Archive for category Audio

Saving yourself from Piracy: Make it free

Examples Matter – What Ragnarok Online did and should have done from the start

Ragnarok Online is one of the MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online) games you could say missed the opportunity. Initially the game was a cost per month only game, you had to pay monthly, like World or Warcraft, to play. The game’s appeal however, was more in line with players that didn’t want to pay or simply couldn’t; all those under the legal age to have a credit card.

Incidentally, Ragnarok Online spawed a mass of free private servers that people used to play the game instead of playing the real one. This is illegal of course, but the creators of Ragnarok Online ended up doing something smart, they adopted a private server, making it a free version of Ragnarok Online. On the same server, you can now pay a monthly fee to have a premium gaming experience (ie. easier experience, premium monster drops).

This is a great way to make a game both free and money-making. It allows anyone to try the game without ever feeling pressure to play, and to end up paying if they want more. This is pretty much in line with Nexon’s games, such as Maple Story, which rely on free gameplay with payed add-on content. But Ragnarok Online should have been that way since the start.

The Music Industry’s Problem

Why did people buy records? Because they listened to it first and liked  it. Where? On the radio. Does anyone still listen to the radio? No. So where do they listen to the songs? By downloading them illegally.

Where’s the problem? It’s in the listening phase. Nobody will ever, except fans, buy a CD or a song without listening to it first. You don’t blindly buy a movie without having seen it first at the theaters or somewhere else. It’s logical, it makes sense! The music industry however doesn’t seem to understand this, at least, a few do. Take Imeem for example, I love that site. A lot of new albums are free to listen to on there, directly from the artist, and in very good quality. This is what I want, good quality free legal content.

Wait, how do they make money then? Simple, you can’t take Imeem on your MP3 player or on your stereo. It’s not convenient, and you have to have Internet.  If you like the song, you buy it with a simple iTunes or Amazon link, or go in a store and buy the CD, so that way you have the convenience of having it. Imeem’s secret is the fact that you can listen to the songs in their complete format.

I won’t buy an album based on 30 second previews of songs, I want the full thing. If I like it, I’ll want to listen to it elsewhere than on a computer, which is why I think services like Imeem are the way to go.

Free vs Free

The bigger problem is what the music industry doesn’t understand. If you don’t offer it for free, people will get it free elsewhere. We used to be able to listen to the songs we liked for free on the radio, nobody does that anymore. If you don’t offer your music for free so that I can listen to it I’ll find it free elsewhere, and that’s how people think. No, they won’t pay for it if you don’t offer it for free, they’ll just get it elsewhere for free, even if it means illegally.

That’s why anyone selling something has to understand they have to make it free before people get it free elsewhere. That way, you have much more control on your content, and you can start sensitizing people about buying music they like. When I like a song on Imeem, I end up buying it. Really, I do.

Stupid Concerns

Vendors of all sorts all have this concern: “Yeah but, aren’t people gonna find a way to download it from Imeem?”

If you’re really concerned about this issue, there’s two things you can do:
- Build a better service yourself (yes, the technology exists, ask Adobe)
- Sensitize people about the importance of buying music they like so that artists can live

Remember, not making it free or making someone poor for the rest of its life because she shared 24 songs Online will just have your music illegally downloaded again.

Output Power is Everything

Besides Signal to Noise ratio, of which you can really only hear the differences when listening in extremely quiet environments, that is, perceiving more noise on a device than another (yes, this is no audiophile trip, you can really hear the difference from a player to another, and some players are good enough that you don’t hear any noise), the thing you might want to look out for on an MP3 player is its Output Power.

Now, because of battery, we measure MP3’s output power in mW instead of W. If MP3 players used output power measurable in W, their current battery would last 2 minutes. As such, the Sony NZW-A829, which sound awesome, only has 5mW of output power per channel. The average iPod is rated at 30mW per channel, a real step up, and my SimAudio amp is rated at roughly 100W per channel.

So, how does this make it sound different? It won’t reduce the noise or the sound artifacts produced by poor sound-cards like the Nintendo DS Lite’s (no idea about the other models) but it will produce stronger bass and obviously a louder output.

Technically however, it will only push your headphones or speakers at their maximum potential. We measure this “potential” in Ohms, a mesure of impendance. The higher the impedance, the more powerful your headphones or speakers can sound. But, the higher the impedance, the more ouput power you need to be able to drive the headphones or speakers to their maximum potential.

Impendance is like a resistance. Expensive headphones with really high impendance will sound like crap and will be really quiet on a device that can’t match it.

If you extrapolate the 100W per channel of my amp with the iPod’s 30mW per channel, you might be wondering what kind of crazy loud sound this gives in my headphones. Let me reassure you that it won’t blow your ears out. The amp’s headphone plug is toned down for headphones. Regular speakers need a much stronger output power to produce sound. Also, don’t forget we’re talking about non-pre-amplified speakers here, not the ones that you plug in a power outlet (ex: PC speakers), these have an integrated amp. In the same regard, powering large speakers with an iPod is an impossible task.

The typical cheap eardbuds are rated at 16 Ohms of impedance. This amount is roughly topped by an iPod. However, more expensive headphones like the Sennheiser HD650, rated at 300 Ohms of impedance will have a lot of difficulty sounding great on anything else than the most highend systems. You might be surprised when the smaller heapdhones of your friend sound better on your iPod than your HD650.

This is a good buying decision to make. Don’t consider the HD650 if you’re a road warrior, you’ll be disappointed. Mind you, they’re also very fragile peices of technology. In any cases, always try to find out the output power of an MP3 player before you buy one. Cowon has some really powerful players too.

There is a sad thruth about output power ratings though: the way they are rated. To measure output power, you have to run it against an impedance rating. Cowon’s S9 for example, has a 29mW of output power per channel rating on 16 Ohms headphones. While this may sound close to the iPod’s 30mW, the iPod’s rating is made against 32 Ohms headphones. This effectively means the iPod has a 60mW output power per channel rating against a 16 Ohms pair of headphones, much higher than Cowon’s MP3 players.

Playing the best sound on PS3 – Without HDMI

The advent of HDMI brought to the digital arena all the bells and wistles of the high tech video and audio industry. Particularily in the audio sector, HDMI makes it possible to go a step closer to the original analog signal.

Wait! Analog!? Didn’t everybody say Digital was better?
Well, it is, in a way. See, technically, video is represented on screen pixel by pixel. Until LCDs came around, pixels weren’t quite squares on the screen but interpreted stuff from analog signals. So yes, in terms of visual accuracy, digital is better. Square for square, pixel for pixel, data for data, simply the pure stuff.

However, it is still argued whether a digital cinema camera can beat a film camera because of the natural grain on the various kinds of film, but that has nothing to do with our case. Why? Because DVD and Blu-ray, both digital formats, have visual data stored in pixels, 100% digital 1s and 0s. And since your LCD (HDTV or not) uses a physical grid to represent pixels, digital is better (no conversion, just pure video straight out from the DVD/Blu-ray player, provided you are using a digital output such as HDMI).

But the sound realm is something completely different. Sound is composed of waves. The way speakers and headphones, well, anything that makes sound actually, gets to output what you hear is by vibrating some membranes, a lot like your eardrum vibrates to the sound it receives, which is then transmitted to the brain for analysis.

So whatever you do, however sophisticated your system may be, the end of the line is always analog because the speakers are. Now, to represent sound in digital form, as analog signals cannot be stored on digital media like CDs and Blu-rays, you have to interpret them into bytes. This is where it gets geeky. But basically, all you have to know is that no digital audio format is able to interpret at 100% the analog signal. This is negligeable though because an analog signal degrades over distance and what not. Digital on the other hand still has the benifit of being lossless, even if carried accross multiple devices. The closer you can bring your digital stream to the speakers without converting it, the better, which is just what HDMI does.

There are, in general, two big different ways to interpret audio digitally: PCM (Pulse-Code Modulation) and DSD (Direct Stream Digital). Here is an image from Wikipedia, explanations afterwards.

Hmm, fancy graphics…
So, the white line you see is the famous audio wave, more specifically called Waveform in this case because it is the form the audio wave makes, clever. The green lines are how the data is represented digitally.

PCM is fairly easy to understand. Just looking at its graphic provides basic understanding. Common flavors of PCM come in 16 bit resolution. Each bit represents either a 1 or 0, this is why the total amount of possibilities is 2 and X number of bits (2X bit). This means that for each sample, there are 65′536 steps, represented from top to bottom. Think of a sample as a frame in video, it’s multiple images stringed together to make video, but in this case, it’s multiple bits of different sound frequency values stringed together to make sound!

PCM is also defined by its Hz. This is how many samples there is per second. Common flavors of PCM come in 44.1 kHz (k = 1000). So, 44′100 samples per second at 16 bit resolution.

The PCM graphic shown above shows a largely imprecise drawing of how PCM works. Here is a more accurate representation in 4 bit.

While looking at a PCM graphic though, its weakness jumps to the eyes. Sinusoidal equations (the waveform) represented by steps that can be thought as a bar graph, means that some precision is ultimately lost and some frequencies, especially pulses, can only barely be represented by the highest audio resolution and sample rate, which is where DSD comes in.

Oh, another fancy graph (brought you by an analysis from Merging Technologies). As you can see, PCM, the three bars in the middle, is not very good at representing impulses. Whether this really helps DSD attain better quality is highly debated. But the theory is DSD is closer to the original analog signal than PCM. Why is that so?

Ok, if we remember correctly what we were going over, audio or Waveforms are mathematical sinusoidal calculations. Well, in reality, much more complex audio is a combination of those or other basic functions. But that is not the point.

DSD is represented over only 1 bit and is sampled at a much higher rate at 64 times that of 44.1 kHz stereo audio: 2.8224 mHz (m = 1′000′000) or 2′822′400 samples per second. The single bit per sample represents either a 1 or 0, or positive or negative value in this case. Along with an algorithm to interpret it, the mix match of positive and negative values makes it is possible to store the audio data as shown above. The advantage of DSD is that audio data is made back from algorithms that more closely represent the amalgamy of sinusoidal equations that form an audio wave. This less visual and more mathematical way to store information makes it possible to convert the digital data back to a signal closer to the original signal that came from the microphones.

However, DSD has less hardware capable of transferring it over digital streams. The reason is simple. While the industry was finding ways to digitize audio transport to lose less quality over the multiple devices required for surround home theater technology with efforts like optical audio over Toslink (SPDIF, Sony/Philips Digital Interconnect Format), Sony (ironically the same company who co-developed SPDIF) introduced the SACD with DSD technology (DSD was also co-developed by Sony and Philips) in an analog fashion.

The motive to make SACD a primarily analog media was simple: make it compatible with current receivers. In 1999, a time where DVD was just starting out, next to no-one had a digital-capable receiver, it wasn’t quite around yet. This and the fact SACD requires new hardware to convert into an analog signal is why even multi-channel SACD was being outputted on analog. Additionaly, SACD doesn’t allow unencrypted streams to be played back digitally, so only i.Link and HDMI can transport DSD streams.

Today, the HDMI specification allows the transport of SACD streams but even Sony’s only SACD stand-alone player still sold in America doesn’t support passing SACD streams through HDMI (some higher end models from Pioneer, Onkyo and others do support it). Instead, DSD streams are converted and then passed as Stereo CD quality content (16 bit @ 44.1 kHz), far from SACD’s potential. SACD fans hoping to pass DSD streams through the Playstation 3’s HDMI port are probably out for luck for ever.

But, luckily somehow, SACD is a primarily analog format. Theoretically, any SACD-capable player can output DSD through analog, which, simply put, is outputing the signal only, not the actualy digital stream.

Since we’re talking analog, the PS3 can output the full signal of any of its audio formats, including SACD and Dolby TrueHD. However, one of your devices (either the player or the receiver) must provide bass management if you’re using a satellite + sub system. The PS3 does not provide bass management. But the PS3 can output your video through HDMI, so you have full 1080p HD quality and full audio quality through analog.

Keep in mind the PS3 is limited to Dolby Pro Logic II when outputting surround through analog. I couldn’t find out whether Dolby Pro Logic IIx is available on the PS3 (for 6.1 and 7.1 surround sound) but one thing’s for sure, no matter how far from discrete channels Pro Logic is, you’ll still get the full audio signal from stuff like Dolby TrueHD Audio, which is interesting to know for Blu-ray playback on older non-HDMI equipped systems.

And yes, the PS3 really outputs all of its audio formats in full audio resolution on the analog outputs (the signal is directly converted by the PS3 from source), Dolby TrueHD Audio included. The quality is nothing short of amazing if you have the proper receiver, cables and speakers of course.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,