@Irenicus because not everyone wants to watch the night news in 7.1 and a 12in sub. there are ppl that dont watch anything that would really require dedicated speakers, and decent onboard would make for a sleeker look anyway. lots of ppl making their money by working long hours etc, and dont really watch movies. doesnt mean they need the worst sound coming from the tv either. same for me, as long as im not watching something that was shown in theaters or one of my tv shows. i dont need more than the tv speakers to experience a docu, say about fungi, correctly

Mda400:

Anyone who bought a 4k TV before HDMI 2.1 is released made a mistake in my opinion. HDMI 2.0 barely allows enough bandwidth to support uncompressed color at 4k 60hz but only if you disable audio to the display. Add HDR and you are limited to compressed color.

Yep that's one strong motive to delay a 4K TV buy, add the HDR "flavors war" to the mix: HDR10 Dolby Vision HLG (Hybrid Log Gamma) Technicolor HDR And the cheap and fake HDR TVs with under 1000 nits output. These are 3 reasons why i wish my 2014 1080p 60' plasma survive at least 2 years more.

Good sound is good sound, regardless of what you are watching. If you like to watch documentaries with TV speakers, then that's your prerogative. However you are missing out bigtime and probably not into the details very much. Documentaries is a bad example, since you picked something which has, for a very large part, voices being the main actor. If you like David Attenborough on your TV speakers, you don't have a very good ear or you just don't appreciate hearing someone's voice as if it was in the room with you. That's what you experience when you use your TV speakers, compared to my home theatre system. You're missing out on so much, even just in a voice. The texture, dynamic range, low/high frequencies. To the point where voices can sound drastically different on cheap speakers/integrated TV speakers, compared to a dedicated A/V receiver with good speakers. Each to their own, but I am a musician and audiophile with a very good ear who also learned another language by ear, so perhaps it's just because I'm so attuned to this that I'm such a self-confessed sound snob. I'm not explaining it very well, but there you have it.

Just a quick reminder: this is meant for pass-through sound, not for using the TV's speakers.

dopus:

Is it just from netflix and other streaming apps, because if i stream mkv files to the TV video player (works great ) it does not send trueHD sound to my reciver with arc enabled, but only dolby digital. I have set my dlna server not to transcode anything, just to send the file the way it is) The tv is an LG oled55B7V.

Yes, its just internal apps or if you watch some media types from media on inserted USB stick. I wouldent advise streaming from PC like that. Personally I go from GFX card HDMI to AVR and from that to OLED. Then use MPC-HC with madVR and LAV. From this standpoint my E6 LG OLED is perfect given madVR has some amazing scalers to go from 1080p to UHD, the internal LG upscalers just cannot match it. I got my OLED set up as a secondary monitor btw.

I didn't mean about the experience (i run 2.1 for pc and 5.1 for tv), but more the environment. Not everyone has their own house where no one is bothered when you run the speakers at 2 in the morning..

Mda400:

Anyone who bought a 4k TV before HDMI 2.1 is released made a mistake in my opinion. HDMI 2.0 barely allows enough bandwidth to support uncompressed color at 4k 60hz but only if you disable audio to the display. Add HDR and you are limited to compressed color.

Almost all media is displayed at 24hz, aside from gaming consoles, so not really sure why you think what you think. In reality, it's wrong. HDMI 2.1 will bring interesting things to the table, for the future, but that's about it. If everyone waited for interesting things for the future, they'd never buy anything. By the time HDMI 2.1 actually becomes a visual improvment vs HDMI 2.0, there will be yet again, something else to "wait" for.

fry178:

@Irenicus because not everyone wants to watch the night news in 7.1 and a 12in sub. there are ppl that dont watch anything that would really require dedicated speakers, and decent onboard would make for a sleeker look anyway. lots of ppl making their money by working long hours etc, and dont really watch movies. doesnt mean they need the worst sound coming from the tv either. same for me, as long as im not watching something that was shown in theaters or one of my tv shows. i dont need more than the tv speakers to experience a docu, say about fungi, correctly

So what you're saying is: You'd buy 2K+ TV, to basically not use it whatsoever, to justify not needing better sound quality? The point of the matter is not that everyone needs 7.1 and a 12 inch sub. In fact, many soundbars do not come with a sub, or have a small, but worthwhile sub built into the soundbar itself. The actual point of the matter is quite literally that if someone is spending top dollar on a TV, then they likely intend to use it to its max. You do not need a huge TV, or great colors, or tons of features, to not watch movies and pretty much barely use their tv. Quite literally, something this cheap: https://www.amazon.com/ASIYUN-Bluetooth-Long-standby-Smartphones-Projector/dp/B06XXDFR5D/ref=sr_1_6?s=aht&ie=UTF8&qid=1508745876&sr=1-6&keywords=soundbar&refinements=p_72:2661618011 $34 dollars, can be massively, and i do mean massively, better then any TV speakers out there, aside from TVs with built-on soundbars. And that thing isn't even necessarily meant for a TV. You're trying to say not everyone needs good sound, and that's true, but those SAME PEOPLE would not need a top of the line OLED tv. As to the whole "sleeker look" nonsense. I will never understand that one. The important parts of the tv are: Image quality and sound. To decide that something that affects either of those two things negatively, is what is more important, makes zero sense.

Aura89:

Almost all media is displayed at 24hz, aside from gaming consoles, so not really sure why you think what you think.

I think this because some people might use their computer hooked up to an HDTV? Maybe want to pass it through a home theater system that would create a larger sound and visual field than you would get 2 feet away from a 24" monitor and desk stand speakers?

Aura89:

In reality, it's wrong. HDMI 2.1 will bring interesting things to the table, for the future, but that's about it. If everyone waited for interesting things for the future, they'd never buy anything. By the time HDMI 2.1 actually becomes a visual improvment vs HDMI 2.0, there will be yet again, something else to "wait" for.

Except for the fact that pre-HDMI 2.0 revisions were created knowing what resolutions were commonplace. HDMI 2.0 was created with just getting 4k to work at 60hz knowing that 4k@24hz limit of 1.4 was being realized on early, albeit very few 4k displays. It was already putting the ceiling of HDMI 2.0 too close to let any future technology work alongside 4k@60hz with uncompressed color. With cable mediums, you don't look at the lowest common denominator. You look at the rarest and most taxing setup using that cable and build in a bit more capacity above it. Again we (even I from just using a bandwidth calculator back in 2013) already knew what 4k@60hz was going to need before HDMI 2.0 was released and they didn't compensate for that before releasing the final spec. Now we have something that goes WAY beyond 4k@60hz. Even up to 10k when that isn't even a possible display resolution yet.

Anyone i know that makes +100k a year (eg will buy a 5k oled), all have a nice thin flat screen mounted on the wall and dont care to have big speakers. Thats what they use the theater room for. Just check how many homes in the +500k/1M $ range have large speakers next to a wall mounted tv. Almost none. And it gets even rarer, for homes above that. Same with cars. Ppl dont just buy +100k/+200mph cars because they are going to race them on the track all day. I can still enjoy it picking up groceries or going 65mph on the highway. Some ppl will/might sacrifice something to compromise, and that might mean no speakers besides what the tv has. Never said that's the best to do, nor did i recommend it.

fry178:

Anyone i know that makes +100k a year (eg will buy a 5k oled), all have a nice thin flat screen mounted on the wall and dont care to have big speakers. Thats what they use the theater room for. Just check how many homes in the +500k/1M $ range have large speakers next to a wall mounted tv. Almost none. And it gets even rarer, for homes above that. Same with cars. Ppl dont just buy +100k/+200mph cars because they are going to race them on the track all day. I can still enjoy it picking up groceries or going 65mph on the highway. Some ppl will/might sacrifice something to compromise, and that might mean no speakers besides what the tv has. Never said that's the best to do, nor did i recommend it.

I agree... Most people are idiots.