Home Theater View

CES 2008: Vizio to launch 50" 1080p plasma for $1499

Usually the invitations you get from PR firms are either a) inflated and non-specific or b) specific, but require a non-disclosure agreement.

For an example of Type A: "come see how we will revolutionize the digital music industry." I actually got an invitation with this exact wording this year. Since it didn't have any details or come from a company with even an outside shot at revolutionizing anything, it mostly served to amuse me for a second before I hit "delete."

I can't provide an example of Type B, for obvious reasons, but many vendors will give you a preview of what they're going to announce under embargo. Most will at least make you sign something promising you won't reveal the contents until the press release launches. Fair enough.

And then there's, um, Type C? Vizio hasn't put out a press release or asked for non-disclosure agreements, but in its media invitation titled, "Mark The Date" it invites press to an off-site event at CES and notes:

VIZIO WILL BE INTRODUCING AN ASTONISHING 26 NEW FLAT PANEL TVS DURING CES INCLUDING:

>> A $1499 50-inch Full 1080p Plasma TV with a remarkable 30,000:1 contrast ratio, an extended life up to 100,000 hours and four HDMI inputs

It isn't unprecedented to pre-announce products. It's a good way of getting some press and buzz going ahead of the actual conference, where there's so much noise that standing out is almost impossible. (Hey, I'm writing about it, so it must be working!) They also were careful about what they didn't say: no model numbers, release dates, or technical details. Still, the price/size/resolution/contrast ratio are all a huge leap over Vizio's 2007 products, products that are still in stores a week before Christmas. I know the PR folks want to drum up interest in the press conference, but this is risky.

Front Projection: Decisions, Decisions

Like most people setting up a home theater, my front projection choices are limited by room placement and budget. When review units come in, I typically set them up on a short table for as long as I have the device, but for my personal unit I want to ceiling mount it out of the way. My ceiling is extremely low (7'), so projectors with extreme offset angles (the image ends up projected several feet below the lens) - like some of Optoma's recent DLP's - simply won't work. The new crop of budget LCD 1080p projectors look like good values, so I narrowed the field to Sanyo's PLV- Z2000 ($2200 after rebate), Panasonic's PT-AE2000U ($2700), and Epson's Home Cinema 1080 UB (an upgrade to the current Home Cinema 1080, price unknown). Since the Epson appears to be delayed, no price has been announced, and I needed to place an order sooner rather than later to appease the contractor doing the installation, that was out of contention. Both the Sanyo and Panasonic have good color modes that sacrifice brightness for accuracy, but the Sanyo is noted to be relatively dim even under the best circumstances, so I bought the Panasonic despite the higher price, since I intend to use it primarily in the lowest brightness mode. I'll post a mini-review when it arrives.

The other big decision was on upgrading the screen. First, I needed to figure out how big I could go. 100" diagonal (87" wide) looked like an ideal size for the seating distance (12'), but not for the room, which has low ceilings and a cutout on one side for an electrical closet. Centering the screen in the middle of the room means getting mighty close to the closet, and with the low ceiling, a 100" screen wouldn't leave much room for speakers underneath. Therefore, saving a few inches in all directions with a 92" diagonal (80" wide) made the most sense. (Going with a larger acoustically transparent screen and in-wall speakers wouldn't work well in this situation; there's going to be a TV behind the screen, so the center channel will need to be mounted fairly low regardless. I plan to tilt the speakers up slightly towards the listening position using angled stands.)

Choosing a screen is madness - there are thousands of permutations. Choosing a screen material is just the first place to drive yourself nuts; once I chose the brighter of the two projectors I decided to stick to a basic white matte material. There are several good budget options for fixed screens, but I want a recessed screen, with a motor, with tab tensioning. The last requirement adds considerable expense and means that the screen is pulled taut in all directions eliminating ripples. My wife never noticed ripples on my old pull-down SharpVision screen, but during pans I could see them and it drove me crazy.

That set of requirements did narrow things down sharply to screens from Elite (which imports screens manufactured in China) and several U.S. manufacturers (which make the screens in the good old U.S. of A.) such as Da-Lite and Stewart. The difference in cost is staggering - the Elite Cinetension2 costs under $1,000, while models with similar features from Da-Lite and Stewart cost two to five times as much, depending on options. Feedback on the forums suggests that you get what you pay for - Elite's quality control is notorious among the super-picky home theater afficianados who post on home theater forums. I've ordered from a reputable dealer who denied any QC problems with the Elite at all, but should readily take it back if there are issues. I'll just have to take my chances - the savings are simply too overwhelming to pass up.

Shopping for a New TV

I hit up six different stores recently trying to pick a 50” plasma to replace my 52” JVC LCoS rear projection 720p HDTV which is now three years old. The goal is to regain a foot of space in the room and then move to a larger front projection system (the screen hangs in front of the TV); the TV is used for broadcast material with the lights on, while the projector is used for movie watching with the lights off. I could have asked vendors to send over review units and then buy whichever one performed the best, but I’m time constrained – my contractor wants to start hanging everything already. (I’m using a general contractor for installation, a practice I do NOT recommend to others – good custom installers are almost always worth paying for.)

At the 50” size, plasmas are still less expensive than LCD, and the primary benefit of LCD – blinding brightness – is not important in my light-controlled room (we have directional halogen track lighting, so even with the lights on, no direct light falls on the set). Our seating position is 12 – 13’ back from the set; at that distance, there is no visible difference between 720p and 1080p sets, so a more economical 720p model makes sense. Then it came down to selecting a brand and model. When there is a difference between lower priced brands (Vizio, Sanyo, Zenith) and midpriced brands (Samsung, LG, Panasonic) it often shows up in how the sets process non-HDTV sources (there are other differences, too, but some of the budget sets are actually quite good). The difference between the mid-priced brands and the Pioneer Kuro is primarily in the black level and shadow details. Since we still watch a lot of non-HD programming, I felt it was worth the extra money to buy a set with slightly better processing, and I gave mid-priced brands primary consideration once I saw (when looking at the various sets at retail) that there did appear to be a difference. If the television was our only display, it would have been worth spending even more to get the best available (in my opinion, the Pioneer Kuro), but since the projector will be handling most of the movie duties, I wasn’t willing to spend too much of my budget on the plasma.

That left a showdown between Samsung’s 54 series and Panasonic’s 75U (there are slightly more expensive versions of each that add anti-glare shields, but that isn’t necessary in my room). Both sell for $1500 - $1700 except on Black Friday, when you can get another $100 - $200 off. After considerable evaluation in less than ideal circumstances (see below), I concluded that both are excellent options, and it really comes down to personal preference. The Samsung had much better contrast and more saturated colors. Everything “pops” on the Samsung. The Panasonic did slightly better with really noisy content, and had noticeably better black levels, which lent subtlety throughout the color range. Both can be adjusted to look better than they did in the store, and either would make a fine choice. I preferred the Panasonic.

However, the stores don’t make it easy to come to this conclusions, and I really have no idea how people not specifically looking for differences in black level vs. contrast ratio can make a rational buying decision. Only one of the stores (6th Avenue, a regional A/V chain) had a truly knowledgeable salesperson. None of the stores had tweaked the picture on any of the sets in any way (they were all set to whatever the manufacturer hoped would stand out on the showroom floor – the brightest and most oversaturated settings), which I expected from the big box retailers, but not the specialty stores. At least the aspect ratio was correct in most cases, so that’s an improvement, and nearly every unit was displaying widescreen material. However, while it was widescreen and may have been high definition once, it certainly couldn’t be called high definition by the time it got to the display, because not a single store had a clean signal feeding the sets. None. Not one. Not even at the regional specialty store with the knowledgeable sales guy. In every store, the signal was split and distributed to multiple sets, and by the time it got there, it was missing a lot of the original information.

A Dramatization: What the set should have looked like (left, click to enlarge) vs. what it actually looked like (right, click to enlarge):

I seriously question how retailers can expect consumers to pony up thousands of dollars for televisions whose picture quality looks that bad (in the store). If an HDTV looked like that in my home, I’d return it.

At least it made evaluating each set’s processing a bit easier – every set was tuned in to a low resolution torture test. Different sets dealt with the lack of information differently: some made everything soft – so soft it looked like widescreen VHS – and some riddled the screen with digital artifacts so that everything appeared filtered through a 1980’s music video or was digitized to obscure nudity. There were a few sets with direct satellite feeds (or direct connections to an HD disc player); it seems cynical, but those tended to be more expensive 1080p models, and, possibly, higher margin sales for the stores. Conspiracy theory, or just plain retail incompetence?

Product Review: XTremeMac HD Switcher

Sometimes all you need is a simple product that does one thing, and does it well - at an affordable price. If you have an HDTV with only a single HDMI input and multiple HDMI sources, you need an HDMI switcher. New displays may have multiple inputs, and A/V receivers are beginning to provide HDMI switching as a matter of course, so if you're building a system from scratch, you may be able to consolidate your video switching in your reciever or display rather than buy a separate component. Finally, if you have just a single HDMI component, you won't need this either.

However, if you bought an HDTV in the past few years (or are buying a budget model today) and you don't have enough HDMI inputs, you need one of these. I pointed out Gefen's entry in this space last year; that was an HDMI-to-DVI model that retailed for $300. More recently, XTremeMac sent over their XTremeHD 4 Port HDMI Switcher and it does exactly what it's supposed to do all in HDMI with minimal hassle and at much lower cost ($99). With similar styling to Apple's Mac mini, the Switcher is small and looks nice on the equipment rack. Sources can be switched manually or using the included remote control. You'll want to add its codes to a macro on your universal remote control (Logitech's Harmony system makes this very, very easy) or you'll quickly tire of remembering which input covers what. But this is no fault of the product, which worked without a hitch switching between a TiVo HD and an LG HDTV tuner/DVD player outputting to a JVC LCoS rear projection HDTV.

I could not do a double blind test with/without the Switcher in the signal chain, but I have noticed no degredation of the signal from either source. I do seem to be getting more instances of HDMI handshake failure when I switch back and forth than when I would connect just a single source and leave it connected. (The TV's copy protection circuit gets temporarily confused and puts up a notice saying that the source is not supported; this usually goes away with the next command to the source, but sometimes requires switching the source back and forth again). It seems to be an issue with the TV, not the switch itself. I had a nice chat with an HDMI spokesperson at the CES Preview event in New York last night, and while he admitted it was a common issue, he assures me that newer gear has worked out all the compatibility issues. Of course, newer gear tends to have more HDMI inputs and outputs as well, so anyone who needs a switcher should be aware that their source and display may not like each other as much as they ought to.

The XTremeHD 4 Port Switcher is simply named, performs a complicated task simply, and doesn't cost too much. If you need a basic HDMI switcher, I can easily recommend this one.

Consumers Still Think They Have HD When They Don't

The Leichtman Research Group (an ex-Yankee Group analyst) put out a press release with some interesting stats on consumer HD awareness.

LRG claims that over 75% of HDTV owners believe that they are watching HD programming, but LRG estimates that "about 53% of all HD households are actually watching HD programming from a multi-channel video provider (cable, DBS or a telco), and about 4% are watching HD programming via broadcast-only - leaving about 20% of those with an HDTV erroneously thinking that they are watching HD programming when they are not." That may actually be better than previous studies, which put the number of HD delusionals at 25%.

But it doesn't stop with TV content. According to LRG, "about 40% of HDTV owners, and over 20% of all adults, believe that their household currently has a high definition DVD player." Actual HD-DVD and Blu-ray player sales penetration -- even including every last Sony PS3, whether it is being used for movies or not -- equates to single digit household penetration numbers, not 20%. I've been saying this for years now: many consumers don't think there's a problem that they need an HD format to solve for them. Even once/if the format war is resolved, the HD-DVD and Blu-ray camps will need to do some serious educational outreach / demand creation.

-avi

Update to an Old Review: LG LST3510A

Now that we're done fixing up the home theater after the April flooding (new paint, new trim, new flooring) and a tree that fell (new siding and external cable connections), I'm buying all new gear and hope to start writing more formal equipment reviews. But first, it's time to revisit an old review.

It's been 2 1/2 years since I first wrote about LG's LST3510A combination HDTV tuner/upconverting DVD player, but post-flood I'm using it differently - as a "free" HDTV cable box. Some background: In Northern NJ, Cablevision sends out its basic HDTV channels unscrambled using the QAM format over the regular analog cable line. To receive these channels - NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. - all you need is a basic analog cable subscription and a QAM tuner. QAM tuners are not found on all HDTV's, but QAM uses the same hardware that's used to decode over the air HDTV (ATSC). The trick is knowing that your HDTV tuner supports QAM (it's not always advertised) and that your cable company actually uses QAM for some of its lineup (in my experience, this is never advertised because of pricing and other limitations). Without a digital cable box, you can't order pay per view directly (you may still be able to call in an order), and it is not clear that extra cost programming (such as HBO HD or ESPN HD) is transmitted this way by my local cable provider. But if you live in an area that is served with unencrypted QAM over analog cable and you just want basic HD channels and you don't use pay per view much, all you need is a basic analog cable subscription (currently $12.95 in my area) and a QAM tuner, and you've got real HDTV. This is considerably less expensive than upgrading to digital cable (that would be "iO" around here) and renting a cablecard, or a digital cable box, or digital cable DVR from the cable company.

The LG LST3510A never did get consistently good OTA reception at my house no matter which antenna I used; a roof antenna probably would have solved things, but we never went that route. But the LG can decode QAM, and found all of Cablevision's open stations automatically using EZset. Remapping the channel numbers ("channel 110.78") to something intelligible by humans ("channel 9") has to be done manually. Image quality/reception seems less dependant on the LG tuner and more based on how much bandwidth Cablevision allocates to each channel. Some of the marginal SD channels look a bit worse than their analog counterparts, and some of the HD channels seem to lack a bit of detail compared to my memory of OTA broadcasts (I could not do an A/B comparison). But overall, HD is HD and it looks great at an almost unbeatable price.

I won't be using the LG this way for too long, as I will be getting in a TiVo HD later in the week, which can also decode -- and record -- QAM. The TiVo HD is not free, but TiVo's monthly fees are $1 less expensive than the cable company's DVR rental when you sign up for 3 years.

-avi

50% of HDTV Owners Don't Have HDTV

The Wall Street Journal has a great article (subscription required) quoting a recent survey showing that 50% of consumers who bought an HDTV set don't actually have HDTV service. What's more frightening - and yet entirely believable - is that 25% of HDTV owners think that they do have HDTV when they don't. Well worth a read.

-avi

It's Not the Products, It's the Distribution

Vizio put out a press release a few months ago for two of its 42" LCD HDTVs, touting in the headline, that Vizio is, "ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING FLAT PANEL BRANDS IN THE U.S."

On the surface of things, that's not such a bold claim - after all, who the heck are these guys, anyway? They came from nowhere, so of course they're growing quickly. When you sell nothing one year, and something the next, your growth rate looks fantastic. So, growth by itself is not necessarily a meaningful statistic. Perhaps all the newcomers, slapping a moniker onto an LCD panel sourced from a Chinese factory somewhere, are all growing and doing well at the expense of the established brands.

However, the AP had an article in same timeframe suggesting the opposite: that consumers are buying flat panel TVs, but only from major brands:

Makers of slim TVs are struggling with higher inventories, but the extent of the problem depends on each company's position in the market: Smaller names are facing a glut of flat-panel screens while most of the top players say they're playing catch-up to avoid shortages.

So Vizio is bucking a trend here. The new LCD TVs explain why. They’re reasonably feature-rich, and very well priced. But so is a lot of the competition. What’s important here is that the channel itself is a key part (perhaps the key part) of Vizio’s business model. Traditional big box retail (Best Buy, Circuit City) places a premium on brand: getting shelf space is extremely difficult, but once on the shelf you have to compete with Sony and Samsung. This is what the AP is talking about, and it helps explain why Sony, once it got its act together with some decent products, is now back on top of the game. Sony's brand stands for high quality televisions at a moderate premium; that's precisely what the Bravia line delivers, and consumers are buying them. (In September, the L.A. Times reported that Sony has regained its position as the U.S.' top TV manufacturer after falling behind in the late 1990s due to its slow recognition of flat-panel TVs. Sony's entrance into the LCD market has helped the company increase its share of the total market to 28%.)

So what's going on with Vizio? The key is distribution: Vizio aimed beyond the big box stores, instead targeting a different, even bigger "big box": warehouse clubs. Costco in particular is a happy home for new discount brands because the warehouse chain mixes in high end brands with relative unknowns; launching your plasma at Costco does not automatically equate your brand with discount merchandise.

Of course, in terms of sheer volume, the biggest game-changer of all may be Wal~Mart, not the warehouse clubs or Best Buy. As prices drop on flat panel TVs -- easily the most desired big ticket CE item -- more of them end up in the land where there are Always Low Prices. Vendors who can make peace with Wal~Mart's margin and distribution requirements (and sometimes hyper-competitive house brands) will be able to grow their sales volumes tremendously. They may even be able to build a brand where they have none - but it won't be a premium brand.

-avi

Try It and You Won't Go Back. (Or will you?)

Jeremy Toeman over at LiveDigitally talks about the "living room effect" that can convince even the most hardened skeptic to make the move to HDTV.

I'm a big proponent of experiencing products in order to understand their impact, but there are certain things that even a demo can't cure. I find this uniquely interesting on a personal level because the "living room effect" hasn't proven to be true here, at casa HomeTheaterView. I've had a 53" LCOS HDTV for 2+ years, but reception is over the air (when we get it - it can be flaky), and our ReplayTV is hooked up to the analog cable feed. I refuse to watch SDTV when HDTV is available for the reasons Jeremy cites, but my wife is equally adamant that she will not watch content live with commercials. HDTV encompasses more than one improvement to TV watching -- dramatically higher resolution, digital surround sound, and a widescreen aspect ratio. But my wife prizes one feature above that, her time, and would prefer to watch fuzzy contents and save 18 minutes an hour rather than bask in the glory that is HD.

My wife may be somewhat unique, but there are plenty of TV-loving consumers who have priorities that preclude HDTV at this time. HDTV up front costs are high; HDTV has come way down in price, but sets are still fairly expensive. Ongoing costs of HDTV can be considerably higher than analog, depending on the technology used to recieve the signal. Cable HDTV requires upgrading to a digital package and renting a set top box; some cable and satellite providers charge separately for HDTV channels. And a lot of content - the vast majority of cable channels - is unavailable in HD, so if that's what you watch, buying an HDTV won't make things better (and in some cases, it'll look worse).

A TiVo series 3 may be in my future. I have asked TiVo for a unit to review here; hopefully one will show up soon, and my wife and I can watch TV together again.

-avi

CEDIA Highlights, Part II

In last month's CEDIA Highlights post, I noted two projectors that broke through the clutter (and there was a lot of clutter: my in box has dozens and dozens of press releases). There was a third announcement that caught my eye, and, surprisingly, it, too, was projector-related.

THX is now certifying home projectors.

On the surface, this does not seem surprising - THX certifies just about everything. In fact, don't they already have a certification program for displays? It certainly seems like they did. (Actually, they did - but only as part of their commercial theater certification program.) THX is starting out with ludicrously expensive Runco models, but the program should trickle down to more affordable home projectors, rear projection televisions, and flat panel displays.

Not everyone loves THX. First of all, it's a licensing program. It costs money to get the logo, but doesn't offer anything concrete in exchange; theoretically, if your product meets all of THX's specifications, you could be THX-certifiable without actually being THX-certified and pass the savings along to your customers. A bigger issue is that THX's specifications are based on a specific philosophy. On the audio side, the philosophy includes notions of how a speaker should be constructed (small satellites, big subwoofers, and a specific crossover type and crossover frequency), how soundtracks mixed for commercial theaters should be adapted for the home environment, and how rear speakers should be integrated into a system. Reasonable people at, say, a speaker manufacturer, could disagree on an aspect of the technical approach that THX certification demands, but because the THX logo is respected in the market, they may lose business by building things their way instead of THX's methodology.

THX Certified Display testing includes the following:

• Front of Screen (FOS) Testing
  • Luminance
  • Contrast
  • Color Gamut
  • Gamma
  • Uniformity
  • Max Resolution
• Video Signal Processing Testing
  • Scaling
  • Deinterlacing
  • Motion/Video Conversion

I am 100% confident that there will be controversy over THX's video specifications. I couldn't tell you what specifically will cause hand wringing - or whether it will be a specification of omission: THX's video certification program was been rightly villified several years back for certifying terrible letterbox transfers; the specs simply didn't go far enough in that case.

Still, I believe that, on balance, THX is an incredibly positive force for home theater audio and video reproduction. If you assemble a THX-approved system, even from different vendors, you know that the individual products will perform to a certain set of specifications, and that they were designed to complement each other. I also appreciate the notion of a certification program in the first place. Sure, Vendor X has a good reputation, and Vendor Y has a powerful brand. But THX drives the entire industry, for better or worse, towards a unified A/V philosophy. Aside from buying every component in your system from a single brand -- as if that were even possible (outside of Sony and Samsung) -- THX assures a level of uniformity of purpose and performance in home theater products. I like that.

-avi