Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

LG Unveils 88-inch 8K TV That Doubles as a Giant Speaker (tomsguide.com) 71

Posted by msmash from the because-why-not dept.
Last year LG Display unveiled a rollable OLED TV prototype, which is reportedly becoming a real retail product in 2019. This year they're at it again with a giant 8K OLED set that doubles as a speaker and a weird flower sculpture made entirely of the flexible OLED panels. From a report: As TV's get thinner, it's getting harder and harder to produce audio that isn't thin. Enter LG Display's 88-inch Crystal Sound OLED set. It has a 3..2.2 sound system embedded directly into the display. The sounds emanate from the panel itself. And, thanks to Dolby Atmos support, LG Display says that viewers will be able to hear dynamic sound come from their top, bottom, left and right. Sony introduced similar technology on its A8F OLED TV, but that was a 4K set.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG Unveils 88-inch 8K TV That Doubles as a Giant Speaker More

LG Unveils 88-inch 8K TV That Doubles as a Giant Speaker

Comments Filter:

  • take it up to 11!

  • Cool, so if I was an idiot with more money in my pocket than brain cells I'd hop right on an 8k TV when barely anyone makes media for 4k.

    • There's plenty of 4k content. Every new movie, every new show on Netflix and Amazon are 4k. But yeah if you want 8k content, it's going to be a wait.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Octorian ( 14086 )

      I really wish they'd just make a 4k OLED panel at this size. Until this launches, the largest OLED panel on-the-market for years now has been 77in.

    • when barely anyone makes media for 4k.

      What the hell are you talking about? There's plenty of 4K content. Not only is nearly every release getting a 4K version, but they are rapidly backfilling the catalogue with remasters too.

      Then there's Netflix and other streaming content available in 4K too.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by zlives ( 2009072 )

        could be a cable tv user... plenty of people watch their "high def" TV on cable which is looks worse than a 1080 blueray at every comparison including audio.

  • Use case? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Sunday January 06, 2019 @07:13PM (#57915222) Homepage Journal

    Okay -- I'm trying to picture someone who has the kinda of deep pockets to be able to afford an 88", 8k TV set, but who needs to use the internal speakers because they can't afford a proper surround sound receiver and speakers.

    Anyone?

    Yaz

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Octorian ( 14086 )

      Yeah, I wonder that too. Anyone who buys a set like this has likely invested real money in a sound system that's separate from the TV itself. There's really no reason they'd even care about having any speakers in the TV at all. (unless it can replace/complement the existing center channel of an existing sound system)

      • Yeah, I wonder that too. Anyone who buys a set like this has likely invested real money in a sound system that's separate from the TV itself.

        Unlikely. It's amazing:
        a) the number of people who don't give a shit about sound.
        b) the number of people who would prioritize a minimalistic living room over sound (see the whole reason sound bars exist).
        c) the number of people who buy TVs to glue them on a wall and complain enough about the space taken up by their cable box underneath.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ormy ( 1430821 )

        ...unless it can replace/complement the existing center channel of an existing sound system

        I find it interesting you should mention this. When I first tried to put together a 5.1 surround system on a tight budget I thought I could use the TV speakers as the centre channel meaning one less speaker to buy. Back when all domestic AV was analogue it would have been trivial, just take the 'centre channel output' from the amplifier (line level if possible, but if only high-level available then use resistors to attenuate) and connect it to the TV's 'audio input'.

        However now that everything is HDMI-onl

    • Imagine even deeper pockets where this isn't even their main tv. It's just mounted on the wall in the kitchen or something. It wouldn't be because of money.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      Prices will drop. But more importantly, having the panel itself being a speaker is good at least for the center channel, and considering the size of the screen, maybe even the left and right.

      The usual setup has a speaker under the screen, it is not ideal, the center channel is designed to come from center of the screen itself. In theaters, most speakers are behind the screen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The kinds of people who buy these are already beyond caring about value for money, so manufacturers throw in some tech they want to test out manufacturing for, and to get some feedback from reviewers who will actually try it out.

      If this systems sounds decent they will introduce it in cheaper models, if not it gets ditched and they write it off as an R&D expense.

    • Okay -- I'm trying to picture someone who has the kinda of deep pockets to be able to afford an 88", 8k TV set, but who needs to use the internal speakers because they can't afford a proper surround sound receiver and speakers.

      Yeah sure plenty of cases. You see proper surround sound receivers and speakers are thick. Quite thick. The better the sound, the thicker it is. There is a huge market out there for the "wife friendly" home system which is how these damn soundbars became so popular in the first place.

      LG's 88" screen is about a thick as an iPad would look frigging awesome hung up on a wall somewhere. The same can not be said for a decent surround sound system.

      (Though personally any woman who considers a soundsystem based on

      • There is a huge market out there for the "wife friendly" home system which is how these damn soundbars became so popular in the first place.

        Sad, but true. I'm considering having my girlfriend move in and one of the first things she mentioned was moving my front floorstanding speakers and center channel to free up room in the living room.

    • I for one would like my TV to be able to function as the center channel. If they've got it set up to do that, and if it will do that job, then that would be great. I can make all the other speakers unobtrusive, but that one always bugs me.

      I'm nowhere near the target market as my TV is still a pre-LED-backlight 52" LCD from Sharp, but I don't see why people with higher-end systems wouldn't have the same thought.

    • Except the rich-ass people who buy this stuff aren't bothering to add a bunch of component audio to it anymore. Think about it, these people are the reason we have crappy wireless audio mandated on most phones.

  • 8! (Score:2)

    by antdude ( 79039 )

    Lucky number for Chinese. :D

  • TV speakers continue to be garbage (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    As TV's get thinner, it's getting harder and harder to produce audio that isn't thin.

    No. As it has been forever, you get the best sound by using real hifi speakers, not the toy ones that come with TVs.

  • There needs to be a point where the screen resolution is high enough where any improvement wouldn't add to the experience. Where then we could use the ever increasing bandwidth for more useful data, vs sending pixels that we will not see.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nagora ( 177841 )

      There needs to be a point where the screen resolution is high enough where any improvement wouldn't add to the experience.

      We're well past that point already. I watched Wonder Woman on one of the largest cinema screens in London, and not very far back from that screen, either. The quality was great, but I've since learnt that the images was "only" 2K.

      8K on an 88" screen is just a joke.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ormy ( 1430821 )

      I would argue that the point where most users do not notice further visual improvement in standard TV/Movies is 1080p or 4K, depending on your eyesight quality, distance to screen and size of screen. Gaming is a slightly different story, I personally prefer as much resolution as I can get to display more HUD info without obstructing my view of the scene, whereas for movies I'm happy with 1080p.

      The extra bandwidth will be used (its already started) initially for more colour information, i.e. HDR functionali

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      A high end phone screen is around 500 PPI and looks visually perfect (no visible aliasing) from 50cm away. To get that on an 80" TV at 3m viewing distance 8k is adequate, 4k is not.

      So 8k is probably at the point where we can stop worrying about resolution.

      • Did you factor the inverse square rule?

        While an 80" TV is quite big, you can still normally eclipse it with your phone at around that 50 cm away.

        Plus also for a TV you will be watching moving images, vs a static high contrast image like on your phone.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close