HDMI: More Than Meets The Eye Pattern

HDMI, or High Definition Multimedia Interface, was at its core, designed to satiate Hollywood's concerns over piracy and copyright management. As the concept needed to be sold to the average consumer, the benefits were (are) presented as easier and simplified connectivity, while potentially offering superior performance. Like so many things in this industry, the design and goals of the system are steeped in good intentions, and the results can be great, but there are some issues surrounding this subject that still perplex many. Certainly, companies that manufacture low-cost cabling, along with partner organizations and websites that sell it, may gloss over some issues that need to be addressed.

The first issue is cost of an HDMI cable, relative to its goals. Cost can be a factor of many things, whether it's distribution, packaging, associated marketing budgets, etc. HDMI however is victim to an interesting phenomenon that afflicts many digital cables out there--the idea that "if it's digital, the signal either gets there or it doesn't."

Well kids, it ain't that easy.

The first of many quasi-technical terms one may encounter along this research journey is "eye pattern". This is the pattern that one sees when viewing the "pattern" a signal generates while traveling over the cable. Example:
OK, so the cable passes the test. All we need to know, right? Not so fast. Admittedly, the eye pattern test is the fastest and best cursory test for whether an HDMI cable passes muster. Over certain distances (and this is where many consumers think they have to be really good guessers or engineers to know this) the center of the hexagonal shape in the center of the eye pattern gets smaller. If the red "box" in the middle touches the purple hexagon, the cable fails. This manifests itself by something called the "cliff effect." This addresses a scenario whereby a signal on an HDMI cable has a very specific distance it can travel, before one starts to see "sparklies" in the image. Seeing these artifacts means that you are very close to seeing nothing at all--over the cliff's edge, in other words. Cheaply-manufactured cables may proclaim that they produce products that "meet HDMI spec", but if a cable that passes a rudimentary eye pattern test under certain conditions fails under real-world conditions, the consumer shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden. The catch is, how does one know how much money is required before they can avoid this issue?

The solution here is easier than one may think. Gauge and manufacturer make all the difference when making a purchase determination. The HDMI consortium use place-holder terms like "high speed" to make consumers at-a-glance understand what they're looking at. This can actually confuse the issue, since looking at the physical cable in the package may not yield much apparent difference. Here is what that type of terminology means:

• Standard (or “category 1”) cables have been tested to perform at speeds of 75Mhz, which is the equivalent of a 1080i signal.
• High Speed (or “category 2”) cables have been tested to perform at speeds of 340Mhz, which is the highest bandwidth currently available over an HDMI cable and can successfully handle 1080p signals including those at increased color depths and/or increased refresh rates. High-Speed cables are also able to accommodate higher resolution displays, such as WQXGA cinema monitors (resolution of 2560 x 1600).

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#49

Today, high-speed is not "necessary" given most applications, especially in what I call "rack-lengths" which are typically three to six feet. Where it makes total sense is in scenarios where perhaps a room is being remodeled and new cabling is being pulled. It's a good idea to ensure some semblance of "future-proofing" the wiring as much as possible, and pulling a high-speed HDMI is part of that prescription. Remember, HDMI can carry uncompressed 7.1 channel audio, plus 1080p video. This is an enormous amount of data. Two CAT-5 ethernet cables would have to be run to equal one HDMI cable. Sure, high-speed costs more, but probably less than having an installer come back and pull another cable a few years down the road.

So again, the rule of thumb is this: Purchase from reputable companies that either source from established cable manufacturers, or are well-known themselves for their own house products. Extremely inexpensive HDMI cables, while tempting, are a recipe for frustration, especially if they are installed in a semi-permanent environment, such as a sealed wall or ceiling. Do it right the first time, so you can look forward to technical updates instead of being frustrated by them.

The Auto-Calibration Trap

Modern receivers and processors like to employ in some shape of form an "auto-calibration" system, that attempts to look at how speakers interact in the room, and "curve" the response to be flatter and more accurate. The key with this feature is to understand exactly what it does and doesn't do, and adjust your expectations accordingly.

Audyssey, Pioneer's MCACC, and Yamaha's YPAO (chicken) all attempt to, using a mic about the size of a disposable pen, look at up to eight seating positions and average out problematic frequencies (frequency peaks are typically more of a concern than valleys, which are caused by speaker cancellation due to improper placement, and cannot be resolved by boosting a frequency that isn't there). Most of these systems lack sufficient resolution under 50Hz (sometimes higher), and often do not offer the granularity required to "fix" whatever it thinks is right. What is does do is equalize speaker levels, relative distances, and alert to phasing issues that can result in thin bass. Plug in your Bic mic, keep the room relatively quiet for five minutes, and you (presumably) have a better result that you did before. Keep in mind, this process will typically alter the sound of your speakers to allow them to play nicer in their environment. This is the McDonald's hamburger option to room calibration.

The Spago version is far more complex. Sure it's pricier, but the results are far better. Utilizing spectral room analysis with various laptop-based programs, real microphones (calibrated to the task), and the know-how of the techs, this room examination can reveal things in spaces that were thought to be "good" before. The process typically results in a several page full-color analysis of room modes that can then be used to deploy the appropriate types of treatments in the room to ensure a response that allows the listeners to "reach out and touch" the performance. This addresses everything, from where to place seating areas, speakers, screens/displays, and even the type of sound rating the door to the room should have.

Key in this process is the fact that it addresses the structure of the room itself, not just how certain speakers react in a pre-existing environment. Isolating the room (also known as "floating") allows the equipment to not fight the space it's in. This creates an interesting scenario, in which people discover environmental and effect sounds that were not heard before, improving dialogue, and enhancing dynamics. Note that speaker frequency response is not affected, so what you fell in love with sonically is not fundamentally altered; just optimized through improvement of the acoustic space. Again, the room is treated from the studs in, leaving the electronics alone other than ensuring proper setup. Audyssey in fairness does a good job of smoothing uniformity of response over a given listening area, but only after the room is adequately addressed structurally. The analogy of using room calibration to solve a room's ills without doing anything else is using fine-grit sandpaper to cut down a tree.

As with anything, there are price considerations to be made whenever courses of action are considered. Buying a new receiver will get you some semblance of room calibration, it's just important to realize that in this scenario, the room itself isn't being optimized in any way. Proper room (and system) analysis will determine needs, goals, proper equipment for the task, and development of the space involved to all work in synergy so that finally you can hear what's on the disc--maybe for the first time ever.

The Brain

Sometimes I create a post, and it strikes me that the topic I'm about to address really should have been resolved three to five years ago. Nonetheless, there isn't a day that goes by that I'm not questioned by someone about what looks like an old subject.

The most important component (besides speakers) of any system is by a clear head the receiver/processor. The receiver is literally the hub that everything funnels into, from audio/video signals, camcorders plugged into front panel jacks, iPod docks; the list goes on. Folks ask me all the time, "what do I need on these things, and how inexpensive can I go?" And while the answer to that involves more than a simple list of features, there are some quick, significant things to examine to make sure you aren't putting yourself behind the curve as you walk out the door. Notice that power ratings aren't on the list.

HDMI and HDMI upconversion: At least three inputs, one output. HDMI is already the de facto digital standard for modern components. Ensure they're 1.3 compliant (most will be). I see new devices everyday that only have HDMI and composite. HDMI upconversion allows one HDMI cable to be run to the television; the receiver takes any signal S-video and up, and converts it to something than can be sent via that single wire. Simplifies connections, makes holes in the wall smaller, and helps to counter remote juggling.

Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD decoding: At some point, you will probably replace your older DVD player with a BluRay player. Although you may not dive in immediately into BluRay as a format, if you do, it makes a ton of sense to ensure that lossless audio formats can be decoded in the receiver, thus retaining all the settings and bass management that are applied to everything else. This is important to ensure all of the parameters of your system are handled correctly, since the processing options in most players are heavily watered-down, and can possibly conflict with the settings already programmed in the receiver.

Second/third zone output: It's nice to be able to have music in the house, and the ballgame on the patio, all amplified and switched from one receiver.

Room correction: This is the least important of all of these, but for people maybe a little technophobic, auto-calibration routines can be incredibly helpful to handle the distance, level, and speaker size settings automatically. This can be useful also to help counter the fact that more than likely, main speakers will be a different size (and certainly shape) than the center, which will also be different than the surrounds. Auto-calibration can help mitigate these physical differences to place the listener in a more-believable "bubble" of sound.

Today, many of the things we used to refer to as "future formats" are here. Therefore, having a receiver that is truly plug-and-play is easier than ever, since there's less of a mystery as to what's coming down the road. The good news is, no matter what those formats may be, there is a 99% chance that HDMI will be the connection of choice. Don't paint yourself into a corner; you can get a receiver that will truly last you 10-15 years without any trouble if you pay attention to some basic issues.

HD Hubris

Of all the annoying phrases and pieces of marketing-speak that I've been exposed to over the years, the winner for the silliest (right above "reputable internet vendor") is "FullHD" (sometimes inaccurately referred to, but not to be confused with Dolby's audio format "TrueHD"). Just what is "FullHD?"

Let me help.

"FullHD" is Sony marketing at work. Period. Sony developed that phrase to infer that anything less than 1080p is not high definition. This is news to those that have owned beautiful 1080i high-def RPTVs and 720p flat panels, most of whom today still have no objection over their sets.

Here's the interesting part, and the one that needs to be spotlighted. Although 1080p existed in various types of televisions for awhile, it wasn't until Sony introduced their 1080p LCD sets to market that "FullHD" as a slogan was seen. Ironically (although not surprisingly) the release of the PS3 also carried this logo, in an attempt to infer that the 720p-based Xbox 360 was also deficient. The thrust of these statements is that even 1080p isn't good enough; it has to be Sony's iteration of 1080p. Let's ignore the other 18 versions of high-res formats. Nonsense.

Why is this an issue worth taking umbrage over? The idea that one company's definition of what constitutes the state of a certain technology is highly egotistical, and factually incorrect. As I've said many times on previous posts, the last thing the industry needs is to create more confusion in the marketplace. "Leaders" like Sony have a history of taking advantage of their name brand recognition to manipulate the buying public and influence the followers in the industry to warp what defines an established set of standards.

And people wonder why marketers aren't trusted.

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.