Functionality vs. Luxury

One of the classic all-time debates revolves around gulfs in price points vs improvement in performance. There is no standard formula, as personal senses of value rule the day. I find many parallels between this issue and another passion of mine; watches. Hopefully we can someday hope to begin to understand that there is more to price positioning than raw issues of functionality.

In audio, the CD has set a "good enough" benchmark for sound. It can be, in fact, very good. CDs incorporate 16-bit sound, which has in many ways failed at the mass-market level to be truly optimized. Whether off the shelf at Best Buy, or a high-end model from a local boutique, two players can and will play the same disc, at the same resolution. Why then would someone pay $5,000 for the boutique model, as opposed to $200 for the base unit? Why would someone spend $6,000 on a Panerai that they may have to hand-wind, vs a Seiko that runs on a battery at $600?

The parallels are only different in that the subjects are different.

The audio world has built an entire mythos around the "promise" of what CD sound can offer (for simplicity, we'll eliminate formats like SACD). Increasing the "air" around instruments, the fit-and-finish of the devices, and the decisions made by certain designers hand-building these units, all create appeal. Indeed on paper, these units may not "look" different in terms of sound, the differences can be staggering in terms of sound stage. But beyond that, these are devices that are generally purchased by those that do not compromise with any purchase decision. The market must reach to meet the demand of those that want the exclusive, brand-cache-laden items (think Harley-Davidson). The fact is that almost unfailingly, these units will embarrass lesser devices. Of course among similar units, the differences are more perception-based, either by a certain voicing applied to the playback, or the combination of aesthetics and performance. The differences thus rely on individuals to decide, based on their tastes and experiences, if a premium audio device is worth it. The specs do not (and cannot) tell all of the story. This is a very difficult concept to convey in the age of Googling our various truths in an attempt to remove the effort required to acquire actual knowledge.

This issue gets even broader when we discuss turntables and vinyl. There is (and always will be) a strong feeling among many that vinyl is "superior" to CD. Although one may prefer the sound of vinyl on a good turntable, generally in many ways it is inferior--or at least equal to--the CD counterpart. Plenty of perfectly happy CD listeners find however that since replacing the tonearm, cartridge, and preamp can dramatically alter the sound of an otherwise-pedestrian unit, there is a sense of "connection" to that piece, and a sense that they have created a custom sound. Clearly, no matter the amount spent, these people have increased their enjoyment using what (on paper) is an "inferior" format. There is more to ownership than pure functionality.

The watch world takes a slightly different tack. Here, the movement (guts) of the watch can be exceedingly critical in terms of eliciting a certain aura around the various brands. More interestingly though, the history around the brands takes on a life of its own, creating an appeal that can be community-based, structured around a mutual love for the brands in question. Using Panerai once again as an example (Paneristi.com), the more faithful a design is to the original that Italian Naval special ops divers used in WWII, the more appeal the unit has. This has nothing to do with timekeeping ability (although this brand excels in that regard). To that end, it is ironic (but relevant) that better watches that tend to operate on automatic or hand-wound movements can be less accurate than your $20 digital offering, but that honestly is a small concern in the grand scheme.

Anyone outside of a hobby can understandably be confused as to why a model train collector spends $50 on a fake to-scale pine tree, or some audiophile would drop $500 on a set of interconnects, or why a watch fanatic would offer up $300 on a leather strap made from a Swiss ammo pouch from WWII. Love of the hobby, and a sense of contribution to a larger community all matter when making purchasing decisions is the short and truthful answer. I hope at some point naysayers (jealous) folks discover a passion that they can find joy in, looking past the droll specifications on a white paper, and find magic in the details.

Plasma TV and the Tragedy of Misinformation

Well, the other shoe appears to be dropping in the TV Wars.

Pioneer is exiting the plasma business by March, 2010. On a welcome note, so is Vizio.

With this news, we can assume that plasma will be seeing a very low level of visibility in manufacturers' lineups. This is a shame, since anyone truly familiar with the technologies of various video displays understands that, broadly speaking, plasma will give viewers better black levels, more accurate color, and superior off-axis viewing. Sure, some sets are a little glare-happy on their screens, but that typically is countered by a glare coating applied to mitigate that issue. This is truly annoying to any self-professed videophile, not wanting to have to sacrifice picture quality based on rumors and speculation about burn-in or lifespan, which have never been correct. Just about a month ago (10+ years after plasma truly hit the ground running), I had a client ask me, "So, have they ever fixed the problem of having to refill the sets after the plasma leaks out?" Trying to stifle laughter, I felt compelled to re-train this person on the differences, and dispel some idiocy that unfortunately came his way.

So what caused this radical decision on the part of the industry leader in performance plasma? Mythology, poor advice at the retail level (read the post about Circuit City's demise below), and spreading of rampant rumors.

Plasma has had a bad rap since the outset, mainly due to the fact that initially, the technology was really only seen in commercial environments. In those places (airports, restaurants, office foyers, etc) nobody really pays attention to the settings of the TV, nor do they typically pay much attention to the content thereon. In such situations, it's no wonder that people saw cooked TVs--but not due to the "inherent flaws" the technology possesses. Today, one will be steered towards LCD tech in probably 8/10 situations, simply because it's a risk-averse technology--no one screaming at the salesperson about how their kid burned in Super Mario, QVC is now a permanent channel, or how they can't in good conscience use the set due to "green" issues regarding power consumption.

In what seems to be a flailing, failing attempt to at least continue the good fight, below I have listed myths regarding certain issues, and how it affects both LCD and plasma. For the sake of simplicity, I will omit other TV tech.

1. Plasma TVs don't last any more than a few years: Both LCD and plasma are rated at anywhere from 60,000 to 85,000 hours of viewing, based on five hours per day. Although it is true LCD trend higher on that scale, the myth of "four to five years" of life for plasmas is and has been ridiculous.

2. LCDs are more energy efficient: What year are we discussing? True, most LCDs were more efficient, but the truth is that after a plasma TV is properly dialed back from the torch-like settings found out of the box, the numbers are surprisingly close--so close as to be virtually irrelevant.

3. Plasmas leak: No.

4. A 120hz LCD is better with fast motion than a plasma: 120hz frame interpolation was designed to keep up with plasma's inherently superior refresh abilities at the pixel level. It still looks less natural, but better than 60hz tech.

I could go on, but the point is that unfortunately, the desire to hire the cheapest wage-earners at big box stores is bringing about the demise of a great technology in plasma TV. Of course, they aren't the only culprit, but as clerks, their jobs are to take orders and move products, not educate. In fact, in these environments, the consumer typically has the product-education upper hand.

Down the line, when people are suffering with the quirks of various successor technologies, this period of time will hopefully be looked at with a measure of perspective. Probably not though, and the cycle will repeat, claiming another superior technology that is too good to be understood (and therefore sold) by the retailers that display the largest selection.

So Long Satellite Radio

Although it appears Liberty Media will invest approximately $530 million into Sirius XM, with the partnership recently trading at close to 15 cents a share, satellite radio appears to be on life support. And although I feel bad for the impact on rent-a-car companies, it may be time to pull the plug.

I think there are any number of reasons for this. First and foremost is the iPod. The fact is, people will still gravitate towards functional, simple, customized things--and prioritize their use accordingly. Folks can already develop their own playlists, mimicking the type of station they would have been drawn to anyway. With any portable device as simple as an iPod, the knowledge that what you want to hear is there, without incessant channel flipping. Back when I had Sirius in my car about three years ago, I would be so curious about what was out there, I never listened to anything.

Second is the fact that for many, radio should be free. A lot of people cannot fathom why they would pay for a "radio" service, when they already have free access to music and the right equipment for it. Of course, there are a great many people that already understand how most radio stations are harbingers of predictable, formulaic music (sure, occasionally a great college station changes perceptions). Plus, since you had to surf channels anyway to find the interesting stuff, it became more of a task than an enjoyable thing. The alternative was listening to the same three channels--wait, just like terrestrial radio!

Third is performance. I never had a day go by where even passing under an overpass at the posted speed limit (of course) didn't result in an annoying three-second dropout of the feed. This was despite the fact I was under the obstruction for less than a second. Forget about tree cover or heavily inclimate weather. Combine that with the low-bitrate MP3 sound quality, and I found myself listening to the iPod or a CD anyway. Poor quality variety is still poor quality, and it's nice not to be tense over when a feed may drop out under little provocation.

Finally though, this format has lost its way. By throwing large dollar amounts at known talent, and not (obviously) clearly understanding the costs involved with maintaining satellite-based broadcasting, XM/Sirius buried itself under a financial mountain it couldn't dig itself out from. Originally based on the premise that one couldn't hear things like what one would find on one of these premium services anywhere else, the music at the end of the day still managed to trend mainstream. Sure, Stern could finally be as lewd as wanted to be, but the music stagnated. Plus, any satellite TV subscriber already had one service or the other at home, so for many, a secondary subscription just for the car was viewed as unnecessary. In these belt-tightening times, such redundancies will always be first to the chopping block.

We always have to applaud any innovator, attempting to fill a perceived void in services or products. That's what makes the free market so great. It is a shame to see these efforts wasted through poor preliminary planning and decision making along the way. Let's hope that through some miracle, these promising services can be resurrected.

The Perpetually Delayed Transition

FCC Chair Appointee Julius Genachowski

Improvement is often times painful. Different from simple change, where we simply replace one thing with another, improvement is an actual move forward. Although the DTV transition will most certainly be an issue for people lacking the ability to make requisite changes (many will be forced to incur expense for an attic or rooftop antenna for example), the bandwidth-freeing move for increased telecommunications and increased quality for television programming is necessary. Many EU countries and Japan have enjoyed the benefits of digital broadcasting for some time now, and just as many are going through the growing pains along side of us.

This week, the House and Congress voted to push back the transition (again) to June 2009. To me, this is a mistake. In order to not only make the monkey wrench and throw it in the gears, The FCC is allowing broadcasters to still shut off analog on Feb. 17th as originally planned! I can't wait for this patchwork rollout to cause mass confusion and stagnate interest even further.

Although it surprises many that the transition initiative was originally passed back in 1996, it's important to understand that there are many unfortunate folks that do not have the ability or resources to gather the correct information or make the proper changes even if so equipped. To people like me, this is all old news, and although it can get a little tedious when people ask me about something that "should" have been on their radar for a decade, I do understand that many simply don't care and just want their stuff to work. Let me therefore preface the upcoming opinions with a disclaimer: I sympathize with those that will suffer difficulty during this transition period, and it bothers me a little to read comments on other sites such as "let them watch snow", and "too bad old people lol" and other chat room detritus.

That said, we have to stop letting the lazy kids slow the class down. In remarking on the decision, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said that the delay was made "in the interest of protecting the consumer." Are we to believe that anyone that is ill-prepared after 13 years during the largest consumer electronics transition in history will be ready in four months? FCC Chair Robert McDowell said "I'm glad my colleagues in Congress and President Obama agreed that a delay was necessary and took action to protect the millions of consumers at risk of losing their television signal." These millions had over a decade to get their ducks in a row. In fairness, the same is true for any broadcaster not ready for advancement.

Over-the-air tuners have been available since 1999. Just not free ones.

I recently held a DTV transition seminar this past Fall to a group of retirees. A local bank's marketing coordinator decided that, in the spirit of community outreach, it would be good to have an expert discuss this issue in-depth. The attendees understood that the upcoming change was an unstoppable force, that was going to happen like it or not. I happily assuaged many of their fears (this transition is not a big deal for the consumer logistically), and informed them of ways to make the most of this transition. They ate cookies, drank coffee, and left happy. This was in stark contrast to the near-daily rants on the phone (and in person on occasion), essentially accusing the CE industry and the government of a collusive money-grab on an unsuspecting populace. These sentiments ignore the billions the fed is spending to subsidize the hardware requirements (no folks, you don't have to purchase a new TV; you just need the proper tuner), and an equal fortune spent by broadcasters to purchase new gear to facilitate high definition. In what can only be described as an act of guilty contrition, the fed elected yet again to delay this needed move even further.

Let's face it, all things considered, the benefits of this technology are many. Although the hype is increased picture and sound (which can be dazzling), other benefits such as multi-casting, increased immunity to fluctuations in signal quality, and a host of others makes the format clearly superior. In fact, on the picture quality side of the equation, over-the-air high definition channels typically offer a superior image to the same channel viewed over cable or satellite. Thanks to compression and digitization, broadcasters can fit multiple channels of high-quality audio and high resolution video in the same space as one analog channel.

I personally cannot wait for the analog towers to "go dark" once and for all. Let the new age of programming and media services begin in earnest, sooner rather than later. I personally tire of the delays--delays that only cause confusion and increased cynicism.

For more information, call the FCC: 1-888-CALL-FCC

Why Circuit City Failed

I suppose the first response anyone will have to the question of why Circuit City failed is "they're not Best Buy, and they tried to trade punches with them." While that might be true, their tale is a cautionary one for every existing and wanna-be retailer in this industry.

Don't just let inexperience sell product and hope for the best.

This is increasingly a service industry, much like restaurants and the hotel game. Debating over the cost of the individual ingredients, or having the customer argue with the chef over how to cook the meal takes a backseat to the final product. Discounts only happen if a colossal mistake is made; not due to price competition over what's on the menu. If the environment and end product is worth positive word-of-mouth, that establishment will thrive and be allowed to remain profitable.

Custom retailers already know that without calibration, acoustic design, and any number of other specialized services, going toe-to-toe vs the net or big-box retailers is a good way to get your doors chained shut. Skills and services can never be commoditized, especially in markets where the retailer finds a niche skill set and pushes that service as essential.

Is all this obvious? Well, it should be, but even in the presence of services like Firedog, it was apparent that Circuit City thought they could be a "Best Buy Light" and ride the coattails of that company's success. But about two years ago, Circuit decided it was in their best interest to terminate all of their top earners. Typically, the top earners are also the top producers, and they never wanted to replace them with anyone other than outcasts from their competition. This was witnessed on a smaller scale a few years back with the downscaling of Ultimate Electronics. Once the darling of the industry, certain restructuring and changes to compensation plans forced the professionals to evacuate the organization (or move into management), with the predictable influx of people excised from other chain stores now manning the sales floor. Combine that with a dilution of quality in the product mix, and all but a handful of stores closed.

In the market the CE industry finds itself in, having kids as your sales staff means that among the predictable problems of poor system design, you have the lack of experience needed to push essential services, because they simply are unaware of them, or do not know why they're needed (in an effort to sell video calibrations, Best Buy was caught trying to circumvent this reality by displaying "calibrated" televisions next to ones supposedly out of the box. The reality was (is?), the disparate displays were running high definition and the standard-definition version of the same program side-by-side. All it took was for the youthful individual manning the display to just point at the two images and allow the consumer to make their decision based on what their eyes told them).

What large retailers should do without hesitation is to really decide if the $6.50/hr folks on the floor are what is needed to maintain the level of service that is needed to keep the doors open. In other words, take the direct opposite approach Circuit City took. Alternatively, return to a commission-based sales floor where supplying superior customer service and knowing the offerings is worth it to the personnel (and to the consumer). Problems, poor advice, and shoddy experiences tend to be inversely proportional to the compensation of the staff. Unfortunately, the folks with the experience and relevant education are often sequestered in a manager's office, detached from the customer until the inevitable problem occurs. Horror stories (once discovered) are often quickly reported on any number of websites and discussion boards, and allowing inexperienced individuals to dictate the public's perception of their business will not save them money; indeed it will cost them, possibly catastrophically. Given the inability of Circuit to move old inventory (staffing issue) and lack of pushing proper services to wrap around those products that are moved (staffing issue) we have the answer to their demise wrapped up in a nutshell.

Ipod: Audiophile's Best Friend

So, here is some serious heresy to my industry colleagues:

I think the iPod and iTunes are essential for serious music listeners.

OK, stop laughing.

Something that permeates all aspects of this industry is that although it is by nature a very technical one--especially as it pertains to high-end integration of elaborate systems--at the end of the day, the experience and ease of using the gear must weave themselves into our daily lifestyles to be a true success. In fact, part of why elaborate home automation and audio/video server installations can be so costly is the fact that whom one uses to do the work places the difficulty on themselves during design and installation, so that the users can simply use. The key is, can any device be a true lifestyle enhancement, or another widget to cart around?

I couldn't write anything new about the iPod that hasn't already been written, but I think the essential thing that's missing is the fact that this little ubiquitous device has made people rediscover not only their own music collections, but seek out and find new music that perhaps they would never have prior. I know this is the case for me, especially when exploring a new genre or a buzz band. And, more to the point, I also firmly believe that this device can be traced to a phenomenon that even the most skeptical audiophile can appreciate: The resurgence of interest in turntables and vinyl.

In talking with many people that are starting to garage-sale shop for vintage turntables, hitting used-record shops and their parents' basements for records, and wanting to get these older machines up and running, something interesting emerges.

Almost to a person, they're "bored" with digital.

The rub about this phenomenon is that they almost all say that they "discovered" older bands and different genres through exploring various websites and placing "samples" (I won't get into copyright stuff here) in their iPod for perusal. Compounded by the fact that many well-known groups are issuing new albums on heavy-gram wax, and you have one of the most ironic twists the industry has ever known.

It seems the most accessible and well-known device to play back and discover music in history is actually helping sales of a completely (seemingly) unrelated format. And, this competing format was supposed to have "died" twenty-odd years ago. One can now read about the need for a good record player even in such non-audio publications like GQ and the Robb Report. Terms like "enveloping" and "luxurious sound" abound in these articles, and it isn't too far of a stretch to assume that terms like those are alien to the average 128kbps user. With all due respect to them, it seems in increasing numbers, they are also aware of this fact, and are seeking out the format long-known for both warm and authentic sound. The permeation of digitized music seems to be causing an intense desire among even non-hobbyists to return to the roots of musical playback.

So when you pick up a audiophile-oriented publication, and read the lamentations of the editor about how the "iPod is killing quality", just realize that really isn't happening (at least not in the epidemic numbers assumed in those articles). In fact, it's helping a new generation discover music and the type of sound that older generations have long enjoyed.

The Value of Shopping Outside the Mainstream

It's an interesting phenomenon to witness the evolution of tech used in personal and home entertainment. The infusion of cheap, decently-performing (to many anyway) gear and the accessibility of it creates an atmosphere that says that cheap is OK, since tech moves so quickly. This creates a feeling that investing in quality is pointless, since the features change so rapidly as to create a feeling to many consumers that the investment made is behind the curve as soon as they make the purchase.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

Paying attention to the latest of anything--taking the "bleeding edge" approach to purchases--is a key mistake. What this does is takes the onus off of performance and build quality, and places it in the area of feature-set. What bells and whistles are on board a piece of gear takes precedence over long-term quality and immediate performance. In fact, even professional television calibrators (ISF) will happily inform you that resolution is towards the bottom of the list when it comes to judging image quality. Sony's marketing engine would have you think just the opposite, calling 1080p "true high definition" creating the perception that without, one has a deficient television. The industry does this to itself all the time--creating mixed messages, counteracting themselves, and causing consumer confusion--all to get consumers to move from one product to the next in a stressful game of leapfrog.

In years of watching equipment flippers and what I call "format chasers"--people that jump all over emerging, untested "next best thing" formats (SACD, DVD-Audio, BluRay)--it seems that inevitably the equipment is mired horribly in the mainstream. In fact, there is a strong sentiment among consumers that BluRay will "never succeed" until the average price point for the players is $99 or less. In other words, there is a perception that in order for the format to succeed, the industry must do everything in its power to reduce the performance of the hardware to its most base elements. The advice I've always given is to pursue maximizing existing, proven formats (CD, DVD) which has an almost inexhaustible amount of software and works 99.9% of the time. In fact, if I had a nickel for every time someone finally came clean and admitted that if if only they had bought that one great system the first time (as opposed to constantly moving from one quasi-system to the next), I wouldn't have to waste my time on this stupid blog.

:)

The thing is, these formats have a lot more potential than most give credit for. Of course, playing them back on a $299 receiver and $89 Walgreen's DVD player will maybe leave you with a different impression. This isn't snobbery; it's fact. Anytime you read that "everything sounds the same anyway" you should immediately recognize that person as an individual that despite his claims, will never be happy with anything he owns. Deep down, that individual knows that either ignorance is bliss, or his wallet has a far heavier influence than his eyes and ears.

The elixir is not using that same cheap-is-OK model, hoping that a new "super format" will solve the ills that are really hardware-based. The advice is to always invest in at least one level higher than you might think you're comfortable with. This involves really any purchase, and is sound if you believe that spending a little more initially will give you increased pride of ownership, reliability, and enjoyment.