BillsFan4

Was just looking through info on the new technology release that this year's CES. Check this out - https://www.digit.in/mobile-phones/ces-2018-sony-showcases-next-gen-x1-ultimate-processor-for-use-in-future-lcd-oled-tvs-39022.html Doesn't sound like it'll be out until 2019 though. I'm not sure if I can wait that long. I just know I'll be pissed if I buy a tv now and then I see the same model a year later with this x1 ultimate chip that just blows my tv out of the water. lol Eh, it's kind of like that every year though. I would drive myself nuts if I always looked at the next "latest and greatest" thing to come out. Although that new chip does sound like a huge upgrade. Twice the processing power is quite a huge step up. Never a bad idea to just wait if you're unsure of a purchase. There's nothing I hate more than regretting an expensive purchase, and/or feeling like I made the wrong choice. I really want that z9d too, but I just can't get over that price. Not when I can get the 55" model 1 step down for a little over $2000 less (as the z9 isn't available in 55") when all is said and done. Maybe when more content is available in 4K and HDR I'll step up to the z9. But by then OLED and/or MicroLED will probably have taken over. Although id be lying if I said I wasn't at least considering that z9d a little bit... lol. Wonder if they'll have any clearance models when the 2018 sets come out? Doubt it since I don't believe anything changed on that set for 2018.

Wow. That's a massive difference in price. I just can't justify spending that on a tv, especially when new technology is constantly coming out (which is another reason I'm looking at smaller tv sizes - more bang for your buck). Honestly, if you're deadset on the 75" I'd just get that 900e. I've read a lot of articles saying that was one of the best LED TVs of 2017 and I've read a lot of great reviews by people who own them. It will still have HDR through the HDMI inputs (inputs 2 and 3 IIRC), just not Dolby vision (I doubt it'll be that big of a difference, I want it more to future proof myself is all). They are getting, or already got, an update to upgrade to HDR10, so I'm sure they're still going to have kick ass HDR. As as I mentioned in my other post, I've owned Sony TVs for well over a decade. I bought one of their first flat screen crt TVs (Sony Bravia) and I've been a Sony guy ever since. Currently i I have the Sony Bravia XBR6 55" 1080p tv and I swear to you that it looks as good or better than most of the 1080p TVs I see in the store today, and I think it actually looks better than some of the cheaper 4K TVs too TBH. My XBR6 came out in 2008 IIRC. So about 10 years old now, and it's gotten tons of use gaming, watching tv, movies, blue ray etc. and it still kicks ass. Edit - was just thinking about what you mentioned about the Samsung. wanted to mention that the Dolby vision thing doesn't really have anything to do with the actual HDMI inputs on the Sony tv's. They still support hdr. The 900e's chip just doesn't support Dolby vision. And the 900f will receive a firmware update with Dolby vision. The only thing off hand that that I can think of that the Samsung hdmi box would be good for is hdmi 2.1. But the thing is that q7 wouldn't support all the features hdmi 2.1 has anyway. Yeah it sounds like Sony did a horrible job rolling out their Dolby vision update. It makes me just a little hesitant to buy one right now. Sounds like they still don't have it worked out even on the new 2018 models that will be released in a couple weeks. Im not even sure how many things I'd watch, or games I'd play, that have Dolby vision yet anyway. As long as I can still run my Xbox with hdr Iim sure I'd be happy. Im not going to lie, I'm a bit jealous you got that z9d. That's been the tv I wanted for a while now. I just can't bring myself to spend almost $4k for a 55" tv. It is an absolutely amazing tv though.

Hey I just wanted to mention one other thing. I know you really want that 75" TV size, but once you get a 75" you are probably not going to want to go smaller than that in the future. Just something to think about. If you already have a 75" just ignore this... lol. Thats why why I think I'm going with 55" for now. I have a 46" Sony currently (it was a top end Sony XBR model and it still looks better than most new 1080p tv's (which is one reason why I love Sony)) and I'm happy with it. If I just to 65" I know I'll never want anything less in the future. So I'll step up to 55" this time and go 65" next time.

Thanks for all the info. Yeah I wish I could justify spending that much on the z9d because I'd definitely buy it too. That backlight master drive is supposed to,work very similarly to OLED without any of the burn in or image retention issues. It has a ton of individual LED diodes that can be turned off one by one kind of like OLED. It can enhance any video to near HDR quality. I would would definitely go with the 900F over the 900e though, if it's down to those 2. I don't think the x900e will ever be compatible with Dolby Vision HDR, which is a big deal (IMO). Plus the 900f has the x1 extreme chip compared to only the x1 chip in the 900e (which is why I believe it will never be compatible with Dolby Vision). It also has numerous other upgrades over the old 900e. But both are gr at tv's so I'm sure you'll be happy with either. Ive actually just been reading about some issues with Sony Vision on all Sony high end tv's. They rolled out an update for the 930 and 940/z9d and the Dolby vision is only compatible through apps, not through the HDMI input, which means no Dolby vision for video games and 4K blue rays etc. I want to make sure this is straightened out before I even buy a Sony now.

I am convinced he will sign in Minnesota.

Dude, you can observe that the moon is spherical, or technically an oblate spheroid, with a telescope. Or even with the naked eye. During a a solar eclipse, the suns shadow is always nearly circular. The only geometric object that can yield a near-circular eclipse in any orientation is a spheroid. The terminator of the moon (the boundary between the day side and night side) is ALWAYS arc shaped as observed from earth. Only spheroids can show such an edge in any orientation. Knowing that the moon also rotates/spins, how would we never see the flat edge? Just the fact alone that it looks looks like a disc from any viewing angle/point in orbit proves that it's a spheroid. I am absolutely blown away by this man. You have to disregard sooooooooooooo much science and information to believe the earth is flat, it just blows my mind to think about.

Hey look everyone, we have our very own flat-earther here at TBD! ?? (just messin with ya) but seriously, the earth is absolutely, 100% without a doubt not flat.

Do they have the new 900f model on display already? thats what I'd really like to see is the new 900f on display right next to last year's 930e. i don't actually have any interest in last year's 900e, just to be clear. I think I have it down to either the 930e from last year or the new 900f (which I haven't even seen yet...). With them doing away with the 930 completely though, I just don't want to miss out on it if it really does look better than the new 900f. But I also don't want to buy the 930 without seeing the new 900f either. lol. I just want to make sure I end up with the better of the 2 models. Thanks for all the help.

No. Last year's 900 was a full array backlight, and the higher 930 model was edge lit. Both had local dimming. Like i say, that's what's throwing me off. I've always considered the full array to be the better lighting, but Sony swore up and down last year that the edge light they used on the 930 was better than the full array on the 900. They even said they tried the full array on the 930 and found the slim edge light produced a better picture. Also, the 930 was brighter than the 900 in 2017 even though the 930 had the edge light.

They went into last season with Shady + Tolbert, who is 32 and not much else behind them. So I don't think having Ivory in for a visit says anything else but that they want a better #2 RB for Shady this year.

Here man - I just found this article. You were right. The A8F is indeed more expensive than the A1E. Instead of removing the subwoofer, Sony put 2 smaller subwoofers in it. Maybe that's why? The 55" is $2999 and the 65" is $3999. $12,999 for the 70"! Wow! The A1E will actually be the cheaper model, at $2799 for the 55" and $3499 for a 65". https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1518172637 sounds like that qled is your best bet for the price. Then just revisit the oled's later down the line when the technology has improved. Or just wait for Samsung's Micro LED technology that will be coming out. Maybe it'll be an improvement over OLED? Also, on the x900e from last year (I know you are not getting a Sony LED, but I think I am, so I was just looking for your help/opinion again) - https://www.sony.com/electronics/televisions/xbr-x900e-series/specifications Here are the specs on the 2017 model x900e. It definitely had the directLED (full array) backlight. But all the models lower than this one had the edge lit LED (not the local dimming slim backlight edge LED the 930 had though). Its just throwing me off that they used that slim backlight on the 930, and used the full array on the lower 900 model, yet called the slim edgelight on the 930 an upgrade over the full array on the 900. I am probably just overthinking it. Did you you say that stereo advantage has the 930 on display? They usually know their stuff pretty well there. I am going to try and rid there this week I think. As far as what gaming system I have, I actually have a PS4 and an Xbox One S. The Xbox will p,ah games in 4K with HDR. Don't think the PS4 will unless I upgrade to the Pro model (which I may do if I get a 4K tv). I play all all sorts of different games. I subscribe to Game Fly (2 game out at a time) so I'm always trying new games. I actually just seen that Game Stop has a new rental program too. $60 for 6 months ($10 a month). 1 game out at a time, but you get to pick 1 game to keep at the end of the 6 months. Ive enjoyed chatting with you on all of this tv stuff. I don't get to talk to too many people who enjoy researching all of this stuff like I do.

Thanks for the info man. Im not so sure the direct LED backlight is truly an upgrade. You would think it would be. But what's throwing me off is the 2017 900e had that directLED backlight, and they claimed that the slim backlight on the 930 produced a better picture quality on the 930, which is why they went with that over the directLED backlight. So they were either lying lying about that, or it really was an upgrade but in order to make this new 900f cheaper, they went with the same backlight as the 900e has. I do believe the a8f is going to be cheaper than the A1E. At least that's what I read. As much as I really want an OLED, I am thinking more and more that I will go with LED. But im still not sure. I've been doing some research on the burn in and image retention issues ever since we last talked, and there definitely does seem to be an issue with image retention, and in some cases burn in too, depending on how you use the TV. It really has me nervous to buy an OLED now. It it sounds like burn in and image retention is something that you have to actively mitigate against, similar to plasma Tv's (making sure you don't leave screens paused too long, running varied colors and content etc). I also read that there were multiple issues with gaming on LG OLED's (not as sure on Sony, as they haven't been out as long althoug I have seen issues being reported on Sony OLED too). heres an article about some of the issues on the LG OLED's - https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2017/02/24/angry-gamers-report-more-problems-with-lg-oled-tvs/#2e5f18321014 And one on the burn in (notice the last line of the article) - http://televisions.reviewed.com/features/what-to-know-about-oled-screen-burn-in-problems-causes-image-retention Image retention seems to be a bigger issue than actual burn in, but still it makes me nervous. Heres rtings test results in image retention. The Sony A1E scor s 2nd to last out of 42 TVs (mind you, many are LEDs being tested) - check out the comments section too. https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/image-retention-burn-in seems that image retention starts in as little as 10 minutes or less of certain images being displayed. I will be using my TV for heavy gaming and I'm just not sure the OLED is the right choice for that. The more reading I do, the more comfused I get though... some swear by OLEDs for gaming and other say they've had all sorts of issues. The OLED's must look so amazing, it's hard to pass them over. But I don't want to have to constantly baby it either.

Wow That's it? The Chiefs swapped a 6th for a 4th and got a 2nd that's 2 drafts from now? For a top 5 CB in the NFL (or top 10 at absolute worst). I thought the rumblings were that the Rams traded a 1st for him. I know he has some personality concerns, but damn.

I've said for a while now that I thought Minnesota could be the perfect landing spot for Cousins, and that they very well could decide to take a run at him instead of signing Keenum. my guess is still that they could be Cousins 1st choice. They have the cap cap space and team to surround him with. There's lots of talent on both sides of the ball and Cousins can step right in and compete for a Super Bowl. Seems like a no brainer for Cousins IMO. Oh boy, I just hope it's not Buffalo who gives Keenum that big pay day. One good season in an otherwise mediocre top poor career scares me. I am far from convinced that Keenum can repeat his success from last season, especially on another (weaker) team.

Nice! I love that he picked the Bills over multiple other teams. Guessing this means that Gaines is most likely gone though. But i I think Davis is an even swap at a cheaper cost. He even has the talent/potential to be a possible upgrade. We will see.

Haha I love it! Mainly because I can't stand Jerry Jones.

Curious where you heard this, if you don't mind sharing.

I hated that Kane trade form the second it happened. I was furious. I thought we massively overpaid. And I don't see all that stuff I said in the post you quoted as hindsight, since it was well known before the trade ever happened. -Everyone in the NHL did know that Winnipeg had to trade Kane. -His teammates did mutiny against him. -He did decide to have season ending elective shoulder surgery during The Jets first playoff run since moving back to Winnipeg (in fact, they hadn't made the p,ayoffs since '06-'07 when they were still the Atlanta Thrashers). -At the time of the trade, he had only scored 20 goals 1 time in his 6 NHL seasons. -his trade request to Winnipeg was well known I actually even said all of this stuff before the trade ever happened when discussing why I didn't want the Sabres to trade for him. Obviously my view hasn't changed...lol. I wasnt necessarily mad about the players we lost. Just on who we spent them on, and how they were traded. I felt Kane wasn't all that special, and that he was a bad influence for the kids. My view was that if you if you want to trade those guys, you do it in separate trades, or you wait and use that package for a player deserving of that type of return. We were at the very start of our rebuild. That was the type of move you make if you are a player or two away from a Cup run, not the type you make when just starting a rebuild. I could justify it a bit more if at least Kane were the type of player known to be a great veteran leader presence, who did all the right things and would teach the young kids the right way. But Kane was exactly the opposite of that. He was known for not being a good professional, and for not preparing the right way for games (he didn't even believe he had to show up early and warm up for games like the rest of his team, which was part of the issue his teammates had with him in Winnipeg). Anyway... I'm done ranting... lol. It's all water under the bridge now.

I figured as much. Kane's reputation must really be crappy around the NHL. Man, I can't tell you how much I hate the job Tim Murray did as our GM. I mean, really hate with a passion. He just burned through our assets like a drunken sailor. Think about just the Kane trade. Kane was a guy that EVERYONE in the NHL KNEW Winnipeg has to trade. His teammates basically rebelled against him. Then Kane quits on the team, and decides to have that season ending elective shoulder surgery (which he did need, but he just didn't need it right then). And mind you All of this happens during Winnipeg's very first run to the playoffs since moving to Winnipeg! Yet Tim Murray still gives up the damn farm for him. Talk about horrible negotiator. "Hey I know you absolutely have to get rid of Kane, but here take all our assets anyway!" lol. I remember Jim Benning was quoted after Kane was traded to Buffalo. He said they were in on the trade until they seen what Buffalo was offering. He said, in a very shocked voice, something along the lines of how they weren't willing to give (anywhere near) the caliber of players Buffalo offered. I think his exact words were something like "we made a very fair offer but when we heard the caliber of players Buffalo was offering, we had no interest in doing that".

Nah, what kills the buzz of this trade is the conditional 1st. Every time the Sabres have has contrition son a pick it never worked out for us. We always ended up with the lesser pick, which is why I assume that San Jose's pick will be a 2nd. The other things that kill the buzz of this trade are that the pick are 2 and 3 years away. And the prospect is pretty "Meh". A former 5th round pick from 2012 who hasn't Beane able to stick in the NHL. He has performed in the AHL though. So maybe he works out for us? I sure hope so. I would be much more ok with this trade if it was a guaranteed 1st.

I can't believe Ryan Hartman returns a 1st and Kane doesn't. He has 8 goals in 57 games this year... Or Rick Nash at this point in his career. He has some known locker rooms concerns too (party boy, can be difficult to get along with etc). Kane He's 33, has a pretty bad playoff track record where he's been invisible for large stretches. Plus he has just about an $8M cap hit. And Kane has had more goals and points than Nash the last 3 seasons. Or even Stasny, who also is getting old and has a huge cap hit, returns a 1st. But he has a much better reputation around the league. Damn it I hate being a Sabres fan sometimes.

So basically we gave up Tyler Myers, Joel Armia, Drew Stafford, Brendan Lemieux and a 2015 1st (which was a crazy deep draft) for a 2nd, a 4th, Bogosian's horrible contract and a meh prospect - Danny O'Regan, a 2012 5th round draft pick. Yuck. I hate Tim Murray. He set us back YEARS.

The 1st is conditional on Kane re-signing in San Jose. Otherwise it's a 2019 2nd. Very disappointed in this trade.

https://www.sony.com/electronics/tv/t/televisions Prices are out on the 2018 Sony lineup. All except the A8F. That price on the new x900f is enticing. But it makes me think that it is a downgrade on the current x930e. I want to say that was 2x as much when it hit the market this time last year. So so I emailed Sony to ask. They were not overly helpful, and didn't go into any detail but they claimed that the 900f is indeed an upgrade on the x930. I am still not so sure of that, though. I am going to try and do some digging because I want to grab an x930e if it is a better tv than the new x900f, since it looks like they are doing away with the 930 series all together. Heres the side by side spec comparison of the 900f and 930e - https://www.sony.com/electronics/tv/t/televisions?view=compare I already mentioned the backlight is different. Direct LED vs edgelit slim backlight on the 930 (which Sony claimed just last year was better than their direct LED on the 900). Also the motion processor. The 900 has x-motion clarity and the 930 has Motion Flow xr960. No idea which is better. Do you? I also notice here that the 930 has XDR PRO Contrast 10x, and the 900 has XDR pro contrast 6x (last year's 900 had 5x) so that's a step down on the new 900. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/compare?skus=5714432,6179727&productString=*&url=%2Fsite%2Fsearchpage.jsp%3Fcp%3D3%26searchType%3Dsearch%26_dyncharset%3DUTF-8%26ks%3D960%26sc%3DGlobal%26list%3Dy%26usc%3DAll%20Categories%26type%3Dpage%26id%3Dpcat17071%26iht%3Dn%26seeAll%3D%26browsedCategory%3Dpcmcat333800050003%26st%3Dpcmcat333800050003_categoryid%24abcat0101001%26qp%3Dverticalresolution_facet%3DResolution~2160p%20(4K)%26sp%3D-currentprice%20skuidsaas I am going to take a ride to Best Buy or Speaker shop this week and talk to someone. Id like to see both side by side but I'm not sure if they'll continue displaying the 2017 models once the 2018 models hit the stores in a couple weeks. Probably depends on how many 2017 models they have left in stock.

Sure, if you look at humans in their current form compared to other species on this earth we look out of place. But we weren't always in our current form, and all of the stuff you are mentioning happened over millions of years of human evolution. A few things (if you're interested. Evolution is something that interests me, and I tend to be a long winded poster, so I apologize in advance if this ends up being a long, boring post... lol). - Human brains didn't grow 300% practically overnight. It grew slowly over 2 million (+) years of evolution. Homo Erectus, which is one of our earlier ancestors, and lived around 1.8(+)million years ago, had an internal skull volume of roughly 600-700ml. It slowly grew, reaching 1000-1100ml around 500,000 years ago. Then reached a size of 1500ml about 20,000 years ago. Interestingly, the human brain began to shrink somewhere over the last 10-20,000 years to about 1350ml (IIRC, I believe it was in large part due to poor nutrition during that time) and then slowly began growing again to its current average size of 1400-1450ml (or cubic centimeters if you prefer). - It took a long time for the homo genus to climb to where they are on the food chain (and it can be argued we are still not at the top of the food chain, or even an apex predator (of which there are many), but that's another discussion) Our rise up the food chain happened slowly over many 100's of thousands of (or million+) years as our brains developed and we were able to start using tools and eventually making tools and then creating better tools + weapons. Also, We are omnivores and didn't always necessarily use tools to hunt. We can survive as vegetarians. Using tools to hunt is something that human ancestors learned and improved on over time as their brains evolved. The earliest human ancestors lived on a diet likely very similar to chimpanzees (fruits, nuts, bugs, plants, and at times meat + marrow they could scavenge or safely hunt). - We were not always so hairless compared to other species, and we didn't always wear clothes (which is relatively new in the scope of our evolution). That is another thing you can attribute to evolution. We became less and less hairy over time. There are numerous theories as to why. One that I can remember off the top of my head had to do with early humans moving away from the forests/jungles and onto the African savana, where in order to regulate their body temperatures and keep their brains from overheating, began losing their body hair. -Early ancestors did live out in the elements. Living in caves is something that initially had more to do with protection. Building better and better shelters is again something that evolved over time. - Humans are not not the only species born helpless. There are many. They are called altricial species - some examples off the top of my head are dogs, cats, rodents, marcupials, and numerous species of birds. A shorter gestation period is something that evolved due to our larger brain sizes and upright locomotion. Bipedalism restricts the width of the birth canal and therefore the size of the babies that can pass through it. - Humans were never monkeys. That is a common myth. We just shared a common ancestor. Australopithecines were the first hominins (human, human relative/ancestor). The homo genus (Homo Habilis (said to be the earliest homo), Homo erectus and eventually us - Homo sapiens) was derived from the genus Australopithecines, which has previously split from the genus Pan (chimpanzee). There were many different genus of Homo, and it took millions of years before Homo sapiens appeared. So if you're waiting for a species to drastically evolve, you'll be waiting a LONG time! lol