Dan Golus of Irvine, California, recently wrote to me with two A/V "beefs" about which he feels very strongly:

1. Why don't LCD and plasma TV makers include an option to "step down" a hi-def TV's resolution to simulate a CRT screen for watching old TV shows like I Love Lucy or The Honeymooners? Old TV shows look great on old CRT TVs. I know that an HDTV's high resolution cannot make these old shows look better than a CRT, but there's no reason they should look worse.

2. Why hasn't Sony released hybrid Blu-ray discs with a DVD layer so they can be played in any DVD player? Many people have more than one DVD player—home, office, car, PC, laptop, portable. They do not want a movie disc that can only play in one player. They don't want to tell their kids they can't watch a favorite Disney Blu-ray disc on their car's DVD player. A number of people have told me this is the main reason they keep buying DVDs and haven't purchased a Blu-ray player.

In 2006, Sony told me they were considering it, but at the time it would add $10 to the cost and would hurt the format's introduction. Okay—now it's 2008, and Blu-ray won the format war. Where are the hybrid Blu-ray/DVD discs?

READ MORE »

If there's a choice between convenience and quality, convenience usually wins out. The best example of this is the sad tale of DVD-Audio and SACD vs. MP3, all of which were introduced at roughly the same time. The convenience of quickly downloading MP3s into portable players easily trumped the vastly superior quality of DVD-A and SACD. Granted, the skirmish between the two high-res audio formats didn't help, but I suspect the outcome would have been much the same even if there had been no competition at the high end. So what's an audiophile to do?

READ MORE »

Last Tuesday, I attended a demonstration of the BD-Live capabilities that will distinguish Disney's Blu-ray release of Sleeping Beauty, the first Disney animated title with these enhancements. Of course, to take advantage of them, you need a BD-Live (aka Profile 2.0) player, of which there are very few so far. In fact, the only ones available as of this writing are the Sony PS3 and Panasonic DMP-BD50, with the Sony BDP-S350 and S550 expected to ship soon.

READ MORE »

A couple of weeks ago, I got an e-mail from Bogeun Chung, general manager of the LCD TV product-planning team at LG's headquarters in Seoul, Korea. He wrote that he would be passing through L.A. with one of his engineers on Monday, June 9, and asked if we could meet at Grayscale Studio, the video-testing facility for UAV and Home Theater. I value any personal contact with manufacturer representatives, so I quickly agreed. Little did I know how interesting that meeting would turn out to be...

READ MORE »

My wife Joanna was on a business trip last week, and she found herself in a hotel room with an LCD TV. As she was doing her daily stretching routine on the floor, she turned on the TV and noticed that the colors looked very weird from that angle, "almost like a color negative" as she wrote in an e-mail. "What's up with that?" she wondered.

READ MORE »

In the comments following my blog last week, Neil Richards asked a follow-up question that is the cause of much confusion. I wrote a bit about it in the comments attached to that blog, but I thought it deserved a more thorough treatment this week.

Here's Neil's question:

Please explain the differences between 1080i and 1080p. Is there a huge difference in picture quality?

READ MORE »

Here's a question I get a lot. This one's from Kevin Iole, a boxing and MMA columnist for Yahoo! Sports:

I have a 56-inch Samsung HL-R5667W DLP RPTV that I bought in June 2005. It's a 720p television. I wouldn't mind a larger screen, though we're happy with the picture we get on this one. But I keep hearing how great the picture is on a 1080p set. So my question is this: Will I see a significant improvement if I upgrade to a 1080p TV?

If I change, I'll either go with a Pioneer Kuro plasma or stay with DLP but go bigger with something like a 73-inch Mitsubishi. Is this change just throwing money away, or will we see a significantly better picture?

READ MORE »

It's really strange—and a little unsettling—being without Internet access, though it's also kind of refreshing to unplug from the constant torrent of incoming information and spam for a little while. After a long day of bus rides, factory tours, and presentations by Epson execs, we ended up at a hotel in Matsumoto (near Nagano) with futons for beds on woven-wicker tatami floors.

Also notable was the natural hot spring in the hotel—a scalding 104 degrees—and a complete lack of Internet access, which is said to be common in that part of Japan, a country otherwise famous for embracing technology. As a result, I had to post this blog a day late but hopefully not a dollar short.

READ MORE »

As I write this, I am 34,000 feet above the Bering Strait traveling at 575mph aboard a new Boeing 777-300. We just crossed the International Date Line, turning Monday into Tuesday, after passing over Adak Island, a small member of the Aleutian chain stretching westward from Alaska. I can't help thinking of my father, who spent much of his Navy service there during WWII as a member of the band that played for high-ranking officers and other dignitaries who stopped at the remote base going one way or the other.

READ MORE »

As I drive around L.A. and see gas prices approaching—and exceeding—$4 per gallon, I wonder how this might affect people's entertainment activities. I'd love to know how it's affecting you...

READ MORE »

Once again, I am very gratified at the thoughtful responses to last week's blog that were posted here and e-mailed to me. Clearly, UAV has many intelligent, articulate readers, and I thank you for sharing your insights, which will help me select the best products to review. Instead of posting inline replies to the comments left during the week (sadly, an activity I don't often have time for), I'll summarize my thoughts here, partly so I can devote some undivided attention to them and partly in the hopes that the discussion will continue...

READ MORE »

First, I'd like to thank all of you who responded to my query of last week. I got more than 30 replies that expressed a wide range of opinions on what products UAV should review—not only specific products, but types of products, price ranges, and other criteria. Here's a summary and a follow-up question...

READ MORE »

In this blog a couple of months ago, I asked readers to vote on whether you wanted more audio reviews with fewer objective measurements or fewer reviews with more measurements, a choice I had to make in the face of budgetary constraints. Your input was very helpful, so now, I have another question for you...

READ MORE »

As I'm sure most UAV readers know by now, analog-television broadcasting will cease on February 17, 2009, less than a year from now. On that date, all analog TVs receiving their signals via over-the-air antennas will display nothing but snow on every channel. Cable and satellite delivery to analog TVs will be unaffected—in fact, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mandated that cable companies continue to provide analog services until at least 2012. But that still leaves some 14 million US homes in the dark on that fateful day next year.

READ MORE »

I've been engaged in an interesting e-conversation with Steve Gutierrez, a builder/developer who won a Panasonic plasma at his workplace and wants to install a complete home-media system. Here's the gist of our dialog, but I welcome any comments from readers with suggestions I might have missed.

READ MORE »

Okay, I said I wouldn't use this space for pontificating, but I really can't resist this week. I want to add my voice to Tom Norton's, who, in a recent blog, wrote about what the Blu-ray community needs to do to succeed in the packaged-media market now that HD DVD is out of the picture. I'd like to elaborate on some of the issues he raised.

READ MORE »

Regarding the end of HD DVD, why didn't the ability to burn your own hi-def videos as HD DVDs on plain old DVD-Rs ever get more publicity? Granted, you need a Mac and some special software, but that would likely drop in price someday. And there are still small video companies burning one-off disks for niche customers.

I don't know why the ability to burn HD DVD content onto DVD-R blanks didn't get more publicity; in my view, it's one of several important advantages that format has—er, had—over Blu-ray. Of course, with only 4.7GB (8.5GB on a dual-layer disc), DVD-Rs have about a third the capacity of HD DVDs, so they can hold much less content. The actual amount of time you get depends on the codec and bit rate you use—VC-1 and AVC are far more efficient than MPEG-2, so using one of the new codecs allows more material to be stored. In any event, you get much less time on a DVD-R than a regular HD DVD.

Burning HD content onto DVD-Rs can be done on Windows computers as well as Macs, and much less expensively, to boot. With Windows, two popular programs are CyberLink Power2Go 6 ($40) and Nero 8 (~$100). On the Mac side, you need Final Cut Studio 2 ($1300).

With HD camcorders now so affordable, many consumers are taking high-def home movies, and the ability to burn that content onto inexpensive DVD-Rs lets them easily share it with family and friends—as long as they have an HD DVD player. Of course, they can also burn their home movies to BD-R (write-once) or BD-RE (rewritable) blanks, but those are much more expensive than DVD-Rs, and most Blu-ray players can't play them anyway because of the format's draconian copy-protection requirements.

As you mention, the ability to burn HD DVD content onto DVD-R blanks lets video companies produce one-off discs or small runs of short programs for niche customers. A related application is generating rough cuts of professional HD content during production and post-production so those involved can see where changes might need to be made. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if HD DVD survives in the professional community for just this reason, much like Beta videotape remained a professional standard until very recently.

Another big beneficiary of this little-known ability is the porn industry. Aside from the major studios like Vivid, many porn labels are shoestring operations, so being able to burn HD content onto inexpensive DVD-Rs is a blessing for them. On the other hand, the shortened time available on these discs might be a drawback in this case—after all, buyers of porn invariably want more, More, MORE!

The most important application for me and other video-equipment reviewers is the ability to acquire HD test patterns. For example, Microsoft engineers Stacey Spears and Don Munsil have developed some high-def test patterns that they've graciously made available to some reviewers as HD DVD content on DVD-Rs. Spears and Munsil really know their stuff, and their test patterns are extremely useful for setting up and evaluating video displays.

This brings up a related issue—using your HD DVD player as a video-testing device. There aren't many high-def test discs available yet, but of those that are, many are HD DVDs rather than Blu-ray discs. Among the most important are Joe Kane's Digital Video Essentials and his latest title, HD Basics, which will soon be available in both HD DVD and Blu-ray formats. The HD DVD version has some distinct advantages—for example, you can select certain test patterns as "favorites" and specify the order in which they play, essentially creating your own personalized set-up and test suite. The Blu-ray version can't do this because most current players don't support this functionality.

Unfortunately, no more HD DVD players are likely to be made, so the benefits of HD DVD test discs and burning HD content onto DVD-Rs are limited to those who already have the hardware. Of course, prices are now so low that it's easy to justify getting one for any or all of the applications I've mentioned here. If this idea appeals to you, I wouldn't wait—once those players are gone, they're gone for good.

If you have an audio/video question for me, please send it to scott.wilkinson@sourceinterlink.com.

We've got an open lobby in which we want to mount three TVs to begin with, possibly adding one or two more in the future. We'd like to send various programs to them, such as presentations via laptop, DVD playback, possibly HD content, etc. I'm primarily concerned about the video, since the sound will be piped through an existing in-ceiling speaker system.

The two things I'm trying to decide are:

1. Type of TV: Since this is a well-lit environment, we've settled on LCD technology. Now, we're trying to select the best TV. I've been looking at Vizio and Sharp Aquos models. Can you recommend a good model for this type of environment? Also, since budget is a factor, would we be better off going with 720p rather than 1080p, given that the majority of our content, at least initially, won't be high-def. I don't want to kick myself in a few years for not spending the extra money, so I've been leaning more towards the 1080p displays.

2. Video cabling: Should I send S-video, component, VGA, or what? The distance from my laptop to the farthest TV will be about 50 feet, so I'm trying to decide on a splitter/amplifier device and the best cable format to deliver the video.

I agree completely that an LCD TV is the way to go in that environment. As for the brand, Vizio is probably less expensive than Sharp, and in my experience, Vizio products are quite good for the money. I suspect the Sharp models are probably better performers overall, albeit more expensive.

I also agree that getting so-called "full HD" models with 1920x1080 resolution is probably a wise move in the long run. Many people will tell you that the difference between 720p (or 768p) and 1080p is invisible at small screen sizes, which is true in terms of raw resolution. However, most HD content is 1920x1080 and delivered as 1080i from broadcast sources or 1080p from Blu-ray. If the TV does not have 1920x1080 resolution, it must scale these images to fit the native pixel structure, which can cause visible artifacts if it's not done well. Therefore, I always recommend 1080p sets whenever possible. This will also future-proof your displays as you suggest.

I would definitely not use S-video or composite video connections, which cannot carry high-def at all. I don't know of any laptop with component-output capability, so that's not an option, at least for the computer. Many TVs react differently to VGA than other video connections, limiting themselves to only certain resolutions, and you won't be able to get other sources to send their signals over VGA anyway.

I recommend using an HDMI connection, though a distance of 50 feet is too long for a conventional cable. The answer to that problem is an extender from a company such as Gefen or DVIGear.

One type of extender sends HDMI signals over inexpensive CAT5 cable, which can be as long as 150 to 300 feet; these are available from companies such as Gefen and Key Digital. You need a transmitter at the source end, which accepts an HDMI signal from the source device, and a receiver at the display end, which converts the signal back to HDMI. If the TVs are relatively close to each other, you could put the receiver near them and connect its HDMI output to an HDMI distribution box (again, available from Gefen and DVIGear among others), which would then feed multiple TVs via relatively short HDMI cables.

Another solution might be wireless HDMI, though most such products are not quite on the market yet. These systems include a transmitter and receiver, but instead of sending video over CAT5, they send it via radio signals through the air. The only problem is limited range; you say the distance from your computer to the farthest TV is 50 feet, but it's not clear whether this is line of sight or the length of cable needed to wind through the ceiling or whatever.

One example of a wireless HDMI system is Belkin's FlyWire, which is due out in late August for $500 to $600. It has six inputs on the transmitter (including two HDMI ins), while the receiver has an HDMI output. The range is said to be up to 50 feet. Another possibility is the Philips SWW1800, which is said to transmit up to 1080p at least 15 feet in the same room, though I've seen a prototype working over 45 or 50 feet with a clear line of sight. It's expected in June, but I don't know what the price will be.

For your particular application, it would be ideal if these systems could transmit to multiple receivers, but they can't at this point. (Belkin says it's working on providing this capability in future versions of FlyWire.) Meanwhile, you can use the same trick I suggested earlier: position the receiver near the TVs and connect its HDMI output to an HDMI distribution box, which then feeds the TVs via short HDMI cables.

If you have an audio/video question for me, please send it to scott.wilkinson@sourceinterlink.com.

I have a Marantz VP-12S4 projector with about 600 hours left on the lamp, and I'm not happy with its light output when it comes to HD images (I have both Blu-ray and HD DVD players). I'm considering buying the JVC DLA-HD100. Will the change be worth it as far as brightness is concerned? What about replacing the lamp in the Marantz?

I have a 120-inch screen (gain 0.8), and my projector is in my living room at a throw distance of 5.4 meters (17.8 feet), which is also my seating distance. It's been suggested that I change my screen to a 1.3 gain, but I'm concerned I will lose contrast, as my floor, ceiling, and furniture are all white.

Unfortunately, you are facing several problems. Your screen is quite large with low gain—both of these factors lower the peak white level a lot, leading to a dim picture. And your environment is white, the worst possible color for a projection system because it reflects light from the screen back into the room (and back onto the screen), washing out the image. The low-gain screen makes matters even worse, since such screens normally reflect the projected light at a wide angle, hitting those white surfaces with even more light than a higher-gain screen would.

Regarding the projector, you need a flame thrower for a screen that size, especially with such a low gain. I don't think any sub-$10,000 consumer projector can adequately fill that screen with light. I don't think that replacing the lamp in your Marantz will help much. As far as the JVC DLA-HD100 is concerned, UAV and Home Theater reviewer Tom Norton found that it actually puts out less light than the previous-generation DLA-HD1, and it's more expensive than the older model by around $2000, so if you want an LCoS projector, I'd try to find an HD1 (or the identical DLA-RS1) in your case. Even if you do, however, it's not going to put enough light on your current screen in a white room to create a good picture.

If you can up your budget, the Sony VPL-VW200 ($15,000) puts out more light, but perhaps still not enough. The projectiondesign Action! Model 3 1080 ($24,500) has two lamps, so it should be able to fill your screen nicely.

If you're going to stick with a sub-$10,000 projector, I strongly recommend a somewhat smaller screen with 1.3 gain, such as a Stewart Studiotek 130, that is no larger than 96 inches wide (110 inches diagonal) and preferably a bit smaller. On the other hand, assuming your current screen is 120 inches wide (not diagonal), it's just about the right size for your seating distance, so if you get a smaller screen, you'll need to move your seats a bit closer to it to enjoy the same immersive experience.

Another option you might want to consider is an ambient light-rejecting screen, such as the dnp Supernova, Planar Xscreen, or Screen Innovations Black Diamond. These screens provide better contrast than normal screens in rooms with high ambient light. This might make the Marantz or JVC look good even in your environment.

Also, it would make a huge improvement in your viewing experience if the room was not white. Ideally, it should be as dark and neutral as possible—my home theater and UAV's testing lab are both painted dark Munsell gray, a special color of gray with no hue. Of course, such a color scheme normally has a very low wife-acceptance factor, so any dark, neutral color would be fine and a far sight better than white!

Update: Just as I was finishing this blog, I got another note from Helcio in response to my comments, which I had sent to him before posting them here.

I have just bought a Panasonic PT-AE2000U, and I could not be happier! Believe it or not, I didn't even have to replace my 0.8-gain screen—the light output is so incredible that the low gain makes no difference at all. This sucker has outstanding brightness, unbelievable definition, incredible blacks, and all that for less than $3000! I could not believe my eyes when I saw it. I'll just have to watch all my Blu-ray and HD DVD movies all over again.

I'm very glad you found a projector that works in your environment, though I'm quite surprised that the PT-AE2000U has enough light output to do the job. I reviewed the previous-generation AE1000U in The Perfect Vision, and I measured a peak white level of 13fL on a 72-inch-wide Stewart Grayhawk RS G3 screen. I can't imagine that the AE2000U has that much more light output. This certainly compels me to review the AE2000U, which I will do as soon as I can.

The results were unequivocal—of the 58 respondents, 40 want more reviews with no measurements. That's more than a two-thirds majority, enough to override even a presidential veto. (Would that Congress could get its act together with such numbers!) With so many products out there, these folks want more reviews and are willing to live without measurements, which seem to mean less to them than subjective evaluations from trusted reviewers. I even heard from some engineers who understand and appreciate measurements but for whom subjective evaluations—and a greater number of reviews—matter more.

On the other hand, blog commentator Tyler points out that objective measurements can support the trustworthiness of subjective reviews, saying, "The reason this is my favorite A/V website is because measurements have always been provided to back up the subjective reviews." He also argues that measurements encourage manufacturers to be honest in their specs: "If you don't think things like power ratings with all channels driven, frequency response, video performance, and so on have improved as a result of [independent] testing, you are deluded."

A number of interesting alternatives were proposed. For example, several people supported the idea of measuring only those audio products that exceed some to-be-determined price threshold. On the other hand, at least as many requested more reviews of lower-cost products that they might actually be able to afford, which seems to cancel out the idea of measuring only expensive items.

Of those who want measurements, several said that measuring speakers is more important than doing so with audio electronics, a position that has much merit. According to Mark Peterson, the consultant we hire to perform our audio measurements, the frequency response of modern solid-state electronics is normally close to ruler-flat, and distortion levels are generally quite low, which seems to indicate that taking such measurements isn't particularly useful.

The output power from amps and A/V receivers, however, varies more widely depending on the manufacturer—some companies publish realistic power specs that are verified by Peterson's measurements, while others' specs are wildly exaggerated beyond his results. Of course, the method used to measure output power greatly affects the outcome, and there is genuine debate over which method produces the most realistic results, making this a rather murky area of the whole measurement landscape.

Speakers tend to be much more variable than electronics in their objective performance, depending on cabinet design, driver complement, crossovers, etc. On the other hand, a speaker's subjective performance is highly dependent on the room in which it is evaluated, which makes me wonder about the value of measurements taken in a pseudo-anechoic environment. Tom Norton, UAV's über reviewer, believes that if a speaker measures well in such an environment, it's more likely to sound good in a variety of rooms, but if it measures poorly, it's bound to have trouble in most rooms.

That's not to say a poor speaker measurement guarantees poor subjective performance—for example, Michael Fremer loved the Sonus Faber Domus speaker system, even though it didn't measure very well. Does that mean his reviewing skill is suspect? Knowing Fremer as I do, I would say absolutely not. Instead, I believe the system happened to integrate well with his particular room.

This example leads me to believe that measuring speakers is important for shoppers, who should know how they perform both objectively and subjectively in order to make the most informed buying decision. Measuring electronics is less important, since most modern solid-state products tend to measure reasonably well. The one exception might be output power—ideally, shoppers should know if a receiver or power amp delivers the power it claims to.

In the end, I've decided on the following compromise—UAV will measure only the output power of AVRs and power amps and perform a full suite of tests on speakers. And we will always include a complete set of measurements in all reviews of video displays. I'm confident that we can publish a goodly number of reviews following these guidelines while providing the most important objective results to complement the subjective evaluations of our expert reviewers. That way, you will have all the info you need to make the best buying decision for your particular situation, and we'll be able to review a wide range of products without blowing the budget on extensive but ultimately unnecessary measurements.

Again, thanks to all who responded. But don't stop now—please send your comments, suggestions, and questions to me at scott.wilkinson@sourceinterlink.com. With your help, I intend to make this the go-to site for all the home-theater information you desire.