In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Craig O'Donnell wrote:

> The issues with sound are essentially those of bandwidth. The two things 
> to consider are esthetics and hardware.
> 
>  - There seems to be a prevailing trend toward MPEG compressed sound 
> files if there is a need for a semblance of high fidelity 
MPEG works well with Audio and Video.  An MPEG audio is actually an MPEG 
video with a "movie" of 1 bit or byte.  There are repeating patterns in 
voice, music, and related sounds.  You can actually accellerate these 
movies by reducing the number of instances repetitive patterns.
"Hello" for example is only about 1% unique patterns when spoken.
Even though you are playing it faster, you don't sound like "alvin and 
the chipmunks".  It seems that video also has a number of repeating 
patterns.  "Fibber McGee's Closet" video & sound, could fill a gig in 
seconds.  A looney-tunes cartoon can be compressd to 1% of it's original 
size.  It can be played back in different resolutions as well.  The 
size/resolution/colordepth issues are similar to those of JPEG.

>  - The other sound format in common use is AIFF, which is a 
> platform-independent audio file which can be mono, stereo, or multichannel.
There are a number of different standards.  Which is adopted is largely a 
function of agreement.  The standard least likely to get the agreement of 
vendors, customers, distributors, and policy makers is one that is 
exclusive, proprietary, supported by only one or two platforms with 
little positive press and expensive.  The standard MOST likely to get the 
agreement of all of the required parties would be the one that is easily 
and cheaply licensed by any interested vendors (sub-dollar royalties or
volunteer support "quid-pro-quo" payments), cheap-to-free, easily 
distributed at comfortable margins, and well publicized.  Superior 
technology is the least significant factor.

> Be aware that "telephone-quality" audio coming from a computer isn't like 
> ly to enhance an online newspaper. There's only been a little research 
> done into audio quality and its effect on perception, but it seems to 
> point to the obvious: the more lifelike the audio the more engaging a 
> person finds the material (typically, video).

The question is always bandwidth.  Up intil now, there was little 
bandwidth and the publisher decided how much got delivered.  Today, 
TCP/IP coupled with high-speed fiber-optics and very-narrow-frequency 
shift keying (every two cycles is shifted <1% bandwidth) and microwave 
cellular technology, and ATM have multiplied the bandwidth available to 
the distribution chain several orders of magnitude.  The consumer, with 
relatively limited access to bandwidth, must now select how much he is 
willing to commit to each resource.

If every idiot with a cam-corder can make a video and point to it with a web
page, the user must now rely on indexing technology, brand identification,
and relationship to favorite content to be guided into chosing a particular
content item.  Instead of the ad being thrust upon the consumer as he is 
being told "this will make you rich, handsome, sexy, respected..." the 
user will be looking for "what will make me rich", "what will get me 
laid",  "what will get me loved", "what will get me respected".  In fact, 
consumers may actually become addicted to the advertizing. :-).

Rex Ballard


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu Apr 27 01:23:51 1995
Status: O
X-Status: