Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday April 07 2017, @06:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the neck-pain dept.

Samsung has two upcoming ultra-wide displays on its roadmap:

For readers on the leading-edge of monitor configurations, ultra-wide displays in the 21:9 aspect ratio have been on the radar for about two years. These are monitors that have a 2560x1080 display, stretching the horizontal dimension of a standard 1920x1080 Full-HD monitor and make it easier to display modern cinema widescreen format content with less black bars. They are also claimed to assist with peripheral vision when gaming beyond a standard 1920x1080 display, or when curved, help with immersive content.

So chalk up some surprise when we hear that Samsung has an even wider format panel in the works. 3840x1080 represents a 32:9 aspect ratio, and the report states that this will be a VA panel with 1800R curvature and a 3-side frameless design. Putting that many pixels in a large display gives a relatively low 81.41 PPI. This panel will be part of Samsung's 'Grand Circle' format, and by supporting up to 144 Hz it is expected that variants of this panel will be included with FreeSync/GSYNC technologies. One figure to note would be the contrast ratio – 5000:1 (static), which TFTCentral states is higher than current Samsung VA panels.

The 3840×1080 display is 49 inches. Samsung is also planning to launch a 44-inch 3840×1200 display.

Is this aspect ratio a good idea or a step backwards? It is like two 1920×1080 displays without the bezels in the middle. What about the "1800R curvature"?

[1800R curvature] means that the circle that defines the curvature of the panel has a radius of 1800 mm (70.866 inches), which is much tighter than other panels on the market (2700R or 3000R typical).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Friday April 07 2017, @07:45AM (3 children)

    by Aiwendil (531) on Friday April 07 2017, @07:45AM (#490117) Journal

    the perfect monitor will sit on your head

    Ehm, no. In part due to working with paper as source material (sketches for blueprints, inventory lists), in parts due to often need to switch quickly between machines outputs (PLC control panel, mechanical counters, laptop, clock, leds, circuit breakers, camera and smartphone), in part because that will kill you (I work near high voltage at times), in part due to me liking to be able to see what I eat, in part due to making out to a crappy b-movie will be kinda difficult.

    Also, a monitor placed on the other side of a window will allow you to watch a movie while in the sauna, a headmounted display would die quickly - and be very uncomfortable to wear.

    just like the perfect speaker sits in your ear.

    Did I miss some breakttrough that allows opera, electronica and art rock to sound good in in-ear units? Also, I kinda enjoy music when in the shower, or taking a bath, and while sleeping.

    I'd rather say - the perfect HID is the one picked for the task at hand.

    But I agree on "won't buy" (several separate monitors are better for mem and I dislike curved displays)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:43PM (#490342)

    just like the perfect speaker sits in your ear.

    Did I miss some breakttrough that allows opera, electronica and art rock to sound good in in-ear units?

    Yeah, the breakthrough is called not buying cheap shit. (And just because you overpaid doesn't mean it ain't cheap shit!) The problem with the vast majority of in-ears is that they use tiny little drivers that give you incredibly poor bass, then try to boost the bass response with resonance, giving you incredibly poor sound across the board. Anything with a driver less than 10mm diameter is likely this sort of junk, and should be viewed with suspicion -- even the relatively upmarket cheap shit (e.g. skullcandy). I'm not saying there's no good small-driver in-ears -- of course there are! -- but there's so many more bad ones, you better have reviews from a trustworthy source in hand before you believe you've found one of the good ones.

    AIUI, good IEMs at high prices have been available for a long time, if you don't have hangups about paying those prices for something that'll just get snagged on something and broken within a year. (I do, so I have no real experience with this class of toy.) But if you want low cost, and pretty good quality, Monoprice's #9927 is a great option, because it uses 14.2mm drivers to provide bass, instead of stupid resonance tricks. If you have any use for in-ears in your life, give 'em a try, they might surprise you.

    Also, I kinda enjoy music when in the shower, or taking a bath, and while sleeping.

    Me too, but that's one speaker for the bedroom, and one for the bathroom; I use cheap bluetooth speakers for those roles. They'll last years with all the more usage they see, and those aren't (to my mind) high-quality listening environments anyway. (Bath could be, but I almost never bathe; shower's too loud, and IMO I won't really hear the details when I'm drifting off to sleep.) But what about the other 90% of your conscious hours? For me, good in-ears are perfect -- no turning the volume down out of consideration for others, or turning it up because I'm going to another room, no eventual switching to in-ears when I leave the house, and while I know the quality isn't the best, it's certainly good enough for me.

    I can see where that balance isn't the same for everyone; if I lived and worked alone, I could just turn up the living room stereo enough to hear in the shower or basement, and wouldn't have to turn it down out of consideration for others, so it might make more sense to put money in a good stereo that lasts rather than a succession of earbuds that get destroyed annually or thereabouts. As it is, the flexibility of having it follow me everywhere I go is worth more to me than whatever sound quality gains I could get with a good stereo.

    • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Friday April 07 2017, @08:00PM (1 child)

      by Aiwendil (531) on Friday April 07 2017, @08:00PM (#490489) Journal

      Yeah, the breakthrough is called not buying cheap shit. (And just because you overpaid doesn't mean it ain't cheap shit!)

      Ehm, have you even heard opera? Heck, not even top of the line speakers are good all-round. For reference my current speakers works in a nice 6Hz to 30Khz (intentionally very high in order to avoid distortion near limits, actually outperforms my amp), and they have a nice flat curve (they are monitor speakers) and while my friends often come over with stuff to listen to I can often pick up the limits of my setup.

      give you incredibly poor bass, then try to boost the bass response with resonance

      While bass-boosting is an atrocity I prefer a weak bass over a strong one, in fact muting the bass is one of the first things I do with amplifiers (tend to set everything below 30Hz to -3dB compared to the rest). The issue is that most earphones can't do bass _nor_ treble and have a horrible response. Basically their only saving grace are that they are disposables (and outside a few monitor headphones I've not yet heard consume-grade headphones being able to even pull off Wagner (Bayreuth uptakes) decently)

      All non-disposable headphones I get always have detachable coord (just like my keyboards), since cords tend to last about four months.

      For me, good in-ears are perfect -- no turning the volume down out of consideration for others, or turning it up because I'm going to another room, no eventual switching to in-ears when I leave the house, and while I know the quality isn't the best, it's certainly good enough for me.

      For that I prefer decent over ears, I tend to have a lower volume at my music than what the ambient noisefloor is - no sound out means also no sound in :) (And another advantage of detachable cord, you can just unplug the headphones when you need to talk to someone, no need to expose yourself to the ambient noise).

      I can see where that balance isn't the same for everyone; if I lived and worked alone, I could just turn up the living room stereo enough to hear in the shower or basement,

      Seems like we also are after different qualities in music. I dislike loud music (heck, I tend to muffle clocks when I want to enjoy opera, should tell you about how low the volume is), often when I have friends over they tend to turn up all my equipment (TV, amps, alarm clocks and such) until I complain about that it is painfully loud.

      For me the sound quality matters for lots of music and that kind of music I sadly can't listen to on the go, but for on-the-go music even a smartphone and a decent set of over-ears does the job nice (for when just wanting a beat even el-cheapo earphones (either in-ear or traditional) works just fine after the smartphone has been set to basically kill the bass).

      But as alluded above - not even the best speaker comes even near to the sound of a grand piano, violin, nyckelharpa, flute or guitarr when heard irl.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @11:50PM (#490610)

        Yeah, looks like we're after different things -- fair enough. (Which in a way goes right back to your point about different interfaces for different requirements, doesn't it.) I'm maybe not as oblivious to what I'm missing as you might think, I'm just perfectly happy to make some tradeoffs you wouldn't, putting convenience ahead of audible-but-minor (in my perspective) failings. The place where I really may be missing out is high-end, thanks to some years working around machinery without ear protection.

        I just know people who have only ever experienced crappy in-ears; tried more expensive ones (dollar-store -> skullcandy), found them just as crappy, and wrote off all in-ears as being inherently crappy, without realizing that (1) the near-universal stupid resonance tricks are to blame and (2) you can actually get (affordable) in-ears without that junk; assumed you were in that fix, and was trying to "liberate" you from that misconception. Looks like I was barking up the wrong tree.

        (But, seriously, if you haven't tried those monoprices, do so (not forgetting to burn them in first) -- my previous go-to in-ears ran about $40, and the monoprices sound better for $7 -- they're no miracle, but they're really remarkable in quality/dollar, and 90% of it comes down to having a big enough driver that they can reach market-mandated bass response "honestly", so they don't need to wreck the frequency response. If your current "disposable" in-ears are anything less than $75-100, I bet the monoprice wins.)