Another Opinion - A Matter of Integrity

[terrypaullin]

I guess it's a sign of the times. With TV shows like "Survivor" and "The Bachelor" espousing the virtues of deceitful behavior and getting big ratings, why should I be surprised that specifications from A/V manufacturers occasionally stretch the truth. I'm not, and they do......and they continue to on an ever more frequent basis. Still, one has to draw the line somewhere.

When they sold us "1080p" sets that wouldn't...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2008/04/another_opinion_-_a_matter_of_integrity.php]Read Column[/url]

[GuyOwen]

Page Link from the Email Notice doesn't work.
Not sure why. Seems to be that way on the last several I've received.

[dgmeansit1]

It's pretty rotten that the marketers of audio/video electronics have not been honest with their customers. I wasn't aware of the inflated contrast ratio measurements until reading this article.

For some time now I have been very wary of any kind of amplifier equipment that lists power specs any way other than RMS per channel. Anything else is pretty meaningless the way I understand it. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong!

Many times I will be checking out the specs for an amp or receiver but the power is listed as something like 1200 watts. What the heck does that mean? Are they telling me 1200 watts of power per channel or for all of the channels added together? Are they talking about peak power or RMS? Not knowing the answer makes the spec completely useless. To make matters worse, there doesn't seem to be an industry standard which makes trying to compare equipment very difficult. I was considering a receiver at a Best Buy store recently and the spec made no sense. Unfortunately, once I found an associate to help me, he had no idea either... I didn't make the purchase.

Unfortunately, the marketers continue to get worse as the years go by rather than better. They seem to think that the buying public is not educated enough, or interested enough, to know what they are doing. They are wrong!

[Digital]

Ok, so you've made a point about trusting double-blind tests, which is great - but then turned around and stated that "cables make a difference". As such, please point out one or two double-blind, or even single-blind evaluations demonstrating that as a fact. I was reading your article, thinking to myself "gee, right-on, a guy who pushes honesty and integrity in the A/V world, how rare and excellent"... and then I saw your cable statement...

For the record, I am one of those who have conducted a number of blind evaluations on RCAs, TOSLink and Power cables - none of them have ever demonstrated a difference in cabling. In the case of the power-lead, I even damaged and mangled it beyond recognition and compared it with a $150.00 'high-end' unit: no discernable difference.

Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com

[dgmeansit1]

When I first bought my new HDTV plus BD player, I hooked it up with a cable I paid $85 for thinking that I wanted to get the best picture possible. It worked great. However, I later purchased one from Amazon.com for $3.00 and found that I could not tell the difference. Indeed!

[perfectinght]

Terry's article is another example of the added value in doing business with companies that have gone to the trouble and added expense of providing formal training to their sales people and systems designers. This has been the intention behind such organizations as Joe Kane Productions, the Imaging Science Foundation, THX, the Home Acoustics Alliance, CEDIA, etc. Terry, along with certain other discriminating product reviewers, are the beneficiaries of such formal training. Industry experience augments such courses, when determining which providers of products and services to do business with.

Practitioners of imaging science and display industry standards and practices are the best translators of marketing hyperbole used by equipment manufacturers. Experienced display calibrators are familiar with real-world performance characteristics of video displays and program source components. Home electronics consumers have become cynical as a result of such pervasive hyperbole. The ones who can afford professional assistance with their entertainment design and installation need not suffer from such deceptive practices.

Consumers on a low budget are left to fend for themselves. Ignorance is not bliss in such cases. Forums such as this one can be of some help, but information and opinions provided by fellow novice consumers should always be taken for what they are: anecdotal observations rarely grounded in sound imaging science. Terry has hundreds of elaborate home entertainment installations under his belt. This forum offers a number of genuine industry professionals for reliable, experienced and insightful help. That's why I've been a member and supporter for many years.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

[dabhome]

Consumer Reports once stated "stick with low cost cables - you won't likely see a difference", which simply isn't true if you have good equipment. You don't need the $100/ft. stuff, but Monster grade 2 or equivalent WILL improve the picture.

Terry - Are you referring to HDMI cables or analog component cables? If you are referring to analog component cables then yes maybe it will make a difference. If you are referring to HDMI cables then please post the studies. Everything I have ever read says it doesn't make a difference. Even if you go to Monster's web site they never actually claim it will produce a better picture.

David

[Dave3putt]

Many times I will be checking out the specs for an amp or receiver but the power is listed as something like 1200 watts. What the heck does that mean?

You are right to be suspicious because those numbers really don't mean a thing. They are nearly always used to hype a poorer quality receiver/amp, or an all-in-one system. You are also right that RMS power per channel is the rating to look for, but that rating also needs to state how many channels driven, the Ohms, and the frequency bandwidth used in the rating. Plus the distortion level. There are many tricks being played with these numbers, such as high distortion levels or only using a frequency of 1 khz. in the rating.

If in doubt and it fits your budget, look for one that is THX certified. You can't go too wrong there.

I have posted this before but it is a good thing to read if you are in the market for a receiver/amp:
http://www.ecoustics.com/tl/10309/

[dgmeansit1]

I appreciate the link describing the amp specs! It definitely justifies my suspicions about sellers of audio equipment using deceptive practices. I think I know what to look for now!

[GuyOwen]

Thanks, Terry, for posting this article. Too often, I see Reviews posted that simply skim over the lies and state "...this is the Contrast Ratio we saw during our testing..." without taking the Mfr to task for declaring they have 500,000:1 on that set -- when we all know that's bogus. My brother, in fact, was glowing about the Samsung he was going to rush out and buy just for that one claim.

But there's so much more...
HDMI Ports that just never work -- particularly on 37" sets for some reason.
HDMI Ports that refuse to function with certain equipment -- notably, the PS3 and my Sharp 37".
Color adjustments that don't really allow you to fix very much.
Image stabilization that works partially.
Blu-Ray players that take 2-1/2 minutes just to load a disc -- how come you never see THAT listed on the box?
Hi-Def players that can't be paused, the restarted -- without starting the movie all over, again.
HD sold by Cable and Satellite services -- even Fiber-Optic services -- that is piss-poor.
Glare-Resistant screens on Plasmas that really don't control glare.
Horrid speakers on $2,000 HDTVs.

... but if all of these issues were non-existent, what would we all complain about?