The DPL Scheme
Dear Gary:
I read your magazine every month. It is one of my more important resources for keeping up with the constantly improving technologies in our industry.
I received the Volume 16, Number 11, Issue 126, December 2007 edition of WSR. Jeffrey Boccaccio’s article, “Digital Performance Testing Raises The Bar For HDMI™ (Why Has it Come To this?)” contains a lot of good HDMI information, which I am sure will help sellers and end users of HDMI product attain a better understanding of the technology and its history. However, there are some issues on which I wish to comment.
Mr. Boccaccio’s article appears to be self-serving. Although it describes the HDMI technology in detail, it appears to me that the main thrust of the article is to justify the “DPL” scheme. My perception is that this article is advertising masquerading as “news.”
“Why has it come to this?” Let me give you my conclusion. While Mr. Boccaccio praises HDMI’s technology and engineering, he fails to discuss the confusion and aggravation of so many integrators and the PR disaster HDMI LLC has created. In particular, there is no discussion of the lack of communication by the HDMI LLC with resellers of HDMI products or about the absence of a timely response to the industry’s early difficulties with HDMI. Early on, our company decided that we could not afford the annual $15,000 licensing fee that would give us “Adopter” status and, therefore, make us eligible for direct HDMI LLC contact. From 2002, when HDMI was first introduced, to 2005, very few people even knew of the existence of HDMI LLC. Their Web site was operational, but unless you were an “Adopter,” the only way to contact them or get relevant information was via the “Contact Us” e-mail on their Web site. I sent them e-mails numerous times and never received a reply. I once did hear from them, loud and clear. I received an e-mail letting me know that unless we put the “TM” after the HDMI trademark on our products, they would take legal action! They were the “invisible company,” not wanting to deal with the questions and complaints about failures of the technology. Also, Mr. Boccaccio undertakes no discussion of the transition from the locking DVI connector to the smaller, but physically inferior, non-locking connector and the problems it caused in the field.
After reading the paragraph entitled, “A Few Brave Men,” I must say I was shocked! It seems that the only “brave men,” assuming that means “brave companies,” in the industry are those who will pay Mr. Boccaccio’s company to submit to his “DPL scheme.” From his assertion, I suppose companies like Tributaries, AudioQuest, Straight Wire, WireWorld, Kimber Kable, etc, are all cowards; afraid to have their cables tested. I don’t know how my colleagues at the aforementioned companies feel about it, but I believe that the whole paragraph is an editorial “cheap shot” and disrespectful to those companies who have established a creditable reputation in the marketplace but who have not agreed to pay Mr. Boccaccio to have him validate what they have been doing for many years: producing high-quality cable products that perform up to and exceed customer’s expectations and then, standing behind those products. I can’t speak for the others, nor would I presume to, however our customers buy Tributaries because they trust that we will provide top-of-the-line products to them. We, in turn, purchase our cable products from reputable and responsible manufacturers who excel at providing the highest quality products. We also insist on a thorough 100 percent testing of all products, not only during manufacturing, but also before packaging at our factory in Orlando.
The “DPL” system might have some practical application if it were focused specifically on consumers trying to make reasonable decisions among the many competing brands sold on the Internet, through distribution, or those sold in national chains. For them, a rating system would be of some benefit. Applying this line of thinking to a business-to-business scenario overlooks so many other factors; customer needs, the dealer/installer/integrator’s relationship with his/her supplier, credit issues, stock issues, etc. Our dealers buy from us because they trust us. If we sold products to them that didn’t perform properly, we would most likely lose those customers unless we improved quickly. That’s the way it works. It’s called “The Market.” The market decides who stays and who goes. The idea of a “Consumer Reports,” third-party rating system has too many “false -negative” possibilities. Consider the fact that we get shipments of thousands of HDMI cables every month. Each shipment is from a different production run. To achieve valid results, DPL would have to test cables from every production run. At Tributaries, we test every HDMI cable both for continuity and 1080p performance. We find a “bad” cable at the rate of about 3 in 1,000. What if one or two of those cables are the ones to be tested? Does the company get a “black eye?” How will that be addressed? Not only does this system have the potential of separating the good from the bad, it also can cause irreparable damage. I don’t believe DPL will “Raise the Bar”; I believe it will lower the bar by creating more confusion than already exists. The credibility for Tributaries products must come from the company’s ability to provide great products and world-class service, not from a “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” or a “Consumer Reports” type rating.
Joe Perfito, President, Gordon J. Gow Technologies, Inc. Proud makers of Tributaries Products
Editor-In-Chief and Publisher Gary Reber Comments:
Joe, thank you for your letter relating your perspective on HDMI and the Digital Performance Levels (DPL) rating system being implemented by InVision Technology. I asked Jeffrey Boccaccio to write an article delineating his perspective of HDMI and the role he has created for InVision Technology’s DPL testing certification program. As a policy, I do not edit content and limit our editing to grammar. That way our readers receive essentially unfiltered reporting. I asked Mr. Boccaccio if he would like to respond to your letter. Below is his response.
InVision Technology’s Jeffrey Boccaccio Comments: In response to a letter received from Joe Perfito, President of Tributaries referring to Volume 16, Number 11, Issue 126, December 2007 edition of WSR.
This is great! Thank you, Tributaries for responding. Even unfavorable responses are helpful in continuing our efforts to improve a new and complex technology.
It is possible that I may have not expressed strongly enough how catastrophic the adaptation has been from the conservative analog format to newer High-Speed Digital Signaling. It takes persistence in our offices every day to keep up with the calls and mailings relating to the problems consumers and installers are having in the field. Never in my near 40 years in this industry have I seen such an upheaval over an interface.
Most cable products that are sold in the United States are engineered and manufactured offshore, primarily from the Far East. This is a major shift from the traditional ways of manufacturing in the past. Our industry, faced with a very complex technology, is now reliant upon non-internal testing procedures. All levels of the supply chain are affected, including Internet sales, mass-market sales, and the traditional retail manufacturers.
Manufacturing these products requires knowledgeable engineers, expensive test equipment, and the necessary tooling––the expense of which could cripple many wire and cable companies. This leaves many of these firms relying on the third-party’s stated specifications. Even upon receipt of these specs, many companies do not understand how to read them, let alone evaluate them.
Fortunately, there are firms like InVisions Technology available for interpretation so that the specs can be evaluated and decided upon. The scale of products coming in from the Far East is huge with wide margins of reliability and quality. This has left many consumers, retailers, and distributors in a black hole—a hole that can now be filled with reliable data, allowing real performance levels to be examined, researched, and purchased. That is DPL!
By way of science, DPL is testing products for performance. The program takes a different approach from testing services now available from HDMI, Simplay, and others that work with the interface. The level of work we do in this area, along with the external resources that are available to us, have provided testing procedures far more stringent than the norm. The variables throughout the interface and the misunderstanding of how the interface functions provide for a high probability of functional issues throughout this digital transport mechanism. We see it (and work with it) every day.
The testing procedure is focused on what the maximum throughput is rather than passing a minimum. We have learned from experience that too many low-integrity products can develop problems with the interface, due to poor tolerances, poor manufacturing processes, age, and installation. In general, the testing is to provide the industry with what the dynamic headroom is over and above the HDMI standard. It will be the first system in place to allow consumers to make informed choices between HDMI performance levels within the same version of the standard.
To create the Digital Performance Levels program, it has taken a tremendous amount of work, time, and capital investment. DPL might one day be the de facto standard for third-party HDMI performance testing, but until then, our rewards are the facts, answers, and knowledge we have shared to support a strong and reliable industry.
The dynamics of testing procedures with many of these wire and cable companies are all over the map. Ranging from no tests at all to full-blown digital testing with the necessary equipment to do the job. More and more HDMI manufacturers are publishing their testing policies and practices. I am also very encouraged by a recent conversation I had with a mass-merchant product manager that was very proficient, not only with the interface but the technology itself. All of this is well and good, but it does not offer any unified measure by which retailers, installers, and consumers can shop.
The DPL procedural documentation, which is readily available, is very carefully laid out in an effort to eliminate the black eyes, false negatives, and disproportionate lot testing. First, ten samples of each product are tested to ensure consistency of quality. Additionally, these tests are carried out on five more samples at some time (unannounced to the manufacturer) each year to further validate consistency of quality control.
The DPL Testing program provides a means for dealers, installers, and consumers to reference performance and reliability characteristics in order to reduce problems in the field. It will provide a means to compare products by performance with easy-to-understand levels. If a manufacturer offers additional services to address customer needs, relationships, credit issues, stock issues, etc, it only makes that firm that much stronger. Success in The Market will not be judged by fancy names, pretty boxes, and ridiculous claims. Sure, there is a cost, it is called engineering, and it isn’t cheap. DPL evolved out of desperation from wire and cable firms, resellers, and end users begging for an independent measurement program that is based on performance-related data. We are very proud to be the company to offer it!
Jeffrey Boccaccio, InVisions Technology, DPL––Supporting a Performance Based Industry, jeff@invisionstech.com
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ editorgary@widescreenreview.com