Crestron vs Savant, or how do expensive home automation systems differ from cheap

    The market for home automation systems for a person who does not “cook” in it all the time is strange. It seems that similar solutions may differ in price by 10 or more times. I'd like to understand where the deception is. Cheap systems do not work, or do they want three prices for expensive systems from us?
    The funny thing is that there is no deception, there is a difference in functions. And more precisely, in detail.

    image

    The market for low-cost systems is mainly designed for the DIY (do-it-yourself) segment. In these systems, having passed not difficult independent training, the future owner of the automated system sets it up himself. And he does it most often. To the extent that the system allows. A person gets the result, he can use the configured automation system (turn on / off the light, control shut-off valves on the water supply, listen to music and watch movies). Profit!
    And then the details begin.
    In order to turn on the light or (oh, miracle!) Change the color of the backlight, you need to run one program on your smartphone.
    To turn on the TV and watch on it a series from a network player - another program.
    Access to video surveillance cameras is provided by the third program, etc.
    Running a scenario in which several systems would be involved is often not possible. Systems about each other "do not know and do not want to know."
    In addition, it suddenly turns out that the rest of the home is not in a hurry to use such automation. For some reason, they try to turn on the TV with the remote control from the TV, and control the light using the wall switch.
    Details transferred the DIY system, rather, into a kind of owner’s hobby than into something useful to others. If that was the goal, it was achieved. If you wanted a different level, the choice of a platform for automation, and the budget for it was wrong.

    Expensive systems do not require installation by their owner. This must be done by a certified installer. Systems are rather complicated in their internal logic, they require rather long-term training of installers in several stages, only authorized dealers and installers have access to configuration programs and technical support service. And the setup programs themselves often cost a lot of money.
    It would seem, why so restrict the market? Why not give future owners the opportunity to customize everything themselves if they want it? The main problem is the potential sea of ​​problems that will arise in such a not very well-tuned system. The system simply will not work normally. Claims will not be to the one who tuned, but to the manufacturer.
    “Your boxes do not work, but I paid a lot of money for them!”

    The result is a market divided into 2 camps. One is DIY, the other is professional. Relations between these camps are far from cloudless. The advantages of the first are the low cost of solutions and the ability to "twist the glands" yourself. The advantages of the second are the ability to put together different subsystems at home, make them work together, achieve additional functions by using different scenarios (I came home, the access control system recognized me and disarmed the room, the lights turned on, the background music turned on, etc. d.).

    Which of the two camps to go to, you choose yourself.
    I’ll try to compare two professional-type management systems that I have to work with.

    Crestron and Savant


    Both systems came to us from the American market, both belong to the older segment, both work both in the home automation market and in commercial projects, both allow you to combine a variety of life support and entertainment subsystems, having received a single design, the logic of which is configured according to the needs of the customer .

    Then the differences begin.
    Crestron Electronics was founded more than 40 years ago, it employs about 3 thousand. people, only the engineering staff involved in equipment - more than 350 people. The list of manufactured "iron" contains several hundred items of only the main points.
    Development platform - Windows

    Savant Systems was founded in 2005. The list of manufactured equipment is many times (if not tens of times) smaller.
    Development Platform - Mac OSX.

    At the same time, according to the results of a 2012 study for the US market conducted by Inside Track, Savant took first place in terms of customer loyalty among AV and installation brands. In 2011, she was in 3rd place. An interesting trend.

    In Russia, Crestron has long occupied the niche of expensive, high-quality installations in both the home and corporate segments. A top-class conference room or expensive Crestron cottage is a common occurrence.

    Savant is almost unknown in Russia. Attempts to “drag” the brand into Russia have been made earlier, but only this year they began to seriously engage in its promotion. Moreover, more than 25,000 installations in 34 countries have been made in the world.
    But let's leave marketing to the marketers, and try to look at these systems from the side of the user. And from the engineer.

    The look of the user.

    The user of a complex automation system does not care what is written on the boxes, which are buzzing and blinking light bulbs in the river in the back room. He may never go there. The user is dealing with touch panels and remotes. And with the logic of the system.
    And then it turns out that the remotes and panels can be the same - iPhone / iPad. They say that Crestron also has an Android platform - I don’t know, I haven’t tried it. Savant also hired Android programmers this year. It seems to be moving in this direction.
    There may be remotes such as a remote control from a TV. With mechanical buttons. Both have it too. Unless one brand is written on some, and another on another.
    And Crestron has its own touch panels. The cheapest at 5.5 inches costs 2280. Dollars. For my taste, the solution is rather of an enterprise class. So that the iPad is not accidentally taken away from the conference room :-)

    The user interfaces themselves
    Both there and there they can be any that can be drawn. Any design and logic that can be crammed into the system. Manufacturers offer several options for design templates for different devices, third-party manufacturers make their own options.
    In practice, they often stop at one of the designs offered by the manufacturer. For they do not ask for money, but they look decent.

    And here the differences begin. Crestron "drags" the design ideology of yesteryear. No, I know very well about SmartGraphics, Core3UI and other fashion trends that users who are accustomed to iPhone / Android have to offer a similar interface. And in some cases it even works out. But adventures are often more than results. Programmers have that for sure.
    Savant originally proceeded from the ideology of Apple interfaces. When the iPad was released, Savant completely discontinued the production of its touch panels. IPhone / iPod / iPad only. And the logic there is from Apple. Someone likes it, someone not.

    Large screen display
    The idea is that if we already turn on the TV or the projector, then these devices can be controlled through the menu items displayed on the screen, Savant has a “full-height” implementation. You can through the menu buttons, you can scroll through the channels or “covers” of films, how songs are scrolled on the iPhone. Crestron does not have this. You can dodge very much, submit the touch panel interface to the screen, but there is not much point in this. This function is not embedded in the system initially.

    Otherwise, the difference in user interfaces is at the level of individual parts. Who is more used to what.

    Price
    Both systems are expensive. Installation, say, of 8 video zones and 12 audio zones (a large apartment or a good cottage) with Crestron on equipment costs $ 50 thousand.
    Savant has a similar price level. But "one to one" these systems can not be compared. For example, Crestron's entry-level controller (MC3) is 30 percent cheaper than Savant, but the latter, in addition to its own system control, can generate up to 8 audio streams and work with the iTunes directory. Making Crestron a source with 8 audio streams is not at all cheap.
    Another thing is that Crestron has a fair aftermarket (ebay.com), where many components can be bought much cheaper. I did not meet modern models from Savant there.

    The view of a software engineer

    In terms of hardware, the difference does not seem fundamental to me.
    That is, each company produces its own set of "main building blocks", but what brand is indicated on them is not so important for the installer. All the same, they will be screwed into the rivers or arranged in rooms. The ideology is similar. There is a "brain of the system" - a controller or controllers. There are all kinds of audio sources, audio-video switches and multi-channel amplifiers. There is light and climate control. There are interfaces to other control systems such as BACNet or KNX.
    We select components manually or on the configurator, we figure out which interface we will connect to and where to pull it, lay out the cables and arrange the equipment.

    The hardware is assembled.
    Further programming begins.
    Everything is more interesting here. There is a difference and it is global.
    There is a feeling that Crestron's emphasis is more on the hardware part, and on Savant - on the software part.
    I have been dealing with Crestron for several years, so far only one system has been assembled on Savant.
    Crestron is difficult to set up. Really complicated. If graphical interfaces are made in a rather familiar way (panels, buttons, sliders), then the event language SIMPL is something. As a person who started his programming activities with the languages ​​Pascal, Prolog, C, and even not remembered by night, BASIC, SIMPL was not easy for me. I understand that after passing several training courses, having brought a couple of systems into a state of deep collapse, you can teach yourself to think in logical blocks - symbols, analog, digital and serial joins, and cheerfully add the missing modules to the "like C ++ - SIMPL + language, but this must be done without stopping. There are almost no restrictions. What we want is programmable. This is both a plus (for a qualified programmer) and a minus - you can do this ...
    Savant programming to a large extent occurs by dragging and dropping the individual components of the system into different rooms with the mouse, and then linking different interfaces to each other. And by setting the logic of operation for different events. The system “leads” the programmer in the best possible way, tells what needs to be done, offers a well-made user interface. But at the same time, it does not hold him back, as does, for example, Control4. You can change the buttons and logic. If you really need to.
    It is clear that the same driver scripts sometimes have to be modified. And this is XML. But there is a special editor for this task.

    What raises questions is the choice of a household-level computer (Mac Mini) as the basis for the system controller (Savant calls it host). But on the one hand, possible failures are solved by installing a backup controller, and on the other hand, this year a Linux Box demo was shown, which should take over the host functions. And it should cost much less.
    And even in the current host - Mac Mini version, the system is actively put on yachts with the ability to fully control this yacht through Savant. And there the price of an error is slightly more than a non-illuminated light bulb.

    The undoubted advantage of Crestron - this system is well known. There is a huge database of completed installations, many trained, certified installers and programmers. They are already “used to” the system.
    Savant in Russia is a new system. There will still be quite a bit of time for familiarization, "grinding" to the system. It will require the development of standard installation kits, about which it is well understood how they work and how to configure them. Not with all common systems Savant now works well.
    So, to control an engineer (light, climate), components based on the KNX protocol are often used. With light and curtains on the KNX Savant can integrate, but with the climate is not very. They promise to fix it by the summer, while in the meantime the climate can be steered through BACNet or through CoolMaster gateways.

    Judging by the lawsuits that are developing in the States between these companies, Crestron “tensed” from the appearance of such a “peppy newbie”. Let's see how things will be with us.

    Also popular now: