AVS Forum Special Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
OK, thanks. That helps. I didn't know if everyone was focusing on video and forgot about the audio. Real information is hard to come by. Some details from the paper:
The paper attempts to answer a general question of perceived overall quality when two stimuli (audio and video) are integrated as a single metric. IOW, perceived quality of one may affect perceived quality of the other. It doesn't address anything about accuracy of reproduction.
One of the criteria was concern that displays creating three-dimensional impressions might introduce sickness symptoms (nausea, oculomotor, disorientation) that reduce the presence and feeling of depth. The others were Acceptable Quality, Overall Quality Satisfaction, and Quality of Localization.
I'm not sure what material they were using to run the experiments, which used 4 then 5 speakers between 0.5 m and 2 m from the 15" display.
- A Sharp AL3DU autostereoscopic display was used, but no speaker brand was mentioned.
- Moving multimedia may be strongly impacted by different audio and visual presentation modes and devices. More research is needed to understand the impact of different setups.
- The paper suggested that when conducting quality evaluations "especially with naive participants for consumer-oriented assessment purposes", it might be enough to give an overall quality rating instead of judging the "certain quality attributes".
My non-professional opinion (I'm not a certified calibrator):
For low-end consumers, a "Good", "Better", "Best" ranking is all you need. It matters how you bundle the stereo / speaker package with the TV.
For AVS forum members (high end educated consumer), it might be useful for the physiology of 3-D, but otherwise has no added value.