The Biggest Failures in Consumer Audio/Video Electronics History

[Montucky]

My only other experience with this material is with an AAC download from iTunes and a hi-res 24/96 file from HDtracks. None of these is listenable, makes me kind of blue having paid for such trashed re-masters.

HDtracks does have a 192/24 version, ya know. There might be a difference there.
I have both the recent 180g vinyl and the 192/24 digital version and they both sounded pretty darn excellent to me. Indistinguishable in fact. Maybe it helps the digital version that I'm listening to it via the excellent Sony HAP-Z1ES player.

 

[Jim grigsby]

WOW what an article. I remember virtually every item here and have stories I could tell! I was a 12 year old kid during the early 1970's and remember saving the $599.00 for my Lafayette LR5000 SQ (with full wave matching logic) receiver. Hell of a lot of money for a 12 year old mowing a lot of lawns. I agree with the opinions here that the sound was nothing I could get overly excited about and very few albums sounded that different - one exception was the Tomita albums coming out. Wow did it sound good when you used the regular Sansui QS matrix !!

I did like what the Hafler surround did for classical and some rock albums (like Rick Wakeman and Pink Floyd). Lately...I have risked a few hundred dollars on a device made by some engineers down in Australia called Involve Audio "Surround Master" and it too requires your amp have analog inputs - like for SACD. Mine does. It outputs a left/right and left/right surround along with center and sub. This thing actually blows away the holy grail of SQ decoders - the so called "Tate" decoder and also has their version of QS matrix. It adds NOTHING like digital echo or hall etc. Everything output to rear channels is actually in the stereo recording. It is VERY dependent on HOW the recording was mixed, miked, and location. I am absolutely stunned how this item has improved my listening experiences with both LP and CD ! Some recordings virtually sound like they were recorded in a discreet manner. Some here might want to check this thing out. It does what it says it does. The ambiance of some of my classical recordings made on location in cathedrals is incredible. Where it does not do so much are very dry recordings made in studios with lots of mixing of different tracks.

I was working with RCA when the whole DIVX thing came out. I was a field rep and trainer and Cirucit City was one of my responsibilities... When I heard about the concept I told them (my bosses ) it was crap and would fail within a year if not sooner. I was told to shut up. RCA had the main contract to build the "players" with Circuit City funding the whole movement. If you were employed by Circuit City in ANY department you were told in no certain terms that you were to take your customer over to the DIVX display and give a sales pitch. Circuit City was desperate for this to succeed... That was another fact too - this was a Circuit City push so no other retailers wanted anything to do with it. Sorry for the run on...I am a new member so maybe you will want to delete me LOL!!

 

[Montucky]

I was working with RCA when the whole DIVX thing came out. I was a field rep and trainer and Cirucit City was one of my responsibilities... When I heard about the concept I told them (my bosses ) it was crap and would fail within a year if not sooner. I was told to shut up. RCA had the main contract to build the "players" with Circuit City funding the whole movement. If you were employed by Circuit City in ANY department you were told in no certain terms that you were to take your customer over to the DIVX display and give a sales pitch. Circuit City was desperate for this to succeed... That was another fact too - this was a Circuit City push so no other retailers wanted anything to do with it. Sorry for the run on...I am a new member so maybe you will want to delete me LOL!!

Funny thing is how DivX certainly proliferated in other circles, but definitely NOT in the way that Circuit City and the movie studios had intended. It's actually kind of surprising how many modern TVs and Blu-Ray players still support the format. Again, not for the reasons originally intended. Haha.
http://www.divx.com/en/devices/browse

 

[sterling shoote]

HDtracks does have a 192/24 version, ya know. There might be a difference there.
I have both the recent 180g vinyl and the 192/24 digital version and they both sounded pretty darn excellent to me. Indistinguishable in fact. Maybe it helps the digital version that I'm listening to it via the excellent Sony HAP-Z1ES player.

And, now that I should be receiving my OPPO UDP-205 today, I will purchase the 24/192 version you are enjoying; and, we'll see.

 

[Montucky]

And, now that I should be receiving my OPPO UDP-205 today, I will purchase the 24/192 version you are enjoying; and, we'll see.

Awesome. I'm curious to learn if you'll hear any difference between the two. Hopefully you find it to be an improvement. Enjoy your Oppo! I'm jealous.

 

[sholling]

I totally agree with you on the bouncy ATMOS enabled speakers, as lame a idea as a soundbar is for a true 5.1 system.

I don't own Atmos speakers but I would not be so quick to dismiss "bouncy" speakers, Definitive Technology's "bouncy" bipolar towers and Magnepan's infinite baffle designs sound pretty darn good and that sort of bouncy tech isn't going away anytime soon. I doubt that Atmos in general will ever become a must-have product any more than 7.1, however for movies I rather like the idea of "bouncy" tower-top upfiring Atmos speakers for locations too small for high or wide-surrounds or where in-ceiling installation is impractical. Most people are also likely to find them easier to place than rear surrounds. On the other hand I assume that due to the added expense and that, they, like rear surrounds will remain a niche, but far from dead anytime soon product.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

The fact that a given product or system is obsoleted by something better or more-convenient doesn't mean it's flopped!

The ultimate flop in home audio always has been, and always will be, the phonograph record. It's sonically mediocre, at best.

"Sure, the CD had just been introduced a few years prior and everyone seemed to like it, but real audiophiles knew better. The analog LP had superior sound. You just can’t digitize music, break it up into 1000’s of bits, then try to re-assemble it and expect that it will still sound like real music. It can’t. It doesn’t."

Hell, no. I'm an audiophile and a onetime recordist, and I know better. A lot better. A recording isn't supposed "to sound like real music." It's supposed to sound like whatever signal was fed into the recording system. The phonograph record is a high-distortion, high-coloration medium that's easily outclassed in terms of sonic neutrality by properly engineered digital systems. For that matter, there are analog systems that beat the pants off the LP -- FM radio, and the PWM signal from a LaserDisc, to name two.

By the way, almost every 3D movie exhibited in this country has used polarized light. Very few films used anaglyph viewers. I have working Polaroid viewers from the 1939 World's fair.

 

[gene]

Wow I don't know how I missed that section about the CD. I think Steve was being facetious. I updated as follows:

Sure, the CD had just been introduced a few years prior and everyone seemed to like it, but real audiophiles knew better. The analog LP had superior sound at least compared to first generation CD players and digital recording methods at that time. The common misconception was that you just can’t digitize music, break it up into 1000’s of bits, then try to re-assemble it and expect that it will still sound like real music. It took years to overcome this perception of digital music and some audiophiles still believe this today hence partly why vinyl records still exist.​

​

 

[Auditor55]

Are you saying that
Atmos-Enabled Speakers 2015
Are out (crap) ??
Or the whole idea of Dolby Atmos?

Don't worry, this thread will be updated to include Atmos as a format itself. Do to being difficult to implement and a lack of software support (optical disc formats like blu ray and UD blu ray are dying), it will eventually go away.

 

[Auditor55]

As I have said before I can see curved screen sticking around for a very long time for larger tvs and Monitors since you sit a whole lot closer to those compared to tvs.

Curved screens are complete gimmicks and serve no practical purpose in the home.

 

[Auditor55]

Is the suggestion that Dolby Atmos should be considered a failure? Or just the Atmos speaker modules?

Because my (in-ceiling) 7.1.4 Atmos system is amazing, and for me is much more than a "marginal" improvement. I've never owned a system with upfiring Atmos modules, so I can't comment - though I find your criticisms to be well-founded. I never understood the marketing BS about the Atmos Modules being the "preferred" solution. Wasn't one of those statements even attributed to Andrew Jones, the speaker designer?

In my system content up-mixed through the DTS Neural X or Dolby Surround to include the height channels is noticeably better in many cases, too.

To nitpick further, I'd consider it the first big breakthrough in twenty years, which is about how long I've been following this hobby. Moreso than DD EX, DTS-ES, or any of the various other upmixers that gave us pseudo 7.1 out of our 2- and 5.1-channel content. Full Disclosure: Dolby did just pay me $1,750 to say this on the internet. OK, not really.

On that note, if Atmos isn't the most significant breakthrough in Home Theater Sound in 20 years time, what would you consider it to be?

Overall though, I enjoyed this article like most of the content on this site. Keep up the great work!

[EDIT: I feel dumb, not seeing that this comment thread was pretty long already, and you've already answered the question I asked at the top. Doh!]

How many consumers can put speakers on the ceiling? Your answer will tell you if it will be a failed format.

 

[Auditor55]

Where is 4K HDR on this list? Just kidding... Don't ban me...

4K is not a failed format, it's a complete success from a marketing standpoint. They managed to convince many people, even some objective audio/video enthusiast, that should know better, to ditch their perfectly working, quality 1080p TV's for a new fanged 4K LED TV when the overwhelming majority of people cannot and will not see the difference between 1080p and 4K from their typical viewing distances.

I hope that people aren't fooled by 8K TV resolution hype that will be coming in the future.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Thanks for that thoughtful response -- and judicious edit!

It's almost certainly true that the earliest digital recordings (whether transferred to LP, or directly to CD) weren't all they could be. There are two major reasons. The first is that digital recording systems had sonic problems, usually due to improper implementation (too few bits, not enough dither, etc). The other is that early CDs were often mastered from tapes meant for LP mastering. They were EQ'd accordingly, giving a bright or even steely sound. (This same error occurred when producing open-reel tapes, for example Frank Sinatra's "Where Are You?".)

The research needed to put subjective evaluation on a firm scientific basis has never been done, because it's expensive and difficult. If enough people care, I'll explain what's necessary.

 

[sterling shoote]

Thanks for that thoughtful response -- and judicious edit!

It's almost certainly true that the earliest digital recordings (whether transferred to LP, or directly to CD) weren't all they could be. There are two major reasons. The first is that digital recording systems had sonic problems, usually due to improper implementation (too few bits, not enough dither, etc). The other is that early CDs were often mastered from tapes meant for LP mastering. They were EQ'd accordingly, giving a bright or even steely sound. (This same error occurred when producing open-reel tapes, for example Frank Sinatra's "Where Are You?".)

The research needed to put subjective evaluation on a firm scientific basis has never been done, because it's expensive and difficult. If enough people care, I'll explain what's necessary.

I really like your observations on digital recording's early days. I used to produce radio commercials. My go-to studio for V/O work with S/X was all analog and the finished product was a 7.5 ips quarter inch mono tape. In the late 80's the studio went digital to a degree with a Fostex all in one recorder/edit controller. The finished product was mastered to DAT produced on a Panasonic 3700 recorder. I could easy discern the quality was not as good as the 1/4 inch analog tape masters I was accustomed to, in all manner that divergence could be discerned; but, editing was very, very fast in comparison to editing/splicing tape. However, everything changed somewhere in the early 1990's. Digital got better, a lot better than analog tape. Thing is, at the same time, MP3 was invented, which allowed broadcast material to be emailed rather than needing to be sent by FedEx. The result was a very low quality broadcast product, worse than compact cassette; but, things kept getting better and today digital transmission is on par with digital recording. It's all good, so good that perhaps it's time to look for something else to worry about.

 

[highfigh]

The ultimate flop in home audio always has been, and always will be, the phonograph record. It's sonically mediocre, at best.

I'm not a high-end snob who sniffs my equipment, but I have to disagree with this if you mean it as an absolute. Generally, I agree that what is used by most people to play LPs is mediocre, but even a mid-priced system can produce excellent sound if it's set up correctly, in a room that allows it and the recording is one of the better ones, even if from a mainstream label. There's no perfect way to eliminate the noise, but the sound can be excellent if they bothered to make it sound better during mixing and mastering.

 

[sterling shoote]

I'm not a high-end snob who sniffs my equipment, but I have to disagree with this if you mean it as an absolute. Generally, I agree that what is used by most people to play LPs is mediocre, but even a mid-priced system can produce excellent sound if it's set up correctly, in a room that allows it and the recording is one of the better ones, even if from a mainstream label. There's no perfect way to eliminate the noise, but the sound can be excellent if they bothered to make it sound better during mixing and mastering.

I believe you are right, LP's are not a flop, they just represent a moment on the evolution timeline of recorded sound/music. Not a flop for sure. Plus, it was the medium which ushered in Stereo. My personal experience is, for the most part, some LP's sound better than their CD counterpart and some CD's sound better than their LP counterpart. I recently purchased The Very Best Of Diana Krall on LP, and I've got to tell ya, I cannot discern this material as being different from CD's I have of same music. I'm amazed at that, since I do not have a state-of-the-art turntable or cartridge. Also, the LP gives me more pleasure than listening to files from iTunes Library. Listening via iTunes, I can easily be disengaged from the music pleasure if I am attracted to or distracted by other activities available to me on the computer while playing music.

 

[highfigh]

I believe you are right, LP's are not a flop, they just represent a moment on the evolution timeline of recorded sound/music. Not a flop for sure. Plus, it was the medium which ushered in Stereo. My personal experience is, for the most part, some LP's sound better than their CD counterpart and some CD's sound better than their LP counterpart. I recently purchased The Very Best Of Diana Krall on LP, and I've got to tell ya, I cannot discern this material as being different from CD's I have of same music. I'm amazed at that, since I do not have a state-of-the-art turntable or cartridge. Also, the LP gives me more pleasure than listening to files from iTunes Library. Listening via iTunes, I can easily be disengaged from the music pleasure if I am attracted to or distracted by other activities available to me on the computer while playing music.

One of the first LPs I listened to when I fired up my turntable was Weather Report's 'Sportin' Life' and, considering the spec for separation for most cartridges (and the medium in general) being much worse than digital media, it was surprising to hear such a wide spread to the sound. Granted, I had found a much better placement for my speakers since I had listened to any LPs, it still came as a bit of a shock. I have since listened to many other LPs and heard similar sounds, but some were very disappointing- the overall sound quality ranged from OK to bad and it wasn't due to my handling of the LPs- I also never loaned more than a few to ANYONE because I don't want someone handling them badly or playing them on what amounts to a facing lathe or a cheap 'vinyl grinder', which is what we called the turntables that let someone put a stack of LPs on the long spindle, then the next one drops on the others on the platter.

One difference I do hear when I make a comparison is in the bass and mid-bass; it sounds more real on LPs- I doubt it goes as deep, but it has a fullness that's often missing on other formats and I don't think it's my memory of the previous times I heard these since it has been many years, for most. I play bass (and have for a long time) and have heard a lot of live music, so I know the sound of a bass guitar and many times, the digital file/medium just doesn't capture the sound as well. When I listen to something that has synth, cymbals and other instruments that include high frequencies, I don't find the better LPs to be lacking and the impression of a soundstage is still as strong as it can be from other media.

I have said and written before- my system seems to be a group of happy accidents- it's nothing special, but I really like the sound and that's after hearing the Steinway-Lyngdorf system at CEDIA, which is the best I have ever heard, hands down.

 

[sholling]

I believe you are right, LP's are not a flop, they just represent a moment on the evolution timeline of recorded sound/music.

I don't disagree. In fact you could say the same thing about 8-track, reel to reel, cassettes, laser disc, etc.. All were commercial successes to one degree or another and remained profitable for at least 10 years. A better example of a failure would be RCA's stylus based (like an LP) video disc.

 

[yepimonfire]

@sholling
I don't see 4k being a failure at all. It's pretty much replaced 1080p or is in the process of doing so. Pretty much all decent tvs are now 4k, Netflix and Amazon both film their originals in 4k, and many films are now being shot 4k.

I think 8k is just stupid. There is no way in hell one could even benefit from it unless you're sitting in the front row of an IMAX theater. With glasses, I have 20/12 vision, at a distance of 9' on a 55" screen, without hdr, I can see a very small benefit going back and forth between 1080p and 4k. Sitting 6' away, which is the minimum recommended viewing angle for my screen size, I'm still unable to resolve the individual pixels. To do so requires me being 6" from the screen.

If 4k manages to exceed my ability to resolve more detail with better than perfect vision super close to the screen, I see no reason why we would ever need 8k.

As for broadcasts, I'm willing to bet cable goes the way of the dodo soon. At least in my generation, we don't use it. Streaming has largely replaced the need for it, and it has greater benefits too, such as a lack of commercials, better video and audio quality, and the ability to chose what to watch and when to watch it.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[sholling]

As for broadcasts, I'm willing to bet cable goes the way of the dodo soon. At least in my generation, we don't use it. Streaming has largely replaced the need for it, and it has greater benefits too, such as a lack of commercials, better video and audio quality, and the ability to chose what to watch and when to watch it.

Perhaps, but there will have to be a whole lot more and better legally supplied content. In my opinion 4K and streaming need each other. 4K TV manufacturers and 4K owners need more and better 4K content to get the most out of their new toys. At the same time Amazon, Netflix, Youtube, etc need more and better 4K content to pull eyes away from cable-only networks like HBO and Showtime. So far HBO and Showtime aren't feeling threatened enough to start producing 4K content for eventual streaming.