Super High Definition
 

I saw the Super High Definition demonstration today. 16 times more
detail than HD. 22.2 sound. Stunning!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ision-olympics

It seems the sets are out of stock on Amazon at present. I'll try
again after the Olympics are finished :-)

Super High Definition
 

On 04/08/2012 18:34, Scott wrote:
I saw the Super High Definition demonstration today. 16 times more
detail than HD. 22.2 sound. Stunning!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ision-olympics

It seems the sets are out of stock on Amazon at present. I'll try
again after the Olympics are finished :-)



By the time they hit the consumer market the transmission of the content
will be so bit rate limited that it will just about give the same
viewing quality as SD today.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Super High Definition
 

In article ,
Scott wrote:

I saw the Super High Definition demonstration today. 16 times more
detail than HD.

Pixels != detail. Our existing HD could be far better with more
bandwidth. Adding more pixels would just be a way to sell more
TVs - it seems the industry can't survive unless we buy a new one
every year or so.

-- Richard

Super High Definition
 

Conspiracy theorists would have you believe that this is going to be used
purely on satellite platforms andhence a tie up with Sky will be required,
giving the governmebnt a reason to let Sky and the BBC merge and do away
with the licence fee in favour of subscription.

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Scott" wrote in message
...
I saw the Super High Definition demonstration today. 16 times more
detail than HD. 22.2 sound. Stunning!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ision-olympics

It seems the sets are out of stock on Amazon at present. I'll try
again after the Olympics are finished :-)

Super High Definition
 

In article , Richard Tobin
wrote:
In article , Scott
wrote:

I saw the Super High Definition demonstration today. 16 times more
detail than HD.

Pixels != detail. Our existing HD could be far better with more
bandwidth. Adding more pixels would just be a way to sell more TVs - it
seems the industry can't survive unless we buy a new one every year or
so.

I heard a discussion about this on the radio. (Can't now remember which
programme.) What interested me was the comments implying that a large part
of what made the experience so 'real' was the improved audio, using many
channels to get a better 'soundscape' to match the visuals.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Super High Definition
 

"Scott" wrote in message
...
I saw the Super High Definition demonstration today. 16 times more
detail than HD. 22.2 sound. Stunning!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ision-olympics

It seems the sets are out of stock on Amazon at present. I'll try
again after the Olympics are finished :-)

22:2 sound?
Any idea how big the individual speakers are?
I have this picture of a room with nothing in it but a TV, surround amp, and
speakers because there's no room for anything else.
Oh, a small stool in the centre at the focus of ther audio, perhaps.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Super High Definition
 

In article , David WE Roberts
wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message
...
I saw the Super High Definition demonstration today. 16 times more
detail than HD. 22.2 sound. Stunning!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ision-olympics

It seems the sets are out of stock on Amazon at present. I'll try
again after the Olympics are finished :-)

22:2 sound? Any idea how big the individual speakers are? I have this
picture of a room with nothing in it but a TV, surround amp, and
speakers because there's no room for anything else. Oh, a small stool in
the centre at the focus of ther audio, perhaps.

I don't know the details, so am guessing. But the '22' may be like old ways
to generate 'stereo' by having a line or wall of small speakers. If so, it
can work very well, and mean you don't need to sit in a small 'sweet spot'
region to get good audio 'images' of what is presented. The snag is needing
many speaker units and amps. But set against that, each individual speaker
unit and amp can be lower power as the outputs combine coherently at the
listening position.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Super High Definition
 

I don't know the details, so am guessing.

No cigar.

AIUI there are 3 layers of channels (lower/middle/upper) to give both
better horizontal resolution (and cope with the wider vbiewing angle NHK
spec'd for ultra-high definition) and to add vertical resolution.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Super High Definition
 

In article , Robin wrote:
I don't know the details, so am guessing.

No cigar.

AIUI there are 3 layers of channels (lower/middle/upper) to give both

You'd need to define "layers" before I can tell what you mean.

better horizontal resolution (and cope with the wider vbiewing angle NHK
spec'd for ultra-high definition) and to add vertical resolution.

That implies it provides altitude angles as well as azimuth. But doesn't
tell me if my (guessed!) description was wrong or not. However what you
describe does seem consistent with the old 'wall' of speakers I was
referring to.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Super High Definition
 

On 05/08/2012 08:01, Brian Gaff wrote:
Conspiracy theorists would have you believe that this is going to be used
purely on satellite platforms andhence a tie up with Sky will be required,
giving the governmebnt a reason to let Sky and the BBC merge and do away
with the licence fee in favour of subscription.

Brian




given that even japan won't have a set that can cope with it on sale
until 2022 i think you worry too much.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

Super High Definition
 

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:34:05 +0100, Scott
wrote:

I saw the Super High Definition demonstration today. 16 times more
detail than HD. 22.2 sound. Stunning!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ision-olympics

It seems the sets are out of stock on Amazon at present. I'll try
again after the Olympics are finished :-)

OK folks.

If a Super High Definition TV is advertised as "Full SuperHD" what sort
of tuner will it have inside?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Super High Definition
 

Peter Duncanson wrote:

OK folks.

If a Super High Definition TV is advertised as "Full SuperHD" what sort
of tuner will it have inside?

ISDB-T ?

Super High Definition
 

You'd need to define "layers" before I can tell what you mean.

I'll leave that to this WWW thingy which tends to have lots of
information readily available - eg
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/tech...7_08040907.pdf

That implies it provides altitude angles as well as azimuth. But
doesn't tell me if my (guessed!) description was wrong or not.
However what you describe does seem consistent with the old 'wall' of
speakers I was referring to.

I did not read your reference to "old ways to generate 'stereo' by
having a line or wall of small speakers" as including vertical as well
as horizontal spread. Indeed, I am interested as to how such an array
of speakers would be driven, starting from a simple stereo source. Can
you point to any documentation please?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Super High Definition
 

In article , Robin wrote:
You'd need to define "layers" before I can tell what you mean.

I'll leave that to this WWW thingy which tends to have lots of
information readily available - eg
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/tech...7_08040907.pdf

I looked at Wikipedia out of curiosity. So far as I could tell the 'layers'
just means that the speakers are arrayed in three nominal vertical planes,
and the whole array essentally then forms a curved wall wrapped about the
viewers/listeners.

However the distinction will be in how the speakers are driven. cf below.

That implies it provides altitude angles as well as azimuth. But
doesn't tell me if my (guessed!) description was wrong or not. However
what you describe does seem consistent with the old 'wall' of speakers
I was referring to.

I did not read your reference to "old ways to generate 'stereo' by
having a line or wall of small speakers" as including vertical as well
as horizontal spread. Indeed, I am interested as to how such an array
of speakers would be driven, starting from a simple stereo source. Can
you point to any documentation please?

The key point to notice is that it doesn't have to start from what you
assume to be a 'simple stereo source'. "Stereo" does *not* mean "just
two channels". However people have come to assume that by association
in practice...

Bell Telephone Labs did work on the wall or 'curtain of sound' back in the
1930s. This is mentioned in various books. I just picked "Hi Fi in The
Home" by John Crabbe and it is mentioned there on pages 147-8 with an
illustration. (I can perhaps put up a scan of you are interested.) They did
experiments to see how few 'channels' might be needed for good stereo.
Again in the above book, it mentions one test in 1933. I think others also
experimented with the techniques. I've read about it many books.

But I suspect you'd need to read something like the old Bell System
Technical Journal to find the real source info. My Uni library does have
that kind of thing, but I don't at home.

Alternatively, the AES also have published various collections. One I'm
looking at now is the 'Stereophonic Techniques' one they published in the
1980s. This describes all kinds of early experiments. The earliest was the
use of 8 microphones to convey the Paris Opera over telephone lines back in
1881 !

You'd find this mentioned in old HiFi mags as well. But I can't give any
references there off-hand.

The early work was based on the idea of a 'wall' or line. But in practice
rapidly came down to two or three channels for the sake of practical
simplicity and cost. However the USA tended to favour 3-channel for stereo
and use space-time offsets, whereas the UK tended to adopt Blumlein's
2-channel 'crossed mic' amplitude methods.

The death-knell for 3-channel was the development of 'stereo LPs' which
made 2-channel practical as a commercial proposition, but not 3-channel.
However the USA still tended to remain wedded to their mic methods rather
than Blumlein's. And those who know the work of 'Mercury' may recall that
they often recorded 3-channel to tape and mixed down to two channel
for LP.

The distinction I refer to above is the question of if the speakers are
used as a phased array, or simply have different loudness. This makes a big
difference to the imaging behaviour when you have a limited number of
channels - and even 22 is 'limited' in that sense. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Super High Definition
 

the dog from that film you saw wrote:
On 05/08/2012 08:01, Brian Gaff wrote:
Conspiracy theorists would have you believe that this is going to be used
purely on satellite platforms andhence a tie up with Sky will be required,
giving the governmebnt a reason to let Sky and the BBC merge and do away
with the licence fee in favour of subscription.

Brian




given that even japan won't have a set that can cope with it on sale
until 2022 i think you worry too much.


2022 will be with us before we know it, even then I'll probably be
satisfied with HD.
--
Adrian

Super High Definition
 

Adrian wrote:

2022 will be with us before we know it,

If we're lucky. Personally I don't expect to see it.

Bill

Super High Definition
 

If we're lucky. Personally I don't expect to see it.


I think you will. I can tell that you've got a lot of life-force left in
you (so long as you don't smoke). You'll take after your Dad, I think.

SteveT

Super High Definition
 

Steve Thackery wrote:

If we're lucky. Personally I don't expect to see it.


I think you will. I can tell that you've got a lot of life-force left
in you (so long as you don't smoke). You'll take after your Dad, I think.

SteveT

It's an interesting question, and one that causes me real concern.
Having been forced into partial retirement money is a possible problem,
or it would be if I lived as long as father. But if I drop dead when I'm
70 there won't be a problem. It's a case of knowing how fast to spend
it. They say that the last cheque you write should bounce.

Bill