But is that not the same case with the Audio industry, people are always told to go with what sounds best TO THEM, even if its not nessecerily the most accurate reproduction of the original sound.
Surely the same case should apply to the Visual industry, if people prefer brighter colours and will enjoy watching a tv thats bright rather than accurate then they should go with that?
What the average Joe does - be it audio, video, car, phone, computer or whatever - isn't really a concern to me. Nothing any of us do will change the mindset of people who either know no better or just don't care.
What I am interested in is the person who asks the intelligent question "Why so cheap?"
That's the sort of person who deserves to benefit from the knowledge of those who do know better and do care about quality.
How much Bose is sold because the perception is that it's "good" Hi-F? The reality is somewhat different, and a little understanding and knowledge helps us make better decisions. So if someone really wants a good sounding Hi-Fi and they have a realistic budget, then why not let them experience something better and give them the tools to make an informed decision.
Look at TVs now. They're all bright enough to burn your retinas at 20 paces, so usable brightness when you get it home isn't an issue. What's important is can it make a decent stab at creating a natural looking picture free from obvious artifacts.
Imagine you were a photographer. If someone tried to sell you a camera that makes pictures look like they do on a shop TV you'd walk out in disgust. The image would be nothing like the original; and that's the point. By all means adjust the image to suit your preferences, but start off with equipment that does the best job portraying the image as close to the original as possible within the budget available. That's the whole point of forum sites such as this, isn't it? If it's not, then why bother.
