New smart 4K and 1080P HDTV only wireless N

[sm00thpapa]

Just purchased a Sony XBR65X805B and it came with a wireless N card. So late in the game why are these 2014 - 2015 HDTV's not coming with Wireless AC? Thank God it has a Ethernet port on the back but I hope it's a gigabit port.

 

[azazel1024]

Because 11n is more than enough for 4k streaming. You only generally need 25-50Mbps depending on the kind of compression used (h.264 vs h.265) for a high quality video stream for 4k.

Yeah, 11ac would help with that, but unless you have poor wireless reception where the TV is, 11n is more than enough. 11ac might help some, but it is not a panacea for crappy wireless reception.

What I'd want to know is if the client is dual band or not, if it is 2.4GHz only, now THAT is inexcusable.

 

[TonyH]

Hi,
Are there many native 4K material out there yet? Not counting upscaling it thru A/V RX.

 

[azazel1024]

One other bit, it doesn't really matter if it is a 10/100 port or a gigabit. 4k content, even in h.264 format is not going to exceed 100Mbps. It might be bumping up against that for low compression BRs and such forth, but those should also be in h.265.

Really my biggest concern with 4k content is just the fact that there is relatively little that offloads h.265 compression let alone decompression in fixed function hardware. Which means LOTS of CPU cycles in whatever is doing the decompression to watch a 4k video.

most 4k "streaming" is moderately well compressed h.265 running at around 25Mbps. That shouldn't be an issue streaming that in most cases.

 

[jegesq]

To the best of my knowledge, there is only oneSmart TV on the market now that even uses 802.11ac, and that's the Vizio P702UI-B3 - 70-Inch 4K Ultra HD 240Hz Smart LED Smart TV. Most Smart TV's started out with only 2.4ghz 802.11n, and a lot of more recent mainstream models feature at least 5ghz 801.11n.

Azazel is absolutely correct, Smart TV apps that require internet bandwidth to stream don't need anything much more than about 10-25 Mbps download because most of the streaming apps use buffering and compression. You can get good quality Netflix HD streams with 10Mbps easily, and you certainly don't need an 80mhz wide 5ghz bandwidth channel for Netflix, or Hulu, or virtually any other app that a Smart TV comes bundled with, or any app that can be downloaded from the TV manufacturer's bundle of downloadable apps that can be added to the TV in addition to the pre-loaded apps that come installed at purchase.

I agree it would be nice to have, particularly when/if ultra 4K streaming actually happens (and you'll need more than 25Mpbs download to stream UltraHD), and I think more and more manufacturers will start to use .11ac as time goes on. But for now, there's just no real implementation of .11 ac in the Smart TVs available for purchase today.

 

[System Error Message]

smart TVs never handle the raw data hence dont need the processing power or even the bandwidth. If the smartTV had ethernet id rather use that than wifi since it would be a lot more stable and faster. The only situation where you need bandwidth is if you are streaming from LAN with very high quality videos.

 

[sfx2000]

Because 11n is more than enough for 4k streaming. You only generally need 25-50Mbps depending on the kind of compression used (h.264 vs h.265) for a high quality video stream for 4k.

Yeah, 11ac would help with that, but unless you have poor wireless reception where the TV is, 11n is more than enough. 11ac might help some, but it is not a panacea for crappy wireless reception.

What I'd want to know is if the client is dual band or not, if it is 2.4GHz only, now THAT is inexcusable.

Depends on the capabilities of the adapter - did a quick BlueRay rip and then streamed it across using VLC... Source is a MacMini 2012 on GigE... AP in use is Apple Airport Extreme AC - do note that the AP Extreme AC is a 3 stream 802.11ac/802.11n dual band router, AC1300 in 5GHz, N216 in 2.4GHz as Apple doesn't do wide channels or turbo in the 2.4GHz space, for the most part, consider it a mature AC1750 class router according the SNB definitions..

VLC version used for Client and Source is 2.1.5, Handbrake used was 0.10, content target profile is High Profile, which is H264 (x264), 1280x720, Anamorphic: 1276x720 Lose, Modulus:2, Crop: Auto 0/0/2/2 - can't provide the source as it is copyright and don't want to get the site in trouble, but if you use BattleStar Galactice "The Plan" and use the first 10 minutes, you would have a representative sample file...

802.11n, Single Stream 2.4GHz - Dell 1705 adapter, Win8.1 - totally saturated the channel, was able to stream, but other STA's on that channel pretty much slowed to an absolute crawl...

802.11n, two stream, 2.4GHz - same PC but with Asus USB-56AC, no turbo QAM - channel still a bit busy with about 60 percent channel usage.

802.11n, two stream, 5GHz, 40MHz channels - same setup, but in 5GHz with wide channels - much better here, lower noise floor, no impact to adjacent STA's

802.11n, 3 streams - MacBook Pro 2012, 2.4Ghz - channel is still busy, but minor impact

802.11n, 3 streams, 5Ghz, wide channels (40Mhz) - no impact to adjacent 11n, 11a, 11ac clients

802.11ac, MacBook Air 2014, 2 streams, 80MHz on Ch48 - no impact to adjacent STA's - similar performance with the Asus USB-56A on the windows laptop

So the takeaway from my little test - 802.11n with a decent 2 stream adapter is really the bare minimum needed, and more streams are better - and also having a robust source with good bandwidth is a plus.

Note this is a BlueRay rip with Handbrake - 4K is going to consume even more bandwidth for streaming in the same situation - I would have done this, but I don't have any 4K content to speak of...

sfx

 

[jegesq]

Depends on the capabilities of the adapter - did a quick BlueRay rip and then streamed it across using VLC... Source is a MacMini 2012 on GigE... AP in use is Apple Airport Extreme AC - do note that the AP Extreme AC is a 3 stream 802.11ac/802.11n dual band router, AC1300 in 5GHz, N216 in 2.4GHz as Apple doesn't do wide channels or turbo in the 2.4GHz space, for the most part, consider it a mature AC1750 class router according the SNB definitions..

VLC version used for Client and Source is 2.1.5, Handbrake used was 0.10, content target profile is High Profile, which is H264 (x264), 1280x720, Anamorphic: 1276x720 Lose, Modulus:2, Crop: Auto 0/0/2/2 - can't provide the source as it is copyright and don't want to get the site in trouble, but if you use BattleStar Galactice "The Plan" and use the first 10 minutes, you would have a representative sample file...

802.11n, Single Stream 2.4GHz - Dell 1705 adapter, Win8.1 - totally saturated the channel, was able to stream, but other STA's on that channel pretty much slowed to an absolute crawl...

802.11n, two stream, 2.4GHz - same PC but with Asus USB-56AC, no turbo QAM - channel still a bit busy with about 60 percent channel usage.

802.11n, two stream, 5GHz, 40MHz channels - same setup, but in 5GHz with wide channels - much better here, lower noise floor, no impact to adjacent STA's

802.11n, 3 streams - MacBook Pro 2012, 2.4Ghz - channel is still busy, but minor impact

802.11n, 3 streams, 5Ghz, wide channels (40Mhz) - no impact to adjacent 11n, 11a, 11ac clients

802.11ac, MacBook Air 2014, 2 streams, 80MHz on Ch48 - no impact to adjacent STA's - similar performance with the Asus USB-56A on the windows laptop

So the takeaway from my little test - 802.11n with a decent 2 stream adapter is really the bare minimum needed, and more streams are better - and also having a robust source with good bandwidth is a plus.

Note this is a BlueRay rip with Handbrake - 4K is going to consume even more bandwidth for streaming in the same situation - I would have done this, but I don't have any 4K content to speak of...

sfx

SFX:

Interesting test results. Clearly more streams are better and wider channels are better as well. Yep, 4K will no doubt consume even more bandwidth. Which is why I think most manufacturers are waiting to see how .11ac develops and whether 160mhz wide channels will ever be a functional reality.

From the way you described your test, it looks like you were using either a MacBook Air and/or a Windows client receiving wireless streams from your AirPort, on which you were using VLC to display. Correct?

I think your test is sort of useful for the OP, but the odd thing is that there's absolutely no information I could find about whether the 802.11n adapter in his TV is one, two or three streams, and I could find nothing about the specs at all for the adapter. But with multiple ways to connect to a smart TV, particularly one capable of displaying Ultra-HD 4K content (and to be clear, the Sony that the OP has is NOT a 4K tv), wireless probably isn't going to be the best method of displaying super hi-res content anyway.

 

[azazel1024]

Out of curiosity what kind of bit rate? With those settings, it doesn't sound like it would be terribly high (4-8Mbps?)

On 20MHz 2.4GHz to my single stream tablet I have no issues streaming a variable bit rate (average 13Mbps) 1080p file clear across my house, though it does load up the channel quite a bit. Anything remotely like "close" to my router and the impact is minor (considering ~50Mbps of performance on 2.4GHz 20MHz close to the router, that is uncompressed 1080p BR, though it would be a bit dicey).

At least from what I have seen in TVs, most are dual stream 11n adapters these days. I suppose there might be some single or triple stream adapters, but almost all modestly high end TVs seem to be dual stream and dual band 11n (my Vizio IIRC is dual stream and dual band, though I don't use the "smart TV" abilities with wifi disabled as I use an AppleTV).

It DEFFINITELY would be nice if TV manufacturers had wired ports on all "smart" TVs in addition to wireless. Kind of stupid not to IMHO.

 

[sm00thpapa]

I tried wireless on 5GHz band with my EA9200, WRT1900AC and RT-N66U and nothing but problems. The TV only has a 100Mbps port so I hard wired it to the EA9200 until my RT-AC68P comes in. It is more than enough to stream 4K video from Netflix. Just sad that high dollar TV's and Blu-ray players still coming with old technology 100Mbps ports instead of a Gigabit port. TV dropped at best buy so I got a price adjustment of $2,499.99. Only reason we bought the tv is cause my wife wanted it.

 

[sm00thpapa]

SFX:

Interesting test results. Clearly more streams are better and wider channels are better as well. Yep, 4K will no doubt consume even more bandwidth. Which is why I think most manufacturers are waiting to see how .11ac develops and whether 160mhz wide channels will ever be a functional reality.

From the way you described your test, it looks like you were using either a MacBook Air and/or a Windows client receiving wireless streams from your AirPort, on which you were using VLC to display. Correct?

I think your test is sort of useful for the OP, but the odd thing is that there's absolutely no information I could find about whether the 802.11n adapter in his TV is one, two or three streams, and I could find nothing about the specs at all for the adapter. But with multiple ways to connect to a smart TV, particularly one capable of displaying Ultra-HD 4K content (and to be clear, the Sony that the OP has is NOT a 4K tv), wireless probably isn't going to be the best method of displaying super hi-res content anyway.

The tv is 4K 3D HDTV to be clear.

 

[azazel1024]

If the 100Mbps port can stream cleanly, even 4k, why does it need a gigabit port?

A fast ethernet port is going to be a hair cheaper to implement and use slightly less power. Now if it actually isn't fast enough to stream the content you need, that is a problem, but if it is fast enough, there aren't any other trade-offs.

It is overkill to put a train that can go 200Mph on railroad tracks where it'll never go faster than 30Mph. Might as well just put the 30Mph train on those tracks.

 

[L&LD]

Using your train analogy, the 200MPH train will probably be newer, need less maintenance and still be useful even if that section of track shuts down for whatever reason by being able to be repurposed.

The 30MPH train will be used each and every day close to it's maximum capabilities, need more maintenance to run at 10/10ths and at the end of the day, is obsolete before it was even put into service.

When the price difference is 'slight' and the maintenance is much higher (in the router's case, the need to replace it, rather than fixing it) for the slower, but better matched at this time train to the track section, it is a no brainer.

The 'overkill' solution is the cheapest in the long haul.

 

[azazel1024]

Using your train analogy, the 200MPH train will probably be newer, need less maintenance and still be useful even if that section of track shuts down for whatever reason by being able to be repurposed.

The 30MPH train will be used each and every day close to it's maximum capabilities, need more maintenance to run at 10/10ths and at the end of the day, is obsolete before it was even put into service.

When the price difference is 'slight' and the maintenance is much higher (in the router's case, the need to replace it, rather than fixing it) for the slower, but better matched at this time train to the track section, it is a no brainer.

The 'overkill' solution is the cheapest in the long haul.

Except in this case, do you think a smart TV is ever going to need anything more than what it has for data? A better analogy I should have used is, do you bother installing a 1" pipe for your kitchen faucet when all it needs is a 3/8" pipe?

It isn't a no brainer from a BOM point of view. If there is no chance that the device will ever be able to leverage more than 100Mbps of networking capacity, there is no need to provide it with a pipe bigger than that. It isn't suddenly going to be turned in to a server, or a switch or start using 8k video or anything like that.

 

[L&LD]

No, with your kitchen pipe analogy I would give a different answer.

But do I think a smart TV will ever need more. YES.



For sure I know it won't ever need less.

 

[azazel1024]

No, with your kitchen pipe analogy I would give a different answer.

But do I think a smart TV will ever need more. YES.



For sure I know it won't ever need less.

Based on the entire history of "smart appliance" makers and consumer electronics industry (I am ignoring ACTUAL computers, as that is a bit of a different story)...no, it'll never need more. I would LOVE to be proved wrong, but I doubt I will be.

 

[L&LD]

I love it when two people look at the same thing and think the exact opposite.

Of course, I still think you'll love being proved wrong.

 

[sfx2000]

Out of curiosity what kind of bit rate? With those settings, it doesn't sound like it would be terribly high (4-8Mbps?)

It's VBR, but ranges from 4Mbps to around 8, averaging around 6...

On 20MHz 2.4GHz to my single stream tablet I have no issues streaming a variable bit rate (average 13Mbps) 1080p file clear across my house, though it does load up the channel quite a bit. Anything remotely like "close" to my router and the impact is minor (considering ~50Mbps of performance on 2.4GHz 20MHz close to the router, that is uncompressed 1080p BR, though it would be a bit dicey).

It's more about the channel utilization - WiFi being a shared channel, that single stream can 'lock down' the channel and make less time available for other nodes

At least from what I have seen in TVs, most are dual stream 11n adapters these days. I suppose there might be some single or triple stream adapters, but almost all modestly high end TVs seem to be dual stream and dual band 11n (my Vizio IIRC is dual stream and dual band, though I don't use the "smart TV" abilities with wifi disabled as I use an AppleTV).

starting to see, as you mention above, 2-stream 11n, but generally still single band - some dual band in the set-top space (Apple TV is a good example, but it's still single stream) - I was fairly surprise that the PS4 is single band, esp. since Sony was a huge promoter at one time for 5GHz capabilities... at least it's 2-stream 11n, which is better by a long short over the PS3.

It DEFFINITELY would be nice if TV manufacturers had wired ports on all "smart" TVs in addition to wireless. Kind of stupid not to IMHO.

My preference would be to just have a USB host port, and make available either a gigabit Ethernet or a 2-stream 11n/11ac wireless adapter, if the TV has 'smart functionality' built in.

In many ways though, considering the turn-over on TV's, it's better to have an external box as technology is moving very fast, and the "smart" features will be obsolete over time...

sfx

 

[sm00thpapa]

Thank you all for your input. My current set up streams 4K video from Netflix just fine which is a Powerline adapter near the tv connected to a switch and the switch to the tv and sony blu ray player. Both have 100Mbps ports and all is good. I hate wifi so I go wired when ever possible.