Our world is made up of two main senses that are reproduced in our home theaters, sight and sound; and for some reason when
so called experts make predictions they like to pretend both are equally important. If you think they are, then just look at the trends in the consumer electronics industry with the best example being HDTVs. While people have no problem paying $3000 for a new high-def TV, they don't want to spend more than $500 on speakers. At the same time as big box retailers have more HDTVs than you can count, speakers get smaller and smaller and the HTIB is hotter than ever. The reason is simple, more people can appreciate the difference with improved picture quality than improved sound quality. So the next time you read that the home video industry will go to downloads this year like the music industry or that one of the HD media formats will end up like DVD-Audio or SACD, head on down and watch consumers buy a 50-inch plasma with the cheapest HTIB available -- or worse, just use the speakers in the set.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
comineeyeaha @ Feb 10th 2008 3:10PM
Glad to know I'm in the portion of people who realize that the whole HD experience isn't just video. When I got my plasma last year I didn't have enough for surround yet, so I hooked it all to a stereo receiver and some 20 year old huge speakers I had lying around. Since then I've upgraded to an Onkyo system, so all is well now. Seriously though, who cares how great the picture looks if you don't have the big sound to accompany it?
trmacdonal @ Feb 10th 2008 3:48PM
That question is pretty simple to answer. Not everyone can have a big sound system. Having a big screen won't bother anyone thats not watching it. Having a loud surround sound system can. Most people put TVs in a living room, not a home theater room. A surround sound system means expensive installation, or wires every where. A big flat panel can just hang on the wall. And just ask yourself would you rather be deaf or blind? I know which one I would choose.
Jake @ Feb 10th 2008 4:14PM
Egads, downloads. Lossless audio is pretty much the best thing that the HDM formats have going for them: the picture quality is marginally better, but the sound is intense. If hidef downloading means Dolby 5.1 at best, then count me out.
Oh, and trmacdonal, that's a false dichotomy you have going there. My system is in a living room, not a home theater, and it can get EXTREMELY loud -- but that doesn't mean that it always is. We process all sources through the AVR, and most of that is at a normal volume level that you would get from any speaker system, including those built into a TV. The fact that a system CAN be loud does not mean that it always is or has to be. As for wires: I don't have an "expensive installation" -- its all out of the walls -- but you'd have a hard time even finding my surrounds in our living room (they are well hidden by un-impeded), let alone tracing the wires. It just takes some creativity and an appreciation of good sound.
David S @ Feb 11th 2008 6:19PM
AMEN!
h0mi @ Feb 10th 2008 4:16PM
What, no mention of DD, DD+, TrueHD, DTS, DTS-MA or PCM?
steedums @ Feb 10th 2008 6:07PM
most HTIB's are horrible, especially the ones that come free with big hdtv's. The problem is, that most people dont want to setup anything. Put a tv on a stand, done. Placing speaking in the right places and getting the wife to be okay with it... much harder. I'd say 90% of the surround sound setups I see have the speakers in random places. A little better than stereo, but generally a mess.
gparris @ Feb 10th 2008 6:33PM
Many of my installs come by from the fact they are entertained by my setups I show them first by both video and audio surround.
Then they DO select at least a 5.1 setup they can afford and probably expand to 7.1.
Listening IS believing and most big-box stores have room for only a large batch of hanging flat panels in bad lighting and even worse setups, so audio is, of course, ignored.
If ever the networks start at least offering Dolby Digital Plus, a codec designed with broadcast/cable/satellite in mind with its compression rates, maybe more emphasis on audio will take place.
Another thing for the manufacturers to consider is building the panel sets to offer side speakers and include a bottom center (or an all-bottom three speaker placement for space savings) to get at least the audio there with at least halfway decent speakers; then offer outputs for a sub and 2 or four back surrounds to be hooked up as an option with amplifier concealed close by.
kcjones @ Feb 10th 2008 7:00PM
I guess ignorance is bliss. When was the last time anyone ever saw a commercial from a retailer promoting audio? When has anyone NOT seen a commercial from a retailer promoting video? Consumers just follow the advertising. MIT conducted an experiment years ago proving that consumers would choose improved audio over improved video. When the flat panel sales start to plateau, retailers will again start to promote audio as they did in the 90s and previous. The tail does not wag the dog. Sadly the writers of Engadget seem to think so.
Ben @ Feb 10th 2008 7:04PM
You are delusional, look around, people don't care about audio quality. Even our own poll here showed that most of our readers who have HD DVD or Blu-ray don't even take advantage of next-gen audio codecs. I'd bet there isn't anyone that buys HD DVD or Blu-ray and connects it via s-video, cause they only care about taking advantage of TrueHD/DTS-HD.
Do you really think that Americans are so stupid that they just buy whatever they seen an advertisement for? Wake up and face it, no one cares about audio.
milrtime83 @ Feb 10th 2008 7:48PM
"Do you really think that Americans are so stupid that they just buy whatever they seen an advertisement for?"
The short answer....yes
steedums @ Feb 10th 2008 8:16PM
Ben: I think the reason why the new codecs have a slow adoption rate is complexity in part, and cost. People drop $1-3k on a new HDTV and then don't want to run out and replace their 5.1 system immediately with a 7.1 system. Most of them probably don't even know of the existence of the new codecs and that they require using hdmi. At minimum, you need another pair of speakers and something like an Onkyo TX-SR705 ($600 or so) and more cables. I'm waiting for the new receivers to go down a bit in price before I get the upgraded audio, but its in my plan. I agree with once that the HDTV market reaches saturation, the big box stores will push audio.
John B @ Feb 10th 2008 9:32PM
I'm on Ben's side on this one.
Most people DON'T care about audio. To most people DD/DTS 5.1 is more than sufficient. I would bet money that if you took a bunch of average Joes, put them in a theatre, and played a **properly authored** DD 5.1 track verses an HDM track, and made it a double-blind scenario where they had no idea what format it was that they just heard, most might notice a difference but not enough to be as passionate about it as you guys are.
I, personally, am very satisfied with DD/DTS 5.1. I don't play my audio to the level of ear-rupturing, but I make sure that the sound is balanced. If anything doesn't "sound right", I'm immediately in the receiver's settings, balancing out the volume and the frequency response of each of the speakers. But even at that I cannot justify the extra costs to replace my current receiver just to go HD lossless. The value is just not there.
You guys can have your rose-colored glasses all that you want. It's your money; you're entitled to do with it as you wish. (Then again, this is EngadgetHD where you're accused of not being a real HT enthusiast unless you have a BD player, a 50+ inch TV, and a $500 receiver -- because everyone out there can afford to have all of that, right?) But to most people the difference between a good DD/DTS 5.1 system and an HD audio system can be summed up in two words: "Yeah, whatever."
Everyone that I know who has seen HD notices the superior picture quality immediately. The difference from regular to high-def video is as staggering as VHS-over-composite to DVD-over-S-Video. But for audio, I would easily wager that the difference from lossy 5.1 to lossless HD is nowhere near as staggering for the vast majority of people.
daaper @ Feb 11th 2008 3:11PM
For me, the biggest problem with going over a 5.1 setup is the configuration. I don't have a theater room (yet...) and it was hard enough to get a 5.1 system laid out in my living room let alone adding two more channels into the mix. If I had a decked out theater room that was completely AV-centric, then I would go all out and buy a great sound system. Until then, 5.1 is plenty for most situations.
MasterCKO @ Feb 11th 2008 6:16PM
Also, there's the little issue of the fact that we as a species are heavily visual in our sensing of the environment. It's genetic.
There are people who are pretty sharp with their hearing, but by and large, most of our sensing acuity is in our eyes. Hence, HD video and the corresponding improvement in picture quality has much more of an impact in our entertainment experience than a similar improvement in audio quality.
eugene @ Feb 10th 2008 7:54PM
well, it's hard to convince people that high qualuty audio exists.. most of the stores around where I live have audio demo rooms, but they're so jacked up, you would never notice the difference between a 500dollar HTIB or a 5000 dollar setup.
Note to retailers, if your subwoofers sound like someone took a garbage bag, filled it full of air and popped it... you set it up wrong.
Xyzzy @ Feb 10th 2008 10:25PM
Amen! And even the high end stores are guilty of crappy setups.
True story - when I was in the market for new speakers, I went to a Paradigm dealer to listen to the Studio 40s. They sounded muffled and crappy. I was going to go with the Klipch Reference instead and posted my findings on AVS. A ton of people told me that what I heard wasn't right -- even people who prefered the Klipch speakers said that my description of the Paradigms was wrong. So I found a second dealer and WOW was I blown away with the difference! I was so impressed that I bought them instead.
You'd think a dealer would know how to set things up, but not always...
(of course I told Paradigm this story. They thanked me and a few weeks later the crappy dealer was no longer on their authorized dealer list... Coincidence?)
NoK610 @ Feb 10th 2008 8:01PM
After buying a Samsung LNT4671F, I had to upgrade myself to an Onkyo system. Of course I didn't buy everything all at once. I pieced everything together slowly, but I don't know how someone can spend so much money on a TV and buy a cheap HTIB. They are missing out on the entire experience and half assing it.
Jeff N. @ Feb 10th 2008 11:49PM
I great sounding home theater system takes the whole HD viewing experience to a different level. Big Box retailers have gotten lazy in just selling 'Home Theater in a Box' type systems. Much of the public have no idea how a great a home theater system can really sound.
Robinator @ Feb 11th 2008 4:02AM
Totally agree,
The HD sound war (DVD-Audio v SACD) was actually won by MP3! Although both formats still exist, they are only really supported by Audiophiles. The average Schmoe just doesn't notice enough of an aural difference to not adopt the convenience of MP3. This is almost the aural equivalent to VHS being preferred over Blu-Ray/HD-DVD!
SACD has a sampling rate of 2.8Mhz v CD's 44Khz for example. Can people actually hear an over 50 fold difference in quality? Nope. Try the same visual equivalent – 2 times the resolution is easily noticeable!
It is the perceived VISUAL quality of the next gen HD formats that is the single catalyst for their adoption. Do you know of anyone watching their HD/Blu-Ray movies on a SD TV just so they can 'hear' the difference? Nope, but the reverse is probably the norm.
Not saying the next gen sound formats aren't great – because they are. It's just a lot tougher to hear the step in quality IMHO.
Cainethanatos @ Feb 11th 2008 4:03AM
Its not about the new formats, its about that people spend sometimes up to 3k $ for their HD tv's and then buy a dirt cheap audio set (under 300$, with dvd player inside their receiver,... imaging the quality of that). and yes those make alot of noise.
Ok 1000$(or even 2k) for a sound system sounds maybe alot, but what people tend to forget is that it probably will last longer than their new lcd tv.
John B @ Feb 12th 2008 8:48AM
What an "alot"?
Truth Teller @ Feb 11th 2008 8:05AM
It just proves how meaningless the supposed advantage Blu-ray has is, with that grossly wasteful & bloated uncompressed audio.
It's just shiney beads for the ridiculous PS3 spec-sheet jockeys to wave & rant about to each other.
When you have the Dolby people saying that
(with the very best of professional sound stage equipment)
that they cannot tell the difference between properly done DD & uncompressed you know this is all just empty BS from the fanboy idiots.
The really interesting part is 24 minutes in.
Dolby say that, whilst DTHD is bit-for-bit identical to the PCM master, DD (done properly) will sound 'transparent to the original'
(eg. identical to our ears).
But of course undoubtedly some self-proclaimed 'expert' on Blu-ray.com knows better than the Dolby people, eh?
Truth Teller @ Feb 11th 2008 9:53AM
Wow, the software glitch strikes again.
It ought to be obvious that when I referred to Dolby Digital (or DD) in my post above
(Feb 11th 2008 8:05AM)
it ought to have included the little plus symbol
(which is what I typed but that little plus symbol seems to have vanished).
I was referring to Dolby Digital plus.
MasterCKO @ Feb 11th 2008 6:20PM
how. the. hell. did you turn this into an anti-BD HDM format war issue. You're so sad, dude. At this point, even if you're doing this just to get a rise out of people, it's pathetic. Read a book. Draw a picture. Build a motorcycle. Devote your time to a more meaningful hobby and try to get some joy doing something worthwhile. Seriously.
Truth Teller @ Feb 11th 2008 7:03PM
@ MasterCKO
Quit gurning, dry your eyes and learn to lighten up a little, k?
jdwall179 @ Feb 11th 2008 8:37AM
I just sit and smile at these posts. And it is not a derogatory smile. All these thoughts and musings posted here and on other forums are basically the same ones I have seen for 40 years. I am a 60 year-old military retiree. I remember being 20 and stationed in the Far East. I would read every new article in the audio magazines trying to keep up with the latest technology. Which I now know is impossible to do. Reel-to-reel was the going thing at that time (and there are still people out there who believe it is still the way to go). At that time you could buy the hottest receiver or tape deck for half the price there versus what the same item would cost you in the states. And I am not talking about buying it on base but at the local audio/video retailer on the street. We would spend hours listening to music. But with time (age) my passions have changed. If I spend 10 hours a week watching TV or DVDs or listening to music that is a lot. I still have the "wants" about having outstanding video and/or audio, but if I don't, it is no biggie. The "average Joe", as people like to say, doesn't have the eye for detail that an Ansel Adams had or the ear that Frank Sinatra had. So he/she chooses what satisfies him/her. And rightly so. If he/she is an audio/videophile then something higher end will be chosen. But most people aren't that passionate. And that's okay.
John @ Feb 11th 2008 9:56AM
This is the first time I have seen an article written about it, but it was clear enough from the stock of the local big box retailers; multiple $7000 displays, but they don't even carry a subwoofer that costs over $1000. To most people, high end audio is Blows (I mean Bose). I was into audio before video took off, but I am the only one I know of that has any money invested in a hi-end home theater package to compliment my plasmas. I couldn't live without great sound, but apparently most people can.
kcjones @ Feb 11th 2008 11:10AM
Ben you a hilarious. When has Engadget conducted an experiment where people choose between a SDTV with 5.1 audio system, and an HDTV using its built-in speakers? Until you do so, you have no proof that consumers have actually been given a choice. Given that most retailers don't even offer $2000+ audio systems, and if so, they are tucked away, the sales figures only prove my point, not yours. Consumers buy what is advertised and available. HDTVs are constantly advertised and widely available. High quality audio is never advertised, and is not widely available.
When "Joe Six Pack" isn't an audiophile, videophile, or even an enthusiast, the likelyhood of him falling prey to advertising is almost tantamount. If "Joe Six Pack" lacks the time or interest to follow the trends of consumer electronics, the retailers and manufacturers will do it for him, and present their "Facts" via Advertisements. I concede that consumers think video matters most, but who is to say it isn't because they have been told so.
Nighteagle @ Feb 11th 2008 2:08PM
Lets see. Screen 3977 USD, PS3 1090 USD, Yamaha Receiver 1818 USD,Tannoy Speakers 6000 USD.
Nope spent more on the audio system.
System bought last year in Norway (europe).
Deathwish238 @ Feb 11th 2008 2:56PM
I can't agree! I had my parents pick up a Def Tech setup(1000 ProMonitor setup) and even my mom appreciates the upgrade over their old Sony speakers and the built in speakers in their Kuro. Oddly enough I'm having a hard time convincing them to drop 10 more a month for HD service!
There's a bigger difference between a htib and a 1200 setup than a 2000 and 3000 HDTV imo
Deathwish238 @ Feb 11th 2008 2:57PM
I recently read an interesting article saying that SACD and DVD-A sound better because of higher quality recordings, not the higher bit rates. Meaning the same high quality on CD should sound as good
Raptor007 @ Feb 11th 2008 7:16PM
I invested $2300 in my 5.1 setup before I even got an HDTV... I guess I'm in the minority? I love my HDTV's picture, but audio will always be more imporant to me.
MaxRC @ Feb 12th 2008 9:30AM
Dolby Digital is pretty good already, it takes quite a bit of gear to realize the benefit of the latest current-gen codecs, money that people are less likely to spend than something as flashy as a nice big screen TV.
People are shocked at how good a relatively modest home theater sound system can be when they come to my home to watch a movie. But even my modest system cost over $2.5k when all is said and done.
DeLarge @ Feb 14th 2008 4:54PM
I think that the statement "The reason is simple, more people can appreciate the difference with improved picture quality than improved sound quality." in the article is wrong. It is one reason, but not the main one.
The main reason is that image has broader uses than audio. Who cares about sound if 70-80% of the time you are watching the News, The People's Court and Oprah?
Now, if your intention is watch a movie or whatever material that it has been designed and marketed to give the full experience (Audio & Video), then you can be sure that everyone you question about this will reaspond that already have or plan in the future to have a HT.
Also, if you drop $3,000 on a TV, YOU know you will enjoy that money almost on a daily basis. It is hard to justify (to yourself, or wife) to expend the same amount for audio that you will use once or twice a week.
Mike @ Feb 11th 2008 12:48AM
f* that. I use my sound system every time I watch tv. I don't have any audio running to my tv; it's pointless once you've heard what real speakers can do. I don't have a dedicated room, I don't even have surround sound. I have really great stereo, and it sounds WAY more enjoyable than those HTIB's that are as limited in future compatability as they are in sonic clarity. I blame advertising for ripping off the ignorant consumer and not explaining to them that an important part of their budget should be spent on audio, not just sucked up entirely by a flat panel. Great sound gives a good flat panel's video a 3d quality it can never achieve on it's own, whether the sound is good stereo or surround.
SonicCop @ Feb 17th 2008 4:13PM
No one cares about sound? When was the last time you watched a movie or a football game with the sound off? Fact is, our auditory sense uses far more brain power than visual stimulous. Listening actually develops our cognitive abilities by causing us to think, which is why music and sound are MUCH more emotionally stimulating, causing people to be happy, saddened, even scared. Before everyone became so obsessed with video, they listened to radio and their stereo systems. Music and sound was an integral part of their lives. Now the delivery technology and availabilty of content is so common, we take it for granted. Consider that it is the music, sound effects and dialogue in any movie that provides us with the story and the emotional cues. Take away that stirring musical score or the loud explosion that rocks your seat during an action scene and it just isn't the same. Sadly, the reason people don't care is because they have no point of reference. The best demo of good sound they get in most box stores is some hip-hop coming out of a boombox-quality HTIB in a retail environment with enough background noise to wake the dead. In truth, it's not just about LOUD. It's about detail, spatial depth and realism. It's about adding to that "being there" experience. I've witnessed enough epiphanies where someone has been exposed to big, quality sound along with the big sceeen and the response is always the same- "Why doesn't my system sound like that?". True, not everyone has the budget and/or space for a full-on 7.1 system. My own system is simply 5.1 (Integra & KEF-which I assure you-kicks ass) due to space restrictions. But I'd take that and a small screen over a 60" plasma and lame-O HTIB any day! I believe most people would if they were presented with what the actual experience was like. The consumer industry has done little to promote this for good reason: Manufacturers are desperate to saturate the market with HDTV sets, less Congress & the FCC delay the long-awaited transition to DTV yet again. Lastly, the important thing for retailers to ponder is that, while competition and the race to the bottom is causing big screen TV to become a loss leader, high-quality audio is perhaps one of the few remaining product categories with any profit opportunity left.
SonicCop @ Feb 17th 2008 4:42PM
That's not entirely accurate (take it from someone who has beena recording engineer for most of his life). The vast majority of SACD & DVD-Audio discs released have already been recorded, years earlier, using anything from analog tape to hi-def digital formats, They are simply re-mastered for the new formats, in many cases for 5.1 surround (which by the way, is another major difference in comparing the sound "qaulity" of CD vs Hi-def formats). Th main thing is that CD has both limited frquency and dynamic range, which do not take full advantage of the formats from which they are mastered. Hi-end studio quality gear has surpassed CD quality for years. SACD & DVD-A have finally caught up. While it may be true that some newer recordings, when produced with hi-def formats in mind, are more likely to take a "purist" approach (i.e-less processing, use of better mics, etc...), that is not the reason for audio quality with regard to the majority of releases. For example, if you compare every version of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" from LP all the way to SACD, you can hear the improvements and difference along the way. The SACD release of this classic was entirely re-mixed, so it may be hard to compare fairly, since the sound of the album has a different "feel". Bear in mind that formats such as SACD and DVD-A are pretty much relegated to classical, jazz, folks and other forms of "organically" recorded genres. These formats would be wasted on modern pop, hip hop, etc... since these styles are highly overproduced and usually wind up on an MP3 player, rather than an audiophile system.
David @ Mar 26th 2008 1:08PM
I for one, perfer audio quality over video quality. 720p is more than enough for me. I can't tolerate bad sound. I can instantly tell the difference in audio quality (maybe it's because most of my jobs in life have required me to use my ears - and the fact that I'm extremely myopic - hmmmmm). Given the choice between sight and sound - I will always choose sound. In the AV industry (the 90's) we use to do a demo - have a person watch a 100 inch theater and turn the sound off. Then we would turn the sound on and turn the screen off - this demo worked 100% of the time. The customer realized just how much sensory preception was through sound, not just video. HD PQ is great but remember hearing is just as, if not more important. We just need to demonstrate that to the masses - just like we did in the 90's!