I was in BB yesterday to blow some time with a friend and was offered a job there after talking with the guy that happened to be the home theater supervisor at the store. He told me that I knew more then him. It was great!

Oh I just love the mutual interaction ending in name calling! It makes understanding how those "monsters" work so well! Ya gotta love passion for ones trade!:eek::p

On Calibration:

On random and unnecessary insults:

So, let's look at the reasoning, here.

Premise: One (presumably green) Magnolia Pro made a false assertion about front projection. That is, ∃x∃y(Fxy & Mx) (read, there exists some x (the salesman), who made false statement (F) about y (front projection technology); and that same x is a Magnolia employee.

Therefore: All Best Buy/Geek Squad employees are inept. Id est, ∀x(Bx → Ix) (read, for any x, if x is BB/GS employee, then x is inept).

This inference doesn't look like it is going to be accommodated by a consistent decision procedure, so if you don't mind, please either retract your rash and rude generalization or deliver a full proof for the rule of inference to which you've appealed.

If you'd like me to affix semantic values to each node of the omitted construction trees (assume MIT school syntactical analysis), I'd be happy to render a Montague-school currying of the predicate calculus expressions, with full recursive definitions in set theoretic terms.
__

The argument is constructed this way in an attempt to demonstrate that Best Buy employees are very often articulate, well-informed, and capable of offering logically/scientifically up-to-par advice and analysis.

I am a Magnolia Pro, and I am not going to be shy about this: in most respects, I am damned clever. Calling me and all of the other sharp BB employees "fools" is stupid.

Ouch! JeefMHT of MIT is nailing it deluxe! Ya' gotta love the words and the way they be a git used! Goshie Golly Molly!:eek:

On a serious note: Job well done Jeff - job well done. :D

I love reading these "oldies but goodies". Time to read and re-read and actually gain knowledge. It does not hurt - and it is free!:o

I just wanted to put in my two cents and thank those of you who actually give some of us Magnolia Pros some credit. I'm not going to generalize about the company because there are many employees who have no clue what they're talking about , but through the past 3 years, I have found many genuine employees who have a passion for home theater products.

Me personally, I sell what I believe in, our calibration, plasmas, panamax over monster surge, non-bose speakers. I sell our rocketfish cables over monster hdmi. As for the dynex, it's a hit or miss. I've bought a few for testing purposes and have found some issues in store and at home as far is audio delays, random flickering etc although these tests aren't 100% accurate. Just me switching hdmi cables from a blu ray straight to a tv.

The problem with our calibration service is the fact that many of the calibrators will take shortcuts. There are a few who will go through the entire process which are the ones I schedule for my customers. Done properly, our calibrators do a pretty darn good job.

You may have a different opinion, and I apologize if Best Buy has screwed you over in the past. If there is something I can do for you please PM me.

Side note: if you guys want to check out my buddy's home theater. He has done most of this install himself. He's a BB employee and is one of our ht advisors.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1144946

I sell what I believe in, too. I believe in Monster, so, eh, oh well. But maybe the Dynex are poorly built. There's a difference.

Best Buy Magnolia may be disappearing in many markets. I saw this music store had replaced a Magnolia in one market. It looked much busier than a Magnolia and had better priced products for the average Best Buy customer.

greetings

The Magnolias are starting to vanish in many places. (Down to less than 10 stores now) A failed experiment ... and/or a total misunderstanding of how the original Magnolia model works.

regards

greetings

The Magnolias are starting to vanish in many places. (Down to less than 10 stores now) A failed experiment ... and/or a total misunderstanding of how the original Magnolia model works.

regards

From what I saw with those stores they were not worse than others, but they were no better. The product pricing in the Magnolias did not fit the average BB customer either in my opinion. I also heard that they altered the policy keeping the Magnolia employees seperate from the rest of the store. This probably accelerated it's failure.

I suspect that the Magnolia acquisition was intended to give BB an association with a higher end business and differentiate them from the rest of the box movers. To some degree that may have happened, but I doubt that it made much difference in the bottom line. The ability of an operation like BB to actually implement any serious improvement in service level is limited. There is only so much you can do to make a horse into a zebra. You can paint on stripes but the true nature of the beast will come through.

That said, BB has done a great service to the industry by promoting calibration and by providing at least some level of installation service. Mediocrity promoted to the masses makes for a great opportunity for specialists who provide a much higher level of service.

Yea, I think that there is 8 or 9 standalone Magnolia AV stores. There's about 155 Magnolia HT stores in Best Buy though. Everyone is still a Best Buy employee whether he/she was certified to sell Magnolia products or not. Now everyone is listed as a Magnolia status if you work in home theater. Things have really changed for us in the past few years, but I still feel that the ex-Mag employees will still stand out from a regular blue shirt. Most people even in my dept. won't sell out of Magnolia.

What I saw, was the Magnolia stores had separate sales staff and higher end products. The problem was the knowledge level of the staff was not any better than the normal BB staff. It just didn't give the impression of being in a "high end" environment. This was both the Magnolia and the BB/Magnolia.......

Yea, we intended to try and separate ourselves from the core ht guys by dressing up in a shirt and tie and working within the Magnolia room. We are still employed by BB though, but had a different pay scale. Now everyone is considered a Mag pro and my domain is from one side of ht to the Mag side. I don't like to assume knowledge about other stores because I have gone to many different BB that employees knew nothing. I just like to give credit to those employees that genuinely work hard because they love home theater, not ones who are there just because it's a job. I love/hate working there at the same time. There are times when you have irate customers and there are times when you meet that customer that loves high end products and you can have a long conversation with them. I mean I'm only 20 and would have had the top magnolia spot in our store. I'm not saying I'm the best at what I do, but I work hard to learn about our products/technologies because I love this stuff, not much because my job requires me to. There is a reason why the speakers I have are by Vienna, DefTech, and MartinLogan and the same reason why I sell them.

Magnolia isn't going away, there's just been a lot of issues since it rolled out. First, Best Buy screwed up by putting all these ******, super-small TVs in "core" HT and essentially anything 54"+ up in Magnolia. They didn't realize that everyone wanted to buy them. Now, Best Buy has fixed that, and Magnolia's product assortment has been dwindled a lot.

They screwed up Mag from what it should have been. Magnolia should have been a "store-inside-a-store" thing, but dumbass managers couldn't keep themselves from bringing the Mag employees into core and vice-versa when either department got busy. They shouldn't allow the MHT Pros to venture out of Mag to sell, and HT core employees to venture into Mag to keep it proper. Because, essentially, we did what the HT employees did, but we had more knowledge. When Best Buy re-organized the operating model, Mag Pros were eliminated, and HT/Mag now has to cover Appliances. But we still "specialize" in a department, like in Mag for me.

At my store, we're supposed to, now, zone Home Theater, Magnolia, and Appliances. WTF. But we still focus on Mag, so I don't necessarily know, it will make our employees dumber though.

<sigh>

I know that I am coming late to the party here but haven't any of you posting about digital communications read Shannon's "The Mathematical Theory of Communication"?

Larry

I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."

:rolleyes:

<sigh>

I know that I am coming late to the party here but haven't any of you posting about digital communications read Shannon's "The Mathematical Theory of Communication"?

Larry

In a perfect world, yes. However, as anyone who has kept up with digital ever since Sony once told the world the same thing - its all 1s and 0s and we cannot make it sound any better than the CD sounded in 1983 - knows that theoritical and real world are worlds apart.

I find it comical that no one has referenced any of the cable tests that show all aspects of HDMI 1.3 do not work with all HDMI 1.3 cables, but instead relies on a war of 1s and 0s in a perfect world.

But then again, in a perfect world, cars could travel on the Highways .000001 millimeters apart if they were all driving at the exact precise speed. However, if one slight variation in speed occurs, you have the biggest junk yard in the world. The same thing can happen with digital - its called digitial jitter and its a well accepted measurement these days - just one of MANY things that can go wrong.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. Shannon's work, no matter how old, is the foundation for all digital transmission. His work is the basis for all modern digital communications and, in fact, was used for developing the communication systems on the first space probes over 40 years ago. Physics and math do not change. Technology does.

Shannon proved rigorously mathematically that if even a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced. One can say that the argument against expensive digital cables goes back to Shannon and Nyquist.

tribestros said:

'I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."'

I was only giving him a more detailed source to help him overcome his confusion.

Larry

In a perfect world, yes. However, as anyone who has kept up with digital ever since Sony once told the world the same thing - its all 1s and 0s and we cannot make it sound any better than the CD sounded in 1983 - knows that theoritical and real world are worlds apart.

I find it comical that no one has referenced any of the cable tests that show all aspects of HDMI 1.3 do not work with all HDMI 1.3 cables, but instead relies on a war of 1s and 0s in a perfect world.

But then again, in a perfect world, cars could travel on the Highways .000001 millimeters apart if they were all driving at the exact precise speed. However, if one slight variation in speed occurs, you have the biggest junk yard in the world. The same thing can happen with digital - its called digitial jitter and its a well accepted measurement these days - just one of MANY things that can go wrong.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. Shannon's work, no matter how old, is the foundation for all digital transmission. His work is the basis for all modern digital communications and, in fact, was used for developing the communication systems on the first space probes over 40 years ago. Physics and math do not change. Technology does.

Shannon proved rigorously mathematically that if even a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced. One can say that the argument against expensive digital cables goes back to Shannon and Nyquist.

tribestros said:

'I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."'

I was only giving him a more detailed source to help him overcome his confusion.

Larry

I think that what he was trying to convey is that Shannon's theory has nothing to do with whether the information gets from one place to another or not in a real world implementation. It is also misleading to say that "if eAven a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced." This depends greatly on what you started with and what you have left, as well as the transmission scheme.

Okay, so I guess back in the 1960s when we designed the digital communication system for the Voyager spacecraft using Shannon's theory as a basis, it was not a real world implementation. Okay, you must know something that I don't.


Oh, yes. We also used the theory of gravitaion so, all in all, I guess that also was not a real world implementation.

Larry

I think that what he was trying to convey is that Shannon's theory has nothing to do with whether the information gets from one place to another or not in a real world implementation. It is also misleading to say that "if eAven a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced." This depends greatly on what you started with and what you have left, as well as the transmission scheme.

What it comes down to is there is much more to it than the concept of "all or nothing." While you get most of the "data" there is no guarantee that you are getting all of the data, 100% as sent. Yes, there have been good results with cheap HDMI cables and there have been bad results with very expensive cables. A decent picture with any cable doesn't mean the picture can't be better with a different/better performing cable for the application.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. Shannon's work, no matter how old, is the foundation for all digital transmission. His work is the basis for all modern digital communications and, in fact, was used for developing the communication systems on the first space probes over 40 years ago. Physics and math do not change. Technology does.

Shannon proved rigorously mathematically that if even a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced. One can say that the argument against expensive digital cables goes back to Shannon and Nyquist.

tribestros said:

'I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."'

I was only giving him a more detailed source to help him overcome his confusion.

Larry

Looking at the HDMI 1.3 spec (http://www.hdmi.org/download/HDMISpecification13a.pdf), it appears there is no error correct on the video data, just on the audio and control data. The quality of the information, then, depends on the cable meeting the specs. In particular, as the signals are transmitted using differential signalling on three separate channels, I can imagine that out-of-spec slew between the differential signals or slew between the channels on a long low-quality/non-compliant cable could introduce quality problems on the video signal.

As to how such data corruption might manifest itself visually, I cannot speculate. I have only very short cable lengths, so I've not observed any such problems.

....I can imagine that out-of-spec slew between the differential signals or slew between the channels on a long low-quality/non-compliant cable could introduce quality problems on the video signal."a long low-quality/non-compliant" should read "potentially any"

I have had customers say they couldn't put an exact definition on the picture improvement, but the picture overall looked better, better color better image structure, sharpness, etc. This was the difference from a long passive cable that was considered to be functioning well, to an active HDMI cable.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. Shannon's work, no matter how old, is the foundation for all digital transmission. His work is the basis for all modern digital communications and, in fact, was used for developing the communication systems on the first space probes over 40 years ago. Physics and math do not change. Technology does.

Shannon proved rigorously mathematically that if even a tiny amount of a digital signal can be recovered, the original signal can be reproduced. One can say that the argument against expensive digital cables goes back to Shannon and Nyquist.

tribestros said:

'I find it amusing everytime somebody tries to say, "hey hdmi cables are all the same" the only argument they have is "digital signal is 0s and 1s."'

I was only giving him a more detailed source to help him overcome his confusion.

Larry

Yes, you could correct for it if you had enough error correction....but perhaps you need to learn more about what is included in the HDMI Specs.

Secondly, error correction takes time, even milliseconds.....and with data traveling that fast (as in my example, .00001 millimeters apart on a highway), you would have a pile up to end all pileups while that error correction takes place (if it were actually there).

Looking at the HDMI 1.3 spec (http://www.hdmi.org/download/HDMISpecification13a.pdf), it appears there is no error correct on the video data, just on the audio and control data. The quality of the information, then, depends on the cable meeting the specs. In particular, as the signals are transmitted using differential signalling on three separate channels, I can imagine that out-of-spec slew between the differential signals or slew between the channels on a long low-quality/non-compliant cable could introduce quality problems on the video signal.

As to how such data corruption might manifest itself visually, I cannot speculate. I have only very short cable lengths, so I've not observed any such problems.

Tests have shown even short cables do not pass all HDMI 1.3 specs.

http://www.audioquest.com/resource_tools/downloads/whitepapers/HDMI_eyepattern_BER_and_cliffeffect_rev_1_00.pdf

The video is perfect up until the data is too corrupt to reconstruct it.

No blur , no judder as a symptom of under-performing cables. You get a picture with hdmi or it falls apart.

See cliff effect.

You can get sparkles and more subtle pixelation when a cable is on the edge of acceptable performance. It will not make the image softer, but some might consider it to be "blurry" in a general sense. Judder is not related and I beleive that the term was misused when it was discussed earlier.

Bill, I believe if you read the HDMI spec more carefully, you will find that error correction is available at the packet level, which include both audio and video.

You can get sparkles and more subtle pixelation when a cable is on the edge of acceptable performance. It will not make the image softer, but some might consider it to be "blurry" in a general sense. Judder is not related and I beleive that the term was misused when it was discussed earlier.

.

If people post on here and are unable to differentiate between softness and picture breakup. Describe sparklies as "blur" and misuse a term as simple to understand as judder.

May I humbly suggest that rather than come on here and cast aspersions on other's people's knowledge they should keep their heads down and continue to sell their over-priced special sharp and judder free hdmi cables , steal candy from babies , con old ladies out of their live savings or continue to work at best buy: or whichever scenario they find the least morally objectionable.

It really is not necessary to be derisive. May I suggest that you use complete sentences, proper grammar, and post in a more positive manner?

It really is not necessary to be derisive. May I suggest that you use complete sentences, proper grammar, and post in a more positive manner?

I see every need to be derisive towards misinformed snake oil pedlars at every opportunity: especially when they go around referring to people demonstrably more learned than they are as "dumbasses".

This is an internet forum and my grammar and punctuation are quite sufficient for that purpose. Feel free to correct it yourself if the construction of my previous post offends you so.

If that was the main purpose of your post I'd suggest you are veering off topic and heading swiftly toward pettiness; which I have precisely zero interest in .

"a long low-quality/non-compliant" should read "potentially any"

I have had customers say they couldn't put an exact definition on the picture improvement, but the picture overall looked better, better color better image structure, sharpness, etc. This was the difference from a long passive cable that was considered to be functioning well, to an active HDMI cable.

Sorry, but BS.

Sorry, but BS.

Seconded ...sorry Glen.

And to be fair Glen is just relating an anecdote rather than his opinion of it.

Seems to me there was a reason the designed/developed passive, balanced passive and balanced active cables. Seems to me, unless you are getting all the packets delivered intact, as sent, you are not getting the whole picture. Whether the display or the individual sees the difference is another issue. An expensive cable does not guarantee accurate packet delivery, the construction and design do. People will always be taken by the numerous snake oil peddlers. The best defense against being taken is to do your homework and gain the knowledge necessary to make an informed purchase decision. I was a big believer in the performance results/improvements achieved by the, NLA, VizionWare active HDMI cables for long runs and their balanced passive HDMI cables for short runs. Point is, they "always" worked and furthermore they always seemed to resolve problematic HDMI issues.

The one thing we must do is realize that we are all individuals. AV Sales personnel and video calibrators do not come with a "BS in video calibration" from USC, MIT, Cal Tec, etc... Any BB, mom & pop store, or high-end store can be the starting point for the unique individual that makes his/her way to great success in the field. I like to think of myself as a fairly knowledgeable, professional calibrator, but my BS-Business from USC didn't start me in video calibration or make me any better at it than another, I feel that was all attributable to my abilities. We are not saying that all BB calibrators are bad, we are stating that the work environment and umbrella of corporate policy can have a profound effect on the acceptable calibration results of a BB calibrator. Additionally, the truly "professional" skilled calibrator may put more emphasis on getting the perfect picture (for that particular system) than doing it in a specified amount of time. IMO, when a BB calibrator is destined to become a "professional calibrator", they will leave the BB employment and become an independent professional calibrator who's personal reputation is on the line with each and every calibration. The effort to achieve desired final results is the same whether it is a $600 TV or a $200K home theater...... If one chooses to go with a BB calibrator or an independent calibrator, they learn a bit about the goal of calibration and should talk with/interview their prospective calibrator. If a calibration is a calibration and price is the only variable one can understand or see, there is not much that can be done.

Sorry, but BS.

Seconded ...sorry Glen.

And to be fair Glen is just relating an anecdote rather than his opinion of it.What can I say, I have seen/experienced the performance differences. We all need to realize that we are only talking high bandwidth, 1080/60p and 1080/24p.

You can get sparkles and more subtle pixelation when a cable is on the edge of acceptable performance. It will not make the image softer, but some might consider it to be "blurry" in a general sense. Judder is not related and I beleive that the term was misused when it was discussed earlier.

Bill, I believe if you read the HDMI spec more carefully, you will find that error correction is available at the packet level, which include both audio and video.

With your prompting, I looked again at the spec. It appears to me, still, that the packet level includes only audio and control info, not video pixel data. In particular,

From pages 8-9:

In order to attain the higher reliability required of audio and control data, this data is protected with a BCH error correction code and is encoded using a special error reduction coding to produce the 10-bit word that is transmitted.


From page 54:

The input stream to the Source’s encoding logic will contain video pixel, packet and control data. The packet data consists of audio and auxiliary data and associated error correction codes.


Page 56:

Video Data Periods use transition minimized coding to encode 8 bits per channel, or 24 bits total per pixel.

Data Island Periods are encoded using a similar transition minimized coding, TMDS Error Reduction Coding (TERC4), which transmits 4 bits per channel, or 12 bits total per TMDS clock period.


Beginning at page 58, it describes the data island period, including the ECC generation.

I have not yet read the document cover-to-cover. But this time I did a search for every instance of the word "error" to see what was discussed. And I don't yet see where video pixel data is covered by any error correct. Honestly, I really am looking for it, I hope my citations above are not taken as trying to provoke an argument, I just don't see it.

Regards,
Bill

Seems to me there was a reason the designed/developed passive, balanced passive and balanced active cables. Seems to me, unless you are getting all the packets delivered intact, as sent, you are not getting the whole picture. .

You need to get "enough" packets in enough time through the cable to construct the picture.

If a cable is getting you enough packets you get the reconstructed picture.
If the cable was getting you all the packets you get the same reconstructed picture.

I know from experience an active cable will run longer than a passive one but the issue isn't one of picture quality improvement its of successful picture delivery over distance.

If two cables successfully deliver the picture the picture will be identical in each case.

If one of the cables fails to deliver the picture successfully the result is an obviously corrupt or non-existent picture not the comparatively more subtle assessments of sharpness , judder and color.

There is no middle ground its either corrupt or reconstructed successfully.

Advertising a genuinely premium quality hdmi cable as being desirable for long runs is perfectly sound. If you need a long run by all means spend a bit more money on the cable.

Recommending a genuine premium quality cable over a cheap albeit functional one as a means to enhancing subjective picture quality is snake oil.

What can I say, I have seen/experienced the performance differences. We all need to realize that we are only talking high bandwidth, 1080/60p and 1080/24p.

I use these formats all the time on various displays (often originally from 2k 10bitlog film scans) and the cable only has to be functional. If its not functioning properly the 'sparklies" are the initial symptom not subjective picture quality issues.

did anyone bother reading the audioquest pdf I posted?

If you did I cannot understand how anyone can insist that malfunctioning hdmi cables produce picture quality artifacts such as softness and judder. The audioquest article actually makes a case for high quality hdmi cables but from the perspective of length and high data rate functionality not subtle picture quality enhancent.

It even makes the point that succesfully functional cables will produce the exact same picture regardless of their maximum bandwidth capabilities.

did anyone bother reading the audioquest pdf I posted?

If you did I cannot understand how anyone can insist that malfunctioning hdmi cables produce picture quality artifacts such as softness and judder. The audioquest article actually makes a case for high quality hdmi cables but from the perspective of length and high data rate functionality not subtle picture quality enhancent.

It even makes the point that succesfully functional cables will produce the exact same picture regardless of their maximum bandwidth capabilities.

I read the article. It provides a nice description of the eye-test for cable quality, i.e., how the QA process matches up with the spec.

I did see his claim that the picture will always be exactly the same. "Exactly" is a pretty strong claim. This is one of those cases where one can choose to believe the marketing literature or the spec itself. I don't see the support for what he says in the spec itself, for video pixel data. I do see it in the case of audio data, and the author is coming from an audio company. The thesis of the article is that cable quality does matter, especially for high bandwidth and long cable lengths, and that the purchaser should want to purchase from a company that does 100% testing to assure the quality standards are met, and I understand that argument.

What can I say, I have seen/experienced the performance differences. We all need to realize that we are only talking high bandwidth, 1080/60p and 1080/24p.

Except of course 1080p24 uses less bandwith than 1080i60.

Except of course 1080p24 uses less bandwith than 1080i60.

Glen did say "60p".

I read the article. It provides a nice description of the eye-test for cable quality, i.e., how the QA process matches up with the spec.

I did see his claim that the picture will always be exactly the same. "Exactly" is a pretty strong claim. .

If the data is sufficient to reconstruct the picture in both cases the picture will be exactly the same.

If the data loss through one cable was sufficient to impact picture quality you get sparklies (chunks of the picture are literally not there: white and green blocks instead) or no picture.

I see every need to be derisive towards misinformed snake oil pedlars at every opportunity: especially when they go around referring to people demonstrably more learned than they are as "dumbasses".

This is an internet forum and my grammar and punctuation are quite sufficient for that purpose. Feel free to correct it yourself if the construction of my previous post offends you so.

If that was the main purpose of your post I'd suggest you are veering off topic and heading swiftly toward pettiness; which I have precisely zero interest in .

One can be constructive in correcting misconceptions and not fall to the level of others. Grammar is your choice, but better writing makes it more likely that you will be understood. The quality of what you write and how you write it may also suggest to others the level of credibility to attach to your postings. The very point of my posts is that your pettiness in deriding others detracts from the forum. You can correct people in a manner that elevates the thread. Please consider it.

With your prompting, I looked again at the spec. It appears to me, still, that the packet level includes only audio and control info, not video pixel data. In particular,

From pages 8-9:


From page 54:


Page 56:


Beginning at page 58, it describes the data island period, including the ECC generation.

I have not yet read the document cover-to-cover. But this time I did a search for every instance of the word "error" to see what was discussed. And I don't yet see where video pixel data is covered by any error correct. Honestly, I really am looking for it, I hope my citations above are not taken as trying to provoke an argument, I just don't see it.

Regards,
Bill

Perhaps you are correct. My understanding was based on discussions with an engineer from one of the vendors, and he may not have had a clear understanding of the spec.

Glen did say "60p".

yeah I'm just saying he lumped 1080p24 in there like it is high bandwdith, when it's acutally lower than 720p60

1920x1080x24bx60hz= 2.8gbps
1920x540x24bx60hz = 1.4gbps
1280x720x24bx60hz = 1.26gbps
1920x1080x24bx24hz = 1.14gpbs

1080p24 is actually the lowest bandwidth HD signal and he named it specifically when talking about high bandwidth situations.

yeah I'm just saying he lumped 1080p24 in there like it is high bandwdith, when it's acutally lower than 720p60

1920x1080x24bx60hz= 2.8gbps
1920x540x24bx60hz = 1.4gbps
1280x720x24bx60hz = 1.26gbps
1920x1080x24bx24hz = 1.14gpbs

1080p24 is actually the lowest bandwidth HD signal and he named it specifically when talking about high bandwidth situations.I didn't want to get into every possible combination. Since I mostly deal with 1920x1080 displays and with a Lumagen in the path, 1080/60p is the most common signal. If you have a problem with 1080/24p, then you will have problems with 1080/60p, 720/60p, etc. ......... Most of this is moot, unless one is experiencing problems...... Solving for yourself is one thing, solving for a customer, they want it fixed!, no try this and try that........

yeah I'm just saying he lumped 1080p24 in there like it is high bandwdith, when it's acutally lower than 720p60

1920x1080x24bx60hz= 2.8gbps
1920x540x24bx60hz = 1.4gbps
1280x720x24bx60hz = 1.26gbps
1920x1080x24bx24hz = 1.14gpbs

1080p24 is actually the lowest bandwidth HD signal and he named it specifically when talking about high bandwidth situations.

This is not accurate math, it's actually more complicated than that since it all runs in 10-bit, even if the video is only 8-bit. You also have to include the extra line time and extra lines where all the rest of the data (audio, etc) rides, so the data rates are higher than that.

It's kind of a mess, but for instance AFAIK 1080i and 720p run at the same bitrate. Some rates like 480i/480p send pixels twice, it also varies whether you're sending 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, etc etc.

For instance your first number of 2.8 gbps is not accurate for 1080p60, it's 4.45gbps.

What can I say, I have seen/experienced the performance differences. We all need to realize that we are only talking high bandwidth, 1080/60p and 1080/24p.

What differences and how did you measure them, on what test patterns?

HDMI cabling absolutely can and does fail. And when that happens, you lose pixels, or large chunks of the image (lost lines entirely, really bad snow, etc), or total loss of image (complete snow). You don't get things like judder, softness, changes in color, or anything like that. If you're seeing that you are seeing other things, or you're "seeing" things that aren't real. It's really as simple as that.

This is not accurate math, it's actually more complicated than that since it all runs in 10-bit, even if the video is only 8-bit. You also have to include the extra line time and extra lines where all the rest of the data (audio, etc) rides, so the data rates are higher than that.

It's kind of a mess, but for instance AFAIK 1080i and 720p run at the same bitrate. Some rates like 480i/480p send pixels twice, it also varies whether you're sending 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, etc etc.

For instance your first number of 2.8 gbps is not accurate for 1080p60, it's 4.45gbps.

Or if you're sending RGB.

My only point was 1080p24 has lower bandwidth requirements that 720p60. If 720p60 works on an HDMI run 1080p24 should work, 1080i60 will likely work, but 1080p60 may not work at all (since it's twice the bandwidth of anything else).

Or if you're sending RGB.

My only point was 1080p24 has lower bandwidth requirements that 720p60. If 720p60 works on an HDMI run 1080p24 should work, 1080i60 will likely work, but 1080p60 may not work at all (since it's twice the bandwidth of anything else).

Yes, I've run into several situations where 1080i60 or 1080p24 works just great, but 1080p60 has various problems, or is totally failed.

What differences and how did you measure them, on what test patterns?I didn't/haven't measured it with test patterns. It was more an overall improved picture while watching. This was my experience, I can't prove it and I don't intend to try. Everyone is free to believe what they want. However when someone that didn't see what I did, says I am wrong and couldn't have seen a difference, well..........

What can I say, I have seen/experienced the performance differences. We all need to realize that we are only talking high bandwidth, 1080/60p and 1080/24p.

I agree with you 100% and those that say BS are in denial.

One can look at a woman and know which looks more attractive, but you cannot point out every detail why. There is a ratio between the eyes, the width vs the height of the face, the Ratio of the Bust, Hips and Waist etc etc etc.

However, when you make a call as to who is a 10 and who is a 5, just saying one is more attractive than the other is just as subjective as the consumers noted in your story. They cannot tell why, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

All the naysayers remind me of those that said transistors were perfect even though those that trusted their ears knew there was harmonic distortion that was not present in tubes, which later became a standard measurement for any equipment with transistors involved known as thd. Ditto for the "perfect" digital of the CD, compared to those who actually listened and compared. If the ignorant want to present opinions of what should happen in a perfect world - great. We don't live or view TV in a perfect world.

Hell, Contrast Ratio has no Industry standard and is easy to manipulate by the size of the white square(s) on the screen - and Best Buy is running TV Spots telling how much they know about Contrast Ratio vs Walmart. I can't wait to have fun in a Best Buy with that one.

I didn't/haven't measured it with test patterns. It was more an overall improved picture while watching. This was my experience, I can't prove it and I don't intend to try. Everyone is free to believe what they want. However when someone that didn't see what I did, says I am wrong and couldn't have seen a difference, well..........


As a professional, Glen, what criteria do you use in choosing and recommending which cable to use in a given situation?

I didn't/haven't measured it with test patterns. It was more an overall improved picture while watching.

In what way? What changed?

You can't even say that anything actually changed specifically.

This was my experience, I can't prove it and I don't intend to try.

Please don't try. You'll make yourself look foolish.

Everyone is free to believe what they want.

No, actually, I'm sorry they are not. There are certain facts that make up a broader tapestry that I like to call REALITY! Unless you want to admit that you're fully willing to believe that little green men or magic fairies is how HDMI works...

However when someone that didn't see what I did, says I am wrong and couldn't have seen a difference, well..........

They're probably correct. I'd bet money on it.

My guess is that you were aware that there was a change in cabling. That makes the test, in this particular instance, totally worthless and it is absolutely fair, and indeed prudence and objectivity demands, that I ignore all your claims of perceived difference as total BS.

I agree with you 100% and those that say BS are in denial.

One can look at a woman and know which looks more attractive, but you cannot point out every detail why. There is a ratio between the eyes, the width vs the height of the face, the Ratio of the Bust, Hips and Waist etc etc etc.

However, when you make a call as to who is a 10 and who is a 5, just saying one is more attractive than the other is just as subjective as the consumers noted in your story. They cannot tell why, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

All the naysayers remind me of those that said transistors were perfect even though those that trusted their ears knew there was harmonic distortion that was not present in tubes, which later became a standard measurement for any equipment with transistors involved known as thd. Ditto for the "perfect" digital of the CD, compared to those who actually listened and compared. If the ignorant want to present opinions of what should happen in a perfect world - great. We don't live or view TV in a perfect world.

Hell, Contrast Ratio has no Industry standard and is easy to manipulate by the size of the white square(s) on the screen - and Best Buy is running TV Spots telling how much they know about Contrast Ratio vs Walmart. I can't wait to have fun in a Best Buy with that one.

Nothing you have said is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.

Ok kids...
Here's the deal. I bought TWO tvs from Best Buy in January (yes... for the Super Bowl). I paid for calibration at the time, but I have yet to set up a time to get it done. It is going to cost $500 for both of them. Is it worth it? Yes, there are times when the TV in my bedroom seems a bit dark (that would be at night), but in general, I think I have a pretty good pix. I bought a Sony and an LG.

See... I need a new laptop, and, well... you get the pix, no?

Any thoughts??

Ok kids...
Here's the deal. I bought TWO tvs from Best Buy in January (yes... for the Super Bowl). I paid for calibration at the time, but I have yet to set up a time to get it done. It is going to cost $500 for both of them. Is it worth it? Yes, there are times when the TV in my bedroom seems a bit dark (that would be at night), but in general, I think I have a pretty good pix. I bought a Sony and an LG.

See... I need a new laptop, and, well... you get the pix, no?

Any thoughts??

No one can determine the value of calibration for you.

You can get quite a bit of the way from out of the box settings to professionally calibrated settings using a calibration DVD/BD and paying close attention.

The last bit of accuraccy you'd get from a professional calibration can be seen as a night and day difference or a slight sift in color balance. Also a big part of the results do depend on the skill of the calibrator. Honestly if you are even question the value of calibration v a laptop, you'll probably be way happier with a calibration DVD and a laptop.

Greetings

Worth is relative. Yes for some people ... no for others. Is an apple worth it? Is a swimming pool worth it? Is an expensive car worth it?

What is the cost of your time worth to learn to do it all yourself and also buy the equipment needed to do this ... versus the cost of hiring a professional to come and do it for you?

If the cost of your time is worth little ... then do it yourself. The Equipment will still cost you money though.

If you value your time more than the cost of getting a professional to do it ...then you have your answer yet again.

regards

Chris, If your not believing me makes me foolish, then that is what I am, in your eyes. The fact you can't believe anything other than your opinion says a lot too!. When dealing with 30-50-foot runs of HDMI there can be lots of issues, it is not always as simple as on or off.

Chris, If your not believing me makes me foolish, then that is what I am, in your eyes. The fact you can't believe anything other than your opinion says a lot too!. When dealing with 30-50-foot runs of HDMI there can be lots of issues, it is not always as simple as on or off.

I think we all agree on that.

30ft+ cable runs of HDMI are where the problems start. As bandwidth needs increase so do the problems.

We all agree that there can be some visible artifacts from signal degradation (sparkles, chunking, ect) and those may appear only in the most bandwidth sensitive resolutions (1080p60) or they could appear at the lower bandwidth resolutions and 1080p60 might not come in at all.

I believe where the dissagreement comes in is when there is not obvious artifacts on screen. It is the belief of many that when you aren't seening the random pixels sparkle (go white or green) you are getting 100% picture quality (not signal quality).

If you believe that colors can desaturate or shift that sharpness of the pixels is effected, or anything else related to quality of the picture that is not a pure digital artifact, I would challenge you to recreate the situation and then the instrument it with your calibration gear. People who believe the quality of the picture changes with different cables always seem to say I saw it so I believe it, but never can back up their belief with anything other then their belief. When you believe something without anything to backup your belief that sounds much more like a religion.

No one can determine the value of calibration for you.

You can get quite a bit of the way from out of the box settings to professionally calibrated settings using a calibration DVD/BD and paying close attention.

The last bit of accuraccy you'd get from a professional calibration can be seen as a night and day difference or a slight sift in color balance. Also a big part of the results do depend on the skill of the calibrator. Honestly if you are even question the value of calibration v a laptop, you'll probably be way happier with a calibration DVD and a laptop.

Hey, thanks for the idea! I think you are right! :O)

I believe where the dissagreement comes in is when there is not obvious artifacts on screen. 1 pixel error of any sort is an artifact....... If you have fewer artifacts on the screen, the picture will look better. I know I read on the forums that many discuss artifacts they are seeing on the screen with their RS2, however I don't or may not see any of those on my RS2. Is it the cable? I don't know, you have to be there and do an A/B test. Theory is theory and should equate to practice, however there are times theory and practice don't agree.

Yes, I have dealt with the issue of 1080/60p sometimes works and sometimes doesn't and I have had the most problem with getting HD/BR players to lock in on 1080/24p. The most difficult was my Panasonic BD30-Radiance-RS2. I finally fixed my issue with a active cable from the Panny to the Radiance. Already had the Active cable to the RS2 due to the previous 1080/60p handshake issue.

1 pixel error of any sort is an artifact....... If you have fewer artifacts on the screen, the picture will look better. I know I read on the forums that many discuss artifacts they are seeing on the screen with their RS2, however I don't or may not see any of those on my RS2. Is it the cable? I don't know, you have to be there and do an A/B test. Theory is theory and should equate to practice, however there are times theory and practice don't agree.

Yes, I have dealt with the issue of 1080/60p sometimes works and sometimes doesn't and I have had the most problem with getting HD/BR players to lock in on 1080/24p. The most difficult was my Panasonic BD30-Radiance-RS2. I finally fixed my issue with a active cable from the Panny to the Radiance. Already had the Active cable to the RS2 due to the previous 1080/60p handshake issue.

The question is how does that 1 pixel error present itself?

My understanding (experience) is that it goes white and only lasts for a single frame, next frame the next pixel error appears somewhere else.

Is your experience that this single pixel error manifests itself as some sort of nearest neighbor interpolation?

Like I said above on longer runs, everybody agree's that the cable quality matters, lower quality cables will have more problems with 1080p60 down to simply not even handshaking.

Chris, If your not believing me makes me foolish, then that is what I am, in your eyes. The fact you can't believe anything other than your opinion says a lot too!. When dealing with 30-50-foot runs of HDMI there can be lots of issues, it is not always as simple as on or off.


It has nothing to do with my belief, and nothing at all to do with my opinion.

It is not my opinion that electrical signals behave in certain ways, physics dictates that. It is not my opinion that the HDMI interface operates in certain ways, HDMI specifications and the design of HDMI dictates that.

There really isn't anything opinionated about it.

Unless you want to stake out a claim in the face of physics and engineering facts, you're making a completely spurious claim. Is it possible you are right? Yes, absolutely. But you could also claim that the earth is flat. You could be right about that too. But quite frankly, unless you have some very strong evidence to back your case that HDMI can cause totally bizarre an unexplainable quality changes based on cabling changes other than those regularly encountered, described, and easily explained, then objectivity demands that I disregard your "flat-earth" claims, which is really what they are.

1 pixel error of any sort is an artifact....... If you have fewer artifacts on the screen, the picture will look better.

But you are making the claim that those artifacts are things like less saturated colors, a less sharp image, less detail, etc.

That claim is absolute bulls**t. Total bs. Sorry. Doesn't happen. Ever.

What you see when an HDMI cable is failing is the onset of sparklies, which can be very very minor, and can be isolated to dark portions of the image. They can be of various colors, depending on what's failing and how. It gets worse from there, with worse sparklies, chunks of snow, lines of snow, and eventually total snow and loss of picture. They can be of different colors.

But unless you're getting these problems, changing HDMI cabling will not improve the picture. Other handshake issues can occur which cause pink, magenta or otherwise seriuosly discolored pictures. But again, you're not going to see one very good and normal picture, and then some other picture that is even better. Doesn't happen. Ever.


I know I read on the forums that many discuss artifacts they are seeing on the screen with their RS2, however I don't or may not see any of those on my RS2. Is it the cable? I don't know, you have to be there and do an A/B test. Theory is theory and should equate to practice, however there are times theory and practice don't agree.

False and unrelated analogy. Poor logic.

Yes, I have dealt with the issue of 1080/60p sometimes works and sometimes doesn't and I have had the most problem with getting HD/BR players to lock in on 1080/24p. The most difficult was my Panasonic BD30-Radiance-RS2. I finally fixed my issue with a active cable from the Panny to the Radiance. Already had the Active cable to the RS2 due to the previous 1080/60p handshake issue.

Sure, and these are among the problems that you can encounter. But if it's working, you don't see any difference in picture.

If you do, I am extremely interested and would like to research your claim, and that's why I want to know EXACTLY what you saw, and how it was objectively quantified and measured. But all you're saying is some vague "well gee I changed cables and I think my picture got more gooder." Well that's a total crap claim.

That claim is absolute bulls**t. Total bs. Sorry. Doesn't happen. Ever.I am so humbled, GOD has spoken!

I am so humbled, GOD has spoken!

Come on Glen, if you don't want to address Chris's post, address mine.


It's pretty simple, either HDMI cabling issues manifest first as sparkles or as some other issue.

Chris doesn't dispute cable runs can be problamatic and using high quality cables on runs longer than 10m are beneficial. What he is arguing is the way in wich cables fail.


In fact here is the question we all would like you to answer, when you get the smallest error in HDMI signal that manifests in picture quality (since the control data and audio data have error correction), what does the smallest error do to the picture?

A) produce a sparkle (drastsicaly different color for 1 frame)
b) other, please describe.

http://gizmodo.com/268788/the-truth-about-monster-cable-part-2-verdict-cheap-cables-keep-upusually

Usually being the key word....as the Monoprice cable did not even pass all the tests.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests

Digital Is Digital, Right?
Unlike the mumbo-jumbo surrounding TOSlink and coax optical cables, HDMI is a little more complex. When the specification is a constantly-moving target, as HDMI has proven to be - and this has been fueled by a willing consumer electronics industry - things get a little hairy. It's important to understand just why, with HDMI, you can't just say "digital is digital, it either works or it doesn't." As we referenced in detail in our article 'HDMI - It's All in the Bitrate,' HDMI has progressed (evolved) from a simple 720p/1080i 8-bit per channel signal to the current 1080p 12-bit (or more) per channel signal it is today. Just what kind of bandwidth is being sent over the cable depends on the source electronics and the capability of the display, but the potential has vastly increased since the debut of HDMI in 2003. As these signals got higher in resolution and bit depth, the amount of bits per second traveling through the HDMI cable increased. When that happened (and most recently culminating in the release of HDMI 1.3) the tolerance requirements for HDMI cables changed as well.


By way of example, with a digital audio coax cable you are dealing with a required maximum bitrate of just over 3 Mbit/s. For a S/PDIF connection, be it TOSlink or digital coax, this is chump change. The specification for that digital connection hasn't changed since ~1997 and the demands made on the cable are far less than the cable's potential capabilities. Now let's look at HDMI. A massive bundle of 15 cables (not including drain wires) - some insulated, all fairly important. In order for HDMI to remain practical, and avoid unnecessary interference, the cable has to be made, at least partially, out of stranded wire, lest 15 solid cables render the cable more of an unbendable, unwieldy stick than a cable. Additionally, the amount of information necessary to transmit the incredibly high resolution video and 8-channels of uncompressed digital audio far exceeds that of the typical DTS or Dolby Digital compressed traffic which meanders through a S/PDIF audio-only connection.

So How Do Cables Differ?
Aside from cost, HDMI cables differ in many ways. Some real obvious differences include the gauge of cable used in construction, stranded versus solid cable pairs (which greatly affects flexibility), and flat versus round. These physical differences are significant, but not nearly as important as whether or not the cables are rated to carry a particular signal a stated distance. Many cables are certified by one or more companies who provide specifications and/or speed ratings to cables. Simplay, for example is a wholly-owned division of HDMI Licensing, LLC that charges large sums of money to test cables and consumer electronics for compatibility and interoperability. Another company coming online is DPL Labs which rates cables on a 1-5 rating. It's a bit redundant since it should be pretty obvious that the Category 1 and 2 specs should be easy enough to certify and uphold. We're more concerned with manufacturer being honest than whether or not some third party certifies them or gives them a sticker. After all, nobody expects every AV receiver to be certified by a third party for exact power ratings (the FCC notwithstanding, but they hardly do more than ensure the product doesn't emit radiation).


Specific problems arise in a couple of areas. First, the equipment required to test HDMI cables is very expensive. We're talking over $200,000 for a basic setup including source generator, scope and calibrated HDMI "probes". This is obviously cost prohibitive for smaller companies to do much more than rebrand someone else's manufactured cables that have already been certified. If they choose the right manufacturer this isn't a problem, but some don't.


You can predict cable integrity and performance fairly accurately by doing the math on the cable geometry and modeling the results. This isn't easy, however (at least not for mere mortals) and we opted to use the measurement methodology instead. For a great (though very technical) article on HDMI cable modeling, please see Eugene Mayevskiy's writeup, which comes from an engineer who worked with Tektronix to deal with these very issues.

Testing Equipment and Procedure

http://archive.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/0906/0906hdmi.asp

HDMI Cable Modeling
And Analysis

by Eugene Mayevskiy, Tektronix

To analyze HDMI cable assemblies, couple time-domain measurements with modeling software.

The high-definition multimedia interface (HDMI) is an emerging consumer electronics standard that offers the first industry-supported, all-digital audio/video, one-cable interface. It supports data rates as fast as 5 Gb/s through a single connector instead of several cables as used in the past. Consequently, HDMI cables require careful design and analysis techniques to ensure that they pass required compliance tests.

The time-domain reflection and transmission (TDR/T) measurement of the HDMI cable helps locate and model discontinuities caused by the geometrical features of a connector and frequency-dependent losses of a cable itself. In cases where it is not possible to measure TDT data directly, an accurate prediction of the transmission behavior can be made.

Moreover, topological models can be built for each part of the HDMI cable assembly, verified with the measurement data, and then used to predict time- and frequency-domain response for a longer HDMI cable. The topological modeling methodology can accurately approximate the electrical behavior of the DUT even before the longer prototype is manufactured.

A 3-meter-long cable is used to build a topological model from TDR data. The model is scaled up and electrical performance predicted for a 10-meter-long prototype. The SPICE simulation linked with IConnect modeling software1 shows correlation between the prediction and the actual TDR/T measurement for a 10-meter-long HDMI cable assembly in the time and frequency domains. The circuit model generated from TDR measurements allows an eye diagram to be obtained, which then is compared with an eye diagram generated from TDT measurements for the fabricated HDMI cable prototype.

Such an eye diagram can be generated directly from TDT measurements, but the TDR-only approach works best when only one side of the DUT is accessible. The result of an eye mask test from model prediction agrees with the test performed for the fabricated prototype. This technique allows a designer to quickly accomplish interconnect modeling and analysis tasks, resulting in faster design time and lower design costs.

TDR Measurements
The TDR measurements normally are done with a time-domain sampling oscilloscope such as Tektronix TDS8200 or similar. This instrument is a very wide bandwidth equivalent-time sampling oscilloscope with an internal step generator.

The TDR sends a step stimulus to the DUT. Based on reflections from the DUT, a designer can deduce a great deal of information about the DUT’s properties such as location of failures, DUT impedance, and time delay, and he can generate an eye diagram for the system.2

An engineer also can use TDT measurements to measure crosstalk or characterize lossy transmission line parameters such as rise-time degradation and insertion loss as well as skin effect and dielectric losses. The frequency-dependent behavior of the system can be calculated from the time-domain (TD) measurements using the time-domain network analysis technique (TDNA).3

The TDR measurements are visual and intuitive to the digital designers due to the transient nature of this technique. As the incident step propagates through the discontinuities in the DUT, it causes the reflections that indicate the exact locations of discontinuities and their sizes. The fast TDR rise time provided by the sampling oscilloscope ensures that a wide range of frequencies is captured during this broadband measurement.

A generalized diagram of a TDR/T measurement setup is shown in Figure 1a. Any of these measurements can be performed in a differential or single-ended fashion. The differential-, common-, or mixed-mode measurements require at least two synchronized sources and a four-port measurement setup as shown in Figure 1b.


Figure 1a. General TDR and TDT Block Diagram



Figure 1b. Block Diagram for Measurements of Coupled Interconnects


The TDR/T response of the DUT not only allows an engineer to observe different discontinuities and characterization of the HDMI interconnects, but it also enables him to quickly create topological models. The topological models capture the distributed nature of the high-speed interconnects and allow determination of a precise impact of each discontinuity on the overall performance of the DUT. Modeling software uses the TDR/T modeling techniques to generate and analyze topological models of various interconnects including the HDMI cable assemblies.

Differential Impedance Modeling Of the HDMI Cable
The HDMI standard uses transition minimized differential signaling (TMDS) technology that provides differential signals with nominal amplitude transitions of 500 mV. If just the differential signaling is considered, then the interconnect can be reduced to a two-port structure, and the model can be built using just differential TDR voltage waveforms. If the HDMI test fixtures are not available, a differential probe connected to the desired channels at the reference plane can be used.

In this modeling example, a differential probe is used to obtain the differential TDR response of a 3-meter-long HDMI cable. If the second probe is available, the differential TDT can be acquired as well, and insertion loss and the eye diagram of the cable assembly can be obtained directly from the measurement without resorting to the modeling process. The combination of two models, a connector model and a lossy cable model, then is used to predict both S-parameters and an eye diagram of the interconnect.

The modeling process starts from modeling losses for the HDMI cable. IConnect software uses two approaches to extract the losses: matched and open. In a matched approach, both TDR data and TDT data generate a lossy-line model.

The open approach can be handy in cases when it is not possible to acquire a transmission waveform because it uses reflection data with the other port kept open to generate an accurate model. The losses in this approach can be extracted and optimized based on the information from the signal’s rise-time degradation and the slope of the TDR voltage in the DUT’s region.

The TDR data for the open-ended configuration is acquired using a time-domain sampling oscilloscope and loaded into the software’s lossy-line modeling tool. The software then extracts the RLGC losses for the DUT.

The correlation is excellent in terms of the rise-time degradation and modeling of the TDR’s slope; however, the connector’s reflections are not modeled in this case. This also is observable in the frequency-domain correlation; the depth of the modeled resonances is smaller than the depth of the measured ones. This behavior is accurately captured when the connector’s reflections are modeled using pieces of the ideal transmission-line models or lumped elements.

The approach to model reflections is best used when the true impedance profile generates a model for each discontinuity in a connector-cable transition of the HDMI cable assembly. To generate such a model, only the TDR data is required.

The discontinuities of the connector-cable area are modeled using sections of the ideal transmission lines; however, lumped element topologies can be selected as well. After the model’s parameters are adjusted, this model can be combined with the lossy-line model to represent both losses and reflections and predict S-parameters as well as the eye diagram for the cable under test.

Models for the connector’s reflections and the cable’s losses can be combined in one composite circuit. The length of the lossy-line model can be scaled down by adjusting loss parameters of the model to fit the connector models. There is no need to create another model for the connector-cable transition because two connectors normally are identical for both sides of the cable.

For this reason, the model can be reused by interchanging the port direction in the subcircuit’s netlist. The SPICE circuit simulation of the final assembly model reveals excellent correlation in both the time and frequency domains shown in Figure 2.



Figure 2. Time- and Frequency-Domain Correlation of the Model Assembly
Click here to see larger image


Once an accurate model is created, it can be used to predict an eye diagram and S-parameters for the cable under test. To extract two-port S-parameters and an eye diagram, both TDR and TDT responses of the HDMI cable model are required.

By the definition of S-parameters, the response is measured when all ports are terminated with matched terminations.4 This is simply done by changing the termination impedance in the composite model and simulating the response. The SPICE-simulated TDR/T waveforms then are used to compute S-parameters.

Fully Coupled Modeling Of the HDMI Cable
Although a differential model can be used efficiently in the system’s simulations, a fully coupled model provides more accurate representation of a device’s performance. Signals that propagate on differential lines can be decomposed into even- and odd-mode components. So, if the model is capable of accurately capturing these two modes of propagation, then any signaling can be accurately represented in circuit simulations.

Separate models for the reflections and losses must be created first, then combined into one model assembly. After the coupled models are built, they have to be compared with measurements in both modes of propagation.

The measurements should include both even- and odd-mode responses, and the models can be built based on TDR only or on TDR and TDT measurements. In this example, the model is built assuming the minimum availability of the measurement equipment, that is, differential TDR capability only.

The TDR data is acquired for both odd and even modes of propagation. The odd mode is excited by setting opposite polarity steps and acquired by using the difference between two channels. The even mode is activated by using the same polarity signals and acquired by summing the TDR responses of channels one and two.

After accuracy of the models for both reflections and losses is verified, they can be combined into one model assembly shown in Figure 3. The model assembly shows excellent correlation for both the even and odd modes of propagation in terms of RLGC losses and reflections.



Figure 3. Time-Domain Correlation and Fully Coupled Model Topology for HDMI Cable Assembly


Model-Based Prediction of an Eye Diagram
The eye diagram test is another key measurement required by the HDMI signaling standard. The measurement of the eye diagram captures the deterministic jitter in interconnects caused by interconnect crosstalk, losses, and reflections. Since the transfer characteristics of a cable assembly contain all the information required to reconstruct this deterministic jitter, the eye diagram computed from the TDT measurements using a TDR oscilloscope is as valid and accurate as the eye diagram obtained using a pattern generator and a sampling oscilloscope.

Modeling tools of the software can be used to estimate an eye diagram of a long cable from the measurements of a short one, enabling a designer to predict interconnect performance before even manufacturing it. This is done by creating an accurate model for the short interconnect using a topological modeling approach and scaling up the lossy-line model to represent the longer cable assembly.

In this section, a 3-meter-long HDMI cable is used to predict an eye diagram of a 10-meter-long cable. Then the actual measurements of a 10-meter long cable verify the prediction.

To build an eye diagram from the time-domain measurements, both reference and transmission waveforms are required. The reference waveform can be acquired from the open configuration with the DUT disconnected while the TDT waveform can be obtained from the SPICE simulation of the scaled model using the reference waveform as a source signal.

The TDT response is saved and used to generate a transfer function required for the eye diagram. It then is generated according to the compliance specifications.

Figure 4 shows the modeled eye diagram for a 10-meter-long cable. The measured eye diagram is almost identical. The scaled model provides a reasonable estimation of the actual 10-meter-long cable performance. The eye diagrams are generated at a 1.65-Gbs data rate and 200-ps 20% to 80% rise time.



Figure 4. Correlation of an Eye Diagram Obtained From the Scaled Model With the Eye Diagram Obtained From the Actual Measurements of the 10-Meter-Long Cable
Click here to see larger image


Conclusion
Time-domain measurements coupled with modeling software can be efficiently used to perform an analysis of the HDMI cable assemblies. Accurate two-port differential models can be quickly built from TDR-only measurement data. The designer also can build coupled models from even- and odd-mode TDR measurements and then reuse those models to predict both insertion and return losses of the cable assembly. Finally, the topological models can be scaled up to accurately predict performance of the longer cables.

References
1. Tektronix.
2. “Eye Diagram Measurements Using TDR Oscilloscope Transmission Data,” Application Note, Tektronix.
3. “S-Parameters, Insertion, and Return Loss Measurements Using TDR Oscilloscope,” Application Note, Tektronix.
4. Ramo, S., Whinnery, J.R., and Van Duzer, T., “Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics,” Third Edition, 1993.

About the Author
Eugene Mayevskiy is an applications engineer with the electrical optical product line at Tektronix. He holds B.S.E.E and M.S.E.E. degrees from Oregon State University where he completed research on measurement-based modeling and analysis of passive devices fabricated for radio-frequency integrated circuits. Mr. Mayevskiy also has published a number of papers and given seminars on measurement-based modeling for high-speed designs. Tektronix, 14200 SW Karl Braun Dr., P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077, 800- 835-9433.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
on HDMI cable modeling

Those of us who have seen the issues with HDMI cables at their limit in length or bandwidth or both have no dissagreement that there can be situations where they matter. Anyone who argues otherwise is being foolish and wasting our time. The question remains, how do we assess the value points in HDMI cables and what do you use as criteria for choosing them. My experience is that the monoprice cables work fine for most applications, and that finding a cable that will work in marginal applications is guesswork. So what criteria should we use?

I asked that question of Glen because he is so adamant that there are qualitative differences in the cables that others do not believe are possible. I ask it of everyone else as well, except of course those who insist that there are no differences.

So some Bestbuy employees believe better hdmi cables improve the picture quality and some do not, and the same applies to independent calibrators.

I think everyone agrees some hdmi cables fail to meet the spec due to poor design or poor quality control, and in combination with some products fail to work correctly. Particularly over long cable runs with high bandwidth applications. I think everyone also agrees that hdmi cables are designed and tested to make sure they work, and cables do differ.

The disagreement seems to me to be if the hdmi cable can subtly make the image worse or if the effects are always obvious. Would someone who has a watchable image with no obvious faults get a better image with a more expensive cable, are they failing to see the full potential of their source-display by not using the best quality cable. Also is this likely over short 1-3mtr cable runs.

I do not understand how mpeg digital over hdmi is different to digital terrestial/satellite TV. If I move the aerial/dish as long as it is within the error correction tolerance the image is perfect regardless of signal quality, when the error correction tolerance is exceeded the image becomes obviously flawed, sparkles/blocky/complete collapse. Getting a digital image across a few meters I would of thought would be easy since modern technology can get it across vast distances.

How does hdmi cause these subtle image imperfections with lower quality hdmi cables that are not obvious except in comparison to a better hdmi cable, can they be identified by the trained eye so that one can tell if a hdmi cable upgrade is needed.

Steve Venuti, Vice President of Marketing for HDMI Licensing, LLC, stated in a recent Widescreen Review article: http://www2.widescreenreview.com/127venuti.pdf

"...HDMI evolves as it continues to react to the demands of the marketplace. With the introduction of HDMI 1.3 in 2006, HDMI doubled the bandwidth of the specification, and with that, gave manufacturers the ability to design products that can output and receive signals at unprecedented levels...And where there is increased bandwidth, there is increased demand on the cable to deliver the HDMI signal."

This clearly states that not all HDMI digital cables are the same. Buying the best cables possible will insure that one always gets the best possible digital picture for the components they own.

And that is absolutely true. Not all HDMI cables are the same. I have never made that claim, and that claim is completely wrong. I have numerous times made references to the varying quality in data cabling, including HDMI cabling, and it's why I recommend high-quality HDMI cabling particularly for distance runs/high-bandwidth applications.

But there is a difference between saying that not all HDMI cables perform the same and saying that when sufficient for the bandwidth required, two working HDMI cables will still look different. The former statement is 100% true. The latter statement is absolutely false.


I should note that I am in no way saying Monster Cables are NOT overpriced and much of it goes towards marketing (or then again, perhaps you get what you pay for). However, that does not mean that all digital cables are either pass or fail - and nothing in between.

Here your logic falls apart. You are wrongly drawing the conclusion that because cabling performance differs that the picture will then differ in quality in ways other than loss of pixels (the sparklies) or other more severe issues. I consider these issues cable failure, but there are degrees of cable failure here. Still, none of these failure points are at all acceptable, so I consider them a complete failure regardless of whether it's minor sparklies or total snow.

Clearly its you that needs to look for new employment as it has been proven by many listed above that its not just yes or no with cable.

You're not even reading what you're posting, none of which disagrees with anything I've said, or anything that Mr. D has said.

Digital cabling can, and does affect jitter, for instance, but this isn't really an issue with video via HDMI. But it's not going to make colors any differently saturated, or make the picture any more or less detailed, or any of the various claims that some are making in this thread.

"Joel Silver recommended a Runco plasma. We told him it was defective since we saw green micro-blocking—he told us it was a defective interconnect! We are video engineers. We did not expect digital cables would create artifacts. Digital cables are expected to be good or not good. He said the Monster ISF cable would eliminate the video noise—it did! The Runco is now gorgeous, as expected! Thank you, Monster Cable!"
Jeff Murray, Director of Home Theater Engineering, Sencore, Inc.

You need to open up your mind like the engineers at Sencore did...... Your theories in your theoritical world dont always work - as both ISF Founder Joel Silver, Joe Kane and Sencore all admit.

And, btw, its easy to show the failures if you know what to test for. Why don't you know as you claim to be an engineer?



Except that Mr. D stands for Mr. Dreamer or Mr. Denial.....take your choice.

Glad you live in a theortical world where everything works in perfect harmony. Perhaps one day we can all live there - just share with us whatever you are taking.......

Bottom line - you think everything always works as expected in theory before its put into practice. Yes, one can measure flaws and flaws have been tested and documented in cables.

Comical you can't accept reality.

Nonsense. That's green sparklies. That's an HDMI cabling failure. Something I've seen many times, and something I've repeatedly referenced over and over in this thread. All this proves is that you're having english-comprehension issues. This completely supports my position.

I am so humbled, GOD has spoken!

No. SCIENCE. You seem to be confusing these two things. God, fairies, magic dust, gremlins, is not how the HDMI interface functions.

...
I do not understand how mpeg digital over hdmi is different to digital terrestial/satellite TV. If I move the aerial/dish as long as it is within the error correction tolerance the image is perfect regardless of signal quality, when the error correction tolerance is exceeded the image becomes obviously flawed, sparkles/blocky/complete collapse. ...

How does hdmi cause these subtle image imperfections with lower quality hdmi cables that are not obvious except in comparison to a better hdmi cable, can they be identified by the trained eye so that one can tell if a hdmi cable upgrade is needed.

I've not read through the terrestrial or satellite transmission specs, but as was discussed above in this thread, the HDMI spec describes error correction around the control and audio information only, with no error detection for the image pixel data. So your description is correct with the stipulation that the error correction tolerance for the image is zero.

So we are left with the interesting part of this discussion, what types of visual failure will be present when the capabilities of a particular cable are exceeded, and how might these be described by the person seeing them.

The sparkles come at the extreme end of the cable problem, not taking in the "no signal". Very visible sparkles, easy to see. There are not always the same amount of sparkles and in the same pattern on the screen. These failing pixels degrade the picture. If you have cable issues that affect pixels , but not strong enough to clearly display sparkles, you still have degradation of the image when the pixels do not function properly. When a pixel doesn't function properly, meaning displaying the right amount of R, G, or B you can have issues with sharpness and color. For a 3-chip, there are three pixels in every pixel on the screen, all three have to function perfectly. On a DLP, one mirror has to properly flash/move three times for R,G, & B. Any disruption in timing, amplitude, etc. can lead to image degradation, whether it is clearly visible or not.

I agree that the digital signal is there or not, but there is a gap, between the point of the image just being displayed and having 100% of the image intact. Sparkles is a clear example of having an image slightly above the on/off threshold.

In this day and age, anyone freely expressing "absolute" terms and criteria, are just setting themselves up to be proven wrong. It has been said that the only sure things are "death and taxes"........ the use of terms such as never, always, ever, etc. need to be used with caution, there are 'almost always' exceptions.

I got on board with the VizionWare cables when they were first introduced. It was a surefix for any HDMI issues. Are they overkill? In some cases, they might be, in problematic situations, no. Did they always work in the application, yes. It took me a while to afford my own, but after installation, I acquired a couple more variations. Currently I haven't sourced an alternative.

Anyone have an idea of the amount of time involved in searching for a thread, reading the posts, researching facts and or support, composing a reply and posting? 5 minuites, 8 minutes, 10 minuites ......?

=
I agree that the digital signal is there or not, but there is a gap, between the point of the image just being displayed and having 100% of the image intact. Sparkles is a clear example of having an image slightly above the on/off threshold.

If you have a problem with an HDMI cable you lose chunks of pixels not individual ones. At the point the cable fails to pass the data sufficiently you get sparklies. There is no intermediate zone where more subtle picture defects arise.

=
In this day and age, anyone freely expressing "absolute" terms and criteria, are just setting themselves up to be proven wrong.

I see no-one on this thread talking in terms of "absolutes". I see one group of people who actually know how this stuff works and have explained it in easily understandable terms with meaningful reference.

Trying to undermine people by painting them as unreasoning blinkered extremists does you no credit whatsoever Glen.

"Joel Silver recommended a Runco plasma. We told him it was defective since we saw green micro-blocking—he told us it was a defective interconnect! We are video engineers. We did not expect digital cables would create artifacts. Digital cables are expected to be good or not good. He said the Monster ISF cable would eliminate the video noise—it did! The Runco is now gorgeous, as expected! Thank you, Monster Cable!"
Jeff Murray, Director of Home Theater Engineering, Sencore, Inc.

You need to open up your mind like the engineers at Sencore did...... Your theories in your theoritical world dont always work - as both ISF Founder Joel Silver, Joe Kane and Sencore all admit.

And, btw, its easy to show the failures if you know what to test for. Why don't you know as you claim to be an engineer?


.

Not once have I claimed to be an engineer. Why would I ? I'm actually a VFX artist (I'm the head of the compositing department you must know) I advise and am often in charge of digital imaging engineers who are at the very top of the game but I do not have an engineering bacckground.

I do not believe for one minute that anyone with a remotely competent level of understanding at Sencore would not recognise sparklies for what they are. You go ahead and believe that dull-witted little marketing anecdote if you like.

The sparkles come at the extreme end of the cable problem, not taking in the "no signal". Very visible sparkles, easy to see. There are not always the same amount of sparkles and in the same pattern on the screen. These failing pixels degrade the picture.

Right. But those errors are egregious. Instead of a pixel that is some color, it comes out pink or white, or green, or red, etc.

If you have cable issues that affect pixels , but not strong enough to clearly display sparkles, you still have degradation of the image when the pixels do not function properly. When a pixel doesn't function properly, meaning displaying the right amount of R, G, or B you can have issues with sharpness and color.

You seem to be insinuating that the level of some pixel's RGB(or YCbCr if that's the signal) channel can change slightly from what it should be. This really doesn't happen.


For a 3-chip, there are three pixels in every pixel on the screen, all three have to function perfectly. On a DLP, one mirror has to properly flash/move three times for R,G, & B. Any disruption in timing, amplitude, etc. can lead to image degradation, whether it is clearly visible or not.

What does this have to do with HDMI signaling? Nothing.

I agree that the digital signal is there or not, but there is a gap, between the point of the image just being displayed and having 100% of the image intact. Sparkles is a clear example of having an image slightly above the on/off threshold.

Sure. It is not an absolute cliff. The sparklies can be minor, severe, or totally snow. But as I said before, I consider each of these situations completely unacceptable and a cabling failure. In other words, we can debate about degrees of "not working" but to me each of these situations goes into "the cable does not work" category. This is very unlike analog cabling where there is a constant continuum between good and bad performance and the degradation is gradual.

In this day and age, anyone freely expressing "absolute" terms and criteria, are just setting themselves up to be proven wrong.

Not necessarily. Some things are more absolute than others. digital signaling is much more absolute compared to analog signaling. This is both good and bad. HDMI signaling, as such, is fairly absolute. If it works, it works. There isn't really anything fuzzy about that. and then there are degrees to which it doesn't work, but all of them are equally unacceptable in my eyes.

It has been said that the only sure things are "death and taxes"........ the use of terms such as never, always, ever, etc. need to be used with caution, there are 'almost always' exceptions.

I do use those with caution. But there are times when those terms are appropriate. Until I have one piece of evidence to the contrary which I can verify objectively, I will continue to use those terms with regards to HDMI. The reason I have been asking you to back up your claims is because your claim could be that one piece of evidence. But it turns out it wasn't. It was just another errant BS claim about apparently visible changes by somebody who didn't know what they were talking about, and thought that somehow HDMI cables could soften the picture, lessen detail, or desaturate colors. Sorry. Can't happen anymore than the sun orbiting the earth. doesn't happen. Possible, sure anything is possible, but I'm not waiting around on the sun to orbit the earth...

I got on board with the VizionWare cables when they were first introduced. It was a surefix for any HDMI issues. Are they overkill? In some cases, they might be, in problematic situations, no. Did they always work in the application, yes. It took me a while to afford my own, but after installation, I acquired a couple more variations. Currently I haven't sourced an alternative.

If you have a problem with an HDMI cable you lose chunks of pixels not individual ones. .

i am looking for reference to this . So far I've not found anything detailed enough but my understanding is that the minimum packet loss with HDMI is larger than a single pixels worth of picture info.

Even if it were a single pixel even if it were in a single channel ( a pixel in the red channel being 100% on or off) would be obvious. My point is that HDMI failure is not at any point "subtle".

i am looking for reference to this . So far I've not found anything detailed enough but my understanding is that the minimum packet loss with HDMI is larger than a single pixels worth of picture info.

Even if it were a single pixel even if it were in a single channel ( a pixel in the red channel being 100% on or off) would be obvious. My point is that HDMI failure is not at any point "subtle".

It can occur in one isolated pixel, in other words it need not occur on a group or block of collocated pixels or a longer portion of a line time, but it almost certainly will be happening on many other pixels across the screen as well. So you're going to be seeing sparklies all over the screen, sporadically, or as things worsen in much more severe degree. Though it can relate to the image content as well.

I have seen systems with minor sparklies that people actually, apparently lived with for a long time and accepted, knowing no better (and not being picky I guess...). But to me this still goes in the catgory of 'cabling failure.'

posts deleted: please take note

I have a Pioneer 50" (5080HD), 50 Panasonic (TH-50px50U...about 3 yrs old), and a 58 Panasonic (TH- 58PZ850). At first I really didn't think too much about calibration let a lone one from Best Buy. I decided to get my Pioneer calibrated as the guinea pig...and it made a crazy amount of difference. I searched for the best settings on the web and found one that def improved the pic quality. After the calibration...holy crap. Went back in and got my other two sets calibrated. But they do 2 HDMI inputs, not all of them. I only use the two anyway (because HDMI running to receivers...so that shouldn't make a difference right?). But anyway...I was happy with it, and in the end that's all that matters. The whole thing with saving 50% of energy bill seems a bit too high though.

Want real fun?

Tell them you'll buy whatever set you want (you can always back out or return it) if they can demonstrate and measure the 15,000:1 Contrast Ratio they state in their new TV Commercial with the "professional" ISF equipment they use to calibrate sets.

Or better yet, just ask the normal salesperson (as seen on tv) how contrast ratio is measured, if they get it right, hand them a Minolta LS-100 and ask them to prove the spec they are quoting.

I have a Pioneer 50" (5080HD), 50 Panasonic (TH-50px50U...about 3 yrs old), and a 58 Panasonic (TH- 58PZ850). At first I really didn't think too much about calibration let a lone one from Best Buy. I decided to get my Pioneer calibrated as the guinea pig...and it made a crazy amount of difference. I searched for the best settings on the web and found one that def improved the pic quality. After the calibration...holy crap. Went back in and got my other two sets calibrated. But they do 2 HDMI inputs, not all of them. I only use the two anyway (because HDMI running to receivers...so that shouldn't make a difference right?). But anyway...I was happy with it, and in the end that's all that matters. The whole thing with saving 50% of energy bill seems a bit too high though.

Yeah you won't be saving much on your energy bill. Any reduced power consumption is an incedential by product of the calibration and not one of the goals at all. Not only that trying to acheive any specific goal will lead to poor results.

Any reduced power consumption is an incedential by product of the calibration and not one of the goals at all.

FWIW, Joel would dispute you on that fact and makes a point of talking about it in ISF Courses he teaches.

Yeah you won't be saving much on your energy bill. Any reduced power consumption is an incedential by product of the calibration and not one of the goals at all. Not only that trying to acheive any specific goal will lead to poor results.

FWIW, Joel would dispute you on that fact and makes a point of talking about it in ISF Courses he teaches.A Plasma can see significant power reduction from calibration. Mainly due to taking the unit out of "torch" mode. I know they have tested the results and yes, you can see a power consumption reduction. Way too many factors to say how much. Calibration to D65 and reducing contrast will generally reduce power consumption for plasmas, but not on bulb and LCD units, Power consumption is reduced on LCD by reducing backlight level....... LED..???

FWIW, Joel would dispute you on that fact and makes a point of talking about it in ISF Courses he teaches.

I doubt he would dispute what I said.

It's a by product, not a goal. The gains are incedental.

Are they real? Sure.
Are they limited to Plasmas? Mostly.

Do calibrators pay any attention to power consumtion during the calibration process? None what so ever.

I have a Pioneer 50" (5080HD), 50 Panasonic (TH-50px50U...about 3 yrs old), and a 58 Panasonic (TH- 58PZ850). At first I really didn't think too much about calibration let a lone one from Best Buy. I decided to get my Pioneer calibrated as the guinea pig...and it made a crazy amount of difference. I searched for the best settings on the web and found one that def improved the pic quality. After the calibration...holy crap. Went back in and got my other two sets calibrated. But they do 2 HDMI inputs, not all of them. I only use the two anyway (because HDMI running to receivers...so that shouldn't make a difference right?). But anyway...I was happy with it, and in the end that's all that matters. The whole thing with saving 50% of energy bill seems a bit too high though.

Months ago, the company sent out an email saying that energy savings should not be sold as a benefit of our calibration service. Sometimes a calibration can actually increase power consumption depending the tv. Even if it happens to decrease consumption, it's not like it's a huge difference off your monthly bill.

Yeah you won't be saving much on your energy bill. Any reduced power consumption is an incedential by product of the calibration and not one of the goals at all. Not only that trying to acheive any specific goal will lead to poor results.

Want real fun?

Tell them you'll buy whatever set you want (you can always back out or return it) if they can demonstrate and measure the 15,000:1 Contrast Ratio they state in their new TV Commercial with the "professional" ISF equipment they use to calibrate sets.

Or better yet, just ask the normal salesperson (as seen on tv) how contrast ratio is measured, if they get it right, hand them a Minolta LS-100 and ask them to prove the spec they are quoting.

Best Buy uses a product similar to this kit made by Sencor http://www.sencore.com/products/video-generators/150 (I'm not sure on the exact model or series) Plus contrast ratio is overstated by every manufacturer and usually isn't worth looking at when comparing sets.

About our commercials, they're just intended to prove a point that our employees go through trainings and at least know the basics unlike wal-mart employees. Chances are your regular blue shirts may not always know what they are talking about, but there are definitely a lot of us who do.

Best Buy uses a product similar to this kit made by Sencor http://www.sencore.com/products/video-generators/150 (I'm not sure on the exact model or series) Plus contrast ratio is overstated by every manufacturer and usually isn't worth looking at when comparing sets.

About our commercials, they're just intended to prove a point that our employees go through trainings and at least know the basics unlike wal-mart employees. Chances are your regular blue shirts may not always know what they are talking about, but there are definitely a lot of us who do.

Oh, so lets recap here....

The Sencore products you listed cannot measure dark levels well enough to get a proper contrast ratio, yet ISF lists Contrast Ratio as the most important factor in Picture Quality.

Best Buy knows Contrast Ratios are overstated, yet uses them when trying to sell TVs?

And the commercials are not accurate (which would be labeled by the FTC as false advertising).

What else did I miss?

Oh, so lets recap here....

The Sencore products you listed cannot measure dark levels well enough to get a proper contrast ratio, yet ISF lists Contrast Ratio as the most important factor in Picture Quality.

Best Buy knows Contrast Ratios are overstated, yet uses them when trying to sell TVs?

And the commercials are not accurate (which would be labeled by the FTC as false advertising).

What else did I miss?

1. I said that I am unsure of the exact product meaning that the one I listed is probably not the exact model Best Buy uses. I simply went to the Sencore site and linked the closet model I saw.

2. Contrast is usually overstated, it does give a good comparision when comparing sets from the same manufacturer, but not from different manufacturers because their measurements will vary. Plus everyone states the dynamic contrast ratio, not the static giving the contrast ratio at one point in time, not over a period. It's become a numbers game and people just see a higher number and always assume it's better than the next.

3. I never said our commercials weren't accurate. I simply meant that Best Buy's selling point is that we train our employees around our products and services unlike Wal-Mart who's main selling point is price.

4. My main point is that a lot of people on this board don't give us much credit at all. I'm not trying to speak for the company because I know there a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about. There are many of us who do work hard for our job and enjoy what we do. I'm a full time student who works a full time and 2 part time jobs to pay for college.

I will be having Best Buy calibrate my set here in the next couple of weeks. They only charged me $150 for it after discounts were applied (I guess they are able to push it out at a lower cost if need be) because I wasn't about to have it calibrated.

I should note I'm normally very content with my own picture settings, as I tend to have a good eye for adjusting the user menu settings to about where they make the most natural picture.

With my latest purchase, the Samsung PN50B650 plasma, it has way too many adjustments for me to make on my own (color settings, specifically). I have been able to get an awesome picture out of it with my own eyes and with a little help from Sony blurays (the "hidden" calibration menu).

That said, I'll report here when I get it done and see exactly how it compares to my own settings. I believe they give a report to show where I was before the calibration, and where they managed to get it afterwards. I'll try and post those as well.

Greetings

There's what you think is an answer that you like ... and then there is the correct answer. The two may not be the same ... and usually are not the same at all.

The quest for calibration is the the quest to get it right. Unfortunately, it is not about getting an image that you happen to like. Like and dislike have nothing to do with it.

While graphs are interesting things to look at, they don't tell the whole story ... in fact they rarely tell even half the story. This means that it is very possible to have pretty graphs and bad images.

regards

Greetings

There's what you think is an answer that you like ... and then there is the correct answer. The two may not be the same ... and usually are not the same at all.

The quest for calibration is the the quest to get it right. Unfortunately, it is not about getting an image that you happen to like. Like and dislike have nothing to do with it.

While graphs are interesting things to look at, they don't tell the whole story ... in fact they rarely tell even half the story. This means that it is very possible to have pretty graphs and bad images.

regards

This is the kind of technobabble that does little to inform and much to create a large rift between the "calibration" crowd and the rest. If you cannot discuss contexts that relate what "get it right" means, and how that relates to "like and dislike" you are spinning the wheel with no fibres, IMO. I am about providing a service to maximize the enjoyment and functionality of my clients' systems. That often has a lot to do with "getting it right" and sometimes nothing at all. When a client is educated on the relationship between their preferences and what calibration can provide, he can make an intelligent decision. Some people just want you to tell them what is right and calibrate their set and they will never care any more than that. Most people who come here are trying to get a better idea of what that means, and unfortunately, Michael, you and others often talk in circles rather than saying much that is useful.

Saying that calibration is not about getting an image that you like is like saying science is not about technology. It may well be so, but one must have an understanding of science to apply it properly. Similarly, if we have no regard for what makes a pleasing display, what point is there in what we do? You can be technically very correct and be useless at the same time. The relationship between the client's needs, the technology, and the ability to calibrate the system is the very crux of what we should be attending to. This is what separates the best calibrators from the fast food calibrators and the techno-snobs. To dichotomize calibration and preference makes the same mistake as the engineer who designs a product with no regard for how it will be applied in the real world. Arrogance at its worst...

You and I both know that you can contribute much more to the forums than this. Please do so.

Greetings

You can continue to do it your way ... and I will do it with my style. You are not the etiquette police here.

regards

This is the kind of technobabble that does little to inform and much to create a large rift between the "calibration" crowd and the rest. If you cannot discuss contexts that relate what "get it right" means, and how that relates to "like and dislike" you are spinning the wheel with no fibres, IMO. I am about providing a service to maximize the enjoyment and functionality of my clients' systems. That often has a lot to do with "getting it right" and sometimes nothing at all. When a client is educated on the relationship between their preferences and what calibration can provide, he can make an intelligent decision. Some people just want you to tell them what is right and calibrate their set and they will never care any more than that. Most people who come here are trying to get a better idea of what that means, and unfortunately, Michael, you and others often talk in circles rather than saying much that is useful.

Saying that calibration is not about getting an image that you like is like saying science is not about technology. It may well be so, but one must have an understanding of science to apply it properly. Similarly, if we have no regard for what makes a pleasing display, what point is there in what we do? You can be technically very correct and be useless at the same time. The relationship between the client's needs, the technology, and the ability to calibrate the system is the very crux of what we should be attending to. This is what separates the best calibrators from the fast food calibrators and the techno-snobs. To dichotomize calibration and preference makes the same mistake as the engineer who designs a product with no regard for how it will be applied in the real world. Arrogance at its worst...

You and I both know that you can contribute much more to the forums than this. Please do so.

I feel that you are exactly right. I originally came to this forum for help and questions on home theater PC's, but since I went back to retail selling home theater, I'm trying to educate myself more about the process of calibration. I think that we can all agree that calibration is about getting the best performance a tv can produce while maintaining accuracy with regard to color, grayscale, etc. I try to learn from this forum and directly from my calibrators instead of going through some of the home theater trainings. I'll admit I know basic concepts of calibration, but I'm at least making an attempt to learn more about it every day. I apologize for being a little bit defensive in the last few posts, and I feel that instead of bickering all over this thread that it should be more of a collaboration because there are so many people here that have a great background of knowledge.

I'll admit that I'm going to defend a lot of complaints about Best Buy. One because I work there, and two because they've done nothing but give me great opportunities within the company. I understand there are hundreds of issues that people have every day with us, but there is a reason why we are still around. I feel that this company has been one that has adjusted through change and as of right now we're even changing our sales model to become even better. If there are things that I personally can do for anyone on this board I'm always willing to help out.

As I have said many times, BB has its place in the market. Their system has inherent limitations and the expectations need to be realistic for what can be accomplished withing that system. You can defend them all you want, and you and those that you describe may be very good at what you do, but it does not mean that you will get the kind of service and experience from BB that can be found in most markets with a little more careful shopping. It is what it is.

Regardless, we should be able to discuss where BB fits into the market realistically just like we should be able to discuss how calibration fits into the needs of a variety of clients. If you learn how to better serve your clients, you have accomplished something. Learning requires reflective analysis of what we do and how we behave. Many here could do with a large dose of it.

Greetings

There's what you think is an answer that you like ... and then there is the correct answer. The two may not be the same ... and usually are not the same at all.

The quest for calibration is the the quest to get it right. Unfortunately, it is not about getting an image that you happen to like. Like and dislike have nothing to do with it.

While graphs are interesting things to look at, they don't tell the whole story ... in fact they rarely tell even half the story. This means that it is very possible to have pretty graphs and bad images.

regards

I feel like you're speaking in riddles. Now, I'm no calibrator, but as I understand it calibration is about getting the best performance you can out of your set to what is considered as close as possible to industry standards.

From what I'm reading in your post, however, you're saying that even if everything is checking out ok as far as numbers are concerned, the image could be poor.

If this isn't a numbers game, then what is the point of calibrating with equipment? Why not just calibrate by eye?

Greetings

There is nothing wrong with the service that BB offers. I think it is great. It serves a purpose and fills a void.

There is something wrong with thinking the service (or calibration in general) is something that it is not. The process is more involved than just a fancy print out in the end. The printed report can't do it justice because of what is not shown in these same reports. So many have made the innocent mistake of placing too much value in the printout ... and losing sight of what the whole process is supposed to be about.

Liking and disliking is not the point of the process ... and that is easily pointed out early on in any discussion. Not hard at all. But if the person insists of holding onto a need to like and dislike ... then we have to start to think twice about the service. Because someone is not listening ... and what else won't they listen to as well.

It's called being on the same page and proceeding. Never want to sucker a person into a service that they shouldn't really want.

regards

greetings

Never said the paperwork was without value. Only that it shows an incomplete picture of the entire process.

You can have a pretty graph ... but it won't show you that the projector is set up wrong using features that cut the resolution in half ... or that the dvd player or satellite receiver was set up wrong. Don't think any of this has any impact on image quality? It just shows you how good your grayscale is ... and not much more. (BB end of things ... )

regards

Greetings

And I do sound like I speak in riddles sometimes because I like to expect a higher level of comprehension from people. Read it a few times ...

regards

This is the kind of technobabble that does little to inform and much to create a large rift between the "calibration" crowd and the rest. If you cannot discuss contexts that relate what "get it right" means, and how that relates to "like and dislike" you are spinning the wheel with no fibres, IMO. I am about providing a service to maximize the enjoyment and functionality of my clients' systems. That often has a lot to do with "getting it right" and sometimes nothing at all. When a client is educated on the relationship between their preferences and what calibration can provide, he can make an intelligent decision. Some people just want you to tell them what is right and calibrate their set and they will never care any more than that. Most people who come here are trying to get a better idea of what that means, and unfortunately, Michael, you and others often talk in circles rather than saying much that is useful.

Saying that calibration is not about getting an image that you like is like saying science is not about technology. It may well be so, but one must have an understanding of science to apply it properly. Similarly, if we have no regard for what makes a pleasing display, what point is there in what we do? You can be technically very correct and be useless at the same time. The relationship between the client's needs, the technology, and the ability to calibrate the system is the very crux of what we should be attending to. This is what separates the best calibrators from the fast food calibrators and the techno-snobs. To dichotomize calibration and preference makes the same mistake as the engineer who designs a product with no regard for how it will be applied in the real world. Arrogance at its worst...

You and I both know that you can contribute much more to the forums than this. Please do so.

I think this is kind of a straw argument. Michael's point is that calibration is about accuracy to an objective standard. Achieving that is an activity of mainly objective measurements, but done through experience. Inevitably, the display is not perfect, and some compromises will be made in achieving as accurate an image as possible.

But it isn't fundamentally about turning the adjustment knobs (or pressing buttons, unless you're stuck in the 80s like me!) to give you the picture that you like or that looks good to you.

But in dealing with a novice, you have to get across that fundamentally there isn't much in the way of preference when it comes to calibration, because it is about accuracy to a reference. It is kind of a black or white issue, in a crude sense, because either the image is accurate or it isn't.

Now, as you delve deeper, you realize that in achieving that accuracy, some compromises are necessary. These come into play when you decide what TV you want (what set of strengths and weaknesses of capabilities you end up with), and to a certain degree some other calibration choices (display brightness, gamma, perhaps black level w/ambient light, clip or don't clip peak whites, etc) can enter in. These are relatively advanced minutia.

But calibration, fundamentally, is about what the picture should look like, not what some arbitrary person wants the picture to look like. To this end, a big part of the calibration process is educating the customer, so that they learn to appreciate what an accurate image looks like. In this way, the person's wants begin to align with what is right, and then there isn't conflict. It is usually the person who has never gotten the chance to really appreciate an accurate reference image, and doesn't even know that they want that, and at first they may not want it.

It's like somebody who hears a really flat subwoofer, properly calibrated into the system for the first time. That's accurate. But to the unknowing ear, it might sound thin compared to the bad-sounding bloat of a crummy system with the bass set way too high. But then you spend some time listening and discussing what sounds "real," and suddenly somebody who wanted horribly inaccurate before simply out of lack of knowledge and attention, desires and appreciates accurate.

Greetings

And I do sound like I speak in riddles sometimes because I like to expect a higher level of comprehension from people. Read it a few times ...

regards

Well that was very rude and I'm not quite clear on where you're coming from. My reading comprehension is just fine. On the flipside perhaps your writing style is just not as clear as you intend it to be? You ended up posting three times in response to my post, with each post starting and ending with your standard "greetings" and "regards". Why not just edit your original post?

I'm asking a question in response to what you posted. As I mentioned, I'm not a calibrator, and I have no real interest in learning every little thing regarding the subject.

On the subject of reading comprehension, I don't believe I ever mentioned in my post anything about liking or disliking anything, nor throwing "want" into the equation. I said I was content with my settings and was curious to see how they will compare on the readout Best Buy takes before and after they do the calibration.

Lastly, this thread is about Best Buy calibration and how it rates. There are many arguments within this thread about the quality of service they offer, that much is for sure. I myself am in the technology field, specifically in networking. Being that I am trained in the subject, I would never trust Best Buy to do my own work simply because I am indeed biased about others and their knowledge. I'm going to assume you're coming from the same view here.

Ultimately the most that myself, the consumer, can do is to post the graph that is given and my opinion on the results. Will a big box store like Best Buy offer a service rivaling local calibrators? Not likely at all, simply because of the size of Best Buy and the fact they do want to push out these services as cheaply as possible to make their money.

I feel like you're speaking in riddles. Now, I'm no calibrator, but as I understand it calibration is about getting the best performance you can out of your set to what is considered as close as possible to industry standards.

From what I'm reading in your post, however, you're saying that even if everything is checking out ok as far as numbers are concerned, the image could be poor.

If this isn't a numbers game, then what is the point of calibrating with equipment? Why not just calibrate by eye?

He is saying that it is a numbers game, but that a single graph can't tell the whole story.

There are so many bits that go into image fidelity that without a very complex readout it's hard to know exactly how good the picture is (even before you get to things like 120hz interpolation).

The other point is that some people like the picture to look as neon as possible. The brighter the better, burn your eyes out after 30 minutes. The more subdued naturual looked of a calibrated image isn't always what people expect considering marketing always says BIGGER BRIGHTER.

So calibration isn't about what you like.
Calibration is about being as accurate as possible.

Calibration is also about the things that don't show up (making sure your calbe box is hooked up for HD, making sure the output of your upscaling DVD player is acutally set to 1080p) in a chart. Anyone that's been out in the feild has seen some pretty horrible "proffessional" installaions.

He is saying that it is a numbers game, but that a single graph can't tell the whole story.

There are so many bits that go into image fidelity that without a very complex readout it's hard to know exactly how good the picture is (even before you get to things like 120hz interpolation).

The other point is that some people like the picture to look as neon as possible. The brighter the better, burn your eyes out after 30 minutes. The more subdued naturual looked of a calibrated image isn't always what people expect considering marketing always says BIGGER BRIGHTER.

So calibration isn't about what you like.
Calibration is about being as accurate as possible.

Calibration is also about the things that don't show up (making sure your calbe box is hooked up for HD, making sure the output of your upscaling DVD player is acutally set to 1080p) in a chart. Anyone that's been out in the feild has seen some pretty horrible "proffessional" installaions.

Thanks for clearing that up. I still don't understand why his response to my original post was directed at me, since I never mentioned anything contrary to these things. As I mentioned, I'm all for a natural looking picture, and that means no torch settings, deep blacks (without losing detail), sharp picture, and color clarity. I know how to setup equipment with the proper settings beyond the television as well.

On the subject of reading comprehension, I don't believe I ever mentioned in my post anything about liking or disliking anything, nor throwing "want" into the equation. I said I was content with my settings and was curious to see how they will compare on the readout Best Buy takes before and after they do the calibration.


well you started off saying


I should note I'm normally very content with my own picture settings, as I tend to have a good eye for adjusting the user menu settings to about where they make the most natural picture.

With my latest purchase, the Samsung PN50B650 plasma, it has way too many adjustments for me to make on my own (color settings, specifically). I have been able to get an awesome picture out of it with my own eyes and with a little help from Sony blurays (the "hidden" calibration menu).


While you can do some adjustments with your eyes and a good pluge pattern (black level/white level), there is hardly anything else you can do with your eyes. So that is why when you say you have an "awesome" picture that is strictly an opinion and does not relate one bit to having an accurate picture.

You can do more with a blue filter (get basic color and tint) and even a step further with 3 filters (basic color decoding). You still cannot even attempt to do grey scale or gamma calibrations.

That initial post may not have communicated your position clearly. Lord knows I started out with the THX optimizer, then the AVIA disc + 3 color filter, then the spyder 2 and HCFR, now I have a chroma5 and calman. It's learning process if you are going to do your own work and I know for sure that every step along the way my picture got incrementally better. Don't take Micheal's post as threating or discouraging. If you want me to decode what he said line by line I've followed him enough to have a good idea what he ment (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth Mike).

well you started off saying



While you can do some adjustments with your eyes and a good pluge pattern (black level/white level), there is hardly anything else you can do with your eyes. So that is why when you say you have an "awesome" picture that is strictly an opinion and does not relate one bit to having an accurate picture.

You can do more with a blue filter (get basic color and tint) and even a step further with 3 filters (basic color decoding). You still cannot even attempt to do grey scale or gamma calibrations.

That initial post may not have communicated your position clearly. Lord knows I started out with the THX optimizer, then the AVIA disc + 3 color filter, then the spyder 2 and HCFR, now I have a chroma5 and calman. It's learning process if you are going to do your own work and I know for sure that every step along the way my picture got incrementally better. Don't take Micheal's post as threating or discouraging. If you want me to decode what he said line by line I've followed him enough to have a good idea what he ment (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth Mike).

Well in my defense I never claimed to have an accurate, calibrated set. I do have a natural looking picture, but I'm sure it can be improved even further with a calibration. As you mentioned this is all my opinion, and unfortunately that is all I can offer.

I actually just tonight used the AVS HD MP4 to tweak my set even further and was able to utilize the blue filter that my set has. I've already noticed a further improvement in image quality as a result.

If this thread is purely about a professional calibrator's opinion on Best Buy's calibration service, then I misunderstood in posting here. I was purely going to offer what I currently experience and then post a followup on what I feel Best Buy was able to do for me.

I thank everyone here for their help and hope to learn more from a lot of you. I trust a couple of my calibrators because they previously were private calibrators and joined our GS team, not installers who were promoted from level 3 and sent to minn. for our calibration training. I feel that overall we have some really good people working in the Dallas area. We did start out as a test market so our guys have been working the longest since BB started rolling out this service. I've said this in previous posts, the issues with a lot of calibrators for BB is that many of them take shortcuts. While talking to my district managers, we've decided to give our calibrators extra time between jobs allowing them to do a complete job. 1.5-2 hours from my experience just doesn't seem to be enough time. I've read some things about 3-4 or even 5+ hours on this board. What do you guys think? I know it's not something that can be pinpointed to a certain length of time, but on average what is a good estimate?

I thank everyone here for their help and hope to learn more from a lot of you. I trust a couple of my calibrators because they previously were private calibrators and joined our GS team, not installers who were promoted from level 3 and sent to minn. for our calibration training. I feel that overall we have some really good people working in the Dallas area. We did start out as a test market so our guys have been working the longest since BB started rolling out this service. I've said this in previous posts, the issues with a lot of calibrators for BB is that many of them take shortcuts. While talking to my district managers, we've decided to give our calibrators extra time between jobs allowing them to do a complete job. 1.5-2 hours from my experience just doesn't seem to be enough time. I've read some things about 3-4 or even 5+ hours on this board. What do you guys think? I know it's not something that can be pinpointed to a certain length of time, but on average what is a good estimate?

Alot depends on the model and the calibrators experience with the model. I know my toshiba is a bit peculiar when it comes to gamma/cuts/drive/contrast. Balancing everything to get the most out of the set takes not only knowledge of the theorory, but experience with how the controls interact on my display. So while I can sit down and take 2 hours to verify what my set is doing, someone else trying to do the same thing from out of the box may need 3 or more hours to ahve a chance to play around and see how the set responds to different configurations.

Well in my defense I never claimed to have an accurate, calibrated set. I do have a natural looking picture, but I'm sure it can be improved even further with a calibration. As you mentioned this is all my opinion, and unfortunately that is all I can offer.


I understand, but at the same time in the calibration forum "awesome" = calibrated. At least from a goal stand point, so while you may have inteded for that to be iterpreted as a modest statement others may have seen it as bold claim of a highly accurate picture.

The fact that you are even on here and want to give a testament of your before and after BB calibration experience is great. I can't wait to find out how it goes for you.

I think this is kind of a straw argument. Michael's point is that calibration is about accuracy to an objective standard. Achieving that is an activity of mainly objective measurements, but done through experience. Inevitably, the display is not perfect, and some compromises will be made in achieving as accurate an image as possible.

But it isn't fundamentally about turning the adjustment knobs (or pressing buttons, unless you're stuck in the 80s like me!) to give you the picture that you like or that looks good to you.

But in dealing with a novice, you have to get across that fundamentally there isn't much in the way of preference when it comes to calibration, because it is about accuracy to a reference. It is kind of a black or white issue, in a crude sense, because either the image is accurate or it isn't.

Now, as you delve deeper, you realize that in achieving that accuracy, some compromises are necessary. These come into play when you decide what TV you want (what set of strengths and weaknesses of capabilities you end up with), and to a certain degree some other calibration choices (display brightness, gamma, perhaps black level w/ambient light, clip or don't clip peak whites, etc) can enter in. These are relatively advanced minutia.

But calibration, fundamentally, is about what the picture should look like, not what some arbitrary person wants the picture to look like. To this end, a big part of the calibration process is educating the customer, so that they learn to appreciate what an accurate image looks like. In this way, the person's wants begin to align with what is right, and then there isn't conflict. It is usually the person who has never gotten the chance to really appreciate an accurate reference image, and doesn't even know that they want that, and at first they may not want it.

It's like somebody who hears a really flat subwoofer, properly calibrated into the system for the first time. That's accurate. But to the unknowing ear, it might sound thin compared to the bad-sounding bloat of a crummy system with the bass set way too high. But then you spend some time listening and discussing what sounds "real," and suddenly somebody who wanted horribly inaccurate before simply out of lack of knowledge and attention, desires and appreciates accurate.

You are correct, as was Michael. I said that one can be correct and still not be very useful. To say that calibration has nothing to do with what one likes or dislikes is correct but ignores the bigger picture that Michael and others know well is the crux of what we do. Sometimes it involves calibrating the user as much or more than the set, sometimes it means not calibrating the set at all. It always involves understanding the relationship between the science of measurement, the perspective of the user, and what can be done with a given system. It always involves educating the user to the degree they choose to learn.

Most calibrators know that and the best operate that way. Sometimes, however, we are not very clear in discussing the matter and educating people with regard to the complexity of the process. With all due respect to Michael and his great contributions, he tends sometimes, like you, to seem to be willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am likely no better and sometimes I need to be reminded as well not to be pedantic and condescending. We can all raise the bar and be more informative in the process.

Greetings

When someone tells me that they know color and what a good picture ... "natural" picture looks like ... I start to shake my head. How many times have my clients told me that ahead of time prior to my arrival ... or even as I arrive.

And guess what ... they were all wrong ... and the end result looked nothing like where they started off. So when someone uses phrases and terms like that, I wonder what makes that person think he is different versus all the others that claimed the same position.

Sort of like how everyone claims that they are good drivers ... and yet still many accidents. Someone has to be wrong here.

As someone said ... "you don't know what you don't know." It is always fun to see the difference of where you start versus where you end up. But to establish the starting point as "this be natural" ... just begs for a response. I look for key words. :) One man's version of natural is not another man's. So who is right here?

On the topic of how long the BB guys take to do their calibration work, 1.5 to 2 hours should really be plenty. Now the qualifier ... calibration is easy ... marketing/education is hard. When I do stuff for my store front clients ... calibrating every last TV in their showroom, calibrations can take as little as 5 to 10 minutes. Take Sony flat panels for instance ... bang bang bang and it's done. Add 25 minutes if you have to make charts and things.

Unfortunately, as some have found out (Mainly the most respected calibrators) ... and many still have not found out ... there is more to this process than just the physical act of calibration. Education of the client is the key. It has to be. It's about understanding the questions first in order to understand and appreciate the answers that the calibration provides.

One cannot just give people a bunch of answers without the accompanying context. It's like throwing a bunch of numbers on a table and walking away. Sure one of the numbers there is correct ... but which one ... and why?

As I mentioned, calibration by itself is fairly quick ... because this stuff ain't rocket science. But throw in the education and the willingness to sit through it ... now the session stretches out. My calibration sessions these days take me anywhere from 4 to 6 hours and sometime longer. Even a 10 minute Sony set extends to 4 hours when you add the education component into it. My clients know ahead of time that it is actually a calibration 101 class that they are signing up for ... one where their TV just happens to be calibrated along the way.

Now the downside of the Calibration 101 approach ... for the BB guys. Unfortunately, this now requires more time and something else from the person doing the work. Being technically proficient isn't enough anymore. The calibrator is also required to be able to do public speaking which creates an additional set of difficulties. Imagine a whiz calibrator that has a stutter problem ...

regards

Well said, Michael.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I can see where you're coming from and where I may have been misleading in my statements. I apologize if you took offense to anything I said.

I won't post the link but over on the avforums, Phil Hinton interviews Jeff Boccaccio from DPL Labs.

Pay careful attention to what he says about cable quality impacting picture quality.

Then those of you that insist on pedaling snake oil cables go away and hang your heads in shame.

As I mentioned, calibration by itself is fairly quick ... because this stuff ain't rocket science. But throw in the education and the willingness to sit through it ... now the session stretches out. My calibration sessions these days take me anywhere from 4 to 6 hours and sometime longer. Even a 10 minute Sony set extends to 4 hours when you add the education component into it. My clients know ahead of time that it is actually a calibration 101 class that they are signing up for ... one where their TV just happens to be calibrated along the way.

What do you say to the customer on the phone that job will take 10 minutes, but I will lecture you for an additional 3hrs 50min for your education and my ego, so that will be $$$. I can understand explaining the basics as you go but if I hired a plumber I would not expect to be paying for a lecture on plumbing. Are your customers lonely with no one else to share their enthusiasm for home cinema with?

Greetings

I tell them that they are not a candidate for professional calibration.

On a related note ... a plumbing disaster in the home brings a plumber on an emergency call. He fixes the problem in 5 minutes. We still pay the full charge of that call and don't bicker about paying him for only 5 minutes of his time. How long he takes has no bearing on cost. It is the end result in this case.

If you can find me clients that feel the same way about the calibration service, I will gladly take all comers. Problem is ... they are far and few. We all get way more clients that equate time with value. It's a human nature thing. Experience and expensive gear and capital costs mean nothing to them in terms of $$.

I can get a client that says he doesn't care about the education ... and just wants it done. Then I get all these questions after the fact about why some tv show looks this way or that way ... and it never ends. And by that time, anything you say to them no longer matters. It is seen as the calibrator trying to weasel out of having to come back to the home.

The education process is proactive in nature. Whether it takes 3 hours or more or less is irrelevant, but in the end, all the clients are happy and they can actually speak intelligently about the calibration process to their friends. And that brings referrals ...

Versus a cynical view that belittles the clients.

Regards

I tell them that they are not a candidate for professional calibration.

I can get a client that says he doesn't care about the education ... and just wants it done. Then I get all these questions after the fact about why some tv show looks this way or that way ... and it never ends. And by that time, anything you say to them no longer matters. It is seen as the calibrator trying to weasel out of having to come back to the home.

The education process is proactive in nature. Whether it takes 3 hours or more or less is irrelevant, but in the end, all the clients are happy and they can actually speak intelligently about the calibration process to their friends. And that brings referrals ...

Versus a cynical view that belittles the clients.

Regards

Fair enough. I would just be one of those not suited to pro-calibration, since I would not want to be calibrated, just have the display calibrated. Judging if I liked the results on my own subjective opinion rather than having been educated that the picture is superior.

Is the 10minutes due to their being little that can be done to improve the picture, calibration will not achieve much. Or is the 10minutes due to the display being extremely easy to get accurate, calibration is worthwhile but takes so little time, customers will not be happy paying.

Greetings

10 minutes is due to the fact that I know what I am doing. Experience.

If you are the type of person that does not equate value to amount of time taken ... versus the end result, you are rare indeed. And possibly not part of the human race.

Bear in mind this is 10 minutes standing in front of a TV in a store front. There are no graphs or other pretty pictures in this process. The TV simply gets done ...

The moment you add in having to do these before versus after graphs ... it takes longer. Paperwork takes time.

A person that just gets the end result without any of the understanding is not the greatest choice to be an advocate of the process. So how does the picture look? As asked by a friend. Well it looks different, but I am not quite sure why? It's dimmer than it used to be ...

Guess what ... that does not get you referrals ... nor does it instill confidence in the process.

regards

A person that just gets the end result without any of the understanding is not the greatest choice to be an advocate of the process. So how does the picture look? As asked by a friend. Well it looks different, but I am not quite sure why? It's dimmer than it used to be ...

Guess what ... that does not get you referrals ... nor does it instill confidence in the process.

regards

I would hope a calibrated picture would look noticeably better. More natural-lifelike-real with more clarity and more depth to the image. The people look more like they are real and more pretty/hansome. The improved image I would hope would sell itself, rather than needing to be educated/persuaded/convinced it was better. If I need to be persuaded it is better it begins to resemble the emperors new clothes.

I would hope a calibrated picture would look noticeably better. More natural lifelike with more clarity and more depth to the image. The improved image I would hope would sell itself, rather than needing to be persuaded/convinced it was better.All fine and dandy, but many don't know how or why the picture is/looks different. "Wow. I see a lot more detail" is probably the most common comment from customers, then when directed to colors, flesh tones, they start to see the difference/improvement. Some see it immediately.

If you are the type who goes to the doctor only want to hear, "here is a prescription take it and you will be fine"....... then yu may not care about learning anything about calibration. The amount of improvement can vary depending on how well you bought a display and how well you have it setup.

Greetings

Well what would you tell this nightmare client that I had many years ago that threatened to beat my head in with a baseball bat? He didn't stick around for the calibration process at all ... took off. I was gone by the time he came home. A 5 hour job reduced in time to 2.5 hours with him not there.

He also saw this better image ... and was sure I had broken his TV. He wanted a new one.

And how did he decide this? Well turns out he had two other TVs in the house that I did not work on ... nor was I aware of. They were also bad looking at the start ... just like the original TV. Well they were bad looking in a similar way ... and it led the client to decide that the calibrated image was the wrong image. The broken one.

His reference for right and wrong became his wrong TVs.

You say you are different.

So many of my clients tell me that they know a good picture when they see it ... and they think the one they started with was pretty good. Almost challenging me to prove them wrong.

And at the end of the session ... they are surprised to find it better still. But they all said they knew quality and what good was. Turns out they were all wrong. So what makes you right and everyone else wrong?

Ask everyone out there that drives if they think they are good drivers? The answer will be pretty much everyone saying yes. And yet ... accidents keep happening. Someone is lying. Or the definition of "good" varies.

You don't know what you don't know. 2+2=9 ... if you don't know any better.

Why is 4 anymore correct than 0 or 10 or 42 or 999 ... if you don't understand the 2+2 part of it?

Oh yes ... the nightmare guy .... how did that end? Well 2 weeks later after the guy sobered up ... I was back at his home looking at the same image I left him with. I sat him down this time. Okay ... this is how you set brightness ... this is why. This is how you set contrast ... this is why ... and step by step ... through the whole process.

At the end of this 2.5 hour session ... guess what ... he is happy. He loves the image. Also extremely embarrassed that he acted like an a-hole.

He went from mad as heck to singing the praises of calibration. The image never changed a bit. Why? Because he now understood the process and the questions ... that lead to the calibrated answer that he got.

regards

Michael TLV -

In those 10 mins are you mostly just doing Grayscale?


I know when I calibrate a home display I take a long time just finding the best combination of Contrast - Power save mode - Backlighting to maximize on/off contrast, as well as Ansi.

I'm sure this is not needed at a show room floor as there would be lots of lights on and lighting coming into the room.

Greetings

Depends on the TV ... but my example is a Sony set. 10 minutes to do it all. user controls to the grayscale. Brightness and contrast et al takes about 5 minutes ... if that. The rest is grayscale or even the beginnings of copying settings to other inputs.

Greetings

Depends on the TV ... but my example is a Sony set. 10 minutes to do it all. user controls to the grayscale. Brightness and contrast et al takes about 5 minutes ... if that. The rest is grayscale or even the beginnings of copying settings to other inputs.

But are you trying to find the best combination of on/off and ansi?

Or just set the TV contrast to a level that produces enough light output?

Do you use backlight settings / Power Save Modes?

Like I said before in a showroom with a lot of light this is not a big Issue or even a issue at all, but for a home in a darkened HT it would be.

I guess what I'm getting at is for the showroom it only takes you 10 min, as it should.

But I would hope in a home environment you would take the time to play with these other modes to find the best contrast performance for their day time viewing and night time viewing.

Greetings

That's why it takes 3 to 5 hours ... ;)

regards

Greetings

You do realize that we don't care about ansi when calibrating a TV ... nor do we care about on off CRs either. What those numbers are have no bearing on the course of the calibration. They are what they are.

regards

Greetings

You do realize that we don't care about ansi when calibrating a TV ... nor do we care about on off CRs either. What those numbers are have no bearing on the course of the calibration. They are what they are.

regardsMichael, for the forum, you should have said we can't do much of anything about ANSI, and generally there is nothing that can be done about On/Off CR, unless there are benefits to iris settings.

Greetings

Not really applicable to playing with a sony flat panel on a showroom floor. :)

regards

Greetings

You do realize that we don't care about ansi when calibrating a TV ... nor do we care about on off CRs either. What those numbers are have no bearing on the course of the calibration. They are what they are.

regards

Are you talking purely from a showroom perspective or in home environments too?

Greetings

When you set contrast and brightness correctly ... you don't care about the ansi or the on off in the home environment because they are what they are at that point. They are just numbers and have no bearing on the calibration itself.

Maybe you use them if you are shopping for a TV ... but that has nothing to do with the calibrator since the person has already chosen the TV by the time the calibrator is in the picture.

No calibrator talks in those terms. It is just technobabble.

regards

This is not always true for Home TV calibration.

If you don't use backlight settings and power save modes on some TV's

You are losing ON/OFF and ANSI.


How may you ask???


Well if you follow the recommended ftL output ratings for TV's based on night time viewing (aka around 30 - 40 ftL) and only adj the contrast control to set the ftL level, and don't touch the backlighting setting or Power save mode, you are not lowering the Black level at the same time.

You would need to find the best combination of Backlighting setting and Power Save mode that gives you the absolute best back level reading while still allowing you to hit your required white level ftL (while still maintaining proper grayscale.)

If not you are lowering on/off and Ansi as well.

For LCD's that don't have dynamic contrast function, the Maximum on/off and ANSI are usually pretty close to each other in number.

Michael TLV

This is not always true for Home TV calibration.

I you don't use backlight settings and power save modes on some TV's

You are losing ON/OFF and ANSI.


How may you ask???


Well if you follow the recommended ftL output ratings for TV's based on night time viewing (aka around 30 - 40 ftL) and only adj the contrast control to set the ftL level, and don't touch the backlighting setting or Power save mode, you are not lowering the Black level at the same time.

You would need to find the best combination of Backlighting setting and Power Save mode that gives you the absolute best back level reading while still allowing you to hit your required white level ftL (while still maintaining proper grayscale.)

If not you are lowering on/off and Ansi as well.

For LCD's that don't have dynamic contrast function, the Maximum on/off and ANSI are usually pretty close to each other in number.The native contrast ratio of a panel doesn't generally change unless augmented with firmware enhancements. Backlight settings don't change the CR, they just raise and lower the luminance of the overall image. There is a threshold for setting brightness and contrast. You don't want to crush blacks, but setting too high can washout blacks and reduce CR. Contrast, basically the same, you dont want to clip whites or cause set where there is colorshift. Backlight gets set to accomidate ambient lighting conditions.

The below example is just an explanation on how not playing with backlighting and power save modes can lower on/off and ansi contrast.

Extreme Example: But an example non the less.

35,000:1 on/off in a dark HT environment.

Its much better to have 35ftL 100% IRE white Level with a .0010ftL 0% IRE Black level

vs.

150ftL100% IRE white Level with a .0042ftL 0% IRE Black level

The second option is way way to bright and if you were not setting proper backlighting and power save mode to lower the black level from .0042, and only lower contrast control to a level that doesn't burn your eyes out, you are lowering on/off and ANSI.


If the above happed you would have:

lets say 50ftL 100% IRE White with a 0.0042 0% IRE = 11,900:1 on/off contrast


Again for a showroom floor 150ftL is probably wanted, but not in a home.

I guess the above is not too much of extreme example as most TV's are now 2,000,000:1 right?

;) lol.













This is a sarcastic POST!

Greetings

Recommended numbers were derived for a reference environment. I don't have a single client that has a reference environment.

We follow the rules for setting up displays and recommended numbers are nice to know, but never something to aim for. If one happens to end up close to those numbers ... so be it. They are not a consideration when calibrating in a non-reference environment.

I hope you are not pulling methodology out of the air ... as setting things to some reference number is not taught by the ISF or THX classes. Environment environment environment ...

Funny ... where in all my posts do I say I don't touch other controls?

Regards

In the example above, if the black level was 0.0042ftL out of the box with it’s default backlight and power save modes, would you just leave the out of box settings for those 2 items?

If yes…

Would you then set 100% IRE ftL contrast…

To the individuals liking?

Or would you set the contrast control as high as it can go while maintaining good grayscale & color performance?

Greetings

We follow the three rules to setting contrast / light output.

regards

In the example above, if the black level was 0.0042ftL out of the box with it’s default backlight and power save modes, would you just leave the out of box settings for those 2 items?

If yes…

Would you then set 100% IRE ftL contrast…

To the individuals liking?

Or would you set the contrast control as high as it can go while maintaining good grayscale & color performance?

Contrast as high as it can go, then lower the backlight, generally. Being careful about affects to greyscale, etc. If it's a plasma, then you have to lower the white level to a reasonable, somewhat arbitrary value. I pick intelligently based on eliciting some information from the customer about what they like to watch, in what kind of lighting conditions, etc. Same goes for setting the backlight on the TV. There isn't a set fL I'd try to hit universally. I just try to make sure it's not too bright, but bright enough. If it's someone who watches in the dark and tells me they love deep black levels and are fine with a dim image, I go lower. If it's an old couple who want their TV to look the best and spend all day watching soap operas and are likely suffering vision problems, I'd brighten it up quite a bit. Both yield an accurate image, one is just brighter than the other.

For a more reference theater environment with a projection screen, going towards 16fL might be more alright. IMO that's too dim for smaller TV displays rather than large-screen projection systems. Judgement and experience and also a hint of making the customer happy.

Bump... this was the first really interesting and informative calibration (distinguishing from merely informative but nearly as interesting) thread I have read so far :) It's good to see some of the differences in the philosophy and approach for calibration for home users. I would venture a guess that for movie theaters there is much more conformity to a standard, but I will happily admit ignorance either way :p

What I do find interesting about this conversational thread has to do with some very philosophical questions. First let me also say I am not picking on anyone here so please don't take it that way! I respect all the individuals who participate in these discussions greatly. But this one has me fascinated!

First let me say I am Joe Average. I am not a calibrator, or a Audio-Visual Tech but I do consider myself to be a somewhat thoughtful person. Of course after reading this you just might disagree! :o

To get where I would like to go let's start with the threshold question "What is the purpose or objective of ISF calibration?"

To quote some excerpts from the posts above-

"The quest for calibration is the the quest to get it right. Unfortunately, it is not about getting an image that you happen to like."

"...calibration is about accuracy to an objective standard."

To be certain I am making the point here clear, I believe this to in fact be the accepted purpose of calibration. You can easily find plenty of similar propositions or restatements of this in other threads on this and other forums.

Simply if I simply restate this then the purpose of ISF calibration is the process of aligning your television to most accurately reproduce the picture information that is sent to it.

Next question then-

What is the most accurate picture?

I won't belabor this one much. The best explanation I have seen regarding this merely points out that the most accurate reproduction is the the one that most closely matches what the director of the movie, series, news show or what have you conceived and saw.

Here are the two premises I can deduce from all this-

1. ISF calibration is the process of aligning your television to most accurately reproduce the picture information that is sent to it.

2. ..the most accurate reproduction is the the one that most closely matches what the director of the movie, series, news show or what have you conceived and saw.

Let's put the two together then-

ISF calibration is the process of aligning your television to reproduce a picture that most closely matches what the director conceived and saw.

Fair enough?

OK! So if you are still with me let me ask this-

Taking something as simple as color, do all people see color exactly the same? (other than color blind or vision impaired folks of course) Certainly we all call orange orange because that is what we were trained to call that particular color when we see it, but the question as to whether or not we all see the same thing when we see orange is very much less clear.

Let's be so brash for one moment to assume that in fact that there is some or perhaps even a good deal of variance between what I see as orange and what anyone else does. :eek:

Now for the philosophical question. If all of the above is true and my set is perfectly calibrated (ignoring that there is no such thing as perfect calibration only that which falls within a specified percentage of error), will I ever see what the director saw? Of course not! So what is the best I can ever hope for? To see something close to what the director saw? Sounds good, but how do I know what that is? Without a very intense explanation by the director of what he saw and what he was trying to achieve I have no way of knowing if what I see is what the director intended for me to see.

OK, OK enough of the philosophical. It's easy enough to argue even under my set of assumptions that most people see the same thing within some small realms of variance. That really is not so hard to accept and in fact it is what I believe! (true or not!)

Still understanding I can never really achieve to see what the director wanted me to see precisely, what is more important? That I see something close thereto, or something that most pleases my eye?

Pretty personal decision I guess in the end. The answer I come to individually is that I respect the art form and I want to know what message the director was trying to be conveyed by each scene in a movie. (Noting that I don't give a darn about the news, though most good fiction I have seen occurs during a news cast). What emotion was he trying to convey, what did he want me to feel, to know, to experience? Heck yeah I want to get as close to that as I can!! ;)

But that is what is right for me. For someone else it might just be about seeing something that looks pretty darn good to them and who cares about all the artsy fartsy stuff! :rolleyes:

So if it were up to me, and someone were in my home to calibrate my TV I hope that is the first thing they would ask me. What's important to me, what do I want to get out of this thing called calibration. I would hope that in the end they understood that this is a service they are able to provide and which I am purchasing for my own very selfish reasons. In the end it's not about the director, the calibrator or the ISF. Personal services are about people and that my friends is the way we like them!

In the end it's not about the director, the calibrator or the ISF.

honestly, I suggest you don't spend money on a calibration from any Professional Video Calibrator..

Personal services are about people and that my friends is the way we like them!

simply make the adjustments as you see fit

was there a point to that post? :confused:

cliff's notes, anyone?

was there a point to that post? :confused:

cliff's notes, anyone?If one doesn't think that calibrating a display to the "standards" (commonly D65 and Rec-709) which results in being able to more accurately display an image as the director intended, then there is no real need for a calibration...........

Personal services by a professional calibrator will vary, their goals shouldn't....... Their results may vary due to skill level and equipment.......

glen, turbe's post i understood... ;)

the mental masturbation post is what i got confused by...

Taking something as simple as color, do all people see color exactly the same? (other than color blind or vision impaired folks of course) Certainly we all call orange orange because that is what we were trained to call that particular color when we see it, but the question as to whether or not we all see the same thing when we see orange is very much less clear.

Let's be so brash for one moment to assume that in fact that there is some or perhaps even a good deal of variance between what I see as orange and what anyone else does.You are missing the point....... even if one is color blind, or let's say one only sees in B&W, the shades of gray all change with color and if the shade of gray for flesh tones is off, it doesn't look right...... Moving on to colors, if one sees reds differently than others, if that red is not the right color, it really doesn't matter how you see it, it will be different than it should be.

If you get taken in by bold, vibrant, excessive colors, then you may not be a candidate for calibration, if you want simple things like flesh tones looking as natural as possible (considering the source is accurate and natural) you will need a grayscale calibration and possibly color gamut if the display has that feature.

Color perception varies between individuals.
Most eyes have three types of cone system most sensitive to Green, Yellowish-Green, Bluish-Violet simplified to RGB. Up to 10% of women have a fourth type of cone most sensitive to Bluish-Green, eyes also have rods, all these sensors respond to a wide band of overlapping frequencies each with their own bell curve like response dependent on the frequency and intensity of light. Defects in one or more of the genes encoding red and green pigments leads to varying degrees of color blindness in almost 10% of men. Less common is green-blue confusion. Also some people are completely lacking in one of the three types of cone systems and only require two types of cones to match all the spectral colors they can see. Subtle varations in color perception occur even among individuals with normal color vision due to polymorphism in the red pigment gene. For men 62% have amino acid 180 in a srine residue while in 38% it is a alanine residue. For women their are three types homozygotes for Ser180, homozygotes for Ala180 and heterozygotes who display an intermediate phenotype. When matching the intensity of red and green, the intensity of red needed depends on the amino acid at position 180. Different people can distinguish a different number of distinct hues particularly orange-red hues.


Displays are more narrow band than the real world and trick the eyes by stimulating the three types of cone systems and the rods in the correct ratios to fool the eye-brain into see the full range of color hues. But individuals vary in their ability to discriminate between hues and the proportion of stimulation needed from each type of cone and the rods to produce the perception of different hues. The perception of color also depends not only on the stimulus wavelengths and intensities, but also on difference of intensity between regions and whether the patterns are accepted as representing objects. The brain plays its part as well as the eyes.

As long as the display is reasonably wideband for each color (which current displays are), I would expect it is going to be mimicing reality for the individual reasonably well. Human perception is also color adaptive for different lighting conditions so that helps. When you use very narrorow band frequencies for colors (possibly future led dlp or laser displays) you start to get more obvious problems with variations between individuals as to how display primaries combine to produce the perception of secondaries and other color hues. I believe that digital cinemas choice of red primary was effected by the consideration of the variation in human perception

Still understanding I can never really achieve to see what the director wanted me to see precisely, what is more important? That I see something close thereto, or something that most pleases my eye?

Here's what I say to that: I have never had anybody spend serious time with an accurate, and high-quality image not be blown away by how "good" "pleasing" "amazing" or whatever nonsensical subjective word you'd like to insert, the image is. In my view, those words are only meaningful in describing the accuracy of the reproduction, but my point is that for people who just want something most pleasing to the eye, if you actually spend time with a variety of images and actually care about how "good" they look, you will invariably end up with an accurately calibrated reproduction chain. Because when you do view content that should appear natural, it will appear natural, and that will look simply amazing. With whatever willy-nilly preferred nonsense you might arrive at, it will never appear natural.

That being said, if you don't believe or care about quality images, don't get your display calibrated. Just don't pretend that you care about image fidelity. It's a free country, do what you want. Nobody is forcing you to get the best TV you can, or get the best picture and sound you can. If you like horrible images, or like horrible sound, great!

I had my Samsugn b58860 calibrated along with my Pioneer 50"5010 this past Saturday.
All I can say is "WOW". There is more detail, shadows, I'm very pleased with the results.

what a difference calibration made on both sets, the Pioneer looks better but extremely happy with my Samsung.

Since this topic (it's old) is most relevant to my situation ...

I just bought a PDP-6020 from BB with calibration service. i was told:
1. needs 100 hours to break in
2. ISF calibration
3. takes about 1-2 hours.

Based on what i read, these seem to be reasonable.

I also read that the PDP-6020 is not adjustable. Maybe it means not menu-adjustable but still service-adjustable? Otherwise, i do not see how BB can do any ISF calibration.

Is it possible to store 2 calibrations settings (if necessary): one for DIRECTV and one for Blu Ray?

Thanks for advice.

Some BB calibrators are excellent, some are absolutely terrible.

If the BB guys were professional, they wouldn't be using chroma5s to calibrate displays (if they still are; I could be mistaken). Ask if he or she can provide information that their meter is traceable to a standard and that it has been re-certified at the recommended intervals. Please don't let these guys rip you off. This is too nice of a display.

The 6020 is adjustable. You just have to get into the service menu. It's not a place that I'd feel comfortable letting some dude that drives a geek squad volkswagon bug into.

They might actually do a good job though, you never know. For me however, I'd hire someone based on word of mouth. Even independent calibrators aren't all equal. You're in the right place if you want to find a real pro. It's around the same price as the BB version usually.


Since this topic (it's old) is most relevant to my situation ...

I just bought a PDP-6020 from BB with calibration service. i was told:
1. needs 100 hours to break in
2. ISF calibration
3. takes about 1-2 hours.

Based on what i read, these seem to be reasonable.

I also read that the PDP-6020 is not adjustable. Maybe it means not menu-adjustable but still service-adjustable? Otherwise, i do not see how BB can do any ISF calibration.

Is it possible to store 2 calibrations settings (if necessary): one for DIRECTV and one for Blu Ray?

Thanks for advice.

Thanks so much for your input!

i got the calibration included when i paid for the 6020. So i need to ask the right questions to the right calibrator.

I am still unsure if 2 settings are required: night vs day; or different video sources like DIRECTV vs BLU RAY??

Thanks again.

Output from the direcTV box isn't really differnt than blu-ray.

The content is all over the map for TV, so you just calibrate to standards and that's about the best you can do.

If the BB guys were professional, they wouldn't be using chroma5s to calibrate displays (if they still are; I could be mistaken). Ask if he or she can provide information that their meter is traceable to a standard and that it has been re-certified at the recommended intervals. Please don't let these guys rip you off. This is too nice of a display.

I think you may be referring to a different meter. Chroma 5's (at least newer ones) are NIST traceable and come with the documentation to prove it. This meter is perfectly fine to use on a plasma display such as the 6020. Perhaps you referring to the Colorpro Puck III or IV. Either way, a mediocre instrument in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing can yield light years of differences compared to a person with $25,000 in equipment and no common sense. Best wishes! :)

Yes, I believe I'm incorrect about the chroma5. My apologies. I'd still ask for a current certification for the meter.

I also read that the PDP-6020 is not adjustable. Maybe it means not menu-adjustable but still service-adjustable? Otherwise, i do not see how BB can do any ISF calibration.

Thanks for advice.

Grayscale can be adjusted through service menu, color gamut can not.

Thanks so much for your input!

i got the calibration included when i paid for the 6020. So i need to ask the right questions to the right calibrator.

I am still unsure if 2 settings are required: night vs day; or different video sources like DIRECTV vs BLU RAY??

Thanks again.

where do you live?

I live in Houston.

----------------

As for the BB calibration, I am a little confused now.

Compared to the PRO-151FD, most reviews had some concern about the color inaccuracy of the 6020. And that the color is not adjustable (I hope they mean not user menu adjustable).

From reading the posts here, my understanding were that greyscale and color and whatever else are service menu adjustable. The calibrator just have to have the right tools.

Now one of the comments says that the greyscale is adjustable but not the color gamut? Could someone please clarify.

Thanks again.

I also just got the 6020FD from BestBuy. Would using the D-nice settings be good enough vs. ISF calibration from BB? I am not sure if I would be able to tell the difference. Thanks.

I also just got the 6020FD from BestBuy. Would using the D-nice settings be good enough vs. ISF calibration from BB? I am not sure if I would be able to tell the difference. Thanks.

Dnice's settings can often be as far off from accurate as the stock settings.

You are far better off getting a calibration from best buys.

Really? Please provide data to prove that making sure the display(s) you are attempting to discredit my settings with are within the parameters set for the displays my settings are specifically designed for. I assure you that I have multiple calibration files that document how my settings are FAR better than the stock settings. Let me be very clear, my settings ARE NOT a substitute for a real calibration. However they are FAR better than anything that comes OOTB or via a "calibration" disc.

Could you please advise as to whether the color is also adjustable in addition to just the greyscale for the 6020?
Thanks.

Yes, the master color control can be adjusted, but the 6020 does not have a Color Management System. Meaning, the individual colors cannot be adjusted. You are pretty much stuck with the color gamut that is provided...unless you add an outboard unit. Best wishes!:)