>5.1 systems. This would have been different with dvd-a. I would have loved to listen to a live concert cd with surround sound. As to your specific DVD-Audio e

>5.1 systems. This would have been different with dvd-a. I would have loved to listen to a live concert cd with surround sound. As to your specific DVD-Audio example, I think it didn't widely catch on because most music is consumed (1) with earphones (2) in the car (3) as incidental background while multitasking. The scenario of "purposeful" music listening by sitting in the center sweet spot of a 5.1 setup is very rare. There's also a long history of technology that's "superior" but isn't accepted by the masses. There's a "law of diminishing returns" and/or other dimensions of utility (such as convenience) have higher priority than quality. Examples: - quadrophonic sound[1] is more immersive than 2-channel stereo but people didn't buy it - satellite radio is higher quality sound than FM radio but Sirius XM remains a niche and won't penetrate the market like FM did. Yes, FM had higher fidelity than AM and listeners switched but the same didn't happen for satellite. - 24bit-96kHz or 192kHz audio did not take over 16bit-44kHz (1411kbps). Instead, the opposite happened and more listeners consumed lower quality 128kbps mp3 and AAC files. Lower quality was driven by Napster + iPod + Spotify. Convenience trumped highest fidelity. - Bluray discs : more customers pay for digital streaming (often with lower resolution than 1080p) than upgrading the old DVDs to Bluray. There was more market penetration with VHS to DVD. - large 3D tv screens : the explosive growth is smaller screens on mobile phones playing Youtube rather than 3D content like Avatar. 3D is now seen as a gimmick fad. History has shown that we always overestimate how technical "quality" drives consumer adoption. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound