The Wonders of HD -- Re-Discovering the Fifth Element</h1> <article> <h1>The Wonders of HD -- Re-Discovering the Fifth Element</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:46:00 GMT</p> When I was at Cambridge SoundWorks in the late 1990s, one of my favorite home theater demo movies was Luc Besson's The Fifth Element, with Bruce Willis, Milla Jovovich, Gary Oldham, Ian Holm and Chris Tucker (as "Ruby Rhod"). The colors, staging, explosive sound effects and great music brought out the best in a TV and surround sound system. I have probably seen the "Diva scene" of the movie over 50 times -- and the entire movie a dozen times.<br>So it came as something of a surprise the other day that, when I came across it on HBO in HD, that I simply couldn't stop watching it. While all movies are better in HD, some movies are hugely improved. Besson's thematic use of color -- some scenes are orange, some are yellow -- and his incredible scene compositions, are sooo much more enjoyable in HD! What a treat.<br><br>If you've never seen the movie, do so. If you've seen it six times, see it again on Blu Ray or an HD broadcast. And make sure you've got a great audio system connected. The soundtrack is as good as the visuals -- and your TV speakers are not going to be able to keep up with it. We believe that no TV made in the past five years should be listened to -- their built-in speakers are dreadful. Get a $1500+ 5.1 surround sound system...or a ZVOX system....or hook up a boom box or the cheap set of amplified speakers that came with the last PC you bought. Anything is better than the 30 cent speakers they stuck in your flat-panel TV.<br><br> </article> <article> <h1>Is Video Killing Music? What You Can Do About It.</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:32:00 GMT</p> <p>OK. I confess. I don't listen to music nearly as much as I used to. I find myself spending my spare time watching TV shows and movies, reading, and going on line. I used to spend a lot of that time just listening. In the '70s a party meant some beer, some pot and a really good stereo with great speakers. We lived for music. What happened?<br><b>1. Video got powerful.</b> I grew up in a midwestern town with two TV channels, both of which showed fairly awful programs. Listening to great music was much better than watching crappy TV. I remember vividly watching my first episode of Saturday Night Live, thinking "Wow, this is really good." Now I've got a Netflix subscription and 500+ channels of video -- many of which are actually watchable. So I watch.<br><b>2. Radio lost its grip. </b>In my teens, my brothers and I would listen to far-away AM radio stations so we could hear good music. Hearing "Jumping Jack Flash" for the first time was a rush. The radio was how we stayed on top of what was happening. Now it seems like most radio stations are programmed by four guys in Texas. I'm grateful for WERS, my favorite Boston college station. Without it, I'd be listening exclusively to news , talk, Garrison and stupid quiz shows on NPR.<br><b>3. I got old. </b>Who knew this would happen? But not a lot of new music does much for me. <br>So the questions are, "How can I bring music back into my life?" and "Do I want to?" Well, I do want to, and here's how I'm going to do it. I'm going to email five people I know, sending them five recommendations of music I think they should listen to. Then I'm going to ask them to do the same for me. I suggest you-all do the same thing -- and also enter your suggestions as responses to this blog. There's great music out there. Some new. Lots old. We just need each other's help finding it...and remembering it.</p><p><br><b>Tom's Five Suggestions:</b><br>John Prine and Iris Dement, In Spite of Ourselves<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5axlwCBXC8&feature=PlayList&p=E2F22330D96FCD1F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=34<br><br>Johnny Cash, If You Could Read My Mind<br>http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_dmusic_0_18?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-music&field-keywords=johnny+cash+if+you+could+read+my+mind&sprefix=johnny+cash+if+you</p><p><br>Captain Beefheart, Ice Cream For Crow<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqRHr5pEIFU</p><p><br>Joni Mitchell, California<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q4foLKDlcE</p><p>Janis Joplin, Summertime<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzNEgcqWDG4&feature=related<br></p><br> </article> <article> <h1>In-Wall Speakers | No Sir, We Don't Like Them.</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:58:00 GMT</p> Somebody has to put a stop to this in-wall speaker madness. Here's my attempt. <p>For years, installing in-wall speakers has become more and more popular. Thus more and more people spend too much money for inferior sound. </p> <p>A simple at-home demonstration will illustrate my point. Ask a friend or family member to stand with their backs (and heads) against the wall, and then speak in a loud, clear voice. Or better yet, ask them to sing! Then, as they are talking/singing, ask them to take one step away from the wall. Notice how the sound of their voice becomes much more clear, more open, more natural? That's because a human, or a loudspeaker, inherently sounds better when it's not jammed up against a wall -- or worse yet, jammed inside a wall. The way sound behaves when it emanates from its source too close to a wall is not good. This is why you always see audiophile-quality speakers parked out into the room, a good couple of feet away from the wall.</p> <p>For years companies have worked on ways of solving this problem. And there are some decent in-wall (or sorta-in-wall/sorta-out-of-wall) speakers on the market. But they tend to be pretty pricey, and the sonic results variable. And then there's the cost of installing those in-wall speakers and their wires. Yipes! It can easily end up costing you $1,000-$2,000 to have a pair of high quality in-wall speakers installed in a room. So be prepared to pay a lot for this kind of sound system and to settle for less sound quality than you really want. </p> <p><b>Go wireless with Roku, Squeezebox, Sonos or Apple...and maybe a little ZVOX</b>. <br>If you want music throughout your house, you don't need to string all those wires. The companies listed above all have pretty great wireless audio solutions that will cost about the same or less than wired audio systems. Then connect them to a small amp and a pair of good bookshelf speakers (that can be wall-mounted), and you'll get much better sound than in-walls. Or connect your Sonos/Roku/Squeezebox/Apple-Airport to a ZVOX single-cabinet sound system. Then life is very simple, sounds very good, and doesn't cost nearly so much.</p> </article> <article> <h1>iPod Speakers: Why is everybody settling for low-quality sound?</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:50:00 GMT</p> <P>iPods(R) are such cool things because they package great technology in a way that's so easy to use. When the first iPod models (and other MP3 players) hit the market, the big focus was on the incredible number of songs that could be stored on such a small device. But that number was big -- at least back then -- because everybody was recording at 128 kbps sampling rates. The marginal (this is a kind word) sound quality that resulted from these sampling rates seemed acceptable at the time because, hey, "look at how many CDs I've got loaded onto this thing."</P> <P>Then more affordable storage, bigger drives and/or memory came along -- and so did better sampling solutions, including Apple's "Lossless" Encoder system. So now, for everyone who cares about sound quality, you can get pretty good fidelity from your iPod.</P> <P>So the big question is, "Why are so many people using crappy speaker systems with their iPods?!?!" Little plastic speaker cabinets with super-tiny speakers. Their sound quality reminds me of what I hear when I hit a cookie tin really hard with a serving spoon. Metallic, edgy, thin, awful, lifeless, cold...just plain terrible. How can anyone listen to these shiny plastic turds? If I had my way, I would bring back stocks as a form of punishment, and put the designers/marketers of these "things" on display in the lobbies of concert halls.</P> <P>Yes, it's cool that these "things" are so small. But cute only goes so far. It doesn't make up for schreechy.</P> <P>Here are some rules-of-thumb about how to avoid the awful:</P> <P>1. It the system is about the size of a ham sandwich, don't buy it.</P> <P>2. If the system's speakers are about the size of a quarter (or smaller), don't buy it.</P> <P>3. If it can run off AA batteries, don't buy it.</P> <P>4. If the system is shaped like a frisbee or a donut, don't buy it.</P> <P>5. If it sells for under a hundred bucks, you <I>probably </I>shouldn't buy it.</P> <P>There are a number of good-sounding small (but not <I>tiny</I>) sound systems on the market that will make your iPod sound wonderful. We make a couple of them. Give quality a try. As a friend of mine once said, "When you buy the best, you only cry once."</P> </article> <article> <h1>How To Design Great Speakers. A Henry Kloss Story.</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:47:00 GMT</p> <p>In about 1997, when I was at Cambridge SoundWorks, I wanted to write an article about how to design great sounding speakers. To this day I think it's amazing how many not-great-sounding speakers are designed and made. You'd think by now, with all the computerized measurement tools on the market, that the design process would be, well, a math equation. And if that were the case, why were so many speaker manufacturers flunking? Because the world is full of unexceptional speakers in just about every price range.</p> <p></p> <p>In the 1970s, back in the Advent days, I'd heard Henry Kloss tell stories about well-intentioned people designing speakers with the goal of a perfectly flat frequency response curve. It turns out that speakers that look perfect on paper often sound lifeless and flat. And while measurements certainly had their place, they were only part of the process.</p> <p>Back then, and later at Cambridge SoundWorks, Henry did a lot of his design work by listening -- not to music, but to noise. He would use a generator to create pink noise and listen to it while trying different crossover combinations. He built this cool panel that was loaded up with chokes and capacitors that he could connect in different combinations using switches and speaker wire connectors on the front (see photo). He would spend hours and hours, for days and weeks, perfecting the tonal balance of a speaker. This process, called "voicing" a speaker, is crucial. And it's a combination of art and science. But it's mostly a lot of work. Boring work. This may be one of the reasons we still have to live with mediocre speakers around us.</p> <p></p> <p>A good speaker designer -- like Henry Kloss or Winslow Burhoe -- will do so much voicing work, with so many different speaker/cabinet/crossover variables, that they can predict how a speaker will sound without ever having played music through it.</p> <p>Anyway, back to 1997. I finally cornered (literally) Henry back in his work area, told him about the article I wanted to write, and asked him what he thought was the secret to designing great-sounding speakers. He scowled (I think it was a scowl, it may have been his "normal" face that day), turned around, walked away 10 feet, and stood there thinking. About a minute later he turned around and said, "Fussing, fussing and fussing." Then he went back to work, without another word.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Is 5.1 Surround Sound Dead?</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:10:00 GMT</p> OK, calm down. No, I don't think 5.1 is dead, or even dying. But I do think it is fading away -- and fading fast. In a few years I believe the traditional multi-speaker surround sound system will become very much like turntables and vacuum tube amplifiers. Something, in other words, reserved for serious/fanatic movie fans who are willing to pay a high price for an exotic product. <P>Five years ago a major retailer conducted a survey and found that over 40% of the people who bought surround sound systems either didn't hook up the rear speakers or -- get this -- lined them up in the <I>front </I>of the room! I have been in the homes of otherwise intelligent, normal people who have five speakers lined up on the front wall by their TV. They just couldn't be bothered with placing the speakers in the rear, then snaking wires to the front. And what's most interesting is that none of these people seem to be suffering very much. When was the last time you heard someone say, "boy I sure miss having speakers in back of me?"</P> <P>Which brings me to my "painter story." Seven years ago we had our living room repainted, and the painters had to disconnect the entire home theater system and cover it with tarps. A day or so after they reconnected everything, I realized there was nothing coming out of the rear speakers. So I decided to wait to see how long it took for any of my family members or friends to notice. After over a month of no-rear-speaker-sound, I disconnected the things and put them in the attic. They never did look right on top of a Stickley bookcase.</P> <P>Industry statistics back me up. Every year there are fewer 5.1 surround sound systems sold. Part of this is what I call "MP3-dumbing-down." Everybody seems to be willing to settle for less fidelity these days. And trust me, the speakers built into LCD TVs are as low as fidelity gets.</P> <P>Now here's the sales pitch. "All-in-one" or "sound bar" surround sound systems like the ones made by ZVOX are gaining in popularity as fast as multi-speaker systems are falling in popularity. That's because they deliver 95%+ of what people are looking for in a home theater system -- without all the expense, the complication, the speaker boxes and the wires. For $200 to $600 you can get a high quality system with room-filling three-dimensional sound, crystal-clear vocal clarity and great bass. And that's exactly what most people want in a home theater -- not a bunch of speaker boxes and miles of wire.</P> <P mce_keep="true"> </P> </article> <article> <h1>Home Theater In A (Pandora's) Box</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:36:00 GMT</p> When surround sound systems really started to take off in the early 1990s, they were often pretty complicated, patched-together affairs -- a Dolby(R) Pro Logic receiver, ramshackle combinations of different-sized bookshelf speakers, and a powered subwoofer hidden off in the corner. As laser disc players and DVD players replaced VCRs, and Dolby Digital replaced Pro Logic, center channel speakers were added. <P>For the average consumer, things were getting pretty complicated. Hooking up a decent system could take hours -- if not a whole day -- if you hadn't done it before. So the folks at Sony(R) came up with a brilliant idea: package an amp, tuner and DVD player all in one slim console, then bundle it with five little speakers and a compact powered subwoofer. Put the whole works in a big cardboard box. Then all we've got to do is come up with a name for it.....Home Theater In A Box!</P> <P>HTIBs were wildly popular because they were affordable, reasonably small, and a LOT easier to hook up than a component home theater system. But most of them had a problem. Cheap, crappy-sounding speakers. The scary part was these speakers didn't <I>look</I> cheap. They looked cool and sexy, with silvery curves. Simple, cheap and visually-seducing -- what a combination.</P> <P></P> <P>But the fact is that then, and now, many HTIBs sound like you're listening to five really loud, really tinny TV speakers and a boomy subwoofer that just sits and thumps away the same 70Hz note, no matter what signal is sent to it. It's hard to blame the manufacturers for designing them this way. Today's consumer tends to shop with a checklist, not a pair of ears, while pushing his cart down the aisle. (It still amazes me that the store I started out in, with McIntosh amps, AR and Advent speakers, Revox tape decks and Thorens turntables evolved into a giant supermarket where people push shopping carts.) The customer tends to shop for features.... upscaling DVD player....100 watt amplifier....three HDMI inputs....sub-$500 price -- OK, I'll buy it. Even if he wanted to listen, he couldn't really give it a good test in a 60,000 square foot store. The point is that customers aren't demanding, or even asking for, good quality speakers. And they aren't getting them. They're getting lightweight, flexy-plastic cabinets with painfully-cheap speaker drivers.</P> <P>And to rub salt in the wound, that DVD player that's built into your system -- well good luck on its technology staying current for more than nine months.</P> <P>Call me a Luddite, but I think everybody should buy good old fashioned wood-cabinet speakers with high-quality speakers, voiced by someone who knows what they're doing. They might cost a little more. And they might not look like they belong on a space ship. But you'd be amazed how good your music, your movies, even your sitcoms can sound. And a good speaker system will last a good 10-20 years. Amortize your investment and it will cost you a couple bucks a month to get good sound.</P> </article> <article> <h1>PC Speakers - Cheapos, Turbo-Blasters, Tweaksters...and ZVOX</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:29:00 GMT</p> It's fairly remarkable how few choices one has when it comes time to pick an audio system for your computer. There are dozens of really awful-sounding cheap desktop speakers -- but if you like music (and your ears), ignore them. <P>Then there's the "high horsepower" models that appeal to the gaming crowd with megawatt amplifiers and giant subwoofers. Some of these actually sound pretty decent, but it's pretty rare to find one that's been properly "voiced" for good music reproduction. These guys want loud explosions for Halo and and big car crashes for Grand Theft Auto -- so proper octave-to-octave tonal balance is not a high priority.</P> <P>At the top of the heap there's a relatively new assortment of ultra-high-end computer sound systems. These $500+ systems can actually sound quite good, and they look kind of cool. </P> <P>But what's missing, for the most part, is good quality systems in the middle price ranges. I've been involved with the evolution of high-quality computer audio systems since 1994 when I worked with Henry Kloss and Tom DeVesto to create one of the first high-performance PC speakers -- Cambridge SoundWorks' eponymous "SoundWorks" system. Back then the most anyone wanted to spend on PC speakers was about $69. So when we introduced a system for $219, everybody (and I do mean everybody) thought we were crazy. When SoundWorks came out it was one of the two most expensive PC speaker systems on the market. A year later it was right in the middle of the price pack, as more companies introduced better systems.</P> <P>Over time, market forces have pushed price points, and sound quality, down. But as more and more people are using their computers as music servers, we think it makes more sense for them to consider high quality sound systems that reproduce music accurately -- with low distortion, good dispersion and natural tonal balance. As I type this blog entry I'm listening to the the Beatles' "Love" album on the ZVOX 325 system that acts as a stand for my 24" PC monitor. It sounds marvelous, takes up about as much desk space as the monitor would without the speaker, sells for under $300 and -- best yet -- has only one connecting wire. </P> <P></P> <P>ZVOX isn't the only company making decent, affordable powered speaker systems for your PC. But we're the only company that give it to you all in one cabinet, with one connecting cord.</P> <P mce_keep="true"> </P> </article> <article> <h1>TV Speakers In Flat-Panel TVs Sound Really Flat</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:01:00 GMT</p> <P>My parents have a Sharp TV they bought in the 1980s. It still works. And since they both grew up during the Great Depression, their common sense has guided them to keep it. Good for them...for more reasons than one. The monaural speaker system built into that out-of-date TV sounds pretty decent. It's not "high fidelity," but it reproduces sound with reasonable accuracy. And most important, it delivers acceptable vocal clarity. They can understand what newscasters say.</P> <P>That is more than can be said about many modern flat-panel TVs. The sound systems built into many of these technological wonders are just plain awful. In some cases, you really <I>can't</I> understand what the announcer is saying, unless you "crank it up." Here's why:</P> <P><B>1. There's no room in there. </B>As TV panels get thinner and thinner, there's less room of decent-quality speakers, speaker-magnet, and "speaker cabinet space." This is important. Speakers are not digital. Smaller is NOT better. And speakers in most flat-panel TVs are just too small.</P> <P></P> <P><B>2. Nobody ever walked into Best Buy and declared, "I want to buy the TV with the best sound system." </B>TV makers aren't dumb -- and they're under tremendous pressure to bring prices down. So if they eliminate an expensive feature like a good sound system, the cost of the TV can come way down -- and nobody complains. </P> <P><B>3. People presume TVs are like cars.</B> Everybody knows that when you buy a good car from a well-known maker, it comes with a good sound system. Consumers think the same thing happens with TVs. "Hey, it's a S*n*...the speakers are probably pretty good." But TVs are NOT like cars. Good ones do have bad sound systems.</P> <P><B>4. The human mind can learn to love anything. </B>My office is also a testing ground from new speaker systems. I'm always switching out one and putting in another. So sometimes I end up with NO sound system attached, and I have to watch TV while listening to the built-in speakers. For the first five minutes, I suffer -- thinking, "How can anyone listen to these awful speakers." Then I get used to them and think, "these aren't so bad after all." The fact is that, the more you listen to something, the more you get used to it. So people get their new TVs home and quickly adjust to sound quality on par with a 1963 transistor radio.</P> <P>So what will happen to change all this? Probably nothing. TVs will keep looking better and better, and sounding worse and worse. </P> <P>Bad for consumers. Good for ZVOX!</P> <P>- Tom Hannaher</P> </article> <article> <h1>Home Theater | 5 Ways To Pick A Good One (Surround Sound is Number 5).</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:20:00 GMT</p> <p>If you ask people "what's the most important thing about a home theater system," most of the will say surround sound. But in our opinion, surround sound effects play only a minor role in creating a theater-like experience in your home. In fact, on our list of five key elements, it comes in last place. Here's the list:<br></p><ol><li>Audio accuracy. A home theater system should sound "right." Musically accurate. It should have proper octave-to-octave tonal balance (each musical octave should have the same "weight"). You don't need "a golden ear" to tell the difference between accurate speakers and inaccurate speakers. The best way is to listen to a good vocal recording with non-amplified musical instruments (we used to wear out copies of Joni Mitchell's "Blue" in the 70s in stereo stores). Does the vocalist sound like she's in the room in front of you -- or like she's singing in an alley (or through a megaphone)? Does the guitar sound natural, or tinny? Is the piano strident or clear? This is important. Basic sound quality -- musical accuracy -- is WAY MORE important than anything else when you evaluate a home theater system. The sad reality is that most under-$600 surround sound systems use speakers that we would consider "highly questionable." Manufacturers put a lot of emphasis on watts, exotic features, gazillions of inputs and -- most important -- swoopy plastic cabinets. But they can't seem to muster the fortitude necessary to spend what it takes to put in good speakers.</li><li>Vocal clarity. This is a biggy. It shouldn't be that hard to create an audio system that allows people to understand spoken words. But we've heard a number of systems where vocal clarity, well, sucks. You shouldn't have to strain to hear the voices -- or crank the volume way up. A good home theater system will use high-quality speakers that reproduce the human voice with crystal clarity. Odd retro-fact: monaural speakers are great at voices. That's why the middle speaker(s) in ZVOX systems is "all channel" (our fancy way of saying "monaural").</li><li>Dynamic impact. If you're watching a "big" action movie or a concert video, you want the audio system to be able to go from "soft" to "very loud" without straining and without compressing the sound. Dynamics are often determined by some pretty predictable factors: speaker driver size, amplifier size and cabinet size. Smaller speaker systems -- including ZVOX models -- have less dynamic impact. Yes, we know everybody wants smaller and smaller speakers...and laptop computers....and iPods...and phones. But with speakers eventually smaller is NOT better. We've compared our ZVOX 425 system (five 3.25" speakers, two 4" long-excursion woofers, 133-watt amp, big cabinet) to our best-known competitor (incredible numbers of 1.5" speakers). On a big movie, with big special effects, we think there's no comparison.</li><li>Bass response. A home theater without good bass isn't a home theater. And by "good" we don't mean just loud. Bass needs to be accurate, wide-ranging and musical. It's pretty easy to design a subwoofer that thuds away with 60-90 Hz bass -- reproducing all bass as one sound (also known as a "one note subwoofer"). But bass that sounds right, especially below 60 Hz, is a different story. Try picking up the subwoofer that comes with an inexpensive home-theater-in-a-box. If it's as light as an empty suitcase, it's going to sound like an empty suitcase. Push in on its sidewall. If they flex, they're going to absorb the energy of the woofer instead of transmitting it. Listen to a recording of a stand-up bass -- you should be able to clearly hear the tonal differences between the notes, and to some extent you should actually "feel" the bass.</li><li>Surround effects. When home theater systems first came out, we all scrambled trying to find demo material that made the rear speakers seem important. Stuff coming from in back of you was cool, and it was sure different. It's fun to be "immersed" in the sound of a movie. But we believe surround effects are the least important factor on this list. Here's a story. About eight years ago, when I was VP of Marketing at Cambridge SoundWorks, I had a pretty serious surround sound system. But we were having our living room repainted, so everything had to be disconnected an covered with tarps. About a day after the system got put back together, I noticed that there was nothing coming out of the rear speakers. The painters hadn't connected the rear speakers. I decided to not mention this, and wait to see when any of my family members or friends mentioned the lack of rear speaker sound effects. Two months later, when nobody had said a word about it, I quietly removed the rear speakers and put them in the attic.<br></li></ol><p>Bottom line: If you want a home theater system that you'll really love, the most important thing to consider is basic high fidelity. Realistic sound is more important than realistic sound effects.<br><br></p> </article> <article> <h1>How ZVOX "in-sources" our call center jobs - work-at-home moms!</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:15:00 GMT</p> <p>In the past 10 years I don't know how many U.S. call-center jobs have been outsourced to India, the Philippines, and other foreign countries -- but the number must be big. Tens of thousands of jobs for sure. And while it may not be possible, even in this economy, for U.S. workers to compete with the hourly wages paid in Mumbai, it may be possible to shift a large number of those jobs back to this country through a combination of tax credits, on-line education, internet telephone technology, crying babies and PR. Here are my suggestions:</p><ol><li> Tax credits. Use stimulus bill funds to offer tax credits to companies who create or shift-back call center jobs in the U.S.</li><li>Encourage companies to create on-line self-teach tutorials for their products and services -- with on-line data banks that include searchable FAQ lists -- so that anyone with internet access can learn to be a good call center service representative.</li><li>Internet/telephone technology now allows companies, for VERY reasonable prices, to establish "virtual call centers." The VCCs allow an administrator to assign calls in sequential, rotating order (with lots of options...it's amazing technology) to phone lines anywhere in the country. So the "call center" for a company in Austin, Texas (are you listening Michael Dell?) can have service representatives in Cortez Florida, Westminster Massachusetts, Detroit Michigan, Fargo North Dakota, Salt Lake City Utah and Anchorage Alaska. On-line chat services allow these representatives to communicate with each other, or their supervisors, while answering phone calls or emails from customers -- the equivalent of being able to yell to the guy in the next cubicle and ask a question when you're having trouble.</li><li>The VOIP technology allows companies to hire work-at-home moms (they don't like the phrase "stay-at-home moms" -- be careful) to handle customer service. This may come as a surprise to many of you men out there, but these women are often remarkably gifted at something called "multi-tasking." ZVOX uses work-at-home moms for customer service and they can control hungry/crazy children, chase diaper-eating dogs (I do not exaggerate) and calm down a frustrated customer who can't figure out a surround sound system -- all at the same time! Really, the most underestimated, undervalued, undiscovered labor resource in this country is work-at-home moms (WAHMs). And because being at home means they don't need to pay the high price of day care and commuting, they can work for less money than they would require under a normal drive-to-work-and-get-back-nine-hours-later scenario. If one were to combine the affordable pay levels acceptable to WAHMs with federal tax credits, this system would provide a reasonable alternative to Bangalore.</li><li>PR. Any CEO or Public Relations executive worth his or her salt will immediately recognize the PR benefit of announcing that their company is a) shifting jobs back to the U.S. from overseas and b) hiring apple-pie-baking American moms* to do the job. But really (and you have to trust me on this one), that is just a tiny part of the overall PR boost this scheme will provide. The biggest benefit of this plan is that your customers will love the service they get. WAHMs tend to be happy. They get to spend time with their kids. They don't have to drag their tired bodies home late at night -- and then have to make dinner. There's a lot to be happy about. And happy customer service people are MUCH easier to deal with than well, I don't know how to say this in a nice way, people who are pissed off that they have to be customer service representatives (does this resonate with anybody out there?).</li></ol><p> Bottom Line: cool internet/telephone technology and WHAMs can give your company better service for less money and provide a PR bonanza and barrels of "thank you" emails from happy customers. Get the government to subsidize the concept with tax credits out of the stimulus fund, and we could create many, many jobs. </p> </article> <article> <h1>Why a ZVOX home theater doesn't have lots of digital inputs</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:12:00 GMT</p> <p>A number of our customers - and product reviewers - ask us why ZVOX products don't include more than two inputs, and why none of those inputs are digital. Here's why:</p> <p>Multiple inputs. Most of our customers use ZVOX systems with TVs. Audio systems that have multiple inputs become the switching center for the TV/Home Theater system. But unless the audio system ALSO includes video inputs and switching (which can be quite expensive and complicated), we think this is a bad idea. Instead, the TV should be the switching center of the system. Your TV already has inputs for a DVD player, VCR, cable box or satellite receiver. And it probably has inputs for a game console and a camcorder. Your TV also has a remote control and a very large display (the TV screen) that is very helpful in communicating to you when you are switching between sources. So if you connect everything to the TV, then connect the audio output of the TV to the ZVOX system, you can use your TV the way you normally do, switching easily between cable box, DVD, game console, etc.</p> <p>If, on the other hand, you switched audio through the ZVOX system and video through the TV, YOU HAVE TO SWITCH TWO THINGS EVERYTIME YOU WANT TO GO FROM TV TO DVD! For example, you're watching a TV show and decide to switch to a movie on DVD. You'd need to use your TV remote to switch from cable to DVD....then pick up the ZVOX remote to switch between Input 1 and Input 2. If you forget to do that, you'll be watching the DVD but listening to your cable box. Way too complicated. Keep it simple. Let the TV be your switchbox - then connect TV audio output to Input 1 on the ZVOX.</p> <p>Digital inputs. For some reason people think a product is inferior because it doesn't have digital inputs. But trust us. We have compared ZVOX systems with digital inputs to those with analog inputs - and we are convinced that no one could hear the difference. Why? All sound has to be converted to analog before an amplifier can amplify it and send it to the speaker. This is done with a digital-to-analog converter (or D/A converter). Virtually all modern TVs have D/A converters built in - so they can do the conversion and send the analog signal out of the TV into the ZVOX system. If we were to add D/A converters to ZVOX systems, we would also have to add Dolby® decoders to the systems and pay royalties to Dolby, even though we don't use Dolby functionality other than to be able to "read" the incoming signal. So we would add significant cost to your systems simply to have the digital decoding take place inside our cabinet, instead of inside the TV, which is normally about 6-12 inches away from the ZVOX. We choose not do so because we don't believe it improves performance.</p> <p>What does the future hold? There are some commercial TVs, and a small number of consumer TVs, that no longer include analog audio output jacks. So the only way one can get sound out is via a digital audio output. This situation, if it progresses, may force us to include digital inputs in future products.</p><br> </article> <article> <h1>What about surround sound for my bedroom or kitchen TV?</h1> <p>Kate Connors — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:09:00 GMT</p> <p>Let's face it... the TVs on the market these days are just AMAZING! Digital, high definition pictures that make you feel like you're right in the action- they look great and are pretty affordable too. Everything you could want in a TV. Well, everything except great sound. That's where we come in. Our ZVOX systems bring room-filling sound to your TV without filling your room with speakers. Don't settle for a great picture with lousy sound. No matter what size your TV or room is, we've got a ZVOX that's right for you.</p><p>Have a TV in your kitchen, but you can't hear it over the dishwasher? Try our ZVOX Mini to boost the sound... you won't miss a syllable! Its small size makes it perfect for countertop TVs. You will be amazed at the sound that comes out of this tiny speaker. Music is rich and clear, with none of the tinny sound that most small systems produce. The Mini is a great on the go speaker system as well. Pack it up with the optional carry bag and rechargeable battery and any audio source becomes mobile! It turns laptops and MP3 players into go-anywhere jukeboxes. Bring this to your next barbeque and you will be the life of the party!</p><p>Who wants to worry about speakers in their bedroom? Usually we just suffer with the speakers that come built into the TV. Now you don't have to. Our ZVOX Mini, 315 or even the 325 would be perfect! Your late night favorites will sound so good, you'll never watch them on your living room TV again! (Unless of course you have a ZVOX there too...)</p><p>Need bone-rattling sound for your man (or woman) cave? Our 415 or 425 will absolutely blow you away. Inside the 415's slim cabinet are three 3.25" main speakers, a 4" subwoofer, a 4" passive radiator, an amplifier and our exclusive PhaseCue virtual surround sound system. And the 425? One cabinet, five speakers, two powered subwoofers, a powerful 133-watt amplifier and our proprietary PhaseCue virtual surround sound system - what's not to love there? Want more even more boom? Both the 415 and the 425 have an optional subwoofer output on the back for an additional subwoofer.</p><p>No matter the room in the house or the size of the set, we've got a ZVOX system that will work. If you aren't sure which one is best for your application, shoot us an email at info@zvoxaudio.com or give us a call (866-367-9869) and we'll be happy to advise you.</p><br> </article> <article> <h1>Surround sound doesn't mean you have to be surrounded by wires</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:33:00 GMT</p> <p>Looking at the back panel of this surround sound receiver reminds us of those contests where you're supposed to guess how many jelly beans are in the giant jar. Quick, guess how many connecting jacks are there! We aren't really sure, because each time we try we lose count. But it looks like about 115 jacks - so you could connect 115 wires and cables to the back of the thing. That's a lot of wire. It's also a lot of copper. Industry experts now predict that in 2007 the world will use over 18 million tons of copper!</p><h4>The wire basketball in back of my TV</h4><p>Several years ago, when I still had a 5.1 surround system, we had our living room repainted. So the painters had to unplug the TV and sound system and move everything into the middle of the room to be covered with tarps. What I discovered in back of the TV was a bale of speaker and connecting wires significantly larger than a basketball...all tangled up with each other in a frightening, dusty mass. There were two connecting cords in the wire-ball that weren't connected to anything at either end! I decided I had to clean things up, so I disconnected all the wires and started from scratch. Two and a half hours later I finally had everything put back together and working.</p><p>The experience was very instructional and very aggravating. It was one of the defining moments that lead to the creation of ZVOX Audio.</p><p>I never met anyone who looked in back of his or her TV and said "I don't have enough wires back here." Everybody hates wires. They're expensive ($100 for a 3-foot HDMI cable!!!). They're messy. And inevitably, the get plugged into the wrong thing. My current home theater setup is far, far simpler. I use a ZVOX 325 home theater system with one connecting cable. A DVD player with one (HDMI) connecting cable. And a cable box with one (HDMI) connecting cable. If you add in four power cords (TV, ZVOX, DVD, Cable Box), and one cable connecting wire, my system has a total of eight wires in the back. And I'm working on ways to cut that down. I'll let you know when I figure it out.</p><br> </article> <article> <h1>Great speakers for the price of good speakers</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:42:00 GMT</p> <p>We exhibit at a number of shows each year, but our favorite is the Home Entertainment Show - sponsored by Home Theater and Stereophile magazines. We always see and hear things at the show that amaze us. But the most amazing things at the show are the prices. Most of the interconnect cables on exhibit sell for more than the price of our most expensive system (which, by the way, comes with two interconnect cables). For the price of a late-model car you can buy a high-end tube amplifiers. For the price of a brand new German sports car - 5-series - you can buy a three-part CD player or a component turntable.</p><p>And if you do - well good for you. We think it's probably a better way to spend your money than on the fancy car. But it all does seem just a bit silly. When I first got into this business, I was convinced that the expensive products were better. Until one day, in the listening room of a crowded stereo store in Dinkytown (a Minneapolis neighborhood near the University of Minnesota), I compared the Advent Loudspeaker to several competing models selling for over twice its price. I talked to Kenny, my store manager, about it, and he assured me I was wrong. The expensive speakers were better. But the more I listened, the more clear it became. The Advents were better.</p><p>I became fascinated by the idea that a company could pull off something like this. And later on I went to work for Advent, where I worked with Henry Kloss. I worked with him again at Cambridge SoundWorks. Henry really liked the idea of making great products that were really affordable. He was very, very good at it.</p><p>In the 1970s stereo dealers were always asking Henry to make a more expensive version of the Advent Loudspeaker. His response? "If you want better sound, buy two pairs and stack them on top of one another." As a result, hundreds of people - including myself - bought "Stacked Advents," perhaps the most ungainly looking speaker system ever sold. But boy did they sound good!</p><p>I'm not sure what my point is. I guess it all centers on my fascination with products that exceed one's expectations - products that sound great, for the price of good. I believe ZVOX home theater systems qualify. And so, apparently, do the large number of retailers who don't sell ZVOX for the simple reason that our systems cost too little. Over and over I've had retailers tell me we should sell our systems for twice the price, or more.</p><p>So the bad news is that a lot of retailers aren't interested in selling affordable, high-quality audio products. The good news is that real-world people - you guys - are apparently very interested in exactly that. Our sincere thanks to all our past and future customers.</p><br> </article> <article> <h1>Home theater to go</h1> <p>Tom Hannaher — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:24:00 GMT</p> <p>We just got back from a vacation in Maine, where we stayed in a home where electricity is intermittent, and television reception non-existent. It's a good thing to do. Like many people, we tend to get a little TV-dependent. Watching eagles, ospreys and grandchildren running on the beach is better.</p><p>But a couple of times we did break down and let the kids watch a movie on our Mini Home Theater - a laptop computer and a ZVOX Mini. The whole theater - complete with a bunch of DVDs - fits in one fairly small backpack. And on those rainy days, it was nice to have around.</p><p>It's remarkable how much enjoyment everybody got out of this little system. Laptop computers have great video quality. And the Mini performed like a champ -- filling the cabin with high quality surround sound. And the whole thing took up less space than a bag of groceries. <br></p><br> </article> </main></body></html>