Is "Because We Can" the Next Tech Trend?

[Anderton]

At Frankfurt, there seemed to be quite a bit of it...like companies touting their ability to do 192 kHz. And of course to do that, you really need to have Thunderbolr or USB 3.0...or Thunderbolt 2, even.

 

Now, if you're a pro studio committed to 192 kHz, then of course you're going to be happy Thunderbolt exists, even if the cables are active and cost $50 or whatever. But I can't help but feel for most people, USB 2 and 48 or 96 kHz work just fine, thank you. While I don't deny there's a market for USB 3 devices, I can't help but wonder if eventually, companies all do USB 3 and 192 kHz "because everyone does it" and then people fall in line, getting more storage, faster computers...

 

Then there's the Apple watch, because we can fit computer/tablet-type functionality on your wrist so you can...well, not have to pull a phone out of your pocket to answer the phone. I realize the watch can do more than that, but jeez, it's expensive and I already have a phone!

 

As you've probably figured out, I love technology but I keep wondering about technology that's a solution in search of a problem. Granted, maybe most of the tech problems have been taken care of so we need new problems but I think user interface and workflow are bigger barriers to digital gear than, say, a lack of Thunderbolt.

[blue2blue]

I think we need to start picking our battles. Let's put our efforts where they can do some good. I'm all for progress -- when we can demonstrate benefits. Let's continue to research promising developments -- but let's use common sense.

 

And let's not let the 'natural' desire for market churn on the part of marketing professionals lead us down too many more garden paths.

 

No one seems to be able to demonstrate any benefit to 192 kHz transcription. (There are some folks who maintain that some of their favorite plugins work better at higher sample rates; cynics -- including some plugin designers -- maintain that if such plugins had proper anti-alias filtering in the first place, one wouldn't need to run them at double or quad rates to avoid aliasing. Many of these folks track at unitary rates, 44.1 or 48, or sometimes 96, and then upsample for mixing.)

 

Even 96 kHz sampling rates are a stretch to justify -- the primary justification seems to be that while 44.1 kHz /16 bit is an adequate container for finished content that it's 'cutting things kind of close.' But, of course, we've seen various exposes and investigations that have revealed that a surprising amount of content that was sold as 'high definition' was actually just 44.1kHz/16, sometimes remastered to give it a slightly different sonic footprint, much as many of the vinyl records being made today were mastered with a 44.1kHz/16 lookahead instead of using custom all-analog lookahead decks (with a tape path about 4-1/2 feet longer than standard for the lookahead circuits used for dynamic groove spacing).

 

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

Technology is great when it can solve existing problems or when it can help us in significant ways - even if we didn't realize those things could be done faster or more efficiently before its introduction. It's great when it allows us to do things better, but I'm really not interested in technology for technology's sake. If it isn't solving a problem or making something better in a way that matters, what's the point?

[bieke]

I just bought an old record player

[blue2blue]

I just bought an old record player

 

Because you could.

[WRGKMC]

We have the technology. We just lack the vision to use it.

 

This is a common thing in electronics. One company comes up with some technology which is good, but they don't know how to use its full potential. I came across when I took my first job in digital electronics working for a company named Monroe. The company invented the modern calculator and had all kinds of calculators that were designed do specific jobs much like computers are use specific software to do those same jobs today.

 

They were one of the first to get into the PC market and did get some market share in government and education. Eventually that saw they couldn't compete with IBM and others and just pulled the plug on their computer products. In the process they sold off MS dos to a guy named Bill Gates, and you already know that wound up making him a milti-billionaire because it made the windows system possible.

 

That's often the way with all technology. Someone along the way will take what we have now and use it in a completely different and ingenious way no one ever though of and make a mint in the process. The reason I think this kind of innovation has slowed to a crawl is for a few reasons.

 

1. Companies have cut way back on R&D for economic reasons. too many people are afraid of taking big losses on risky ventures so they are sticking to things they know might sell.

 

2. Companies aren't being inventive in filling technology needs. I can think of dozens of items that can fill useful purposes, but right now, I don't see people letting go of there cash to buy those products. People are just as afraid as the companies are to spend money and this all traces back to a stagnant economy and a government working against business. Gibson is a classic example, but all feel the wind against them.

 

3. Sometimes the technology has to be put on a back burner for awhile till some other technology comes along that is an essential match that makes it work. Xerox was an example. They were the inventers of the touch screen and it was out many decades before it became as widespread as it is today. The idea was great and it was used in some limited methods (think of the computers in that movie Andromeda Strain)

By the 80's people were afraid to get close to their CRT monitors because of X Ray emissions. Along came inexpensive touch screen technology and the touch screen thing took off and made billions. Xerox knew it would be a big hit. That's why they sat of the patents for decades and prevented others from using it for so long.

 

 

Maybe there's some market for a Dick Tracy watch, I don't know. I see it as a comical effort to develop a stupid product which isn't even original. They are able to sell it because of their name but that doesn't mean its a useful product. I believe this Etzel will be the dud that hurts their company more then help it. If the technology isn't rock solid, they will be plagued with lost revenue in so many ways. Tech support departments will be loaded with idiots who cant get it to work properly and one good bang and it dead which means they will have a steady flow of products coming back that cannot be repaired, only replaced. Anyone who doesn't have an extended warrantee will likely get burned badly.

 

They are taking orders for it before they can even properly manufacturer the displays. Last I read they may get one out of 100 that work properly off the assembly line and have no idea how they can make the displays more efficiently to meet demands. The people are placing orders on something that's likely to fail and they have no clue how useful it can be. They likely expect it to work as well as their phones do and this is by no means a phone.

 

They should have kept it under wraps till they had sufficient and reliable quantities on hand and had all the kinks in production worked out. . Instead they started building hype way too soon and will likely wind up cutting corners to meet initial demands.

 

[MikeRivers]

At Frankfurt' date=' there seemed to be quite a bit of it...like companies touting their ability to do 192 kHz. And of course to do that, you really need to have Thunderbolr or USB 3.0...or Thunderbolt 2, even.[/quote']

 

Not necessarily, You may need that data transfer speed to get 48 simultaneous tracks from A/D converter to the computer (have you done the math?) but how many people have that many channels of A/D conversion, even that many microphones, that work at a quality that's up to taking advantage of even half that sample rate? The "need" for Thunderbolt or USB3 speed is limited to a small handful of users.

 

People who regularly work at 4x sample rate do so because people who are paying them ask for it. Why do they ask for it? Well, because it must be better than 1x or 2x sample rate. But the customer is always right. A lot of people use Pro Tools because it's expected. There isn't anything other than saying "I have Pro Tools" that they couldn't do with Reaper or Studio One, or, depending on their projects, even Audacity.

 

I can't help but feel for most people, USB 2 and 48 or 96 kHz work just fine, thank you. While I don't deny there's a market for USB 3 devices, I can't help but wonder if eventually, companies all do USB 3 and 192 kHz "because everyone does it" and then people fall in line, getting more storage, faster computers...

 

Yup, and when are we going to start running into limits of storage speed? And why aren't more people in the audio business talking about using the Ethernet port that's on just about every computer? A gigabit card costs about ten bucks. The problem here is establishing a standard protocol for Ethernet components to talk to the audio gear. Either the industry needs to decide on a single standard (when have they ever done that?) or compatibility needs to be built in. By the way, AVB and Dante are still not looking at sample rates higher than 96 kHz. They haven't yet been overrun by "faster must be better."

 

The advantage of Thunderbolt and USB3 aren't to us bottom feeding or even the champagne sipping audio engineers, it's to the computer manufacturers. They can cut one hole in the cabinet, put one connector in it, and say "OK, folks, you can now connect your keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, and, oh yeah, your audio interface to it. No need for all those nasty cables coming into the box from every direction. . . . oh, but you need to buy another box that will have all those cables coming into it from every direction. But the computer can cost less, and that's what most users look at first.

 

Granted, maybe most of the tech problems have been taken care of so we need new problems but I think user interface and workflow are bigger barriers to digital gear than, say, a lack of Thunderbolt.

 

Right. And I'm seeing more products that are getting the workstation out of the back pocket and out on to a desk again. Big multi-touch screens, hardware controllers, things that get us working in the studio like players and not IT specialists.

 

By the way, did you get a look at what was under the black cloth at the PreSonus booth? I assume it was their new smart desktop DAW and "black box mixer" control surface.

[Dendy Jarrett]

I am reminded of the day MTV launched. "Video killed the radio star" was the first video, and everyone though it would be the demise of radio and audio only music. Now look at MTV. When is the last time you saw a music video?

 

Crazy.

 

Will there be another song: Technology killed the musician?

 

D

[1001gear]

At Frankfurt, there seemed to be quite a bit of it...like companies touting their ability to do 192 kHz. And of course to do that, you really need to have Thunderbolr or USB 3.0...or Thunderbolt 2, even.

 

Now, if you're a pro studio committed to 192 kHz, then of course you're going to be happy Thunderbolt exists, even if the cables are active and cost $50 or whatever. But I can't help but feel for most people, USB 2 and 48 or 96 kHz work just fine, thank you. While I don't deny there's a market for USB 3 devices, I can't help but wonder if eventually, companies all do USB 3 and 192 kHz "because everyone does it" and then people fall in line, getting more storage, faster computers...

 

Then there's the Apple watch, because we can fit computer/tablet-type functionality on your wrist so you can...well, not have to pull a phone out of your pocket to answer the phone. I realize the watch can do more than that, but jeez, it's expensive and I already have a phone!

 

As you've probably figured out, I love technology but I keep wondering about technology that's a solution in search of a problem. Granted, maybe most of the tech problems have been taken care of so we need new problems but I think user interface and workflow are bigger barriers to digital gear than, say, a lack of Thunderbolt.

 

May I refer you to the Borg from Star Trek. Tech or whatever's behind it may have its own motives.

[Jasaoke]

I don't computer much, but it seems to me that the folks who do most of the developement are out of touch with end-users. So the people making the stuff are not the people who use it, so it doesn't develope appropriately. They pack it full of features "because we can", and it just gets out of control. Why do we need software manuals and tutorials? Shouldn't this stuff just work? You don't need a manual for a hammer or baseball bat, you just pick it up and go.

 

The real question isn't "can we?" but "should we?".

[1001gear]

My take on that is - and besides they wouldn't GAF, is tech is about tech not people. They've managed over the last millennia to phase out the whips and chains and get the denizens going about their business building the machine. Busy, busy, busy... Used to be shackles and an oar, now it's Windows - food's a LOT better, who's gonna notice?

[philboking]

I did find an excellent use for 176K. I was given a tape-transcription job (a box full of reels from live shows) that were recorded at slow speeds (3 3/4 ips, if I recall right). My old Teac 3340s transport doesn't run that slow; it goes 15 or 30 ips. So, after baking the tapes, I recorded them into my PC at 15 ips using 176k, then loaded them into CoolEdit, changed the sample rate to 44.1K, split tracks 1 & 3 to a stereo track, 2 & 4 to another stereo track, reversed the 2&4 track, and saved them off to disc. It worked beautifully... Happy client, plus it cut the time to run the transport by a factor of 8.

 

Found a treasure in there too: a great live show by Phil Keaggy.

[MikeRivers]

Did it matter that when running at 4x speed, 10 kHz on the tape would be 40 kHz at the tape head, and the TEAC's high frequency response probably peters out at about 28 kHz. If the lack of highs on the digital copies didn't matter, then no worries, but high speed tape duplicators had special heads, electronics, and equalization to compensate for the extended high frequencies.

[blue2blue]

I did find an excellent use for 176K. I was given a tape-transcription job (a box full of reels from live shows) that were recorded at slow speeds (3 3/4 ips, if I recall right). My old Teac 3340s transport doesn't run that slow; it goes 15 or 30 ips. So, after baking the tapes, I recorded them into my PC at 15 ips using 176k, then loaded them into CoolEdit, changed the sample rate to 44.1K, split tracks 1 & 3 to a stereo track, 2 & 4 to another stereo track, reversed the 2&4 track, and saved them off to disc. It worked beautifully... Happy client, plus it cut the time to run the transport by a factor of 8.

 

Found a treasure in there too: a great live show by Phil Keaggy.

 

Are you sure that 3340s doesn't run 7.5 and 15 ips? I've never seen one that does 30.

[philboking]

Mike

Yeah, the high end was a bit lacking; though it wasn't too noticeable since live shows are typically lacking in decent freq range anyway. Especially those from the '70s.

 

Blue

You are probably right; my memory isn't what it used to be.

 

[Beck]

 

As you've probably figured out, I love technology but I keep wondering about technology that's a solution in search of a problem. Granted, maybe most of the tech problems have been taken care of so we need new problems but I think user interface and workflow are bigger barriers to digital gear than, say, a lack of Thunderbolt.

 

That's what I say!

 

 

Unfortunately, historically the hype has had the upper hand since the start of the so-called, "Digital Revolution." I don't see that changing. The industry has been selling solutions to non-existent problems for decades. People blindly eat it up. Not everyone, but you can count on the unwashed masses to adopt cutting edge technology before most anyone else. As counterintuitive as that may sound it is the gullible and naive that force unwanted and unnecessary change on the rest of us in many cases.

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Is that always the case, though? The "unwashed masses" didn't embrace digital cassettes, mini-discs, or other things.

 

Sometimes en masse the public can be really foolish. And sometimes maybe not so much.

 

And much of adopting cutting edge technology is due to it being foisted upon us, with software incompatibility, forced upgrades, etc. I "freeze" a lot of my technology, running older computers, OS, and software so that it's all compatible and runs efficiently, but not everyone wants to or can do that.

 

But with these upgrades comes this greater "need" for faster this, greater throughput that, etc. so it becomes this endless upgrade cycle.

 

So bringing this back to the Apple Watch or similar devices that Craig mentioned in the OP, it'll be interesting to see if the public adopts a very expensive "wearable" (which have not been embraced wholeheartedly so far), which I understand is being pitched largely as a cool fashion item as much as anything else.

 

Now, I nailed the iPad's popularity. Prior to its release, it was uniformly ridiculed here on SSS and among almost all my friends. I kept mentioning, "Actually, that sounds pretty great." And they and other tablets taken off. But that's because I felt it filled a void...something very portable and light that does lots of things and is easy to use and useful.

 

The Apple Watch? Not so much. If you have to still have an iPhone to use it AND it still costs about US$700-800, it negates much of its perceived usefulness. It doesn't seem like it does a lot that people will find appealing or useful, and if it's largely as a fashion accessory, than sales will be pretty strong at first among the people who line up for this kind of thing, but with a huge fall-off after the initial clamor.

 

But projecting into the future, if the Apple Watch does not ultimately fly, even if it's not a popular item, it might be a sort of "gateway" to "wearables" later, where Apple or Samsung or someone comes along later and tweaks it so that it DOES become more useful, so maybe it no longer needs another smartphone to work, or who knows what. So even if there is a dismal crash and burn, something that we ridicule and say, "Wow, what a failure" may lead to something useful later.

[Anderton]

The Apple Watch? Not so much. If you have to still have an iPhone to use it AND it still costs about US$700-800, it negates much of its perceived usefulness. It doesn't seem like it does a lot that people will find appealing or useful, and if it's largely as a fashion accessory, than sales will be pretty strong at first among the people who line up for this kind of thing, but with a huge fall-off after the initial clamor.

 

I'm not seeing a lot of love for the Apple watch. That could change...

 

But projecting into the future, if the Apple Watch does not ultimately fly, even if it's not a popular item, it might be a sort of "gateway" to "wearables" later, where Apple or Samsung or someone comes along later and tweaks it so that it DOES become more useful, so maybe it no longer needs another smartphone to work, or who knows what. So even if there is a dismal crash and burn, something that we ridicule and say, "Wow, what a failure" may lead to something useful later.

 

I think that's probably the case. The difference here is that usually some other company comes up with something first, it doesn't do well, then Apple streamlines the idea and makes it work. This time Apple may need to streamline its own product.

 

I think wearables have potential but I'm at the point where I don't want to be pinged all the time. There needs to be space and quiet time in our lives. I'm about to take a walk to the supermarket and buy some food for tonight, and I'll take my Creative Labs Zen player (circa 2003 - but it refuses to die) and listen to music. I don't want to get a text message or find out someone mentioned me on Facebook during that time.

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

Technology is great when it can solve existing problems or when it can help us in significant ways - even if we didn't realize those things could be done faster or more efficiently before its introduction. It's great when it allows us to do things better' date=' but I'm really not interested in technology for technology's sake. If it isn't solving a problem or making something better in a way that matters, what's the point?[/quote']

 

I think a lot of it is transitional. We may not really need those Apple Watches, and if we don't, you won't see anybody with them in 5-10 years. But they'll probably just be a step on the way to something that really does make things better.

 

"Because It's There" isn't enough of a reason for most of us to climb a mountain. But if SOMEONE doesn't feel that way, then no one will likely ever build that really cool restaurant and zip line at the top that the rest of us WILL want to visit someday!

[thankyou]

I can see some utility in a watch-type screen mounted inside my left wrist, displaying rolling lyrics and changes for songs. I could keep track of two things at once.

[thankyou]

Oh, and I haven't worn a watch since cell phones displayed time. I just don't like jewelry and stuff on my body. Part of this aversion came from climbing utility poles. We saw quite a few safety videos about working around ten plus thousands of volts. We weren't prohibited wearing rings or watches, but it made sense to me. That, plus if you were to fall and your ring caught on something, its a good chance you wouldn't have that finger in working condition ever again.

[RoadRanger]

Are you sure that 3340s doesn't run 7.5 and 15 ips? I've never seen one that does 30.

http://www.fluxed.net/docs/TEAC_A3340_user.pdf

I had both of those at different times. The big reel version did 7-1/2 and 15, the normal reel version did 3-3/4 and 7-1/2 . I think my 1/2" 8 track was the same 7-1/2 and 15 ips?

[Vito Corleone]

I was one of those guys who laughed at the idea of an iPad. I thought, "I've already got a laptop and an iPhone, what the hell would I do just as well or better with an expensive iPad that I can't do already with one of those other devices? Plus, the name sounds like a feminine hygiene product...."

 

 

 

...wanna guess what I'm posting on right now?

 

 

 

 

[RoadRanger]

...wanna guess what I'm posting on right now?

Your TamPad ?

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I think that's probably the case. The difference here is that usually some other company comes up with something first, it doesn't do well, then Apple streamlines the idea and makes it work. This time Apple may need to streamline its own product.

 

True. We saw that a bit with the iPod, where it was pretty good, but I think had battery issues. But IIRC, it was still a really big hit out of the gate. I'm not sure that's going to be the case with the Apple Watch after the first week.

 

I think wearables have potential but I'm at the point where I don't want to be pinged all the time. There needs to be space and quiet time in our lives. I'm about to take a walk to the supermarket and buy some food for tonight, and I'll take my Creative Labs Zen player (circa 2003 - but it refuses to die) and listen to music. I don't want to get a text message or find out someone mentioned me on Facebook during that time.

 

 

I'm at that case right now. I shut my phone off. I don't look at it until it's my break or it's convenient for me.

 

See, that's the word. Convenience.

 

Not someone else's convenience. MY convenience.

 

At dinner, it's not on the table. It's in my pocket.

At work, it's not on the desk. It's in my pocket.

At home, it's not on the desk. It's in....actually, it's by the front door, far away.

When I go to sleep, it's not next to me. It's by the front door, far away, and often turned off.