22nd August, 2008
Bad News For Best Buy. Good News For You.
Brent Butterworth
The CEDIA Expo doesn’t start until early September, but manufacturers and PR firms usually begin pitching new products to the press in June. We at The Integrator realized that by combining a diligent review of the pre-show press release, some thoughtful divination, and a few wild guesses, we could predict the trends at the show weeks before we enter the doors of the Colorado Convention Center.
So if you read this column, you can, in theory, focus on schmoozing and partying rather than worrying about the details of, say, new doorbell modules for multiroom systems.
So what did we find in our reading? Lots of new A/V furniture. Lots of new TV mounts. New cable management products. New touchscreen control systems. New iPod docks. And a lot more.
Where, you ask, is the trend in that hodgepodge of “solutions”? Well, it’s not there. The trend is in what you don’t see: major introductions of mainstream audio and video products.
Of course, the Sonys and Samsungs and Panasonics of the world don’t always wait around for CEDIA to show off their latest wares. But throughout the spring and summer, we’ve seen the product introductions from these companies, and frankly, we have a hard time recalling any particular standouts.
We may have reached a point of diminishing returns with conventional audio and video gear. For example, the murmurs from display manufacturers hint at future 240 Hz refresh rates and 4K resolution, but neither of those technologies is likely to deliver a dramatic improvement in anything short of a 20-seat home theater. There are some promising display technologies in the future, such as ultra-thin OLED screens, but large OLED displays are a few years off—and the roll-up OLED screens we’ve been promised will probably take much longer.
While the big guys seem to be wondering where to go from here, the small- to medium-sized companies that focus on A/V integrators are bursting with exciting ideas. Consider SpeakerCraft’s new interface that lets the iPhone and the iPod Touch control its multiroom audio systems. Now your clients can pull out their iPhones when they walk in the house and immediately call up their favorite music, radio station, etc. No keypad needed. Sooloos includes something similar in the latest software revision for its music servers. And I know of at least one more manufacturer who’s pursuing the same path.
If Best Buy has anything this sexy that they can offer their customers, we haven’t seen it. In fact, barring some major unforeseen revolution in audio or video, it looks to us as if the mass merchants will mostly be stuck serving the replacement market.
On the other hand, integrators have at their disposal the offerings of many dozens (or even hundreds) of small, innovative companies. At the CEDIA Expo, it’s a safe bet we’re going to see countless speakers in cool new form factors, more entries in the outdoor TV market, and fresh approaches to home automation that will bring it to a wider audience. (We could list more, too, but on much of this stuff we’re under NDA until the show starts.)
It doesn’t look as if there will be any new audio/video product in the next couple of years that Best Buy can use to captivate its customers. But any good integrator ought to be able to dazzle clients with technologies they haven’t seen and new form factors they’ll love. If you can’t, you really should dig deeper at this year’s Expo, because the products and technologies you need will all be there.
Posted at 12:01 am | Comment (0)
8th August, 2008
HDMI: Can It Be Saved?
Brent Butterworth
Let’s have a show of hands here. What do you hate the most? The IRS? Microsoft? Or HDMI? For the thousands of integrators who read The Integrator, that’s got to be a tough call. For our crack editorial staff, the answer’s easy—inspired by a few nights with no TV because of the feisty HDMI interfaces on a couple of new products we’re testing. (What’s that you’re suggesting? Yeah, we tried that.)
Never in our recollection has a consumer electronics technology caused so many problems for so long as HDMI has. As one of the country’s leading custom installers recently told us, “Basically, it doesn’t work.” Some of the audio manufacturers we know become downright apoplectic whenever we bring up the subject. When the question “How many people here are installing HDMI?” was raised at the gathering of top Runco dealers in Mexico last April, only a few hands went up.
Yet we know that cable manufacturers have scrambled to solve the problem, creating cables that are guaranteed to pass a certain digital signal (720p/1080i or 1080p) without visible degradation. We also know that HDMI licensor Silicon Image has created Simplay Labs, a company devoted to certifying proper HDMI implementation and helping manufacturers get their products working right.
We decided it was time to check with a couple of leading integrators to get an update—and to find out if they’ve been able to make peace with HDMI.
“It has gotten better,” said Terry Menacker, president of Overture Audio & Video in Wilmington, DE. “But in 95 percent of our jobs, we still run component video cable as a backup. In most of our projects, even a 32-inch TV in a bedroom might be 20 or 30 feet from an equipment closet, and HDMI’s not always reliable at that distance.”
“You have to use it,” said Terry Mullin, CEO of Creative Stream in Costa Mesa, CA. “Now that Blu-ray has won, people want 1080p, and the only way to get that to the display is HDMI. But that has opened up issues. The biggest one we see is that if there’s any movement of the cables or the equipment, the HDMI plug can come out. Even if you do a strain relief, the cable eventually relaxes and you end up with the same problem. We make our own special strain relievers that pull the plug firmly into the socket, but it’d be so nice if they came up with a clip or a screw to hold the plug in.
“Issue number two is the length,” Mullin continued, echoing Menacker’s comments. “We use Gefen’s HDMI Cat-5 baluns to solve that problem.” At each end of these balun systems, there’s a box that has HDMI and Cat-5 connections. One box converts HDMI to Cat-5 (which can be run easily and cheaply), and another box converts the Cat-5 back to HDMI at the other end. “Cat-5 is a lot easier to run than HDMI cable, because that plug on the end of the HDMI cable is pretty big,” Mullins noted. Menacker reported that his crew has also begun using HDMI/Cat-5 baluns.
Despite Simplay Labs’ efforts, there still appear to be many products in which HDMI isn’t properly implemented, or in which an outdated HDMI standard is used. “We’re at the mercy of the manufacturers of cable boxes, receivers, etc.,” Menacker complained. “Comcast is still giving out boxes that have DVI output instead of HDMI.”
Menacker feels that cable manufacturers are no longer to blame for HDMI problems. “The cable has gotten better,” he said. “As long as you stay with major brands, it’s good. And some of the manufacturers have started to certify their cable for certain data speeds, so that should help.”
Mullins noted that he’d just read a magazine article talking about the possibility of yet another new HDMI level beyond the current HDMI 1.3b. But he offered a solution—one that shouldn’t have to exist, but integrators should be glad it does. “Run Cat-5,” he said. “It’s pretty much bulletproof. There’s not much you can’t do over two Cat-5s.”
So it seems the best way for integrators to solve the HDMI problem is to go around it. HDMI may improve further, but it should be obvious by now that it wasn’t designed with custom installation in mind. Indeed, it seems as if it were designed with no awareness that the custom installation industry even exists.
Posted at 7:10 am | Comments (6)
25th July, 2008
New CA Regs Raise A Ruckus With Speaker Makers
Brent Butterworth
A ruling on formaldehyde emissions by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has speaker manufacturers up in arms. The ruling limits formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including plywood, particle board, and the medium-density fiberboard (MDF) from which most speaker cabinets (and most electronics/TV furniture) is constructed. Manufacturers are questioning the cost/benefit ratio of the new regulations, the scientific assumptions behind them, and the viability of new types of MDF that do not use formaldehyde-based resins.
The Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products stipulates two maximum formaldehyde emissions levels from each of the various types of composite panels. The higher Phase 1 maximum emission level takes effect on January 1, 2009, and a lower Phase 2 maximum level takes effect on January 1, 2011.
Manufacturers of composite wood panels will have to employ third-party testing companies to certify the emissions levels of their panels. Manufacturers of finished goods, such as speakers, will not have to have their products tested, but they will need to be able to show that they are using California-compliant panels in their California-bound or California-produced products. According to CARB spokesperson Dimitri Stanich, “Starting in 2009, they’ll have to talk to their wood supplier and insist on California-compliant wood. The wood has to be labeled as such. We recommend the final manufacturer insist that the invoice from the supplier include the statement that the wood is California-compliant.”
The final, Phase 2 emission levels are slightly lower than those currently required in Europe and slightly higher than those required in Japan. However, according to the Composite Panel Association (CPA), a trade group of particleboard and fiberboard makers, “the emission limits in the California regulation are maximum limits that 100% of the products must fall below, whereas other worldwide standards do not apply to all products and allow a certain percentage of the covered products to exceed the limits.”
The benefit of these new regulations, according to CARB, is lower cancer rates. CARB figures that the reduction in formaldehyde emissions will result in 35 to 97 fewer cancers per million people for adults, calculated on a 70-year lifetime exposure, and 9 to 26 fewer cancers per million for children under 9, calculated for 9 years of exposure. On the surface, that’s not an impressive figure—it’s less than 0.01% fewer cancers among adults. Furthermore, the CPA claims that CARB used an outdated, 1992 risk assessment to get these numbers. According to the CPA, “New risk assessment information used by the U.S. EPA, Health Canada, and other international bodies shows that there is virtually no risk of cancer from formaldehyde at the levels most people are exposed to over their lifetime.”
The costs that these new regulations may impose on manufacturers could greatly affect the prices you pay for speakers. The figures for plywood aren’t so bad: CARB projects a 1% to 5% higher cost per panel. But for MDF, things get downright ugly: CARB predicts an increase of 10% over current costs to reach Phase 1 levels, and a 40% total increase to reach Phase 2 levels. Such an increase would significantly boost speaker manufacturing costs, according to Kathy Gornik, president of speaker company Thiel Audio. “MDF is the biggest cost of all the materials we buy,” she said. “Even a small cost increase would be huge for us.”
On top of that cost increase will be higher administrative costs, as Gornik described: “We don’t want to go to this [California-compliant board] product for the rest of the world, so we’ll have to keep a separate inventory and separate records for the California market. One option for us is just not to sell our wood-based speakers in California. We do have some non-wood speakers like the PowerPoint that we could sell there.”
The total cost to industry to reach the Phase 2 standards, according to CARB, will be $127 million per year.
“How do you calculate the sum of all this?” Gornik asked rhetorically. “Even if it does save a few lives, how many lives will be lost if the cost increases force layoffs and the laid-off employees lose their health care?”
Gornik also worries that MDF panels made with formaldehyde-free resins may not perform as well as the panels her company has been using. “MDF is difficult to make,” she said. “We lost $100,000 two years ago due to a bad batch of MDF. That formaldehyde is in there for a very, very good reason.”
However, a composite wood industry expert we spoke with insisted that performance of MDF made with formaldehyde-free resins should be of no concern. “If the board suppliers don’t do anything stupid, there’s no reason they can’t get the same performance characteristics with lower emissions. But it will come at an added cost,” said Wade Gregory, an industry consultant and former president of Sierra Pine. He added, “I know that no-formaldehyde-added MDF panels have been used in speakers because I’ve sold them.”
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been petitioned by various organizations to adopt the California standards nationwide, but has rejected this proposal, at least initially. Also, as usual, several other states are considering adopting California’s new regulations as their own.
What’s all this mean for the integrator? If you’re based in California, you’ll be paying higher costs for wood-based speakers. If you’re not in California, but your speaker supplier decides to simplify inventory and record-keeping by using only California-compliant panels, then you, too, will pay higher prices. And for Cali-based integrators, there’s also the prospect, however slight, of a visit from CARB inspectors. “If we suspect that a speaker manufacturer is using non-compliant wood,” CARB spokesman Stanich said, “we can go into a local retailer and take a sample, bring it back, take it apart, and test the wood in our labs.”
The editorial staff of The Integrator can claim no expertise in cancer research, materials science, manufacturing, or accounting. However, after talking to several experts and perusing hundreds of pages of info, we have to say that on the balance, these regulations seem ill-advised. The cost is high and the benefits are suspect. And how much money did we Cali residents spend to make this mess?
Posted at 9:20 am | Comment (1)
11th July, 2008
Is There Something Better Than A 2.35:1 Screen?
Brent Butterworth
Most integrators consider constant-height 2.35:1 projection systems the ultimate in video, but after a chat with the folks at Performance Media Industries, Ltd. (PMI), we’re not so sure. From our conversations with PMI, a well-known home theater design firm, we can’t tell if the company’s recent efforts will result in the greatest video experience ever, or if they’re an exercise in video geekery that only an Imaging Science Foundation course instructor could appreciate. But the subject is definitely interesting enough to warrant a full explanation.
First, let’s recap the constant-height concept that has already swept the custom home theater industry. Constant-height combines a superwide 2.35:1 (or CinemaScope) screen, an anamorphic lens that stretches a projector’s image to fill the screen, and a processor that corrects the picture geometry so everything looks right. As the name implies, the height of the image is always the same. Motorized black masking fills the sides when you’re watching narrower material, like 1.78:1 (or 16:9) HDTV or old-school 1.33:1 (or 4:3) video.
These superwide screens are popular because they produce a cinematic effect, and because they deliver big pictures in rooms with 8-foot ceilings. But constant-height technology has drawbacks. In a room with a 10- or 12-foot ceiling, your 1.78:1 HDTV picture probably isn’t going to be as big with a 2.35:1 screen as it would be with a 1.78:1 screen. Constant-height systems also put video images through a lot of extra electronic and optical manipulation.
What’s The Big Idea?
PMI says it has a better solution. It’s called (with no small amount of self-promotional flourish) PMI 2.0. We at The Integrator have been such enthusiastic proponents of constant-height that we had to find out what PMI is up to.
“The question we’ve always run into is, ‘How do you create a screen that will take you into the future?’” said Terry Hill, PMI’s general manager. He went on to explain that PMI 2.0 involves not a new and improved version of his company, but a screen with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. “It’s a canvas that provides the best starting point for both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1,” he explained. “It means that you don’t have to compromise sports in 16:9 high-def for movies in 2.35:1, or vice versa.”
The most profound advantage PMI claims is that its new scheme delivers a better picture because it requires no additional video processing and no anamorphic lens. The purer signal path eliminates the potential for artifacts that extra video processing introduces, and also eliminates the distortion, chromatic aberration, and loss of detail that an additional lens might cause.
Constant-height systems have the advantage of using the entire surface of the DLP chip in the projector no matter what widescreen aspect ratio is shown; using the entire chip can deliver extra brightness and can make individual pixels less visible on-screen. In comparison, PMI 2.0 uses the full DLP chip only at the chip’s native 1.78:1 aspect ratio. Hill said he feels that PMI 2.0’s benefits outweigh this disadvantage.
The PMI 2.0 spec calls for a screen that’s larger than what we usually see now. The first PMI 2.0 theater will have a maximum screen size of 150 by 75 inches—this in a room with the not-humongous interior dimensions of 20 by 26.5 feet. “With 4K projectors already out, and even higher resolutions having been demonstrated, soon we’ll be at the point where no matter what screen size you have you won’t be able to see pixels from anywhere in the room. We’ll be able to go beyond where we are now with viewing angles,” Hill elaborated.
Hill said that for now, PMI won’t be using the full area of the screen. Eventually, when the client moves to a higher-resolution projector, more of the screen could be used.
“Once the resolution is high enough that you can’t see the pixels, the discussion then moves to things like presence and what field of vision you want the screen to take up,” he continued. “There are limits to the field of vision you can take in. If you make the screen too large it tends to make you sick to your stomach from all the motion.”
What’s the Future?
PMI 2.0 requires nothing new in terms of screen technology, but it does demand a projector with a motorized zoom lens and a servo that can return dependably to a particular zoom setting. “There are already about 20 different projector models that will do this,” Hill reported, “and we’re working with vendors now to create something that meets our specific needs.”
For the near future, PMI 2.0 will be an option only for the world’s elite theaters. According to Hill, it demands a ceiling height of at least 12 feet; a projector that currently costs about $200,000; and a screen that costs $30,000 and up. He predicts the projector cost will come down substantially, but the screen cost won’t.
So will PMI 2.0 sweep the custom home theater industry? That’s impossible to say at present, and not just because the first PMI 2.0 theater won’t be completed for a few more weeks. PMI 2.0 sounds fascinating to the tech-obsessed staff of The Integrator, but its ultimate success will depend on whether the company can develop a concise sales pitch and a compelling demo—and whether other design firms will embrace something invented by a competitor.
Posted at 8:36 am | Comment (1)
20th June, 2008
Why home theater lighting has to change—right now
Brent Butterworth
Four days ago, the lamps that have for years anchored home theater lighting systems became illegal. And that means the way you light your home theaters will have to change. Immediately.
We heard this news from Gary Meshberg, business development manager for Lightolier Controls and also president of the Home Lighting Control Alliance. According to Meshberg, Federal regulations outlawed manufacture of incandescent reflector lamps as of June 16.
Incandescent reflector lamps have long been popular in home theaters because they fit readily into a wide variety of recessed lighting fixtures now on the market, because they work with standard light dimmers, and because they’re available in a range of flood and spot patterns. Many theaters use an incandescent reflector spotlight to provide perfect reading light over the couch without washing out the screen. They’ll be missed.
What’s more, Federal standards set to take effect in 2012 may effectively ban all incandescent lamps. “The law doesn’t specifically outlaw incandescents,” Meshberg explained, “but it imposes a lumens-per-watt standard that no incandescent bulb can meet.”
A replacement for incandescent reflector lamps is readily at hand: the screw-in halogen bulb. Meshberg said these bulbs are dimmable, produce a pleasing shade of white, and deliver a more focused pool of light that’s well-suited for home theater illumination. And of course, their power consumption is lower. The downside? A survey of websites by The Integrator found the cost of these bulbs is about double that of incandescent reflector lamps.
New theater designs can use smaller, cooler-running halogen bulbs, such as the popular, readily available MR16. Many of the theaters we’ve seen in the last couple of years already use MR16s.
No answers are on the horizon for 2012, though. “It’s the first time I’m aware of that they put an energy law in place without a go-to,” Meshberg commented. “Only one screw-in lamp, the Philips Halogena, can meet that standard.” [Editor’s Note: Lightolier is owned by Philips.]
The increasingly popular compact fluorescent (CFL) bulb is one obvious replacement for incandescents, despite nagging environmental and safety questions related to their mercury content. Many recently designed CFLs emit a warmer, more reddish light than the bluish hues of the original CFLs, so in most household applications, replacing incandescents with CFLs is no problem.
In home theaters, though, CFLs are a lousy choice for now, mainly because home theater lights are almost always connected to dimmers. “You can dim CFLs,” Meshberg says, “but that doesn’t mean you should. When you dim an incandescent, the color temperature gets warmer, more like candlelight. But the opposite is true with fluorescents—they get more blue, and it’s uncomfortable. One blog I read said it makes a room look like a late-night bus terminal.”
“Another problem is performance,” he added. “The CFLs of today tend to flicker when you dim them, and below about 30 percent brightness they often just turn off.”
Bulb manufacturers are working to address these issues, and we’ll report on solutions as we find them. Meanwhile, it’s a frightening situation indeed for integrators, but Meshberg does see one upside: “I think that it’s going to spur more thought into lighting design.”
Posted at 12:00 pm | Comments (3)
6th June, 2008
Will new energy standards kill the plasma TV?
Brent Butterworth
A proposal by Pacific Gas and Electric for updated Title 20 energy-consumption standards may force dramatic changes on the entire TV market.
The proposal was made to the California Energy Commission in a paper titled Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative for PY2008: Title 20 Standards Development, Analysis of Standards Options for Televisions. (Clearly, PG&E’s marketing department had no hand in this one.) The version of the proposal that The Integrator was able to obtain is dated April 2 of this year. It highlights a problem that may surprise even TV engineers: Average power consumption of TV sets is going way, way up.
From 2005 to 2008, total power consumed by TVs in the United States rose by an average of 7.6 percent, a rate of growth exceeded only by commercial office equipment. Meanwhile, the total power consumption of appliances usually regarded as power hogs—air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers—has actually fallen. According to PG&E, the increase in TV power consumption is a result of four factors: larger screen sizes, new display technologies, new TV capabilities such as high definition, and more per-capita hours of TV watching per day.
Apparently, PG&E doesn’t want to expand its power grid just for the sake of The Hills and Hannah Montana, so it has proposed power-consumption rules for new TVs are even stricter than those stipulated by version 3.0 of the Energy Star standards. PG&E’s proposal is that energy consumption (measured in watts) of high-definition TVs be limited to 0.20 times the screen area in square inches, plus 32. According to test results included in the proposal, few current flat-panel TVs can meet the proposed Title 20 spec. No plasma TV even comes close to the spec. LCD flat-panels fare dramatically better: A few sets meet spec and many others come close. PG&E’s measurements indicate that the most power-hungry LCD flat-panels roughly equal the energy consumption of the most efficient plasmas.
If the CEC enacts PG&E’s proposal or something similar, it could have a major effect on the fate of today’s TV technologies. As the saying suggests, “As goes California, so goes the rest of the country.” It’s likely that, as has happened in the past, other states will adopt California’s standards. Even if they don’t, it’s unlikely that manufacturers will want to build an energy-efficient TV for 11% of the U.S. population and a comparatively gluttonous TV for the other 89%. Of course, it is possible that plasma’s few remaining stalwarts could continue selling plasma TVs in other states and limit their California sales to LCD models, but we doubt that would happen.
PG&E takes pains to point out that its proposal is not intended to favor any technology over any other. It cites recent press releases from Panasonic and Samsung that claim power consumption rates as little as half those of current plasma models. The proposal includes a more lenient standard for TVs that include automatic brightness adjustment as a factory default, which could help some plasmas squeak by. PG&E also contends that the proposed standard brings significant economic benefits—i.e., it would reduce power cost by an average of $84 over the 10-year average life of a TV, and it could actually reduce the cost of TV manufacturing because decreases in raw materials costs usually accompany increases in TV efficiency.
The good news for plasma TV makers is that there’s still time to wring more efficiency out of their designs. A CEC spokesperson told The Integrator that the Commission is currently at work on new Title 20 standards for battery chargers and lighting, and hasn’t yet examined the topic of TVs. And PG&E’s proposal is just that—a proposal. Before it enacts any new standard, the CEC will open up all proposals to public comment. As the spokesperson told us, “It’s a long, involved process.” Still, with even stricter standards now under consideration in Australia, it seems certain that LCD will be the easiest path to energy-efficient home entertainment systems.
Posted at 12:01 pm | Comments (2)
15th May, 2008
The Burning Question - Are your jobs up to code?
Brent Butterworth
We’ve all seen incredible A/V installations. And we’ve all seen incredibly bad A/V installations. It’s no secret in this industry (or any industry) that some practitioners are a lot better than others. The issues go beyond getting the best possible picture and sound, though, and beyond designing a system that works easily and reliably. There’s one more issue that few people ever discuss: safety.
Integrators come in all types: from quarter-century-old firms that specialize in quarter-million-dollar jobs, to the “man in a van” with scant experience who hung out his shingle last month. It’s a fairly solid bet that the former’s practices are sound, otherwise they probably wouldn’t have lasted this long. But what does the upstart know about national electrical codes? About local regulations? About fire safety? Perhaps everything he needs to know. Or perhaps nothing at all.
Obviously, customers paying good money for an A/V installation deserve to have their work done to code; they certainly assume it will be. However, there are greater dangers than flunking the home inspection when it comes time to sell. According to the National Fire Prevention Association, between 2002 and 2005 an annual average of 20,800 household fires—resulting in 330 deaths and $524 million in damage—were caused by electrical distribution or lighting equipment, i.e., the work done by electricians and low-voltage installers. It’s the third leading cause of household fire.
“I would venture to tell you that there are a lot of unlicensed, uninformed installers out there,” said Eric Bodley, a pioneering custom installer, former CEDIA member, and currently bearing the title Custom Installation Monster at Monster Cable. “Most legitimate integrators and low-voltage contractors have learned how to do the right thing, whether or not they know the electrical codes. I think most violations come in with the low-cost provider who doesn’t have the right insurance or licensing. It’s hard to say how often these violations occur, but they do.”
According to Bodley, one of the most common code violations is stuffing low-voltage wires such as Cat-5 and speaker cables through the same holes the electrician has drilled for 120-volt AC lines. “The low-voltage wires have to be spaced from the high-voltage lines,” he explains. “Typically the requirement is 24 inches but it can vary depending on municipal codes.”
Another common violation Bodley cites (and one we’ve witnessed a few times ourselves) is that the jacket of cables run inside a wall needs to be fire-rated. The fire rating must be stamped on the jacket, usually in the form of the letters CL followed by a number—for example, in-wall speaker cables must have a CL-3 rating. “If a fire does occur and wires installed in a wall aren’t fire retardant, the wire could theoretically act as a fuse and carry the fire to other places in the home,” Bodley explains. “Also, if the jacket isn’t fire-retardant and you run too small a wire for the power it’s carrying, the heat from the wire can ignite the jacket.”
For integrators who want to be sure they’re doing the right thing when it comes to electrical codes, an obvious first step is to buy a copy of the National Electrical Code. (It’s $67.50 on Amazon.com, but if the editor of The Integrator can afford a copy, so can you.) Most municipalities simply adopt the NEC rather than concocting their own regulations, but some write their own rules; your local buildings department can fill you in. Bodley also recommends sending your installers to CEDIA Boot Camp. “Much of what was developed for that course has to do with codes,” he says.
Given the damage that improper installation can do to your reputation and your customers’ homes, there’s no excuse for not knowing the national and local codes that apply to your work, or for failing to educate your staff on this topic—even if you just went into business last month.
Posted at 4:16 pm | Comments (3)
2nd May, 2008
Outdoor TV: What the standards do and don’t tell you
Brent Butterworth
For the integrator, the latest trend emerging in custom installation probably beats the profit potential of Blu-ray, Media Center PCs, and downloadable movies combined. That’s for a simple reason: When you turn a garden hose on a TV and the set keeps working, people instantly understand the benefit. And they want it.
The trend I’m talking about is, of course, outdoor TV, and it’s being pioneered most noisily by Runco, but also by Aquatic AV, Pantel TV, and SunBrightTV. The potential for integrators is huge. People are getting more into outdoor and backyard living, and having a TV out there simply makes sense.
But as wonderful as it is to watch House while sitting on your patio smoking a cigar, there’s danger in that there backyard. It can get nasty out there. It rains. It snows. It freezes. It bakes. It blows. And if the product fails—as ordinary TVs commonly do if used outdoors—you’ve got at best a service call, and worst a deeply disappointed customer telling all his neighbors that you suck.
Fortunately, outdoor TV is one of the few frontiers of the CE industry where some performance standards already exist. You don’t have to trust in a new vendor’s promise that his or her TVs can withstand rain, dust, and bugs. Just ask if the TV meets the IP56 standard.
The IP (or Ingress Protection) standards are governed in the U.S. by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in most other parts of the world. The two numbers after the IP refer to specific degrees of protection afforded by an electronics enclosure.
The first number refers to penetration of the enclosure by foreign objects. A device with a rating of 5 is impervious to penetration by a wire of 1mm diameter or larger. While a 5-rated product is not completely, absolutely sealed against dust, it’s designed in such a way that what little dust gets in cannot damage the device or impair operation.
The second number, 6, refers to a product that cannot be damaged by “powerful jetting water” sprayed from any direction—i.e., your garden hose can’t hurt it, even if you use a high-pressure nozzle.
It’s possible for TVs to achieve higher numbers. For example, Aquatic AV’s 17-inch waterproof TVs would appear to earn a rating of IP68, the 6 indicating that the product is sealed against dust, and the 8 indicating that it can withstand continuous immersion in water. (And it goes up from there, too—there are even explosion-survival standards for electronics enclosures.) But it seems IP56 will do for backyards.
What IP56 doesn’t tell you is the range of temperatures the device can withstand. That’s because IP56 is a standard for enclosures, not for the stuff that goes into them. It’s no great trick to make an enclosure that can take freezing temperatures or desert heat. But making an LCD panel that can operate in direct sunlight inside an enclosure with an internal temperature of 140 degrees? That’s tough. Making a panel that works after it’s been frozen? Also tough.
IP56 also tells you nothing about a TV’s ability to produce a watchable picture in a bright outdoor setting. It’d be nice to see someone set two standards here: one for use of a TV in bright ambient light, and one for situations where direct sunlight hits the TV.
While IP56 compliance should give you some comfort, it doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about an outdoor TV. For now, at least, some things you’ll have to find out for yourself in the field or by word of mouth. The good news is, with nothing more than an IP56-rated TV and a garden hose, you can now do the most dramatic TV demos ever.
Posted at 6:21 pm | Comments (2)
18th April, 2008
Why China Is No Longer Cheap | What That Means To You
Brent Butterworth
Any old hand can tell you that nothing has changed the CE industry like China. China is the reason we have $29 DVD players, $999 flat-panel TVs, and even the unprecedentedly gorgeous metalwork and woodwork on many of today’s high-end speakers.
However, recent reports from the Middle Kingdom tell us the party is over, that manufacturing in China offers much less of a cost advantage than it did just two years ago. It’s easy to figure out how rising prices in China might spell trouble for Wal-Mart. But how does this situation affect the integrator?
Recent economic changes in China haven’t received much attention in the press, so let’s do the numbers. So far in 2008, China’s currency, the renminbi, has risen against the dollar at a 16 percent annual rate. In July of last year, China’s government eliminated the value-added tax (VAT) refund for hundreds of commodities, and reduced the VAT refund for more than 2,000 types of manufactured products. Oil prices have risen dramatically worldwide, making plastic and transportation more expensive—and in turn making other commodities more expensive. Thanks to the one-child policy instituted in 1979, China’s labor force is dwindling, and wages are rising at low double-digit rates in the coastal manufacturing centers. Stricter environmental and labor laws have further raised costs. It all adds up to price hikes of 20 to 40 percent on many Chinese-made goods.
Many factories in the Guangdong region on China’s southern coast are closing for lack of work. Some production is being shifted to places with lower labor costs, such as China’s interior and less-developed countries like Vietnam. But with primitive infrastructure and a population that’s less than 7 percent of China’s, there’s no way that Vietnam (or any other small, undeveloped country) can take up the slack.
None of this will seem like good news when you see the rising prices on, say, kitchen doodads at Bed Bath & Beyond. But the decline of cheap goods from China may benefit your business.
In the CE industry, the vendors that will suffer most are the bottom-feeders specializing in generic plastic in-wall speakers and indistinguishable midsize flat-panel TVs. These companies have little or nothing to offer other than a low price, and now they’ll find it difficult to deliver even that.
Most important to you, though, is that these are the companies who inspire your customers to ask, “Why should I spend thousands to buy a Panasonic or Pioneer or Runco TV from you when I can get a 50-inch plasma at Costco for $1,200?” Yes, most of the major video brands get some of their TVs (or at least the components to build them) from China, but they’re not as dependent on cheap Chinese labor as the no-name brands are. So maybe, just maybe, the demise of some no-name TV companies will make it a little easier for you to hold your margins.
Higher product costs raise the bottom line on your invoices, too, but your customers will notice this rise much less than Wal-Mart’s will. After all, product cost is just one part of your invoices—you also charge for labor and design fees. Wal-Mart doesn’t.
Finally, some of the industry’s most storied brands may shift part of their production back to North America. Domestic factories that are underutilized or even mothballed may come back to life. As a result, companies won’t be paying for empty factory space as some are now, and profits might even improve a little. Whether or not your vendors make more money may not be your direct concern, but at least their expense accounts might expand. And that’s good news for all of us.
Posted at 1:53 pm | Comment (0)
4th April, 2008
Death of Distinctive Flat-Panel TVs Greatly Exaggerated
Brent Butterworth
A recent announcement by Pioneer had some bloggers predicting a miserable future. They claim that the day is coming—and perhaps even upon us—when flat-panel TVs will be differentiated only by brand name. They see a future of Best Buys filled with the video equivalent of 1970s Chrysler K-Cars.
In some ways, their dire predictions are already true. But they’ve been true for at least 50 years.
These commentaries emerged in response to Pioneer’s recent announcement that it would outsource production of the panels in its award-winning Kuro plasma TVs to Matsushita, parent company of Panasonic. Pioneer says that while it will likely share with Matsushita some of the trade secrets that made its Kuros so good, it will retain much of the Kuro technology for itself. The panel, after all, is only one part of a flat-panel TV. There’s also a video processing section, a panel driver section, an input section, a filter screen, an ATSC tuner, etc., etc., etc. All of these components work together to deliver a certain level of performance. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, no one component is totally or even primarily responsible for a flat-panel TV’s picture quality.
Some bloggers seem to be under the impression that Pioneer will simply “rebadge” Panasonic sets as its own, but that idea is at odds with Pioneer’s own statements and with basic business sense. Sure, Pioneer could produce a cheap TV, slap the Kuro name on it, and hope its brand name will help it take a chunk out of Samsung and Vizio. But the Kuro name is known and revered mostly by enthusiasts, who wouldn’t be fooled for long. And why would Pioneer abandon its product philosophy and marketing spin to try to catch Vizio in a race to the bottom? Vizio’s already won the race, grabbed the trophy, and headed off to Disneyland.
The truth is, Pioneer was an exception to what has been the rule for decades. TV companies—even behemoths like Samsung and LG—buy components and sometimes even completed sets from other companies whenever it makes good business sense. They routinely procure PDP and LCD panels from each other. And why not? Back in the day, they bought picture tubes from each other.
Sony is a great example. The company has always outsourced its large flat-panel displays, whether plasma or LCD. None of this means a Sony isn’t a Sony. That Sony TV that rolls off a Samsung production line differs substantially from Samsung’s product—it’s a Sony design with technology that’s exclusive to Sony. Sony’s upcoming joint venture with Sharp will undoubtedly result in Sharps and Sonys emerging from the same factory but bearing different designs, different features, and different technologies.
Sure, it’s possible to procure flat-panel TVs that possess nothing proprietary except their brand name, and some off-brand companies have followed that strategy. But none of the major players appear to be headed that way. Why would they? Anyone who’s ever worked in or studied marketing knows that differentiation is the key to survival for Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and every other name-brand TV company. Otherwise, their only weapons are price and distribution—and they probably can’t win that battle, because there’s always someone who’ll do things a penny cheaper.
The bloggers may be crushed to learn that the real world doesn’t conform to their fantasies, and that TV companies rarely build every major component of their products in-house. We hope for their sake that their tantrum will pass. Meanwhile, the rest of us can enjoy choosing from the greatest variety of video displays ever offered to mankind.
Posted at 1:52 pm | Comment (0)