HDBaseT Interoperability Follies

Welcome back to any AV followers who faded away last month while I was posting all fiction all the time. The stories and poems won't entirely go away but we'll start moving into a little better balance between pixels and ink for the nonce. Today I'd like to share a moment to discuss everyone's  favorite transport mechanism, HDBaseT.

For those not in the know, the HDBaseT alliance have defined HDBaseT as a technology for transport of video, audio, power, ethernet, and control over standard category cable. As a point-to-point (as opposed to routable) signals, HDBaseT cannot be routed with standard network switches. With offerings branded by major techm manufacturers (ie, Crestron's "Digital Media" and AMX "Enova" it has become a defacto standard for commercial systems.

Or has it?

The idea of a "standard" is that it should be manufacturer-agnostic. The HDMI output on a Sony Blu-ray player, for example, will work on the input of a Sharp LCD panel as well as it would on a Sony. Is that the case with HDBaseT? Is it, in other words, really a "standard"? The HDBaseT website does boast, in a large banner, that it is "The standard of the future", but the remainder of their text is much more cautious, referring to HDBaseT "technology" or "specifications". Can one grab an HDBaseT transmitter from one manufacturer and receiver from another and expect them  to work together? In an ideal world, the answer would be yes. Those of us who have wrestled with HDCP, EDID, or other HDMI-inspired headaches knows one thing for sure: this is not an ideal world.

For the sake of my own curiosity I tried a little experiment. I had access to transmitters from three major manufacturers: Crestron Digital Media, AMX DXLink, and Extron XTP. The latter is not, to the best of my knowledge, HDBaseT certified, so I'd not expect interoperability from it. The others are, so I would. Is that what happened? Not quite.

The AMX receiver gave me a "green screen of doom" when I tried to connect the Crestron or Extron transmitter to it. This is apparently an HDCP handshake error (as opposed to HDCP noncompliance, which would give a red screen of doom. Doom is the consistent part). This possibly has to do with how AMX handles HDCP authentication, which treats the receiver as a source rather than a repeater. This is nifty in that it bypasses the key limit in some sources (in other words you can run a single Blu-ray player to as many displays as you have outputs for, regardless of its key limit), but might make the receiver more picky in what it looks for from the source side.

This was a fairly disappointing result in that it left the non-HDBaseT certified Extron XTP as my only other receiver. IT might not be "certified", but it does use the same technology as HDBaseT transport solutions. Somewhat to my surprise the Crestron and AMX transmitters both sent HDCP protected content to the Extron XTP receiver. So much for certification.

What does this mean in practical terms? Not all that much. What it highlights is just how similar these devices are. Even in terms of form-factor you get a great deal of similarity between product lines; everyone has a standalone receiver about an inch or so deep to fit behind a flatpanel (or in a wall box), a similarly shaped standalone transmitter, a two-gang wall-mount transmitter,  and modular matrix frames sized from 8x8 up to 32x32 or larger. There's no real practical reason to step out of a single manufacturer's ecosystem other than to prove that you can. Now that we've done so, even that is gone.

A selection of transmitters and receivers

So how does one choose? We're the same place we were back when we did "Switcher-Wars" last year. Do you need Crestron's full audio and USB breakaway? AMX's smaller form-factor and better energy efficiency? Does an end-user with limited programming expertise want to be able to make equipment substitutions and other programming changes through Extron's Global Configurator or AMX's Rapid Project Maker? Is there an existing implementation of a remote-control and asset management system (Crestron Fusion, AMX RMS, Extron Global Viewer) into which you'd like your new system to tie? We've reached a point at which not only are the differences more subtle, but many of them won't even appear on a spec sheet.

The real take away here - for those who didn't realize it already - is confirmation  that the technology is very much the same. In fact, it's the same to the point that if one files off the serial numbers one would have a hard time even telling one apart from another. What this really means is that the best manufacturers aren't just selling the technology; they're selling a solution, including an ecosystem to fit around it and the thought they put in to some of the details that one might miss on a spec sheet.

Roadshow, roadshow

Last week and this two technology reps hit New York with their roadshows; Sapphire Marketting last week and SYMCO this. I managed time for a very quick visit to each, and saw a handful of interesting things.
For those who don't know the  nice folk at Sapphire, they're reps for several major tech manufacturers, including Crestron, Vaddio, Tripplite, Delta (the displays, not the faucets) and others. Symco reps Savant Systems, Barco, SVSI, Biamp, and different others.  

With the big Infocomm tradeshow just around the corner this is a tiny bit of an off time to be checking out new products. There was a handful of hardware I'd not  seen in person as of yet, including the EasyUSB line from Vaddio (more on this later), but there wasn't a wow, gee-whiz, crazy innovation that would knock your socks off - unless, of course, your socks are knocked off by seeing one of Sapphire's familiar faces don a motorcycle helmet and do some variant of the Harlem Shake. If that's the case, I suggest you invest in some sock-garters. To the best of my knowledge, nobody at Symco did the Harlem Shake. Whether that's a point in favor of Sapphire or a point for Symco is, I suppose, a question for the reader.

I'd caught demos of Cybertouch and Delta Displays recently (see earlier post), so I didn't dwell on those at the Sapphire event. It was a treat to see Vaddio in person, especially with some of their new products destined for use in a current project of mine. They have some very nice quality high-definition pan-tilt-zoom cameras and digital mic arrays in their "EasyUSB" line as well as an audio/video to USB (or H.264) encoder called the AVBridge. Why would you want to do such a thing? So you could use a software-based conference solution (Lync, Jabber, etc) or recording solution in a conference room. It's not always the best solution, but it can be a very attractive option for organizations with existing unified communications infrastructure to leverage. More on that in a later post. The products, of course, have the quality I expect from Vaddio.

Next door to Vaddio was MondoPad. Their product is a flat-panel display with integrated camera, microphone, speakers, and PC with both interactive whiteboarding and collaborative software. There were smartphone apps and videoconferencing (SIP and h.323). When I asked about a better camera for a larger room (it's a 55" display; you're not necessarily going to be right on top of it) the rep nodded next door at Vadio.

Coincidentally, Symco also had an all-in-one PC/multitouch flatpanel/VTC endpoint from Clary.icon. Like MondoPad, the Clari.icon product had an integrated PC, high-definition camera, mic, speakers, interactive whiteboard software, etc. Where MondoPad has a slight edge is with the inclusion of a second WiFi radio. Why two? One points at the network for internet access and videoconferencing while the other can be used with smartphone screen capture and control apps. A cranky wifi at the event space hampered the demo of Clary.icon's remote control app with considerable lag. While this  clearly appeared to be a network issue rather than a problem inherent in the device it did highlight what a thoughtful design choice the second WiFi radio is.

Other products over the two days? I'll confess to not stopping by Crestron as I'm fairly up-to-date with their offerings, having gone so far as to specify the new 64x64 DM switch. They also offered a brief introductory class to the "smart objects" in their newly updated programming environment (relabeled from Core3 to alleviate confusion with their 3 series processors).  There were also some very nice architectural items at Sapphire, including this groovy LCD lift which would be a great fit for a conference table in a high-end boardroom. Someone else had already articulated my wish before I got there: an option for an HDBaseT LCD taking its power along with video and control over the single Cat5. Not today, but perhaps someday soon.

Again at the Symco side I got my first in-person look at Savant Systems' switching solutions. I'd already been introduced to their control options which use an Apple Mac Mini as a host and iOS devices as control interfaces. It's a very nice thought, but for many applications the absence of support for non-Apple platforms (so far!) is a bit of a deal-breaker. A 12x12 switcher fits into a 3RU box (compare 4RU for an AMX Enova 8x8 or 16x16, 4 for a Crestron 8x8, and 7 for a Crestron 16x16). They were showing off local HDMI inputs and outputs along with a tiling card that switched sources in up to five tiles (in what seemed to be fixed configurations). The switching was very slow, but that might have been a matter of the physical configuration; they'd taken the output of the tile processor to the display rather than use it as another switcher input and send a "regular" output to the display. This means that, in addition to negotiating EDID and the HDCP and the like, the tiling processor might have had to recalculate with each switch. I'd like to see the unit in action before judging any farther (and they tell me that it's much, much faster if configured correctly). It's clear that Savant wants to compete in the same space as Crestron and AMX.

There is, of course, more to discuss about some of these. Look for more details on Vaddio, on Savant, on SVSI (not mentioned in this post).

About that Crestron/Extron/AMX "Shootout" video

For those not following the commercial AV field, this happened last week. Crestron released two videos on their site, comparing their Digital Media switching system to "similar" (more on this point later) offerings from rivals AMX and Extron. This first came to my attention not through Ravepub's write-up on it or even from Crestron, but in an email blast from Extron accusing their competitors of chicanery in rigging the test. Are their accusations true? I'm not sure, but don't know if it really matters.  From where the industry stands now, Extron is clearly a bit behind AMX and Crestron in availability of products. Crestron and AMX are very close to each-other, with each leading in some areas. Would I be interested in a third-party neutral "shootout" between the three (and perhaps others)? Perhaps, although switching speed and performance are not the only metrics, and there are other intriguing options on the way for some spaces.

Form Factors, Specifications, and More
Before we discuss tje performance issues, we need to look at what each side is actually offering. After all, a high level of performance is a bit of a moot point if a device lacks the capability for which you're looking. The Crestron shootout compared Extron's DXP with a Crestron DMPS and AMX Enova. It's a fair comparison on the Crestron/AMX side; each is an "all-in-one" unit comprised of a digital video switcher, audio mixer, and control system, each has HDBaseT (Crestron's DM 8G+ and AMX's DXLink) inputs and outputs, local HDMI inputs and outputs, and a variety of analog video inputs.

The Extron device, on the other hand, is a simple HDMI matrix. It lacks the audio breakaway, integrated control processor, and integrated amplifier of the other products. Reviewing the devices for actual design into a system, I'd completely ignore Extron on this one. They have their places, but this sadly isn't one of them.

So far as Crestron and AMX are concerned, in form-factor and capabilities it's very close. AMX has an edge in that they have an onboard scaler for each local output as well as scalers integrated into all of their DXLink receivers. Crestron has a scaling receiver option, but you'd need to add an external scaler if you want to scale your local output. Crestron does have an option with built-in acoustic echo cancellation (AEC) for conferencing applications. I've not had the opportunity to test this, but it's an intriguing option for small conference rooms and might sometimes save the need for a full DSP.

AMX also claims one more advantage; energy use. The DGX and DVX are presented as being more energy  efficient than competitors. They have their own comparison tool, the DVX Energy Calculator which compares a DVX to a conventional system and a "non-AMX Presentation Switcher". It's pretty much an open secret that the non-AMX PS is a Crestron DMPS. AMX claims about a 4:1 power savings in active mode and over 10:1 in standby mode - a big issue considering that these units will usually be always on. (Why are they always on? Because the control processor is built in. If you power it down, there's no way for the system to power itself back up!) With today's increased emphasis on sustainable technology this should be an issue, the lack of an Energy Star of similar certification or the ability to earn LEED points makes it a harder case to make, even though it is a real advantage.

A test set-up at Crestron's training facility

Performance aside, which of these would I suggest? It depends. In a control-system-agnostic environment, Crestron has an edge on cost, AMX on onboard scaling, Crestron with AEC (if needed), AMX in energy savings. The latter pushes the needle towards AMX for me, but not so dramatically that I'd not consider Crestron a very viable alternative.

About those Videos
I'm not getting into Extron's accusations of outright cheating; I'm not a forensic video analyst, I am disinterested in engaging in a frame-by-frame analysis, and as I said, it's an apples to oranges comparison.

The innards of an AMX Enova DVX

What did interest me is is that the set-ups for the Extron and AMX comparisons are different; for one, they added extra hardware (an HD Scaler) in the latter, while giving the option of not scaling as a benefit. This strikes me as dishonest in the least. The second is that they used two outputs of their test generator to feed both units. I have no idea how EDID and HDCP keys are handled by this sort of unit; it's quite possible that it needs to negotiate both keys and get a "best common" in order to sync. Interestingly, the only times Crestron appeared faster was when showing the test bars - a source shared between the two systems. I'd be very interested in seeing the same demonstration with truly separate sources.

Conclusions?
I don't have one as of yet. We have, at the very least, two great products from two great companies. Performance between Crestron DM and AMX Enova is close enough that "one switches faster" is most likely not going to be the deciding factor, but simply one factor amongst many. The videos should be taken as what they are: marketing. Would there be value in an independent "shootout"? Perhaps, but as stated before, that ignores real difference in form, capabilities, power consumption, and other factors. Going farther, in a larger install these systems would be part of a larger infrastructure, including control programming, remote asset management, and other factors.

Is it ironic that the discussion of Extron's video lead to a discussion of everyone but Extron?

P is for Programming

I wasn't sure what to do for the letter 'P', but seeing that I'm at Crestron's Rockleigh New Jersey office for basic programming training.

For the uninitiated, Crestron is one of the major manufacturers of audiovisual control, switching, and distribution systems. In fact, their product line has become so broad that they are able to build an entire demonstration room in their "Crestron Experience" showroom using a rack populated with nothing but Crestron equipment, from control processors, to amplifiers, video processors, and even lighting controls. They created some impressive and slick showcases for what their projects can do, including a Theo Kalomirakis-designed "home theater". The audio and video quality are suitably impressive, as is the completeness and flexibility of the control system.

There seem to be two philosophies to control system programming; there's the "configuration" type of setup favored by Extron which provides a simple set of icon- and menu-driven configuration tools to create instruction sets. The advantages of configured systems is that they're easy to set-up and require less specialization. The disadvantage is that they lack flexibility and sometimes create less efficient code than the lower-level method - writing code in a proprietary programming language.

Today's adventure involved System Builder - Crestron's simple configuration tool. Our instructor emphasized how powerful System Builder can be in the hands of someone with knowledge of how it works and a bit of creativity in use of global variables, conditionals, and other tools. Each student was assigned a neat little workstation with a Middle Atlantic console rack loaded with two processors (a Pro2 and MC3), a digital graphics engine, a lightbulb, and various dimmer switches, button consoles, and touch-panels. This let us experiment with simple tasks, such as linking a pair of RF dimmer switches, building touchpanel interfaces and an executable "X-Panel" to run on a PC or tablet.

I'm not walking away convinced that SystemBuilder is a replacement for the more flexible but harder to use Simpl Windows, but there appears to be room for both. It's interesting that Extron, with their emphasis on simple, configurable processors, is now releasing "Global Configurator Pro" which is much more complex and requires training prior to use while AMX, which was always one of the hardest to program, has just announced "Rapid Project Maker" - their answer to the configuration tools available for other systems.

There was even a chance for a sneak peak at the new CP3 control processor - not much more than a glance at the chassis, but we were told that, like the MC3, it will be capable of running multiple projects simultaneously. The long process of phasing out the venerable 2 series processors seems to be beginning in earnest, with a Pro3 expected sometime down the road.

That's it for P. See you tomorrow, when I try to think up something for the letter Q.