Slashdot Mirror
The Future of PC-Audio: Interview With Keith Kowal
red_ed writes "The Noise Report have an interview with Keith Kowal from VIA technologies' Audio division about the future of PC audio. Here's a snippet: 'I think the next big thing will be the widespread adoption of wireless speakers and headphones--cause none of us like a tangle of wires. From a PC infrastructure point of view I can easily see support for these devices being integrated right into the PC.'"
Good to see development with PC audio after a long time.
From a PC infrastructure point of view I can easily see support for these devices being integrated right into the Mac.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Apple's already ahead of the game. I know it only works with iTunes, but it's the right sort of idea.
Ok, I have a tangle of wires. A huge tangle (2 monitors, keyboards, mice, 5 computers, one printer, two KVMs, ...). But why would I get wireless speakers? Either a) they'll all waste a ton of batteries, or b) they'll all need to be plugged in to the wall. The former is way too expensive, the latter is still another wire - and outlets are at a premium here!
I was hoping this would be a story about mainstream going to surround sound support, for a more realistic audio experience (whether that's playing Doom 4, or listening to a concert-hall performance of Bach or Beethoven).
While I can't blame him for being realistic, how about promising me something a little more exciting like iPod headphones without the 'phone' part, just plug them directly into my ear?
First, I'm assuming that the speakers would still have a power cord, and thus still technically be "wired", but if they didn't have a power cord, batteries would be a big issue.
Second, and most importantly for any audiophiles out there, what happens to the sound quality? God knows how much money is spent on expensive speaker cables, so what happens when it goes wireless?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
The REAL future of PC audio is what smart people have been doing for years... getting a $3 rradio Shack cable, and plugging the computer into a real stereo amp. I don't understand the obsession with getting tiny, overpriced, shitty sounding computer speakers when even a basic stereo from Wal-Mart is going to sound better than even the best "computer speakers". I know, I know, everybody has their favorite computer speakers, but there is simply no replacement for displacement. Meaning, bigger speakers being driven by a real amp will almost ALWAYS sound better than any computer speakers.
I don't respond to AC's.
But speaker wires are about the least likely cause of wire tangles in my setup. Considering power ables, mouse cables, monitor cables, ethernet cables, USB cables, Firewire Cables, MIDI cables. Even if I eliminate Mouse and Ethernet AND speaker, it still won't help much
Well... it's an interesting notion. But.
Just about everything is going wireless these days. Yes, I know, radio spectrum is broad. But if you have your basic FM/AM radio, cell phone, wireless phone or three, wireless surround speaker system for your home theater, wireless mouse, wireless keyboard, wireless PC headphones, Wireless LAN... and all of your neighbors have at least some of those as well, who guarantees you that say, using a radio garage door opener won't make your computer locally send your nude pics (taken with wireless PC Cam) to everyone else using WLAN in your neighborhood?
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
... but worth replying anyway.
I think this guy's right on the money. I mean, we've had AirTunes for a while now, and now we've got bluetooth stereo headsets.
If you count Macs with onboard bluetooth, and most laptops too, then his prediction is already true.
I could definitely see widespread adoption if the price came down a bit -- that bluetooth headset is $240 USD, just a bit on the steep side.
I really *hope* they use Bluetooth instead of coming up with anothe random standard. There are already several Bluetooth headphones available, HP has some excellent ones.
"I think the next big thing will be the widespread adoption of wireless and speakers headphones--cause none of us like a tangle of wires"
I can see the benefit of wireless headphones, but how do wireless speakers even make sense?
I suppose you could eliminate the cable running from the PC to the amplifier if the amplifier was wireless enabled, but you still have to have some sort of wire running to each speaker to provide power. Unless you're planning on running your speakers off of batteries... in which case they'd need frequent recharging and would not be capable of putting out enough juice for decent sound.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
I like that everything is becoming wireless but as that happens more and more batteries are needed and to make matters worse those damn batteries die. Whats the point if you have to charge those items or replace the batteries every now and again. This kind of defeats the purpose of the simplicity of a wireless device. Why cant the industry standardize on a common induction system so I can just place all my wireless devices on a pad and have them charge automatically.
Bah,
Am I the only one that likes wired peripherals better than the overhead added by wireless?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Keith: Certainly for more professional soundcards there is a need for 32-bit support as producers often like to do the mastering in the highest level possible before downcoverting for the final tracks. I agree though that it is more difficult to justify 32-bit support on the desktop. I don't think its really intended as a marketing gimmick, its just more that the HD Audio spec supported 32-bit operation, so they are of course touting that support. I would not expect to see many 32-bit HD Audio codecs in the foreseeable future though.
Current hadware is only really able to achieve an effective ~20bit resolution due to thermal noise in the components. Unitl we take that down a couple of notches there is no reason to use anything more precise such as 32bit.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
WTF? Wireless cords? Is that like cordless wires?
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -
"I think the next big thing will be the widespread adoption of wireless speakers and headphones--cause none of us like a tangle of wires."
I think the next big thing will be wireless speakers & headphones because the RIAA doesn't like those pesky analog output jacks!
My speakers will always require some wires because I don't want to power them with batteries.
To go wireless with any PC, get yourself a nice little stereo FM transmitter and tune in from the next room. Monster cable's model for cars works excellently. The cheap battery powered model from CompUSA looks great with that aluminum case, but it did not broadcast in stereo for me. I hope they fix that because it was perfect otherwise with an external power jack for an included car plug or any cheap transformer and AAA battery for walking around. You can be sure that others, such as the Belkin models for $15 at Walmart, will work or one that does will find it's way to the shelves soon.
Why did I want to buy another set of speakers again? So that someone could slip the RIAA encrypted streaming wet dream on me? No thanks.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Give me the ability to set the volume level per application. I mean really, did you ever had a system message go off when you were watching a movie that required you to turn up the speaker to maximum volume?
In the business world, I don't want wireless ANYTHING on the workstations unless it's encrypted AND authorized.
Last thing I need is some employee using wireless audio to download corporate data to his car out in the parking lot. Worse, a virus using it to send corporate data to anyone within scanning distance.
I want 5.1+ wireless at home so I can pipe it through my stereo in the next room, but for security's sake, if you put it on the motherboard make sure I can disable it in the BIOS.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What do they really mean by integration? Have the antenna built into the motherboard? This would cause some major EMI issues combined with your box's ability, by design, to block signals. I'd imagine the antenna would have to be external. In this case, I still don't trust the sound quality unless they're using DSS and sending a relatively high powered signal to your headphones. In which case, more issues arise because you'd basically have to have a sound card built into the headphones, how much power drain, how bulky, and how costly would that be?
Just some thoughts, I wonder how far along or practical this idea really is. Would be cool to see though.
exactly.
just like phones. why the hell do people need wireless phones?
and especially cell phones. the recepcion would be much better, i think, and cheaper if we would just string a single wire from a central antenna, to each phone. i hate how cellphones are so expensive. sure they give them out for free, but those are not really the ones i want.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
When do we get the focused sound waves beamed directly into our head?
Portable wireless speakers are retarded. I don't need to spend 10 bucks on batteries every few days, and I don't need my shitty portable speakers to have 6 feet of stereo separation between them.
What, do people think that putting two 5-dollar cost-of-goods speakers 6 feet apart for "big stereo image" makes them sound like anything other than the crap they're made of? Good speakers are large, heavy, and permanently installed with wires hidden.
There IS, however, a use for this stuff.
If I need it wireless, it's because I need to move around.
If I need to move around, it's pretty safe to say I will piss of *everyone* if my music moves around with me (see: bumps in the trunk)
A wireless set of high-quality in-ear-canal headphones (Etymotics make some, Sony makes some, Apple too now) could be *great*.
They have very little driver travel, so the power consumption is small, and properly designed you could have a combination headset/headphone setup with passable-not-great quality. It would kick ass to be able to wear headphones under my hat and not have those pesky wires.
Anyone else use Etymotics and have the painful experience of snagging a wire on a doorknob? Accidentally yanking things out of the ear canal ain't fun.
We lay in bed while the music, scenery, and environmnet surrounding us changes on a vague thought as we have 24hours/day of non stop orgasms.
which company is ready to build me a chip that allows this?
Ah yes, the "no wires, how the hell is it going to run" problem. Shame Tesla wasn't a sound engineer, eh?
How about hacking some battery-powered-wireless speakers up to a track-lighting system? That might do the trick nicely, plus make them easier to position and mount.
Actually, this gives me an excellent opportunity to rebut my own post (see how long it stays mod'd so high). First, however, I'll address Tibor's point: you're comparing apples to oranges, my friend. With phones, the wireless part is the part you carry around with you. With speakers, generally speaking (no pun intended!), you place the speakers once, and you're done. They're very, very static. Completely unlike anything that can be held in your hand (such as a phone, a laptop, camera, etc. - a camera that doesn't need a wire to hook up to your PC, now that would be useful!).
The advantage of wireless speakers really is that you can have a centrally-located PC-based home-theatre system (and I mean the entire home - a set of speakers in the den, another in the kitchen, another in the front room, another in ...). I suspect that this technology is merely for a single output - all rooms get the same sound. What would make this really useful, IMO, is to first get surround-sound output working, and then to be able to have a single wireless soundcard able to handle multiple outputs independantly.
Wireless Power! Now thats the future!
Wireless headphones are a natural for Skype. You can walk around the room talking on the phone.
My current driver has per-application volume support.
Downside is this: say you turn on winamp, and it's all good. Then you switch to your web browser - sound goes up or down. Then you switch to gaim - sound goes up or down. Or you launch a game or something and BAM - super loud, oops.
So really, it's just a pain. I'd rather have everything consistent. I also just turn off system sounds.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
but surround sound on a pc IS available but generally not used because of it's requirements.
.. most homes do NOT have a specalized computer desk and room so you can place the rear speakers at the right location behind you. Hell most people that have surround sound at home for therei stereo and movies do NOT have it set up right and are missing out on a huge part of the sound field.
No not hardware, but space
Until they can eliminate the rear speakers (Carver Sonic Holography style) it will not catch on except with the people that desperately want it and are willing to sacrafice style for function.
I am hoping that PC audio would come to a standard. all PC audio talks in X way and Y way.. all the extra stuff can talk through the OpenAL interface.
much like a video card. all video cards give you a display without a driver. why cant audio do the same?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
how much 2.4ghz it takes (or whatever frequency this would run on, i never rtfa) before we all develop cancer and are bleeding from our ears?
Just like cell phones are lossless? There will still be is etc. You can't say that just because it's dignterference, missed packetital, all the problems will gone. Furthermore, the wireless-ness of the speakers has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You are just talking about using a digitial, rather than analog technology to send audio information over to the speakers and then have them DAC and amplify it. Bang and Oluffson already does something like this (with wired technology), but people don't but them because they're ridiculously expensive and they still don't sound as good as a comparably priced "standard" system. You pay so much more for 5 amps this way and you lose so much in return.
But a lot of us like changing batteries quite a bit less, and remembering to put the device back into it's charger only marginally less.
Perhaps we need some tesla-style wireless power delivery system...
I won't use Bluetooth, and I won't use wireless keyboards, and I'm very leary of wireless speakers and sound. Why? Security.
I have not seen one single wireless standard that actually took security seriously enough to for the protocol to be reasonably secure. They've all had glaring flaws. I have not seen one implementation of The Resurrecting Duckling Protocol for personal wireless devices, despite that being a decent choice that's not at all hard to set up or for lay people to understand. The state of wireless security is abysmal, and I see no signs that it's getting better.
Heck, most digital cell phones aren't even encrypted.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I mean:
Just like cell phones are lossless? There will still be interference, missed packets etc. You can't say that just because it's digital, all the problems will gone. Furthermore, the wireless-ness of the speakers has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You are just talking about using a digitial, rather than analog technology to send audio information over to the speakers and then have them DAC and amplify it. Bang and Oluffson already does something like this (with wired technology), but people don't but them because they're ridiculously expensive and they still don't sound as good as a comparably priced "standard" system. You pay so much more for 5 amps this way and you lose so much in return.
The next big thing in power will be induction, in the form of furniture that charges devices set on it.
The technology exists to power speakers, mice, keyboards, digital cameras, cell phones, even LCD monitors, all without power cords.
Beneath the surface of the desk will be induction pads that power the device via induction, without the risk of electrocution, even in the event of a spilled drink.
The technology is maturing rapidly. I'd like an entertainment center that powers everything on it wireless. I hate the rats nest of wires behind my TV, VCR, DVD, etc.
Similar technology is used to recharge pacemakers and similar internal medical devices using an arm cuff.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
Hard drives, monitors, graphics cards - as time goes by you can find an application, game or fashion reason to upgrade. However sound cards? When was the last time you upgraded your 5.1 built-in sound card especially for a game or application?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
.. and that's a company called Creative Labs and their patent portfolio.
Aureal, Nvidia and most recently id software are all firms that have fallen foul of Creative's desire to stifle innovation. Until someone challenges these patents, we will see few developments in PC audio which has stood still for many years.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
I've often heard this kind of story as proof of the fidelity of a computer sound arrangement. I don't really understand it. Why would anyone call the police over recorded gunfire? It's not as if recorded gunfire was a rarity in 1994, or the fifteen years preceeding it.
I'm thinking particularly of the Pulp Fiction soundtrack, which had a track opened with loud gunfire and dialogue from the movie.
Anyone who hadn't seen the film might easily think gangsters had come by and opened fire... if, that is, they'd never heard a stereo before. Who can't tell the difference between speakers and real sound?
Not to mention that movie soundtracks less often have rough, growly monsters moaning in the background and driving FM-guitar riffs. Imagine you're sitting in a courtyard and suddenly you hear the sound of Doom from an 8-bit soundcard. You've never played a video game, but you also aren't Amish. Would you phone the police or figure it was a B-Movie?
So if you really, truly swear that this isn't a friend of a friend story, the conclusion has to be that people will report almost anything as possible gunfire, not that your speakers were in any way unusual. Doom's soundtrack was garbage in garbage out where realism is concerned.
Not meant as a personal attack on you. I had a friend in Junior High who tried to lay this bullshit about people calling the cops regarding video game SFX on me and I never properly responded to him about it.
This has two drawbacks: a) Loss of fidelity, which would be a step BACKWARDS in PC Audio and b) A nice big box at the back of your computer instead of a few thin wires.
And to those who would say just transmit the DD5.1 info, two more things: a) You'd need a decoder in each speaker, expensive hardware-wise and b) it is compressed and would seriously degrade "true" 192khz or 96khz/24bit sound, which I don't see how analog wireless would do a much better job either
I thought the idea was making it more simple and cluttered while improving sound, eh?
vv .sig to self-destruct in 3..2..1.. vv
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
I have electrical outlets on all my walls but only one set of speaker connections at the receiver. If I have to pick between a power cable or a speaker cable, I'd pick the power cable that needs to have wire run to a plug on the same wall over a speaker cable that needs to be run all the way around the room.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
RF technology is what? 70 years or older. You'd think it would filter down at some point. Apple's recent Xpress wireless audio port works flawlessly. I've paired two of them with $30K stack of audio gear and don't miss wires at all.
The next evolution for PC audio will be 5v or less systems. All of a sudden the background noise goes away and they will be on the playing field of the stereo manufacturers with options.
How about we make only the rear surround speakers wireless? Either battery or outlet powered is OK, but the worst part of surround sound is routing cables to the rear, the front 4 speakers (counting sub) is not a big deal. Wireless rear speakers would rock.
I'd love wireless speakers - I want to have speakers on either side of the headrest of my chair, so I can get quite good, spatially seperated sounds, but without tripping over the wires everytime I get in or out of it!
***You learn something Every day. And then you die.***
Keith says... any audio engineer will tell you a lot of audio design is "black magic" Well maybe not so much a myth if taken to mean that a lot of audio design is done by folks who don't know what the hell they are doing...
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Well, barring any unexpected results in Ohio, I'll concede to you that this is very useles for speakers.
However, it would be supernice for headphones. One could play loud games late at night, or listen to music in the office. It appears that none of my coworkers share the love for Guns n' Roses, so I'm always chained to my PC via headphone wire.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
I can see the benefit of wireless headphones, but how do wireless speakers even make sense?
Indeed, I also wonder what the fuss is about when you are talking about fixed speakers close to your desk. I have a whole lot of cables dangling from my pc, they are ugly, but hidden below the desk, and do no bother me at all.
But I can see a bright future for surround applications. The rear speakers require cables to go all the way to the other side of the room. Not so well hidden, and a risk of tripping over them. If the signals get over there wireless, I don't care if the speakers still need to be plugged in the wall for power.
Z
I'm not sure how well wireless would handle this without security/interference/bandwidth issues, but how about infrared. Why not make a hub that would allow you to plug in your keyboard, mouse, headphones (or output to stereo), and perhaps a USB port or two. Have one cord for the receiving hub to power the devices, or perhaps a Li+ battery pack
If you have a hub to plug into, and a plug to receiv the signal, it would probably do very nicely at cutting down cord issues (the sending unit having a single thick cord splitting to the various devices at the back of your PC, and vise-versa for the receiver and peripherals).
AGREED. Like cell phones, etc., but unlike speakers, headphones are a personal device which moves with your head.
Oh, and I don't particularly disagree with your coworkers ;-)
These devices and their users, as I understand it, are required to "accept any interference" from nearby devices.
Virtually every low-powered RF gadget I've ever bought--wireless telephones, wireless headphones, etc. have more or less worked when I bought them, then within a few years have gradually become more or less useless due to interference from similarly-equipped neighbors.
Doubtless the specs on this equipment will claim umpteen-bit DACs, 100 db signal-to-noise ratio, and 0.01% THD. And in practice the sound you get will be deliciously high-fidelity--in between the buzzes, the dropouts, and the blurps.
No doubt the marketplace's response will be to sell us higher and higher-powered versions of these devices... instead of bragging about their 200-watt amplifiers, people will brag about their 200-milliwatt Bluetooth repeaters.
And when the teenage kids drive by the house in their tricked-out cars, you'll be able to enjoy a brief sampling of their music taste in the comfort of your own living room.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I think it's a good idea. If you try to compare wireless speakers to something like a wireless mouse, you're missing the point. A speaker sits stationary, a mouse does not, and a power cord running to the speaker is no big deal. However, the current run of computer speaker setups are so completely covered with wires that I find it rediculous. I'd like wireless speakers for more than just my computer, though.
In my 14' x 20' living room I will have to run speaker wire under the house and through the attic to get 5.1 audio in that room. If there was a high quality wireless alternative I could simply plug big speakers into the wall for power and let their signal come through the air. Bluetooth anyone?
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
I definately agree that apps not having individual volume settings is a pain. Currently my primary beef is with instant messaging programs (GAIM/MSN) that have annoyingly loud sounds when I have my volume upped for maximum music enjoyment. I got around that but setting customized "message" etc sounds with a lower-volume less-irritating noise, but still it would be a nice feature.
But that's sidetracked. XMMS does allow you to set the volume within the app if you use ALSA.
Preferences-->Output Plugin-->Configure-->Use software volume control
I think that perhaps this takes more CPU, but I doubt that on newer PC's this is going to be anything in any way signficant.
hahaha:)
Q: how many Gn'R fans does it take to replace a lightbulb?
A: none, they all sit in the dark hoping it'll fix itself. and when it does, it will shine brighter than ever!
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Slightly.
If you recorded audio in your home and you kept the workstation in a separate room from where you play your instrunment, this would help with the monitor headphones.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
no i'm not going to move my 7.1 speakers often so i can take "advatage" of wireless freedom. it took me a while to set them up so there is no reason that they need to be wireless. wires will ALWAYS be more robust.
however wireless headphones may be ok.
just get me DTS realtime encoding! let's make use of current technology.
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
These are essentially what you're talking about. The reason it's not well known is that the resulting sensation is primarily useful for understanding speech. You wouldn't put these in for a more direct input of Beethoven's Ninth.
In many ways the eyes are actually simpler to deal with because the information coming in isn't mechanically transformed... light is focused on the retina, nerves light up, and bing.
In the ear sound waves bounce off all the crenellations of the external cartilage, phase shifting slightly forward or backward to provide spatial information. Different cilia respond to different sound frequncies... the nature of input that the ears are processing is less obvious and less uniform between people.
It's also harder to ask people to calibrate an audio implant. With the visual implants you're talking about they can say "is the second spot above or below the first? now where is it? Tell me when they merge." The patient actually does the calibration. With sound so many of the aspects are hard to describe and quantify even for a trained musician.
Check out Apple's AirTunes, I'm almost positive it can already do that (multiple speaker outputs).
The thing about my home computer is, it always stays in the same place. I really have no objection to the CPU being tethered to the power outlet, and the keyboard and mouse and monitors and cable modem and home theater receiver to the CPU, and the coaxial cable to the cable modem, and six speakers to the receiver, because they never move. All the components stay in the same place in relation to each other and to everything else.
The big new wave in PC audio should be to revitalize the programmable music synthesizers that died ten years ago. Let's start with open-source virtual MiniMoogs and ARP Odyssey clones that use GigaHertz PC CPU speeds to make instruments that sound as good as the originals.
Then let's make some serious musical instruments like additive synths like K5 clones along with real exciting and inexpensive controllers that plug into USB and legacy slots.
It's a shame that MIDI equipment never 'took off' in a big way in music equipment sales in the early 1990s. I believe that could have revitalized the retail music store business.
But all the MIDI items offered for sale in that initial market window were completely underdocumented, poorly implememented, terribly supported, and overpriced.
The big manufacturers (Roland, Yamaha, Kawai, and Korg) should have pooled together to offer a $10 MIDI interface for the PC and given away voice editor and sequencer software (including source code) for every model that they offered.
That would have been tough on all the little software companies selling $150 voice editors for synths that sold a total of 5000 units worldwide, but it would have energized the market for synths and tone modules to the level of guitars and amps.
Today all the $100 voice editor companies are gone and the advanced $1600 synths of 1990 are sold on eBay for $50-$200. The only software still available for them is Atari ST programs run on the PC through an emulator (the STeem emulator).
The rare MIDI auxiliary device (such as controller pedals or switcher) gets sold at an undervalued price due to the uncertainity of whether it can still be used.
If I had an extra million dollars and an extra twenty IQ points then I would make a serious attempt to revitalize the MIDI industry with open-source programs and equipment selling at 1/20th the cost that it did when the first MIDI wave ended ten years ago. The fact that the music equipment industry is still run by nitwits like Roland (who are still fighting attempts to open-source the MT-32 which was obsolete 15!! years ago) just fills me with despair.
Teeny-tiny fuel cells
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
More control panels in audio drivers is the future!!!
And tunes! Forget transistors, where's my tube-powered soundblaster?
I have a generic Taiwanese USB Bluetooth adapter on my PC that I use to transfer photos from my Phone to my PC.
It uses the Widcomm drivers.
I bought one of those Motorola HS810 bluetooth Wireless earpieces for uses with the phone.
Just as an experiment I was able to pair the earphone with the PC. I lost the ablity to use the soundcard on the PC but I was able to hear and record decient audio from the earpiece.
Worked great, but with there was an easier way to switch between the two, or have both work at the same time. Maybe more mixer channels.
I was able to use a VOIP app with the earpiece and walk about my house even better then a cordless phone. Total cost $20 for USB->BT and $100 for BT Earpiece.
I wish someone would come out with Bluetooth speakers, expecialy if I would be able to use them from multiple PC's.
As for someone else post about security in here I do believe there is type of security implemented when you Pair Bluetooth devices.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
much like a video card. all video cards give you a display without a driver. why cant audio do the same?
In general, they can. Your program just needs to talk to the sound card as if it were an 8-bit ISA Soundblaster card.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
"Current hardware is only really able to achieve an effective ~20bit resolution due to thermal noise in the components."
Do you mean all audio components, or just PC-based components?
If it's just a PC issue, how does that affect recording vs. playback?
-- Is resolution lost (at the permanent media) when I copy & store a sound-file or stream from the net?
-- If not, then is resolution lost during playback of the stored copy? Does it depend on the playback chain (i.e. PC vs. line-out to conventional audio equipment)?
-- Is resolution lost if I'm playing-back a sound-file or stream in real-time as it comes off the net? Does that case likewise depened on the playback chain?
-- Is resolution lost if use PC components to copy (or play-back) from commercially-recorded media? How about if I'm getting the signal into the PC from conventional audio equipment?
Wireless PC speakers sounds fun (they still need power) but what we really want is a generalized IP based speaker architecture for the whole house, so all speakers can be sent a digital stream from any audio source. The current wired PC speakers woudl actually be the easiest ones to first bring into this system.
I wrote up a description of ethernet speakers and the ideal home A/V setup some time ago mostly to talk about the broadcast flag's effect on the design, but it's still the right way to go.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
...or the future of cheap omnipresent mass-market audio?
/., it'll be just fine and it will get rid of two more annoying objects on your desk.
If the former, all this talk of wireless, 192KHz/32bit/etc could be corrent.
If the latter, forget it. The future of mass market audio is paired with the future of mass market displays - flat screen LCD monitors. They'll all have built in speakers and for everyone on the planet who doesn't read
I suppose you could look to getting wireless video and audio to your fancy new LCD w/speakers, but I think by the time that got hammered out, components will be so small that most people will migrate to iMac-style form factors.
My 0.02 CDN
for the guy having the buzzing problem, thats most likely due to electonic interference.. it can be resolved using a Ground Loop Isolator..
;)
BUT ANYWAY, I remember the days of my sweet ass SoundBlaster 8 bit isa card.. god what a beauty.. everyone was jealous.. of course, the software suite it came along with made it twice as cool..
anyone remember Dr. Sbaitso the e-pysciatrist? he rocked.. don't forget the mimicking Parrot, and some of those other cool sound recording programs for DOS.. being able to reverse my voice, or put an echo on it, made me jump for joy.. downloading MIDI files was also a fun past time of mine..
almost every comment of mine, is usually just me reminissing about the good ol' days..
I still use Creative sound cards.. the SB Live! is one of the best sound cards I've had. i will continue to use their products, because they never fail.. screw onboard chipsets..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
I'd pick the power cable that needs to have wire run to a plug on the same wall over a speaker cable that needs to be run all the way around the room.
That's a valid point, but having self-powered speakers with a wireless audio connection means that now each speaker has to have its own power source and amp. So you've have to have some sort of nasty "wall wart" at the electical outlet, or incorporate a amplifier in the speaker enclosure itself.
To me, that definitely feels like something that would really add inefficiency and complexity in a lot of respects.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
I can plug just about any PCI/AGP video card into any PC with a standard VGA monitor with any Windows OS all the way back to Windows 95 or all the way back to linux kernel 2.0 distros and at least get a 640x480 16 color screen with minimal to no work. Can the same be said of audio cards? On windows, perhaps. On linux? Hell no!
The future of PC audio should be a foundational move to provide a minimum driver model for default performance of at least one tone.
Speak truth to power.
I see a lot of posts already saying "you still need a power cable, so they technically aren't wireless". You can transmit electricity through the air. The problem becomes RF radiation. I have worked with multiple sytems that are capable of 10-2000 watts of power over the air. Some of them are even capable of knocking remotely powered unmanned hobby planes out of the air and frying the circuits.
The bandwidth is plenty, the technology is there, but I really dont want to wear a lead jacket around so my speakrs can be wireless.
Stop signs are only Suggestions
I don't think you have ever heard the Klipsch Promedia computer sound system. It cost me $250, I think a loss leader for that company. And now I think they even have a better system for sale for computers. These systems are just scaled down versions of their incredible home theater additions. The sound is awesome. Mp3s can truly be distinguished from CD's. I need to go to the Klipsch site and check out the new model.
I've heard Klipsch's computer models, and I find them too heavy on treble and bass, and lacking in midrange. They just sound annoying to me.
You could just plug them into wall outlets and have the signal carried over the power or wireless.
Would certainly be nice not to have to be connected to my electronic drumkit by wires. I can already get these for a price but it would be fantastic if they were mainstream. Can't see how it would work with current tech. in a crowded environment (eg. train) though. Maybe someone here who knows more could tell me if this is something that's been tackled. I've not looked into this in any depth.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
> Admittedly, not too much open-source in that field.
You've got to be joking! I've been doing software synthesis for a least a decade with Csound, long before VST. VST plug-ins are a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the rich history of software synthesis. For more information about the field, I'd suggest The Computer Music Tutorial by Curtis Roads.
Look at Linux MIDI & Sound page and tell me there aren't "much" open source soft synths. Besides Csound, pd and jMax might be worth investigating.
That's a good point as well, I didn't think of the amplifier. I can see this type of speaker being more useful for rear speakers which don't carry the same workload as the front speakers and subwoofer would, so a smallish amp would be fine.
Rather than having each rear speaker have its own power cord, you could have a small mini-amp that receives the signal and sends it to the two speakers via regular speaker wire. Something like that could probably be small enough to be tucked behind or under a sofa and would still save the hassle of trying to route and hide wire around a room.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
It sounds like an advance at first, but once you think about it, it is worse than the current stuff for the average person.
The average user, for instance can't tell the difference between 16 and 24 bits with average headphones or speakers at 44kHz. For the average user, upping this to 24 with 32 for mixing is not an advance but a regression into slower downloads. And then what? 192KHz sample rate? This is not 192kpbs total data rate as in your MP3 but 192KHz per data word. Sure, they just unilaterally multiply the size of "standard" sound files by 8, and hope no one will notice.
Is this a plot to smash razor-thin ISP profit margins? To force people to upgrade to broadband just to be able to do the same stuff? Or is this so that every song can include a unique signature inside it to trace copies back to the source? I would prefer if the next advance were simply stable drivers...
Speaking of which, the article mentions:
Doesn't surprise me. There is a lot of tightness going on. And it wouldn't surprise me either if the design will evolve into something DRM compliant.
I wonder if it was deliberately named MUAA (i.e. MU-HA-hA-AA) by some secretly sympathetic, clueful MS insiders? Very appropriate.
Article continues:
Naturally, this would coincidentally also prevent an encrypted data stream from being intercepted. For this to work, the entire stream must flow inside the motherboard chipset, be decrypted away from prying eyes and never go to an external interface until it is actually decoded.
I don't know who is going to pay to lock themselves into DRM drivers and bloated audio standards, but it's not going to be me.
I could definitely see myself going for something like that for rear satellite speakers. :)
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
not true otherwise every single soundcard would show up working in windows with 8bitsound.
most soundcards are bizzare compared to every other soundcard.
I should have a generic soundcard.dll or soundcard.o driver that will work with ANY soundcard at the basic level. then load the specific driver for the added features.
At least the last time I checked, most soundcards were still "Soundblaster compatible" with respect to old MS-DOS games. Since the original Soundblaster predated plug-and-play by quite a bit, Windows doesn't autodetect the compatibility layer.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
...but what I've found is that nothing beats a simple set of active monitors. There's something about the way it sounds when you're dedicating an amplifier PER DRIVER. ^_^
Plus nowadays you can get all-digital active monitors which makes wireless a possibility, and cabling an non-issue. Either that or just run balanced line-level; the possibility of interference or degradation there is practically nil.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
It already exists.
What's neat is that you don't use a PCI card, but you'll hook your "sound card" via USB. This means you can isolate it from your computer and avoid some noise if there's D/A conversion going on it there.
Now, some companies add extra features to said devices that make it so you need to use their drivers. But unless the unit is completely non-standard, it'll still work fine using the standard USB-audio drivers too (minus an advertised feature or two).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That the D/A conversion is done around so much EM noise, and that the analog outs are essentially unshielded and run through pathetic little wires. I'm not an audiophile, but even I recoil at the insult in the suggestion that you can get good sound out of a little 3mm analog plug in a computer. I don't care how good the chips are. You're asking for a miracle! The solution is to have a unified digital-in/out audio interface, where the D/A and A/D converters are in a fully shielded break-out box that communicates digitally with the computer. Then you can use some decent cable to connect the box to the amplifier. What I'm describing doesn't have to be anything like expensive, maybe $10 more than a PCI soundcard for the extra materials. But it would make more than a $10 difference in sound you can count on that! I know they have these things for enthusiasts, but I don't see why they couldn't be made cheap and accessible to all.
It's only like a 6MHz-wide band (just above a 6Mbps datarate). Figure you use TDMA to allow for multiple channel pairs (say up to 5). Then you're looking at 30MHz. You could probably shove that somewhere in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz unregulated ranges easy.
What's nice is that it can carry it's own timecode.
Just build speakers that have nice DAC/amps, and off you go. Place em', plug 'em in, set the "speaker ID", and enjoy.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Multiply by 2 to get the rate up to 96khz. It's already stereo at 24-bit, so multiply by 3 to get 6 channels.
6 * 6 = 36mbps. Hmmmm... I recall that 802.11g is 54mbps. 36 mbps works for me reliably from opposite ends of the house.
I think you could swing that easily when you are transmitting with line of sight, modulated in the regulated 5Ghz range.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
The Klipschs are nice, but tacky. And the sub is a bit sloppy. Also, it crosses over to the sub @140, which is too high.
:-) I'd pay $1500 for a similar set up that was designed for a larger room, but the Media Desk does just fine if you place the couch and the speakers intelligently.
The MediaDesk crosses at less than 110, which brings it safely into the non-directional part of human hearing.
It's probably the best $1000 you'll ever spend on audio equipment. It will make you want to throw your home stereo (if you have one) in the garbage.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
but the DSPs could just zero-extend to 32 bits, process, then normalize.
Or even do the DSP math in 64-bit FP...
There's no reason for the INFRASTRUCTURE to need to support 32-bits. That's overkill.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
if the "wireless speakers" got their sound over the power lines and you were also runing broadband/network over them wouldn't that possibly cause interferance?
Get your torrents...
that is a slick idea, combined with power over ethernet. one wire to the unit. i'd love to see more things have one wire only, the spider web effect sucks, i'd like to see more of a hub and spoke for stuff. Of course the PC would need to be the center. And of course all this is just random dreaming.
Linux Works
I got tall candlesticks, lathed out mounts for the rear speakers on the tops, and placed those mounts where candles would go. Perfect level, and it looks good too.
Not a sentence!
... seems to be the first step ...
It's an artifact of the Klipsch 'sound'; their speakers, from their pro stuff to their high end consumer to their computer systems all have a very particular character. Some people find it excessively brassy; this is mainly an artifact of using compression drivers and horns as opposed to the more typical dome tweeter setup. I'm personally not a huge fan of it, but some people really do like that sound.
As computer speakers go, Klipsch's are decent, if you like the character of their sound. I'd still recommend a good external amp and decent set of bookshelf speakers (M&K make some nice, not completely outrageously priced ones, or at a cheaper level I've done alright with a pair of JBL bookshelfs, or at a more expensive level I really do like JBL's LSR studio monitors).
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
As long as there wasn't a musically perceptible lag.
I agree!
I'm sitting in front of a late 70's Kenwood amp and some similarly aged 7 inch speakers. They're older than I am, yet they sound much better than most computer speakers I find at the houses of friends and family. They should sound decent, since they cost more than my entire computer in inflation adjusted dollars! Let's face it, regular amplifier and speaker technology hasn't really changed that much over the years.
I'm sure at the higher end of PC sound systems, things are different, but in the low and medium ranges, old fashioned amps and speakers work just fine.
FWIW, my amp does double duty as a good monitor stand. Plus, I like having a real metal case rather than more plastic on my desk.
For an entertainment PC the rear speakers need to be connected somehow. Cables across the living room have a very low Wife Acceptance Factor. You can probably find power outlets on that side of the room, though.
This way you can install an entertainment PC as a suprize guerilla warfare move without cable infrastructure that requires advance negotiations.
I used to work in the PC audio industry. About 6 years ago and we worked on wireless speakers. It was probably a bit premature, though.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
I've got the speakers now...not a Mc. amp...but, is a very nice SET tube amp by Decware. To me, horn loaded speakers with a great tube amp is the perfect sound system. But, YMMV...just more personal tastes I guess...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A full horn design sounds ambitious! Where can I go to listen to a pair? (I live in Nothern VA)
From what I've auditioned, I think I like when they combine technologies: multiple long-throw woofers mated with a horn tweeter provide detail and directionality where it's important.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
While you have every right in the world to see things that way (though this is a very fuzzy statement), lets put this in the context of todays professional music production environments. I have a lot of respect for Csound & Co., but I have yet to see these and related technologies in professional studios. There is some interesting avantgarde work based on Max & Co., there are people like Monolake who have turned their homegrown software into a solid business (Ableton Live), but when you are simply looking for reliable, usable sound generators and effects, VST owns.
BTW, I am doing a lot of work for a digital audio hardware and software company (not Steinberg), and they are moving more and more of their products from hardware to software. VST is the way to go if want/need compatibility to professional audio software. So much about the "drop in the bucket".
8 * 96000 * 24 = 18,432,000 bits per second
Encoding this on a carrier would require at least 37 MHz of bandwidth (see nyquist et al), and then we're not accounting for error information or ways of dealing with interference (i.e. "perfect" transmission and reception)
A bit more spectrum, and my god man, the cost of this equipment will be rediculous for sending sound the 5 feet a wire could stretch!
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.