New Samsung 4k for everyone.

What's weird is the 15ft '18Gbps certified' Monoprice Redmere cables don't work. That tells me they aren't actually certified and nobody's really called them out on it, because until recently, nobody COULD call them out on it. And I'm a huge Monoprice fan - I hope they aren't going downhill...
 
Dan_D said:
My Titan X's arrive Tuesday, so we'll see if the HDMI 2.0 port has anything to do with that. My 65" version of the same TV doesn't have that option either. I haven't had it but a few weeks. That WiFi bug I didn't experience with the 65" and I haven't used it on the 48".



In my opinion the 65" is too big for use as a computer monitor outside of pure gaming. The PPI on it would look horrible I think at the distances typically used for monitors. I haven't as of yet connected a PC to it, but based on the PPI of the 48", I wouldn't have gone bigger.
Click to expand...

Can you post a picture of your setup with the 48" ?
 
Brahmzy said:
What's weird is the 15ft '18Gbps certified' Monoprice Redmere cables don't work. That tells me they aren't actually certified and nobody's really called them out on it, because until recently, nobody COULD call them out on it. And I'm a huge Monoprice fan - I hope they aren't going downhill...
Click to expand...

I'm using a Monoprice 10.2Gbps 6' cable and it works fine.
I think the length is more important than the bandwidth at this point in HDMI 2.0 tech.

Most people are using 6' cables. Shorter is better.
 
Dan_D said:
I can't either. Not on that port anyway.
Click to expand...

Dan,

Have you tried resetting the display to factory defaults, unplug the HDMI cable from HDMI1, select the source, hit down arrow, rename to PC, then enable UHD color?

Might be worth a shot.
 
WorldExclusive said:
I'm using a Monoprice 10.2Gbps 6' cable and it works fine.
I think the length is more important than the bandwidth at this point in HDMI 2.0 tech.

Most people are using 6' cables. Shorter is better.
Click to expand...

That is definitely what I'm finding - 10' or short will generally work on newer, good quality cables.

I have 3 of Monoprice's 50' cables coming on Friday. I doubt they will work, but I'm game to try. If that doesn't work, I will have to make peace with moving my computer to be near my display.
 
Agent00F said:
Newer cables are more likely better bets too.

The only real pressure on vendors isn't spec compliance but if their stuff doesn't work at all. This means if they get more returns as people get better TVs they put pressure on the guys they source the cable material from, etc.

Again, shorter is safer. I bet most 3ft will work, as will many 6ft.
Click to expand...

I went with a Monoprice ultra slim 6'.

11562 6ft Ultra Slim Series Passive HDMI Cable - Black

It's listed as only 10.2GB on the site, but the packaging clearly states 18GB on it. And I'm 4k@60Hz with 4:4:4 on it.

EDIT: Meant to quote WorldExclusive on the post about the 10.2GB Monoprice cable working.
 
Jimmywild said:
I went with a Monoprice ultra slim 6'.

11562 6ft Ultra Slim Series Passive HDMI Cable - Black

It's listed as only 10.2GB on the site, but the packaging clearly states 18GB on it. And I'm 4k@60Hz with 4:4:4 on it.

EDIT: Meant to quote WorldExclusive on the post about the 10.2GB Monoprice cable working.
Click to expand...

Edit
 
Last edited:
Seyumi said:
That's too bad. I don't think 36ms is acceptable. I'm not even a hardcore FPS gamer but the last time I used a computer monitor which that much lag was back in the mid 2000's. Tftcentral would rate 36ms as: Class 3) A lag of more than 32ms / more than 2 frames - Some noticeable lag in daily usage, not suitable for high end gaming.

I'm not sure if the more glossy screen or slight curve is worth a 75%+ more ms lag than what I have now...hmmm....The Philips 4K 40" I'm using now is tested with about 20.3ms lag.
Click to expand...

Seyumi said:
That's too bad. I don't think 36ms is acceptable. I'm not even a hardcore FPS gamer but the last time I used a computer monitor which that much lag was back in the mid 2000's. Tftcentral would rate 36ms as: Class 3) A lag of more than 32ms / more than 2 frames - Some noticeable lag in daily usage, not suitable for high end gaming.

I'm not sure if the more glossy screen or slight curve is worth a 75%+ more ms lag than what I have now...hmmm....The Philips 4K 40" I'm using now is tested with about 20.3ms lag.
Click to expand...

OK, take this with a grain of salt but our own know-it-all NCX has said that the Leo Bodner test is not accurate and adds 10 ms to the lag measurement. Tftcentral used an osciliscope to test the Philips.
 
OK, I figured it out. I can only turn Game Mode on if device mode under HDMI1 isn't set to PC. It has to be set to ----. It looks pretty crappy though. UHD is on.
 
Got my 48JU6700. I was hoping to set it up side by side with my 40" for a comparison pic, but I don't think there's room without moving a ton of crap off of my desk.

I haven't unboxed it yet but my gut keeps telling me it's going to be too big. We'll see.

Have to run to a dentist appt. in a few, then to my gun club board meeting, then I'll get a chance to dive in.
 
WorldExclusive said:
OK, it was about 1yr+ ago when I bought mine, so it could be 18Gbps also.
But the 6' length is the sweet spot.
Click to expand...
We probably have close to the same cable. Mine has a 2014 date on it as well. But yeah, 6' is probably where it's at. I have a 10' active HDMI from Monoprice at home that I will bring to try tomorrow. If i don't forget it again in the morning lol. :)
 
Just to add...I don't disagree with shorter is generally better but my Mediabridge 15' HDMI cable seems to be working great so far. I would have gotten the 10', but I didn't see it at the time and I was afraid that 6' would be too short.

FYI for anyone who needs a longer one, I think I can safely say that this one is working fine.
 
imyourzero said:
Got my 48JU6700. I was hoping to set it up side by side with my 40" for a comparison pic, but I don't think there's room without moving a ton of crap off of my desk.

I haven't unboxed it yet but my gut keeps telling me it's going to be too big. We'll see.

Have to run to a dentist appt. in a few, then to my gun club board meeting, then I'll get a chance to dive in.
Click to expand...

Nice - TOYS!

Firearms and monitors.
 
PC signals degrade over distance in cables. Anything 15' or longer may need a repeater to work. It isn't a function of bandwidth really.
 
Jimmywild said:
Hmmm ok, then I don't know what's up. :D
Click to expand...

Variations in manufacturing, changes in manufacturing/different supplier, or one has been damaged by use or environment (weakened crimp or solder joints would be likely). Even interference from radio frequencies, or power sources for transmitter and receiver can change the behavior.

With anything signal related, you need to ensure that the signal gets to where it needs to be. Stronger transmit strength/voltage, lower impedance, better device sensitivity, and better isolation/shielding can all help a signal reach its destination. The simplest in most cases is larger gauge wire to get lower impedance, and sufficient isolation to provide the bandwidth needed.
 
Last edited:
SGSeeker said:
Variations in manufacturing, changes in manufacturing/different supplier, or one has been damaged by use or environment (weakened crimp or solder joints would be likely).
Click to expand...
For sure, those are would effect a cable quality. But WorldExclusive's cable is 3.5 years old and is 10.2GB which is HDMI1.4 ish in bandwidth. My I don't know whats up is referring to how that cable is working in an environment that requires almost double that bandwidth.
 
TDSlam720 said:
Thanks! Good to know. Is 1440P somewhat sharp? On my Seiki 39 1440p is so bad its not even worth it. 1080 is doable but its way way more blurry than it should seems to cut the color gamut in half. Any noticeable changes on color spectrum when switching between resolutions?
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed anything. 1440p and 1080p go through the same scaler. Not as good as native, but the text is definitely readable with minimal smearing. It's much better than the Acer S277 that I returned to Amazon. I have no idea what you would consider acceptable though.
 
CbXE4zI.jpg

Here is my desk with the UN48JU6700 on it. 21' iMac for scale lol :D

EDIT: Wow, that was big. Resizing.
EDIT2: Appropriately sized photo lol
 
imyourzero said:
Got my 48JU6700. I was hoping to set it up side by side with my 40" for a comparison pic, but I don't think there's room without moving a ton of crap off of my desk.

I haven't unboxed it yet but my gut keeps telling me it's going to be too big. We'll see.

Have to run to a dentist appt. in a few, then to my gun club board meeting, then I'll get a chance to dive in.
Click to expand...

Ha. I'm moving down from 48" to 40" and you're moving up.
 
Darthmullet said:
PC signals degrade over distance in cables. Anything 15' or longer may need a repeater to work. It isn't a function of bandwidth really.
Click to expand...

That's why they use thicker AWG the longer the run. If they advertise it as category 2 15 ft, then it needs to work at 15ft 18Gb. Otherwise, it's either defective or false advertising.
 
Cyph said:
Ha. I'm moving down from 48" to 40" and you're moving up.
Click to expand...

Well, we'll see. There was so much discussion over the size, and so many people jumping on the 48", presumably because it seemed to be the most popular size here.

I had to find out for myself, and it'll cost next to nothing if I decide to send it back.

Personally, I LOVE the 40". It works so well in my current setup.
 
Jimmywild said:
For sure, those are would effect a cable quality. But WorldExclusive's cable is 3.5 years old and is 10.2GB which is HDMI1.4 ish in bandwidth. My I don't know whats up is referring to how that cable is working in an environment that requires almost double that bandwidth.
Click to expand...

A cable could be marked as 10GB but be built in a way that allows for 50GB of bandwidth. Without measuring and/or dis-assembly of both cables, it would be impossible to know why there is a difference. It could also be difference in videocards, or manufacturing differences in the specific circuitry of each television. One may be running borderline while the other fails. This is where digital signals have their drawbacks over analog - it either works or it doesn't.

Either way, a heavier-gauge hdmi cable from a reputable brand and model/length is the cheap and simple solution.
 
Yeah. I think 40" would be better for me. 48" takes up my entire desk. I have plenty of time to decide tho.

Whatever you do don't order a 4k movie with the M-Go App. I tried Tears of Steel (free) and it was a stuttering mess.

Is there any way to turn off the "device not connected" message when you set the display to go into power saving mode? It's annoying. I'd just like a black screen.
 
Wag said:
Yeah. I think 40" would be better for me. 48" takes up my entire desk. I have plenty of time to decide tho.
Click to expand...

For gaming, 48" is really nice, better then 40".
If you don't game, then the 40" would probably been better.
 
Seinfeld said:
For gaming, 48" is really nice, better then 40".
If you don't game, then the 40" would probably been better.
Click to expand...

I think that's ultimately where the discussion is going to go in terms of majority opinion.

Productivity, 40", flat or curved, scaled to 125%.

Gaming, 48", curved only, sitting as close as possible for "pretend Oculus VR" impact. :p

Jimmywild said:
Now having said that a 40" probably would have been better, I wouldn't get a 40". This 48" is like sitting at an IMAX. I LOVE that I can't take it all in without some eye movement. Plus it's fkg sexy! I am a TV junkie. Besides computer hardware, buying TVs and monitors is my addiction. And I haven't had such an intense OMG feeling when using a TV/monitor since I bought one of the first Sony HDTVs many many years ago.
Click to expand...

There you go, good example of the above in terms of one size might be "right" but the bigger size...well, it speaks for itself. Nice Jimmy.

When I bought the Sharp 90" a couple years ago people said "oh man, too big". But now after all this time I wish they made a 120" lol.

No such thing as too big, that's the lesson I've learned over the years, for me personally so long as it's borderline. Obviously a 55" or something on my desk would of course finally be too big...maybe. But displays "shrink" over time, badly, to the point where my 30" Dell looks like a 15" from years ago. It's so bizarre. People come over and say "wow that's big display", but I look at that 30" and think "this thing sucks...so goddamned small...".

It's all relative haha.
 
Mako360 said:
No such thing as too big, that's the lesson I've learned over the years, for me personally so long as it's borderline. Obviously a 55" or something on my desk would of course finally be too big...maybe. But displays "shrink" over time, badly, to the point where my 30" Dell looks like a 15" from years ago. It's so bizarre. People come over and say "wow that's big display", but I look at that 30" and think "this thing sucks...so goddamned small...".

It's all relative haha.
Click to expand...

Yep - I remember the first time seeing a 19" (18 viewable) CRT monitor. It looked huge compared to both 15" and 17" screens. Also try to remember 42" projection over 25-32" CRT televisions - they were huge. Even a 32" over a 25" tv, back when households had only one television, was a huge improvement. Now a 32" LCD tv looks puny and people won't even use 42" screens in their bedrooms. 60" is getting small for many people.
 
Mako360 said:
When I bought the Sharp 90" a couple years ago people said "oh man, too big". But now after all this time I wish they made a 120" lol.

No such thing as too big, that's the lesson I've learned over the years, for me personally so long as it's borderline. Obviously a 55" or something on my desk would of course finally be too big...maybe. But displays "shrink" over time, badly, to the point where my 30" Dell looks like a 15" from years ago. It's so bizarre. People come over and say "wow that's big display", but I look at that 30" and think "this thing sucks...so goddamned small...".

It's all relative haha.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for TVs, there is no "too big" - agreed. It's all about "Size costs money, how big do you want to go?" :) I'm planning on getting Sharp's new UH30 80"er when they hit in a few months. They don't make a 90" anymore, to my knowledge.

Not a fan of projectors, especially in living areas, so this leaves me finding the biggest / best compromise in picture quality / cost available. OLED means nothing to me until they can get a reasonable price on the large (75"+) sets. $24K is nowhere mainstream/reasonable on an item that is obsolete as soon as it's brought home. And 65's look like baby, mine-me TVs to me now.

Monitors are a bit different because of productivity, eyesight, and comfort factor. I cannot have additional fatigue introduced just because it's cool, when I sometimes work from home 8hrs a day.
 
Agent00F said:
Many folks are coming to this having never used larger displays. They're placed on the far edge of the desk rather than in the middle like traditional computer monitors restricted by size. Straining to see small text up close is far worse for you than having to rotate those eyeball up slightly.

As for lag, 20ms is ~order of magnitude below human reaction time, and significantly below what's added by game code/latency, etc. Below a reasonable standard these minor discrepancies will not make anyone play any better, if they're even noticeable at all (it's certainly easier to claim so than demonstrate it).

> I don't have the reaction times I used to have as a teenager.

It's also worth mentioning much of what we consider fast reaction is not necessarily reactive at all but anticipatory. In (high-level) sport athletes often seemingly react before they're physiologically able to.
Click to expand...


To expand on this concept: Typical latency experienced by humans relative to reality has been measured at around 80ms. Additionally, the typical visual reaction time of a human is around 190ms. Further, humans appear to compensate rather well when dealing with display latency and input lag. Although the level of compensation involved can differ between individuals. In the grand scheme of things (and time) quibbling about ~40ms seems trite.

Yes, I realize that 40ms is about 1 frame of a 24fps film. The point still stands. :D
 
Last edited:
 
I've got a 65" HU7250 as well. Not sure how that really stacks up to these but it seems nearly identical although the software is a little different.
 
igluk said:
New rtings review of the JU6500
looks like its not quite as good as the JU7100 in terms of motion blur and it lacks 24p support, input lag is identical

some review links:
JU6500 (55'')
http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/lcd-led/samsung/ju6500
JU7100 (55'')
http://www.rtings.com/reviews/tv/lcd-led/samsung/ju7100
JU7500 (48'')
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue48ju7500-201504074038.htm
JS9000 (65'')
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue65js9000-201503154027.htm
https://www.avforums.com/review/samsung-ue65js9000-js9000-s-uhd-curved-4k-tv-review.11257
JS9500 (65'')
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue65js9500-201502234012.htm
https://www.avforums.com/review/samsung-ue65js9500-js9500-s-uhd-4k-led-lcd-tv-review.11232
Click to expand...

Thanks.

To summarize:
7100, better reflective screen .7% vs .16%, glossy vs semigloss on 6500, 60fps motion interpolation, 4ms difference input lag in PC mode, virtually the same in game mode, higher max brightness, less black uniformity than 6500, 3100 to 2950 contrast ratio, cost 30% more.

I don't need the 60fps interpolation (adds input lag), I don't need 24fps as I don't watch movies on my monitor, I turn my brightness down to around 10-12, so don't need higher max brightness, and I can live with 4ms input lag difference (in PC mode).

In any case, 30% savings in picking the 6500 works for me.
 
Cyph said:
Thanks.

To summarize:
7100, better reflective screen .7% vs .16%, glossy vs semigloss on 6500, 60fps motion interpolation, 4ms difference input lag in PC mode, virtually the same in game mode, higher max brightness, less black uniformity than 6500, 3100 to 2950 contrast ratio, cost 30% more.

I don't need the 60fps interpolation (adds input lag), I don't need 24fps as I don't watch movies on my monitor, I turn my brightness down to around 10-12, so don't need higher max brightness, and I can live with 4ms input lag difference (in PC mode).

In any case, 30% savings in picking the 6500 works for me.
Click to expand...

The extra price is for more TV stuff, which we are looking for less of.
The 6500/6700 series has the best mix of monitor and TV.
 
I'm able to do 24Hz on my 6700@ 3840x2160 but it looks terrible (maybe because Titan?)? It actually looks better at 4096x2160 for some reason.
 
First post on Hardforums, I've had the Philips/Seiki/Samsung thread bookmarked for days. I was one of the few that had the Philips pre-ordered but cancelled it after hearing about a variety of issues with the panel.

Has anyone tested the panel's color qualities as far as calibration goes? That's something that I'd be interested in since I do some coloring as a video editor.
 
It would be nice if you could watch Netflix in 24p. I'd really be interested in Daredevil 4k/24p. Also, I think the Netflix app applies the soap opera effect, at least it looks that way.
 
Wag said:
It would be nice if you could watch Netflix in 24p. I'd really be interested in Daredevil 4k/24p.
Click to expand...

That's true, not to mention their other shows. And Amazon Prime also, though super limited 4k offerings at the moment of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top