The Biggest Failures in Consumer Audio/Video Electronics History

[Sal1950]

"Dolby’s Atmos is ironclad proof, once again, that a marginal new technology that doesn’t deliver an undeniably compelling, tangible step-up in performance over an existing system"

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. But reading the last paragraph of your ATMOS section I'm reading a complete damnation of ATMOS even with discrete ceiling mounted speakers. Is that the way you guys really feel or am I mis-understanding your review? I haven't heard a good discrete ATMOS system but have been seriously considering a AVR and speaker upgrade to my 5.2 rig.
Is it a waste of money or not?
TIA

 

[Whiffer]

1. Hopefully, you were describing the position of people who prefer recordings from publishers who apply the filter by using an inadequate medium when you said "rich, organic, luscious-sounding analog vinyl LPs ... [n]one of that harsh, cold, analytical, grating, artificial CD digital sound" rather than spouting that nonsense yourself.

2. Your comment that "Dolby’s Atmos is ironclad proof, once again, that a marginal new technology that doesn’t deliver an undeniably compelling, tangible step-up in performance" must be from the point of view (or "listen") of an organization called AUDIOholics. Anyone who has listened to a movie like "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" on a good 7.2.4 system would have to disagree that Dolby Atmos is "a marginal new technology that doesn’t deliver an undeniably compelling, tangible step-up in performance."

 

[Topken]

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.

 

[shadyJ]

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

They are talking about the Atmos-enabled speakers, not Atmos itself.

 

[Kevin LaVallee]

Couldn't agree more with your story.
Luckily I'm an IT guy and never went bleeding edge, but leading edge.
When the corporation is on your shoulder I decided to wait a year or two to see where the ashes fall.
That rule holds the same with everything!!!!! You need another commentator?
I'm your guy!!!! For free. (for now BTW).
I do need to say that this is the only " Go to" site I read?
I just wish you had the bodies to be more current, and didn't go so high end.

 

[Jersey Jim C]

I really don't consider SACD to be a total failure. Although I didn't buy my first SACD player until late in 2015, I have 22 SACDs and will certainly buy more. There are numerous forums and threads where others like me share our recommendations and information on sources. To be sure it is a niche market; but I am thinking more about the richness of the experience than in economic terms. I also have 7 DVD-As (Neil Young's greatest Hits is amazing) and 5 HDCDs. I do think that the way greed and hubris stilted the availability and success of these formats is a tragic failure and a classic example "Sonyism". I have a few music Blu-Ray discs. Meh. Better than red books and the pictures are nice.

Of course in the big picture, you are absolutely right. When I mention SACD most people don't know what I'm talking about. But it "coulda been a contenda" as Brando said.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Do you do this for a living? If not, you're unlikely to see the problems in the same numbers and variety.

Simply? There's no simple about it.

I had no idea that there were so many problems with HDMI. I have 4 HDMI cables in my system that have never given me a hint of trouble. Lucky, I suppose....

 

[highfigh]

What causes the infamous “handshake” issue?

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

They designed HDMI with a 5V sync signal and if it drops by .3V or more, it doesn't work, so it needs to be e-initiated. Sometimes, that requires disconnecting the cable, power cycling, using a coupler with correction/a repeater or something like the Atlona device that spoofs EDID. SOmetimes, it has been a matter of the product mix- used to be that if a Panasonic BD player went through several brands of AVR to a Samsung TV, it wouldn't work. The example I gave with the extenders had a Panasonic BD player and TV through a Denon AVR. Sometimes, the easiest/cheapest way to get it to work is by adding an HDMI splitter and not using it as a splitter, just as a coupler.

 

[highfigh]

I can't do vinyl again, having suffered through it the first time. One snap, crackle or pop and I'm done. But I totally agree with your sentiments regarding having the entire recorded universe at your disposal with the click of a mouse. I've had Zune/Groove/Spotify/iTunes/Amazon accounts for years, and while I love sampling whatever I want, I do miss the days when I had to budget and research and choose very carefully. Because it was an actual investment, I eventually knew every note and lyric, and more often than not, every word on the liner notes to boot. These days, even if I really like an album it's hard to give it repeated listens, as there's always some new shiny thing I need to check out.

How well were the LPs cared for? That makes a huge difference and I'm not advocating that anyone buy an expensive record cleaner. I did some repairs to a Nitty Gritty cleaner and inside, it looked like some kind of school science project. Pretty bad, for an $800 cleaner. I thought my albums sounded worse after being cleaned by it, too. That's the reason I cleaned LPs I had already replaced.

For whatever reason(s), I find a lot of digital versions sounding thin and lifeless when I compare them to the vinyl and I'm not one of the "It completes me" people. Vinyl is more distorted- it has no choice. Vinyl is not, however, limited to 20KHz by a brick wall filter or some other version of a Low Pass filter. Unfortunately, I hear wide variations of recording quality and it could be due to anything from vinyl quality to mix/mastering/tape degradation/equipment condition to ?

On a better turntable/arm/cartridge/phono preamp/speaker equipment group with halfway decent acoustics, a well-recorded LP can sound better than a whole generation has ever been exposed to. I play bass and when I listen to some LPs, it's more realistic than the digital version, even the remastered ones. The bass is often lacking in many ways in the digital form.

 

[3db]

How well were the LPs cared for? That makes a huge difference and I'm not advocating that anyone buy an expensive record cleaner. I did some repairs to a Nitty Gritty cleaner and inside, it looked like some kind of school science project. Pretty bad, for an $800 cleaner. I thought my albums sounded worse after being cleaned by it, too. That's the reason I cleaned LPs I had already replaced.

For whatever reason(s), I find a lot of digital versions sounding thin and lifeless when I compare them to the vinyl and I'm not one of the "It completes me" people. Vinyl is more distorted- it has no choice. Vinyl is not, however, limited to 20KHz by a brick wall filter or some other version of a Low Pass filter. Unfortunately, I hear wide variations of recording quality and it could be due to anything from vinyl quality to mix/mastering/tape degradation/equipment condition to ?

On a better turntable/arm/cartridge/phono preamp/speaker equipment group with halfway decent acoustics, a well-recorded LP can sound better than a whole generation has ever been exposed to. I play bass and when I listen to some LPs, it's more realistic than the digital version, even the remastered ones. The bass is often lacking in many ways in the digital form.

You already know my take on this.. It depends on the recording/mastering engineer as I have examples where one format trumps the other for a particular recording. If you want an example of a recording where LP and CD are equal, look to Tom Petty's MOJO album.

 

[Darenwh]

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

 

[gene]

"Dolby’s Atmos is ironclad proof, once again, that a marginal new technology that doesn’t deliver an undeniably compelling, tangible step-up in performance over an existing system"

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. But reading the last paragraph of your ATMOS section I'm reading a complete damnation of ATMOS even with discrete ceiling mounted speakers. Is that the way you guys really feel or am I mis-understanding your review? I haven't heard a good discrete ATMOS system but have been seriously considering a AVR and speaker upgrade to my 5.2 rig.
Is it a waste of money or not?
TIA

The focus is the Atmos-reflection speakers, not Atmos decoding.

 

[gene]

I really don't consider SACD to be a total failure. Although I didn't buy my first SACD player until late in 2015, I have 22 SACDs and will certainly buy more. There are numerous forums and threads where others like me share our recommendations and information on sources. To be sure it is a niche market; but I am thinking more about the richness of the experience than in economic terms. I also have 7 DVD-As (Neil Young's greatest Hits is amazing) and 5 HDCDs. I do think that the way greed and hubris stilted the availability and success of these formats is a tragic failure and a classic example "Sonyism". I have a few music Blu-Ray discs. Meh. Better than red books and the pictures are nice.

Of course in the big picture, you are absolutely right. When I mention SACD most people don't know what I'm talking about. But it "coulda been a contenda" as Brando said.

I have an extensive DVD-A and SACD collection and love it. But, they are still failed formats.

 

[Chris_The_Rock]

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!]

 

[soundboy]

SACD is not a failure in my opinion nor is it obsolete. Only those who do not have it, or those that do not know of it might have an impression it's obsolete if they have any impression at all; but, for multi-channel 5.1 music it is the defacto standard still today. There are problems however. SACD players today are for the most part Stereo only, or they are universal players which can only output multi-channel SACD from HDMI. If you do not have a modern pre/pro you can not therefore enjoy multi-channel SACD. Now, back when SACD came out, I purchased a player and went to a store in my area to buy some SACD media. The store had no SACDs and in fact, after running around town to find another store having SACD media, any media, I only found one store and only one SACD in that store, Miles Davis "Some Kind of Blue" hybrid disc. This recording did not impress but others later did. I do not think I was the only one at the time that had such an experience, little media out there and sound quality that could not be discerned as sounding better than CDs folks did not trade up to SACD from CD. At any rate, SACD is today "audiophile" for sure as SACD only players out there today are Stereo only and cost over a grand for the least expensive.

The Oppo 203 has a full set of analog outputs for $550.00 new.

You're lucky to even have a brick-and-mortar store that stocks a good assortment of CDs. For SACD, you need to buy online. In fact, the last 3 years have been the biggest years for SACD in terms of released titles; each year witnessed 700+ new SACD titles released worldwide (now over 12,000 titles released since the format's introduction). Which is also why a third SACD pressing facility in Germany (Arvato, formerly Sonopress) had began production.

 

[SoundSearcher]

From my crystal radio, 1952 to my 7.1.4 system, I really hope I can hang with this for at least 3 years. I just completed connecting the 4 Dolby atmos. Now when I view a horror, star wars or any movie with lots of sound, my wife screams her head off. She really likes Jurassic Park. Which is the real reason I can buy this stuff. Of course I've never completely positioned my speakers according to the manual, but I use the MCACC to help set up the speakers. Then for the next 2 or 3 weeks I manually tweek it until I am satisfied.

 

[soundboy]

Hey highfigh, I hope to get the Mobile Fidelity remastered vinyl, I have not heard any other than the hybrid SACD which was produced I think back in 1997 by Sony. It sounds like someone scratching their fingernails on a chalk board. It makes me not want to hear a trumpet again. Others, many others, gave this particular SACD very, very bad review. Now, I've got to tell ya, I am not a Miles Davis fan, I got that particular album as I was looking for an SACD, any SACD, and that one happened to be the only one in town. My interest in Jazz and Bop today is all about, Scott Hamilton, Sonny Rollins, Ben Webster, John Coletrain, and Bill Evans. I also like Grover Washington and Diana Krall---CD, SACD, Vinyl, AAC and ALAC. It's all good. I think the Saxophone and piano is just a delight where as the trumpet just does not deliver the "chill" I want to enjoy.

The original Sony SACD was a single-layer SACD, and there have been at least 5 other SACD versions of "Kind of Blue" over the years.

 

[PaulBUK]

In the VHS vs Betamax format war, the Philips/Grundig answer Video 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_2000 introduced in 1979, is often forgotten. The format never made it to North America, but here in Europe it was marketed heavily, unfortunately, Philips took too long to perfect the technology, which for its time was very advanced, and VHS had the market stitched up.

Video 2000 used a cassette the same size as VHS but looked more like a giant audio cassette, because it was double sided, so each side could be recorded (up to 4 hours per side), in pretty decent quality.

The technology behind this breakthrough was DTF: Dynamic Track Following, in which the heads were mounted on piezo crystals, so the head position could be adjusted as it scanned the diagonal tracks on the tape, allowing the tracks to be much closer together than VHS or Betamax. The best thing is that they could produce perfect, streak-free, slow and fast motion and still frames, unlike the competition (at least until they introduced machines with 4 heads, which very never quite as good).

Initially, the machines were expensive and I rented one, which was a huge beast of a thing, but prices came down to try and compete and I bought and used one happily for many years. Getting rental videos was a challenge and even at the time few understood the differences and reliability and compatibility issues existed, and so it was destined to be a great technology launched on a market that was mostly indifferent.

 

[sterling shoote]

The original Sony SACD was a single-layer SACD, and there have been at least 5 other SACD versions of "Kind of Blue" over the years.

My version is Stereo/Multi-CH. It does not have a CD layer. I believe it is 3 channels. It really does sound awful. 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.

 

[sterling shoote]

The Oppo 203 has a full set of analog outputs for $550.00 new.

You're lucky to even have a brick-and-mortar store that stocks a good assortment of CDs. For SACD, you need to buy online. In fact, the last 3 years have been the biggest years for SACD in terms of released titles; each year witnessed 700+ new SACD titles released worldwide (now over 12,000 titles released since the format's introduction). Which is also why a third SACD pressing facility in Germany (Arvato, formerly Sonopress) had began production.

Yes, I know a little about the OPPOs having multi-channel analog output. I think they are the only universal players out there today that will play multi-channel via RCA output, which is a must for me since I do not have a pre/pro with HDMI inputs, just RCA, IEC 958, and optical S/PDIF. In fact: I just purchased the 205. It should arrive later today according to FedEx. I purchased it specifically to enjoy my multi-channel, mostly 3 channel, "living stereo" SACD classical music collection. I could have gone for the 203; but, I thought the usb DAC input exclusive to the 205 would be very useful for enjoyment of hi-res downloads on my computer. Also, except for "Some Kind of Blue" all my SACDs have been on-line purchases from Amazon. The prices and service from Amazon is very good. Thanks so much for your comments, I did not know anything about SACDs growth in the last 3 years. I can understand it though.