Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

UHD - 5 to 10 years

Scott Roberts

Scott Roberts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
58
Website
www.littleblackbird.net
If this is true - 5 to 10 years to UHD (Ultra High Definition), Red is aligning themselves well.

http://hothardware.com/News/Got-HDTV-Get-Ready-For-UHDTV/

Excerpt: "UHD will come in two resolution levels: 7680 x 4320 pixels (8K) and 3840 x 2160 pixels (4K) and provide four to 16 times the resolution of Blu-ray or 1080p high-def. And 22.2 multichannel three-dimensional sound."
 
Scott Roberts said:
Excerpt: "UHD will come in two resolution levels: 7680 x 4320 pixels (8K) and 3840 x 2160 pixels (4K) and provide four to 16 times the resolution of Blu-ray or 1080p high-def. And 22.2 multichannel three-dimensional sound."
Click to expand...

I don't like how they've based their resolutions on multiples of HD (1920 pixels) rather than 1024 pixels like everyone else uses... I mean, it's not really 4K if it isn't even 4000 pixels wide.

Also, how stupid is 22.2 channel sound? I mean, I doubt you could tell the difference between it and 7.1 channel sound in any home setting... I bet people would even have real trouble differentiating between 22.2 and something like 12.2 even in a cinema! Not to mention that with decent speakers, a 22.2 channel sound setup would cost somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000...
 
I Bloom said:
Not gonna be 5 to 10 years.

Gonna be less than 5.

IBloom
Click to expand...

Not in the consumer market. I do not believe we will have 4k and 8k broadcast channel or media distribution format in 5 years time.

Do you have something valuable to bet, Ian? :emote_popcorn:
 
I never quite understood why we even went from 5.1 to 7.1. The size of the rooms where people watch TV in their homes is limited. And the more speakers you have the more problems you get with reflections, nodes and the comb filter effect.
I live with 4.1 and it's great. You don't need the center speaker if the FL and FR are set up properly and you're screen isn't 5m wide...
 
Felix Knöchel said:
I never quite understood why we even went from 5.1 to 7.1. The size of the rooms where people watch TV in their homes is limited. And the more speakers you have the more problems you get with reflections, nodes and the comb filter effect.
I live with 4.1 and it's great. You don't need the center speaker if the FL and FR are set up properly and you're screen isn't 5m wide...
Click to expand...

Probably so the companies who make those 'home theater packages' would have something to entice consumers into buying more expensive products... I think you're probably right about 4.1 being enough, and with the money you save on not buying one or three extra speakers, you can use to get a better receiver or get better speakers.
 
Stephen Gentle said:
Probably so the companies who make those 'home theater packages' would have something to entice consumers into buying more expensive products... I think you're probably right about 4.1 being enough, and with the money you save on not buying one or three extra speakers, you can use to get a better receiver or get better speakers.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

I also hate these satellite speaker systems where everything below 300 hz is directed into the subwoofer... sounds horrible to my ears...
 
The number of independent speaker channels is, IMHO, bonkers. Count how many ears you have - 2. 2 channel can work as in binaural recordings. But if you must have surround, you need a few more in the home environment, but you do not need 22 independent channels ever.

Graeme
 
Felix Knöchel said:
I never quite understood why we even went from 5.1 to 7.1. The size of the rooms where people watch TV in their homes is limited. And the more speakers you have the more problems you get with reflections, nodes and the comb filter effect.
I live with 4.1 and it's great. You don't need the center speaker if the FL and FR are set up properly and you're screen isn't 5m wide...
Click to expand...

You'd might be suprised at home many folks are building dedicated theater rooms, either in their existing homes, or as part of a new home construction. Check out avsforum.com and you'll see it's not neary as uncommon as you think. Many new spec homes in my area include a good size media room as part of the floor plan.

I built a theater room in my basment with a viewing area that's 15'x25' (WxD). The screen is 133" digonal (10' wide), and my main seating is 12'5" away.

In my 7.1 setup my side surrounds are to the immediate left and right of the seating, thus "halfway" down the length of the room. If it were a 5.1 setup that would be it. However the additionl 2 rear-surround channels are behind my seating at the rear of the room.

Even with synthesized 7.1 (Dolby PLIIx) I can assure you that the sound field is expanded and you get a sense of the sound occuring "around" you. With actual 7.1 content mastered on the disc (as some Blu-Rays have), it's even better.

That having been said, I acknowledge that the rear speaker soundfield is the hardest for the human ear to localize.... putting more speakers behind would seem to be of awfully limited value. I can't imagine why anybody would suggest 22... unless they are thinking semi-hemispherical layout going up. I've also seen people ask for channels to drive tactile transducers seperately form the LFE channel....

-sc
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The number of independent speaker channels is, IMHO, bonkers. Count how many ears you have - 2. 2 channel can work as in binaural recordings. But if you must have surround, you need a few more in the home environment, but you do not need 22 independent channels ever.

Graeme
Click to expand...

You can even make a normal stereo recording sound more surroundish with an additional speaker. Just pluck in one wire in each of the + connections of the Left-Channel-Output and Right-Channel-output on your (stereo) reciever and put the speaker centered behind you. Stereo can be described (as many of you probably know) in terms of Left/Right or (!) Middle/Side. The difference between Left+ and Right+ (which you hear on a speaker connected like described above) is the Side-Signal. So you actually broaden the stereo-width that way.

:) So get out your spare speakers and try that :)
 
Steven Caesare said:
In my 7.1 setup my side surrounds are to the immediate left and right of the seating, thus "halfway" down the length of the room. If it were a 5.1 setup that would be it. However the additionl 2 rear-surround channels are behind my seating at the rear of the room.
Click to expand...

But in a 5.1 setup the rear speakers go behind you, not next to you. its the same thing. Every thing behind Front and Back is done by mixing it between the according (left or right) Front and Back speakers. So with 4 channels you can actually (without the use of psycho-acoustics) place a sound everywhere within the space between the speakers.

The additional channels in theatres are there because a 4 channel system like described above would only work 100% in the sweet spot where all the speaker axes meet.
The center speaker allows the audience sitting left or right of the screen center to associate sounds with the action on the screen (as they sit closer to either the Left or Right speaker they would be getting that L/Rsound first and louder in a stereo setup and thus think the sound came from there).
The additonal surround channels in the theater kind of "widen" the sweet spot.
 
Felix, I ran such a system for many years. Problem with me with surround is that I find off-axis sounds trigger human fight / flight response, which is not something I wish to have triggered while enjoying a movie. Stereo is, for me, sufficient for most musical / movie experiences. Hell, for music I don't even have a problem with good mono!

I've also heard of a superb 6 channel demonstration whereby there was two front, two rear and two height speakers creating a seamless soundspace. I've not heard the demo, but from audio people I trust, I heard that it was superb.

Graeme
 
The broadest market is actually going the other way ... to smaller screens (and shorter format).
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Felix, I ran such a system for many years. Problem with me with surround is that I find off-axis sounds trigger human fight / flight response, which is not something I wish to have triggered while enjoying a movie. Stereo is, for me, sufficient for most musical / movie experiences. Hell, for music I don't even have a problem with good mono!

I've also heard of a superb 6 channel demonstration whereby there was two front, two rear and two height speakers creating a seamless soundspace. I've not heard the demo, but from audio people I trust, I heard that it was superb.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. It is widely discussed amoung sound mixers if the reaction to rear channels will change over time as the audience is getting more used to it. Still if you put a signal there that draws attention to it (which it only does if it stands out and was not initiated through the front channels - meaning that if it moved from front to back, nobody cares - and above a certain sound level) it will always make you jump. Humans are, as you already said, programmed that way (we never knew from where the next saber-tooth-tiger would jump on us next).
For atmosphere or even music, I see it quite differently. I wrote my thesis about surround music with an according research project (back in 2000) that proved that people reacted stronger (positively) to the difference between stereo/surround than to the mono/stereo difference.

I would suggest you try one of the DTS Sting CDs (yes not DVD). They have an DTS PCM file on it that can be played on a CD-player's digital output through a DTS decoder (you can also use your DVD player for that). And it's pure fun (if you are not appalled by Sting, that is).
 
Felix Knöchel said:
But in a 5.1 setup the rear speakers go behind you, not next to you. its the same thing. Every thing behind Front and Back is done by mixing it between the according (left or right) Front and Back speakers. So with 4 channels you can actually (without the use of psycho-acoustics) place a sound everywhere within the space between the speakers.

The additional channels in theatres are there because a 4 channel system like described above would only work 100% in the sweet spot where all the speaker axes meet.
The center speaker allows the audience sitting left or right of the screen center to associate sounds with the action on the screen (as they sit closer to either the Left or Right speaker they would be getting that L/Rsound first and louder in a stereo setup and thus think the sound came from there).
The additonal surround channels in the theater kind of "widen" the sweet spot.
Click to expand...

Ah, that is a common mis-conceptoion, but that's not the recommended layout, and thus not how the soundtracks are mastered.

Note the layout at http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/51.html :
51.gif



Now compare that to the locations defined for a 7.1 system at http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/71.html:
71.gif


The surround experience when objects are located BEHIND you in the soundfield is very different than if is beside you.

It's even more dramatic whan an object moves PAST you.... starting from the fron speakers, moving throught the side speakers, and on to the rears.

Have you tried it in a roome large enough to provide some seperation and with material mastered for 7.1?

-sc
 
J Davis said:
The broadest market is actually going the other way ... to smaller screens (and shorter format).
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this assessment... but I think there are going to be parallel markets diverging soon. We don't yet know what the tablet cpu revolution will actually look like, but I think it will replace much of the broadcast market as we know it in a few years. It will become a primary delivery format for a lot of content.

On the other side, if there is consumer support, ultra HD will be a long slow slog as people upgrade their gear, but this will have little to do with broadcast entertainment (which is still primarily viewed in SD or 720p HD) but driven first by a revamped high end player system, like a "Blue Ray Ultra".

8k delivery to home sets is just not likely in my opinion. Where is the value to the consumer there? It's sad, but since the inception of HD and the 16:9 television boom, I think the format is still widely mis-understood and the technology misused by 50% or more of the consumer base. For instance, a whole lot of people now watch distorted out of aspect images because they fill their tv screens when for decades they used to watch perfectly un-distorted programing quite happily. Lots of people have 1080p tv sets with fast refresh rates, but there is virtually nothing they watch in 1080p, unless it's BlueRay. And then there is compression, which ranges from very clean to completely obvious depending on the amount of data a particular channel is pumping out and how it's programming was produced. Before HD, very little of what was broadcast was compressed.

8k sounds great for primary cinematography for films and tv programing, but I seriously doubt it will find a foothold in the consumer market place. Interactive content designed for tablet computers is the next big marketplace.
 
J Davis said:
The broadest market is actually going the other way ... to smaller screens (and shorter format).
Click to expand...

Please explain?

While I don't have any market numbers handy, my anecdotal observation seems to indicate the average sive of flat panels is going up, and I'm seeing more and more projection systems in homes of folks you wouldn't consider to be extreme A/V folks...

-sc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top