Platinum Home Theater Blog

Platinum becomes MK Sound Dealer

2011-05-30T19:33:00.000-07:00

Of all the speaker brands we've ever wanted to carry, MK Sound would be on top of the list. Problem was, the company changed hands and restructured, and became just a bit inaccessible for a while.

Those days are GONE! We are now the official dealer for MK Sound products in Chicago! And as if that weren't enough, MK Sound has just introduced the new S150 MKII, an update on the film-industry standard monitor speaker. The S150 has been our personal choice in THX Ultra II LCR speakers for many years. The new version are to be available June 2011 (from Platinum Home Theaters, of course!), as are all of the MK Sound speakers, from the MK Movie package all the way through the powered 2510P.

The list of films that has used MK Sound speakers is too long to blog, but here's a partial list:

Wall-E, Iron Man, King Kong, The Incredibles, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Finding Nemo, Pirates Of The Caribbean, Chicago, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring, Star Wars Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.

Get the idea? YOU can own the same speakers these films were produced with! And if you have a modest setup, the MK Sound line has speakers to fit your needs with their heritage deep in the MK family tree.

We are more than thrilled to at last be MK Sound dealers!

Update on Re-Equalization

2011-04-01T11:06:00.000-07:00

Why Re-EQ?

Re-Equalization (Re-EQ) is a feature found only in THX Certified AV Receivers and Pre/Pros. The problem it's addressing is one of correcting the overall sound quality of a film soundtrack that was mixed for a large theater to the home environment. Large theaters are equalized following the "X-Curve", a standardized response curve. Oddly, the curve itself was developed to solve the same issue, but in reverse. Material mixed in small rooms sounded too bright in large theaters, so using the technology of the time (early 1970s), the X-curve was created to correct the issue. Theoretically, the vary existence of the X-curve should have made Re-EQ unnecessary. But it didn't work that way.

Original data collected to develop the X-curve was limited in resolution, and therefore, accuracy. It turns out, there is a small but noticeable error, which creates the same problem in reverse: material mixed on a large X-Curve dub stage sounds too bright in the home. Tom Holman, developer of THX for theaters and homes, described the Re-EQ curve in the original Home THX specs. Some of us early home theater adopters had already noticed the problem, and were very relieved that Re-EQ made those bright-sounding Laser Discs sound smooth and natural. It worked.

THX Re-EQ is on whenever you pick the THX Surround mode of your receiver. If you don't have a THX Certifice AVR, you may also find something like CinemaEQ (Denon), or the like. That's intended to be a similar curve, but is not exactly the same.

So why, then, in 2011, is the Re-EQ function more and more ignored? It has to do with how soundtracks are handled for home video. In the early days, the only choice was to take the original masters and do a straight transfer to the home formats. Nothing was changed at all, in fact, the more accurate the transfer, the better. That started to change when DVDs came along. The film industry started to think it might be a good idea to re-master those theater-centric soundtracks for the home. So, what did they do? Rather than send the material off to a mastering lab with a reference home theater, the material was sent to music mastering labs. Now, while that might sound like a good idea, in fact the music industry is remarkably un-standardized when it comes to the monitoring environments used. What came out of that is re-mastered tracks that not only no longer required Re-EQ, but also had changes made in overall equalization and dynamics that now made it impossible for people with calibrated home theater systems to duplicate the theater experience.

Is there any hope?

Actually, yes! The folks at DTS made sure that the new Blu-ray audio spec included DTS Master Audio along with Dolby TrueHD. Yes, it's competition. We could debate technical advantages of one over the other all day, but what it gets down to is which company positioned itself where it could work with content producers in a way that was helpful and beneficial. DTS did that. What's coming out of their efforts is really good mixes intended for the home. And since they knew that's where it was going, they took care of Re-EQ in the re-mastering stage. Get your BD player going, and pick the DTS track, then turn off THX Re-EQ (usually, just turn off the THX Surround mode).

But is that an universal fix? Sadly, not yet. In the mass of legacy DVDs it's pretty wild. You have to listen to make the choice. Is it too bright? Then kick on THX Surround. Is it too dull? Turn THX off. And, listen carefully to those Blu-ray discs. It's not 100% by any means. But at least it's a start.

3D Marches On...backwards...

2010-08-18T00:12:00.000-07:00

For your consideration:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/3d-predictable-flop
and
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/28/hollywoods-fake-3-d-rip-off/

Having now evaluated 3D for the home, we continue our policy of not recommending it, and installing it for clients only if they sign a liability waiver relating to latent health-related issues.

Spamming a Home Theater Blog???!!!

2010-06-20T06:51:00.001-07:00

Man, our site must be getting as much traffic as Facebook for this to happen!

It has come to our attention that this blog has received a rather unusual form of Spam. Several "comments" have been added to our postings, but these "comments" have several things in common. First, they contain no real content. Their content is very general, contains obvious statements, quotes of one of our posts, or is pointless considering the post they are commenting on. Second, the "commenter" is a link to... wait for it... a web site marketing products! Sweet.

Commenters: Someone here (me) cares about what's posted. Those marketing "comments" lasted less than 24 hours, and now they're gone forever. This blog is about home theater technology, industry developments, and points of interest. Readers are encouraged to comment on any post, but not if it's simply an attempt at marketing. I respect my readers far more than to permit marketing by unqualified third party vendors through my blog. Readers deserve and get way more respect than that.

Readers, you will never find spam-type marketing on this site. If we've partnered with a company, it's because of their high value to our clients, top quality products, and the benefits we can bring them through those products or services. Look at the main site, check out how many companies we mention, you'll see we don't pick everyone, or just anyone, and there are very few links to other companies. We are VERY selective. We are all about integrity, and that means keeping the site clean. Truth is far more important, and the truth is that in any market a ratio identical to the classic Pareto Principle (80:20) is present. 80% of what is marketed is total junk, 20% is worth considering. We at Platinum end up selecting somewhere around 10% of that 20% (that's 2% of everything) to recommend to clients. That means that product being guerilla marketed on my blog has a 98% probability of being rejected by me.

If you wish to partner with us and have a link on our site, contact me by email and just ask. I'll review your company, products and services, and if it meets our standards, offers benefit, and matches with our direction of top quality service with integrity, I'll consider your link. You can't beg it, or buy it or spam it. You have to earn it.

Thanks, everyone, for visiting the blog, and keep watching this space for important news and industry developments. We might not be as popular as Facebook, but I'll bet we beat them out cold for truth in information.

Comments can be added by anyone, but are now moderated and will not post until approved.

Thanks,

Jim Addie
Platinum Home Theaters

3D Causes Cancer!

2010-05-11T10:28:00.000-07:00

"3D Causes Cancer in Lab Rats!"

Yes, it's my first "teaser" headline. Sorry. Not true. But there are some people expounding on the possible problems with 3D projection and video. Oddly, some of the strongest articles are coming from a Broadcast trade journal, Broadcast Engineering. Here are the links:

Unknown Heal Issues Loom as 3D is Deployed

Roger Eber's Alternative Perspective on 3D

Not (3D) Tonight, Dear, I Have A Headache...

Note in the first article that Samsung's health warning sounds more like an spot for the latest anti-depressant drug.

There are many factors for 3D eyestrain and headaches, but the biggest one is that 3D images force your eyes to converge on a virtual image at one location (close to you), but the real image requires them to focus on a different plane (farther from you). This never happens in life, and like other physical abilities, such as flexibility, some people can do it, and to varying degrees, some can't. It's now estimated that almost 20% of 3D viewers have "issues".

Here's our concern. If you watch a 3D movie, you've been exposed to this visual challenge for 2 hours, more or less. If 3D becomes standard on TV, which people watch for hours on end, day after day, your highly adaptable visual system may try to adapt to something that is flawed to begin with, causing longer term health issues.

It's very early in the game, but if 3D were a drug, it's unlikely that it would be FDA approved if 20% of test subjects experienced negative side effects. Oddly, the FDA might approve a drug with a low percentage of subjects with side effects, but more severe ones. We constantly laugh at the anti-depressant drug ads which warn of possible side effects, like death for example.

Platinum Home Theater's stand on 3D is "Caution". If a client demands it, we'll install it with the proper waiver/disclaimer. But we don't plan to actively promote it until 3D is shown to be free of health issues.

On the other hand, highly dimensional audio systems like Audyssey DSX, causes only one side-effect: Increased Enjoyment! Highly dimensional audio adds to the "suspension of disbelief" so important for home theater systems. It also is "backwards compatible" with your existing media library, and ready for any future material in all surround formats. Try that with 3D!

Audyssey's DSX 9.1 surround is our pick for the ultimate in HT sound systems.

2009-08-17T11:14:00.000-07:00

New Video Technology Rings the Bell(curve)

At this year’s NAB convention, there were two new video technologies that dominated the show: 3D and 4K. They are soon to be touted at CEDIA as well. Let’s look at both and see if we can pick a winner for Home Theaters.

You remember the “bell curve”, right? It’s low on the right and left, with a bell-shaped peak in the middle, and is used to show that the average always falls between extremes. While we home theater owners and fans like to stay to the right of the curve, industry basics, like video formats, distribution methods, and even TV screen sizes, fall right in the center peak of the curve. With that in mind, look for a moment at the new technologies.

3D could hardly be called new, though. It’s been lurking around since at least the 1950s (way before, if you’re picky), when it and wide screen processes where the desperate grappling hooks the film industry was using to try to snag the audience already wandering away from the box office to TV. There are so many 3D and wide screen processes, that each has filled its own rather substantial hard cover book (click HERE, and go to Technology Books to buy a copy). While widening the screen was fairly easy to do, and even worked better in existing theaters, 3D has the nasty and annoying demand of having two of everything, except the screen. And that’s where the problem has always been: how do you project two images on one screen, then separate them so that only one image is seen by each eye? Those darn glasses. Nobody likes them. They are usually cheap, scratched, don’t fit right, darken the image, and make you look silly.

Today’s 3D has come a long way. The issues of intraocular angle, alignment and convergence have largely been solved, and once you get past the camera, editing and post production are now computerized, making 3D easier to create. Even digital projection solves the issue of two projectors, as one can do double duty. And for all the advancements all the way up to the light leaving the projector, you still have that problem of two images on one screen, and glasses to separate them. But that’s not really what kept 3D from being a success historically. Sure the old processes were less than ideal. But it’s not a technical issue. 3D lends itself well to a very few films, mostly big action or animated features, and becomes a distraction in simpler films. Star Trek films might be great, but imagine what benefit or annoyance 3D would have been in “The Notebook”, for example. Or even “Benjamin Button”. The technology can actually get in the way of the story, and as we all should know by now, the success of entertainment is always content. It can be aided and abetted by technology, but take away the content, you’ve got a demo piece only, not an involving story.

When producing a 3D film, it’s very hard to resist exploiting 3D. Shots with extreme perspective, things flying at the camera, the camera whizzing forward over a set or landscape, etc., all because you’re working in 3D, but wouldn’t use otherwise. It’s a hard line to walk, and very few films are able to do it right. 3D must add to the shot, not dictate the shot. But why would you down-play 3D when it’s a marketing strategy? The results are mixed, but the more 3D work is done, the better they’ll be at it.

Special effects are the same. You can load a film with them, but that doesn’t mean you’ll have a blockbuster. And the films that achieve average success mostly are not effects films. 3D is more an effect, than a format. It’s great to see it, but those images are NOT reality, no matter how tangible they may seem, and our brains know this. 3D will probably never support the bulk of all films, for the same reason that film narratives are better supported by 24 fps than something higher. 24p puts a distance between the entertainment and reality. Something in 60p, for example, is too real, too smooth for fantasy, though technically more able to accurately capture motion. Hyper smooth, hyper sharp 3D may always be “too much reality” for story telling.
Then throw in the darn glasses, and you’re asking a lot from a casual viewer, much less a home theater owner who must now spend more money to play 3D content, which makes up growing, but as yet still tiny fraction of the available content.

3D is fun, but it’s not for everyone or every type of entertainment. Watch for it to establish a solid niche market, but probably not penetrate the main stream for quite some time, if ever.
4K is another story. Right now, our highest available display resolution is really 2K, otherwise specified as 1920 x 1080 pixels. Keep in mind that this refers only to screen resolution, the displayed content may be lower. Flat-screen TVs and monitors as well as projectors for home theater use come in two basic resolutions: 1080p and 720p. Depending on the size of your screen and how far away you sit, you may not notice the difference between a 720p and 1080p screen, given both are fed from a real 1080p source . And that’s not as easy to come by as you might think. Some TV stations limit themselves to 720p so they can jam more channels into their allotted spectrum. Others max out at 1080i, the right number of pixels to fill a 1920x 1080 screen, but not the maximum progressive frame rate. TV will likely be stuck there for the foreseeable future. They simply don’t have the bandwidth to fit a 1080p signal on the air, cable, or satellite. So far, the solitary source of 1080p content is found on Blu-ray discs. That’s un-scaled content, now. It’s possible to up-scale other resolutions to 1080p quite successfully. The excellent and affordable DVD players from Oppo, for example, do such a good job of up-scaling standard video to all flavors of HD that they might quench your desire to own a Blu-ray player at all.

Other sources, like downloaded or streamed video might be called HD, but land at 720p or even less. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. The convenience and impulsive nature of download systems more than makes up for slightly under 1080p, and still looks great. But let’s return to the screen for a moment.

If you’re “average”, your new flat-screen TV is a 42” LCD, 720p set that internally scales up to some other real screen resolution. That’s what most folks purchased in the last year, both because of cost and size. If you have a 50” plus screen purchased in the last year, it stands a fair chance of hitting a native 1920x1080 (1080p) resolution, but if it’s a budget model, might end up a native resolution of 1366 x 768, with internal scaling to make up the difference. And, unless you sit closer than 6’ away, it looks darn nice. A native 1080p set might look a shade better in optimal conditions, but the difference won’t blow your sox off. If you have a front projection system, you will benefit from a real 1080p projector, though, and you’ll be most sensitive to other than 1080p material, scaled or otherwise. Sadly, you’re in a very small elite group of viewers, though.

So along comes 4K, more than double the horizontal resolution of the best we have now. And what does this get us? Sharper movies? Better contrast? Higher detail? A bigger more thrilling entertainment experience? Well, yes and no. We’ll put an emphatic “NO” on the contrast thing right now. 4K projectors so far can’t beat a good 2K for contrast, though in all but the darkest rooms where everyone watches movies wearing head to toe black leotards and tights (sorry for the mental image), you can’t ever hit the current contrast specs anyway, because your clothes reflect to much stray light back to the screen. Sorry, there’s no 50,000:1 in real life. Commercial cinemas are quite happy at 2000:1, and most don’t do even that. So “no” to contrast.

What about sharper movies? If, and this is a big “if”, film production becomes completely digital so that the entire chain right down to you remains digital and at high resolution, then yes, you’ll have sharper movies (assuming the focus puller has done his job, and they sometimes don’t!). So far, the film industry is clinging to film as the acquisition media. But analysis of the resolution of a “release print”, the film they show in theaters, shows it down around 700 – 900 lines, with losses occurring in film, negatives and printing the release print. However, film resolution is not the same as digital resolution. You in fact need nearly double the digital rez to match a given film rez, because film’s resolution falls off slowly, where digital’s just stops. 700 lines in film will actually still show a bit above that, where 700 lines in digital takes 1400 pixels, but that’s a hard limit. So, we’re kind of at “film” now, with 1920x1080. To exploit 4K, we need to shoot in 4K digital (just staring now in some productions, but not common), digitize the original camera negative (being done now), or do some deft up-sampling. So sharper movies is a qualified yes.

So why the interest in 4K at all? It’s huge in terms of data size. A 4K feature, even with today’s compression algorithms, won’t really fit on a Blu-ray disc, so 4K features might be a download-only proposition, except for the already overloaded Internet infrastructure. But what if we started with today’s 1080p and up-scaled to a 4K display? Hmmm! Now that could work nicely. It sure does right now, scaling from 480p standard to 1080p HD, so why not? Up-scaling is tricky, but if done well, is spectacular. After scaling, the bottleneck is the projector. We’re going to blow right past flat-screen technologies here because if you don’t sit 6’ from your 50” set now, you can’t even appreciate 1080p, and we have to assume nobody’s going to sit closer than 6’…ever. So, back to front projection systems that fill the peripheral vision. Big requires bright. Bright requires power, and big and bright requires money. Big lenses, lamps and image chips. 4K won’t be cheap, but will it be worth it?

I think you see where we’re going here. Ideally, money is no object. If it isn’t in your case, call me at once, we’ll work up a home theater for you like none other. But if money is an object, and you’re on a budget at all, you’ll want to weigh the cost of 4K home projection (when it’s available) against other budget line items that have equal or higher impact on the total experience. Things like acoustics, light control, sight lines, speaker placement and choice, etc., and make an informed choice. All the while keeping in mind that you probably aren’t seeing 4K in a film theater, and even in a 4K digital theater you may not see the full 4K resolution. Duplicating a theatrical experience at home is less about 4K, more about basic image and sound quality.

4K projection is a fine goal to aspire to. But don’t limit your enjoyment now because you’re waiting for 4K to become available or affordable! Today’s projectors are amazing devices capable of immersive entertainment. Tomorrows 4K projectors will be even better, but the step is a small one, not a quantum leap. And of course, if you haven’t though of it already, stand by for 4K, 3D! Yikes!

As always, our recommendation is: “Hurry up and wait”. But remember the “bell-curve” at the beginning of this post? The center of that curve is what really drives things, particularly content. Very few, mostly indie producers, ever make a movie intended for a small audience. It’s counter to the financial constraints of the movie making process. The only reason 3D has made recent in-roads animated and action films is that it’s become easier to make it downward compatible with 2D for the bulk of the audience. And, while we probably will see 3D capable TVs at big box stores soon, the content is limited, and you still gotta wear the goggles. That all places 3D at one end of the bell-curve.

4K home theater projection will get here, and eventually penetrate the projector market well. But 4K flat screen TVs may never become a reality for the center of the curve, because the benefit won’t be visible enough to justify the cost.

If you’re up on the top edge of the curve, you’re in for some fun. If not, don’t feel bad. We can still build a system for you that will be visceral and imersive with current technology. Remember, this is all about the fun!

Why We Love Our Home Theaters

2009-05-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

Beyond the obvious “cool” factor, why exactly do we own home theaters? Convenience, sure. Your own “theater” ready when you are. But isn’t it really about being able to fall into a movie, become absorbed, taken away for a while, the “suspension of disbelief”? And these days, it’s getting harder and harder to tolerate the experience of a commercial movie theater, largely because so many things can interfere with that “suspension of disbelief”.

Here’s a short list of what commercial theaters do wrong, that home theaters do right:

1. The cost. OK, truth be told, it is actually cheaper to go to the theater than to buy a really high-end home theater. But on a per-event basis, $10 or more for a ticket to a show is pretty high, especially when they expect you to also buy the most expensive food in the world – popcorn! Anyone ever figure out exactly what that big bucket costs? It’s worth about 25 cents, but you paid $6 or more for it. And it’s ever so chewy, slathered with all that imitation butter. What do you get at home? Really fresh popcorn you just microwaved, with real melted butter. No sour after-taste there. Yes, if you divide the cost of your HT system up by each movie you see, it is more costly, but isn’t it worth it?

2. Trailers by choice. Not in the theater, though. You are told the film starts at 8, but really it’s more like 8:15, after you get force-fed the trailers, ads, and two or three warnings to turn off your cell phone, which you do of course, but that idiot behind you is living a highly important life, and needs his left on, ringer and all.

3. Picture quality. Oh, you say, your home theater will never have a screen that size. True, the size is impressive, though if you watch a plasma screen, you may actually see a better contrast ratio, and a brighter picture. But in a theater, equally impressive are the stains on the screen, the drink straw stuffed into one of the screen perforations, and the seam down the middle. You may not be treated to all these visual amenities at every theater, and hopefully not all at the same time, but there’s usually something to distract. Perhaps it’s the exit sign lighting up the screen, or the bad framing. Or focus, though that one’s so basic it should simply NEVER happen, but does. How about the low-rez digital projection of the ads before the show? 1080p it ain’t. Not even 720p. The last one we saw was probably 480p, with some scaling, but mid-theater seats could clearly see every pixel. And it was dim, and washed out. Yes, it was only the pre-show "ads", but come on, guys. This is a "professional" theater, isn't it?

4. Sound quality. Yes, again, size matters. But it’s only one part of the story. There’s usually something to annoy everyone; the blown woofers, defective tweeters, fried subwoofers, and out of balance surrounds, or missing channels. Yes, even the all-important center speaker is often damaged. The last show we went to added a sharp snapping click every half second or so, all through the film. Complaining did no good, their alternative was to “bypass the system”, and play the track in mono, with no noise reduction, resulting in lifeless, compressed, non-dynamic sound. State of the art, circa 1940. Thanks, but I’ll just live with the ticks. And we did. Sort of. It took three chats with the manager. Talk about getting pulled out of the film. Not at home, though. Sound will be predictable, consistent, and adjustable by you should you need more or less.

5. Do you dash to make the show on time, or just push “start” when you’re ready? The best theaters around here are at least 15 minutes drive away, then perhaps a wait in line, a wait in the concession line, then you sit through the above mentioned inane trailers, then you watch what you paid to see. At home, you sit down, relax, and start the show at 8:23, or whatever time you are ready for it. Oh, and if the worst happens, and you need to take a break, you can, and never miss a single frame.

Our family paid $30 to see Star Trek at the Yorktown Theaters, Lombard, IL, and put up with bad sound for the entire feature. One of us paid even more per ticket to see the same film at the Navy Pier IMAX theater, replete with a bad subwoofer, and low volume. When we stay home and pop in a disc, none of that happens. We just watch the film undistracted, uninterrupted, and when we want.

Need more reasons to own a Home Theater? Just go out and see a movie, you’ll have your own list in no time.

Are there audible benefits from higher-priced AVRs?

2008-12-13T02:08:00.000-08:00

The premise that all AVRs sound the same, or that the differences are vanishingly small is a bit too generalized to be accurate. There are several reasons an expensive AVR could sound better than a cheap one. Here are some of them.

Power output. It’s not just the rated power per channel, it’s the rated power, dynamic headroom (the ability to handle peaks above the rated power) and the ability to drive multiple channels at the high dynamic peak level simultaneously. The most expensive single section of an AVR is the power supply. An inexpensive 7.1 channel AVR (8 channels), rated at 100W/channel is incapable of producing 100W from all channels at once. That would require an 800W power supply, minimum, and they don’t put those in cheap AVRs. The cost of such a power supply might easily exceed the total cost of some of those receivers. As the price of receivers goes up, one thing that improves is the power supply. Even $2000 AVRs sometimes can’t deliver full rated power to all channels simultaneously, but the better and more expensive the power supply, the closer to it they get, and can do so in at least the front 3 channels. It’s rare that a film soundtrack would require that ability in all 8 channels, especially if you have efficient speakers, or play at low volumes, but with less efficient speakers in a larger room, and playing sound at ‘reference levels’, the ability to drive all channels with full power becomes an issue.

Using the preamp outs and separate power amps can accomplish this goal. Any two channel power amps of decent quality is capable of delivering full power to both channels simultaneously, so using 4 external power amps results is higher simultaneous peak capability.
As a point of reference, THX Ultra2 Certified receivers are tested with all channels driven, and you won’t find one with less than 100W per channel, typically more like 130. THX Ultra2 is a certification that includes all audio components in a room of up to 3000cu ft. By contrast, THX Select2 receivers are power tested with only one channel driven at a time, and must meet lower peak current ratings. Select2 products are intended for rooms up to 2000cu ft, and are meant to be more affordable.

Could you hear the difference between an Ultra2 and a Select2 receiver? That depends on the size of your room and your speaker efficiency, but if played to THX reference levels, the answer is yes. More importantly, could you hear the difference between a THX Certified product and one that isn’t? Remember, it costs real money to design, develop and certify a THX product, money you wouldn’t have to spend otherwise on a similar product. Again, the answer is “yes”, and that would be not only for reasons of good and certifiable design, but also for reasons of THX processing in the line level stages.

Another power-amp factor, which is usually not specified, is output impedance, which directly relates to the amp’s ability to drive a complex load such as a multi-driver speaker. Low cost amps may have higher output impedance, and if the speaker’s load impedance is complex (most are), they will sound different than if driven by a higher cost, lower output Z amp stage. The relationship is not strictly cost, but in general, lowering output Z increases unit cost. Damping factor is directly related. Higher damping factor results in more ability of the amp to control the speaker, a generally desirable trait.

The line level stage in a receiver has little to no audible effect, and that includes the DACs. With the exception of exotic over-sampling techniques, noise shaping, etc., the fundamental limit to performance is the digital word length and sampling frequency. At 24 bits, a digital system is about at the limits of what can be done in the analog domain, in terms of noise and distortion, but at 16 bits, analog circuitry can easily surpass the performance of the digital system. By the way, noise is not a subjective quality. It is clearly audible, and the audibility of noise is well known. The audibility of harmonic distortion is also well known, but the threshold of audibility is not widely known to consumers. We are used to seeing audio devices with distortion figures in the .01% range, yet the typical listener only begins to hear odd-order harmonic distortion well above 1%, and that depends on the signal type. Even-order harmonic distortion remains inaudible up to 10%! Inter-modulation distortion (IMD) is perhaps more obvious that THD, but then it still has to be in the single whole-number digits to be heard, and is also signal dependant. Given all those figures of the threshold of audibility of distortion, no receiver should have distortion that would affect the sound subjectively. And you can include TIM in that too, it just shouldn’t be a problem.

This reduces the possible audible differences in receivers to three areas. First, the power supply’s ability to supply power to all channels under high demand, second, the amplifier’s ability to interface with a complex speaker load, and third, DSP functions in the line stage, like special processing, EQ, Audyssey, THX processing, and so on. Those functions depend on DSP programming, which is not at all fixed or even similar brand to brand, beyond standardized functions like Codecs and ProLogic, etc., and are all DSP functions are likely to be audible, most by design. DSP firmware of higher sophistication is more expensive to produce, and could potentially raise the price of an AVR. And, personal preference for certain DSP functions could drive a receiver choice.

So I surmise that you can get audible benefits from more expensive AVRs. Cost justification is the subjective part. For me, I hate to replace audio gear. I own my audio stuff for at least a decade at a time, barring radical changes in function (like the advent of 5.1, for example). I like my stuff to be built well, and to be as reliable as a wood-burning stove. That saves me money in the long run, but costs me money in the short-term. Sort of like buying a Toyota over a Ford. Sure it costs more, but if it lasts twice as long, it’s actually cheaper.

The Misunderstood Aspect of your Screen Shape

2008-06-11T11:22:00.000-07:00

Nearly everyone has been into a store and seen the new, huge HDTV sets. At some point, we probably notices that the screen is more rectangular than square, and while this fact may have made a small impression, the reasons why, and the impact of the new shape may have gone right on by us. Here’s some help.

So what do we call it? To call it rectangular is not very specific. Just how rectangular is it? To define its shape in a number to two, it’s been reduced to a ratio of width to height. A standard TV has a width to height ratio of 4:3, which can further be reduced to 1.33:1. Sometimes this is just stated as 1.33, assuming the “:1” part as understood. That aspect ratio came from the early days of movies, when the screen size was picked. It was standardized as 1.33:1 nearly 100 years ago, in 1907, when the fledgling film industry recognized the need to set a standard film size and frame shape. Yet, even as early as 1897 there were experiments with wider screen shapes. But big changes really happened in the early 1950s, when TV began to supply to the consumer the bane of movies existence: free entertainment. To the TV boys it made perfect sense to make the screen the same aspect ratio as movies, since there would probably be a lot of film shown on TV. But size and shape aside, TV did one thing very well…it caused theater ticket sales to plummet. The movie industry was desperate to save itself in any way it could. It stepped up the production of color films, but TV responded by announcing that it too would soon be in color. The movies only real option was to build on the physical size of their screen, to emphasize that a movie was more of a special experience than just entertainment. So, out of desperation, the movie industry developed ‘wide screen’ movies. But since wide screen was more of a knee-jerk reaction than a well-planned strategy, there were many different systems, film formats, and aspect ratios tried. The names of these processes are entertainment in themselves: CinemaScope, Cinerama, Panavision, Super Panavision 70, Technirama, Todd AO, VistaVision, and more. (My favorite one is “Cinemiracle”…just the name, not the wide screen process). Enough to fill a book! And in fact, it did. You can buy “Wide Screen Movies – A History and Filmography of Wide Gauge Filmmaking” by Robert Carr and R. M. Hayes on Amazon.com for the full story. It’s an exhaustive studio of the wide screen movie concept, the variations, screen sizes and shapes, and the people that invented them (or in many cases just copied from others!) While much of the book is an extensive filmography of each wide screen process, the stories of the development of these formats is nothing short of fascinating, though possibly not quite worth the hefty price of the book.

But back to wide screen movies. Since each process was somewhat different, and movies had to show on thousands of theaters, there had to be at least some standards. Two methods proliferated above all others. Generically known as “Scope” (from CinemaScope), but used to refer to any film made with an anamorphic process, the screen became 2.35:1. The film is shot through special lenses that squeeze the image horizontally by 2X, then re-stretch it during projection to take a 1.18:1 film frame (yes, it was more square than even 1.33) out to 2.35. The various squeeze/stretch amounts were eventually standardized, and we now have “Panavision”, a company that makes equipment used to produce the current most popular “Scope” format. But, since 2.35 was quite wide, and some theaters couldn’t even show the full width properly, and since there are limitations in cinematography imposed by the special lenses, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences chose to standardize an in-between aspect ratio of 1.85:1 (known today as “flat” in the film world). It requires no special lens, and is achieved by masking off the upper and lower parts of a 1.33 frame by using an appropriate aperture plate in the projector. Cheap, easy, and at no additional cost…the film industry embraced it wholeheartedly. With very few exceptions, all films made today are either 2.35:1 “scope” (anamorphic) or 1.85:1 “flat”, and shot on 35mm film.

Fast-forward to HDTV. The TV industry had long experienced the difficulty of showing a 2.35 scope film on its 1.33 screen. You’ve seen “letterboxed” versions, panned and scanned versions, and just plain bad cropping where one of the key actors is on screen in the theater, but off screen on TV. Since every theatrical film made in the last 40 years was at least 1.85, but TV was standardized at 1.33 over 50 years ago, broadcasters had a problem, and with new standards being developed for HD television, they had a chance to solve it. But the problem proved more thorny than anyone though. Introducing a new standard aspect ratio in TV would alienate old TV viewers. You’d have the cropping and pan/scan issues all over again, but this time on every program all day long, not just movies. It would have made sense to pick an HD aspect ratio that matched Hollywood’s 1.85 standard, right? But broadcasters know about compromise, and being worried about letterboxing a standard image within a 1.85 frame, they chose a compromise of 16:9, which reduces to a rather inconvenient ratio 1.7777777:1 (the 7’s go on forever). Now, you have to wonder what drove this. And the simple answer is, it's related to the problems of scanning the front of a picture tube with an electron beam, and getting it to work into the corners of the tube. Yes, it's rooted in a display technology that virtually vanished once 16:9 flourished. Sure, as HDTV slowly penetrated the market, for a time there would be two side bands when a 1.33 image was shown on a wide screen TV, but soon every TV made would have the new wide screen, and eventually 1.33 sets would go away. But rather than match the prevailing 1.85 standard, they picked the 1.77 compromise because it results in a little letter box to show 1.77 on a 1.33 set, and a little vertical letterbox (pillarbox) to show a 1.33 image on a 1.77 set. Neither is optimized, and when you see a real wide screen ‘scope film, it’s always a large letterbox. Actually, my personal theory is that Broadcasters picked 16:9 because it matches the aspect ratio of the original Star Trek series View Screen. Hey, it's as valid a reason as any other given.

Simply put: they goofed, big time. They compromised the long term aspect ratio by catering to a short term problem. It turns out nobody likes to see a letterboxed image, and constant display of a letterboxed image will actually burn a letterbox into a TV screen, so TV manufactures developed their own compromise: stretching. If you have a new HD set and have a standard image to show, the set can stretch it to fit the new wide screen…and in doing so add 30 pounds to every actor or actress, distort the image, and mess up the cinematographer’s composition. You’d think this would be something any viewer would object to, but go into any TV store and you’ll see one stretched image after another. Go into any sports bar and you’ll see more of the same. In fact, we were shocked recently to go into a Sushi bar and see a nice non-stretched 1.77 HD image TV program with 1.33 aspect commercials, just as it was meant to be…at least in the world of broadcast television.

So that’s the story. It’s a compromise, and a poor one. But there are solutions! You can still see a 2.35 wide screen movie letterboxed inside your 1.77 screen. Several projector manufacturers are now making equipment designed to utilize the anamorphic images found on some DVDs and make them fit a real 2.35 screen. When this is done with HD DVD or BluRay DVDs, the result should be real, honest to goodness, 2.35, ‘scope, Panavision, CinemaScope, Technirama images on your home screen. That’s your own, home, 2.35:1 aspect ratio screen! And what to do about 1.85 or 1.33 material? How about motorized masking curtains that make your screen the right shape for every format. It’s available. Today. From Platinum Home Theaters.

If you’re interested in taking the ‘wide view’, give us a call, and we’ll help you do it. In fact, we look forward to it!

For more information on wide screen projection in the home, call Platinum Home Theaters at 708-588-0880.

5.1 surround? 7.1 surround? Bah! 10.2!!!!

2008-04-15T01:22:00.000-07:00

I've heard the future of audio, and it is 10.2!

We've all by now heard of 5.1 channel surround, and the greater percentage of home theater sound systems are capable of playing that format. Most of today's home theater receivers are capable of 7.1 channel surround, though very few films are mixed with 7.1 channels. But what I heard goes beyond 5.1, beyond 7.1, to 10.2 channels.

Before you groan thinking "I can't put 3 front speakers where I want them, how am I ever going to place 12?", we have to go through a little analysis.

The logic goes: everyone can hear the improvement that stereo has over a single speaker mono. Similarly, the improvement between 2 channel stereo and 5.1 channel surround is also unmistakable. If you follow that line of progression, you'll notice that every time the channel count is doubled, the improvement is unmistakable. So, the next logical step past 5.1 is 10.2 channels…not 7.1, which would be an incremental step.

The Sound

The goal of all surround sound systems, from early 4 channel (Quad) systems to present day 7.1 channels is to wrap the listener in an immersive soundscape. It could be for ambience sound support of picture, or it could be used to provide a new perspective, such as a "front row" position at a concert, or a prized seat within the band itself, a position simply impossible to purchase a seat for. To a considerable extent, 5.1 channel systems do that, and create a sound space that wraps the listener in 360 degrees of sound…in a horizontal plane. So long as the speakers are mostly aligned for that horizontal 360 degree wrap, the sound field will be a thing of its own, a creation of a sound field, not the re-creation of an acoustic space.

The System

Enter 10.2 channel surround. Research has shown that the more precise the directional content of sound is, the more we perceive it as "real". What that means is, if you want a sonic image in a particular location, you need a speaker there. Early research into what became "stereo" seemed to indicate that for a 360 degree sphere of sound, you need a 360 degree sphere of thousands of speakers. Lacking that ability, compromises could be made that achieve most of the effect with far fewer speakers. 10.2 is the next logical step. Rather than limit the sound field to a basically horizontal plane, it adds the element of elevation with two high front speakers, and adds two forward side channels between the listener and the L and R speakers, and adds a single rear speaker directly behind you, along with a second subwoofer channel.

That's how 10.2 differs over 5.1, but what about 7.1? Here's a comparison:

	5.1	7.1	10.2
Left/Center/Right	yes	yes	yes
L-surr/R-surr	yes	yes	yes
L-rear/R-rear	no	yes	no
L-side/R-side	no	no	yes
L-high/R-high	no	no	yes
LFE-1/LFE-2	no	no	yes

Now, before you look at the chart and say "Look! 7.1 offers something 10.2 doesn't!", look closely. No, 10.2 does not have a Left and Right Rear, but keep in mind that Lr/Rr systems cannot reliably place a sound directly behind you. To do that they depend on a phantom image between two speakers, which only will exist if you are equidistant between two speakers playing exactly the same sound. That phantom image is fragile. Remember stereo? If you don't keep your head locked on the center-line between L and R, you won't have that firm center image of a vocalist. That means stereo has a small "sweet spot". Placing a center speaker between L and R creates a solid center, regardless of listening position. The rear speaker in 10.2 does exactly that, but behind you. The function of Lr/Rr from 7.1 is maintained by placing sound between Ls and Rear, for example. From a surround standpoint, 10.2 works like 7.1, but with a palpable rear image. That "no" in the Lr/Rr 10.2 column could really be a "yes".

What about two subs? Didn't you think subwoofers were omni-directional? Turns out, that's only true to a degree. Having two LFE channels adds dimensionality to bass while preserving the advantage of multiple subwoofers from an acoustic standpoint.

So, that's what it is. Impressed? Want to actually hear 10.2? You will have to take a little trip to San Antonio, TX. There's where you'll find Bjorn's (just Bjorn's) (http://www.bjorns.com) and their Ultimate Home Theater Experience demo room, with the only 10.2 system in a retail space. And it's a very special room and system, designed personally by Tomlinson Holman (inventor of THX, and the one who named 5.1 channel surround), and calibrated by him. In fact, he supplies the demo material, complete with his own personal introduction. The demo includes a marching band, orchestra (from both the audience perspective, and from a perspective within the orchestra) and a demonstration of the systems ability to reproduce the acoustic space of a large hall. One orchestral segment is the final few minutes of Aaron Copland's 3^rd Symphony…an presentation so involving, so immersive, that it brought us to tears…quite literally. The final segment is a very fun 10.2 mix of a Herbie Hancock piece, with lots of electronic pings, fast multichannel pans, all to a lively bit of jazz. For storing the 10.2 material, there was a computer with Firewire audio interfaces, and a bit of software for playback.

There is no video to go with 10.2 at this time. In fact, the material available in 10.2 is limited to the demo selections, and possibly others from Holman's TMH Labs, the sole supplier of 10.2 at this moment. Of course, the new Blu-ray Disc has all the capacity needed for HD picture and 10.2 channels of audio in PCM or DTS (which supposedly can support up to 2,000 channels!). There's a bit of a problem getting 10.2 out of a player right now, but providing a bit-stream output is a start.

So, you want one, right? So do I! And, quite honestly, if you don't mind waiting for more music, or even better, have the budget to commission 10.2 recordings, Platinum Home Theaters would be more than happy to build a system for you…right now. We'll also be happy to arrange for and produce those recording sessions for you. Of course, when we say budget, it's not for the squeamish. But if you REALLY want immersive audio, this is THE way to get it.

There is simply no way to describe the experience of 10.2 in words. I know, because I've been trying to for several years. You just need to pop for a weekend in San Antonio. Bjorn's is a short cab ride from the airport, and downtown San Antonio is only about 10 minutes away from the store, with its picturesque River Walk, dinner cruises around the narrow canals, restaurants with live jazz, and world class hotels. Make a weekend of it…but the highlight, I promise you, will be 10.2.

Stand by…10.2 will get here. It's already had a start of the best part of a decade. We just need to wait for those other 5.1 and 7.1 slow-pokes to get out of the way!

Blowing a Brain Breaker

2008-03-20T00:55:00.000-07:00

Every so often I read or hear about something that trips an internal circuit-breaker in my brain. That breaker is usually tripped by an urban legend, hoax, or flat-out un-truth. Something so off the wall, so out-there, so completely implausible that it overloads brain circuits and trips a brain breaker. You get what I mean.

Here’s the latest. I hesitated even writing about this, as merely doing so propagates the myth, but better to inform than not, so here we go. It’s called the HiFi-Tuning Fuse. That’s right, a fuse. The typically cylindrical object that goes into your gear on the power-line side of things that prevents the unit from catastrophic melt-down in event of some sort of failure. The same fuse that almost never blows, and if it does, can be replaced for about $1. Only this fuse costs a bit more: try $40-$50. For one. Of course, it’s a very fine fuse, hand-made in Germany with the finest of materials, ceramic, silver, and gold. That’s not the problem, no doubt it’s well made. It’s the claims that it makes a “night and day” improvement in sound!

A fuse is simply a piece of wire that is designed to melt when a certain amount of current is passed through it, encased in a protective package. There are variables that usually address how fast it blows when an over-current situation occurs. Slower is good if you get momentary intentional over-current conditions that you don’t want to blow the fuse. Fast is better if you only expect over-current conditions when there’s a critical failure, and want to quickly protect other devices in the circuit. By its very nature, a fuse must have a small resistance in it so that it gets hot enough to melt the conducting wire inside. The wire itself is usually that resistive element. However, the net voltage drop across a fuse is extremely small, usually equivalent to many feet of wire. And, it should be said that these days the time it takes to blow a fuse is an eternity compared to how fast solid state devices can blow up. The joke is, the transistor blows out to protect the fuse. It does happen.

That’s about it. Nothing more, nothing less. So how can this be a problem? I don’t rightly know. But the testimonials on the web site for the HiFi-Tuning Fuse seem to indicate an audible improvement when they are installed. For that to actually happen, the new fuse must have change something electrically in the circuit. It must have different electrical properties than a standard fuse. What could these be?

First is resistance. A fuse must have some resistance to work as a fuse. The current causes the fuse wire to heat and melt...and that happens because of a small amount of resistance. It’s very small, though. For example, a 2A fuse run at 2A will have about a half volt drop across it. Your power line voltage swings around more than that on a daily basis. Oh, and lets not forget that 60Hz power line voltage changes direction and thus instantaneous voltage continuously…at a 60Hz rate.

Next is inductance, again very small. In fact, the power transformer the fuse is in line with has much more. There are no published figures, but as you will see, even a few mH of inductance won’t matter in the long run. Read on.

Last is capacitance. There are also no published figures, but it can be assumed that it is quite low, or a fuse would produce AC leakage, not a good thing. Again, insignificant.

So much of electrical properties of fuses. What about the “audible effect” they have? Lets consider where they are in a circuit. A fuse is usually placed in line with the AC power cord, just ahead of the power transformer or power supply. No audio, video, or computer circuit uses 60Hz AC power line voltage directly. It must first be changed to one or more DC voltage power supplies. To accomplish this in a simple analog power supply, you need a transformer to step-down the power line voltage, then a rectifier to change the AC to DC, then a filter to smooth off the resulting ripple, then a regulator to further smooth and stabilize the DC voltage. What you’ve built in a power supply circuit is something that is, by nature, designed to ignore fluctuations of voltage on the power line, first as 60Hz, but beyond that, voltage variations, impulses, sags and surges. Within limits, a well-designed power supply will keep its equipment running even during a 20% brown-out. So whatever variation a fuse introduces is more than compensated for in the power supply. Switching power supplies are used in a lot of equipment today to eliminate or reduce the need for large power transformers, but they serve the same function…produce a stable, smooth, noise-free DC voltage regardless of power line frequency or voltage fluctuations. (Are you starting to question the need for power conditioners? Hmmm!) By the time the power line AC is converted to regulated DC, the miniscule effects of power cords, fuses, and hospital-grade AC plugs are long since swamped out.

That’s my electronics theory on it. A fuse can’t have an effect on the sound or picture of a piece of audio or video gear. Now here’s my challenge:

If someone, manufacturer or otherwise, would like to send me a sample of their fuse to test in my equipment and lab, I will do so and report on the results. If it is, as claimed, a “Night and Day” level improvement, I’ll not only say so on this blog, but I’ll also sign up to become a dealer for the product, and advertise it for free on my web site. However, if it does not live up to the claims, I’ll also say so here. I’ll even return the sample, postage paid. I will take every precaution during testing to insure the fuse is not blown.

To be completely fair, the manufacture’s web site on this high end fuse makes no direct claims as to what it does, only that it is a precision manufactured item, which not doubt, it is. The claims are in the form of testimonials from reviewers and users. Care to win over a skeptic?

There it is, the gauntlet is laid down. Not as dramatic as the “Amazing Randy’s” challenge about cables, but laid down none the less.

Any takers?

Oh, and by the way, the War is over...

2008-02-20T07:50:00.000-08:00

In what some now think was a very predictable outcome, HD-DVD has died, and Blu-ray is the winner. Since it's been covered elsewhere, here's a link:

Engadet Story

So what now? Are we done for good? Never!

Now that we know what disc based HD format we'll be using, there are still lots of problems to solve! Here are some:

1. Player control - most Blu-ray players are sluggish to respond to remote controls. In the old days (yes, way back!) early VCRs, particularly Betamax machines, responded instantly to a remote control button press, giving the user a feel of control. Scanning back for a missed piece of dialog was immediate. And the remotes themselves made sense...simple, and easy to understand, not like the current glob of black buttons on a black remote with dark gray lettering.

2. Picture improvement - What??? Sorry, folks, Blu-ray isn't the be-all and end-all. In fact, it's got quite a ways to go. For some time my personal reaction to HD of almost any flavor has been consistently "Why isn't this sharper, cleaner, lower noise, just plain better?" Whether it's been intentionally hobbled to limit the quality available to the consumer, or it's still a storage capacity thing, there are still many aspects of HD that 35mm film beats. And, digital theater projection is moving to 4K (1080p is essentially 2K). Down the road, might we see some sort of High HD consumer format? That's a subject for another post, though.

3. Lower the hardware cost, already! Blu-ray's two limiting factors to a hands-down win a year ago where second to market (can't help that now) and competitive hardware cost. An HD-DVD has always been less expensive to buy, and that's a problem still. When will we get the $149.95 Blu-ray player? Oppo, are you listening? How about the Oppo up-converting, all format playing (including SA-CD?) Blu-ray supreme player? I'd pay a lot more than $149 for that!

4. Then there's the non-disc HD content competition. Most of us still don't accumulate thousands of movies. We recognize that most of what Hollywood produces isn't worth owning, but we might subject ourselves to a one-time, low cost viewing, otherwise known as a rental. Yes, we can go to the video store and get a disc, but how much easier it would be to stay at home, not have to deal with the store's strange lack of organization, already checked-out discs, store personnel with piercings through every body part, huge check-out lines and late fees? Much. And that is rapidly becoming a viable option from Apple via Apple TV, and others. We won't have the quality of full 1080p for a bit yet, but that's a bandwidth thing, and bandwidth does seem to keep going up. If on-line rental via a set-top device is as cheap as a physical rental, almost as fast as a trip to the store, and has at least 720p quality, the convenience factors will win, and disc rental will eventually loose volume, stores will close (they are already closing), and physical rental will get harder which will avalanche on-line rentals forward. From a studio standpoint, if you don't have to produce physical materials, it's way less expensive to distribute your content. I see non-disc based distribution as being the way of the future, and your dedicated Blu-ray player becoming a dinosaur in as little as 5 years. And while that may not be enough to influence your purchase now, in a few years it will. Look for Apple TV or the like with increased capabilities like 1080p and multichannel sound and a built-in Blu-ray transport. You know it's coming...

All of that said, the Blu-ray win is welcome. We have a single standard, which we should have had all along. And HD is a definite improvement over standard video, both in picture and sound.

So, for the first time, we have a recommendation: buy a Blu-ray player, plug it into your HD home theater system, and enjoy.

Don't forget that to enjoy optimum picture and sound in your HT system of any size or type, you should have it professionally calibrated. Call Platinum Home Theaters for details.

The Re-Equalization Debacle…The "Industry" shoots itself in the foot…again!

2008-02-05T17:02:00.000-08:00

If the term "Re-Equalization" is new to you, hang on for a minute...it's something you need to know, and we'll explain it, and the problems surrounding it as a feature in your receiver or Pre/Pro.

Simply, re-equalization is a tonal correction that needs to be applied to film soundtracks that are mixed for a large theater, but played in the home. Large theaters are equalized to the industry standard "X-Curve", which deliberately rolls-off the high end in an attempt to correct for the problem of speakers sounding to bright in large rooms. However, the "X-Curve" is actually in error, and applies too much roll off. Dubbing stages used to mix film soundtracks are equalized to an extended X-curve, and sound mixers push highs to compensate for the overly aggressive roll-off. As a result, when film soundtracks are played back on home systems with reasonably flat response, they sound too bright. Re-Equalization compensates for this anomaly. Re-equalization is part of the THX specifications for home theater equipment, and was developed by Tom Holman as part of the original Home THX specification set.

Today there are several variants on the idea (Denon has "Cinema EQ", for example) but the concept remains misunderstood. Even Denon's description of the reason their own Cinema EQ is needed is incorrect. They claim it is required because theater speakers are placed behind the screen which causes high frequency loss, but home speakers are not. In reality, 'screen loss' is compensated for elsewhere in theater sound systems, and does affect the mix. The real reason Re-Equalization is needed in home theater systems has to do with acoustic differences between large and small spaces, and the effect they have on sound systems. Recall that film soundtracks are mixed in large "dubbing stage" theaters, and thus the soundtrack is created specifically for the characteristics of that size space.

Some form of Re-Equalization is necessary in home systems if film soundtracks are to sound properly balanced and not overly bright. However, other material such as TV programs are mixed in smaller control rooms, which match the home environment more closely. Re-equalization isn't required for that material. So, on the surface, if you only watched movies on your DVD player, selecting it on your AV receiver or Pre/Pro could also automatically select re-EQ, and you might think you'd have the problem licked…but you'd be wrong.

In its inimitable style, the entertainment industry has pointed their shotgun once again at their own feet and pulled the trigger. With tens of thousands of films on DVD now, and with the normal procedure being to directly transfer the original soundtrack without modification, re-EQ would seem to be required for every one of them. But in the last year or so some DVDs have produced with re-EQ already on them. Applying re-EQ in the receiver would apply it a second time, which would result in a very dull presentation of the soundtrack. Some of these DVDs indicate in a set-up menu that re-EQ has already been done, but some do not. Even some high def discs have been re-equalized, some have not. How are we supposed to know? A fine-print notice buried in a set-up menu will hardly grab most viewer's attention, even if they did know what it meant. That means the average consumer won't know there is any action they need to take for optimum presentation. Then there's the DTS soundtrack…which has the reputation of being "re-mastered for home video", whatever that means. If directors only knew what was happening to their finely crafted soundtrack, they'd surely spontaneously combust.

We had a de-facto standard…re-EQ for all film soundtracks, no re-EQ for everything else. Now we have growing ambiguity, and as time marches forward, little chance of a fix. And it's even more frustrating knowing that the Dolby Digital audio format has within it a status bit designated for a re-eq indication…which by extension, could be used for an automatic re-equalizer trigger. But it's never been implemented, possibly due to industry rivalry between Dolby and THX…but that's conjecture…I think…but it doesn't matter really, because the result is the consumer is the one taking the beating in the form of sub-standard audio. And all of this continues in the new high-definition soundtracks found on HD disks. The Re-EQ debacle is, in fact, worse than ever.

What do we do? Assume that up until a year or so ago, re-eq is required for film soundtracks. For recent disks of any type, you need to research each one to discern if Re-EQ is required on your part, or if it has already been done on the disk…that's if you can. And finally, use your ears. If it sounds dull, turn of re-EQ. If it sounds bright, turn re-EQ on. And to that statement we do mean to imply that you need to get out the manual to your receiver or Pre/Pro, find the Re-EQ (or similar function) feature, and learn how to quickly turn it on and off, and at least find out how to tell if it's on or off.

Once again, along with the aspect ratio mess, the entertainment industry has done a major disservice to the very people that support it…us.

More HD Disc News - Watching the War

2008-01-14T06:00:00.000-08:00

The one thing that is needed in the HD Disc Wars is for the remaining film studios supporting HD-DVD to switch sides to Blu-ray. And that may have just happened.

Universal Studios, staunch supporters of HD-DVD exclusively, just announced they plan to continue to support HD-DVD for now, but no longer exclusively. And Paramount is no longer locked to HD-DVD either. While not the definitive final blow, this is significant news. It means both studios have recognized they are in the minority, and since studios are all about making money, they have realized their profits lie on the BD side, more so than HD-DVD.

What really swayed the war? We think the Blockbuster announcement of last spring may of done it. While you might still find a few HD-DVDs in a hand full of Blockbuster stores, they aren't a growing number (probably shrinking, due to Blockbuster's 'you don't have to return it' policy). If you want to rent an HD Disc, you have to have a Blu-ray player. And if you buy a Blu-ray player, you'll only buy BD discs. So the chicken/egg problem is solved.

What's interesting is, contrary to what Universal Studios has been saying, the consumer's choice of low-cost hardware didn't drive the war. HD-DVD players are still a couple of hundred less than BD players, but what good is that if you can't get the movie you want? In fact, it seems this was not a decision driven by the market, as much as by the studios. As consumers, if we had two equal quality choices, we'd always pick the cheaper. But we didn't have tha choice. It was made for us by the studios, and it wasn't the less expensive option.

We still advise our clients to wait just a bit longer to buy their Blu-ray player, though. Players we've tested all make wonderful pictures and sound, but operationally are disasters. Not just flakey, true disasters. It's a firmware/software issue we know will be fixed. But if you want to avoid frustration, and wait for the war to end, get one of the Oppo up-converting DVD players, see your current DVDs in near-high def, and wait for manufacturers to polish up their BD players. You'll soon buy one for $200 that will be great.

High Def Disc News!

2008-01-05T11:22:00.000-08:00

Here's a clipping from USD Today:
------
In a stunning announcement Warner Bros. Studios announced today that they will be releasing High Definition DVD Discs exclusively in the Blu-Ray Format. They will continue to release titles in the HD-DVD format thru May, but those releases will come after the Blu-Ray and Standard Definition releases.

"The window of opportunity for high-definition DVD could be missed if format confusion continues to linger. We believe that exclusively distributing in Blu-ray will further the potential for mass market success and ultimately benefit retailers, producers, and most importantly, consumers," Warner Bros Chairman and Chief Executive Barry Meyer said in a statement.

Warner Bros is the biggest seller of DVD's with an 18 to 20% market share. in the United States. They were one of the few studios that backed both formats.

--------

Note also that Blockbuster only rents Blu-Ray.

Comments: While both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray provide excellent HD picture and sound, it seems sort of dumb that consumers face a 'choice'. We quote 'choice' because the choice of which player to buy will be mostly driven by two things: price of the player itself and availability of your favorite movies. If you want the new Bladerunner Collector's Edition 5 disc set, you'll be buying a Blu-Ray player, for example.

But don't forget these cautions: Neither HD-DVD nor Blu-Ray players work very well. Yes, they play videos well, but both take up to 2 minutes to load a new disc, and menu systems continue to be clunky and glitchy with reported lock-ups on both systems. If you are like us, we expect fast response from pressing remote control buttons, and that spells frustration for a new user of either HD disc format player.

Don't forget the "third option"! A good up-converting standard DVD player. Our favorite are those by Oppo (sold direct). They are inexpensive, and convert standard DVDs to stunning, if slightly less than true HD, 1080p signals. Don't underestimate the power of these units! If you have a 50" HD screen, a well up-converted standard DVD will amaze you to the point you will forget it's not true HD. That means your existing library of standard DVDs is fully enjoyable on your HD screen. If you have a really large screen, like 80" or more, or sit very close, you may notice that a up-converted DVD isn't as good as a true HD disc. But for most viewers, it's quite good enough. At least, we expect it to hold us over until whatever format wins has players that are reliable, responsive, and not frustrating to use. At least we know of no standard DVD player that, after a firmware update from its manufacturer, refuses to play a particular HD disc at all! That's what happened to one of our clients with a Panasonic Blu-Ray player and one of his early BD movies. Yes, there's a lot of work to be done.

2007-09-18T13:35:00.000-07:00

More Resolution Confusion…

In an earlier post I alluded to the fact that the human eye may be the limiting factor to the combination of screen size, resolution and viewing distance. And while that is true to a large extent, we need to clarify that when choosing a display, and working your mind over the question of if you need to spend the extra cash for full 1080p resolution, or if 720p at a cost savings will be adequate, or indeed, an imperceptible difference. Well…things are never simple.

Fortunately, the question of 1080p vs 720p may never come up with a growing number of home theater enthusiasts. It’s simply a question of future-proofing your purchase. If you buy a 1080p display today, it’s going to be the flat-out highest resolution display you can buy for a while, at least for the near future. There are already higher resolution projectors in the works, but as far as displaying pixel-for-pixel any HD source available, 1080p will do it. So why even concern ourselves with something less? Oh yea, money. That again.

As I wrote earlier, the average 20-20 vision eyes can only see things as small as 1/60 of a degree of arc wide or tall. That means that if a single pixel of your display is smaller than that, you can’t see it as an individual pixel. And that would seem to indicate that if a 720p display is small enough or far away enough, you wouldn’t be able to see the pixels of either it, or a similar sized 1080p display, so what’s the diff? Ok, sit down.

The first problem with the 20-20 vision limit is that while that is considered “normal” vision, it is now apparent that many more people either have better than 20-20 vision, or have had their vision corrected (notably via contact lenses) to somewhere closer to 20-10. In other words, they can see 1080p pixels much farther away than a person with 20-20 vision. So perhaps 720p won’t be so non-visible to as many people as we thought! A 1080p display would offer those eagle-eyed viewers a noticeably better picture.

Second, you have to realize that since a lot of broadcast, cable, satellite and HD discs contain 1080i or 1080p material, something has to happen to scale that image down to 720p. And, to add insult to injury, most plasma TVs aren’t actually 1280 x 720 pixels at all, but rather 1365 x 768 meaning that even native 720p material must be scaled a bit. Scaling downward is a tricky business, and not for the squeamish. Obviously, if you didn’t have to scale at all, you’d be better off, and that’s what 1080i or 1080p material is like on a 1080 display. Any other resolution means scaling. And scaling means artifacts that can be much bigger than the pixels themselves, and more easily seen by even our mediocre 20/20 eyes. So, again, advantage 1080p.

So, three reasons to opt for 1080p:
1. The 20/20 vision argument isn’t really about 20/20 vision, but should be more appropriately the 20/10 argument. That pushes minimum viewing distance based on acuity out farther.

2. Scaling artifacts may be more visible than the pixels of a 720p display, so why scale if you don’t have to?

3. It's about as "future-proof" as you can get. 1080p is likely to be the flat-out highest resolution that source material will be available in for quite a while.

Got it? 1080p is better, so if you can, get it.

Whew! I now wish to take aim at a misconception that is so prevalent that one of our distributors (who should really know better) casually said to me in conversation that 1080i is half the resolution of 1080p. I now take aim squarely down my telescopic site at that one. So listen up.

The resolution of anything called 1080 (i or p) is 1920 x 1080 pixels. There are two other important aspects, though, the frame rate (60, 30 or 24) unfortunately, also noted as a number with a p behind it (i.e. 24p), and the method of scanning, either Progressive, or Interlaced (1080p or 1080i). So the full specification of a video format should include the resolution, interlace or progressive indicator, and frame rate, as in "1080p 24p". If you don't have both parts, you don't have the whole story. There are actually many different possibilities. The Advanced Television Standards Committee has published these recommended standards:

Vertical Lines	Pixels	Picture Rate
1080	1920	60i 30p 24p
720	1280	60p 30p 24p

That's how the ATSC defined it, and I was surprised how hard it wast to find, buried in their technical specification documents. Somehow the consumer electronics industry has managed to re-write these figures in a much more confusing way (what a shock). Here are the same formats again:

1080p 30p
1080p 24p
1080i
720p 60p
720p 30p
720p 24p

And to make it much worse, the second figures are typically left off. The result is:
1080i (which is really 1080 lines by 1920 pixels at 60 fields, interlaced)
1080p (which is really 1080 lines by 1920 pixels at either 30 or 24 progressive frames)
720p (which is really 720 lines by 1280 pixels at 60, 30 or 24 progressive frames)

So when we ask "Is 1080i better than 1080p?" we are really asking "Is 1080i 60i better than 1080p 30p?" And we can reduce that to the difference between scanning an image with an interlaced pattern twice as often as a single progressive scan. And there it is: once every 1/30th of a second, or twice, interlaced, every 1/30th of a second. It amounts to what happens between scans. In the case of a progressive scan, the camera shutter snaps the image, and the entire image is scanned in one pass. In the case of an interlaced image, the camera snaps an image, and odd lines are scanned, then the camera snaps an image 1/60th of a second later, and the even lines are scanned. There is a 1/60th of a second time offset between interlaced scans. That does two things. First, motion may appear smoother (more scans per second can do this) and second, objects in motion may appear to have jagged edges (caused by half the scan resolution). But all is not lost. Motion adaptive interpolation within the video processor inside the display device can (and should) re-assemble all this interlaced mess using a process called 'interpolation'.

How adept the display’s interpolation circuits are determines how much motion jaggy artifact you see, and less artifact is better, but usually more expensive to obtain. But we’re only talking about 1080i video here, which is a 60Hz based frame rate. What about film, which is 24 frames per second?

Just to get a 24fps film to work at all on a 60hz based display system takes a process ‘telecine’. Going back to the early days of TV, engineers found that just projecting a 24fps film onto a camera image tube scanned at 30fps results in a rolling flicker bar due to the mismatched frame rates. Normal film projectors use two-blade shutters that expose each frame to light twice for an end flicker rate of 48Hz. That just simply doesn’t play well with the 60Hz field rate of NTSC TV. Early telecine machines were projectors that focused their image on a TV camera image tube, with five-blade shutters that were synchronized to the TV station’s house sync signals. The five-blade shutter means each frame is “exposed” to the image tube five times, resulting in a flicker rate of 120hz, which is a multiple of 60Hz. That got rid of the rolling bar, and left us with an odd way of converting film's 24fps frame rate to 30fps TV. Ultimately, what took place was a process called 3-2 pull-down, pull-down referring to a projector pulling the film down one frame at a time into its gate. 3-2 pull-down means that as a 24fps film gets transferred to video, a cadence, or pattern of 3 video fields, then two fields, then three, and so on. The resulting video is 30fps with 24fps embedded. Some displays are able to detect and undo this 3-2 cadence, and make it back into 24fps. Not very many displays can deal with the resulting 24p video, so it has to then be converted, sometimes again with interpolation, to a frame/field rate the display can handle. The short story around all of this is that for material that originated on 24fps film, the differences between 1080i and 1080p drop into irrelevance.

What is relevant is how well a display deals with all of these interlace/progressive and various frame rate issues. It’s all about interpolation, image processing, and display refresh rates. So the simple answer is (get ready, this is what you've been waiting for…) the differences between 1080i and 1080p are irrelevant for some material, and depends on how elegant the video processing is for others.

At this point you may be asking for a simple answer. There isn’t one, except this: for critical applications, like home theaters, media rooms, or your large primary screen, stick to 1080p displays. For the 42” TV in the bedroom or rec-room, you could save a little money on a 720p set. It’s highly likely that in a few years, 720p sets will be largely off the market, because the cost of 1080p displays will have dipped to match them, and most of the market wants the bigger numbers. After all, once you open your check book, doesn't 1080p sound better than 720p? I thought so.

There's much more to picking out the right display for your home theater or media room. Call the experts at Platinum Home Theaters for professional assistance and competitive pricing!

You Light Up My Screen....

2007-08-22T01:29:00.000-07:00

Back to the old screen brightness thing again. This time, the question is, “How do I pick a projector that will light up my screen to 16fl?” I wish this were easy. Actually it is. You call Platinum Home Theaters, and we design your theater for you. We take care of site lines and sound, seating and acoustics, screen size, shape, material, projector, projector position and lens, control systems, décor, the whole works, or any part of it. You get what you really want, you don’t take a chance and spend your hard earned money for something that doesn’t work, and we both walk away smiling. You get our knowledge and expertise; we get you as a client and friend. But so much for the easy way, I know some still want to duke it out with physics, so here we go again. Got your slide rule ready?

In an earlier post, we noted that projector light output is measured in luminous flux, with the Lumen as the unit, actually a unit measurement of energy (actually is 1/683 joules per second, for those who care). ANSI Lumens are figures obtained with a defined test procedure that makes projector comparison more valid, and Home Theater ANSI Lumens defines the test procedure more tightly, and more realistically, as projectors are only tested after they are ISF calibrated to the D6500 color standard. Lower numbers result due in part to the fact that a metal-halide lamp emits a native white light that is a warmer color than D6500, and calibrating a projector can only be done by inserting precise amounts of light loss in controlled areas of the spectrum. Note I said, “light loss” – you can only reduce the intensity of a particular color, you can’t add it in magically if it isn’t strong enough. To increase the strength of one color, you actually have to lower the other two. The result is proper color rendition, but lower overall screen brightness. Sadly, not many projector manufacturers want lower Lumen numbers, so very few use Home Theater ANSI lumens.

As you look at projector data, do you find your eyes glaze over? They should. A look at any projector data base reveals tons of specs that are all hard to digest. But lets try. The biggie is Brightness, usually in ANSI Lumens. Remember, this is a measure of luminous flux, or all the light coming out of the projector. All that luminous flux has to hit a screen before it makes a picture, so we’re only part-way there with ANSI lumen figures. But it’s a start. Ignoring, for the moment, that you are dealing with an uncalibrated projector operating in “torch” mode (full uncalibrated white output) for that big beautiful ANSI lumen figure, here’s how you calculate the resulting screen brightness in Foot Lamberts:

Brightness (fl) = Projector Light Output (ANSI Lumens) / Screen Area (W x H)

So if we had a 1300 ANSI lumen projector and a 10 foot wide 16x9 screen…
Screen area is 10 x 5.625= 56.25 sq ft
1300 / 56.25 = 23.11 fl

I have no idea why water analogies work so well, perhaps it’s the fact that everyone has used a hose. So here’s what’s happening from a wet point of view. Lets say your projector is really a hose with a nozzle pointed downward, and a bucket below is the screen. Your hose sprays out exactly one gallon of water into that bucket. But now you raise your hose, or widen out the spray (take your pick) to cover, evenly, 16 buckets. You still spray out only one gallon, but it now disperses over all those buckets. How much lands in one of them? 1/16th of a gallon, right? The water in the buckets is the light on your screen. The more screen you have to fill, the less light hits any given area. It’s called the “Inverse Square Law” and is pervasive in light, sound, and all other forms of energy. And that’s what we are working with when figuring out how bright your screen will be with a given water output of your projector…or should I say light? If you get water out of your projector, write and tell us at once!

How much lower will the calibrated maximum be? Depends on the projector, but it’s always lower. Remember, you loose light in calibration to D6500. As you can see, though, a 1300 ANSI lumen projector might be a little dim once calibrated.

But then there’s contrast. Your eye likes contrast, and is indeed capable of a huge contrast ratio. Projectors, while getting better, are not as capable. But it may not matter anyway. Take a look at your projection screen with the projector off and the lights on. What color is it? White, right? Or light grey? What you’ve just seen is actually black, or at least as black as black would be on that screen with the room lights up. How do you get that huge contrast ratio of 2000:1? Simple. You gotta make the room dark…very dark. The reason is that your projector has a bright light limit that we just talked about. Even when it’s turned off, or lens capped, the blackest black will be defined primarily by the ambient light falling on the white screen. If you get that to nearly zero, you will start to realize that contrast ratio.

Here’s an example. Say your projector has a specified 2000:1 contrast ratio, you have a white screen with a gain of 1, and a 1300 ANSI lumen projector. With a little soft incandescent light in the room of only 1 foot candle (geezopete, another measurment unit!) your 2000:1 gets bumped down to 34:1. Lets cut that light on the screen down to a measly .1 footcandle. Bingo, you now have 286:1. Still not great. In fact, to get even close to that 2000:1 spec, you’ll have to get screen ambient light down to .001 footcandle.

Now lets work it from the other side. We can’t cut screen ambient light, for some reason, like windows (!). Lets say screen ambient light sticks at 3 footcandles, and that’s all the better we can get it. If we could get a bright enough projector, we could still get your 2000:1 contrast ratio back, right? Um….sort of. We could, if we only had a projector that could spit out 100,000 ANSI lumens! And then we’d land at around a 600:1 contrast ratio, which might almost be acceptable. Too bad we can’t get a projector like than in through the front door. Or plug it into a standard wall outlet. Or pay the bill for it.

The secret: you have to keep light off the screen to save projector lumens and dollars.

We’ll deal with plasma and LCD screens another time, but keep this in mind…look at a plasma screen turned off in a lit room. What color is it? Black. And that’s the black you’ll get in that kind of room light. Hmmmm!!

….and the War Continues...

2007-08-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

Of course we’d have to declare a winner to perpetuate a war, right? That’s about what’s happened in the HD DVD vs Bl-ray Disc wars. About two months ago, we blogged that Blu-ray Disc seemed to be the defacto winner, due mostly to the news that Blockbuster had announce that they would only be renting Blu-ray Discs, based on their in-house test marketing. Added to the victory chant was the news that sales for Blu-ray software seemed to be winning. Then HD DVD claimed an equally early victory based on hardware sales, and the fact that HD DVD players are cheaper than Blu-ray Disc players (still true), and so would capture the hardware market.

I think we declared a qualified draw at that point. And if not, we should have. Here’s the latest news from the front:

Two studios have announced they will now exclusively support HD DVD. They are Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Animation SKG. Paramount Home Entertainment claims they will publish release-day and date as well as catalog titles on HD DVD only. This decision overturns Paramount’s earlier decision to support both formats.

There are now 3 major studios exclusively supporting HD DVD: Paramount, DreamWorks, and Universal. Weinstein Company is also an HD DVD supporter, but has not singled that format out exclusively yet. Paramount also claims that their decision will include all films they distribute by Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks Pictures, DreamWorks Animation, Paramount Vantage, Nickelodeon Movies, and MTV Films, all under the Paramount Home Entertainment umbrella.

The exception to the rule? Who else but Stephen Speilberg, who hasn’t committed to either format, but Close Encounters was recently slated for Blu-ray Disc release.

Blu-ray Disc is supported, again exclusively, by Sony Pictures, Disney, Fox, MGM and Lions Gate.

There is only one studio actively supporting both formats, and that’s Warner Brothers, with their unique dual-format disc (HD DVD on one side, Blu-ray Disc on the other).

What on earth could cause studios to suddenly cuddle up to HD DVD? Could it be money? Naw…ok, maybe….ok, yes it probably was. The site www.deadlinehollywood.com seems to think that some mysterious backers payed off Paramount and DreamWorks to the tune of $150 million for their exclusive HD DVD jump. The studio’s official comments are not even worth quoting.

Ding…..Round 2…or is it 3…or 4?

Screen Brightness - Lumens, LUX, and Lamberts

2007-08-20T17:44:00.001-07:00

I recently had a conversation with my friend Mike Lake about the brightness of theater screens, and how that brightness relates to home theater screens. During the conversation Mike challenged me to not only define target home theater brightness levels, but to come up with a way for the average home theater enthusiast (who’s that?) to measure screen brightness using something commonly owned, like a SLR or DSLR camera, or a light meter like a 1 degree spot meter.

Thanks for the challenge, Mike! Here’s what I came up with.

Screen Brightness Defined

Lumens, LUX, and Lamberts

A lumen is standard unit of luminous flux…if you wish, it’s how much light is emitted. When a projector’s light output is measured in lumens, it is an attempt to place a number on the maximum amount of light coming from the projector. It is not now bright your screen will be!

LUX is a measurement of illuminance. It takes into account the area over which the luminous flux (lumens) is spread. For example, 1000 lumens spread over one square meter results in 1000 lux. Back the light off until the same luminous flux now fills 10 square meters, and you get 100 lux over that area.

Screen Brightness, or how bright a screen will look, involves measuring the light reflected from its surface to our eyes. It takes into account the luminous flux (lumens) falling over its entire area (lux) and how reflective the surface of the screen is. It literally is a measure of the light bouncing off the screen. Luminance is measured in foot-lamberts.

How bright a screen is has impact on the image presented, and not in a small way. To help quantify screen brightness, some test method had to be standardized. In film projection, it’s the projector without any film projecting onto the screen. With digital projectors, it’s a 100% white image. It’s interesting to note that the two are not identical. Film base attenuates the light through the projector, so a white film frame would measure lower, but digital projectors use no such film, so 100% is 100%. The target luminance is between 12 and 22 foot-lamberts (fl). The target is 16fl, but a group of surveyed viewers much preferring the 22fl screen brightness. Many movie houses are dimmer, around 7-10fl. Yes, it’s a cost thing. Xenon bulbs are expensive, and last longer if you don’t burn them as bright.

Here's your first answer: The target luminance for a THX Home Theater Screen is 16fl, same as a commercial theater, and brighter would be better...and more expensive!

Note at this point that we are talking Foot-Lamberts, not lumens. They are not the same, and don’t even really relate directly to each other. To reiterate, a lumen is standard unit of luminous flux. A projector that provides 1000 lumens of light will provide that flux regardless of how big the screen is, or how far away it is. To change the luminous flux of a projector you have to do something in the light chain, like boost the lamp current, or get a bigger (faster) lens. Think of it as the total amount of light emitted. The current standard for projectors is know as ANSI Lumens. ANSI, the American National Standards Institue, has standardized the method used to test projectors. The method involves, among other things, testing multiple areas of the light source. Home Theater ANSI Lumens is a measurement standard created by Runco International, and most significantly differs from ANSI lumen measurement in that the projector under test is first calibrated to ISF (Imaging Science Foundation) standards at 6500K, the color temperature required for an accurate video image. The projector is then targeted to a standard screen, and the resulting light falling on the screen is measured at 9 points with a LUX meter, then averaged and multiplied by the surface area of the screen. The resulting measurement is much lower than the standard ANSI lumen equivalent, but is a better indicator of projector performance than the measurement of a projector running wide-open and uncalibrated.

Back to the screen. If everything in your home theater design was correct, you should hit the same 16fl luminance target figure that theaters try for. In fact, the THX Home Theater standard is 16fl, but they talk about trying to duplicate the image seen in mastering houses, which calibrate 100% white to 35fl. That’s quite a range!

Now, how to you know you’ve got it right? The best way is to measure luminance in foot-lamberts directly. If you have the right kind of light meter (Konica-Minolta makes an industrial unit for this purpose), you just aim it at the screen, pull the trigger, and read your meter. Of course, you don’t have that meter. But, like Mike, you may have a DSLR or film SLR camera with built-in light meter. Well, you’re almost there. It takes a bit of math, though.

Second Answer: Measuring Luminance in Foot-Lamberts with a camera

With a camera, it’s best to use a telephoto lens, or get close to the screen. Your object is not to try to measure the entire screen, but try for a small section, ideally, 1/9th. Set your camera for ISO 100, and your shutter speed to 1 second. This places your camera in the range where useful EV figures can be converted to foot-lamberts with our little chart. We picked 1 second because many new zoom lenses only open to f4 or so, and we need the extra sensitivity. With a test DVD (any THX certified DVD has the THX Optimizer on it, which will work fine), put up a 100% white frame, and take a light reading by pointing your camera at the white area and noting the f-stop and shutter speed. Plug them into the formula:

EV = 3.3 Log10 (f²/T)
Where:
f=f stop
T is exposure time

We include a chart for this, if the math is to hard. The chart is limited, but you can get some useful luminance data with it anyway. (For the technologists, we’ve stuck with the Minolta recommended K of 1.3)

Your target is 16fl, which is between EV8 and EV9, or between f16 and f22 (ISO100, 1 sec)

Spot-meter or camera set to ISO100

100% white screen, Table is below...

EV	1 sec	.5 sec	ft-L
1	f-1.4	f-1.0
2	2	1.4
3	2.8	2	.33
4	4	2.8	.65
5	5.6	4	1.3
6	8	5.6	2.6
7	11	8	5.2
8	16	11	10
9	22	16	21
10	32	22	42
11	45	32	84

Ok, the challenge is met! The next is finding a projector that will hit 16fl reflected from your screen given its size. Oh, and is 16fl really enough, given a high level of ambient light in the room? At some point, I’ll need to get paid for this stuff….

42” TVs – “the new 34”

2007-08-02T16:08:00.000-07:00

Yes, we’re on about screen size again. Why? Simple. It’s the single biggest factor in choosing a new digital TV or projector. This post will place a “perspective” on two issues that are pervasive in the TV selection process.

First, is 42 bigger than 34? Now, you math whizzes, don’t freak out. But the answer is a qualified “NO”! And anyone that’s “upgraded” from a 34” standard TV to a new 42” plasma or LCD will agree with this.

As we’ve noted, the new shape of screens is the wide 16x9 aspect ratio. But much of what’s available on broadcast, satellite, and digital cable TV is still the old 4x3 shape. Just watching the old shape programs on your new TV causes consternation. If you do nothing, you end up with what looks like a small, square-ish picture inside your big wide screen. And it is indeed no bigger than your old 34” set! The height of the screen tells the tale. For a 34” diagonally measured TV, the screen height is just over 20”…the same as your new 42” wide screen. Hmmm! So, even though the screen is bigger, the standard 4x3 video image isn’t. Unless….

The second issue is more than a bit annoying. In fact, I’m wincing as I’m writing this paragraph. Because some people don’t like to see the little square image inside their big TV, or are bothered by the black side bars beside it, TV manufacturers build in a ‘stretch’ function that distorts the 4x3 image by stretching it to fill the new 16x9 screen. OK, fine, if you gotta have that feature. But rather than seeing the 4x3 picture as it is supposed to be, it now fills your screen with people that look bloated and overweight, car wheels that look like eggs, fat-faced newscasters, extra-wide cereal boxes, and can it really be that those pencil-thin models now look...um...normal? I'll bet seeing themselves that way is enough to drive some of them to anorexia nervosa. So is a TV with the cubbies really a good trade-off? The purist fairly shouts “No!”, but yet you can’t go into a bar, restaurant, or retail store without seeing bloated pictures. We all know the camera adds 10lbs, but just how many cameras are on these people? 4? We should all complain, and lobby for ‘un-stretched TV”! Snatch that remote and hit the "aspect" button until it looks right. I’m stumbling off my soap box now.

The point really is, for much of what we watch, a new 42” set is no bigger than an old 34” set. Just be aware of that fact when you nervously tap your credit card on the check-out counter. You’re not really buying bigger. In fact, we think 42" should not even be called a "big screen" at all. We know they are all now on sale, and some are even much less than $1000. Just know exactly what you are buying, and it isn't all that big.

Here’s a link to Screen Math, a site dedicated to analyzing the size and shape of TVs. http://www.screenmath.com See our earlier posts about screen size to learn how big a screen you should really consider and why.

HD-DVD vs Blu-ray war…not quite over yet?

2007-07-20T10:04:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago we posted a story that indicated the “war” was over…at least, according to the Blu-ray folks. We also noted that since Blockbuster now rents only Blu-ray, a major battle had been won.

This week, the HD-DVD camp retaliated with stats that indicated their growth ahead of Blu-ray. We don’t have the details, and they could easily be “Lying with Statistics”, but they claim HD DVD hardware sales growth at 37% and software sales growth at 20% for 1Q 2007, while Blu-ray hardware sales were down 27% and software sales were down 5% in the period from 1Q to 2Q 2007.

Hmmmm!

Ken Graffeo, Universal Studios Home Entertainment HD strategic marketing executive VP stated “The numbers are clear — HD DVD is steadily gaining momentum and market share…” and added “With HD DVD CE players now at MSRP prices starting at $299 and with strong marketing campaigns around new HD DVD titles with Web-enabled interactive features, we’re continuing to raise the bar for the consumer experience.” Of course, Ken is also co-president of the HD DVD Promotional Group. What would you expect him to say, Blu-ray is better or winning in any possible way? Don’t think so.

The Blu-ray folks still hang on PS3 for their numbers. Andy Parsons, Pioneer Electronics advanced product development senior VP and representative for the Blu-ray Disc Association, responded with, “What’s interesting is that [the HD DVD Promotional Group] keeps trying to disregard the importance of the PS3. It sounds like they are trying to redefine the story a bit. Our position is that you don’t try to separate the traditional home theater player from the PS3 because we know that there are a significant percentage of people who own PS3s who are using them to watch movies. There is no way we could be outselling those guys 2-to-1 on the titles as we’ve been doing since the beginning of this calendar year if not for PS3.”

Parsons went on to acknowledge that dedicated hardware sales of HD DVD players were driven by price, and the recent price drop of Toshiba’s player to $299 boosted their numbers. But he then added this highly astute observation;” we continue to think its content that drives the whole market, not hardware.”

We agree…to some extent. When the price of “entry” into hardware is significantly higher than the competitor, and the available content is more or less similar, the cheaper hardware system wins. But if available content is significantly more diverse, available, cheaper or of higher quality (not the case with this war), then content wins. Evaluating content isn’t so easy, it’s at least in part subjective. Soooo…..

Let the battle continue, and let the consumer win!

Source: TWICE www.twice.com

How Big Should My Screen Be?

2007-07-18T22:47:00.000-07:00

How Big Should My Screen Be?

A simple answer might be “how much money do you have?”, but that would ignore the root problem. And it’s not about money, but satisfaction with the result anyway.

The choice of a screen size is actually driven by emotional response. The single most popular screen size in the market today is 42”. That’s where the best prices are, and the 42” set doesn’t demand much from the owner in terms of mounting, or placing on a piece of furniture. In that scenario, the choice is driven only by price and physical size (or lack of it). And that’s the emotion we’re talking about…price and the stress of spending a lot of money on a new TV. That said, it’s funny how many 42” TV owners we hear saying “I wish I’d bought the larger one” though. A 42” screen, as hard as it may be to believe, can have the visual impact of a postage stamp in many homes. In fact, if you’re watching standard TV, an old 4x3 TV will end up with a bigger image on it than the same picture centered on a new 16x9 wide screen 42” TV!

We can separate video screen viewing into two categories: Home Entertainment (casual viewing), and Home Theater (approximate the large, involving image of a theater). Both uses are completely valid, but will result in very different choices.

Home Entertainment screens can be smaller for a couple of reasons. The most obvious is that with this type of use, the viewer doesn’t care about filling his peripheral vision with image, and may not desire to be that involved with the program content. Having a smaller screen separates the view from the content, and isolates him from the “suspension of disbelief” goal of the feature movie maker. Also, smaller screens allow more positional flexibility. You can put smaller screens in a wider variety of places, hang them on smaller mounts, and place them on furniture. So long as we realize the use dictates the size, the Home Entertainment use screen can be 42”, even if the viewer sits 12 feet away.

But that’s not going to work for our other category, Home Theater. If you remove the “Home” qualification from the category title, “Theater” is what remains, and that’s what drives the screen size choice in this world. There are many charts, calculators, and graphs available on web sites that help simplify the process (some are linked below). There has been quite a bit of research into this application, and organizations like SMPTE, THX, and others have specifications that are based on viewing angle with the goal to filling a significant portion of your peripheral vision with picture. We also like to add a resolution parameter to this, since filling your vision with a low resolution image doesn’t do anything to support suspended disbelief.

So the first factor to consider is viewing angle. THX recommends a 36 degree viewing angle, and a minimum of 26 degrees, while SMPTE recommends 30 degrees. For a 50” diagonal screen, that works out to be a viewing distance of 5.6 feet for the recommended THX angle, and 7.9 feet for the THX minimum viewing angle.

Now, let’s look at the same TV from a standpoint of resolution. Assuming a 1080p display, the THX recommended distance will always be slightly closer than the point at which a person with 20/20 vision can no longer see individual pixels. This is because the THX standard is weighted towards favoring peripheral vision rather than resolution, and is actually a pretty smart tradeoff, weighting the entertainment power of a large picture over invisible pixels. (See the post: Can I See 1080p?)

But, as you might begin to see, most TVs purchased are way too small for THX specs. So as you consider screen size and your application, run these numbers to see if you’re in the THX ballpark: Take the screen width (not the diagonal measurement!) and multiply by 1.54. The result is the distance at which you’d need to sit for the optimal THX 36 degree viewing angle. Multiply the screen width by 5, and that’s the maximum recommended viewing distance.

As a closing thought, all of this assumes you are working with a screen aspect ratio of 16x9. These days, that's no longer always true. Technology exists that permits projection of a full 2.35:1 true wide screen image...well beyond this half-baked, slightly narrower than 1.85:1, 16x9 stuff. Oh, don't get me started! But we'll right on that subject soon too.

As always, a professional home theater consultant will be able to optimize your home theater floor plan for screen size and seat position, as well as optimize performance of both your picture and sound.

Links to screen size charts and calculators:
A screen size chart based on resolution
A very nice screen size calculator
Carlton Bale addresses screen size and 1080p

Audyssey MultEQ – Fixing room problems other equalizers don’t even know are there

2007-07-18T21:49:00.000-07:00

If you’ve been around the Home Theater scene for a while, you’ve no doubt run into the concept of equalization. Simply, and equalizer attempts to compensate for a frequency response problem by pre-filtering the audio with the inverse characteristic. If you have a 200Hz bass peak, an equalizer will create a complimentary dip to compensate for it, with the intended result being smooth, flat response.

Ah, if only we lived in an that ideal world. Or an anechoic chamber. But such is not the case. In reality, our home theaters or multi-purpose home entertainment rooms are far from perfect acoustic spaces. There is a different set of room-imposed flaws in each one of them, and within each room, a different set of flaws for each listening position, making even measuring such problems a very imprecise process. Usually, a technician will make a lot of response measurements over a large area and somehow average them together. That’s a great way to avoid “chasing” a nasty problem for one seat while ignoring a different problem in another…you just average them all out and apply whatever equalization more or less works for every seat. Or rather, doesn’t work for any seat.

What if we could custom equalize out response problems for each seat individually? What if we went even farther and worked not only on frequency response issues, but looked at time-domain problems too, like sound reflections from walls, or physical speaker misalignment? What if we did all of this by making a series of test measurements, then let some highly sophisticated math from another galaxy do the work, and create a custom digital filter for each speaker in the room that addresses problems caused by that room for each seat? Too cool, you say?

Yup, that’s for sure. That’s also, in simple terms, what the Audyssey process does. Audyssey MultEQ XT, MultEQ, 2EQ, and EQ all use variations on the process, to differing levels of sophistication. The most elaborate implementation is found in the Audyssey MultEQ XT system, which a custom installer makes use of a computer and software to make the necessary measurements and calculations to cover the most demanding installations. MultEQ XT can also be found in high-end receivers, and is the most powerful version yet released.

Below that, MultEQ, 2EQ and EQ vary in processing and measurement power, with the EQ version being a preset system tuned for HTiB systems and TV sound systems. And yes, the automotive sound industry may soon benefit from Audyssey processing too.

So you ask, “Who are these guys?” And well you should. From the Audyssey web site’s ‘about us’ page,: Audyssey Laboratories was conceived at the prestigious Immersive Audio Laboratory at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California. Dr. Sunil Bharitkar, Philip Hilmes, Prof. Tomlinson Holman, and Prof. Chris Kyriakakis were all involved in conceiving and creating the technology that was the basis for "spinning out" the company in July, 2002.

In late 1996, after a fierce competition among 117 universities, the National Science Foundation established a unique research center at USC that focused on immersive technologies. A key component of the Integrated Media Systems Center (IMSC) is the Immersive Audio Laboratory that was founded by Chris Kyriakakis and Tomlinson Holman. Over the past 10 years Tom and Chris have conducted research in audio signal processing, acoustics, and psychoacoustics. The results of their interdisciplinary research have been published in more than 100 technical journals and several books. One of the most challenging problems that they addressed was the comprehensive understanding of the negative effects of room acoustics on sound reproduction. It took 5 years of intense research and experimentation and more than $5M in research funds to fully understand and solve this intricate problem. No other facility in the world had the scientific expertise and the resources to fundamentally examine and solve this problem.

Sharp eyed readers may have picked up the name of Tomlinson Holman. Yes, the “T H” of “THX” fame, inventor of THX theater sound systems, home THX, and the founder of the entire THX program at Lucasfilm. That Tom Holman. For more about Tom, see the “THX” and “TMH” links at www.platinumhometheaters.com

We have been using Audyssey processing for over a year now with great results, and now recommend it to our clients, if built into receivers by Denon, Marantz, and Onkyo, or in high end component systems using the Audyssey Sound Equalizer product custom calibrated to the space.

For information on how you can get Audyssey MultEQ in your home theater, contact us at Platinum Home Theaters.

Visual Acuity…or Can I See 1080p?

2007-07-17T14:23:00.000-07:00

Here’s the set up: you fork over a king’s ransom for that new 1080p screen (projector, plasma, LCD, it doesn’t matter for this discussion). You place it in your home theater room, sit back, relax, and enjoy the fuits of your labor. But wait. There’s this nagging voice in the back of your mind that says “How come this doesn’t look better, or different than my old screen?” Let’s extend this question to, “Can I See the 1080p I just paid for?” The answer is a definite “maybe”.

If you are in your 20s, and have 20/20 vision, you can see better than most people in the world, and can see things as small as 1/60th of a degree of arc wide. What that means is, if your place a protractor at your pupil (figuratively!!!) and look at how wide 1 degree is, then divide by 60, that’s how small an object you can see. Anything smaller gets mushed into whatever is next to it and becomes indistinct. In order to see the pixels of a 1080p screen, they have to be at least 1/60 of a degree of your visionary arc wide. Simple math, right? It's all based on visual acuity. In fact, we don’t want to see pixels, so we want to sit just far enough away from our screen so as to have one 1080p pixel mush into the next creating a smooth pixel-free image. So just how far away is that? Here’s an example.

If you have a 42” 1080p plasma TV hanging on your wall, you’d need to sit at least 5.5 feet from it to blend those 1920 pixels into a smooth image. As you move farther, some that 1080p resolution is wasted. Any closer and you’ll see the dots. Again, that's assuming 20/20 vision. How many of you sit 5.5 feet from your TV? I didn’t think so. Most are more like 8 feet or farther. With your eagle eyes at 8 feet, the pixels mush together, even with the lowly 720p screen.

Let’s do the same calculations for a 50” screen. For a 1080p screen, plunk your chair at 6.5ft or more to just blur the pixels. At 720p, try a tad under 10 feet. Yes, 1080p is wasted on you for a 50” set at 10’. You just can’t see that well. And if you don’t have 20/20 vision (yea, me neither) these distances get shorter real fast.

Now, before we start getting all upset about how we think we can spot 720p over 1080i on broadcast TV stations, there’s a lot more at work than just the pixel count. We’re talking about display screens only here. Source material is a whole other discussion that includes the resolution of origination formats, how TV stations process images prior to air, bit rates, and much more. But broadcast HDTV is free to those with antennas, HDTVs are not. As a consumer, you owe it to yourself to know if spending more on your picture for higher than necessary resolution is smart, or just obsessive compulsive behavior. For smart consumers, we offer our consulting services to help you pick the perfect picture. For those with OCD, we recommend buying the highest resolution screen you can at any size and price. It’s probably cheaper than therapy.

Coming soon: How big a screen should you get?

HTIAB…make room for the Ensemble 1080 Home Cinema

2007-07-17T13:40:00.000-07:00

HTIAB – that stands for Home Theater In A Box…a concept that usually means a “get everything in a box a cheaply as possible”, has a new big brother, the Home Cinema System. The concept comes from Epson and Atlantic Technology and takes the form of the Ensemble 1080 touted as the “first complete home cinema system designed for the consumer market”. It begs the question, “who were you designing for before?”…but let’s move on…

Ensemble 1080 starts with a 1080p 3 LCD front projector and adds a special 100” front projection screen with built-in LCR speakers and a special ceiling mounted surround speaker assembly. It’s all controlled from console with an up-converting DVD player and subwoofer with integrated amplifiers. The system has an HDMI port for external Blu-ray disc players. Speaking of HDMI, the console connects to the front speakers via an HDMI cable making hookup and cable management simpler. Add some remote control finesse (they claim no multiple remotes…hmm…) and you’re into Home Cinema for 7 grand. And just in case that’s a bit steep for you, their 720P version comes in at 5 grand. (See our discussion elsewhere about if you really need 1080p, or will 720 do youo just fine). But don’t run out to Tweeter (even if they are under new ownership) or Best Buy to find it. The system will be sold only via the custom installer channel (that’s us, folks!).

Here are the links, but as of this post, there's nothing on the Epson or Atlantic Tech sites about this yet...
Epson Home Entertainment

Atlantic Technology

Platinum Home Theaters (custom integrators)

Samsung introduces LED based LCD 1080p TVs

2007-07-17T11:45:00.000-07:00

It’s a world of contrasts, and Samsung apparently knows it. They recently announced their new 71 and 81 series TVs feature not only elegant gloss-black slim bezels and 1080p resolution, HDMI 1.3 inputs, and more, but hit big new numbers in the dynamic contrast zone…are you sitting down for this…100,000:1! Room light will be the issue for sure from now on.

If you like big numbers attached to your 1080p TVs, then here’s another: how about 80,000 hours on the LED-based backlighting? That’s more than 27 years of 8 hour a day TV viewing. Now THAT’s a lot of TV!

The new LED backlight system uses a process Samsung calls “local dimming”, coupled with Samsung’s Auto Motion PulsLED will be offered in sets from 40” to 58”. If you don’t like HDMI (and who really does?) how about connecting your Blu-ray player without wires? The new Samsung TV’s have built-in 802.11n wireless routers that are meant to talk to nearby Blu-ray players, satellite boxes, etc. Oh, and by “near by” we mean within 200 feet. Sure, it will cost a bit more, but how cool is that?

We’ll be keeping more than one eye on Samsung! The new products should ship by the holidays.

Welcome to Platinum Home Theater Blogs!

2007-07-17T11:29:00.000-07:00

We're trying out the Blogger system in hopes of streamlining our Home Theater Blogs. If you wish to read our old blogs from before 7/17/07, go to www.platinumhometheaters.com and find the Archives link.

Thanks for joining us!