Adam Tyner

Gotcha! Yeah, I hate it when people do that. At least that should be a mistake on Home Media Magazine's reading of the data rather than Futuresource's (admittedly speculative) numbers.

For whatever reason, I thought he was talking about the 8% of the total market.

PerryD

That could be true. Not enough information to understand the context of the 8% reference.

AaronSch

Yeah, if you desire to play "the game." I don't. I'm not so sure many of these people are as in love with the movies they watch as the equipment on which it is played and the minutiae of its technical merits. Over the years I have met many people you could classify as videophiles and audiophiles. They will talk you into a somnambulant state in short order. Tell these people you don't see or hear a dime's worth of difference and their heads will literally explode.

Personally, I believe we have reached a point of diminishing returns. With each leap the differences are far less apparent. The limitations of the human eye and ear have largely been met and there is little if any need to upgrade from what is presently available to enhance the home theater experience. Oh, but I have no doubt these same people will be extolling the virtues of 8K in short order! No thanks.

BuckNaked2k

Oh, I know what you mean. I spend some time on an audiophile forum and it's beyond ridiculous. I have a modest $3,000 two-channel stereo system I use for music only. Sometimes, my jaw drops at how amazing it sounds. A quick tour of YouTube will show video upon video of $10,000, $50,000, $100,000 systems and up.

I mean, how much better sound can you get from a stereo at the price of a Rolls Royce?

morriscroy

Good question.

Are these the type of guys who insist on an audio cd player being made out of vacuum tubes?




(As an offtopic aside).

The only case where vacuum tubes made a huge difference in sound to my ears, are in large guitar amplifiers. Primarily in the preamp + distortion stage.

AaronSch

You can't. Years ago I owned a modestly priced Pioneer "Elite" set-up only capable of 5.1 DTS and Dolby Digital along with a decent set of Pinnacle speakers. I remember playing back the DVD-A of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" for a buddy who owned a very expensive Denon set-up with 7.1 audio, high-end speakers...the whole nine yards ...even he admitted reluctantly that it actually sounded better at my place. It was probably nothing but the acoustics in our respective rooms.

BuckNaked2k

There are no CD players! There are separate components called CD transports that read the discs and send the signal to another component for decoding. Never in the same chassis! We are talking about rigs that have $5,000 aftermarket power cables and $10,000 speaker cables.

Coral

The cables are the things that blow my mind. Spending all the money for something that's merely psychological.

What I find funny is that they spend all this money to get audio perfection - to improve the smallest spec of audio that they most surely can't really hear... yet seem to have no trouble with the surface noise of vinyl - which you can still hear even on the best turntable and best vinyl pressing (nevermind the inner-groove distortion and problems with highs and lows).

jjcool

Yeah. It's obviously incorrect the way it was worded. Wonder how it was missed.

PerryD

Yeah, similar to a common error almost every one in the media makes is saying "sales were up 200%" to mean sales doubled, and up 300% for triple.

morriscroy

What would be amusing is if the "cd transport" device was really just a $20 (or less) computer cd/dvd drive manufactured by LiteOn or LG, with the serial numbers and LiteOn or LG brandnames filed off.

morriscroy

Sounds like the media being really lazy, and just cutting and pasting everything from the initial news/press release.

AaronSch

Absolutely, it's beyond being lazy. They flat-out lie to advance their own narrative. People don't realize how misleading statistics can be when taken out-of-context. If you sold one unit in April and 2 units in May, you're experiencing 100% growth in sales month to month.

This old adage is truer today than ever:

"Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed." -H.L. Mencken

morriscroy

Perhaps all this spending has nothing to do with sound quality issues.

Could it be that all this big spending on really expensive stereo equipment, is for "status symbol" type reasons (whether real or perceived) ?

morriscroy

I found this was also the case for me, though only really for movies that I went to theater to watch. Even movies screened at second/third run theaters, where they would play some "classics" many years later, such as: Terminator 1, the original Total Recall, the original Star Wars trilogy, 2001, Clockwork Orange, older James Bond films, Indiana Jones, etc ... at midnight screenings.

On the other hand for movies which I have never seen at movie theaters, most of them don't seem to have the same "perceived value" for me. Basically not much different than watching "tv shows" for free.

jjcool

Yeah. I read the quote and said to myself "the number of units didn't double, so how did it go up more than 100%". I am sure sometimes it is a simple mistake by someone that just doesn't understand the math.

Coral

I can see that with purchasing expensive speakers, turntables, amps, etc. But these guys are spending big bucks on speaker cables, interconnects, and other things that aren't really something you can show off for that status symbol effect. Plus they generally continue to tinker with their setup in all ways possible that go beyond equipment upgrades... things like speaker placement, room treatments, etc. It's definitely psychological - trying to scratch and itch they can't quite reach.

Why So Blu?

Agreed.

I'm a fan of vinyl and there's a few"audiophile" forums out there in regards to vinyl and equipment. One dude in particular was all like "I usually budget around $2500 - $3000 for equipment and my components are generally priced the same. If I were to get a record player and pre-amp then I would pay about $2500 - $3000 EACH." I was like fuck this shit -- I am outta here. Tons of those type of posts. I think it's OCD and status.

Someone mentioned cables -- I am surprised that Monster Cable is still in business. Their cables were always overpriced. I will vouch for their Powercenters, though -- those things are tanks.

rw2516

To a point. The super high end spending, equipment in the thousand plus price range per component is status/self gratification. Like a Ferrari.
There is sound quality benefits in mid-range equipment as opposed to run of mill.
I have a separate sound system for cds. Stereo receivers/amps give better sound with cds then home theater receivers.
CD players will give better sound from cds than DVD/BD players.

I have a Yamaha analog stereo amp combined with a Yamaha CD player. Connected with old fashioned red/white RCA cables.
I went mid-range. $450 for the amp. $350 for the player. That's $800 just for listening to cds.

morriscroy

Similar sentiments here too.

Most of my "mid-range" standalone stereo equipment was old stuff accumulated over the past 30+ years or so. Some were "hand me downs" from local friends who gave/traded/sold me their old stuff, after they purchased newer equipment.

I still prefer to listen to music on a separate standalone stereo system. Listening to music on the computer is sometimes annoying.

morriscroy

The only speaker placement scenario where I noticed a significant difference in sound, was putting the speakers on the floor in the corners of the room. It created sort of an exaggerated booming bass type of sound, without cranking up the bass control on the amplifier. (It actually got kinda annoying after awhile).

big e

Exactly. It’s not that I don’t care about something being on physical media, it’s that I have little desire to own it because of how infrequently I revisit stuff. To give some perspective, I’ve been buying DVDs since 2000 and Blu-rays since 2008. Everything new I buy is on Blu-ray, unless the release is DVD-only or a BD is unavailable, so a majority of the DVDs I own were purchased between 2000 and 2008. I know there are movies in that DVD collection I haven’t watched since I bought them, which would have been 10+ years ago. I’m thinking if I can go that long without having any real desire to revisit some of those movies, why bother owning them in the first place? Why not just rent them? And these aren’t obscure movies I’m talking about; they’re pretty much mainstream stuff, so it’s not like they’ll up and disappear.

Now, there are certain genres and types of movies I’m more inclined to buy over others. Anime, older sci-fi/horror, cult-type titles, these are the ones I’ve seen go OOP or get caught up with wonky rights issues and disappear or become hard to find. Even if it’s not going to be watched all that frequently, I’d rather have that cult title on my shelf than not have it.

AaronSch

I think there are two different archetypes: Those who enjoy watching movies/television shows simply for entertainment and those who share the same interest but also enjoy the act of collecting and acquiring something physical. Trying to apply logic to the act of collecting anything is fruitless.

We are talking about two very different sensibilities and they are becoming more distinct as the technology changes. People collect antiques, jewelry, stamps, toys, comics, books, coins etc. A person who collects doesn't really consider how often something is used or, in this case, viewed. it's not just about the viewing and entertainment value. There is another element of satisfaction attached. It becomes a hobby. A very wealthy person may acquire a vast collection of automobiles and yet be transported via limo. A toy collector will often never open the packages of the things he or she collects. A serious comic book collector will rarely if ever open the protective acid-free sleeve to read the actual contents. Will this person enjoy collecting the comics digitally? Of course not.

So trying to attach logic to collecting is nonsense. I find it fascinating that there are many who espouse the virtues of digital downloads or streaming yet are still posting and visiting forums devoted to the acquisition of physical media. These threads really aren't about discussing the films or programs themselves as much as what is being released physically and the packaging that contains them. Those of us who collect have a common bond but those who stream really are no longer part of the "collecting" community. When it comes to digital, few are buying/collecting but many are renting, or streaming.

I love having a library but I also understand that I, and many others, do not have unlimited space to devote to huge collections. I keep telling myself that 500 will be enough...then 1000...then 1500. And now, even though I continue to weed out some titles, I am on my way to 2,000. Is this hobby insane? Perhaps. But having a hobby is in itself a pleasurable pursuit. There's also the added benefit of never having to bemoan the fact that what I wanted to view is no longer available. This is especially true for fans of 3D. It is now hard to argue that fewer 3D movies will be offered for home viewing since manufacturers have largely ceased offering 3D as an option with new displays. I own a ton of 3D movies and continue to acquire new titles before they are gone forever. So, I will still be able to enjoy them when and if services like Netflix do not offer them for streaming.

JimRochester

I was a huge collector for years. I collected Beta, then VHS, and then DVD. I also had a LD collection but didn't pick that up until DVD came out and was too slow to release titles. I didn't care about the fancy packaging, but I enjoyed the hunt. There was a store that would have used titles within weeks of a new release. I always looked at as a long term rental. I could buy, then trade it back in if I didn't like it. In reality I never got around to watching half of what I bought and ended up with tons of dust collectors. I still prefer physical media to streaming but rent most titles. With my recent upgrade to 4K and some good titles released I probably buy one title a month now using RZ $$. For every new one I buy, I vow to pull 2 old ones from the shelf. I am embarrassed to tell you how many have sat there for 5 or even 10 years still in the wrapper.

big e

Honestly, at this point, there’s not that much coming out I feel I need to own. After over 15 years of collecting, I pretty much have everything I really wanted. I know some people balk at that, and I agree you can never own everything you want because you’re always discovering new things, but so much of the stuff I watch now that’s "new to me," I just don’t feel I absolutely need to own.

Plus, it’s becoming harder for me to justify upgrading something I own on DVD to Blu-ray, unless the DVD had a shitty transfer or just wasn’t that great all around. I’m already taking titles off my “buy list” that would have been upgrades. The Shout edition of Carrie was on my buy list, but I ended up knocking it off because I own the MGM SE DVD. Every time I look at my buy list, I keep asking myself, “Do I really need this title on BD? Do I really need Psycho 2, 3, and 4 on BD? Do I really need the Criterion edition of The Graduate?” It’s not just the money, but also finding the time and motivation to watch it. I already own the Psycho triple feature, which I haven’t watched since I bought it; I own the MGM BD of The Graduate, plus I owned the MGM SE DVD, so the Criterion would be the third time I’ve bought that movie. At some point you get sick of buying the same movies over and over again and have to tell yourself “that’s it.” Maybe that’s when “collector’s fatigue” sets in, if that’s a thing?

On the other hand, in the last few months I bought the UK releases of Super Mario Bros. and Fright Night (paying $20+ each), plus the Australian release of The Punisher ‘89, and I recently bought the Arrow release of The Hills Have Eyes, all of which I owned on DVD. So, I think I fall somewhere in between those two archetypes AaronSch mentioned.