Asymmetrical Information

why anyone waste their time talking about "happines" is beyond me.

What is the difference between hapiness and the old conceept of utility? They sound like the same thing to me.

A %5000 TV may bring one individual more happiness or utility while a %5000 trip abroad would bring another individual more hapiness.

So there is no "correct" answer.

I have a feeling that people have (and will) jump on this because it's not true for them or someone they know. And, of course, they're probably right in those specific instances.

But the idea that travel buys more happiness than an upgrade on a consumer good make sense: You're buying something unfamiliar and new to you as opposed to a modest upgrade in an experience that you quickly take for granted. That's marginal utility in action.

If someone traveled constantly and DIDN'T own a television, then perhaps a TV would give them more happiness than one more trip (even if it was a fun trip). So I think you're right, Jane, because marginal utility is largely on your side. Travel is much more scarce in most people's lives

I'll just be bold and put forth the conjecture that "happiness research" is for a) people who are too inept for the math required in serious economics; 2) authoritarians/totalitarians/wannabe social engineers; or 3) Will Wilkinson.

There's so much ad hoc, subjective and arbitrary stuff mixed in such statements than they as useless as the debates between 8th graders about who's the hottest Playmate(tm).

This reminds me of the good ol' days when metaphysicians considered their lucubrations to be very important and very scientific!

Perhaps we could quantify this? How many people spend $5000 on travel every year, and how many spend $5000 on televisions?

I get into arguments with people now and again when I claim that HD television isn't as wonderfully amazing as the hype. These folks will actually tell me that they can no longer bear to watch a regular TV because it's so drab. C'mon.

What do happiness surveys even measure? Happiness researchers like to act like it's a simple mapping from happiness to utility, but I've never been convnced it's true.

On the happiness benefits of travel, I agree. It is less clear to me whether people are happier *when* they are traveling, as opposed to consuming the later memories of the travel. Do people with low discount rates travel more, adjusting for income?

The difference between watching "Deadwood" on cable or DVD may be more than 2%. There must be some happiness derived from watching things 'new' versus '1 year later.' There is some small and possibly quantifiable amount of joy from 1) discussing the episode immediately with your friends and 2) being part of the 'it' HBO crowd.

Whether or not that joy is worth the $200 a year is different, depending on the event. I've seen most of "The Sopranos" on DVD; loved it just the same. But I'd be extremely unhappy to watch the Superbowl for the first time a year after it happened.

Tyler Cowen: "Do people with low discount rates travel more, adjusting for income?"

Travel costs for airline employees are very low. Our non-crew employees certainly travel more than the general public. Data from my employer, which I cannot share, supports this assertion. My guess is that people who enjoy frequent travel are attracted to airline jobs, even now that airline salaries have been reduced.

"If Deadwood is good on a $2000 plasma screen on HBO, it’s 98% as good on your sister’s giveaway used 19″, a $35 DVD player, and Netflix."

Has this author compared the picture quality and audio quality of two such sets recently? It's difficult to believe anyone who has done so would make this claim.

JohnDewey, I'm not saying the picture quality of a cheap TV is 98% as good. I'm saying the experience of watching Deadwood has little to do with picture quality, and is mostly the experience of the show itself, which is exactly the same no matter what the TV. It's like the difference in seeing an great play from the most expensive seats and the balcony. I've had transformative experiences up in the balcony, which I doubt would have been any better had I paid triple for a better seat. (I've been stuck behind a pillar before, too, which sucks.)

Could it be that travel, purchases of expensive, large screen, HD televisons, etc., is more about "conspicuous consumption" than about utils of utility, or happiness? As a famous song tells us, it is hard to get satisfaction in the modern world.

Everything is becoming a commodity. Why fly United for $350 to Vega$ if a $59 Southwest Funfare will do? Take that extra $290 and gamble at the Luxor.

Dining out? Another commodity. People just don't want to spend an arm and a leg for dinner. Why spend $27 for a steak at Le Extraveant Paris, when $12.95 gets you the same thing at Ground Round? Plus, you get free popcorn.

I remember 20 years ago, my Dad took me to Sears to buy some power tools. He said that he liked to shop at Sears because everything had a lifetime guarantee. You had to pay more for products at Sears, but you knew what you were getting. Today, I don't think my Dad would be caught dead in a Sears. If he needs to buy anything, (anything at all) the cost he is willing to pay can not exceed what he would pay for the same thing at Home Depot, Wal-Mart, or Cost-co.

In the 80s, I had to wear Levis to school. I wouldn't be caught dead in a pair of Toughskins denim jeans. Now, I could care less as long as its on sale and I can wear it.

Commodities. Everything had become a commodity. Everything is price sensitive since you can't compete with quality or features. There is rarely any brand loyalty anymore. There may be some brand loyalty in automobiles, but even that brand loyalty is diminishing fast what with the cost of gasoline.

Happiness is an individual thing; it can't be summed. Some like travel; some don't. Would those who don't like travel be happier if they traveled more? No. This is a pointless post.

"Why fly United for $350 to Vega$ if a $59 Southwest Funfare will do?"

Fortunately for my airline, Southwest doesn't work for everyone. For many business travelers, reserving a specific seat on the plane and arriving at the gate at the last minute are important features of service.

IMO legacy airlines usually do match discount carriers' fares on most routes in which they compete, but not necessarily for all seats. Published fares and corporate discounts are admittedly complex - so much so that I don't see how anyone outside the industry can know for certain.

Travel was great when my lifestyle permitted it. Now that I have a baby in the house, a good tv, a good sound system, and good take out are all godsends.

On HDTV - really doesn't matter that much on smaller sized tv's. On a really big screen you will want more resolution.

Will (and Jane), wow, that Plasma TV vs. 19" TV comment is crazy. Ignoring the form factor benefits of being able to have the TV on the wall, the picture quality can absolutely transform one's enjoyment of a show. I've got two 42" plasmas, and the quality of the watching 'experience' is significantly better than with my old CRT TVs. The larger screen, better color range, resolution, brightness, all enhance the quality of the picture, and in the case of the movie make the cinemetography feel much more like it would in a movie theater.

Further, my best friend has a 50" HD plasma. And while I found that I didn't view the expense as necessary for the types of shows my family generally watches, there is no question that watching sporting events on his TV is far more immersive than watching them on mine. As he put it during the world cup, if he had my TV he wouldn't have watched. Your ability to resolve the players expressions and body language is much much better on the big HD TV, and that absolutely affects how 'transformative' the experience is.

By the way, similar comments can be made about watching movies with a console TV with built in speakers versus a modest, but quality, surround sound system ($500-$1000). Anyone who would say the two are equivalent, after all you can still hear the words the actors are saying, clearly doesn't have an appriciation for the role of sound in film.

I got my first plasma TV with suround sound 3 years ago. Just last month I commented again to my wife about how happy I am with the purchase, and how glad I am that I don't feel the need to go watch movies in the theater anymore. There is no way that my "consciousness has lost its grip on the added quality."

Lou,

You can actually hear the words the actors are saying? No matter what the sound system is? My wife and I find it extremely difficult to hear the words because of the extremes in the sound volumes between the spoken words, the music, and the exaggerated background noises which you never hear in real life. And it doesn't matter if we are at the theatre or watching TV or a DVD. At least watching at home we can replay the scene to try and catch the actor's words, but after three tries, we just continue on.

As someone who pounded on you the last time you posted this inane topic, I'm going to have to agree with Tom Anger. There is no sense is trying to sum the utility curves of individuals to determine whether travel or high-definition TVs improve happiness on average. It may be a mildly interesting exercise, but how could it possibly help with decision making?

Some people would prefer to spend their money on travel. Some would prefer to spend it on a plasma screen. Some would prefer to spend it on travel one year and on the TV the next. What the preferred decision on average is for the population as a whole is entirely meaningless -- because the only utility curve that matters when people make decisions is their own.

Why spend $27 for a steak at Le Extraveant Paris, when $12.95 gets you the same thing at Ground Round?

At Le Extraveant Paris, you won't have to sit anywhere near the loud families with the brood of squealing kids that you'll find at the Ground Round (no doubt these families are attracted by the smell of free popcorn). If you don't think that's worth at least 14 bucks, I can only assume that you have immense patience, a hearing disorder, or a puling herd of your own.

Plus the steaks are better at Le Extraveant Paris. Better chefs and better quality meat have that effect.

> There is almost no experiential difference between a cheap TV and a “nice” TV. If Deadwood is good on a $2000 plasma screen on HBO, it’s 98% as good on your sister’s giveaway used 19″, a $35 DVD player, and Netflix.

I'm sorry, but this is just utter crap. For me, it would be 2% as good.

Travel is just one example, and is obviously highly contextual--my own personal vision of hell would be to get on a transatlantic flight with an infant, but a honeymoon in Paris sounds lovely.

But the broader point is to try to prioritize experience over objects . . . if cars are your thing, go to race-driving school before you buy a sports car, if sports are your thing, save up money to see your team live. Eventually, the television will break, or you will invidiously compare it to newer models, but you'll never get tireed of the memory of a really special event.

"But the broader point is to try to prioritize experience over objects ... you'll never get tireed of the memory of a really special event"

Like it or not, television IS how we experience many events that greatly affect our emotions:

- 300 million Americans could not have been positioned outside the World Trade Center to watch its slow-motion collapse. But most of us viewed its falling either live or later that day, on our 19 inch or 27 inch or 35 inch or 50 inch screens.

- only a few thousand can get tickets to the Masters golf tournament, but millions of us cheered as CBS broadcast Jack Nicklaus' win in 1986 at age 46.

- only two humans were able to stand on the moon on July 20, 1969, but television allowed many millions of us to share their view.

For some of us, televised events have just as much impact as all but a few "real" experiences. Some may disagree and continue preaching their values. But we will continue to place a high value on the quality of instrument through which we view those inportant events.

Eventually, the television will break, or you will invidiously compare it to newer models, but you'll never get tireed of the memory of a really special event.

But memories fade.

More generally, though, I think Jane and Wilkinson are wrong. What Jane is trying to say, I guess, is that experiences give one an ongoing source of happiness that lasts after the actual experience is over, whereas goods only give one happiness while you continue to own the good. Therefore, over time, experience-based happiness is more valuable, since it continue to grow. It's like having happiness in an interest bearing account. If a trip to Paris gives one X amount of happiness and a new BMW also gives one X amount of happiness, the trip will be more valuable, because you'll get Y more happiness five years down the road when you look back fondly on your trip - thus ending up with X+Y happiness overall from the trip - whereas the Beemer will be gone by then, so you'll only end up with X happiness overall from the car.

But Jane's analysis - if it actually is as I've descibed it; I could certainly be misinterpretting her - seems to me to be clearly wrong. First of all, Jane wrongly assumes that goods will not be an ongoing source of happiness even after the goods have been disposed of. Lots of people continue to talk about cars they own even after they've gotten rid of the cars. Hell, my father brings up his '62 Thunderbird ALL THE TIME. He certainly doesn't talk about whatever vacation he took in '62 any more. Secondly, this analysis also assumes that the sum of the happiness one get from the experience plus the ongoing happiness one gets from looking back on the experience will outweigh the one-time amount of happiness that one gets from the good. But there's no reason to believe that's true. Perhaps the one time amount of happiness I get the Beemer will outweigh the sum of the happiness from the Paris trip plus the happiness I get from looking back on the Paris trip.

OK! Some of you are really proud of the TVs that you spent a huge amount of money on. Fair enough.

But the broader point is to try to prioritize experience over objects . . . if cars are your thing, go to race-driving school before you buy a sports car, if sports are your thing, save up money to see your team live. Eventually, the television will break, or you will invidiously compare it to newer models, but you'll never get tireed of the memory of a really special event.

Seriously Jane, let it go -- there is nothing more foolish than telling people that their individual utility functions are wrong. Given that you're a small L libertarian, I would have thought you'd be the last person to push this brand of hogwash.

Earlier this year I spent $2,000 on a trip to Russia. While I was in Russia, I also spent $2,000 on a beautiful porcelain chess set. I greatly enjoyed the trip -- it was fantastic and left me with some wonderful memories (some not so wonderful, but those will fade). The chess set on the other hand is the sparkling centerpiece of my study; it is a joy to play; it will remain a beautiful joy to play for decades.

So which was the better investment of my $2,000? I can't answer that, because I don't know -- all I know is that both were worth at least $2,000 to me, so I was happy to pay for each one.

As for your statement above, you neglect to mention that experiences only last for a very brief period, after which point all you have left is memories. Objects, on the other hand, usually last much longer and usually create some memories as well during that time. So which is better? Why, it depends on the individual of course.

At the end of the day, only a closet socialist would think they know best what someone else should do to maximize utility. I frankly expect much better from you.

OK! Some of you are really proud of the TVs that you spent a huge amount of money on. Fair enough.

Ha! Not exactly the world's most gracious concession, Will -- but I guess it will have to do...

...if Cars are your thing, go to a race driving school before buying a sports car,...,

I'm sorry that's just wrong, cars are my thing, I bought the sports car first so I could take it to driving school, and enjoy myself by taking the backroads on my daily commute. I would never make any other decision, like crossing the Atlantic with an infant, driving a rust bucket, or even a functional yet anonymous basic transportation pod, to work all year to save up for a few weekends at Skip Barber would be my own personal hell. I know this is true because I've done that too.

That said the truest statement so far is DRB's. It's as pointless to worry about average happiness due to choice as trying to define the average terrorist, it tells you almost nothing about any specific choice or terrorist. As Wilkerson has admitted for those who care deeply about color and audio quality in their TV viewing experience there is no number of Spring days in Paris that would make up for taking their Plasma sets and surround sound away.

Isn't the point of libertarianism to leave each to their own unless there's a conflict? Saying that travel is always more enriching than a TV that costs as much as a luxury foreign trip, which equation incidentally changes significantly when one has children, is implying that those who have chosen the TV have somehow chosen poorly and need to be educated about their mistake. Even if I find one's taste in A/V equipment ostentatious, it would be not only presumptive, but arrogant, to assert that the owner of a plasma TV somehow made the incorrect choice.

If you try to find your happiness in the acquisition of material goods, then I have few disagreements with the premise: travel is probably a better investment because for the money, the travel will last longer than that "new ____ smell".

On the other hand, if you buy your consumer goods with the expectation of putting them to use and obtaining recurring benefit from them, and that, in turn, brings happiness...what's left to debate? "My preference is better than your preference." "Is not." "Is so!" "Is not!" "MOOOOOMMM..."

Here's the fun one: What if you buy a nice car or really expensive luggage, because you like to travel?

Luckily, going out to the best French restaurant in Arlington and then going home to watch a travel documentary about Paris on the plasma screen is 98% as good as a trip to France.

Ok, I don't own a Tv (but have 4 computers in my house!) but I tend to agree with Jane about the quality of TV. Sure plasma is nice to look at, but seriously when you sat around watching TV 5-10 years ago did you say, "this sucks!" Probably not. The quality that was good enough then is good enough now when it comes to enjoying the show and all the plot points etc. if you are honest with yourself about it. You just want everything to be shiny and perfect, which I can understand but not rationally support. I'm not saying the viewing experience isn't better now, but I do feel a little sorry for someone who would rather spend their money on an object to sit in front of and be passified rather than creating actual memories doing stuff.

Basically this explains why I shake my head at all my friends who do nothing but play world of warcraft rather than accumlate real world experiences. Think about this...at the end of you life will you be happy about all those hours you sat on the couch watching crystal clear images or would you rather look back with found memories at what you DID and physically experienced for yourself.

I have better memories of the games I played in childhood and college than any friends I had or foreign countries I lived in. Games are real world experiences, designed to be some of the most satisfying ones around. A vacation that gave you the same exploration experiences as Tomb Raider would be worth $50,000.

I would say a plasma TV is about as much better than a regular TV as as a Paris restaurant meal is better than a snack of Doritos -- about 30%, maybe. I hope that helps you map the average utility function over all your commenters.

If you think games are real world experiences and that you can compare tomb raider with a vacation in any way then I guess we have nothing to dicuss! Proof in action that effective communication requires shared experiences.

When happiness is the issue (that is, after you are warm, dry, and adequately nourished), utility scales are personal and approximately logarithmic.

Personal means that what you like is probably not what I like.

Logarithmic means that twice as much of something will only increase your enjoyment a little. Seeing Old Faithful once is an experience you will remember forever. Seeing it again doesn't add much. Seeing every stinky bubbling mudhole and peculiar rock formation in Yellowstone is boring - except to my Dad, who minored in Geology... He passed on his love of science to me, but I much prefer to exercise it on things that can be brought into the laboratory. (Without being killed and pickled in formaldehyde; Dad majored in and taught Biology, and the smell of formaldehyde reminds me of him.)

On the plus side, while we were tromping around looking at rocks, at least I wasn't getting motion sickness in the back seat of a lime-green '56 Oldsmobile. I think I saw 3/4 of the USA from the back seat of that car. Lots of good memories there, but even 40 years later, the very first one to pop up when the subject of car travel comes up is of nausea.

Air travel? Maybe it was luxurious back when normal people couldn't afford it, but in the last twenty years the only good part of air travel is arriving at your destination. Airline clerks in major American cities who don't speak English and who put you in a knees-in-the-face tourist seat for an 8 hour overseas flight even though you paid for business class. The "Narita death march" - My flight arrived at Tokyo's international airport in the middle of the night, and several hours late. Amazingly, they had held my connecting flight to Singapore, it was at the next gate to the right. HOwever, we couldn't go right - we had to turn left, walk all around the circular part of the terminal, down a long hall and out of the building, and come back through security. (This was in late August 2001 - did they know something the FBI didn't, or were they always this paranoid?)

I still wonder whether the hotel in Singapore really makes the world's best corned beef hash, or it's just that this was the first food in 36 hours other than airplane snacks.

As for traveling to Paris for a steak, are you serious, or does New York City simply lack anyplace that properly prepares a steak? French chefs can do amazing things with many foods, but simplicity is best for steaks. IMHO, the best flavoring is simply the natural flavors of a good quality steak, properly grilled; spices are for road kill. For the best beef steak, go to the best restaurant in most any small town in the American southwest where growing beef is the main business. I might advise against eating anything else from there, but the chef must be getting first pick of the beef at the local slaughterhouse, and the steak is grilled to perfection.

But that's beef steak. Good venison is better. So is bear.

markm: I don't mean to pry, where do you live? I seem to recall you saying something about the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, way back.

Just askin', 'cause I love northern MI and the UP and wonder where to get a good steak, sometimes.

Klug, not the UP, but 60 miles south of the Mackinac Bridge. (Insert random troll joke here.) The best steakhouse I know of around here (or anywhere east of the Mississippi) is Big Buck in Gaylord. It often has venison and other meat that wasn't raised on a farm. Or if you happen to be in Traverse City, stop by Sleders Tavern and get a buffalo burger.

For good food in the UP, you might do better making friends with the right people - those that know how to shoot, clean, and cook venison.

> Seriously Jane, let it go -- there is nothing more foolish than telling people that their individual utility functions are wrong.

Bingo. We all know the pathetic guy/gal who whines "but {object of affection} should like me because {seemingly rational argument}". Jane et al are merely generalizing that mistake.

If that's not enough to untwist your panties, think about how happy you'd be if everyone started traipsing to France for that "experience" meal. They'll crowd you out.

Other people like different things. Deal with it.

Suppose someone offered Will Wilkinson, or Megan, a black-and-white TV set, for free, plus tickets to Paris, all on the condition that they use only this old TV for all their viewing needs. Would they accept?

If not, why not? People happily watched movies and television in black-and-white for many years. How much happier were they made by the incremental improvement of color TV?

"But the broader point is to try to prioritize experience over objects . . . if cars are your thing, go to race-driving school before you buy a sports car, if sports are your thing, save up money to see your team live. Eventually, the television will break, or you will invidiously compare it to newer models, but you'll never get tired of the memory of a really special event."

Personally, I tend to agree with the " Live v. Memorex " take JG expresses.

This: "Given that you're a small L libertarian...", though, in reference to JG, still amazes me.

Travel is good, but the people I want to travel with are too poor and/or busy. Then we want to do different things.

Most of my young adult life I didn't have TV, then I gave in and got one. Now I live in Appalachia and wouldn't have survived here without internet and telly. Otherwise it would be too boring and isolated.

I have a ridiculously expensive, painful, and timekilling hobby, rowing my single scull. The boat is expensive, the roof rack scratches my car, it gives me back pain, it wastes my time driving to a rowable lake most days and the extra load destroys my gas mileage. But it's a lifesaver. It has whipped me into shape and made me so strong and healthy and vigorous, it seems unreal that I had cancer this last year. (Man, you gotta check out my guns.) I travel for refereeing and that is my social contact with other rowing types. So my travel isn't for ritzy experiences to brag about for social status. It's to go work 12 hour days outside in all kinds of weather...but I get to gawk at buff men in spandex and order them around and discipline them if they disobey me. I love it!

So I understand why people choose different things to pursue their joy. Happiness, or subjective well-being (in psychological terms); or utility. Context. What are you escaping? What are you embracing? What gets you 'high?' What is your flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi)? (And yes, I know how to spell it without looking it up.)

Whether it's stuff, or experiences...it's whatever is good for your endorphins. That's what leads to purchase decisions, perceptions of value, and utility.

why all the hostility to investigating what generally makes people happier (obviously recognizing that people differ, etc.)? clearly, many people are not very happy, and many people also make very bad choices in terms of maximizing their possible happiness. yes, i can raise all sorts of objections to how you could know whether someone is not happy, whether to trust their answers, whether false consciousness exists, etc., but that's a tiresome dance, only interesting if you're looking for ways to be difficult.

why is trying to provide some rough guidelines such a bad thing? haven't you ever given advice to anyone about how to live? how did you presume to do so?

and emphasizing doing over having seems like good advice to me. yes, some TV junkies will truly benefit from the better TV -- because for them, the having is closely tied to the doing -- but most likely won't. (you really want to claim that (e.g.) all BMW owners are really in it for the driving performance, all guys with 58 les paul's can really tell that it plays better than the current models, etc.?)

dj superflat: "yes, some TV junkies will truly benefit from the better TV -- because for them, the having is closely tied to the doing -- but most likely won't."

How can you make that claim? How can you know that most will not benefit from the better TV? I would never argue that material goods will make people happier than lack of those goods. But how can you argue that people will not benefit from a larger television set?

"Suppose someone offered Will Wilkinson, or Megan, a black-and-white TV set, for free, plus tickets to Paris, all on the condition that they use only this old TV for all their viewing needs. Would they accept?"

The thing is, you can get a pretty nice TV for free. My last couple have been giveaways from friends and relatives. So you're offering something worse than the average quality of a free TV.

So I'd definitely accept watching all my TV on a free TV of average free TV quality for a trip to Paris.

sorry to be imprecise (all of this is ridiculously mushy), but what i'm saying is that i find it entirely plausibe they will benefit less from the better TV than they might from other uses of money (yes, you can easily attack whether this is verifiable, which is why studies come into play, etc.).

The thing is, you can get a pretty nice TV for free. My last couple have been giveaways from friends and relatives.

They upgraded to the plasma, did they?

dj superflat,

We can do all the studies in the world about how much people benefit from high end electronics gear. But those consumers are the ultimate judges of what benefits them the most. And huge numbers of them seem to be choosing plasma TV's.

You and Jane and Will Wilkinson seem to be skeptical of consumers' abilities to know their own preferences.

"...at the end of you life will you be happy about all those hours you sat on the couch watching crystal clear images or would you rather look back with found memories at what you DID and physically experienced for yourself."

But who says that choosing to spend your money on TVs, cars, etc means that you need to miss out on experiences? I agree with the general point that at the end of your life your experiences matter more than your things, but most of the experiences that really matter (spending time with your kids, your friends, family, etc.) don't need to cost anything.

If the question is how best to spend your money, rather than how to spend your time, I don't see that the "experiences are better" argument is necessarily relevant.

I am with Rex on hearing the words. I have started watching movies and tv shows via netflix and I like it for the most part but with some of the material you simply cannot understand all of the dialog without turning up the sound to an unreasonable level. It is really irritating.

My only tv is an old 1984 samsung portable so I guess that shows where I stand on the big screen issue. I doubt a fancy system would add much to my experience particularly with the old movies I like. However I could be wrong, I got started with netflix when I received a gift subscription. I probably would never have tried it on my own although the cost of a trial is trivial compared to the reward if you like it.

So for me the lesson is that many people would benefit from being more open to trying new things. If you know you don't like traveling much that is fine but if you just think you would not enjoy traveling (or anything else) without having given it a fair trial that is not so good. Not that I am very good about trying new things myself.

I am with Rex on hearing the words. I have started watching movies and tv shows via netflix and I like it for the most part but with some of the material you simply cannot understand all of the dialog without turning up the sound to an unreasonable level. It is really irritating.

Two suggestions:

1) Turn on closed-captioning/subtitles. I started with this because my wife is hard of hearing, but now I generally do it even if she isn't in the room. (Some people find reading subtitles irritating, but I'd say try it for a week or two and see if that goes away.)

2) Many/most DVD players have a setting for dynamic range compression (often labeled DRC or something similar). This basically makes soft sounds louder and loud sounds softer. It may be buried in the setup menu-- sometimes the option will simply be "on" and "off", sometimes there'll be a "high" and "low" option as well. (Many cable boxes also have this, sometimes confusingly just labelled "compression" in the Audio menu.)

Comments are Closed.