I was in the same predicament a month ago and went for the BV11-55, I know it's technically their 'entry level' TV but what I think it does is highlight just how stupidly overpriced B&O TV's have been in the past, the days of BV9/BV4 pricing hopefully won't be seen again.

Ok so it doesn't have ALT, but the sound management system will be far more sophisticated than your current setup and you will be able to set the 11's speakers so they can 'keep up' with your other speakers through a multitude of parameters. 

BV9 to me is a beautiful TV, but after careful consideration I didn't find it to be a lateral change.

Razlaw wrote:

What would they replace it with? Perhaps an updated chassis like the V1 and BV11 with the new features they have? User updateable puc list, iPad control, the more advanced sound settings.

Oh, sorry my confusion. I thought you meant a new design. However, can they replace the BV7 chassis with that of the 'lesser' BV11? Part of the reason some users bought the more expensive BV7 was due to the projector support, masterlink and other features. You'd lose all of this with a BV11 chassis, so some people would regard this as a downgrade.

I mean, let's face it, the MKII BV7-55 has a (slightly) better picture than the BV11, so is it a real upgrade? I don't know if B&O regard this as a necessity - keep the BV7 design and push a BV11 chassis in to it. Maybe they regard is as a waste of short-term engineering resources and they'd be better spent working on a new BV7 when the next gen panel arrive. Just a thought.

mjmedlo wrote:

I think 4k is coming.

Just a hunch.

mjmedlo wrote:

I think 4k is coming.

Good luck with that theory :) Over in the UK, it's taken years to get to the position where most channels are in HD (with BBC2 launching in HD in March).

Indeed, the quality/bandwidth of the HD channels is far worse than it was a few years ago. I read recently that Sky has had to halve the bandwidth allocated to their premier channels, in order to meet the increasing demand for new HD channels. Frankly, there isn't enough bandwidth for top-quality HD, never mind 4K!

4K is a huge dilemma. To justify upgrading to an expensive 4K TV, users need a reason to upgrade. There isn't one at the moment. Perhaps this will change when the Playstation 4 is released, but even they completely omitted mentioning 4K at the recent PS4 reveal, leaving some people wondering if they will launch the PS4 with 4K support (it might be too expensive for a £300 console).

Having a 4K panel is one thing, but having content to show on it is another.

PS4 will support 4K video, but not 4K game:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1361519771

If Sony 4K 84" tv cost 25,000€, B&O 4K tv will cost more than 100,000€.

I absolutely agree with moxxey on this one. 4K and 8K is the next "3D" of the TV manufactures, desperately trying to create a need for something new. Infrastructure is hardly, or just, catching up with HD and not at all ready for even more bandwidth. Content is what determines a success in that respect.

Just my 2 cents

4k, even if upsampling from 1080p makes for a prettier picture on larger sized screens.

It is for this reason I don't own a large 1080 tv. I don't see the point of having to see the individual pixels after a certain diagonal size (which, of course will vary, depending on distance and eye sight).