On 1 Nov 2012, at 22:30, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
> Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >> >> Object Oriented programming was available 1978/1980. It wasn't used until >> NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with >> Java (which barely qualifies because for several iterations of the language >> it missed key elements of a real OOP language), and despite NeXT, and even >> despite OS X, OOP languages became only truly mainstream with later >> iterations of the Java language and with the success of iOS devices and the >> resulting surge in ObjC programming. (And even ppl now use OOP languages, a >> lot of the code written is bad, and thus doesn't count as OOP.) >> > >> It wasn't used until NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off >> unsuccessfully with Java > > > Even if I agree with some of your opinions, this is utter nonsense. > > - Java is a highly successful programing language, namely for Internet and > business applications. And all that happened MUCH AFTER NEXT. Remember, the WWW was invented on the NeXT, and it was invented only, because OOP gave TBL enough leverage to write a web server and client in reasonably short time. Java wasn't even conceived until well after the web had taken off. So it's very accurate to say that OOP hasn't taken off until after later iterations of the Java language, because the first few barely even qualified to be called OOP languages. > The VM model in a "C based" language was a major innovation, now copied by > JavaScript/ECMA Script etc. The VM model has NOTHING to do with OOP. > - C++ existed before NeXT. C++ is NOT an OOP language, it's a class-based language, but OOP requires dynamicism and run-time message lookup and binding, which C++ does not have. OOP also requires decent reflection, which Java only gained after several iterations of language revisions (and which is still somewhat clumsy). If you want to know what OOP is, you have to use the definition of the inventor of the concept, Alan Kay, and not the definition of the people who don't understand the concept and try to peddle their language as something it is not, because it happens to be a buzz-word at the time. In case you doubt me, you may want to read e.g. this here: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlanKaysDefinitionOfObjectOriented > > - Windows NT is partially based on C++. Therefore Microsoft was earlier in > the application of OOP languages then most other companies, including Apple > at this time. The choice of language doesn't imply the choice of a programming model, and again, C++ is not an OOPL. > - NeXT lended heavily on existing stuff, such as the MACH kernel and BSD Unix. So what? Just about everything that made the NeXT unique, aside from DPS, was OOP, in particular all the frameworks which are now in their revised versions called Cocoa, Cocoa-Touch, etc. MACH is an OS kernel, it has nothing to do with OOP and OOPL. > You are too sure of your theories, see above. You counter arguments go totally past the point, because they are about things I wasn't even talking about. >> Consumers will not ask for technical things, they will ask for a repeat of >> an experience they had sometime and thought was great. That's how I got >> introduced to Ambisonics: heard a UHJ Nimbus recording on a Meridian system. >> > > Meridian is truly a high end company, hardly "consumer" stuff. That's like saying Mercedes isn't a consumer company because their cars cost more than Hundays's. There are very few things, and in particular no relevant concepts, that Meridian uses that couldn't be just as well be used by Onkyo, Sony, etc. except that they choose not to implement Ambisonics decoding in their products. I wasn't sold on Ambisonics because a Meridian system sounded so much better than my own system, but because Ambisonics on a Meridian system sounded so much better than Stereo on the exactly same Meridian system in the exactly same playback environment. And that's a testament to how incredibly useful even lowly UHJ encoded Ambisonics is. >> Except it was so bad I never wanted to go back to Stereo again. >> So I want others to have similarly horrible experiences, such that they, >> too, don't want stereo anymore, either. >> >> UHJ is good enough for a start, a binaural decoder could easily become part >> of iOS and Android devices by means of a custom playback app. Instant >> surround sound access for the masses. >> > > And this is the point: IF a binaural system works, you can include 5.1 --> > binaural (or HOA --> binaural) decoding. Both "source" formats are in many > senses better than UHJ surround... ;-) Except that 5.1 uses a lot more storage, and if you have storage limited portable devices that's HUGE. And also most 5.1 stuff SUCKS, because it's not G-format, ambisonically mixed surround, but some pan-pot abomination that is horrible even on a perfect 5.1 setup. HOA uses even more storage. These suggestions simply prove how out of touch with the market you are. It's not about what's technically possible, it's about what one might get in the door of consumer electronics companies and record producers. Technical possibilities are completely irrelevant in that context. > WHY are you so keen to hide the surround version in a AAC/UHJ file? Because that's what I can put into the iTunes, Amazon, etc. music store TODAY, and not in some utopian future when Apple and Amazon decide they'll offer multi-channel audio files. > There are thousands of recordings in the market, even if this is (mostly) not > a volume market. You make my point: "not a volume market" > However, the distribution of 5.1 or other surround formats via Internet is > nowadays not very difficult, in fact they use 5.1 surround this for online > movies but not music distribution. Should record labels be embarassed? (Most > probably.) I don't care if they should be embarassed. Wall Street shouldn't have created a real estate bubble either, and the Irak war shouldn't have had happened, and... I don't care about what should be, I care about what IS, and how I get from here to there without wishful thinking. I want to see things in stores, shelves, the iTunes store ASAP, and not insist on things being done "right" at the peril of never seeing them done in my life time. > Or you listen to surround via headphones. If a viable solution exists, you > don't need Apple or G. any more. Everybody could distribute surround sound, > computer programs, operating systems, browsers and so on will translate in > real-time. "Could" is the operative word. I'm not interested in "could", I'm interested in "can do right now". > You still have to introduce people (consumers) to the fact that a surround > recording even exists in this area, and that you need some equipment to be > able to listen to. (Decoders, loudspeaker arrays, surround headphones etc.) Yes, and that's why it's important, that the content is accessible to everyone, such that a broad market for it exists, which means it has to be dummy proof, i.e. stereo compatible, works without second thought. Then you can in step two tell people: "Hey, if you download this free music player to your iPhone/iPod/computer, this very same file sounds even better, because now you can hear it in binaural/surround". Then maybe over a decade or so, you can slowly build a broad surround sound listening community that will grow big enough to demand more from the market and has the bucks to vote with them in a way that vendors will feel. >>> (In this sense, I don't see any real compatibility problems. You can >>> distibute UHJ and hope that some people by the decoders/software >>> loudspeakers. Or you distribute a combine surround/stereo file, which is >>> not such an issue at all. And even if not, a surround recording/filecan be >>> downmixed to 2.0. In fact, POA could be downmixed to UHJ stereo...) >>> >> >> Of course, but given that we're not even getting lossless compression for >> stereo, what do you think the chances are we're getting 2+5.1 channel audio >> files? Think of the bandwidth requirements etc. when you're talking billions >> of downloads... >> ...not going to happen unless there's actually tangible consumer demand. >> > > This is exactly the Apple perspective. You probably don't have created any > consumer demand yet if you distribute "hidden surround" in AAC stereo files, > so the problem would not be solved. No, it's not solved yet, it's a step on the solution. Nothing is ever solved in one swoop. But you first need to lower the barriers of entry to a level where a solution is possible. That means: no extra requirements for content distribution through existing channels, because educating people and getting them to use another music player than what's built-in to their Android/iOS device or computer is already a giant step that will only succeed if the apps are world-class and totally user friendly, or if they can be implemented as plug-ins that transparently work with the existing players. And then you still need to get a sizable amount of content into the channel. These challenges are big enough, that one doesn't need to make things even more difficult by introducing multi-channel formats that gobble up storage, etc. >> Again, you mix up what's technically possible and what's feasible in the >> marketplace. >> Neither you nor I make the decisions that create the commercial reality. >> > > Sorry, no: There is explicit commercial demand for 3D surround audio in > cinemas. This is a fact. Considering this, I would not go back to a standard > which lacks compared to (conventional) 5.1 surround. Cinema is irrelevant to the consumer market, and generally surround in a movie theatre sucks anyway, because there's no such thing as a "sweet spot" the size of a basket ball court... >> So we can either accept what is the reality right now, and see how we can >> get what we want (Ambisonic surround sound) through the back-door right now, >> or we can wait for some magical moment in the future when the marketplace >> has caught up with our requirements for multi-channel audio distribution. >> > > Oh my goodness, do < we > (all) want Ambisonic surround sound?! Provided we want more than just an SFX, yes, because the other credible model WFS is certainly not in the cards any time soon, and also rather unsuitable for portable devices. > Many computer games have surround or even 3D "audio engines", but it would be > odd to decode this to UHJ stereo. (Because the game user will be able listen > to real surround, or just to stereo.) Game sound is generated to the gaming platform's playback abilities. There's no need for UHJ there. UHJ is for "canned" music. > And this is the problem I was speaking of: To use UHJ stereo as a > distribution format doesn't solve the problem that the end user/listener > /client still needs some hardware/surround installation at home, or on the > move (which would be the needed headphone solution). Headphone solution is easy, thanks to the various apps that can run on portable devices these days and distribution for these is easy thanks to the various app stores. Home solution is a bit more difficult, but with more and more being computer driven there are plenty of options. The point is, there's no magic bullet, but there are proposed solutions that lower the barriers of entry, and there are proposed solutions that raise the barriers of entry. I'm for the former, even if that means a solution far less capable than what we know we can do theoretically, because I want to get that train moving, which means the more energy it gains, the bigger barriers of entry it can roll over as time goes by. One doesn't feed a baby with a steak. Ronald _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
