One of the 'skins' supported by the new Windows Media Player 7.
This month Dave Shapton compares his vision of the future for digital music with that of Microsoft...
I am often asked to sum up, in a few words, what kind of computing environment we'll be living in, five years or so from now. I think there's a phrase that describes it pretty well — a digital fabric. So what has 'fabric' got to do with it? And how can it be digital? Well, I think the term 'digital fabric' best describes the culmination of several trends that have emerged over the last year (which is, incidentally, the length of the entire history of this column).
The trends I'm talking about here are the increasingly pervasive presence of the Internet, the plummeting price of processing and storage, the rise of faster and cheaper data communication links, and the convergence of digital media and computing. The core technologies of this 'digital fabric' will be communication and processing, presented to the user in the guise of entertainment: video, television, and music.
Being Digital
There'll be other stuff as well: smart, connected devices will be capable of 'goal' seeking. If you can devise a high‑level language or protocol that enables devices to communicate their capabilities to each other (as well as exchange data) then they can cooperate to achieve the best result in a given set of circumstances. This could apply equally well to an air‑conditioning system in a shopping mall or to a recording studio, where every device in the signal path 'understands' the role of the others. The 'goal', in this case, would be to optimise the audio production chain (which will take on a new level of significance where the goal is to produce, say, the best audio for a chosen compression algorithm — or even to incorporate additional 'psychoacoustic' processes to make the perception of the audio better).
A digital fabric is, quite simply, an environment where processors and storage can communicate seamlessly, and where programs can be distributed across whichever processors are available. Computers as such could disappear because everything will be a computer. A true digital fabric is clearly some way off, because getting any program to run on any processor is no easy task (but see Virtual Chips box).
However, I think we are already well on the way. You could even say that the Internet is the best example yet of a digital fabric, and the current wave of technological innovation is just filling in the gaps. As is often the case when talking about Internet timescales, I reckon we're probably more advanced than we think we are. The news that the new Windows Media Player version 7 already runs on 22 different computing platforms shows just how fast things are moving. This is surprising, if not staggering, news to anyone who thought Microsoft wrote software for Intel‑based computers.
WMA7
Sure, Microsoft do stuff for Macs, and there are the Windows CE‑based Personal Digital Assistants, but it seems that Microsoft have licensed the source code for Windows Media Player 7 (WMP7) to anyone wanting it to run on their design of processor. I gleaned this fascinating insight from the General Manager of Microsoft's Digital Media Division, Amir Majidimir, during his recent visit to the UK. Being an audiophile with a background as an electronic engineer and currently in charge of Microsoft's digital media development program, Amir Majidimir is probably one of the most influential people today in the evolution of digital media.
Amir manages a group of 700 people. As part of the Windows group (as opposed to the group that writes applications like the Microsoft Office suite), they are responsible for digital audio and video under the Windows platform. Their brief includes developing digital audio and video codecs, now brought together under the heading of Windows Media, and promoting the use of Windows Media by liaising with content providers (such as Sony) and application developers (such as Sonic Foundry).
It's worth going into Windows Media Audio 7 (WMA7) in some detail because, through its host, Windows Media Player 7, we are going to see a lot of it, especially given the seemingly insatiable interest in streamed and downloaded audio. Please note that I don't carry any particular brief for Microsoft (and would refer you to my coverage of BeOS, in SOS April 2000, in case you think I do!) but that doesn't stop me thinking that WMA7 is important.
Windows Media Audio 7 is not the seventh incarnation of Microsoft's audio compression codec. It's actually the second, and is only called '7' to tie in with the seventh generation of the Media Player. The media player itself, which is essentially a front‑end to the codecs it supports (including, of course, MP3) has a new look. Or should I say 'looks', because it is now able to support the idea of 'skins'.
Skins are best thought of as alternative personalities or themes for the application that is the media player. It's not a new idea: Winamp, a well‑known MP3 player, has had them for years. What is new, according to Microsoft, is that the appearance and functionality of the skins can be programmed by users. It's not for the faint‑hearted, though, as it will require a knowledge of XML (Extensible Mark‑up Language) and Javascript.
Sound Results
Last month I mentioned that I was impressed by the quality of streamed Windows Media audio over a 56K phone link, but commented on the high‑frequency artifacts (digital distortion caused by the compression process) that were present — once you notice them, they are pretty annoying.
Microsoft claim that WMA7 virtually eliminates this type of problem, and in a side‑by‑side comparison with Real Audio 8, the Microsoft solution sounded significantly better to me — though I have to say that I was only listening on 'multimedia'‑type loudspeakers when I made the comparison. This type of speaker can 'flatter' compressed audio in a way that more conventional, higher‑quality speakers don't; but that doesn't obviate the need for the best possible compression codec anyway.
There is little, if any, WMA7 content on the Web yet, because it was only released at the end of July. If you want to see what codec was used to make the stream or file you are listening to in the Media Player, right‑click on the file and select 'properties' or go to 'properties'.
3D Effects
Other features in WMA7 include 3D specialisation. Again, this is not a new technique but Microsoft's effort is apparently different from previous techniques because it's not based on a 'head transfer function'. 3D methods based on head transfer functions have the big disadvantage that they don't work with headphones (where the sound is injected directly into the ears without interference from solid objects).
Apparently Microsoft's new process does work with headphones. It certainly has a striking effect on the width of the sound stage, making the music appear to spread all around you, and making the non‑processed sound 'dull' in comparison. Although I liked the effect at first, I suspect that it could be fatiguing in the long term.
Alongside the 3D enhancement is bass enhancement using a process that 'implies' the presence of bass rather than simply boosting it. This is quite effective, especially with small speakers, but I'm not sure what effect all of this processing would have on a pure, simple sound stage, such as a string quartet. I'm also rather concerned about the way it might interact with audio that has already been enhanced. If you enhance 'enhanced' audio, something has to give. Anyway, you can always turn it off.
The New MP3?
WMA7 is available in both streaming and downloadable formats and is effectively taking on Real Audio and MP3. I've already commented on the apparent superiority of low‑bit‑rate streamed WMA7, but it also gives MP3, the de facto standard for downloaded audio, a hard time. In fact, for the same perceived quality, Microsoft claim that WMA7 needs half the bit rate. If you're struggling to fit material into your 32Mb MP3 player, this is good news, because you can take with you twice as much music if your player supports WMA7. If you buy a player from now on it probably will support it, because the manufacturers of the chips that power these portable players have nearly all licensed the WMA7 codec from Microsoft...
So, although most people will buy them for playing their MP3 files, they will virtually all be able to play WMA7 as well. And, of course, WMA7 is easy to copy onto portable players, normally via a Compact Flash card. When I suggested to Amir that, as most portable music file players sport a soft codec capability, people would tend to use whichever codecs were around, he became defensive, saying that two or three codecs were the maximum that people would ever want or could be bothered with. I suspect that a world where players can use any codec, where that codec needn't necessarily be Microsoft's, is not what Microsoft is aiming for.
Microsoft is clearly hoping that WMA7 will become the new MP3. On the face of it they have everything in their favour: Windows is, by a very large margin, the most popular operating system. WMA7 sounds better than MP3 at the same bit rate and for the same quality it takes up half the amount of precious flash RAM. And, unlike MP3, it can carry copy protection.
Copy Wrongs
However, nothing that I have heard from Microsoft makes me want to change my belief, often stated in this column, that you can't copy‑protect music. But you can allow Windows Media Audio 7 to cripple your computer. That's right. Your operating system can conspire with downloaded material to disable parts of your digital audio signal path. Apparently, when you encode audio into WMA7 format you can specify whether you want it to be copyable or not.
When I pressed Amir Majidimir about copying via S/PDIF — an important technique because it will give you a sample‑accurate copy of any output from your computer — he revealed that WAM7 has an additional facility called SAP or Secure Audio Path. This can turn off the S/PDIF output of any soundcard that complies with the SAP specification. Now I find this a bit scary. I can understand why Microsoft want to be able to do it. They want to license their technology to content providers, manufacturers of players and users, so they have to be able to demonstrate that they are not aiding and abetting piracy.
This is probably a rare example of Microsoft bowing to external pressure (from record companies and copyright owners). They want to get their format accepted and their media player used as the default media interface everywhere and it's not hard to see why. Just think about the potential for selling advertising space in the Media Player window! Not to mention the commercial value of having the IP (Internet) addresses of everyone who is watching video or listening to music on anything from their hi‑fi to their table lamp.
My feelings about this are that other users can buy what they like but I, personally, won't be buying any audio device which can be disabled on the whim of a content provider. And what if I were to pay for an album, download it and then play it on my PC system that, for quality reasons, only had a high‑quality D‑A converter external to the PC — connected of course via S/PDIF? My understanding is that, under SAP, it wouldn't work.
At the very least I would like to see a warning pop up if I attempt to download a SAP‑enabled file. Then I could download something else that isn't going to take liberties with my computer. Judging by the quality of some MP3 tracks I've downloaded, they've been copied from the analogue output of a soundcard anyway! So SAP is actually SAPALAINA (Secure Audio Path As Long As It's Not Analogue). At least SAP is optional in WMA7. If I want music to reach a wide audience, I could turn off SAP and let people copy it as much as they want.
I can't help feeling that to understand the scale of the copyright problem we all face, as users and creators of music, we need to look in the direction of human nature rather to individual technologies. I wouldn't want computers and music players that only work sometimes. But I would happily pay, probably hundreds of pounds a year, for the ability to legally and responsibly copy music from the Internet. Especially if the files were of a high quality and were guaranteed to play anywhere I wanted.
Ibm Microdrive
Even if the IBM Microdrive didn't have any possible relevance to readers of Sound On Sound I'd still be looking for an excuse to write about it because, quite simply, it's amazing and brilliant in equal measures. Do you know how much 16 grammes is? It's about the weight of a letter containing your bank statement. It's also the weight of a 1Gb hard disk.
The Microdrive first appeared last year with a mere 340Mb capacity. About the size of a small coin, and packaged to fit into the smallest devices, it boosts the memory of the average PDA by a hundred times. With a form‑factor matching that of a type II compact flash module, it fits into digital cameras as well. At resolutions of between 3 and 5 megapixels, you can fit dozens, if not hundreds of pictures onto this coin sized disk. (Visit www.ibm.com for pictures of dozens of small coins). You could fit about a minute of broadcast video on it, or an hour of VHS quality.
Now for the really good bit. There's enough room for an hour and a half of CD quality audio or 15 hours of MP3 (that's thirty hours of WMA7) and this thing is a quarter the size of a Minidisc. You could, by definition, fit Gigasampler's grand piano onto one, or thousands of ordinary samples. It's hard to communicate quite how tiny the Microdrive is: compare, for example, the expansion cards
I used to buy for my Korg M1 — these had the usual credit card shape and size and had something like 256 Kilobits of memory. The Microdrive is less than half the size of one of these and yet has thirty two thousand times the memory.
And I don't imagine, for one minute, that they can only make them this small. We're probably only months away from the science fiction goal of fitting a feature film into a space the size of a sugarcube. One thing I forgot to mention: they may be a quarter the size of a Minidisc and have eight times the capacity; but they cost two hundred times as much. Compare storage costs with expensive Flash RAM, though, and they're virtually free.
Virtual Chips
The creator of Linux, Linus Torvalds, now works for a company called Transmeta, whose first product, the Crusoe chip, is a processor like no other processor. What makes it remarkable is that it can emulate other chips such as an Intel Pentium, for example. Based on a very fast, but simple, core, the Crusoe runs software which intercepts instructions to the chip under emulation, and converts them to native Crusoe code. So you can quite happily run Windows on a processor that the designers of Windows had never heard of when they were writing the program. I presume that you could also run Mac OS as well — you just have to arrange for the Crusoe to emulate a Power PC chip.
Because the emulation is done at chip level it is highly efficient and achieves results that are only slightly slower than the emulated processor. Ironically, none of this is important to the user, who will only be interested in knowing that, because the chip is so simple, its power consumption is very low. Several top notebook manufacturers have already announced that they intend to ship products containing the Transmeta device.
What I find exciting about this technology is the prospect of hosting Java‑type virtual machines at chip level. Just imagine the possibilities that would emerge if your program could 'call up' the type of machine it needs to run it, on virtually every processor it comes across. (Note that a Transmeta chip is different to the so‑called 'Java chips' proposed by Sun. These can only run a Java machine at chip level, whereas the Transmeta type of chip can run any kind of virtual machine at chip level.) If you apply this kind of technology to digital media, then you really will be able to plug any kind of digital signal into any kind of device (a bit like analogue, really!).