The second issue is what you described, the mixing is just bad, sound effects and music are much louder than dialog making it impossible to comprehend without subtitles.
The trend of mixing sound effects much louder has been in vogue for longer than star wars exists and not a lot of movies drown out everything in super loud music (Christopher Nolan films being exhibit number 1 lol). I think part of the issue stems from the audio not being adapted for home releases. There used to be special sound mixes for VHS, TV shows and even DVDs (as stereo version of the 5.1 track) that lowered the dynamic range and made everything fairly clear even on your 70s CRT TV speakers.
Nowadays sound engineers probably marvel at how nice and crisp their work sounds on a studio kitted with 1 million worth of audio gear and call it good enough for playback in all systems. Add some directors wanting more "natural" dialog requesting actors to speak softly and the deal is sealed, only the 0.1% can watch anything without subtitles.
I honestly think the solution is for the industry to adopt a standardized audio gain control solution. The only reason we didn't get that in the past was because implementing such things on consumer gear was far too expensive (it was far more cost effective to just pre-process it and deliver the low dynamic range mix right in the medium, with the advantage of the possibility of a custom tuned mix). Today's TVs all have some kind of audio normalization functionality but they are all kinda bad (they alter loudness balance making everything sound tiny, a proper solution requires proper equal loudness contour compensation) and not suited for sudden and constant jumps of volumes like in movie action scenes. It also doesn't helps that every manufacturer does it differently.
The physics of moving air to create sound hasn’t really changed in any meaningful ways; the biggest upgrade is usually larger drivers fed with more power. I think most would experience that as much more of a theatre like experience than 7+ tiny underpowered satellites outputting an already bad mix.
That being said, I have a 7.1.4 Atmost setup and it is on the level of "HOLY SHIT" good.
I cannot even watch streaming tv or movies on it as it sounds so bad.
But I put in a 4K UHD disc and wow. It sounds better than a real movie theater.
I just think most people are never exposed to what high end movie audio sounds like anymore. I can tell you that channel separation is as good as ever. It's just most people never realize what's possible at home or don't have a room conducive to the setup. Or frankly don't care. My wife loves good movies and she could care less about the sound quality.
As a point of reference my wife also loves good movies and cares whether she can hear the audio properly but it might be because English is her second language.
For the past 15 years, I have used the same cheap combo of soundbar+subwoofer (Sony but anything goes) and it's perfect for everything I throw at it. The sound is equivalent to what I remember on those expensive sets, it's only $250, and I don't spend my whole time in front of the TV listening to high-quality remasters of classical concerts while smoking a cigar.
The high-end brands have failed to recognize that for most people a decent set of cheap speakers is equivalent to a cinema experience. They should have studied that instead of focusing on incomprehensible technical values and numbers. The software industry is guilty of this too.
There used to be a reason to have a 5.1 surround system, because that's how the movies were supposed to be enjoyed. There used to be a reason to engineer your home "soundstage" because that's how the music was mixed and optimally appreciated.
I don't think the bar of entry being money is truly the reason, rather that people have become much more passive consumers of media, and the producers have recognized that and absolutely enshittified their products.
As for the cheap speakers = cinematic experience, watch Interstellar with 5.1, then with the soundbar and tell me how equal the experience is.
I always thought "Blinded by the light" was a garbage song hearing it on the radio all the time, but after listening to the album on my dad's JBL L100's, I understand why he's such a vintage purist. It changed the sound of the song completely. The speakers picked up things I had literally never heard before.
I know nothing about audio engineering, but it does seem like the art has sort of died out or became "more productionized".
I have what essentially is a mastering suite (i just don't do mastering very often) at home and the difference in quality between the majority of modern music and the majority of older music say 25 years and older is large. There are many exceptions that sound amazing that are older, often done by very talented people in the best studios at the time. But one difference, hugely generalising, is dynamics, older music can have more dynamic range with modern music being basically a sausage of audio.
When people come over and want to listen, I usually have to tell them that it might actually be a disappointment to hear your favourite album is badly recorded next to something that is musically garbage but sounds fantastic. Or you wont be able to unhear the amount of distortion on Adele’s voice.
That cacophony was considered quality music?
(I was replying to the person who called Nirvana cacophony/not music)