought a Yamaha YSP-2500 7.1 soundbar with 16 individual drivers powered by individual amps. It sounds utterly phenomenal, create a big sound stage and project every object with magnificence presence and clarity. There is nothing tiny about the sound at all. Treble, mids and bass are are clear and never muddled regardless of volume.

Retail price was £800 but I bought a display unit for a bargain £300. It's undoubtedly my favourite gadget. Yes there are mediocre soundbar but there are also mediocre 5.1 systems, especially if calibration isn't perfect or if speakers and receivers are a poor match.

I also have a Cyrus deck witch amp, pre-amp, Dynaudio speakers and an AVI Laboratory S21 integrated amp that fantastic for parties. I know the pleasures of buying separates but there are some fantastic soundbars out there if you are willing to look around and want a "tidy look".

If you have a home cinema room or sit 4+ meters away from the screen then shoot for the stars and go with separates. Soundbars will obviously not be able to compete with best 7.1 or 9.1 systems that are placed correctly.

At this moment in time, I love my gadgets but like them to be stealthy where possible and speakers on the wall would have clashed with the look and feel I'm going for in the lounge seen below.

 

[Mac 128]

You can watch your Google Play movies and TV shows in the YouTube app:
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/use-this-trick-to-watch-google-play-movies-on-your-apple-tv/

I checked it out -- not only are the movies there, but movies I only own in SD purchased through VUDU, show up in full HD under Google Play. I've been waiting to see if those movies will convert to HD in iTunes, but so far they haven't, nor have they in Amazon, and oddly they haven't in the Google Play app either. But in the YouTube app they are full HD for some reason. Looks like now I don't have to pay to upgrade them, just watch them via YouTube.

 

[andyp350]

AirPlay, iTunes purchases and steaming iTunes video library from my MacBook are 3 massive reasons alone to have an Apple TV. No smart tv can do all of that natively.

 

[Kurfer]

I still use my apple TV for movies I purchase and rent via iTunes as I like their service the best. The biggest issue I have is I currently am a cable cutter and find the PSVue to be the best streaming TV plan; being a Samsung only guy I don't have the option to install it via their interface "yet". I would love for these TVs to start shipping without a tuner to lower prices; local TV is low quality compared to all the cable channels I want so I have 0.0 need to ever go back to dish or cable.

The appletv remote works just fine controlling my TVs so no issues with multiple remotes.

I used to actually care about other things like local storage and options for attaching drive arrays but storing your own movies locally is so 2006...don't with that!

Airplay is also a very nice feature to have too!