While it is difficult for faculty at many institutions to find funding to attend conferences, it is possible that funding possibilities exist for students at your institution. Be sure to exhaust all university travel grants before you spend any of your own money. If there isn't an official program, ask your department for funding directly.
It might be an interesting time to explore algorithmic art. There are many authoring environments such as Processing which have a rich array of methods to create using algorithmic techniques. Your friend could perhaps learn a chording keyboard with the other hand, or simply use a QWERTY keyboard one handed to work in such an authoring environment.
Kim mentions the use of free audio production software, such as Audacity, as substitutes for commercial offerings. While an Audacity user is more than welcome to dive into the code base and make needed improvements, not every user has the time and/or ability to do such. In my estimation, neither Audacity 1.3.7 nor Audacity 1.2.6 are stable enough to be considered "professional-quality" software. I am not trying to insult the developers and their abilities -- they have a complex project on their hands. But Audacity's graphical interface has serious and repeatable bugs; Audacity's sound export facilities reliably adds spurious noise to sound. I admire Kim's decision to use Ubuntu as an audio workstation, but I don't think Kim has been forthcoming about sacrifices in software quality that a user must make to do so. Kim can easily translate most audio programming done in Max/MSP (the commercial environment he has worked with extensively) to the public domain environment "pd" -- but as an experienced user of both systems there are more functionality loses than gains moving from the commercial Max/MSP/Jitter environment to pd (Pure Data).
If the cost of an Apple system and the higher cost of outfitting it with professional quality audio production and performance software are bankrupting a musician, then I can see the logic of using an Ubuntu system at this time. Otherwise, I still believe the adage "you get what you pay for" applies. However, I believe with effort from open source audio developers an Ubuntu audio workstation with both cost and quality advantages is more than possible. The bugs I am seeing in Audacity today remind me of the bugs I saw in the comparable commercial application "Peak" ten years ago.
You can target the iPod touch as well as the iPhone, and can develop on the iPod touch as well as the iPhone ($220 development platforms with no per-month cost).
Excluding, of course, the per-month AT&T contract.
Ummm, there isn't a contract for the iPod touch. You can pay $220 for the iPod touch and develop for the iPhone without any monthly contract as long as your application doesn't require carrier networking. One of two iPhones that I develop for is a 1st gen without a sim and without a contract. They sometimes can be picked up cheaply used at this point. It needs to be jailbroken, but Apple still lets me develop on it.
And apple takes only a 30% cut of revenue, in exchange for a nice distribution mechanism.
"Only" 30%? And they can pull the plug on your app any time they want.
All you've managed to do so far is to show that it could work, not why it's better than anything else.
And Apple has pulled how many plugs now out of close to ten thousand? I can count them on my hands. More than 5 less than 10. Of those pulled only 2 of them could be proudly shown to the developer's mother. And several of the pulled apps could be created in less than 1 hour of work.
The iPhone is a fantastic platform for networking development. It has several excellent network APIs available at its disposal. I went with BSD for my networking code -- byzantine but solid and extraordinarily well-documented. Windows Mobile as an alternative? I would not even ping.NET let alone touch it with a ten foot pole. I really don't think it is as appropriate a networking framework for the poster's application.
Sure Android is a good platform for network development too... but if you want to sell your work, have a more elegant, easier to code user interface environment, and hundreds of really fun apps to play with, I would go with the iPhone.
BTW, There is nothing more galvanizing for an iPhone developer than getting paid -- first checks (yes plural from several regions of our planet) came in today. =)
The musical instrument is played much like a theremin [...]
Clearly whoever wrote this has never seen, let alone played a theremin.
Actually I have built a Theremin from a kit. It worked when I was done soldering -- so I have both seen and played a Theremin if it matters to any one here besides the pedant trolls. I included a link to the theremin in my submission so without knowing anything about me you might have noticed that I at least knew what Leon Theremin and his instrument looked like.
The label Illegal Art is interesting in that they are an entirely independent electronica label which features artists who sample music without copyright clearance or permission. They are not only an non-RIAA label, much of the music is derived from (both perceptibly and imperceptibly) a host of RIAA artists.
http://illegalart.net/
Right but that's a matter of the anti-aliasing filter which is used before the actual sampling. The matter I am attempting to discuss is separate to any phase distortion introduced by an anti-alias filter used in the analog-to-digital recording process.
The fact that only 4 samples represent the period of a digital waveform whose frequency is 1/4 of the sample rate, and only 2 samples represent the period of a waveform at 1/2 the sample rate, is a clue to what we are talking about.
Signals with spectral content in the last octave of the sampling bandwidth suffer in particular from a complex filter effect which is a function of both frequency and phase of the recorded signal. Since the compact disk digital audio standard utilized a sampling rate (44.1 KHz) whose theoretical frequency bandwidth (0-22.05KHz) barely contains the range of human hearing, noticeable filtering occurs in music recorded using this format. Most pop music is effected as they tend to use some form of broadband percussion -- but the fact that very few people even claim to hear these filter artifacts indicates the cultural unimportance of the fidelity of such sounds.
It is a common misconception to believe that that a signal will be accurately represented in frequency up to the limits of the anti-aliasing filter utilized in the sampling process. Anti-aliasing filters cannot correct for the lack of phase resolution in the upper spectral limits of digital recording systems.
I'm not sure you completely understand how the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem works. It boils down to the fact that as long as you sample at a rate greater than double the maximum frequency you want to capture, you will get no aliasing. This means that if you sample at 44.1 kHz then all frequencies below 22.05 kHz will be represented accurately. If you sample a frequency just shy of 22.05 kHz you will NOT "get a slightly oscillating frequency somewhere around the original frequency". You are being pedantic here however. Yes he made a mistake by the statement, "you actually get a slightly oscillating frequency somewhere around the original frequency".
Yet the statement "it's impossible to represent anything other than a square wave at the nyquist frequency which is exactly 1/2 the sampling rate" is correct. He is trying to speak about the phase distortion inherhent to the sampling process -- while you can accurately represent the frequency of a signal close to the sample rate, its amplitude is subject to severe filtering effects as a function of the phase of the signal and its frequency.
This phase distortion effects the last octave of bandwidth digital sampled systems. In the case of cd quality 44.1KHz sampled digial audio, the phase distortion ravages the sound of common musical instruments: the most notable being cymbals which have rich high frequency spectra. If you have not noticed this effect, than either your listening experience and/or hearing are suspect.
To better understand the quality of the mp3 audio codec (MPEG-1 layer III), it is useful to comment upon the limitations of the digital audio format from which mp3s derive their data. Almost all commercially sold mp3s utilize cd-quality digital audio with a 44100 Hz (samples per second, or 44.1 KHz) sample rate. Those experienced with high quality analog media and who have high frequency listening experience understand that uncompressed digital audio with a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz simply cannot provide an accurate perceptual representation of many commonplace musical sounds, the most common example being cymbals.
Many argue, including myself, that the 44.1KHz sample rate established in the compact disk digital audio standard is far too low to accurately represent many musical sounds. While in theory, frequencies up to 22050 Hz can be represented by 44.1KHz sampled digital audio, they are not represented accurately. There is a phase distortion effect in any digital recording system which increases as a function of frequency. This phase distortion effect is particularly marked in the last octave of the frequency bandwidth, in this case 11.025KHz - 22.05KHz. At this time, professional audio equipment is readily available which can be used to digitally record audio signals at 192KHz providing far greater fidelity for rich, high frequency sounds such as cymbals.
mp3s can, at best, provide a convincing perceptual replica of the digital audio signal they represent, including all of its limitations.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is difficult for faculty at many institutions to find funding to attend conferences, it is possible that funding possibilities exist for students at your institution. Be sure to exhaust all university travel grants before you spend any of your own money. If there isn't an official program, ask your department for funding directly.
It might be an interesting time to explore algorithmic art. There are many authoring environments such as Processing which have a rich array of methods to create using algorithmic techniques. Your friend could perhaps learn a chording keyboard with the other hand, or simply use a QWERTY keyboard one handed to work in such an authoring environment.
Try Nipponbashi in Osaka. It is sometimes pronounced in Tokyo by native speakers as Nihonbashi.
And you can install Jack or Soundflower under Mac OS X's Core Audio as well.
Kim mentions the use of free audio production software, such as Audacity, as substitutes for commercial offerings. While an Audacity user is more than welcome to dive into the code base and make needed improvements, not every user has the time and/or ability to do such. In my estimation, neither Audacity 1.3.7 nor Audacity 1.2.6 are stable enough to be considered "professional-quality" software. I am not trying to insult the developers and their abilities -- they have a complex project on their hands. But Audacity's graphical interface has serious and repeatable bugs; Audacity's sound export facilities reliably adds spurious noise to sound. I admire Kim's decision to use Ubuntu as an audio workstation, but I don't think Kim has been forthcoming about sacrifices in software quality that a user must make to do so. Kim can easily translate most audio programming done in Max/MSP (the commercial environment he has worked with extensively) to the public domain environment "pd" -- but as an experienced user of both systems there are more functionality loses than gains moving from the commercial Max/MSP/Jitter environment to pd (Pure Data).
If the cost of an Apple system and the higher cost of outfitting it with professional quality audio production and performance software are bankrupting a musician, then I can see the logic of using an Ubuntu system at this time. Otherwise, I still believe the adage "you get what you pay for" applies. However, I believe with effort from open source audio developers an Ubuntu audio workstation with both cost and quality advantages is more than possible. The bugs I am seeing in Audacity today remind me of the bugs I saw in the comparable commercial application "Peak" ten years ago.
You're practically self-parodying here...
You can target the iPod touch as well as the iPhone, and can develop on the iPod touch as well as the iPhone ($220 development platforms with no per-month cost).
Excluding, of course, the per-month AT&T contract.
Ummm, there isn't a contract for the iPod touch. You can pay $220 for the iPod touch and develop for the iPhone without any monthly contract as long as your application doesn't require carrier networking. One of two iPhones that I develop for is a 1st gen without a sim and without a contract. They sometimes can be picked up cheaply used at this point. It needs to be jailbroken, but Apple still lets me develop on it.
And apple takes only a 30% cut of revenue, in exchange for a nice distribution mechanism.
"Only" 30%? And they can pull the plug on your app any time they want.
All you've managed to do so far is to show that it could work, not why it's better than anything else.
And Apple has pulled how many plugs now out of close to ten thousand? I can count them on my hands. More than 5 less than 10. Of those pulled only 2 of them could be proudly shown to the developer's mother. And several of the pulled apps could be created in less than 1 hour of work.
The iPhone is a fantastic platform for networking development. It has several excellent network APIs available at its disposal. I went with BSD for my networking code -- byzantine but solid and extraordinarily well-documented. Windows Mobile as an alternative? I would not even ping .NET let alone touch it with a ten foot pole. I really don't think it is as appropriate a networking framework for the poster's application.
Sure Android is a good platform for network development too... but if you want to sell your work, have a more elegant, easier to code user interface environment, and hundreds of really fun apps to play with, I would go with the iPhone.
BTW, There is nothing more galvanizing for an iPhone developer than getting paid -- first checks (yes plural from several regions of our planet) came in today. =)
Someone uploaded this recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDvoW68x9no
Clearly whoever wrote this has never seen, let alone played a theremin.
Actually I have built a Theremin from a kit. It worked when I was done soldering -- so I have both seen and played a Theremin if it matters to any one here besides the pedant trolls. I included a link to the theremin in my submission so without knowing anything about me you might have noticed that I at least knew what Leon Theremin and his instrument looked like.
The label Illegal Art is interesting in that they are an entirely independent electronica label which features artists who sample music without copyright clearance or permission. They are not only an non-RIAA label, much of the music is derived from (both perceptibly and imperceptibly) a host of RIAA artists. http://illegalart.net/
Signals with spectral content in the last octave of the sampling bandwidth suffer in particular from a complex filter effect which is a function of both frequency and phase of the recorded signal. Since the compact disk digital audio standard utilized a sampling rate (44.1 KHz) whose theoretical frequency bandwidth (0-22.05KHz) barely contains the range of human hearing, noticeable filtering occurs in music recorded using this format. Most pop music is effected as they tend to use some form of broadband percussion -- but the fact that very few people even claim to hear these filter artifacts indicates the cultural unimportance of the fidelity of such sounds.
It is a common misconception to believe that that a signal will be accurately represented in frequency up to the limits of the anti-aliasing filter utilized in the sampling process. Anti-aliasing filters cannot correct for the lack of phase resolution in the upper spectral limits of digital recording systems.
Yet the statement "it's impossible to represent anything other than a square wave at the nyquist frequency which is exactly 1/2 the sampling rate" is correct. He is trying to speak about the phase distortion inherhent to the sampling process -- while you can accurately represent the frequency of a signal close to the sample rate, its amplitude is subject to severe filtering effects as a function of the phase of the signal and its frequency.
This phase distortion effects the last octave of bandwidth digital sampled systems. In the case of cd quality 44.1KHz sampled digial audio, the phase distortion ravages the sound of common musical instruments: the most notable being cymbals which have rich high frequency spectra. If you have not noticed this effect, than either your listening experience and/or hearing are suspect.
Many argue, including myself, that the 44.1KHz sample rate established in the compact disk digital audio standard is far too low to accurately represent many musical sounds. While in theory, frequencies up to 22050 Hz can be represented by 44.1KHz sampled digital audio, they are not represented accurately. There is a phase distortion effect in any digital recording system which increases as a function of frequency. This phase distortion effect is particularly marked in the last octave of the frequency bandwidth, in this case 11.025KHz - 22.05KHz. At this time, professional audio equipment is readily available which can be used to digitally record audio signals at 192KHz providing far greater fidelity for rich, high frequency sounds such as cymbals.
mp3s can, at best, provide a convincing perceptual replica of the digital audio signal they represent, including all of its limitations.