Home Theater Upgrade Ups & Downs

Posted on by

When I first began to write this article, it was going to be all about how terrible the manuals and user interfaces are for home theater components, especially receivers. By the time I was done, I wound up taking a broader view. But don’t worry. I’ll get to the manuals mess before the end.

The immediate impetus for this story was my recent purchase of a new AV receiver, my first one in twelve years. I bought a Denon AVR2112CI (which is a slightly upscale version of the more popular AVR1912). Overall, I couldn’t be more pleased. It’s a fabulous receiver.

The upside

Compared to my old Sony STR-DB930 receiver, the sound quality is much improved and the difference is immediately noticeable. Apparently, technology has advanced over the last decade. Who knew? It also helps that the Denon is a more expensive higher quality unit out of the box. [To be clear, I have a separate components setup; this is not one of those “all-in-one” home theater systems.]

However, improved sound quality was actually second on my list of top reasons for getting a new receiver. The number one item had to do with the more mundane topic of connection ports. Over the years, the emphasis of audio-video receivers has steadily tilted more in the direction of video. This is most evident with HDMI ports. My old Sony has zero HDMI ports. My new Denon has seven HDMI inputs (six input and one output).

With the Sony receiver, I was forced to separately connect the audio and video coming from each peripheral (such as my DVD player). The audio went to the receiver (typically via a digital optical or coaxial cable), the video went to the TV via HDMI. This meant that I was not getting any potential benefit of HDMI for audio. More troublesome, my HD-TV has only two HDMI ports. This meant I could not even use HDMI for the video of all my HDMI-capable devices.

With the Denon, all my devices can now connect to the receiver via HDMI. The receiver’s lone HDMI output cable goes to the HD-TV — which carries the signal from all the connected components. In essence, the Denon receiver is now a true audio and video hub! All roads lead to to and from the receiver! This is a major shift from the previous generation of devices.

A related benefit of the new arrangement is that you no longer need to switch TV inputs when switching among different devices. Before, I would have to make sure that both the television and the receiver were “synced” to the same device. For example, if I wanted to switch from my cable box to my DVD player, I would need to switch the input selector to DVD for both the TV and the receiver. Now, all I need to do is select DVD on the receiver’s remote and I’m done. All components feed to the same television input (although some trouble with Comcast developed here, as I’ll get to shortly). Actually, I still prefer my Logitech Harmony Remote for doing this switching, but even here things work a bit more smoothly.

Another bonus with the Denon receiver (having nothing to do with HDMI) is that it supports Apple’s AirPlay (audio only). AirPlay on the Denon works great. With my iPad on my lap, I select my desired music and it plays through the Denon. Just like that. I can even control the Denon’s volume from the iPad. Very slick. You’ll need an Ethernet connection to get the Denon on the network, as it has no Wi-Fi option. In my case, I connected the Denon to an AirPort Express I was already using in the same room. Once on the network, the receiver supports other network options, including Internet radio, Pandora, and even my iTunes Library.

The other receiver I had considered getting instead of the Denon was the Pioneer VSX-1021-K, currently the only other model in this mid-range price category that includes AirPlay. The Panasonic is a fine receiver, with some advantages over the Denon (the Pioneer does have wireless and even Bluetooth options). However, in the end, I preferred the Denon. At the time I bought it, the Denon retailed for $600; Denon appears to have just upped the price to $650, making the 2112 a bit less attractive. In contrast, the Pioneer 1021 and the Denon 1912 are both $550.

The downside

Amidst all this sunshine, there are two small clouds of discontent. These are not issues unique to the Denon and are certainly not deal-breakers. But they are annoying.

• Comcast and receiver conflict. After I connected my new (black) Comcast cable box to the HDMI port on the receiver, the display settings on the cable box kept getting messed up (returning to 4:3 and 480p instead of the required 16:9 and 1080i). This meant I was not seeing HD when watching HD channels.

Fixing these settings required going into a “secret” Comcast screen (you have to press Power and then Menu on the Comcast remote to access it). The fix didn’t help in the end. The settings would screw up again after turning the devices off and back on. The only permanent fix is to connect the cable box’s HDMI port directly to the TV (with an optical cable going to the receiver). This, of course, means reverting back to the type of setup I had with my Sony, partially defeating one of the advantages of the new receiver.

The primary source of this problem is the new Comcast cable box (older models did not show this symptom). It’s not specific to the Denon; I had the same exact Comcast glitch with the Pioneer 1021. Hopefully, Comcast will eventually offer a firmware fix that addresses the matter. I suspect this bug also plagues new-generation cable and satellite boxes from other companies, but I cannot confirm this.

[Update: I have since learned that a primary cause of the problem is HDMI hand-shaking. As part of the DRM-restrictions built into HDMI (under pressure from the film industry as an anti-piracy measure), an HD transmission will not work with displays that are not “HDMI-compatible.” The firmware that checks for this compatibility is often not smart-enough to figure out what is going on when you have a receiver intervening between the cable box and the television. It winds up believing that this is a violation and shuts down the HD transmission. Such is the case with the HDMI checking built into the Comcast cable box. That’s why it works when connecting directly to a TV, but not to a receiver.]

• Manuals from hell. Setting up the Denon receiver was more difficult than I had anticipated. I needed to call tech support twice before I got everything working correctly. By comparison, I have never previously had to call tech support to setup any AV component. [In this case, “tech support” meant calling the people at crutchfield.com, where I purchased the Denon. They could not have been more helpful. I highly recommend them.]

Part of the problem is that these devices are complicated, much more so than years ago. But making matters worse is Denon’s poorly written manual (and its equally confusing on-screen settings menus).

By this, I don’t mean the manual is written in poor English. Although this is a common complaint about AV device manuals, the Denon does a decent job here. Rather, the problem is that the manual assumes the reader understands much more than the typical (or even atypical) reader will actually understand.

Here’s one example. Do you want to set up your speakers via a bi-amp connection? Do you even know what that means? I didn’t at first. Denon’s manual “helpfully” explains:

“You can use the front speakers via the bi-amp connection. A bi-amp connection is to connect separate amplifiers to the tweeter terminals and woofer terminals of speakers compatible with the bi-amp function. This prevents the back electromotive force (returned force without output) of the woofer sent to the tweeter, which affects the sound quality of the tweeter, and you can enjoy playback with higher-quality sound.”

Yes, it’s all so clear now. Not. In too many other cases, the manual tells you how to change the settings for some oddly named feature — but fails to adequately explain what each setting does or why you might need to make a change.

To be fair, other competing models aren’t any better. In fact, setting up a Pioneer 1021 is even more difficult than a Denon (according to reports I’ve read online) and its manual is more obtuse (as I can confirm from my own comparison). The Pioneer remote is also more daunting to master.

Manuals and set-up for other components (such as Blu-ray players) are not nearly as bad in this regard. Receivers are in a category all by themselves.

Fortunately, you typically need to go through the setup only once. And once you’re done, the hard part is over. In my case, after the Denon receiver was finally up and running, it was a pleasure to use. I had at last arrived at the fun part: enjoying superb sound and crystal clear HD video. Break out the popcorn. It’s time to watch a movie. See you later.

[Coming to my setup later this year: A new (3D?) television? Maybe. I’ll let you know.]

The Sad State of the Oscar for Best Song

Posted on by

In our house, the Academy Awards are like the Super Bowl. It’s one of the big events of the year. Typically, we have friends over for an “Oscar party.” For months before the actual how, I scour magazines and websites for information about who is likely to be nominated and who is supposed to win. Then I do my own prognosticating. True, the show itself is often a letdown (the same could be said of the Super Bowl). But I return each year and eagerly await the opening of the envelopes.

Beyond the major awards at the end of the show, one of my favorite categories has always been Best Original Song. Not any more. the decline of this category in recent years is a disgrace.

Less than five?

Where to begin? How about with the nominating process? This year there were only four nominated songs. Why is that? Almost every other category has five nominations. The only categories that have less than five are ones where there seems not to be enough qualified movies (such as Best Visual Effects).

This logic cannot apply to Best Original Song. Not this year anyway. How do I know this? Let’s look at this year’s nominees:

Coming Home (from Country Strong)
I See the Light (from Tangled)
If I Rise (from 127 Hours)
We Belong Together (from Toy Story 3)

The award went to frequent nominee Randy Newman for We Belong Together. Admittedly, this was not a spectacular collection of songs. My point, however, is that if these four songs qualified, surely there must be at least one more of this caliber that could have been included. Randy Newman said as much when he accepted his award: “They only nominate four songs? They nominate five for cinematography. They could find a fifth song somewhere.”

Yes. And, in this particular case, they wouldn’t have had to look very hard. Recently, I saw Burlesque. While not a great movie, it did have some very enjoyable music. Of particular note is You Haven’t Seen The Last Of Me, sung by Cher and written by Dianne Warren. It won the Golden Globe for Best Original Song. Surely, it is good enough to have been the fifth nominated song at the Oscars.

Why was this (or any other potential song) not given the fifth spot? I have never seen an official explanation. I haven’t even read any reasonable speculation. It appears to be a mystery. Whatever the reason, it must be a ridiculous one. There is no good reason for it.

[A sidenote: As its name implies, nominees in the Original Song category must be “original” — meaning that the song must have been written expressly for the movie. That’s why, in Burlesque again, Christina Aguilera’s driving performances of Something’s Got a Hold on Me and Tough Lover could not be considered. These are old Etta James’ standards. It’s also why, years before, Whitney Houston’s mega-hit cover of I Will Always Love You (from The Bodyguard) did not qualify.]

Less than good?

On the other hand…I can see one rationale for having less than five nominated songs as a general rule: the overall low quality of the music in recent years. No offense to Randy Newman (whom I greatly admire) but, compared to nominees from decades ago, there have been almost no songs in the past decade that qualify as memorable or future standards.

Need proof of this? As a comparison, check out nominees and winners for Best Original Song from years past.

First off, let’s look at songs from the period prior to 1961:

White Christmas
I’ve Got You Under My Skin
Pennies from Heaven
They Can’t Take That Away From Me
Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah
That Old Black Magic
The Man that Got Away
Three Coins in A Fountain
Love is a Many Splendored Thing
Unchained Melody
Que Sera Sera
All the Way
April Love
Gigi
High Hopes

See any ones you recognize? Of course you do. And the above list is by no means exhaustive.

Next, let’s move to the period from 1961 to 1990. Familiar nominees include:

Moon River
Town Without Pity
Days of Wine and Roses
Call Me Irresponsible
More
My Kind of Town
The Shadow of Your Smile
I Will Wait for You
Born Free
Alfie
Georgy Girl
The Look of Love
Windmills of Your Mind
Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head
Come Saturday Morning
Jean
What are you Doing The Rest of Your Life?
The Way We Were
Nobody Does It Better
Hopelessly Devoted to You
Fame
Up Where We Belong
I Just Called to Say I Love You
The Power of Love
Take My Breath Away
Somewhere Out There
I’ve Had The Time of My Life
Storybook Love

Whew! Impressed yet? I hope so. Yes, there were clunkers among the nominees (I haven’t listed those here). But, in any given year, there were almost always a few good ones. This is no longer the case.

Starting around 1991, things began to decline. Several songs from Disney and Pixar animated films were top-notch (such as You’ve Got a Friend in Me). Occasional other songs stand out, such as Because You Love Me and My Heart Will Go On (both from the 1990’s). After 2000, however, the pickings became really slim (Emimen’s Lose Yourself being one exception).

The year 2008 was a low point. Only three songs were nominated; two of them came from Slumdog Millionaire. In other words, out of the entire crop of films released that year, only two movies contained songs deemed worthy of a Best Song nomination. As with 2010, there were probably other songs that could have (and perhaps should have) been nominated. But my recollection is that this was indeed a bleak year.

What accounts for this decline? I believe there are two factors:

• Rock music. Starting in the 1950’s and 1960’s, popular music underwent a profound change. Popular music had been dominated by composers from Tin Pan Alley and Broadway. The rock and roll revolution changed all of that. From Sun Records to Motown to the Beatles and onward today’s diverse number of rock genres, it’s now a different world. Hollywood was slow to adapt to this. If you look at the above list of songs from 1961 to 1990, only a few (at the tail end of the list) could even remotely be considered rock music. By the 1990’s, movie songs had largely become irrelevant to the rest of popular music. The quality of songs were in decline because most top artists of the time weren’t writing for movies. The Academy made some effort to appear hip (such as when It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp won in 2005). But it was too little, too late.

• Money. There’s another reason top artists weren’t writing for movies: they weren’t asked to do so. Why? Because it had become too expensive. With the rising costs for making a film, and with original music seen as having little to do with a film’s financial success, producers were no longer interested in paying the escalating fees that musicians were demanding. An informative blog posting provides further insight on this point.

Sad. The end result is that what had once been a highlight of the Academy Awards show — great artists performing great music — is now just ho-hum at best, annoying at worst. I keep hoping that next year will be better. But I’m not optimistic.

All Politicians Are Hypocrites

Posted on by

Yesterday, Republicans in the Senate used the ludicrous filibuster rule to successfully block and up-or-down vote on the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. His qualifications were not in dispute. As noted in NPR’s coverage:

“He was given a top rating of unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association. He was a Rhodes Scholar and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He received numerous awards for academic and legal achievements.”

Rather, the Republicans cited two main objections. The lesser one was that he was too “liberal” The more critical objection was that he had “criticized” (Republicans would use the word “insulted”) the records of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, when they were nominees for the Supreme Court.

This was political payback, pure and simple. Even if everything the Republicans claimed was 100% true, there would still be no basis for rejecting Liu’s nomination, let alone preventing it from even coming to a vote. Offering a documented critique, however harsh, of a judicial nominee should not be grounds for rejection. Republican’s real concern was that, if Liu made it to the Appeals Court, he might well someday become the first Asian-American to ascend to the Supreme Court.

My larger point today, however, is the hypocrisy of it all.

As pointed out in a San Francisco Chronicle editorial, it was these very same Republicans (including John McCain and Lindsey Graham) who had argued, back when the Republicans had control of the Senate, that it was downright unconstitutional for senators to deprive a judicial nominee of an up-or-down vote — except in the most “extraordinary circumstances.”

But let’s be clear. The Democrats are not on the side of virtue here. They can be just as hypocritical. Back in 1987, as one example, Democrats prevented Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination from coming up for a vote, citing his “conservative writings” as their justification. At least among conservatives, Bork’s name has become a verb, used to describe any unfair attack on a person’s reputation and views (as in: “He was borked.”)

The underlying theme is this: Whatever view a politician vigorously supports when their party is in control of the legislature (or the presidency or whatever) they will just as vigorously oppose when they don’t have such control. Partisanship trumps rationality and consistency every time. It’s a point I’ve commented on before. But it bears repeating.

You can see examples of this almost every day. For example, I recently read about Republicans criticizing President Obama for making too much of a show of his success in getting Osama bin Laden. Can you imagine these same conservatives criticizing George W. Bush, if Bush had managed to accomplish what Obama did and had behaved in a similar (or even more extreme) manner? Of course not.

Politicians live and breathe hypocrisy. Trying to find one that does not reverse his/her beliefs whenever the political shoe shifts to the other foot would be like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack — except that the haystack is the size of the universe and the needle is smaller than an atomic particle.

The truly sad part is that the public generally accepts all this as “business as usual.” No matter how many times people like John Stewart point out these hypocrisies, almost no one ever gets held accountable. We laugh (or not) and we move on.

If there’s a difference between political parties here, it’s only that Republicans are better at accomplishing their hypocritical goals. If this were an Olympic sport, Republicans would win the gold medal while Democrats would have trouble even making the final group. But they’d both be trying just as hard.

Drop NPR Federal Funding

Posted on by

I’m in favor National Public Radio (NPR) losing its federal funding.

It’s not for the reasons you may think. I am not a tea-party conservative railing against NPR’s supposed liberal tilt. To the contrary, I am solidly planted on the left side of the fence. Still, when all is said and done, I believe NPR will be better off if it frees itself from the shackles of its federal support.

NPR states that “While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR’s overall revenues.”

According to other information on NPR’s website, NPR’s total revenue for 2010 was around $180,000,000. Two percent of this amounts $3.6 million. This is nothing to sneeze at. But there’s a cost to accepting this money, a cost that I believe is untenable in the current political climate.

The cost is that it pressures NPR into potentially ill-advised decisions in an attempt to appear politically neutral. In the end, this attempt too often works against the very goal it seeks. They wind up distorting news coverage rather than maintaining a balance.

Attempting to appease the right is a lose-lose battle in any case. No matter what NPR does (short of putting Glenn Beck in charge of programming), conservatives will maintain their belief that NPR favors progressives. Meanwhile, progressives are nearly equally disgruntled that NPR isn’t as liberal as its critics complain. “If only it were so,” they lament.

The problem is that “balanced” coverage does not equate to always giving both sides of a debate equal time and consideration. Rather, it means that you do your best not to let personal biases influence what you cover and how you cover it.

If one side of debate consistently presents false arguments while the other stays closer to the truth, the media should make this clear. You aren’t being “fair” to your listeners by giving both sides equal time (such as by interviewing both a Republican and a Democratic senator) with little or no challenge to what they are saying. In other words, when someone makes a claim that Barack Obama is not really a U.S. citizen, assuming you decide to cover this lunacy at all, you don’t just say “Thank you, and now for an opposing view…” You challenge the lunacy. You offer a critical assessment, based on the facts.

To be clear, I like NPR. It is the only radio or TV news media that I consistently listen to. And they do often follow exactly what I recommend. But not as much as I believe they should. Or would, if they were not worried about public perception, political fallout, accusations of bias and potential loss of federal funding.

Of course, to be fair, I believe you should do this for both sides of the political spectrum. However, there is reason to believe that this will cast conservatives in a negative light more often than progressives. As pointed out in a Mother Jones article:

“It all raises the question: Do left and right differ in any meaningful way when it comes to biases in processing information, or are we all equally susceptible? There are some clear differences. Science denial today is considerably more prominent on the political right—once you survey climate and related environmental issues, anti-evolutionism, attacks on reproductive health science by the Christian right, and stem-cell and biomedical matters. More tellingly, anti-vaccine positions are virtually nonexistent among Democratic officeholders today—whereas anti-climate-science views are becoming monolithic among Republican elected officials.”

If this means that a media outlet will be critical of Republicans more often than Democrats, so be it. This is not being biased. It’s being honest.

Actually, as I’ve already indicated, even if NPR offered such critical analyses equally for Republicans and Democrats, it would still be accused of bias by conservatives. That’s because conservatives apparently view even the slightest challenge, however reasonable, as an attack on their entire political viewpoint. A crystal clear example of this came up in a recent segement of NPR’s On the Media that asked “Does NPR have a liberal bias?”

During the show, an interview of Intel CEO Paul Ortellini by NPR’s Michele Norris was raised by a conservative spokesperson. In the interview, Otellini proposed a tax holiday for any company that built a new factory in the U.S. Norris replied, “Can this country afford that right now?” This was taken as proof (as also cited in other conservative media, such as a newsbusters.org article) of NPR’s “liberal bias.”

Say what? Ms. Norris was simply asking a question that anyone who potentially had the slightest disagreement with the CEO’s proposal would have asked. This is what journalists do. It’s called doing their job. Mr. Ortellini was given an opportunity to respond — fully and with respect. What’s wrong with that? [As an aside, how many times has Bill O’Reilly interrupted, cut off, yelled out and insulted someone on his show whom he disagreed with? If you’re looking for bias, why not start there?] The presumption is that Ms. Norris would have asked a similar question if she later interviewed someone who claimed the solution to our economic problems was to radically raise taxes on all U.S. corporations. Her response would likely be along the lines of: “Can the country afford that right now? Might it not lead to more corporations leaving the U.S. to go overseas?” This would not represent a conservative bias — just as the question asked to Mr. Ortellini did not represent a liberal bias.

I can only assume that people weaned on Fox News have come to believe that the only way for a media outlet to appear “balanced” is to never challenge positions conservatives support while always attacking the ones they oppose. Although not as extreme, MSNBC viewers can be guilty of the same transgressions for liberal positions. Maybe in cable news’ universe, that’s how things work. But that’s not a yardstick worth picking up. In such an Orwellian universe, fairness becomes evidence of bias.

Ira Glass made some of these same points in his defense of NPR. But the question remains, what should NPR do beyond making a spirited defense? If the choice ever comes down to sacrificing sound principles of journalism in order to maintain federal funding, then it’s time to abandon federal funding. Perhaps we’re not quite at this point yet. By why push it? Unless NPR could not survive without the federal funding, it is time to seriously consider whether it’s worth keeping. I vote no.