Is This Why An AV3 Maybe A Non Starter ?
Posted by: Neill Ferguson on 17 April 2010
I seen this on another forum and it may interest some of you I have copied and pasted if that's against the rules then I apologise just now I thought it was well written and an interesting point:
Hi Guys,
This is an interesting subject and whilst I feel a little maligned at some other comments I'll try and give a neutral response.
A modern AV processor is an incredibly complicated unit. It needs to handle switching of audio and video in both the analogue and digital domains. It needs to provide powerful DSP to decode and process these signals. It also needs to convert digital signals back to analogue and apply volume control.
On top of this many companies complicate things even further by attempting to build vdeo processing in to their products.
In the past it was possible for smaller companies to offer products in this sector because they could do analogue very well, there were very limited digital requirements and royalties for features like Dolby Pro Logic were managable. In the digital area it is important to remember that SPDIF is an almost 30 year old technology now so it is a long time since there was a lot of complicated development in this area. There were no fancy auto setup options or other complications.
This situation pretty much lasted up until about 4 or 5 years ago. I have a Pioneer 2011 receiver in my home that I purchased in 2004. This unit supports DD, DTS, has a number of decoding/dsp options, rudimentary auto setup and analogue only video switching with no video processing. Although for all that, the unit plays back DTS tracks 7dB lower in the left front channel than the right and I never saw that in any review at the time...
The change coincided with the appearance of HDMI. Suddenly the whole comfortable paradigm of producing these devices changed and you had this combined audio and video interface with a horrible protection scheme. Suddenly the digital design element became orders of magnitude more complex and since that really defined your device - more important.
As we all know, the first HDMI devices were grossly unreliable. HDCP caused no end of problems but the interfaces were rampant with bugs in the audio and video. I am certain that a number of companies at that time took one look at decided not to touch it until the problems were all sorted. Mutliple HDMI revs later we still have a ton of problems with HDCP but at least the gross errors seem to be pretty well worked out.
On top of this you were faced with another problem if you unwisely decided to do video processing at this time. A number of companies started to use the HQV Realta chip in their devices. This massively expensive part promises awesome performance but working with it was a nightmare beyond belief. Even buying this in on an Silicon Optix platform did not isolate at all from the software development requirement. The API for this piece was massive and impregnable and support was supplied by only a small team who ultimately relied on one Russian genius to explain the intricacies of how it worked. One of the companies we worked with tried using Realta to make a dedicated VP device. Even with a large team of PHD level engineers working only on the video side for 20 months they couldn't get performance to match what the device is capable of and programming difficulty was the single root cause. One of the biggest differences between Realta and Reon is that Reon actually has a decent interface for the engineers!
The final nail in the cofin for small companies was the emergence of sophisticated auto setup routines like YPAO, MCACC or third party solutions like Audyssey.
A small company can't afford the level of investment and long term research to develop such a system themselves but building in a unit like Audyssey requires ever more powerful DSPs to be employed and a per unit license fee that must be paid.
So you arrive at the situation we are at now, the development complexity is several orders of magnitude beyond where we were even 5 years ago. This brings commensurate increase in non recurring engineering costs especially in digital design, software development and product testing. Finally your design now includes a huge amount of SMT devices, multi layer circuit boards and more all of which wraps up to a massively complex build that means you have to start using contract manufacturers who never match the quality promises they give in the bid stage.
All of this comes at a time of economic uncertainty and falling retail prices driven by the aggressive developments from the far eastern companies.
So you have a huge risk in you NRE costs, falling margins, reliance on third party manufacturing and the voracious appetite of Joe public for new badges on the front panel regardless on sound performance improvements.
In the face of this it is pretty hard to see why any responsible CFO would sanction the development of an HD ready AV processor. We have already seen one venerable British company risk it all on HDMI devices and they are now on their knees with no obvious escape route.
The rest have looked at other areas where those NRE and licensing costs are much less and profit margins have not been eroded. That means relatively high end music systems and is a trend that can be seen easily by looking at their product lines.
Just my thoughts of course.
__________________
Neil Davidson
Genesis Technologies
Hi Guys,
This is an interesting subject and whilst I feel a little maligned at some other comments I'll try and give a neutral response.
A modern AV processor is an incredibly complicated unit. It needs to handle switching of audio and video in both the analogue and digital domains. It needs to provide powerful DSP to decode and process these signals. It also needs to convert digital signals back to analogue and apply volume control.
On top of this many companies complicate things even further by attempting to build vdeo processing in to their products.
In the past it was possible for smaller companies to offer products in this sector because they could do analogue very well, there were very limited digital requirements and royalties for features like Dolby Pro Logic were managable. In the digital area it is important to remember that SPDIF is an almost 30 year old technology now so it is a long time since there was a lot of complicated development in this area. There were no fancy auto setup options or other complications.
This situation pretty much lasted up until about 4 or 5 years ago. I have a Pioneer 2011 receiver in my home that I purchased in 2004. This unit supports DD, DTS, has a number of decoding/dsp options, rudimentary auto setup and analogue only video switching with no video processing. Although for all that, the unit plays back DTS tracks 7dB lower in the left front channel than the right and I never saw that in any review at the time...
The change coincided with the appearance of HDMI. Suddenly the whole comfortable paradigm of producing these devices changed and you had this combined audio and video interface with a horrible protection scheme. Suddenly the digital design element became orders of magnitude more complex and since that really defined your device - more important.
As we all know, the first HDMI devices were grossly unreliable. HDCP caused no end of problems but the interfaces were rampant with bugs in the audio and video. I am certain that a number of companies at that time took one look at decided not to touch it until the problems were all sorted. Mutliple HDMI revs later we still have a ton of problems with HDCP but at least the gross errors seem to be pretty well worked out.
On top of this you were faced with another problem if you unwisely decided to do video processing at this time. A number of companies started to use the HQV Realta chip in their devices. This massively expensive part promises awesome performance but working with it was a nightmare beyond belief. Even buying this in on an Silicon Optix platform did not isolate at all from the software development requirement. The API for this piece was massive and impregnable and support was supplied by only a small team who ultimately relied on one Russian genius to explain the intricacies of how it worked. One of the companies we worked with tried using Realta to make a dedicated VP device. Even with a large team of PHD level engineers working only on the video side for 20 months they couldn't get performance to match what the device is capable of and programming difficulty was the single root cause. One of the biggest differences between Realta and Reon is that Reon actually has a decent interface for the engineers!
The final nail in the cofin for small companies was the emergence of sophisticated auto setup routines like YPAO, MCACC or third party solutions like Audyssey.
A small company can't afford the level of investment and long term research to develop such a system themselves but building in a unit like Audyssey requires ever more powerful DSPs to be employed and a per unit license fee that must be paid.
So you arrive at the situation we are at now, the development complexity is several orders of magnitude beyond where we were even 5 years ago. This brings commensurate increase in non recurring engineering costs especially in digital design, software development and product testing. Finally your design now includes a huge amount of SMT devices, multi layer circuit boards and more all of which wraps up to a massively complex build that means you have to start using contract manufacturers who never match the quality promises they give in the bid stage.
All of this comes at a time of economic uncertainty and falling retail prices driven by the aggressive developments from the far eastern companies.
So you have a huge risk in you NRE costs, falling margins, reliance on third party manufacturing and the voracious appetite of Joe public for new badges on the front panel regardless on sound performance improvements.
In the face of this it is pretty hard to see why any responsible CFO would sanction the development of an HD ready AV processor. We have already seen one venerable British company risk it all on HDMI devices and they are now on their knees with no obvious escape route.
The rest have looked at other areas where those NRE and licensing costs are much less and profit margins have not been eroded. That means relatively high end music systems and is a trend that can be seen easily by looking at their product lines.
Just my thoughts of course.
__________________
Neil Davidson
Genesis Technologies
The issue of 'budget' 'better value' kit being available elsewhere doesn't seem to prevent Naim moving into new areas (for them) on the 2 channel front....We seem to have this onslaught of streaming orientated gear with the Uniti range (and I'm presuming yet more models are to appear), yet it's hardly new or anything necessarily better that Naim offers compared to options that have long been available and at fractions of the prices....they simply want a piece of this growing market.
Yes, when Naim come up with a box, it's often a very good box, but the argument that cheap AV gear exists on the market and it's all such a hard life out there just doesn't wash, IMHO....Personally, I think it's more like a simple decision - for whatever reason - to cease Naim AV, rather that it not being an area where Naim can compete and offer something......
I have 4 or 5 Apple AEs scattered around, couple chucked in camera bags for on the road etc etc - they are great for what they do and offer, not to mention fantastic value for money - but I wouldn't for a minute consider putting them into the chain for my main HiFi system....I have the ATV, again, it's great, but it would not be my preference for watching my favourite film at top HQ on my plasma through an expensive sound system....It's all relative and everything has its place..... IMO, Naim could easily carve their place into the AV sector, towards the top & with a particular audiophile slant - there are many folk out there who appreciate such quality and typical Naim attention to detail (actually, from what I've seen of the top end AV sector, it would give your average 'cable dressing Naimee' something to think about!) and any glance across the popular & Hi-end HiFi/AV magazines on the shop shelves gives you an idea of just how large that market must be......
I appreciate the ever advancing and changing standards are a pain (This current 3D fad is just ridiculous) but actually much of it hasn't fundamentally changed and often there is an awful lot of false concern - DD & DTS are still around and very largely used and for all the hype around changing HDMI specs, the cable hasn't really changed that much since 1.3a settled down - but regardless, I find it hard to accept that these are reasons alone why Naim have curtailed AV development.......
UPnP is hardly a stable and defined standard, yet it hasn't seemed to have stopped Naim rushing (for Naim) into the Uniti products, has it......
HDMI, as a connection, has been around for years now and has long been the de-facto connection in the AV sector...If that is a indication of things moving too fast for Naim, they are going to get a real shock as they get further into the streaming, computer orientated business, 2 channel or not.....
Steve.
Yes, when Naim come up with a box, it's often a very good box, but the argument that cheap AV gear exists on the market and it's all such a hard life out there just doesn't wash, IMHO....Personally, I think it's more like a simple decision - for whatever reason - to cease Naim AV, rather that it not being an area where Naim can compete and offer something......
I have 4 or 5 Apple AEs scattered around, couple chucked in camera bags for on the road etc etc - they are great for what they do and offer, not to mention fantastic value for money - but I wouldn't for a minute consider putting them into the chain for my main HiFi system....I have the ATV, again, it's great, but it would not be my preference for watching my favourite film at top HQ on my plasma through an expensive sound system....It's all relative and everything has its place..... IMO, Naim could easily carve their place into the AV sector, towards the top & with a particular audiophile slant - there are many folk out there who appreciate such quality and typical Naim attention to detail (actually, from what I've seen of the top end AV sector, it would give your average 'cable dressing Naimee' something to think about!) and any glance across the popular & Hi-end HiFi/AV magazines on the shop shelves gives you an idea of just how large that market must be......
I appreciate the ever advancing and changing standards are a pain (This current 3D fad is just ridiculous) but actually much of it hasn't fundamentally changed and often there is an awful lot of false concern - DD & DTS are still around and very largely used and for all the hype around changing HDMI specs, the cable hasn't really changed that much since 1.3a settled down - but regardless, I find it hard to accept that these are reasons alone why Naim have curtailed AV development.......
UPnP is hardly a stable and defined standard, yet it hasn't seemed to have stopped Naim rushing (for Naim) into the Uniti products, has it......
HDMI, as a connection, has been around for years now and has long been the de-facto connection in the AV sector...If that is a indication of things moving too fast for Naim, they are going to get a real shock as they get further into the streaming, computer orientated business, 2 channel or not.....
Steve.
There are some HDMI PCM to 7.1 RCA converters around, I was tempted but decided to just go the whole hog.
quote:Originally posted by David Dever:
Frankly, I want nothing to do with this
Thankfully, you're not my AV dealer David...
Bet you would change your tune if you had a AV3 in you hands next week though...!
quote:Originally posted by SC:
Phil - REALLY WISH YOU WOULD POST IN HERE MORE OFTEN ! Nice to have such input on the AV threads, particularly from someone like yourself, back at the ranch...
The thing is that although I work at Naim the AV side of things isn't my area of expertise ... I look after NaimNet and so my being "here" is simply because it's my hobby too and so I do have to be a bit careful not to trot out my opinions and have them taken as facts...
quote:Originally posted by SC:
You mention a 'custom controller' - do you mean custom as in something you have made personally or something adapted from a manufacturer ? When using the RS232 - and disabling RC5/remote - are there more controls available, or just the same ? I have never seen a published list of the RC5 AV2 codes, but I believe the RS232 DAT codes are available..?
Both the IR and RS232 codes are available but it's suprising how few people do actually do anything with them - I've not come across anything particularly useful in the RS232 control set that isn't available via IR so for most purposes discrete IR codes are fine.
My "controller" is basically a MiniITX PC motherboard running a piece of software called "HomeGate" (written by Clipsal primarily for lighting control) but HomeGate also has a fully programmable logic engine built in to it. Using that (and a liberal sprinkling of secondhand Lantronix MSS100 Serial To Ethernet interfaces) I can tie in all sorts of functionality if I wish - I did a fully zoned heating controller for my last house and also tied in lighting and electric curtain rails as well.
quote:Originally posted by SC:
I'm just trying to understand if there is any advantage in planning a control system around the RS232 vs a universal remote using RC5 which also controls multiple other products...?
TBH I tend to play just for fun but for something stable I'd stick with a decent programmable remote - I still use my iPronto!
quote:Originally posted by SC:
Finally, on a different note, I'm quite surprised to read you haven't heard 'that much' difference between full HD and core audio codecs.....And this coming from the man you was considering using DBL drivers for a subwoofer !!
Steve.
There *ARE* differences between HD audio and DD/DTS of course - if I switch between the decoded 7.1 from the BD80 and the AV2 decoded audio there are differences but IMO for movie use those differences aren't enough for me to worry about and overall my preference is to use the AV2 to do the decoding rather than the BD80. It just works better for me that way.
Oh and by the way - the DBL drivers aren't actually "subwoofers" as such so when I did look into using them Roy ended up calculating that I'd be needing some ridiculously huge enclosures to get a decent stab at sub-bass response from them.
Phil
Many thanks Phil.
To be honest, it's just nice to get any form of reply and response in this room...I think a few of us here are just grateful for anything we get these days !
I knew you were Naimnet based, but obviously have a keen AV interest and knowledge....Apart from the odd reply from Richard (and replies dealing with faulty n-Vis ) it is pretty much tumble weeds in here of late...
I didn't realise the discrete codes for the AV2 were readily available - will have to look into that...So are there separate codes to select particular decode modes ?
I tend to agree, and would prefer to stick with IR programming, which can be quite advanced with available remotes/methods these days (talking of which, I fancy having a look at the Thinkflood Redeye product) - also because I have very little knowledge of programming RS232. However, I do seem to remember someone - perhaps Tony, I can't remember - mentioning that some of the AV2 functions were not available discretely...? Also, one major factor of RS232 is that it will give feedback whereas IR is a one way path - so as your example, where the current input is sensed to then activate a signal to switch off the TV, this would not be possible via IR...It could be done, as a macro I guess, but not in the same 'sensing' way....
As for the DBL 'subwoofer', it still would have been some fun, however large the box !
Best, Steve.
To be honest, it's just nice to get any form of reply and response in this room...I think a few of us here are just grateful for anything we get these days !
I knew you were Naimnet based, but obviously have a keen AV interest and knowledge....Apart from the odd reply from Richard (and replies dealing with faulty n-Vis ) it is pretty much tumble weeds in here of late...I didn't realise the discrete codes for the AV2 were readily available - will have to look into that...So are there separate codes to select particular decode modes ?
I tend to agree, and would prefer to stick with IR programming, which can be quite advanced with available remotes/methods these days (talking of which, I fancy having a look at the Thinkflood Redeye product) - also because I have very little knowledge of programming RS232. However, I do seem to remember someone - perhaps Tony, I can't remember - mentioning that some of the AV2 functions were not available discretely...? Also, one major factor of RS232 is that it will give feedback whereas IR is a one way path - so as your example, where the current input is sensed to then activate a signal to switch off the TV, this would not be possible via IR...It could be done, as a macro I guess, but not in the same 'sensing' way....
As for the DBL 'subwoofer', it still would have been some fun, however large the box !
Best, Steve.
quote:Originally posted by SC:quote:Originally posted by David Dever:
Frankly, I want nothing to do with this
Thankfully, you're not my AV dealer David...
Bet you would change your tune if you had a AV3 in you hands next week though...!
Like this? Keep dreaming....
