Yes, as it is just fine for most of us. But will you settle for that 30 years from now?:think:
30 years into the Future with HOME audio?
- Thread starter Peter_Klim
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Yes, as it is just fine for most of us. But will you settle for that 30 years from now?:think:
The problem I see with streaming is that content encoding technologies are always a bit ahead of content delivery technologies.
When was the last time we could say: oh, the delivery tech has waaay more bandwidth than the source?
So unless Quantum-EtherealNet is developed (BTW- I own the TM on that name
) in the next couple of decades, and it is available everywhere (which it should, it's quantum AND Ethereal), then I just don't see how streaming will ever keep up.
Today, streaming sucks, and sucks big. Not the least because not everyone has 50 Mbps fiber going into the home (and an ISP that supports true max speed).
Good 1080P requires a steady 15Mbps or better.
We're about to get an uptick in video bandwidth demand with 4K resolution content just around the corner. By the time streaming has real, honest 1080p, most videophiles will be buying the 4K BluRay discs.
When was the last time we could say: oh, the delivery tech has waaay more bandwidth than the source?
So unless Quantum-EtherealNet is developed (BTW- I own the TM on that name
) in the next couple of decades, and it is available everywhere (which it should, it's quantum AND Ethereal), then I just don't see how streaming will ever keep up.Today, streaming sucks, and sucks big. Not the least because not everyone has 50 Mbps fiber going into the home (and an ISP that supports true max speed).
Good 1080P requires a steady 15Mbps or better.
We're about to get an uptick in video bandwidth demand with 4K resolution content just around the corner. By the time streaming has real, honest 1080p, most videophiles will be buying the 4K BluRay discs.
Hocky
Well-known member
Isn't bluray more like 40-50mbps? Most internal LANs can hardly even maintain that speed right now due to network traffic or cable quality.
I would love for streaming to take over, but you'd better be providing me with bluray content. I hate all of the "HD" advertising all over streaming content today. Netflix - you do not stream HD content. Sorry. Put the HD logos away.
I actually would love for new to theater movies to be available via streaming in very high quality at theater release date. I would gladly pay $30 for a single watch of a still in theaters movie as long as the quality was up to par.
I would love for streaming to take over, but you'd better be providing me with bluray content. I hate all of the "HD" advertising all over streaming content today. Netflix - you do not stream HD content. Sorry. Put the HD logos away.
I actually would love for new to theater movies to be available via streaming in very high quality at theater release date. I would gladly pay $30 for a single watch of a still in theaters movie as long as the quality was up to par.
tsv_1
Well-known member
The problem I see with streaming is that content encoding technologies are always a bit ahead of content delivery technologies.
When was the last time we could say: oh, the delivery tech has waaay more bandwidth than the source?
So unless Quantum-EtherealNet is developed (BTW- I own the TM on that name
Today, streaming sucks, and sucks big. Not the least because not everyone has 50 Mbps fiber going into the home (and an ISP that supports true max speed).
Good 1080P requires a steady 15Mbps or better.
We're about to get an uptick in video bandwidth demand with 4K resolution content just around the corner. By the time streaming has real, honest 1080p, most videophiles will be buying the 4K BluRay discs.
True... infrastructure has traditionally lagged content b/w requirements - no question. However, infrastructure is anything but stagnant. What's needed is a leapfrog event wrt content delivery. The service providers aren't sitting on their hands. Much investment is going on behind the scenes to keep pushing bandwidth. This problem is complicated and very difficult on many levels (technology, competitive trends, physical build-out, government interplay, etc etc), but not impossible.
BTW, Your Quantum-EtherealNet sounds remarkably similar to my Quantum free space data delivery system first documented here: http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?p=130214&highlight=quantum#post130214
I'm just sayin'
That's the problem, the physical build-out is not uniform, never can be.
Some small percentage of the US population gets >12Mbps service today. The rest are hopelessly screwed until such a time as the owners of the physical infrastructure decide it's time to catch up. At which point, they will still be behind.
For decades, I've been trying to buy the fastest connection available (money no object) and have NEVER been at the leading edge of tech just because of where I live (even in a high-end gated community of 3,000 homes, one can't get >12Mbps today, 6Mbps is the norm, and many only get 3Mbps)
However, anyone in the country can get a 50GB BluRay delivered from Amazon or Netflix.
Yes, it's what's needed, but will never, ever happen. The economics will not support it.
Like I say, unless some new delivery method is introduced that does not involve physical infrastructure (and no, not even WiMax or LTE will fix that, towers are physical), this conundrum will be with us for a long time.
Well, it's all about branding, and I like mineI'm just sayin'
tsv_1
Well-known member
Never ever say never ever... wrt technology, we believe ourselves a brilliant race, and in many ways that's true, but there are still untold unknowns. Quantum entanglement, room-temp super conductance, hyper encoding schemes no one's even thought of yet. I say these things scratch the surface of what's ultimately possible.
Having said that, will we see a world-changing b/w bump over the next twenty years? Impossible to say... but not an impossibility (IMO)
Also, my legal team will be reviewing the pending legal battle over quantum delivery implementations and associated nomenclature.
I didn't say tech was the problem, it's economics.
As the past few years have proven, the human race can screw up economics pretty well, in spite of all the tech.
tsv_1
Well-known member
I didn't say tech was the problem, it's economics.
As the past few years have proven, the human race can screw up economics pretty well, in spite of all the tech.
I didn't say I thought you said tech was the problem. I read your post and took your comment to mean that providing ubiquitous high b/w to the masses is inordinately difficult (as we look at things today) because of stratospheric costs associated with the necessary build-out. My point was simply that with the right tech, build-out may not be a major barrier in the future.
If I misinterpreted your response, I apologize.
No problems, I guess I just am weary of all the promises tech offers us, only to see the Telco's balk at the cost. What, spend $xxxx to run fiber to your door? heck no.
The last mile problem is huge. Anyone who figures out how to bypass that last mile will be rich. Maybe.
That supposedly was the promise of WiMax & LTE, but no one wants towers near them, and putting a tower up can cost >$200K. So roll-out is slow ...
Now, as you say, if there is a new tech that solves these issues, then maybe, just maybe. Let's hope it comes soon
The last mile problem is huge. Anyone who figures out how to bypass that last mile will be rich. Maybe.
That supposedly was the promise of WiMax & LTE, but no one wants towers near them, and putting a tower up can cost >$200K. So roll-out is slow ...
Now, as you say, if there is a new tech that solves these issues, then maybe, just maybe. Let's hope it comes soon
Similar threads
