The Geek Thread

[jons]

As a geek I'm into gadgets and gizmos and all sorts of technical whatnot.

Here something I found interesting:


Computer Speakers for Your Ears Only

Microsoft researchers are developing an algorithm that would allow speakers to work like virtual headphones--even as you walk around your office.

By Kate Greene

More and more people are using their computers for voice communication, such as Skype and audio instant messaging. For the most part, however, using these features requires one either to be tethered to her computer by a headset or to speak directly into a microphone and keep the speaker volume low, especially in shared office space.

In light of that problem, researchers at Microsoft are trying to make audio output more sophisticated. A team, led by Ivan Tashev, a software architect at Microsoft, recently began work on an algorithm that, in theory, will be able to direct sound from a set of speakers--ideally embedded in a computer monitor--into a person's ears, effectively creating virtual headphones; just a few inches outside the focal point of the sound waves, the volume dramatically fades away. Crucially, says Tashev, his algorithm could be used by a wide range of inexpensive speakers that could be put into computer monitors.

Read the rest here:
www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18413/

[mac]

I'm a geek in the way that I'm impressed by big shiny things, and have no idea whatsoever in using them! As is demonstrated by my mp3 not working - and repeatedly hitting it on the table!
Now, thanks for the link, Jon, as now I can say this:

Oooh, shiny!!

[jons]

mac said:

I'm a geek in the way that I'm impressed by big shiny things, and have no idea whatsoever in using them! As is demonstrated by my mp3 not working - and repeatedly hitting it on the table!

Funny you should mention hitting mp3 players on tables. Take a look at this: www.physorg.com/news93622657.html

Our mp3 players will be indestructible! i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif

[comet]

ah yes I am a firm believer in lots of small speakers instead of just a couple of big uns

like the bose 901 em yummy speakers

comet

[jons]

Here is something interesting on the quality of different bit-rates on Itunes:

Slate on iTunes' New Better Bitrates: 256 Not Much Better Than 128 kbps

In light of the EMI/iTunes announcement, Slate's Explainer, which I am a huge fan of, explores the theoretical audible differences between 256 kbps AAC files and the 128 kbps versions. Christopher Beams says that 256 kbps files, though packed with twice as much data, do not sound twice as sharp as 128 kbps versions. Agreed: the added info isn't as important to your ears. And it is likely, according to quoted tests, you can't distinguish between anything higher than 128kbps sources. That's where things get fuzzy.

Hedging his statement, he says:

But a listener's ability to distinguish sound quality depends on many factors, like age, hearing ability, and attentiveness, not to mention the style of music and where one listens to it. For example, music with delicate timbres--a string quartet, say--might sound noticeably choppy at lower bitrates, whereas compressing an AC/DC song might not be so bad.


Sounds right, if a little inconclusive and safe. I'd wish he'd mention earbud quality as a factor, too. Little white iPod earbuds definitely won't separate the two rates, but with an expensive set of speakers or buds the difference comes a lot closer to being apparent.–Brian Lam

gizmodo.com/gadgets/press/slate-on-itunes-new-better-bitrates-256-not-much-better-than-128-kbps-250449.php

[Dave]

Hi Jon,

The writer has missed the point. The actual bitrate isn't important - as long as it's higher than before. What is important is that this is part of a trend towards lossless compression (www.classicsandjazz.co.uk introduced 320 kbps a while back), from which everyone with high quality audio equipment will benefit.

But the average iPod user will notice very little or no difference... except that they can only get half as many tracks onto their iPod. And the price for single tracks is higher - so very few people will actually download the higher quality tracks.

People who really care about high audio technical quality won't really go for the new option either, because they (we) want lossless compression and full artwork like a CD... neither of which are currently available. They will continue to buy CDs and rip them onto their iPods as necessary.

So who will buy the new hi-quality iTunes tracks? Hardly anyone. But at least the trend is good!

Cheers, Dave

[toronado]

320kbps is wonderful on a good system, but geez, my Mozart collection is about 30 gigabytes in that form, I'm really glad huge capacity harddrives are becoming cheaper and cheaper.

[jons]

dave said:

Hi Jon,

The writer has missed the point. The actual bitrate isn't important - as long as it's higher than before. What is important is that this is part of a trend towards lossless compression (www.classicsandjazz.co.uk introduced 320 kbps a while back), from which everyone with high quality audio equipment will benefit.

Hi Dave,

I don't think anybody is offering lossless compression yet. Classicsandjazz uses WMA which has always been lossy. Lossless files are still too big at the moment, but TrueHD uses them on the next generation Disc formats - HD DVD and Blu-Ray, because of the increased storage capacity.

[jons]

Wanna see how big a 5megabyte disk-drive was in 1956?

allonlettera.com/?p=4



Portability was not a strong point of the 1950's Ipod

[comet]

Hi Folks.
I don't believe it was that small.
In the mid seventies my self and a friend were let dismantle a huge building sized computer.

The memory cards were about A4 paper sized. each card was 100 bits, each bit had two BFY 50 Transistors and a ferrite core and coil per bit. There were several rooms full of 8 foot high racks of these cards. The capacitors on the power supply board were as big as beer cans, If they were charged a screwdriver would weld to the contacts if it touched across them. We were given the parts to salvage components from the boards. I never did use up all the transistors though.

comet

[Dave]

jons said:

dave said:

Hi Jon,
The writer has missed the point. The actual bitrate isn't important - as long as it's higher than before. What is important is that this is part of a trend towards lossless compression (www.classicsandjazz.co.uk introduced 320 kbps a while back), from which everyone with high quality audio equipment will benefit.

Hi Dave,
I don't think anybody is offering lossless compression yet. Classicsandjazz uses WMA which has always been lossy. Lossless files are still too big at the moment, but TrueHD uses them on the next generation Disc formats - HD DVD and Blu-Ray, because of the increased storage capacity.

Hi Jon,

I'm pretty sure that I read a quote from UCJ saying they "hoped to" offer lossless compression or uncompressed music downloads later in the year. That would be excellent... if they offered the album artwork too (preferably uncompressed, LOL).

A lot of classical music can be compressed losslessly to less than 600 kbps, including some Hayley (Sonny goes to 533kbps lossless, using FLAC). This is not a huge leap from the www.classicsandjazz 320 kbps, which is probably why they will do it first. Pop music doesn't compress so well but Hayley's average track compresses quite well, probably around 50% or 700 kbps overall.

So that would make UK Treasure 262 MB + any artwork and at standard broadband rates it would take an hour to download but the new superfast broadbands are 10 to 20 times faster for those who can get it. Three minutes at best to an hour at worst isn't long to wait for a true CD quality album!

Cheers, Dave

[jons]

Hi Dave,

That sounds great if they are going to offer lossless tracks, it seems the logical move if you can connect your mp3 player to a music system.

[Dave]

Aha, here is the first Company to offer a way to make lossless download sales!

Also, some of 'our' up-and-coming young singers might be interested in the means to set up their own download sales (though there are others).

From Music Week.

Tech company to offer CD quality download stores
13 April 2007 - 11:31:13

Liverpool technology company SafeSell is offering artists the opportunity to sell their music at CD quality through their own websites, using its new digital platform.

The free software allows artists to sell downloads in the company’s own SafeSell format at a bitrate of up to 1500kbps – significantly higher than the iTunes standard 128kbps – via a paypal package on the artist’s own website. The proceeds of the sale are then split 70:30 between the artist and SafeSell.

SafeSell files play on all Windows PCs and many portable devices, including certain mobile phones, MP3 / WMA players, Windows-based PDAs and smart phones.

However, one option that the platform allows is to offer an unprotected 128kbps file, which will play on any MP3 player, for free, when customers buy a SafeSell file.

A SafeSell spokeswoman explains that the process of installing the Safesell digital platform is very easy and can be done in a few minutes without specialist knowledge.

“You can create a SafeSell account in a few minutes, download the Media Manager and have your latest available for sale from your site in an hour,” she says.

SafeSell marketing director Brian Pond adds, “This platform is there to give artists the capability to make decision themselves. They can decide the quality and whether to add DRM. We don’t decide anything for them.”

"One small step for a man but..."

Dave

[jons]

Hi Dave, I think they are offering a higher bit-rate than CD, so it is in fact better then CD!

[jons]

Maximum PC Tests Audio Bit Rates With Surprising Results

Do audio bit rates matter? With iTunes enhanced-bitrate music coming in a month, we were hoping for a vast improvement. But can anyone tell the difference between a music track encoded at 320kbit/sec, 160kbit/sec and oh, lord, that holy grail of audiophile nirvana, the uncompressed wav? Our friends at Maximum PC decided to put audio compression to the test, enlisting four people to listen music first in uncompressed form, and then encoded with a variable bit rate at 320kbit/sec and the lowly 160kbit/sec. It was easy for everyone to tell the difference, right? Right?

It's downright humiliating, in fact, that in many cases, we were unable to tell the difference between an uncompressed track and one encoded at 160Kb/s, the bit rate most of us considered the absolute minimum acceptable for even portable players.

Most of the time, even a golden-eared audiophile couldn't tell the difference between uncompressed and highly compressed audio. These results are roughly similar to the Slate Explainer we referenced a couple of weeks ago. A useful fact is that the compressed files were hard to detect because they were encoded using a variable bit rate, which makes a huge difference in complex musical passages that might suffer from compression. What a revealing test, and a great read! – Charlie White

gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/maximum-pc-tests-audio-bit-rates-with-surprising-results-253934.php