Retro-friendly 4K TVs?

[S1500]

I'm notcing most new 4K tvs are great on price, but cord-cutter and retro gaming unfriendly. Some are without a coaxial cable port at all!

 

Any TVs with a good amount of HDMI cables that haven't ditched older ports such as coaxial and composite, to make it pre-crash friendly?

[godslabrat]

Avoid Visio... not because the set isn't nice, but because they're big on skipping the coax input. I've seen some HDMI-heavy sets from Toshiba, Pioneer, Sharp, and LG. Most will give you at least three ports, but 4 or 5 should be standard. Sony seems to be pretty consistent in providing analog inputs, but who knows how long that will last?

 

Personally, I'm trying to plan around an HDMI-only future. Even when the new sets have them, the quality of analog decoding is declining. What good is having the port if the conversion sucks? I'll just get a Framemeister and then it won't be an issue.

Edited November 10, 2017 by godslabrat

[S1500]

That's too bad about Vizio, since i heard their quality is up and price was down. Was told to avoid LG. Samsung seems to be higher up in the price compared to the competition. I'd love 4 HDMI ports optimally. I have a converter box, but all the less reason to get up & hit a button....

[godslabrat]

That's too bad about Vizio, since i heard their quality is up and price was down. Was told to avoid LG. Samsung seems to be higher up in the price compared to the competition. I'd love 4 HDMI ports optimally. I have a converter box, but all the less reason to get up & hit a button....

 

Yeah, I generally like Vizio on the pure strength of their PQ and the connection options, but not having an antenna input is a total dealbreaker. Have hated Samsung since they screwed me over my first BluRay player (Fun fact: according to Samsung, just because they call something a "DVD Player", it doesn't mean I should expect it to play DVDs). Have no particular grudge against LG, but I know others do.

 

My big problem with HDMI switches is that it's hard to get them to play nicely with programmable remotes.

 

Have you considered getting an AVR with a lot of HDMI ports? It's absolutely overkill, but if you're in the market for equipment already, it's not a bad path to take.

[S1500]

 

 

Have you considered getting an AVR with a lot of HDMI ports? It's absolutely overkill, but if you're in the market for equipment already, it's not a bad path to take.

 

 

I have a 4:1 HDMI switcher I bought which works just fine,and also a nice A/V receiver that gives me some video options. So I split things here & there, giving me a decent spread. I can even milk some inputs out of my VCR. That has RF, AV (2x) in.

[S1500]

Of course I look at the Costco website and see a great TV, 4K, 4 HDMI ports, built-in chromecast.

 

They advertise it being "tuner-free" as a bleepin' feature. Because that coaxial port was such a hassle. Really? REALLY?

 

Maybe this will be opening up a new market for coaxial to HDMI adapters for pre-crash consoles, that aren't pricey.

[keepdreamin]

I just got a new 4K HDR TV, still has coax and composite (although I don't use them)

 

55" for 600 bucks.

 

See my thread here.

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/271974-tcl-55p605-ossc-retrogaming-with-1frame-of-lag-on-4k-for-800/

[godslabrat]

Of course I look at the Costco website and see a great TV, 4K, 4 HDMI ports, built-in chromecast.

 

They advertise it being "tuner-free" as a bleepin' feature. Because that coaxial port was such a hassle. Really? REALLY?

 

Maybe this will be opening up a new market for coaxial to HDMI adapters for pre-crash consoles, that aren't pricey.

There's the hook. Those 4 HDMI ports look sweet, but when you need to give one to a set top converter or cable box, suddenly they become three. So you might as well buy a set that has three HDMI plus a coax.

[djour]

TCL is a relative newcomer in the US market. The P series is getting rave reviews for most bang for the buck. The HDR and Dolby Vision are becoming standard, but the 14ms lag is outstanding for gaming. Best $600 spent.

[Newsdee]

They advertise it being "tuner-free" as a bleepin' feature. Because that coaxial port was such a hassle. Really? REALLY?

Look at it this way... I'd rather have a dedicated high quality box with a tuner and analog inputs, than a crappy upscaler chip shipped with the TV. Edited November 14, 2017 by Newsdee

[SignGuy81]

EDIT:

I overlooked 4K in the title but I'd still take a look at Hisense

 

I don't have Hisense 4k but have 1080P 55" and has all the connections, 4 HDMI ports. And also this TV will accept 240P over component. Meaning you can play PS1 games on PS2 with component cables, or any other console that will output 240P over component, which most newer TVs will not accept.

Edited November 14, 2017 by SignGuy81

[Jagosaurus]

Many "TVs" are killing the TV tuner which in turn axes the coax input.

 

That is why the new Vizios are listed as Theater Displays and not TVs.

 

This isn't a deal breaker for antenna users. Get a $30 digital guide & NVR box off Amazon with HDMI out. I had a cheap RCA one that worked great. Now you have a more typical viewing/guide experience and can record OTA to a USB 3.0 storage device.

 

Now.... if you're hooking up your console via RF... that's another discussion. I would think 95%+ of folks even in the retro gaming community are using at least composite.

 

I do think some Vizio still have the tuner. Will that connection accept a 240p signal over coax. Who knows...

Edited November 15, 2017 by Jagosaurus

[godslabrat]

It should be a dealbreaker. That converter box takes away another HdMi port, needlessly.

[Jagosaurus]

It should be a dealbreaker. That converter box takes away another HdMi port, needlessly.

Factor that into your purchase & HDMI count. The vast majority of "TV" buyers and even cord cutters (myself included) have no need for the RF input. I'd rather a cheaper, thinner set. Vote with your wallet. The rest of America has and Vizio is killing it.

[SignGuy81]

My TV has an RF input but I don't use it, and I have a Channel Master DVR+ for OTA viewing and DVR which is an excellent DVR box.

[godslabrat]

The problem with voting with your wallet is that your voting options are determined by other peoples wallets. Id love a TV with composite inputs, strong hardware A->D conversion, low latency, and six HDMI ports, but the market has determined that combination of features isnt profitable, so I dont get that to pick from. Instead, I need to decide which of the above options means more to me than other options. This sends manufactuers the idea that I like their products more than I really do.

[Kismet]

It should be a dealbreaker. That converter box takes away another HdMi port, needlessly.

 

It shouldn't be. 4K OTA broadcasts are never happening. It will be all over-the-internet or nothing. The governments were in a such a quick rush to sell off the analog channels to wireless companies that they didn't consider the possibility of 4K or 8K broadcasts.

 

Outside of the US, you can't even get OTA HD broadcasts most of the time, and coax is encrypted (no clear QAM, no cablecard.) So the Analog Tuner is useless, and a DTV tuner is barely useful, so expect it to disappear.

 

And it really does make sense to dispose of the analog/digital tuner and let people add one if they need it when most markets will never use it. TV Manufacturers should have learned this by now that you need a minimum of 4 inputs:

 

1) DisplayPort 1.2 for computer use

2) HDMI 2.0 for 4K input

3) HDMI 1.4/MHL for HD input

4) USB-C 3.1 for 4K input in Displayport alternate mode or HDMI mode

 

Either a TV can have one of each, or a TV can all the same ports, but they need at least 4 at any size. If they only have 1, then they need to have a Surround Sound system that also acts as a switch for the HDMI and that's just not very good for games.

[godslabrat]

I disagree with this line of reasoning on a number of levels.

 

 

 

It shouldn't be. 4K OTA broadcasts are never happening. It will be all over-the-internet or nothing. The governments were in a such a quick rush to sell off the analog channels to wireless companies that they didn't consider the possibility of 4K or 8K broadcasts.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if OTA is 1080i or 4k. If people are watching it, a lot of people, it makes sense to support it out of the box. OTA isn't some obscure purpose, a lot of people use it. If

 

 

 

Outside of the US, you can't even get OTA HD broadcasts most of the time, and coax is encrypted (no clear QAM, no cablecard.) So the Analog Tuner is useless, and a DTV tuner is barely useful, so expect it to disappear.

 

Outside of the US is unimportant to people buying TVs in the US. TVs are market-specific. If the US needs a coax port, it should be on there. Agreed that the analog tuner is useless, but the DTV tuner is very much needed.

 

 

And it really does make sense to dispose of the analog/digital tuner and let people add one if they need it when most markets will never use it. TV Manufacturers should have learned this by now that you need a minimum of 4 inputs:

 

1) DisplayPort 1.2 for computer use

2) HDMI 2.0 for 4K input

3) HDMI 1.4/MHL for HD input

4) USB-C 3.1 for 4K input in Displayport alternate mode or HDMI

I won't argue against including other options, I'm sure people need them, but I'm perplexed how you'd argue for the inclusion of a DP or USB-C, and argue against a coax connection. Lots of people use it, it works remarkably well, and I'd argue that more recent alternatives are less practical. Adding an external tuner means one more remote, one more power brick, and one more thing to go wrong.

 

I understand technology moves on and eventually options become deprecated. However, when the tech is as ubiquitous as TVs are, you can't just drop features that lots of people use.

[Kismet]

I disagree with this line of reasoning on a number of levels.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if OTA is 1080i or 4k. If people are watching it, a lot of people, it makes sense to support it out of the box. OTA isn't some obscure purpose, a lot of people use it. If

 

 

 

Outside of the US is unimportant to people buying TVs in the US. TVs are market-specific. If the US needs a coax port, it should be on there. Agreed that the analog tuner is useless, but the DTV tuner is very much needed.

 

I won't argue against including other options, I'm sure people need them, but I'm perplexed how you'd argue for the inclusion of a DP or USB-C, and argue against a coax connection. Lots of people use it, it works remarkably well, and I'd argue that more recent alternatives are less practical. Adding an external tuner means one more remote, one more power brick, and one more thing to go wrong.

 

I understand technology moves on and eventually options become deprecated. However, when the tech is as ubiquitous as TVs are, you can't just drop features that lots of people use.

 

I'm arguing on the basis of that nobody can use the coax input on their TV, and that adds probably $300 to the cost of a television if it's at 4K due to the need to licence the patents for h264 and h265 in ATSC 2.0 and produce hardware decoders. People who have IPTV boxes or separate cable boxes don't need it, and that is nearly 100% of the market for high end televisions. I'd actually make the suggestion that you're not seeing coax inputs on some televisions precisely because it's cheap and there are no ATSC 3.0/QAM chipsets available for mass production. Korea only started this year.

 

What you're asking for is a coax input that is unusable at present, and will likely remain unusable unless you want to only ever receive 720p/1080i on your 4K TV.

[godslabrat]

 

I'm arguing on the basis of that nobody can use the coax input on their TV, and that adds probably $300 to the cost of a television if it's at 4K due to the need to licence the patents for h264 and h265 in ATSC 2.0 and produce hardware decoders. People who have IPTV boxes or separate cable boxes don't need it, and that is nearly 100% of the market for high end televisions. I'd actually make the suggestion that you're not seeing coax inputs on some televisions precisely because it's cheap and there are no ATSC 3.0/QAM chipsets available for mass production. Korea only started this year.

 

What you're asking for is a coax input that is unusable at present, and will likely remain unusable unless you want to only ever receive 720p/1080i on your 4K TV.

 

I was assuming that OTA transmissions would be limited to 720p/1080i for the forseeable future. That was just built into my reasoning. There is, however, a LOT of HD programming right now. The airwaves are crawling with it. People should definitely have the hardware to take advantage of it built into their TVs. No, I don't think a 4K decoder needs to be standard, but a 1080i OTA decoder... absolutely!

 

My personal view is that OTA is just the wrong transmission vehicle for 4K. Streaming is also less than ideal for anyone not getting premium bandwidth. The best way to get quality 4k is over pre-recorded media or by download.

 

But to get back to my point, cord cutting is on the rise, the demand for coax inputs is going to rise with it. I would actually argue that more *average* people are going to care about being able to use an antenna (easily) than about whether their programming is 1080i or 4K.

[Kismet]

 

I was assuming that OTA transmissions would be limited to 720p/1080i for the forseeable future. That was just built into my reasoning. There is, however, a LOT of HD programming right now. The airwaves are crawling with it. People should definitely have the hardware to take advantage of it built into their TVs. No, I don't think a 4K decoder needs to be standard, but a 1080i OTA decoder... absolutely!

 

My personal view is that OTA is just the wrong transmission vehicle for 4K. Streaming is also less than ideal for anyone not getting premium bandwidth. The best way to get quality 4k is over pre-recorded media or by download.

 

But to get back to my point, cord cutting is on the rise, the demand for coax inputs is going to rise with it. I would actually argue that more *average* people are going to care about being able to use an antenna (easily) than about whether their programming is 1080i or 4K.

 

That coax input is the last vestiges of region locking. So if a TV manufacturer decides that they can save money by producing just one television for the world market, that makes economic sense to them. Cord cutting only makes this a more competitive thing to do. So it's very likely you will not see coax inputs on "value" models or high end models, depending on the region.

 

For example, one of the first hits I get for a recommended 4K television is http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-OLED55E7N, note the UK site. Scroll down the specs and you will see this:

Digital TV Reception(Terrestrial,Cable,Satellite) DVB-T2/C/S2 (Main/Sub)

and

 

RF In 3 (RF, Sat Main/Sub)

 

So yes, 3 Coax inputs. (The manual only shows two though?)

 

http://www.lg.com/ca_en/tvs/lg-OLED55E7P

 

1 RF in , no reference to ATSC

 

The manual for both actually gets to the point

 

Manual for the UK model shows this:

 

and

 

 

Where as the Canada model shows this:

 

 

Take note that the manual actually says the non-UK model can not receive UltraHD programming, period. You'll have to use an external Tuner whenever it becomes available.

 

If you want a 4K TV where that RF is useful, don't buy one this year.

 

As it is, DVB-T is pretty much the winner for terrestrial broadcast. Though really its a winner among losers since DVB-(T/T2/S/S2/C) is used by Europe and Asia cable and satellite, while ATSC is used by North America OTA only. The DVB-T2 standard for Europe upgrades that from mpeg-2 (h.262) to mpeg-4 part 10 (h.264). Since we're now on h.265 and patents are starting to roll off on h.264, you might start seeing h.264 video as OTA (ATSC 3.0), but likely only in markets that have open spectrum, because otherwise we go through yet another round of "throw out your old equipment, here's a $40 set top box credit"

 

*edit: point if interest, DirectTV uses DVB-S2. However there are no DVB-S capable TV's in North America.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Kismet

[0078265317]

My Samsung UN55JS700DXFZA has coax and a shared component / composite port. And 4 hdmi ports. Everything except duckhunt of course works. Its retro friendly. And vcr works great also.

 

But seriously no need for 4k. Just get a cheap spare crt from goodwill on the side for the games.

[Jagosaurus]

I would actually argue the opposite. Most OTT IPTV providers are adding locals at a rapid rate.

 

I get all major local channels with DVR on the lowest Vue package in my market.

 

Edit: Should also add in addition to ABC, CBS, NBC, & FOX... I get CW and PBS VOD from their free independent apps. All of that on from my Roku over the Internet, HDMI to my set with no coax input.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Jagosaurus

[Newsdee]

In my experience a good receiver can make a world of difference. They can be pricey (they make a Framemeister look like a good deal) but modern ones have 5 or 6 HDMI ports and a lot of other AV connections. Upscalers in it ought to be better than TVs (check case by case).

 

I prefer my TV to be good at showing moving images in good color and resolution. Everything else (smart features, sound, etc) can be relegated go outside boxes.

[djour]

I prefer my TV to be good at showing moving images in good color and resolution. Everything else (smart features, sound, etc) can be relegated go outside boxes.

I used to have this same mind set. Then I started exploring the smart TV capabilities of our Samsung. It is so nice to go directly into Netflix from the main TV/Screen. YouTube is instantly accessible as well. Casting from our phones any media we wish is also great. We have Amazon boxes, but the Smart TV is really winning us over.

 

The sound on it is good enough that we no longer have to have an AV unit hooked up. The living room looks so clean with just a TV, Amazon Box, and a Blu-Ray player.

Edited November 18, 2017 by djour