advertisement

February 2006 Archives

O´Reilly´s Digital Media Blogs have been expanded and are now located at a new home. To find our new blogs, please visit:
Spencer Critchley

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Nicholas Bentley replied to my post How Digital Production & Distribution Are Making Things Worse For Musicians, Not Better with a link to his very interesting article for INDICARE on the Rights Office distribution model. I feel better about watermarking-oriented solutions than most others I’ve seen, given that it seems feasible to track most or all uses of content and assign compensation fairly and cleanly. The major obstacle, and it’s a big one, seems to be getting the existing industry to give up its current control over pricing & collection, even if it might lead to a bigger business for everyone. Groups of people don’t always act in their own best interest - e.g. it seems clear that the world would be better off with more democracy (including a little more here in the USA, please!), but…

David Battino

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

One of the best benefits of being an editor is that when I hear about some intriguing new software or gear, I can hire someone to write a tutorial about it. Editing the tutorial then forces me to retrace the author’s footsteps, and I discover cool new techniques.

While walking through our recent tutorial on Spectrasonics Stylus RMX, for example, I got to play with that program’s algorithmic variation generator, Chaos Designer. It takes a basic drum groove and spits out endless variations in real time. (You can hear some examples I created on the second page of the article.) Pretty cool!

A reader then wrote to tell me about some algorithmic drumming software called MuSing. A Java app, it runs on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.

I downloaded the MIDI and audio versions today and gave them a whirl. (The link to the OS X audio version points to the MIDI version as well, so use the Windows or Linux link instead; because MuSing is a Java app, the downloads for all platforms are identical.)

MuSing.jpg

The circular interface looks a lot like IK Multimedia’s pioneering GrooveMaker, another algorithmic music app I’ve always liked. With MuSing, though, you have more control over the variations.

The initial grooves MuSing generated were lame, but as the manual suggested, I kept clicking until I heard something I liked, then Evolved it. (Paul Lehrman wrote a semi-hysterical column in Mix about how that approach would cause the death of music. You can read my response here.) Variations are the spice of music, so I always enjoy it when algorithmic software suggests a new direction.

Speaking of new ways to look at things, the MuSing developer also wrote a program to convert stock data to music. Called Ticktrola, it challenges your ear to pick out financial patterns that might escape your eyes. Indeed, I’ve read that stockbrokers now use audio signals to monitor the numerous data feeds they have to track, because it’s more efficient than watching multiple video screens.

So…heard any good algorithms lately?

What are your favorite creativity kick starts?

David Battino

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Limitations are such a great catalyst for creativity! Last December, Peter Kirn of Create Digital Music ran a wacky contest to celebrate the “leap second” leading into 2006. More than 30 people submitted one-second compositions ranging from sound effects to micro-riffs. Then Peter strung them together into an amazing time-lapse paean to the Earth’s slowing spin.

Now, Chris Randall of Audio Damage has extended the concept into a contest he calls Four Measures of Fury. On the first Saturday of every month, Chris promises to upload a four-bar audio file for visitors to deconstruct, damage, and transform into something even “more poignant.” The cool limitation is that the resulting file has to be the same length and tempo as the original and use no additional sounds. Here was the fuel for this month, a six-second drum break with a single bass note at the end:

4-bar-fury-red.gif

With the comparative wealth of material, the 30-odd contestants turned in some outstandingly twisted remixes.

Chris notes, “The amazing thing you’ll immediately notice is that they all blend together quite well. Using the common source material is the cause of that, I suppose.” That’s a good tip for all composers in this age of omnipotent music software: Set yourself a limit, and you’ll probably find it makes your own personality shine through.

I’m looking forward to testing that theory on Saturday, March 4, when the next contest begins. Submissions will be due the following Saturday.

Jim Bumgardner

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Oscar and Felix of Neil Simon’s play, “The Odd Couple,” represent two opposed personality types. Oscar is a slovenly sportswriter, and Felix is an uptight and compulsively neat newswriter (he was a photographer in the TV series). I think it’s telling that both Oscar and Felix are in creative fields, because they represent two opposing forces that exist in all kinds of creative people.

A lot of the debates I hear, as a programmer, seem to be between Oscars and Felixes.

I think every programmer has their own internal Oscar and Felix. I’ve heard myself take both the Oscar and Felix sides of many design debates. But like most programmers, I tend to let one of them express himself a bit more.

Personally, I tend to be a bit more of an Oscar. I’m a pragmatist, and I don’t mind being a little sloppy if it gets the job done. I’ve worked with Felixes, who insist that getting a job done correctly will ultimately save time down the road. We are both right.

Because I’m a bit of an Oscar, the Felixes of the programming world tend to annoy me. I call them names like “anal retentive.” The Felixes don’t particularly like the Oscars and call them “Cowboys.” Unfortunately for Oscar, the world of programming seems to attract an unusually high number of Felixes; perhaps they are attracted by their love of order and logic. Unfortunately for Felix, there are also lots of Oscars, who like the creative freedom of programming.

Felixes and Oscars have their own programming languages. Oscar loves Perl, a weakly-typed language that provides “more than one way to do it.” Felix prefers strongly-typed languages with strict rules. Felix invented Java, a language which did away with many of the Oscarisms in C, such as using integer results in boolean expressions (Horrors!). Although Felix invented Java, he says that Oscar ruined it. Back in the day, Felix preferred Pascal over C, but Oscar won.

Some days, I think there are just too many Felixes around, making life miserable for Oscar. Felix believes that it is Oscar who is responsible for the myriad languages and standards that afflict us. “He’ll use anything without even cleaning it first!” he whines. Oscar believes it is the fault of Felix, whose desire for perfection perpetuates competing standards with few real differences to the end user. “If Joe User can’t tell the difference,” Oscar insists, “it doesn’t matter.”

In the end, it is Oscar’s lack of discretion, and Felix’s intolerence for anything less than perfect that are responsible for the current mess. This is why there are Atom, RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0 buttons at the top of this page.

One of the most annoying things for an Oscar is having to sit through discussions between two Felixes. One of the interesting differences between Oscars and Felixes, is that Oscars don’t debate much (when they do, one of them turns into a Felix). Felixes do debate because, although they both believe in perfection, they each have a different idea of what perfection is. Or perhaps, like the blind men and the elephant, they allow their hands to rest on a different feature of the invisible elephant that is perfection.

Ultimately, debates between Felixes have little to no effect on the end user of an application. They usually affect issues which are only of interest to programmers. Programmers engage in debates of this sort all the time. How do you indent the brackets in your code? Which is better 2, 4 or 8 spaces per tab? Most significant bit or least significant bit first?

Some Felixes will give themselves all kinds of extra work, to avoid what they perceive is an even larger amount of work in the future. Oscars believe that the amount of work that Felix is avoiding tends to be smaller than the work he is doing to prevent it.

They may both be right.

Although I tend to characterize other programmers as Oscars and Felixes, it is important to remember that each of us has our own Oscar and our own Felix. It is only when we can get them to come to agreeable terms that we can write good software.

Do you know any Oscars or Felixes? Let’s hear about it.

Brad Fuller

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Fervent Software releases a major upgrade for Rosegarden - a main component of the powerful Linux music workstation Studio To Go (the world’s roundest and flattest portable studio.)

I mentioned Rosegarden briefly in my Studio to Go review last August. Rosegarden is such a great application that it deserves a review unto itself. But, the best review is just to try it out yourself!

Fervent’s Rosegarden is an audio and MIDI sequencer that includes full composition and recording capabilities as well as classical music notation. The 1.2.3 release of Rosegarden contains some important new features that bring it closer to (some would say “exceeds”) sequencers costing hundreds of dollars:

    Multi-track audio recording and simultaneous recording of audio and MIDI are now supported.
    The main segment canvas has been rewritten to be faster, more responsive and more accurate.
    You can now control Rosegarden’s mixer using an external MIDI controller device such as the Behringer BCF2000
    Rosegarden can now synchronize to MIDI Time Code in master and slave modes.
    Effects plugins can now be applied to groups of audio instruments.
    Rosegarden’s ALSA MIDI ports can be connected and controlled using an external ALSA connection manager such as qjackctl
    A new percussion matrix editor has been added. MIDI devices can have user-configurable percussion key maps, stored in the same device files as bank and program definitions.
    A “project packager” has been introduced and integrated, facilitating the exchange of complete Rosegarden projects including associated audio data and other required files.

According to Fervent’s press, this release includes “hundreds of bug fixes, including fixes to some long-standing issues with DSSI plugin support, JACK transport synchronisation, and punch-in recording.”

BTW, the latest Studio To Go includes the updated Rosegarden. And, for those of you who have installed Studio To Go to hard disk, the Rosegarden update is available to download here.

Although there is a nominal charge for first-time purchasers of Studio To Go, Rosegarden is Free Software under the GNU General Public License and available separately. Don’t let the cost for Studio To Go deter you. The single CD contains the complete operating system, system utilities, and all necessary applications and drivers to run a complete PC Digital Audio Workstation without the hassles of installation. And, if you want to start today, you can bypass the postal service and download Studio To Go direct from Fervent Software.

Visit the Rosegarden site for more information and to download your copy!

Damien Stolarz

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Related link: http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6036967.html

My company just got through presenting at Demo. Here’s one of the media interview byproducts - a good, well-edited demo of the software.

“State-of-the art in-car PC software: The StreetDeck mobile electronics package- Watch a movie, browse through your photos, even get an e-mail if your car is stolen. Take a look at both the hardware and software for the StreetDeck with Rafe Needleman, of CNET, and Robert Wray, co-founder and CEO of Mp3car.com.

David Battino

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Related link: http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/aftertv/2006/02/richards_and_ba.html

Digital media impresario Andrew Keen just posted a live interview with my co-author Kelli Richards and me at AfterTV.com. Kelli and I discussed some of the stories behind our book, The Art of Digital Music; the role of analog music in a digital world (or was that the other way around?); and our predictions for the digital future. Andrew seemed to enjoy my tale about the Hollywood talent agent who started screaming at me and why Brian Eno later took my side.

Because our book is completely based on interviews, it was quite interesting to be on the other side of the table. I gained a new respect for the artists who went out of their way to determine what we were looking for and tailor their anecdotes to match. Being interviewed is an art as well!

It was also illuminating to compare Andrew’s interviewing style with the one I used for the book. Whereas I tended to let people talk until they found the best way to express a concept, knowing I’d edit everything down to the juiciest bits later, Andrew was very active in leading the conversation. That’s the difference between interviewing for print and for radio, I suppose, but I certainly found the interview (and others on his site) fun to listen to.

To subscribe to the podcast version of AfterTV, paste the following URL into your podcatcher program (in iTunes, select “Subscribe to Podcast…” in the Advanced menu):

http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/aftertv/rss.xml

This Joint (Stereo) Is Jumpin’

Over at the O’Reilly Digital Media site, we’re doing a two-part feature on podcast interviewing techniques, and I worked some of the insights I got from the AfterTV experience into Part 1. One thing I just noticed after hearing Andrew’s interviews is how much more immersive they are than the typical mono podcast, because he recorded them in stereo with an M-Audio MicroTrack. With the voices spread out, you start to feel like you’re in the same room as the people who are talking. The interview we did sounds a bit boxy because we recorded it in a tiny glass-walled room in a nearby library. (We had to apply for a library card to reserve the room!) But at least there was zero background noise.

Incidentally, I just got a demo of a system from DiamondWare that does 3D positioning for each speaker in a VoIP chat. It was designed for conference-call applications in which it’s hard to keep track of who’s in the meeting, but it might be a good way to make telephone interviews more immersive as well.

What would you ask yourself if you were being interviewed?

David Battino

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Mmm…gadgets. At last year’s Project Bar-B-Q computer-music conference, sponsor C-Media surprised the attendees by giving each of us an impossibly small audio interface. With its protective cap in place, this tiny digital-to-analog converter is less than 2.5 inches long. Yet plugged into the USB port on my crusty Dell laptop, it made a dramatic difference in sound quality. (The Dell’s built-in headphone jack hisses and whines until you move the mouse, at which point it crackles, too.)

With the C-Media interface in place, the background noise and interference disappeared, and music became clearer as well. The interface also works on Macs, and in both cases, no software drivers are required. (If you do install the Windows driver, you can take advantage of simulated surround sound, a 10-band EQ, and reverb.) With an adapter, the analog headphone output doubles as an S/PDIF optical output. Add the right software, and the optical jack can pass true 5.1 Dolby or DTS streams to an external surround decoder.

I’d been meaning to blog about the gadget for a while. But when I got around to taking a photo of it, I discovered a nifty lighting trick, so I thought I’d make this entry an audiovisual one. (More on the audio interface in a moment.)

The Backlight in Front of You

Usually when I take macro photos of gadgetry, I place the subject in front of a curved sheet of white paper and point an incandescent desk lamp at it from the side. But these days my desk is dominated by a 20-inch LCD monitor, so I wondered what would happen if I replaced the paper with the monitor. So I set the screen to all white with Katsura Shareware’s Screenshot Helper, held the C-Media audio interface on front of the screen, and snapped the following photo:

CMedia USB Audio 34

Here’s the main EXIF data for the above shot, courtesy of Pixture’s free PhotoToolCM contextual menu plug-in (Mac):

Camera model: KODAK DX7440 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
Flash used: No
Focal length: 5.5mm
Exposure time: 0.033 s (1/30)
Aperture: f/3.4
ISO equiv.: 80
Metering Mode: center weight
Exposure: program (auto)

Note that the screen came out blue—albeit a nice blue—instead of white and with an interesting Moiré pattern. For my second shot, I changed the camera angle and increased the shutter speed to 1/45 second. (I may have moved the camera and lamp a bit as well.) Here, the screen came out much smoother:

CMedia USB Audio 36

I haven’t figured out how to correct colors yet (I’m sure we have a tutorial somewhere on O’Reilly ;-), but I made this interesting variation by clicking on a white spot in the image with the Curves’ white eyedropper:

CMedia USB Audio 36--curves

Other than that, the only processing I did on these images was to shrink them. So I think this backlighting technique has potential, particularly if used with a tripod-mounted camera. In the images above, I was simply holding the Kodak in my right hand.

Back to Audio Gadgetry

According to Scott Snyder of C-Media (who’s also an O’Reilly blogger), the audio interface above is really a “proof of concept” made a few years ago to try to sell the chip/software combination to manufacturers. Turtle Beach’s Audio Advantage Micro and Amigo use a more recent version of the C-Media chip and include audio input. The Amigo includes a microphone and volume wheel as well.

Speaking of volume, I noticed the interface’s headphone output was about twice as loud as the headphone output on my PowerMac G5—more than enough to drive my beefy Beyerdynamic DT770 headphones, whose 600Ω impedance overwhelms my portable MP3 player.

So there you have it: Two tips for the price of one blog.

Come across any interesting audio or photo hacks lately?

Spencer Critchley

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Related link: http://news.com.com/Small+is+beautiful+for+Web+2.0+start-ups/2100-1012_3-6035062…

Recently I posted about the Fallacy Of Composition (which says that an advantage shared by everyone is not an advantage) and how it applies to digital music: If everyone can make and distribute music cheaply, the price they can charge goes down and they all make less money. It should apply to open source as well. Is there an escape route?

The very interesting discussion that followed my earlier post suggest there may be, and I sure hope there is. Does anyone have real numbers yet though, i.e. for a model that generates enough money to build a significant business?

An article at news.com.com called Small Is Beautiful For Web 2.0 Startups offers hope in the example of (among others) open source ASP 37signals, makers of the excellent document collaboration tool Writeboard, the project manager Basecamp and others:

In the two years since launching its first service, the self-funded company has signed on hundreds of thousands of customers and it has no debt, said [37signals president Jason] Fried. It has also founded a successful open-source Web development project, Ruby on Rails.

“You can build a great business on a niche product because with the Internet, you can reach a million or a half-million people,” said Fried.

The article suggests the old monolithic model of enterprise software development is ending in favor of small, nimble, lightly funded startups that rely on net-based word of mouth (word of net?) rather than huge marketing budgets.

But it seems to me that this is where the Fallacy Of Composition comes in. As the article notes:

Many Web 2.0 online applications can be put together with just a few people and relatively little upfront money and time. But by the same token, those services can be easily replicated, according to investors…

“We’re seeing a proliferation of start-ups, many of which may be nice little businesses that will be beneficial to the founders, but few that have the fundamental ingredients for creating lasting, meaningful businesses,” said Onset Ventures’ [Mark] Hildenbrand.

Is the future then in millions of Mom & Pop shops? Will a free, shared network take over the platform role played until now by big corporate structures?

The red flag here is that it implies a Whole New Way Of Doing Business, and we’ve heard that one before. It reminds me of the Simpson’s episode where Homer thinks he can prophesy the apocalypse. Lisa warns him that people have been predicting the apocalypse throughout history, and they’re always wrong. “I know, honey,” says Homer, “but I’ve got something they didn’t have–a really good feeling about this.”

On the other hand, one of these days there inevitably will be a Whole New Way Of Doing Business, just as one of these days the world really will end. Hurry up, Whole New Way Of Doing Business!

Spencer Critchley

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Related link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140008198X/qid=1138945700/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2…

Thanks to digital media & the Internet, anyone can record their music and make it available to the world, and that’s a good thing, right? Not necessarily for musicians. One way to explain why is in terms of the Fallacy of Composition, as cited by Jeremy Siegel in his new book The Future For Investors.

Siegel is also the author of the classic Stocks For The Long Run. In the new book, he decries what he calls “the growth trap”, the disappointing returns earned by people who invest in new, fast-growing technologies. Such technologies end up rewarding society as a whole with economic growth, but not, in most cases, those who invest in them–think fiber optic cable.

In the course of making his argument, Siegel explains the economic principle of the Fallacy of Composition:

Any individual or firm through its own effort can rise above the average, but every individual and firm, by definition, cannot. Similarly… if all firms have access to the same technology and implement it, then costs and prices will fall and the gains of productivitty will go to the consumer. (p. 105, 1st ed.)

Siegel tells the story of Warren Buffett’s early days running Berkshire Hathaway, when it was a money-losing textile company, not the colossal holding company of today. Buffett’s managers brought him a series of productivity-boosting proposals to lower labor and other costs. But Buffett rejected all of them, realizing that all his competitors had access to the same “advantages”. He realized the net effect would be like what happens when each person watching a parade rises on tiptoe to see better–seems to make sense to the individual, but collectively it’s self-defeating. Buffett got out of the textile business. As Buffett wrote in a 1985 annual report: “After each round of investment, all the players had more money in the game and returns remained anemic.”

The same thing happens when every musician in the world can make and distribute recordings for next to nothing. The aggregators of this content–the MP3 community sites–often highlight the thousands of uploads they each receive every day. It’s good for them, and it’s good for consumers, but for the musicians? Maybe not so good. Or let me modify that. It’s fine for musicians who aren’t looking to get paid. The other ones are watching their already low average income fall even further year over year.

Some digital musicians have long ago absorbed this idea in one form or another and concluded that recorded music might as well be free. As Derek Sivers of CDBaby points out, for an unsigned musician, file sharers are not the enemy, obscurity is, and so unsigned musicians should encourage piracy. I agree (and I think Derek is a good guy running an honest service). But for me the question remains open, for now at least, as to what will really replace the potential revenue–and how much guerilla promotion it takes to be noticed among the 120,000 plus artists on CDBaby or, say, the more than 1.5 million songs on soundclick.com, as those numbers keep growing, every day.

This doesn’t mean we should (or could) somehow stuff stuff digital music back in its bottle. But I think we need to look a little closer at some of the Utopian assumptions about it. The truth is likely to be more complicated.