• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

ESPN ending 3D broadcasts:

It is a shame, I still believe 3D could be an amazing experience for users if they give it a chance. When done properly, it can be amazing and so much more enthralling.

That said, I think we are no longer able to truly focus on being entertained by single things any more. I know VERY few people who can sit through a 45 minute album of music these days. And even fewer people will actually pay attention to a whole movie or hour long TV show without some sort of distraction, like getting up for something, or talking, or playing with the PC or tablet or phone. It is like we are a culture where ADHD has taken over and we no longer desire finding something to focus on and instead are looking for anything to stimulate us at all times - even if that means surround ourselves with a dozen forms of entertainment all running at the same time.

This is bad for our minds. The ability to focus is a crucial skill which enables creativity, understanding, knowledge growth, and intuition which we are consciously cutting out of our lives in favor of constant stimulation.
 
Flint said:
I think we are no longer able to truly focus on being entertained by single things any more.

THIS

I've always thought that the way I and my friends watch TV were simply not conducive to 3D.
 
The things that got me about 3D were both the need to give single focus to it (as a result of the glasses), but also the fleeting nature of the effect. In the demos I'd done it looked great UNTIL your eyes tracked to the edge of the screen. At that point my eyes and brain would rebel. It would be cool with a huge screen but a pain in the rear on anything less than enormous.

And then there's the expense involved. I'm not shocked most people aren't interested.
 
Akula said:
And then there's the expense involved. I'm not shocked most people aren't interested.

I don't accept that argument. People will pay anything for something they want. This is a case of people not wanting the technology, not that people won't pay.

At one time we all had spent the family's nest egg on a $1000 CRT TV. When big plasma and later LCD televisions came out, most said that the public will never pay for those things, but they did. Then I got hear everyone say that HDTV was a waste of money and a good DVD / Plasma or Projector setup was more than anyone needed, but HDTV is the minimum standard now and everyone is happy to pay for it. Then we said no one needs BluRay, but it has been a huge success by all measures. 3D was one logical next step in making home video even more believable, but it didn't take off.

I am more likely to believe that people just don't want to sit and enjoy watching anything. They want to look up from their tablets or phones long enough to be really impressed with the bright and crisp image in front of them, then they go back to their devices. Or, like I've seen at game watching parties over the past two years, people only look at the TV when something exciting happens or during those rare lulls in the party conversation. With 3D that is a difficult thing to do. With 3D you have to look at the TV, and look, and look and pretty much never look away.

Like I said, I don't think people really watch anything anymore.
 
Flint said:
Akula said:
And then there's the expense involved. I'm not shocked most people aren't interested.

I don't accept that argument. People will pay anything for something they want. This is a case of people not wanting the technology, not that people won't pay.

I'll agree with this. They don't want it bad enough to pay extra. Still, for something where people don't feel a strong need for a product or service, that low demand needs to be reflected in lower pricing. If companies cannot provide 3D service for what people are willing to pay (as determined by their interest), then 3D service is not going to make it.

As for people being unwilling to just sit and watch with undivided attention, was that ever really the case that people would do that? Back before HDTV and internet/tablet PCs people would often read a book, magazine, or newspaper while "watching TV." Very very few shows can really monopolize one's attention to where someone can just watch and do nothing else in the meantime. While that's what happens in a movie theater, it's just not really what happens in the home. I wouldn't so much blame these young kids who also tromp all over our yards as much as recognize it's a simple fact of human behavior.

Ultimately, consumers do not seem to be interested in 3D. I am not convinced it's a bad thing. Sure, it is an enhanced viewing experience. But does it enhance the experience enough for people to want to pay for the equipment and programming and also change viewing habits? Apparently not. While HDTV was enough of a jump for people to upgrade it does not appear that 3D provided that same felt benefit to the consumer.
 
I would say that, yes, people did once sit and pay attention to the singular entertainment source for the duration of the program. I remember when I got into audio and joined the social group interested in it we would get together for listening parties and play entire albums without a single comment and everyone made every effort not to distract anyone else. Even when the LP was being flipped over to hear side two the room was dead silent. Until the full album had played all the way to the end, people were paying attention. The same for early HT systems. We would stop everyone and watch entire movies, usually on Beta with HiFi soundtracks, and later on LaserDisc. We were into the hobby to experience the recreation of someone's hard work, to appreciate the creativity of the artists who make music and movies.

Today very few do that. At the last big get together I attended with this group I was trying to listen to some speakers, I mean really listen. I cannot think of a single track playing through without someone in the room talking, or moving around, or doing some other highly distracting thing to disturb my concentration. I don't think people have the capacity to really enjoy art anymore.

Charles Ives once claimed that art, specifically music composition, would soon become something every man could and would do. That it would become the people's art and the greatest symphonies ever conceived would be created in the minds of farmers and businessmen. That's one reason he refused to stop selling insurance when he could have made a very decent living as a composer and conductor.

Ives was correct! But the result is that we so inundated with new music, movies, TV shows, short video clips, and the internet that our choices have become too broad and we are afraid of missing one thing because we are focused on another. No one really sits and listens anymore - at least very few do. In fact, this goes well beyond just music and TV, we don't stop and pay attention to anything anymore. We read books in noisy places and start and stop in the middle of sentences. We play music on our earphones at the same time we are trying to navigate the dangerous streets on our bicycles or when trying to look masculine while that hot girl on the treadmill next to us notice how handsome we are. We don't appreciate music anymore.

I was working with my new friend and guitarist in my band on recording music. This guy has decades of experience and really knows the tools of the recording trade. However, he has never really paid attention to the music he loves enough to realize that there might be three or four acoustic guitar tracks on his favorite songs he would like to emulate. He was shocked when I wanted to use up 6 tracks to add percussion to a song until I showed him how several songs he loved had even more percussion parts. He never stopped to listen to the music. He just took it at the initial moment of hearing it and made up his mind and stopped trying to understand why and how and so on. Which would be fine except he wants to be a great songwriter and recording producer.

I see it everywhere. I teach drums to four kids and only one of them can listen to a song and pick out what the drummer is doing so he can attempt to copy their playing - so he can grow and mature as a drummer. The other three cannot even figure out what the bass drum is doing in their favorite music, yet they pay be to teach them to be drummers. I am about to fire one of them as a student because he refuses to do anything extra to learn, he practices too seldom, and he is wasting his time and money on this attempt to pretend he is a drummer.

That isn't to say everyone is like this about everything, but I believe it is much more common today that it ever was thirty years ago.
 
I agree with Flint. I think it's the same reason SACD / DVD-A never took off. I love that format, but to truly enjoy it, you need to sit down (in a good location) and listen. Otherwise, no need to pay for the expense....

3D is similar. You need to commit to the purpose.

I found your comment about trying to listen to music with people being distracting humorous...I can relate. Sometimes, at home, when I'm in the mood to focus on the music and, basically, let my mind become one with the music....if there's other noises or distractions going on...I usually just turn off the system.
 
Flint said:
Akula said:
........At one time we all had spent the family's nest egg on a $1000 CRT TV. When big plasma and later LCD televisions came out, most said that the public will never pay for those things, but they did. Then I got hear everyone say that HDTV was a waste of money and a good DVD / Plasma or Projector setup was more than anyone needed, but HDTV is the minimum standard now and everyone is happy to pay for it. Then we said no one needs BluRay, but it has been a huge success by all measures. 3D was one logical next step in making home video even more believable, but it didn't take off.......



I agree with everything except this, though you are partially right. People finally excepted HDTV and Bluray when they finally got cheap enough. 3D, well who wants to pay extra for programming just because it's 3D? I don't. Why should I have to when I would have to get a 3D TV, 3D hardware, glasses, etc, and then be asked to pay $10 more a month for my provider for 3D content. It's like this now with HD content. I rambled about this years ago on S&V about providers charging extra for HD content. If it's going to be a minimum standard, then there should be no SD channels now. It should be a single channel that shows HD when that content is in HD.

On another note, the incentives that new customers get doesn't help either. New to Dish customers are getting a freaking iPad. That's crazy! What the fuck do I get after 8 years of loyalty? A downgraded service that's what, and that cost me $5 extra dolars for that month.

Ridiculous!
 
You already identified the reasons why 3D won't work. It's a just a matter of time before 3D TV is gone completely. I do however think there is a place for 3D home theaters.
 
Flint said:
That isn't to say everyone is like this about everything, but I believe it is much more common today that it ever was thirty years ago.

I'm thinking that part of it is that you are more aware of it than you were thirty years ago
combined with it being more common today than it was. I don't think things have changed that much.
 
Back
Top