Video Asylum

You nailed it in your first sentence

199.170.59.194

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Video Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

(A)

In Reply to: Why are some DVDs (of music content) so relatively poor in quality? posted by John C. - Aussie on July 29, 2003 at 17:49:12:

% of people with expensive audio/video rigs - maybe 10
% of *those* who really care about audio/video quality (versus those making a fashion statement or pursuing status) - maybe 30
In the U.S., that would take you from approx. 100,000,000 households to 10,000,000 to 3,000,000 -- certainly not a large enough market to warrant the extra time and expense of actually paying attention to quality.

Follow Ups:

Re: You nailed it in your first sentence - caa 09:05:23 07/30/03 (3)
% of *those* who really care about audio/video quality (versus those making a fashion statement or pursuing status) - maybe 30
This is flawed logic, IMO. People do care about quality, be it video or audio, granted that the improvement is noticable such as DVD vs VHS quality. It is true that people are generally happy with what they have and not question the quality. But once they have had the better choice, it's usually hard to go back.
One shouldn't blame the nameless "joe-sixpack"'s for his or her incompetence to produce a more than average quality product.
- Re: You nailed it in your first sentence - Dalancroft 10:15:46 07/30/03 (2)
  Two rejoinders:
  1) If "average Joe Sixpack" really cared about quality, GM would be out of business, Budweiser wouldn't be the best-selling beer, and McDonald's would be in bankruptcy. Nor would Bose and those execrable "home-theater-in-a-box" systems be flying off the shelves from Best Buy, Circuit City, et. al. Or Wal-Mart be able to foist tens of billions of dollars of Chinese-made junk off on blindly acquisitive consumers.
  2) Much as with the conversion from LPs to CDs, consumers' adoption of DVDs is as much for the convenience and durability of the medium as anything else. Across America, many, many DVD players are outputting signal through an RF converter to a standard (and probably older) direct view TV and being listened to on a TV's speakers. Not exactly a quantum leap in quality from VCRs and cable boxes.
  As for your statement, "One shouldn't blame the nameless 'joe-sixpack's' for his or her incompetence to produce a more than average quality product," I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Are you referring to manufacturing (0% of which is done in the U.S.) or the consumer's ability to build a "more than average" home theater system given their lack of knowledge on the subject? (Which, of course, goes back to my point that perhaps 3-5%, and certainly not more than 10%, of American households boast what could be described as an "above average" audiovisual system capable of displaying the poor audio and/or visual quality to which John C. refers?)
  - the gullibility of the common man - Some Guy 06:00:35 07/31/03 (1)
    I heartily agree... the average consumer (at least from my American standpoint) is told that DVD looks so much better, so therefore they believe that it is better. Honestly, DVD doesn't look much better on most TVs than a quality VHS player, but people don't want to believe that. Of course DVD has the potential to look far better, but most people don't want to make the small effort it takes to do this.
    Of course a lot of people still confuse widescreen TVs with HDTV, not realizing that they are two different animals. Then there are those who insist upon 1920x1080 to reproduce a format that is encoded in 720x480. Need I mention what brand of speakers they insist upon using?
    Of course I'm using a couple of rash generalizations, but unfortunately they're not far off the mark. The average consumer is not willing to research past the marketing that's thrown at them. They rely upon advertisements as information and salespeople as experts. They're being told "this is GOOD" and they just nod their heads. Sure, a few realize that it's not and go in search of something more... and websites where they can rant about this crap. Some are a little smarter and realize that there are far more important things than how great their AV system can look and sound... and promptly finds friends who aren't as smart so they can come over and hang out.
    You can't blame people for their ignorance, but you can blame them for their lack of initiative. If you get past age 13 in this day and age and can't figure out that you're being sold something 23 1/2 hours out of every day, something is wrong. It just bugs me when people are so obviously sold on something and then they have to try the same sales pitch on others to prove that their purchase was the right one.
    - Mostly agree -- one disagreement - Dalancroft 11:17:49 07/31/03 (0)
      I have to disagree with one statement you made:
      "Honestly, DVD doesn't look much better on most TVs than a quality VHS player."
      My wife, 2-year-old (at the time) daughter and I visited my mom last Thanksgiving. We brought movies, including Shrek, "just in case," and when we arrived my brother had thoughtfully brought a VHS copy of Shrek over.
      Now, my mom's VCR isn't state of the art, but as a housewarming gift we bought her an $80 DVD player from Target so I think the comparison is apropos. I fast-forwarded both DVD and VHS versions of Shrek to a gorgeous outdoor scene showing a lot of detail. Even my 60+ year old mom, no video- or audiophile she, was amazed by the terrific and easily noticeable improvement in color saturation and detail of the DVD over the VHS.
      BTW, her TV is a nice 32" Panasonic, the same model I have for my family room except hers is one model higher so it has two-tuner PIP.
      However, picture quality aside, I still think people like DVDs for their convenience -- small, light, no need to rewind -- and comfort level with CDs ...

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

You can not post to an archived thread.