Praise for Uverse

Like so many other gearheads that have to try new stuff, we had ATT@T's Uverse service installed this past week. Our decision was also spurred along by repeated DirecTV equipment failures, problematic service issues, and the fact that we occasionally like to watch TV when it rains.

Install was a breeze, requiring only a phone line (to get the signal into the house). One CAT5 runs to the HDDVR downstairs, and another runs to a central residential gateway (fancy name for a modem). We used existing coax in the house to feed the other two TVs.

This service is really slick. Since each STB is essentially a media server device, all three boxes share information. That means anything recorded on the main DVR downstairs can be viewed on any of the other TVs. Although only the downstairs STB does the actual recording, any box can add programs to record, and any can play back recordings. Also, all three are HD-ready (with HDMI) out of the box. Interestingly, HD recordings are downconverted to the two analog sets we still have, providing excellent PQ on non-HD displays. Also, since most HD broadcasts carry a Dolby Digital audio stream, that remains intact on secondary TVs. Very cool.

Media Share is a recent function on the STBs that allow them to pull information from your computer (such as pictures, music, and videos, although I only do pix), and show them with intact folder naming on all three displays. My Xbox360 can do this, but slower, and I don't have one in each room.

As I type this, I'm running on 3Mb download/1Mb upload, also from Uverse. Internet and TV is allocated, so usage elsewhere in the home is not parasitic (in other words, if all three TVs are showing something, the internet doesn't slow down). I'm contemplating moving to 6Mb for only $5 more a month, for a total of $35. That's less (surprise) than what 4Mb cost us from Charter.

Essentially, with three TVs with DVR functionality and broadband will save us about $30 monthly vs the DirecTV/Charter combo we've been running for the past four years. For this, we receive excellent reliability, increased media sharing functionality, and superior DVR. I can recommend this to anyone that has access to the service. Call AT@T if you've been less-than-satisfied with your existing setup.

Comcast vs DirecTV

One of the typical strategies for companies that are having trouble competing in the marketplace is to look for a specific asset they control that has an impact on other parts of the same industry, and using that asset to squeeze their competition.

Comcast "controls" distribution of VS, currently the channel that offers the most NHL broadcasts (especially during the playoffs.) Although VS is almost never in the top 30 channels nationally, Comcast feels compelled to raise the sub fee to over 49 cents a month(!) That is, frankly, insane. VS, as of the NHL playoffs last season, was subbing in at somewhere around 29 cents, which was still a little high even then. DirecTV subscribers that love the NHL liked VS, because apparently ESPN feels that competitive poker and bull riding gets better numbers. Actually in the US, it might, but I digress.

If you are a DirecTV subscriber, do not petition them or complain to them about this issue. This is clearly the responsibility of Comcast to wise up. I cannot blame DirecTV for refusing to pay exorbitant rates for a channel that doesn't pay for itself right now.

Negotiations are still ongoing, with a (preliminary) date of October 1 for a resolution. Hopefully, this will turn into much ado about nothing, but in the meantime, you may hold sympathy for Comcast for being so petty and misguided.

Waiting for the Hammer to Drop

Since the events of the past week I have to report with some happiness that I haven't received numerous complaints about "TVs not working". It seems some, or most of you, paid attention to the DTV cutoff and did something about it. Those that haven't, well, you probably also don't have a computer to read this.

Point is, I have seen more casual TV shoppers (for better or for worse; interestingly, mainly female) than in recent memory in a shop like mine. The thing I was dreading were phone call after phone call about signals not coming in anymore, but that seems in my corner of the universe to have been temporarily avoided.

Let's hope that people that use TV as a lifeline to the outside world, or in the case of many, offer the only companionship in their lives, find a way to keep the boob tube burning.

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.