Why not grasp the 'immersion' of home entertainment?

[Jarcy]

I like being immersed in any entertainment experience.
I like to feel a part of it, rather than feel like I'm watching from the side-lines.
I also like it to feel as real as possible.

So why are the following formats struggling? :-
SACD
3DTV

I want surround sound and surround pictures. I want technology to press forward offering these until I'm sure that I'm actually sitting on Normandy beach during the intro to Saving Private Ryan.

We got stereo. I guess we have two ears, so it caught on. But we've got two eyes, so why hasn't 3d caught on?

Just trying to say, wow me please.

[boxst]

The Faff of having to wear glasses. As soon as it becomes a projected / holographic image it'll take off.

[grumbledoak]

Between faffing about with the glasses, looking like a dhead wearing them, and getting a headache from trying to focus somewhere inside your own skull it's no wonder it never took off.

Space Hunter, Adventures in the Forbidden Zone was cool though.

[AlexC1981]

I think 3d only works at the cinema when you are looking at the giant screen and you can get properly immersed in what you are looking at. It just doesn't seem to be as effective on the small screen as the seeing the surrounding wall and furniture at home shows up what you are looking at on screen is a 3d effect and not real.

[VEX]

As an installer of these things 3d (when set up properly) was a good first step, but coupled with the new 3d sound standards like Atmos, DTS-X and Auro they do create a far more emersive experience.

But to do it properly in a dedicated space can get pricey.

I was chatting to my Yamaha Rep / Distributor yesterday and he said that the new Yamaha Atmos Sound Bar was very impressive.

On the 3d video side, imo LG got it right with their passive glasses, no charging or sync'ing. But how many actually change the settings. First thing I do on screens is reduce the 3d depth which makes it far more watchable and enjoyable.

V.

[Jarcy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Because I like to hear different channels through different speakers. To be immersed in the listening experience.
To feel like I'm at that live concert with the crowd behind me.
And I like the (corny) effects when the producer bounces the sound across different channels.
And to top it all, I like the higher quality level. I have Dark Side of the Moon in both CD and SACD. The difference is obvious.
I've not got top end stuff. Marantz head unit and AV receiver and Monitor Audio Silver speakers, but I can tell the difference at a stroke.

[Collingbroon]

I have a 3D tv 40" in one room, never ever use the 3D! It's utter st, but I'm fortunate enough to have a spare room with a 150" screen and good projector. Whenever I buy a new film with 3D option I always buy it. 3D simply doesn't work great on a small screen in an everyday room viewing at different angles.
Designated room, dark, surround sound sat directly in front with the largest tv/screen possible, fkin epic!!!

[Crackie]

Jarcy said:

I have Dark Side of the Moon in both CD and SACD. The difference is obvious.

The SACD is mastered differently to the RBCD so the differences/improvements are engineered in the studio.

Getting back to your original rhetorical question. Have you heard a properly set up Atmos or Auro 3D demo yet ? Very immersive when set up correctly.

[JustinP1]

Jarcy said:

So why are the following formats struggling? :-
SACD
3DTV

We got stereo. I guess we have two ears, so it caught on. But we've got two eyes, so why hasn't 3d caught on?

Just trying to say, wow me please.

SACD was too niche to make it financially viable to continue.. I've got a few DVD Audio discs. They do sound great, but a lot of the difference is as has been said in the mastering.

Yes, with 24 bit over 16 bit you can master to have more dynamic range, but mostly whoever masters it can do so with the knowledge that it's not for the radio - it's for people to sit and listen to so it doesn't matter if it's hitting the limiter all the time.

The reason why it was niche was that you do need a high end system to start to notice the difference. I can hear the difference between a stereo 24 bit mix compared to 16 bit, however, it's what I do for a living, and the two channel system is nigh on £20k worth. Unfortunately there's not many enthusiasts who demand that difference.


3DTV - I was an early adopter. I adopted in the mistaken belief that Avatar would bring a string of high-quality true 3D films.

The majority of 3D films now are filmed with 2D cameras and digitally given depth afterwards. The effect it like cut-outs moving against a purposefully blurred background. That's not reality.

I've got a 3D projector, but never bothered using it for 3D for that reason. In 2D with a good setup, on blu-ray (and especially when 4k comes in) you can get an impressive sense of depth with good source material.

The same film in 3D - the colours are off and you lose a lot of the brightness due to the glasses, and everything loses sharpness and resolution simply to give you a false 'wow' effect of seeing a character a foot in front of the screen. Indeed, the backgrounds are often digitally blurred to enhance the comparative 3D effect.

IMHO, a projector on a large screen with 7.1 is the closest we can get. I've not auditioned Atmos yet, but, I fear that the novelty value will simply mean that the Atmos channel will be used as novelty ear candy rather than true immersion.

[tdm34]

Multi channel SACD sounds stunning IMO, using Floyds Dark Side of the Moon, you have to remember that it was originally mixed with Quadraphonic in mind so SACD gives the closest experience to how Floyd imagined it originally.

I have loads of multi-channel stuff from Floyd, Rush, Genesis, Peter Gabriel and lots more and they all sound brilliant...

[ian996]

JustinP1 said:

SACD was too niche to make it financially viable to continue.

+1 to the above. The market segment that wanted better than CD quality was pretty small anyway, part of it was satisfied with vinyl, and the remainder had two choices -SACD or DVD-A. Add in the fact that, post SACD launch, the mainstream emphasis has been on convenience rather than quality and the high-resolution stereo formats didn't stand a chance.

I did like the SACD sound, but it wasn't necessarily a clear-cut win over the best CD players, and a lot of SACD transports were a bit flaky. I've gone down the path of a top quality CD player with a DAC that can accept hi-res downloads and I'm pretty happy with the "Immersive sound" offered by my plain old 16 bit CDs (albeit upsampled to 2.8 mHz @ 24 bits)

[Driller]

grumbledoak said:

Between faffing about with the glasses, looking like a dhead wearing them, and getting a headache from trying to focus somewhere inside your own skull it's no wonder it never took off.

That is the best description of the stupid "3d TV" thing that I have ever heard