This doesn't surprise me. Having been in the market for a AV Receiver recently, I was amazed at how little fluctuation in price there was between all the online stores for the likes of Denon and Marantz equipment.
I'm not sure. I mean, I hope it never will be. At least I think there are actually a lot of people like me: once I heard (as a kid already) the huge difference between what even a moderately proper hi-fi system makes music sound like in comparision with e.g. some portable radio or (god forbid) laptop speakers or even highly rated headphones, I cannot imagine not wanting that. Though I admit for video I care way less. But that's just because I watch things mainly for the plot and not for the visual effects.
I do have a dedicated receiver, but I wouldn't recommend it for most people because it's not worth the hassle.
It is not difficult to imagine a machine with multiple sensitive recording and analytics devices that could measure the reproduction of audio in a room and generate a score based on how well it matches the original recording itself. This device, in fact, is not even imaginary but actually exists, and can legitimately give scores to audio configurations that differ on "orders of magnitude".
Certainly there is a point where this device would rate sensitivities far beyond human ability to distinguish, but I would argue that the difference between sound bars and AV+speaker setups is well within the range of standard human perception. We're not even close to the controversial $5-10k+ setups.
I also did not say that the difference between sound bars and receiver setups is too close for human hearing to detect. This is clearly not the case, since it's entirely possible for humans to detect sound differences even between two sound bars or the same receiver with different speakers. However, sounding different doesn't mean one is actually better. When two setups differ in volume slightly, human listeners will consistently choose the louder one as "better" unless the sound is clearly low quality (i.e. no bass, laptop speakers), disregarding the supposed intrinsic superiority of the "better" system.
> human listeners will consistently choose the louder one as "better" unless the sound is clearly low quality
This is news to me, and very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
That should be easy to test with a blindfold. If they can clearly figure out the difference between the two.
Nearly every single kid commented on how good the sound was. Several insisted it must be a surround-sound system. As far as I could tell, none of them had ever watched a movie with anything but the speakers built-in to their television.
I think it's all about the sound bars these days. I don't have one, but there seem to be dozens of them for sale every place you can buy TVs.
Won't that highly depend on the location you put your AV system in? You basically need a dedicated area with decent acoustics if you want to beat good quality headphones. For non-audiophiles like me a good pair of headphones seem like a much more rational investment.
Of course if it's about watching movies or TV then headphones are not always practical, but then for that I admit that I don't care much about audio fidelity beyond using cheap-o dedicated speakers instead of the TV's builtin set.
But yes if you really don't have the space for speakers it's not ideal. But still i prefer it over headphones even though they usually can yield more detail.
The simple fact is that most people don't really care about sound quality and the 'good enough' sound they get out of TV speakers or a soundbar is plenty.
'Proper' Surround speakers - as in ceiling mounted speakers in a dedicated home theater room with acoustic treatment, as opposed to a soundbar with an atmos badge attached - have always been expensive and cumbersome and have only grown even more so with the proliferation of fancy new formats like ATMOS and DTS:X. Of course, part of the reason they are so expensive is because of price fixing by AVR companies like Denon, making an already niche market even smaller by erecting a taller barrier of entry. When companies have to resort to underhanded tactics to prop up their margins rather than creating compelling products that people want to buy it is a pretty good sign that the industry is in dire straights.
when I was young I would have killed to experience Jurassic Park in such a way. But nowadays movies are so meh to my mind.. as said above, nowadays I'd kill to have a good plot and good editing.
ps: bonus dire straights.
…and more. Switzerland has a vibrant market from what I've seen living here the past few months with pretty competitive in-country shipping (I once got a package via normal post the next day after ordering at 16:00 local time).
Which is the great scam of 2018 and beyond so far, convincing people that they need 4K video when they absolutely don't.
Watching the news in 3D is... well... something else.
Sure maybe I don't need it, but I can afford it and it brings me delight...
* Many folks have not yet migrated from DVDs to Blu-Rays
* Maintaining production lines for DVD, Blu-Ray, and 4K probably would not be offset by customers willing to spend even more above the Blu-Ray pricing for a 4K disc.
* The mainstay product sold by media is a combo package - DVD + Blu-Ray + Digital. Adding a 4th offering to these combos is very difficult.
* Monopolistic ISPs have little incentive to upgrade bandwidth to support 4K streaming, despite Netflix's apparent willingness to provide that content.
Most of the above fortunately does not apply to video games. There is no need to package or sell the "4K" version of a game. (Or is there? OH GOD THE HORROR. Please don't tell EA about that idea.)
However, the late 2010's saw the conjunction of budget 4K displays and the cryptocurrency boom. Although graphics card prices are just starting to normalize, the crypto boom seems to have forced graphics card pricing to be 1-2 years behind the display market.
[1] 4K does matter for large projection screens, and is a generally good thing because denser screens spill over to monitors, too.
As a tech savvy rural resident that pays extra for faster internet, I just barely got fast enough internet last year for a single 4K video stream (assuming nobody else in the house is browsing Facebook or something).
Although anecdotally that is changing quickly. My ISP (Comcast) has consistently for the last 24 months been increasing my internet speeds roughly bi-annually by about 30% each time. It's hard to tell if this is due to pressure from nearby Google Fiber, which is not available in my area, or something else entirely.
[1] http://fortune.com/2017/06/02/internet-speed-akamai-survey/
[1]: there are workarounds that exist
If I had a 4k projector, even with a 1080p source, the quality of the projection would presumably be higher.
Good thing too. Audio brands like these rely on smaller shops to get in front of customers. People showrooming then buying online will close out the small stores, which will likely kill off those brands.
Why cant the brands setup their own showrooms?
guess who owns them now..
$500 each for SVS Prime towers seems reasonable when the flagships are $1000 each.
I dropped about $2000 into my setup between speakers, amp, dac, and sub; doubt I'll ever need to buy anything in the future.