3D Digital Television is Close to its Goal

It seems like yesterday that the consuming public saw HDTV for the first time. Driven by sports and the then-beginning-to-flourish home theater market, HD sets were hailed as the most important thing since color. In a few short years, it became not only (relatively) inexpensive, but today operates at a performance level that would have been easily 5-figures had this level of quality arrived at the turn of the century. With margins slimming to dangerous levels, and an opportunity afforded by BluRay disc, the industry looks to 3D (yes, that 3D) to re-define the television landscape.

3D televisions require glasses for optimum performance. The ones that do not have a very small usable space with which to view content at any reasonable quality level. The small viewing window is reminiscent of the "head in the vice" issue hindering various faux-surround technologies. This presents, as 3D has always presented us, with a problem. Most consumers' reservations about 3D television revolves around the use of a peripheral device, making viewers look like a techy Buddy Holly, just to watch the show. Imagine if everyone had to use headphones to listen to stereo; the medium would probably still only be the province of the dedicated hobbyist.

It's hard to point to current demand and price points as relevant obstacles. Demand will increase as prices fall (as with any other item in the consumer electronics world), the majority of customers will be happy to wait that out, and let early adopters eat depreciation. Many of course still have fully-functional and high performance televisions, while others still simply aren't interested. The major obstacle (and the industry appears to be aware of this) is the lifestyle impediment concerns revolving around expensive and breakable ancillary devices, required or basic use. As the iPod has proven, it isn't really that a certain technology has to be eye-popping from a tech point of view to make the public want it; it's that the technology must perform well at an extreme level of convenience and intuitiveness. Companies that will make the most headway into this arena will develop outstanding images from 3D televisions that will work with any source, and do not require extra stuff to lose, break, or get tired of.

That said, having viewed 3D, the reviewer can happily report that the images are very good, and certain sets can indeed upconvert 2D images to a reasonable level of quality. Premium content providers are launching dedicated 3D televisions. Like the HD dilemma of recent memory, many are saying that the technology is great, but unless one purchases all of the accessories, BluRay player, and the right discs, there is precious little out there to justify the expense. While that isn't entirely accurate, perception in the marketplace drives sales, accurate or not. That said, the promise is there. Once the industry figures out a way to make all content appear as through the viewers are looking into a moving diorama with viewing angles at least as good as an average LCD television, it will hit full stride. As long as they remember that the only spectacles viewers want are on-screen, the technology is poised for great success.

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity in Audio

Audiophiles generally pursue the "ultimate sound," which is interpreted as sound in the listening environment that most closely simulates live music. However, many producers and mixers like to "juice" the sound, enhancing bass and treble such that the music has a chance of some fidelity in less than optimal environments, such as cars and through MP3 players. Given that an audiophile is classically not interested in either of those listening venues, should they disregard seeking out components that faithfully reproduce inaccurate sound?

The objectivist crowd loves to point to graphs and charts, displaying which component is most faithful to the incoming sine wave, and the reality that even mediocre gear can reproduce sound nearly as well as the megabuck gear. If we are to assume that this test gear can measure sound that exceeds that of human hearing, the question remains - does that which humans cannot hear factor into relevant measurements for audio equipment?

Consumers require objective measurements to offer a comparative baseline for evaluating components, prior to taking the time to audition them. What matters in the end (subjectivists and centrists argue) however is what is heard, whether that's "accurate" to a test instrument or not is a matter of semantics. Many cannot be satisfied that what they are hearing is accurate if the graphs don't support it. What becomes interesting though is how the original mix on the recording medium compares to real music (remember, that's all audiophiles care about). Therefore, if the mix on the CD doesn't compare favorably to real music, but the device that plays back the inaccurate CD offers a "flavoring" that allows mimicking of that live event, which is more critical?

Double blind testing solves much of this issue. Presented with a bank of gear, speakers, and interconnects, listeners are encouraged to select which they prefer consistently, absent visual cues. Without knowledge of what is playing, listeners cannot pre-form biases based on brand or knowledge of price point. Interestingly, although this testing still relies on human hearing as opposed to the results of a test graph, if the test is to be successful, it still relies on consistent results above the mean (typically greater than 70 percent accuracy). Note however that this type of testing measures preference, since accuracy tends to be subjective when human ears are the only means of measurement.

The debate will never end, since both sides have fundamentally valid arguments. Who can argue that faithfulness to the source is not important? Equally, who can argue that it makes no sense to attempt to seek out gear that pushes the bar closer to real life? The consumer ultimately is the one making the decision here, but in the meantime, plenty of interesting debates are in the offing in many audio-focused websites and magazine publications.

From Showroom to Stripmall

Change is inevitable. Change in the age of the Internet, and its undercutting pricing format, however, has left many specialty dealers with a conundrum: Do they take the hit on the sales of products, only to make the difference up on install, or do they allow customers to get the best price and install only? Hybrid dealers became very successful around the late 1990s, and the savvier ones are actually thriving while many well-known entities have folded their tents.

Although the idea of shopping online for the best price on nearly everything is the de facto practice for the majority of consumers, dealers with well-appointed showrooms have been left wondering whether it was worth the effort and rental space to have done so. In fact, many dealers around 2005 started to move to industrial park-style office spaces, selling from a portfolio book as opposed to a showroom. The logic was then (and is today) inescapable -why pay for showroom space when the margins on equipment no longer allow such a practice? Adding in the fast-paced rate of equipment line turnover, and dealers that did not listen to the call and refused to lower their standing inventory without the product movement to support that course of action were threatened with closure. Many did.

Absent the problems faced with many consumers coming into showrooms to evaluate products never intended for local dealer purchase, custom-only dealers only had to deal with making sure their installation program would work with installing externally-purchased equipment. These dealers (and their hybrid cousins) spent enormous sums to up the install game of their personnel, ensuring their certifications in lighting, networking, and automation were able to stay ahead of the consumer curve. The best dealers managed to create fantastic profit streams, while being only as profitable as necessary on the gear. Concurrently, the reputations of these custom houses have made the idea of purchasing equipment elsewhere a less-savory idea, when the idea that a few of these places won't touch equipment not sold by them. In a turn of events unforeseen by Internet dealers, the better local retailers made their installation services such a draw, that the product they sold ended up maintaining better margins.

The future of custom retailers seems to be a drastic thinning of key lines that are absent online competition, and devoid of big-box presence. This is acceptable for a few reasons; namely, smaller dealers' draw is quality of services. Of course, they cannot compete on a volume basis with larger dealers, so it can't be reasonably expected that they compete tow-to-toe with every price-slashing dealfest every weekend. Although many custom retailers are members of large buying groups (like ProGroup) to help with buying power, if they do everything as expected, the quality and professional nature of what a great custom install dealer can do has more to do with the overall experience than getting the best price. To many consumers, it's well worth the money.

Blind Testing and Audio: Methodology is Everything

Back in 1999, the author was engaged in an impromptu blind test with a co-worker, during one of the many periods of rampant inactivity our shop was experiencing. While potential clients were finding out the hard way about e-commerce and home theater, we decided to engage in a blind test between Denon, and its main rival at the time, Yamaha. The interesting thing we discovered was that, indeed, there were inherent differences in the sound of each unit. This was sparked by a regular client who, at the time, insisted that we couldn't tell the difference, unless we knew which brand we were listening to.

This client was the common sort that would read extensively about the impossibility of unsighted differences in audio gear, and without any experience of his own, formed his stance thus. We found then, as many find today, that indeed, many companies voice their products in such a way as to be unique, while not falling completely outside the bounds of accuracy. Shortly after beginning this test, we elected to DBT between a flagship Denon receiver, and a Macintosh integrated amp, to determine which was which. Again, although closer, we reliably determined each to a degree that would be statistically significant. Typically, differences in speakers are expected, but the idea that solid-state receivers and integrated amplifiers could yield such obvious differences was a little surprising to my co-worker, shocking to the client, and put of grin of knowing on my face.

What many find is that, provided the equipment is similar in spec, there should be similarities in sound to some degree or another. Indeed, certain recordings sounded more alike on all three pieces than others. Scoring a consistent 8/10 on a fast-switch double-blind test was enough. A great majority of those with access to proper switching equipment, worthy gear, and experienced ears tend to have similar results. Often times, expectation of performance results in surprise and disappointment, while other times, inexpensive gear performs outside of its price point.

This fact is critical, in that cost means little. Very often, expensive gear is voiced to appeal to a certain target audience, much the same as a restaurant featuring a chef that presents a certain dish in a way that only he can. In that regard, fidelity becomes an inherently personal thing, with the only issue being if the sound is pleasing to that individual. Equipment manufacturers sometimes make picking out these differences extremely easy, while at others, well-executed mass-market product performs so well against flagship competition that only a sighted test would reveal an audible difference.

The problem audiophiles face is that often times, the gear they worship tends to be one of two things: Handbuilt one-offs that each sound different anyway if there happens to be a second iteration, and re-badged mass-market gear with a few tweaks. Although there is little doubt that audiophiles generally are experienced and finicky enough to tell the difference in a DBT, many lose credibility by not participating in them. To use the aforementioned equipment doesn't help the cause, since there is no set standard to define differences. Given the state of the recording industry, many of these folks would assert that differences in sound quality of equipment rarely matters, since the software played through it is not of sufficient quality to start with. Generally speaking, audiophiles (also recognized as the subjectivist camp) tend to equally ignore most measurements, and focus on the experience of individually evaluating equipment synergies, to determine the best combination of hardware and cabling.

Objectivists (a group that tends to only use human experience as proof of the fact that we can't evaluate equipment properly), asserts that because of bias, the only proper way to ascertain differences in audio equipment is to properly conduct a DBT, or double-blind test. This is the process where a single controller switches quickly between one piece of hardware to another to show differences in sound. Somewhere in the middle between both camps lies the truth. In over 13 years of evaluating all levels of hardware, cabling, and engaging in countless blind testing, the author can assure the reader that both sides hold merit. Where objectivists lose their footing is when they assert that no differences can be reliably ascertained, due to bias and the fact that humans have poor audio memory.

The objectivist camp has a few issues with concepts largely borne from college electrical engineering classes. Although music signals are of course electrical, they happen to be the only electrical signals we sit down and listen to. Therefore, it can only be compared to itself, and in so doing, differences in human hearing matter. It doesn't help their cause to assert that "all solid state amps sound the same, unless one is broken", or that "no DBT has revealed a difference in XYZ." This turns off the ears of those interested in exploring the hobby, and is, frankly, factually incorrect. The lack of white papers from accredited scientists seems to prove their point however, and with the subjectivist crowd unwilling to do much to counter their claims in a scientific manner, the rest of the community is left to wonder whether that megabuck CD player really is better than the WalMart special. Something those that have calibrated car and home audio systems quickly discover is that accurate to a scope doesn't mean pleasing to the ear. Therefore, it stands to reason that differences in audio equipment should be present, expected, and embraced, since the array allows something for everyone.

A real firestorm erupts over cabling. Considered by many to nothing more than pretty lamp cord, interconnects and speaker wire potentially can cause more problems that improvements if not properly utilized. Double-blind testing reveals that sound between these cables can be quite different. It is, therefore, a piece of hardware that needs to be properly integrated into the system, like any other. This tends to make sense, as there are only so many things companies can do with cable design prior to creating an unsafe situation. This holds true especially with high-end power cables, where often times, UL listing is not present due to the interesting topology of the wire. In rare cases, improper speaker wire selection can, in fact, offer such an odd load to an amplifier as to induce oscillation and damage. It is of critical importance to understand however that most hardware companies will only include cabling (if at all) that allows the component to meet performance spec at minimal additional cost. This is notoriously true with audio/video interconnects and power cables. Once basic safety minimums are met, it is up to the consumer to improve on the performance aspect. Given the huge variety of possible equipment permutations, this is rarely something that anyone can recommend or design for. Fortunately for some (and unfortunately for others), this creates a trial-and-error process, where the audiophile must experiment until the proper combination is discovered. One thing about the nature of this beast is that there is always a potential avenue for improvement, so the upgrade cycle rarely ceases.

What the audiophile crowd probably should do is eschew allegiances with old-guard audiophile companies if need be, showing when mass-market equipment stands effectively against esoteric expensive equipment, and when it fails miserably. The issue is, all of these things are true. What isn't true is the reality that objectivists will never support claims of superiority of high-end gear, if the subjectivist crowd will not stand up and call out those brands that are luxury-priced, average performers.

The Future of Cloud Computing

Cloud computing is a metaphor for utilizing the Internet as a resource. The term "cloud" actually refers to the Internet, and is used extensively by small-to-medium sized enterprises. This can be achieved internally, externally, or a hybrid of the two. Services chosen are based on existing resources, IT management, and concerns over physical storage. In 2010, most SMEs will probably deploy some shape or form of cloud computing. The concept of cloud computing is analogous to the way businesses over a century ago stopped producing power via their own steam engines, and plugged into the grid.

Utilization of the technology follows a simple concept of "purchasing" resources from a third-party provider, similar to purchasing electrical service from that utility provider. This allows SMEs to reduce expenditure on internal computing resources, and only pay for that which they use. Concurrently, companies can purchase packages that specify a set amount of usage, with overages billable, similar to many cell phone contracts. To that end, many communications service providers are targeting businesses to offer cloud services, especially those that have a significant percentage of telecommuting employees. Although many analysts believe that cloud computing will stall in expansion (similar to VoIP services), companies initially short on ability to purchase large amounts of capital equipment would find cloud computing to be a useful way to amortize a potentially enormous amount of computing muscle. In terms of local computing power, computers devoted to this model need only have speedy Internet connections and processing power, with the vast majority of storage found in the virtual world. Massive banks of failure-prone hard drives are no longer required as necessity for those availing themselves of the service.

Cloud computing is not a new concept. Web hosting services, online data storage/backup companies, and any real-time data hosting service is, by the strictest definition, cloud-style computing. Carbonite.com is a company that offers online mass data storage for when the inevitable happens, and a user's hard drive fails. What the future holds for organizations in the coming year mainly reflects the need to organizations to expand their network infrastructure well outside the boundaries of the office. Additionally, cloud computing allows organizations to not only utilize the Internet as a communications medium, but as a separate online economy, whereby consumption of data-heavy things like media, financial records, and computation power itself becomes self-sufficient. Cloud usage, as opposed to a new iteration of the Internet, is poised to threaten traditional internal IT departments, with organizations utilizing their databases via external service. Small and medium business markets are the ones typically targeted by entrants such as Amazon.com, that offer competitive cloud services at a very reasonable fee. To those not in the IT profession threatening unemployment (or at the very least a significant change in what they do for a living), cloud computing is viewed as the natural evolution of semi-powerful, cheap computers, and businesses' need for mass data protection and computing power. Over the next decade, it will not be surprising to see hybrid-style IT departments, whereby internal staff is utilized for the most basic computer maintenance, and the heavy lifting done externally. If current trends in the service model continue, cloud services will be the source and maintainer of applications that businesses essentially download for usage, but do not require internal maintenance.

However, in this semi-Utopian vision threats emerge. A significant issue facing cloud users moving forward revolves around security. Surprisingly, security issues have been placed in the back burner, despite the fact with such a scenario, simple critical issues such as data storage are uncertain. Because heavy cloud computing clients do not know where data is physically stored, issues such as recovery and regulatory compliance are concerns. 2010 should usher in far more steps taken not only by service providers, but smarter moves by companies employing the services to ensure data integrity is what it should be. This year, after much talk over the past decade, we should be viewing cloud computing services increasingly as a ubiquitous presence, every bit as normal as paying a water bill, so we don't require a well in the backyard.

CES 2010 Flashes Green

With much of the focus on green technology in recent years, the Consumer Electronics industry, for the first time, appears poised to introduce products that are good performers in addition to power conservers. From wirelessly-powered televisions to low-power OLED products, CES 2010 will be remembered as the harbinger of green performance. Although there has been no shortage of more efficient and interesting ways to charge cell phones on display, 2010 is ready to show meat-and-potatoes gear that is energy smart. CES promoters are making the entire process greener, with catering and venue providers all touting more environmentally-friendly practices. The 2010 version of the Sustainable Planet Zone at CES should see some innovation, and at the very least, expansion of offerings.

With CES 2010 poised to see fewer attendees than in years' past, new companies are coming forth to usher in new technologies that not only satisfy environmentalists, but performance buffs. This is no small feat, especially in a realm where the type of cable used can, to some, make or break the (perceived) performance of an item. Modern home technology is moving rapidly into a wireless arena, so the onus is back on established hardware producers to make sure the gear performs without cable crutches. This is an example of the type of shift from old thinking to addressing consumer concern, where brand name tends to be less important than cost-effectiveness and performance. This is a good thing in an industry traditionally stagnated by iteration vs innovation. We review a few key pieces from known and new brands that should shift the landscape for the foreseeable future, while setting the pace for future innovators and existing brands slow on the uptake.

Samsung in late 2007 attempted to address the performance/green gap with their impressive LED-based LCD televisions. The European Imaging and Sound Association (EISA) was also impressed, issuing Samsung five associated awards in 2009. This year, Samsung is poised to make all of their LCD offerings LED-based, and in so doing, distance themselves from fellow competitors wanting to join the green race. Samsung in 2010 will introduce three new OLED (organic light-emitting diode) based units, exemplifying what can be done in all shapes and sizes. Currently, OLED technology is prohibitively expensive beyond 30 inches, so much of what has been seen is small. For CES 2010, Samsung will present 14" qFHD 3-D OLED prototype. Displays like this have high contrast (100,000:1) and is just over 1mm thick. Due to the lack of crosstalk, OLED displays are poised to walk hand-in-hand with 3-D technology, and this example, although small, shows how this is possible. Also on display is a 14" semi-transparent OLED panel, chiefly designed to laptops and portable devices. When off, the screen is 60% opaque, allowing users to see through the screen. Additionally, Samsung is showing off a 2" OLED flexible panel, designed to be used for smaller portable application, such as cell phones and music players. Originally demonstrated in Japan some years back, this technology is still a little too expensive and delicate for mass usage. AMOLED is a technology Samsung is actually manufacturing in its new IceTouch devices. A fully-transparent iteration of OLED, AMOLED is scratchproof glass substrate-based and otherwise ideal for a portable application. Samsung, as one of the world's largest manufacturers, should get a good foothold on reducing that lack of efficiency; the IceTouch devices are evidence of that. OLED, from a performance perspective, offers nearly 180 degrees of off-axis visibility and extremely high contrast ratios. From a design perspective, OLEDs are easily the thinnest panels on the market, and produce exceptional colors. Because of the performance and efficiency, OLED, and the companies that march in strong with it, should be panel market leaders for years to come.

Crestron, one of the leaders in high-budget home automation, recently unveiled Green Light. The program allows residential programmers to set energy usage thresholds and let the system manage when and where devices are regulated. The system is designed to have a real impact on issues such as lamp life, power consumption, and regulation of devices that are "turned off" (sometimes still consuming as much as 40% as when on). Although always a selling feature, the ability to program devices specifically targeted at energy conservation other than lighting is relatively new territory in practice, but not in concept. Crestron will prominently display these and the rest of their renowned automation systems at CES 2010.

Finally, A new company called Tenrehte is introducing smartphone and PC-controllable Wi-Fi power systems, that look like nothing more than extension cords. Introducing the PICOwatt, Tenrehte is attempting to introduce an affordable version of that which Crestron and other automation companies have done for years - automation over IP - but in a more affordable, modular fashion. As opposed to having to commit to an entire home's worth of elaborate control, Tenrehte allows homeowners to individually purchase a PICOwatt, and address it (and the connected appliance) individually. High-consumption appliances can now be singled out, and commanded to operate only during off-peak hours. This also allows homeowners to not feel compelled to purchase new appliances, touted to be more energy-efficient. The PICOwatt can turn clunkier appliances into efficient devices, by virtue of controlling when they operate.

CES 2010 is poised to be the first year where green tech really struts itself. The Sustainable Planet Zone is expected to have an additional ten vendors on display from 2009, and with the market open to new innovation, should increase even further in years to come.

Full Body Scanners Under Fire

Although known for decades to airport security personnel, metal detectors do not always display what is needed to be displayed. Measures instituted to limit liquids brought on board have illustrated the fact that long gone are the days of bringing knives and guns on board to hijack aircraft, and further shown that anti-terror measures are, in many cases, based on an educated guess as to a method of attack. Today, the threat is destruction of lives and property, and as the recent attempted attempted attack on a Detroit airliner shows, terrorists are willing to deploy innovative techniques to defeat today's protective measures. With airports now instituting full-body scanners to detect anomalous items on a passenger, these threats have the real potential to be reduced, but not without some controversy.

Whole-body imaging technology is essentially a radio-wave emitter that bounces these waves off of a person's body, revealing everything under clothing. Recent advances in the technology have replaced the actual image of the subject with a representative image of a "human", at least partially removing some privacy concerns. What is also detected are structures and masses under and beneath clothing that would, if made of the right materials and placed strategically, defeat metal detectors and most hand searches. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Detroit Delta terrorist, had the powder chemical for his incendiary device hidden in his underwear, distributed such as to be nearly undetectable. In fact, the material went undetected, only to be discovered after he failed to detonate it on the actual airline.

As if on cue, the ACLU expressed concern, namely regarding the graphic nature of the body images. Although faces are blurred and (most) machines now using a feature that creates a representative image of a person, the group has concerns of image storing and involuntary participation. Recent interviews with passengers have revealed however that they prefer the use of an image scanner, versus a physical pat-down. Image scanning reserved to sequestered security personnel, and essential data on individuals is not stored. New innovations in the technology include only showing a subtle outline of the subject, with concealed items prominently displayed in red.

As of early 2010, the TSA began implementing millimeter wave technology as a primary screening technology next to metal detectors at airports in San Francisco, Miami, Albuquerque, Tulsa, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas. Airports in key US cities have used or plan to use MMW tech this year. Other countries have also begun using or evaluating MMW for airport screening, including the United Kingdom. Schipol Airport, where Nigerian Islamic terrorist Abdulmutallab had a connecting flight, will institute the measure full-on within the month. Currently, only 19 airports use MMW or low-level X-ray backscatter machines, and participation remains optional in most cases.