Post by windhoek August 6, 2012 (1 of 30)
|
|
I went to a Super Hi-Vision (SHV) viewing session yesterday at BBC Scotland, Glasgow to see some Olympic content in SHV. For those not in the know, SHV is visually 16x better than HD and, this is the exciting bit, supports a 22.2 soundtrack!
As far as visuals go, it was clearly much better than HD (even on a whopping 300" screen!) and the sound was also excellent, even though the room we were in didn't seem sonically optimal for a 22.2 setup. During highlights of the USA-Nigeria Basketball match, I could hear players' voices with ease even though the basketball crowd were quite vociferous in their support and at one point, I was convinced the clapping was coming from the Glasgow SHV audience, but it wasn't: SHV fooled me into thinking the Glasgow audience were clapping!
Even though the room didn't seem like a dedicated sound and vision demo room, it was still sonically impressive as it really provided a very realistic 3-dimensional sound. Although multi-channel audio (DVD-A/ SACD) is a minority format, SHV will open up tremendous possibilities for classical and pop/ rock recordings, much more than Blu-ray did. Just imagine Dark Side of the Moon or the 1812 Overture in 22.2 surround sound! It might take 10-20 years for SHV to reach the consumer, but when it does (and becomes affordable), count me in!
Re: the 22.2 setup, speakers are located at the front, sides, rear and ceiling - that's why it has such a good 3-Dimensional effect. Below is a BBC article about SHV.
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19049341
|
|
|
|
|
|
It might sound very good and I'm sure the video is excellent but who has the room for 22 speakers plus sub, I barely have room for 5.1. Millions in cost?
|
|
|
|
|
|
But you have to admit that it's one way of "extracting" complacent audio/videophiles from the cushy comfort zone of their home listening environments!
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 6, 2012 (4 of 30)
|
|
hooperthom said:
...who has the room for 22 speakers plus sub, I barely have room for 5.1. Millions in cost?
I find two to be the right number of speakers for me visually, esthetically and sonically. I prefer two channel stereo even for movies.
IsoMike 4 channel demo at CES
"This is multichannel I could live with however at the end of the demo he played an older 2 channel stereo IsoMike recording and to my ears the sound improved when the rear speakers went silent."
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue53/ces_hirez.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
I find two to be the right number of speakers for me visually, esthetically and sonically. I prefer two channel stereo even for movies.
IsoMike 4 channel demo at CES
"This is multichannel I could live with however at the end of the demo he played an older 2 channel stereo IsoMike recording and to my ears the sound improved when the rear speakers went silent."
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue53/ces_hirez.htm
Teresa, where is the Cecil B. DeMille in you? {Did the "B" stand for BIG?)
Overkill, absolutely........but we're living in an age where the sky's the limit!
Certainly NOT meant for any normal home environment but that's the point............
|
|
|
Post by windhoek August 7, 2012 (6 of 30)
|
|
There's no doubt that SHV will give its best results if setup in a dedicated AV room. I've got a 4.0 setup that works well, but an optimised 22.2 setup in the same room would be impossible. Perhaps when it reaches the consumer, SHV will come in two flavours: Full SHV for Cinemas theaters and the very affluent and SHV-Lite for the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not saying my set up is comparable, but the first film I watched in lossless pcm 5.1 was Casino Royale. It came free with the PS3 in 2007.
When people asked what is the point of 5.1, I gave the example of the snake vs ferret scene near the start of the film. Whereas normally crowd scenes are a din, in this scene, there are hundreds of distinct voices, so you feel like you are there.
Therefore, I don't scoff at 22.2, but it will not bring any benefits over a decent 5.1 system from 2007, and therefore, definitely not over a present day set up which, 5 years on, has better processing, power blocks, chassis, for the price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
windhoek said:
SHV is visually 16x better than HD
As far as visuals go, it was clearly much better than HD (*EVEN* on a whopping 300" screen!)
On a 300" screen, you NEEED that extra resolution to off-set the increased screen size: otherwise the pixels become huge ugly dots.
The problem with large screen TVs today is that by the time you get to a 55" set, the resolution (DPI) ... even playing Blu-ray ... has hardly improved from old-fashioned 1970s TV. And the larger the screen, the lower the DPI.
For example:
* a typical 26" (66cm) 1970s TV playing standard TV broadcast PAL (768x576) = 36 DPI
* a 60" modern TV playing Blu-ray (1980x1020) = 37 DPI
As you go to even larger TVs, the DPI drops below crappy 1970s standards.
The worst thing is to visit someone's house with a large 55" screen, and they are watching the TV news in standard res (768x576) ... and the newsreader's head is this enormous pixellated head with just 17 DPI ... dramatically below 1970s quality. Ugly.
P.S. You can calculate the DPI for your set size here: http://pxcalc.com/
P.P.S.
The BBC's super-sized 300 inch screen playing Ultra HD (SHV) at 7680x4320 = only 26 DPI
(way below the quality of aunty's 1970s analog box) ... though you might sit a bit further back with the 300 :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
canonical said:
On a 300" screen, you NEEED that extra resolution to off-set the increased screen size: otherwise the pixels become huge ugly dots.
The problem with large screen TVs today is that by the time you get to a 55" set, the resolution (DPI) ... even playing Blu-ray ... has hardly improved from old-fashioned 1970s TV. And the larger the screen, the lower the DPI.
For example:
* a typical 26" (66cm) 1970s TV playing standard TV broadcast PAL (768x576) = 36 DPI
* a 60" modern TV playing Blu-ray (1980x1020) = 37 DPI
As you go to even larger TVs, the DPI drops below crappy 1970s standards.
The worst thing is to visit someone's house with a large 55" screen, and they are watching the TV news in standard res (768x576) ... and the newsreader's head is this enormous pixellated head with just 17 DPI ... dramatically below 1970s quality. Ugly.
P.S. You can calculate the DPI for your set size here: http://pxcalc.com/
P.P.S.
The BBC's super-sized 300 inch screen playing Ultra HD (SHV) at 7680x4320 = only 26 DPI
(way below the quality of aunty's 1970s analog box) ... though you might sit a bit further back with the 300 :)
Your maths is sound but you are comparing an unstable analogue broadcast from the 70s to a pristine, digital, and with blu ray a low compression artefact, picture. Dpi of that number from, e.g. 10 feet is more than enough, and is only half the story anyway. So your post is moot.
|
|
|
Post by windhoek August 7, 2012 (10 of 30)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
I don't scoff at 22.2, but it will not bring any benefits over a decent 5.1 system from 2007, and therefore, definitely not over a present day set up which, 5 years on, has better processing, power blocks, chassis, for the price.
Having experienced SHV 22.2 and 5.1, I have to disagree FunkyMonkey. What the SHV 22.2 experience gives that 5.1/, 7.1 or even 9.1 doesn't is a much more realistic 3-dimensional sound because of speaker placement in the ceiling. The sound field essentially becomes a cube. 5.1 envelopes the listener horizontally whereas SHV 22.2 envelopes the listener both horizontally and vertically.
When it finally reaches the consumer, an SHV 22.2 installation will wipe the floor with a comparable 5.1 installation. There's no ifs or buts about it.
|
|
