Re: Audio Wars

As if High Definition Video wars are not enough, there is yet another war and this time it is around audio.  There are many existing formats from digital music in the form of MP3 and like formats, to LPs, to CDs, to SACDs, to DVD-As.  There are also many formats of sound processing including Dolby ProLogic variants, Dolby Digital variants, DTS variants and, finally, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD.  

The list above from left to right improves theoretical sound quality by virtue of increasing resolution, i.e. more detail/information on the respective media which more closely matches the original sound.  It is a given that better quality equipment would also affect the quality of sound for each of the above formats.  

It would be nice if manufacturers of audio and video equipment and movie and sound producers and computer hardware manufacturers and programmers all got along and came up with ONE AUDIO and ONE VIDEO standard and move their R&D in that direction so that eventually all equipment would produce, record and reproduce and same format of audio and video signal.  This, however, is HIGHLY unlikely to happen.  Thus, while a general trend toward digital and higher resolution audio and video media is certain, consumers would still need variety of setups for reproducing the many numbers of combinations that could be formed with the existing and future formats.  Therefore, it is likely the decision on what equipment to get would still be based on ones budgets and needs.  

The general recommendation would be to go for the highest resolution that could be afforded while taking into account the equipment that would be reproducing it and the cost of obtaining the media.  Generally, SACDs and DVD-As audio disks are slightly more expensive than CDs for example (there are some exotic CD types, such as XRCDs that could exceed the cost of SACDs and DVD-As).  

For portable media, ripping/downloading should be done at lossless or at least at 320Kbps depending on player capability.

For home audio – SACD and DVD-A significantly outperform CD quality.  There is a chance, that in the future they might be replaced by TrueHD and DTS-HD, but for now even most HD movies do not come with those formats, thus the transition would likely take a few years.  In the meanwhile, because existing CD/SACD and DVD-A collections would remain, if affordable, a hybrid CD player that can reproduce all of the CD, SACD and DVD-A formats is likely a good choice.  Some could be purchased for a few hundred dollars.  

Between SACD and DVD-A disks, the choice would depend on the equipment used.  For higher end equipment and for multi-channel fuller range (i.e. bigger) speakers, the difference would be less significant.  SACD should also have an advantage for stereo listening.  For smaller speaker systems, the DVD-A is likely a better choice as it should be better optimized for such a setup.

For TrueHD and DTS-HD, in addition to a BlueRay (or HD) DVD player, a received capable of supporting those formats would be needed plus a 7.1 (7 speakers and subwoofer) system at a minimum in order to utilize the full benefits of these formats, although they should sound better on any system.  The reason is that these formats should be theoretically identical to the original due to large capacity of the media on which they are recorded.  Presently, there are no music disks recorded or translated in these formats, so a choice of a good hybrid CD player to play the SACD and DVD-A is still a good option (but not a very expensive one, unless money is no object), if a higher level of music and sound enjoyment is sought.

Thus in the sound wars, just like in the HD wars, while some formats seems to pave the way of the future, the existing ones would still remain for quite some time.  So while having all these many formats and technologies is not ideal, at least all of them are for real and can be enjoyed accordingly!

Re: High Definition wars

How to obtain High-Definition (HD) content and what is the best way to do so? 

Generally, higher quality equipment, connections, content and viewing environment contribute to a higher quality HD experience.  How much more quality is obtained for additional dollars spent is a rather subjective decision and is left out of this discussion.  

The scores below mean 1 – good, 2 – better, and 3- best.  In other words, there is really no way to go wrong with any of the available options (except for HD-DVD physical disk format, which will likely be left with existing content only).

Currently and roughly, the three main ways to obtain HD content are:

1.  Cable/Satelite provider both through video on demand on a rental basis and through the provider subscription for included at no additional cost movies and content.  (Note:  It is also possible to watch local stations in HD vie an HD-antenna.  This method is probably the least popular and not discussed due to the limited content and movies available, however, it may still be a viable option for users who watch primarily news and other local programming)

2.  Blue Ray or HD DVD player and purchasing or renting disks

3.  AppleTV renting content

When setting up an HD system, the five important factors to consider are whether:

1. The system going to be HD only or also used for viewing SD content.

If the system is going to include SD content watching, including standard DVD upconversion, then a “smaller” screen size would be preferable perhaps no larger than 40-42″.  Generally, as screen size increases upscaled content and particularly standard TV signal begins to degrade in quality.  If the system is HD only, then the screen size is “unlimited” and content could be viewed/projected without degradation of quality regardless of size, at least in theory.

HD Score: 3

HD+SD Score: 2

2.  Availability of content for the chosen system.  This includes both the availability of cable or satelite or internet connectivity at the location of the system as well as HD content available through the chosen medium whether downloadable or purchased/rented on physical disks.

Cable providers vary in the HD availability and quality.  Verizon FIOS for example currently has roughly about 100 movies available in certain areas with projected plans to offer up to 1000 HD movies by end of 2008.  If this plan materialized, this is significantly more content compared to AppleTV for example.  However, AppleTV will likely increase availability also.  Presently, they have about the same number of HD titles available but the future for Verizon FIOS is more predictable due to the company outlining its plans.

Cable/Apple TV Score: 1 for now but if Verizon plans materialize Score: 2 (better than AppleTV but not full 3 as physical disks for the near future would outnumber downloadable content and will be available sooner!

Physical dicks of course offer the most/all content and soonest after release.  

Physical disks Score: 3

3.  Ease of access to content for the chosen system

Physical DVDs are available for purchase either through retailers or online.  They require more physical effort to obtain and/or return. 

Score: 1

Movies rented through Netflix or Blockbuster delivery are a bit easier to obtain and return compared to purchasing physical disks from the store.  However, if purchased online movies are no more difficult to obtain.  Thus, there is a virtual draw and no distinction between Netflix, Blockbuster, BestBuy, etc.  The deciding factor would be budget per movie – whether rental or purchase is preferred.

Cable and AppleTV, etc. win for ease of access.  Just a few clicks of a button is all that is required.

Score: 3

4.  Cost of set up and continued use of the system.  This includes existing equipment and additional equipment as needed.  Upgradability options are not discussed as the cost/benefits are rather subjective.

Cable requires monthly subscription and costs of renting an HD box.  Additionally, there is a cost to rent each movie.  Usually over a $100 but more closely to $200 per month.  That’s over $2,000 a year!  While Cable is the most expensive, it also provides access to a virtually unlimited content of free/subsription content including premium movie channels for no additional cost!  Thus cable offers virtually 24/7 of HD content.  This is significantly more than any of the physical or downloaded content for the same price.  The only way to determine whether this is “worth” it is to decide how many available viewer hours per year one would spend and try to calculate the cost of renting to fill those hours as opposed to the $200/month with cable.  

Cable Score: 1 if infrequent watching HD, 2 if costs is approximately equivalent to renting physical or downloadable media but ease of access is preferred, 3 if majority of time spent watching HD

Physical media requires a HD capable player – at least $300+ and more closely to $400 on the average cost.  Then each movie costs around $25-$30 or could be rented via Netflix or Blockbuster.  With NextFlix there is an ongoing monthly expense.  With Blockbuster or AppleTV there is not.  It could come close to $1,000 depending on number of rentals. 

Score 1  if buying, 2 if renting

AppleTV costs between $229-$329 with no ongoing monthly expense except for cost of renting content.

Score 2

5.  Quality – quality could be very subjective and depending on equipment and signal used may vary significantly enough to where tech specs alone could not explain the difference.  However, on tech specs alone:

1080p on 1080p screen Score 3 (Blue Ray only for now)

1080i and 720p on 1080p screens Score 2.5 (all non Blue Ray content)

1080i and 720p on 720 screen Score 2 (all non Blue Ray content)

Finally, more than one or all combinations above may be chosen.  Likely, combination a combination of there are going to be the preferred choice.  Generally, if cable is available (particularly FIOS) that might be all that is needed except for the much higher cost.  If Verizon FIOS is not available, the a combination of the remaining choices may be preferred.  The ratings above can be used to determine what factors and costs are important to individual decisions in building the HD system/s of choice.

—————————————

For a comparison of picture quality between the different sources see the related article at the link below.  Please note the article seems biased towards AppleTV, while the discussion above may seem biased toward Verizon FIOS.  Still, the ratings above should provide some more clarity as to advantages and disadvantages of each.  Also, note that any of the formats including Blue Ray typically leave black bars on top and bottom of screen for aspect ration sake and, therefore, NONE of the formats give FULL HD on any monitor/TV.  There are some very expensive ways to compensate for that via anamorphic wide lenses attached to projectors but for the sake of keeping things simple this is left up to the most dedicated videophiles.  Currently, ONLY cable TV can fill out an entire wide screen but while this method utilizes the FULL resolution of the screen, the resolution of the content is actually cropped from the sides.

http://ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/

What if voters could vote with more than their vote?

What if voters could vote with more than their vote and more often that just during election season?  What if voters could designate where there tax money goes?  Wouldn’t that be an incentive enough for politicians to not only keep their campaign promises but also to be in better touch with the will of the people?  And wouldn’t that be an incentive enough for the people to be more and regularly involved citizens in the business of the government and the affairs of their own country?  Would that foster responsibility, accountability and credibility?

Quantity or Quality

The internet is all about quantity. Quantity of visitors, quantity of clicks, quantity of ads, quantity of subscribers, quantity of free stuff. But these often lead away from quality. It is a simple matter – there are limited resources the internet over. And when a large portion of them are diverted to generating quantity, there is little left to advance quality. On top of that, the ones that push for quantity only care about that anyway.

The free stuff you get is a bate, it is meant to pull traffic to a site and rack up the visitor count so that advertisers would eventually buy add space, or some big company would offer gadzillions to buy it, or to have bunch of other companies offer a bunch of useless “widgets” or to switch to a subscription base later. Either way, there is one goal - QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC. However, that traffic is more like the circular track of Nascar than a highway directing the morning rush hour. It’s traffic for the sake of traffic, and quantity for the sake of quantity. However, where is the benefit, the added value that anyone could enjoy?

Truly, there must some who’d rather pay for an uncluttered internet, just like they do for commercial free premium cable. And, therefore, where there is demand there is supply. So, there would be those who’d begin to care about the quality of content and experience more than the quantity. To put it another way, where the quality abounds, the quantity will follow.

So, here is the moral of the story: “Web 2.0 which is about silly widgets, mindless traffic, pointless interlinks, mindless forwards, and useless clutter – it is out; Web 3.0 is coming – and it is about QUALITY!”

 

The evertything and nothing in particular discussion

 

There is too much information and, naturally, too much missinformation.  Most likely, there is more missinformation that information.  The correct information could only be correct one way, however, missinformation on the same subject is only constrained by the imagination of the missinformer and, thus, could have infinite variations and possibilities.

So, how does one know what is correct and what is not, what is fact and what is speculation, what is reasonable statement and what is missleading hype or scam?  Well, it is beyond the scope of this narrative to answer these questions, however, it is safe to state that questioning information/missinformation and attempting to reason through it, would likely help one develop and improve one’s abilities and skills to answer such questions continuously.

 

 

Internet Code of Conduct or the Freedom to Post

There is freedom of speech but is there a freedom to post? And if so, are there any strings attached or should there be? Today there are too many websites, too many emails, too many posts, too many comments…and then there is spam and there are scams and all of the rest. There is simply a junk overload on the Internet and it is not getting any better. But everyone can help it! Everyone, including you!

Just because it is so easy to post to the web, should one post irresponsibly? Or should there be some sort of “ethical” or “moral” obligation to post responsibly as to not “pollute” the Internet scape with junk? And then perhaps a “web junk collector” service is needed rather than “junk aggregator,” of which plenty abound.

Such “utopian” Internet could also be described as “ecologically” clean Internet or as a lean Internet. It is wonderful to have access to good and useful information, entertainment and whatever else, yet free of clutter, useless, misleading or wrong information.

The moral of this story is simple: “Think before you post and consider whether such post really adds anything beneficial. Be a responsible internetizen!”

 

Re: the MacBook Air

Much has been said about the MacBook Air.  Some love it, some hate it.  Those terms are rather strong, but are used extensively and superficially by most.  By the very nature of the terms, it is not possible to love or hate something by reading about it, seeing it, or even interacting with it for a brief time.  Indeed, it takes a longer time to develop a “feeling” about something that could more justifiably be classified as “love” or “hate.”

Therefore, this narrative will not use either word or concept.  The free market is about innovation, choice, competition.  It is a concept dominated by the rule of large numbers.  Any product that contributes to the profitability of an enterprise is a “good” product for that enterprise.  Whether the product sells in large numbers or at high prices or draws customers to the company and its other products, among many other reasons, are all factors that would eventually determine such product’s fate.  The MacBook Air has just recently been introduced to market.  Therefore, it is too early in the product’s life cycle for ANYONE to make statements that either “doom” or “long live and prosper” the MacBook Air.  Such points are simply moot and irrational.

There are many many computers out there, many brands, many shapes, many features.  As they say – “To each their own.”  If one doesn’t like it for whatever reason, they are free to not buy it.  If they do like it, they are free to buy it.  There are of course, those, that would like to buy it but for whatever reason will not.  They are not relevant to the success of the product, however.  It is only those who buy it or those that choose not to buy it and buy a competitive product instead.  To put it differently, each year there will be a number of customers who will buy computers.  Each of them will spent a certain amount and all of them together will spend a total amount on computers.  It is irrelevant whether such consumers are private citizens or corporations, whether they buy one, two or more computers, and whether they buy one or more brands of computers.  What is relevant is that the “total amount spent” will be allocated among brands and models.  Thus, each model from each brand will receive a portion of that “total amount spent.”  Due to the complexities of the way companies calculate their profits, each such model will have a different impact on the bottom line.  Due to the fact that companies operate on an annual basis and publish and evaluate their financial results on an annual basis for the most part,  the “success” of each product from the company’s perspective may or may not be known for sometime.

On the other hand, for the consumer this is rather different matter altogether.  For many different reasons, consumers choose a product.  Those reasons could be price, availability, features, reliability, brand’s reputation, amond many others.  The bottom line for the consumer is whether the consumer feels the money spent on a particular purchase are spent best on that particular purchase as opposed to any other that is within reach.  If so, the consumer is likely content with the purchase at the very minimum.  If not, the consumer is likely not, and may either return the product, if possible, or sell the product, or choose an alternative product, immediately or some time later.  It is only these very customers that would relay the message to the respective companies through their purchases.  In the meanwhile, there will be many opinions that will be and are vigorously circulated that may or may not sway potential purchases by customers to one product or the other.  Thus, such opinions and reviews do have some impact, however, without scientific research it is not necessary to speculate on the exact importance of such impact; it should suffice to recognize it. 

It is useful to recall, that opinions and reviews that are based on short or non-existent exposure to a product would have far less weight than those of long-term users of a product.  Since the MacBook Air is still a very new product, the long-term user opinions are rather limited or non-existent.  The “bias” opinions on the other hand, both “for” and “against” abound.  The point here is that neither of these would matter much, if at all to the success or failure of the product.  Likewise, even the long-term user’s opinions when they become available, won’t matter much either.  What would matter is how much of the products sold actually contributed to the bottom line, whether they attracted new customers, whether they attracted repeat purchases, etc.  Thus, to “each their own.”  To those who “love” the product – Enjoy!  To those who “hate” it – Enjoy the alternative!

It is unlikely, that there ever was a product that didn’t gather both praise and critisism, all at the same time…and no product is any different in that regard.

In any case, I happened to like both (PC and Mac) just fine…

So here is a suggestion: take it easy over the circuit boards – peace!