Be careful what you ask for.

Just curious, what do you mean and what is your concern?

augsys,

What are we asking for that is so wrong? I dont feel that any of the suggestions made here are radical. These are simply suggestions made by industry professionals that we feel might benefit the industry. If you have a different take on the matter, please elaborate. If you would prefer to elaborate in a private area then lets go to IP and discuss it there. I am curious as to why a certification for manufacturers, easily obtainable serial protocols, full-set discrete IR files, consumer awareness through educational advertising or a restructured/ more convenient certification system are things to 'be careful' of.

Thanks for responding to all that have so far. I think that if everyone would pitch in an idea or at least respond with 'I like this' or 'I hate this' then we may be able to pass these suggestions on to the appropriate people. I dont believe that anyone at CEDIA would be offended by those of us in the trenches brainstorming for ideas that we feel would improve the industry for us all.

Perhaps Gary's point is that if this stuff was easy everyone would be able to do it.

But I don't know for sure.

I'm usually straight up with the reps. Why should I waste time hacking product XX when product YYY which does the same function is easy to control. Make the reps earn their money. Hold up my hands and show a balance scale scale.

Dave

If that is the case then maybe I should be more elaborate in my descriptions of the concepts that I suggested. I am not suggesting making things easier. On the contrary, I would personaly like to see the certification process more difficult. I would rather that someone work for at least 2 years for a dedicated a/v company, CEDIA members if need be, before being able to take the level 1 classes or tests. I know this would hurt some people and help others. That in combination with state licensing, which is already in place in some states and CEDIA seems to be pushing for, would cut down on the fly-by-night hacks and 'on the side' work. It has the potential to protect the client. Then again, maybe I am completely wrong. I just started this thread for what I hoped would be a good discussion and debate. :-)

I do the same Dave. You know me well enough to know I dont pull punches either. The thing that irritates me is that there are some really cool products out there that are basically useless for the CI industry. Wouldnt it be nice to not have to scramble around for that elusive protocol document or use the 'channel 3' discrete? There has been a lot of discussion over the last 6 months, here and elsewhere on the net, about the future of the industry and about CEDIA, good, bad and ugly. I just figured that we could all come together for a bit here and see if we could come up with things we would like to see change.

One thing I noticed with the installer one class is that if you take the review you will pass the test. I didn't take the review and came out just fine but who really knows how far past the gutter the extension ladder needs to be.

I've been in 'electronics' since '88. Removing CATV filters on poles at 14. My first computer was in 1983. My father just handed a file to me tonight with my personal stuff from the military and such that I asked him to hold on to. The two courses I took in the military for being a radar tech came to according to paper work. Course 1 - 668 hours, course 2 - 415 hours. This is just training not actual field work which followed these electronic classes. So what will CEDIA consider this as?

Does the guy driving around town with the magnet sign that says "Two men and some wire" who pay for the course review and test acutally have the same qualifications as I. According to CEDIA yep.

What would I like from CEDIA? Prior credit for experience.

Dave

This message was edited by DavidatAVX on 08/25/05 23:31 ET.

What I meant was this, as soon as we have a standard for control, every TV has X commands in X format and so on and on, our skills are no longer needed.

BB/Mag will have a computer wizard that can any moron can use to program a remote. By by skilled installers.

I've been a Custom Installer for 10 years now and have been to 8 CEDIA Expo's (or 9) I lost count.

In all my years, STILL, not one of my clients ever heard of CEDIA. (nor cared for that matter)

If they want me to join, I suggest they market their "brand" a bit more...and avoid 'unionization'.

I for one would like free beer and hot chicken wings catered to my room....


You know....That rooom way, way, way out of town......

1) just to clarify, I am not saying a Sony TV should have the same codes as a Philips TV. That is just nuts, Sony will not want to use Philips chips and codes and Philips would not want to use Sony codes. What I am saying is that Philips (or any other manufacturer) should add discrete codes on all the devises as well as standardize and use the same codes for all the same functions on all their TVs (or any type of device)

2) If you look at a one for all or a Prontos UDB (that is the same library) you will see for the most part manufacturers use the same codes already, that is why if you pick Sony TV you have 6 choices and Philips you have 4. I am sure that they have not just build 10 models all together, and with the Sonys it could just be different codesets for monitors (a,b,c switch), so what I am asking for is not radical and new it is just bringing it to the next level and simplifying things

3)The big problem today is inconsistency. You can have worked with 5 models of a device from a manufacturer all had the same discrete on/off then you go with a sixth one (maybe integrating something older, maybe the customer wanted something cheaper or fancier, maybe it is a new model that replaces what you were using) and now those codes don't work, so you create all possible codes take a few hours and you find out that on that model does not have them. Then you need to rebuild your design from scratch.

4) Let's say there is a DIYer type of person, that would go looking for those codes, do you think he is really a potential customer? Do you just offer discrete codes to the other ones? how about everything else about configuring the remote? What a CI and remote programmer offers is the UI and the experience, in other words a total experience.

5) Let's look at it a different way, a guy sets up his own remote, let's say he spends 5h looking for codes, let's also say that you know where to look and that task takes you 3h. Let's say we are now sometime in the future and all of the manufacturers have their codes in a nice DB, it now takes the DIY 2h and you 1h to do that same job. Who do you think is better off? him that just saved 3h once in his life or you that saves 2h per job.

6) let's assume your biggest problem is not making devices without codes, let's also assume it is not having the DB but not having it here on RC or on their web site public where anyone can use it but having it somewhere else where only CIs can use it. The question becomes who will host it and for how much. Remember the only reason we brought up RC and the web sites was because Brentm said

Do you think it is better if CEDIA manages that DB? what about many guys here that have CI companies but are not CEDIA members? do you think a 50$ charge is worth it when most will eventually become public. Look at the Pronto DB here or look at the Harmony DB most were done by DIYer and so if the codes exist I think sooner or later they will be here for everyone.

7) Let's say everything is done minus the public part, do you think that 50$ (or what ever is needed) would stop BB? If their plan is an automated configuration where you pick from 2-3 templates they will get the codes directly from the manufactures. So won't stop, BB, won't stop DIYer, so the only group left are the bad pseudo CIs and the guys that said, did my (insert remote name) can do some more on the site through the internet. And I don't know how much it will help detract those people.

Anthony:
Believe it or not your remedy is part of the problem. We in the business cannot agree on what is required and that is 3/4 of the problem. Discrete IR codes only solve the most rudimentary definition of product integraton even if for some of us that might be all that would be required. Discrete IR code sets are indeed a part of the answer but they are not in and of themselves THE ULTIMATE solution. If your conecpt of product automation is limited to IR based solutions ( and in consumer electronics that is a reasonable assumption) must the soluton be predicated solely on the paradigm of the universal remote control? You mean to suggest that this is the only type of automation you can conceive? You have never tried to use some type of control system, however rudimentary? No IR sensor and main unit? No RF remote control sans blast emitter? If we accept that the control protocol can only be one way IR ( with all of the possible problems that entails ) might rear 1/8 mini jacks for that signal not concomitantly also be equally important in the end?

But if we, playing on this site, with all this special CI knowledge, cannot agree on what is important how does anyone expect CEDIA to understand what is required or for manufacturers to pay attention. It's not that discrete codes are wrong it is that they are insufficient by themselves. But if one's paradigm is limited to a universal learning remote it would be all that YOU would require but it would not solve the problem of trying to automate consumer electronics on a somewhat larger scale. Any of the RF remotes would not work unless you subscribe to those who feel placing an emitter on the face of the equipment is acceptable or who resort to blast emitters. And I, for one, do not. Elan, Niles and Russound distributed audio systems would still require mini emittes placed on the equipment face. At the very least emitters fall off whereas any device with an integral connector cannot. Components are occasionally installed in racks or in cabinets on different shelves. Blast IR emitters occasionally overwhlm some equipment's IR receivers so in some few installations blast emitters will not work and mini emitters must be placed on the face of the equipment.

Nor is my solution inherently more expensive than yours, if Parasound and Integra and LG can be used as examples. ( The fact that the LG jack is useless does not mean that it could not be but it does prove that it does not drive up the cost of the component. ) As most integrators never bother to use feedback programaticly, my solution of an integral connector and discrete IR comes closest to a universal solution to all levels of product integration. Those who like remote controls can fire away through the product's IR sensor. Those who prefer remotes that do not require line of sight or that use control systems can still have a product that meets their requirements. The real point, however, is that even those who are supposed to know do not know what to ask for or agree on what is really required. Your solution if promoted and carried out by every manufactuerer would not solve my problem controlling flat panels or equipment in racks nor would it end the problem of emitters falling off. But if anyone with product authority were to read your wish list without any addendums such as this we would still wind up with a partial solution to our problem of product integration.

Alan

This message was edited by Audible Solutionns on 08/28/05 14:17 ET.

Alan

Right or wrong answer. Would it not be in a direction of progress that could be molded and expanded upon. I don't remember anything that was created 'perfect' the first time around. Sometimes action in the wrong direction is better than no action at all.

Dave

Alan,

I have to agree with the others on this issue.


Maybe having a "CEDIA CERTIFIED" label on an item isn't the end all, but it would be such a simple little baby step in the right direction, which can easily be expanded to include other things as time goes by. Much the same as THX certification has adapted over the years.

Would I, as you do, like to see many, many other things required by CEDIA for a "CEDIA CERTIFIED" equipment label?

Absolutely!

But I think that truth be told, CEDIA isnt about helping the general membership any longer but rather helping the big CI companies and the vendors. So a matter such as this, isn't going to be important until such time as one of the major players asks for it.

Give me a MX3000 with 2-way communication with the equipment I'd like to use and I'd be ecstatic. Take that a bit further, and I'd just go right over the edge......But until someone sees the real value in that, it'll just continue to be a band-aid kind of world.....

Sad, isn't it?