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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
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.