Well, I'm back from Denver. Looks like nothing really happened here while I was gone.

Getting out there was half the fun. I took a puddle jumper from B'ham to Memphis, and when I arrived, my flight to Denver had been cancelled because of a mechanical failure. Northwest put us on an alternate jet ... and we sat on board, waiting, for over an hour before they cancelled THAT one for a mechanical as well.

Northwest found me some seats on American; I ended up hopping into Dallas/FW, then taking a red-eye from Dallas to Denver.

The trip back, thankfully, was uneventful (save for some turbulence here and there, but not much you can do about that).

The purpose of my trip was to receive a two-day school on the new generation control/audio software that we're going to be using ... and I have seen the future, folks.

First, just to be clear, "control/audio" is slashed-connected on purpose. Our current software already had the capability to both store/play audio and control equipment, but this new stuff is lightyears ahead of the old stuff.

Next -- I've said this before -- but I continue to be amazed at what they're doing with the MPEG algorithm nowdays. This software offers all sorts of tricks. For example, it can actually take odd-length commercials and "stretch" or "squeeze" them a bit to make them fit precisely in a 1- or 2-minute network cutaway. Nothing really new there -- until you realize that it does this on the fly while it's playing the audio back. :)

(With no discernable pitch shift, mind you.)

Where I saw the future, though, was in the preparation for the switch to digital audio broadcasting. This generation of the software can specifically target literally dozens of different demographics, providing the desired music, targeted commercials, jingles, announcer style, you name it. All from one workstation. The operator can control over 100 different radio stations from one desktop.

It's fully redundant, with with TWO massive servers. If one fails, you never even hear it. If BOTH fail, the desktop workstation has the ability to keep playing from stored audio for at least 24 hours, to give you time to fix the server(s).

All the while still servicing the 100 different stations, mind you.

There was some bittersweetness here as well; it speaks to the massive consolidation taking place in the industry, with large radio groups owning huge numbers of stations which are centrally controlled by remote satellite linkup. But that's the future and we'd better get used to it.

While we were there (the school took place in a large radio facility there in Denver), they showed us the system in operation: one jock sat at a desk in a studio, feeding 5 different markets with customized announcements, liners, jingles, time, temperature, weather, and traffic.

I could see that, in the not-so-distant future, your local "announcer" might actually be a computer-generated voice thousands of miles away.

(Similar to what I forsee for the movies; with improved animation techniques, the day will come when Hollywood no longer has to negotiate with petulant star types, they can simply assemble perfect virtual bodies and have the computer animate them according to the script.)

This is progress, ya'll. :)

Maybe I should've staying in Insurance.

NOT.[g]

-- Anonymous, July 25, 2001

Answers

Stephen, do you remember a movie called "Looker" back in the 80's?

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2001

Helen,

Yes, I DO remember that one. It was ahead of its time. :)

I saw an ad for an animated movie the other day on television; the "actors" looked REAL. It's not as far away as some might think ...

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2001

There is a movie out right now with realistic digitally animated "actors". I can't remember its name.

Stephen, can you tell us what company makes the products you described?

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2001

Two mechanical failures on two different airplanes?!?! Don't you see!?!? It's Y2K!!

Rather mild. I remember getting on a flight to SA in Miami. The plane started down the runway and picked up speed for take off: Then suddenly, just before lift-off, the pilot slammed on the brakes; all of the tires blew; we did a 180 and came to a stop. The pilot came on, calm as could be, and said: Sorry, we lost two engines and didn't have enough power to take off. Now if you want some stories about flying in Wyoming in the 60's, I can really make your hair stand on end. *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2001

Actually, I have to give Northwest credit. Airplane travel remains (by far) the safest way to get from A to B, and this is primarily BECAUSE of anal-retentive safety measures.

In this case (if I understood correctly), the problem in Memphis was a restart valve on one of the engines of our DC-9. The Northwest pilotsaid that he honestly thought we could make it to Dallas; that maintenance had stopped and restarted the engine several times with no problem. They were convinced that it was a faulty *indicator* and not the valve itself.

But in the end, they just didn't want to chance it. I *like* that. I fully intend to fly Northwest again. They got me to Denver (after feeding me and doing some other things to make amends), and given how inexpensive the tickets were to start with, I just didn't see any point in raising a stink (and some of the other passengers did, believe me[g]). All's well that ends well.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like you don't see as many "Flight 123 crashes with 200 aboard!" headlines nowdays, certainly not like you used to in the 70's and 80's. Anal-retentive maintenance and safety procedures are probably the biggest reason.

Remember ValuJet? They tried to claim that there was a Big Union Conspiracy overstating their problems, but in the end, it was determined to be nothing more than slipshod maintenance procedures. "Aw, we're losing money. Let the bird fly, it'll be alright" ... that sort of stuff WILL catch up with you eventually.

Hey, when it's MY fat, happy butt hanging 30,000 feet over farmland, it's comforting to know that they take these things seriously. :)

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2001

Jonathan,

I read a science fiction story a few years ago about that, too. In the future, all of the actors and actresses are out of work because the Hollywood animation stuff is just TOO real. From time to time, a revival of sorts would be attempted ("Come see OUR play, we feature REAL actors!"), but it would never catch on.

Of course, if you'll permit me to wax philosophical and rhetorical here, is there really THAT much difference? Does anyone here really think that Pam Sue Anderson was born with those size 44 jugs? That Britney Spears is naturally that cute?

Hollywood has more plastic surgeons per capita than most places have hotdog stands. In the future, instead of creating perfect people with knives and silicone, they'd do it on a DigitalArts workstation.

When you get down to it, what's the difference?

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2001

That whirring noise is Bill Shakespeare spinning in his grave.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Helen,

Heh.

But then again, "acting" in Shakespeare's day focused primarily on the dialogue and one's ability to speechify. Can't remember the play now, but one of Shakespeare's even illustrates this: a guy identifies himself as an actor and someone says, "give us a speech!"

(Hence, we have famous snippets from Shakey-boy, like "St. Crispin's Day" and, of course, the well-worn "To be or not to be." The average person remembers the speech snippets but not the plays.)

So, I feel that maybe Shakespeare might spin just as much for what could be happening in radio in the future. :)

OK, I'm biased.[g]

(Then again, maybe -- just maybe -- radio may end up being that place where "real" people with talent could find refuge from the digital imitations? I dunno.)

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Lars,

The system is made by Prophet, it's called NexGen. (Their previous incarnation was called "Wizard.") Other popular packages are made by Dalet, Scott Systems and Arrakis.

None of these names probably rings a bell with you because it's a closed (almost cottage -- albeit high money!) industry.

Most control and industrial software is like that.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Thanks Stephen. I truly doubt that digitized imagery will ever be more than a gimmick. To cause the images to "act", the animators would have to know as much about emoting as live actors. What's the point?

And of course it would never replace realtime live performances. Somehow I can't picture teenie-babes getting their panties wet at a concert of digitally animated neo-Beatles.

There will always be live Theater. There will always be live improv. There will always be a demand for live interaction between performer and audience.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Lars:

Always is a long time! I am not so sure that what has happened to radio is all that bad. I remember when we moved to central Michigan in 1970. We could get 3 FM stations. When we moved to Montana we could get two [and one was the repeater giving weather conditions for Yellowstone Park].

Now, the 30 memory buttons on my radio aren't enough to cover the local stations. We have, in town, 3 stations that broadcast NPR and PRI; we have two more in adjoining towns. The largest NPR station is the highest rated station in town. If you don't want to listen to them; just decide what music or talk you want and there is a station dedicated to that subject. Very convenient. We do still have a few stations with local DJ's.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Z--

I think your point would be stronger by recalling that in early radio (before my time, really), all music was broadcast live. In fact, I think ABC became competive with CBS and NBC after WWII because they were the first to broadcast recorded music.

Still, my limited imagination does not see hi-tech cartoons replacing live actors.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Lars,

What the digital animation would replace is the "star" thing -- Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks getting zillions of bucks to do a picture. There are thousands of people who can act who have never been able to break into the Big Time. They'd probably be glad to lend their talents to these studios while the computers "learn" how to act.

Think about it. Lara Croft is pretty popular NOW, and not just with kids. In the movies, they've had several different actresses play her (Rhoda Mitra is the latest, I believe) because the CHARACTER is the key.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

ah Stephen:

What movies are you talking about? Angelina jolie is starring in the first movie which is now playing. I don't know of any other Lara Croft movies. Are you talking about voice actresses? Am I missing a joke?

Brett (confused)

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Brett,

I shouldn't have said "movies;" my mistake. I was using that as a great example of how digital animation doesn't care about the precise actress. The list of ladies who've served as body doubles for the Laura Croft character include Lucy Clarkson, Laura Weller, Nell McAndrew, Rhona Mitra, and Natalie Cook.

(Incidentally, to compound my mistake, I called her "Rhoda" instead of "Rhona" Mitra.[g])

The point was, if it's a GOOD story/plot line, the *character* is more important than the actor or actress who plays the character. Another great example (and one more specifically MOVIE-related) is James Bond, who has been played by Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan and others. Again, it's the *character* who's the important thing.

Oh, I believe that there will always be a place for human performers. (Now that I think of it, the science fiction story I mentioned focused more on musical artists than actors.) But if you're talking about the Big Money -- to give you an idea, "live" plays (ex., Broadway) represent only a fraction of the total spent each year for entertainment -- don't rule it out.

Yes, some movies deliberately cast popular stars to draw crowds; a lot of people have a crush on Julia Roberts or Christopher Lambert, and will go see an otherwise so-so movie just because they're in it.

But Laura Croft again makes a great example: when Angelina Jolie is stretched, smished, made up and dolled up, NOT to look like Angelina, but like Laura Croft. That's what moviegoers will expect, and that's what Hollywood will give them.

If Hollywood can find a way to go back to making the story and character more important than appearances, what I described above will happen.

The other thing that will make it happen is sheer economics. You don't have to pay residuals to a virtual character. :)

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Poole:

That makes the assumption that, in a consumer driven society, economics based decisions are the deciding factor. I remember listening to the CEO of GM, at a stockholders meeting, answering criticism of their design and quality, and saying that they would [this is a paraphrase] build the cars and trucks that they could make for a profit and people would buy them because they had no choice. That was when GM had over 50% of the market. Where are they now? Projections say that both Ford and Toyota will pass them in the next decade.

So much for private enterprise.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

I want to see more local productions of plays with local people. Kids love putting on plays. That love could be extended throughout life. Many relatively small cities have groups that allow nearly anyone to be part of a play. No two performances are alike, and there is interaction between actors and audience. It's the best sort of entertainment.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

So much for private enterprise.

Z---

What's your point? In the 70s, GM and the UAW (remember "take this job and shove it?" were arrogant and unresponsive to their customers. The free market enabled the Japanese to provide a better product and the American car manufacturers have been playing catch-up ever since. American cars are much better engineered as a result of the free market competion. American consumers have benefitted from this market competition.

Too bad for Yugo and the Soviet cars that they had a state-subsidized market. They never had an incentive to build a world-class product.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Lars:

My Point is that in the late 60's GM was arrogant. They still haven't climbed over the mountain that they created. You can't tell a consumer society what they want. You have seen the results. Seems clear enough to me. Now I bought a Toyota pickup in the 70's. By the 80's, they were so far behind, I bought a Ford. I am waiting to see if Toyota has caught up[ based on what I drove last year; they don't have a clue]. Hey; I am a consumer. I buy what is best. My right.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Exactly. A free market allowed you a choice. GM's competitors did a better job than GM and you were free to choose their better product. GM has cleaned up their act enough to stay in the game. The market has worked.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Lars,

I think you and Z are making two separate points here. I don't think he's necessarily disagreeing with your point, that yes, the marketplace worked. He's making a different point -- that yes, GM *was* arrogant.

(And if I'm putting words in the mouths of either of you, tell me so.)

Before he fell from grace, John Delorean catalogued that arrogance in his book, On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors. Because of their market position, GM *could* do things like force its dealerships to accept its (inferior and badly-overpriced) radio accessories, for example.

But bowing to your point, aftermarket competition has forced the automakers, GM included, to offer something better than the horrible factory radios that were being installed in the 70's.

And while I'm on THAT subject ...

If you're an AM aficionado, most of them are STILL terrible. The average listener thinks that AM is *supposed* to sound muddy and noisy, but that's actually the fault of the average receiver.

Yes, even the $1,000 aftermarket jobs are likely to use a single-chip AM circuit that has about 10% distortion and a bandwidth of about 3Khz -- not to mention all of the selectivity and sensitivity of a brick.

In fact, I offer this standing invitation to anyone who's interested: if you're ever near one of my stations, feel free to drop in. I'll let you hear AM stereo directly from the off-air monitor system. If you've never heard it on an AMAX-compatible receiver, you'll be blown away by how good it sounds.

Since we were talking about the future here[g], we can only hope that one day, Digital Audio Broadcasting will *FINALLY* become a reality. At that point, the AM band's superior coverage capabilities will very likely take the thunder BACK from FM.

You read it here first. :)

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Stephen--

I agree. GM (and UAW) were arrogant. As a result, they were disciplined by the market.

Quality AM? Howard Stern and Rush in full fidelity? I can wait.

This thread has interesting possibilties. What else does anyone want to predict about the future----technically, socially, environmentally, whatever? Forecasting is a nearly impossible thing to do. Who in the 60s foresaw PC computing much less the Internet? Certainly not IBM.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Poole:

Good that you figured it out. I didn't have a clue concerning Lars' point. Then I don't have a clue about a lot of things. *<)))

I have heard high quality AM stereo. It is quite good. Do you think that it is a viable option; with the reach of AM and the ever increasing population density? How do you see this problem being solved.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

By-the-by:

Lars brought up the past: when radio broadcast live music. On a related note, I just made one of my traditional end of July sandwiches.

You take two slices of bread [warm from the oven] and slather one slice with peanut butter [Jif creamy only]. You gently lay 3 skinless and boneless sardines on top. Then you add thin slices of fresh granex [vidalia grown here] onion and thin slices of brandywine tomato. Sprinkle on some panola cajun style hot sauce and add a collection of fresh herbs from the garden. Wife doesn't join me in this annual ritual.

Do you remember when you could only do this stuff in season?

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Lars,

Music is slowly -- very slowly -- making a comeback on AM. With the big FMs battling each other for the pop, country and urban audiences, that leaves a few very specific formats for AM -- most notably "legends" (Sinatra, Glenn Miller) and 50's oldies. Some of our legends stations are doing quite well, in fact.

My point there was, the quality (or lack thereof) of the receivers killed AM, not the medium itself. A 500W station on 550khz, if it were broadcasting a digital signal, would have the better coverage than a 10KW FM station.

(That's an approximation, of course, because antenna height is actually the key determining factor for FM, though I've long since despaired of convincing most station owners of this fact.[g] Although ... we DO have one 3KW FM here that deliberately accepted a power decrease so that they could increase their antenna height from 100 meters to 300 meters -- and it has made a noticeable difference. 900 watts at 900+ feet actually covers the city MUCH better than 3,000 watts would on a 300' stick.)

(Smart people.)

Howard Stern is mostly on FM, by the way. A few AMs carry his show, but he's on far more FM outlets than AM.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Z,

You can HAVE that sandwich. Keep the peanut butter and replace the rest with lettuce and banana slices, and maybe we'll talk ... :)

AM stereo was theoretically a viable option in its day, but the FCC dropped the ball by not insisting on a standard. Its infamous "let the marketplace decide" decision threw the whole thing in a flux and it sort of died from there.

A shame, too ... because technically, with the single exception of bandwidth (10khz as opposed to 15khz), it's *superior* to FM stereo. The separation is measurably better on a state-of-the-art system (like -- *ahem* -- the ones we use[g]).

(I've GOT to update those pictures; they were taken while it was still under construction, and it has long since been completed.)

Our company has a policy of using stereo on our AMs and we don't regret it. Sure, we wish there were more radios that were stereo-capable, but at least Chrysler and the high-end GM products have AM stereo in them. In fact, it's that very market that we target with things like the "legends" format: older folks riding around in their Caddies[g]. The response from them has been amazing -- nothing short of enthusiastic.

We regularly record their phone comments and run them on air as liners and promos. They're not actors; they're real people.[g]

As I mentioned to Lars above, given equal circumstances, AM has much better coverage than FM, especially in hilly and dense urban areas, where FM is plagued by severe multipath problems. The AM band is a groundwave, so it just sort of "walks" over hills and punches right through masonry buildings. That's our advantage.

So ... once you put MPEG on the AM band (ie, Digital Audio Broadcasting), you're going to see a revolution. It'll be near CD-quality, with immunity to interference and man-made noise ... *BUT* with all of the 500-1700khz band's coverage advantages over the 88-108mhz band. That's when many of the people who bought small AMs for a whistle and a song in the 1980's will start singing all the way to the bank again. :)

FM will sound just as good, of course, but its coverage problems will give AM parity, all things considered. Just my opinion, but one based on 30 years in da bid'ness ...

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Lars,

Here's one (minor) prediction: the next quantam leap in processing power and memory storage is going to come when we move away from binary 1's and 0's and move to more efficient means of storage.

Some say the next step will be trinary; I think we'll go further than that. An on-chip capacitor (the core of dynamic ram) could theoretically store 256 (or more) different levels.

Then, a bunch of older engineers who remember analog computers will be called out of retirement to help design the processors. :)

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Stephen, relying on poor memory and possibly a misunderstanding of what I read, I think I saw something in a tech magazine about a new type of RAM that doesn't require power to hold its contents.

Power is sent across the end of the chip instead of through it, and power is only sent to change a bit which is held in position magnetically. Power requirements go down, and I suppose heat build up too, and supposedly this will make small appliances like cell phones able to run far longer on one charge.

I forget the comparison made in the article about speed of retrieval. It still relies on binary, but it is supposed to be a very good thing and scheduled to be mass-produced by 2004.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Stephen,

Interesting but I never did master "scaling".

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Lars,

I'm not sure "scaling" it's what you'd call it, but I'm not sure how you're applying the term.

A binary system stores data as 1 or 0, so each memory unit can only store a single bit of information. If you store, say, 256 different voltage levels in that cell (quite do-able with today's technology), you've increase storage by several orders of magnitude.

Even if we stick with binary processors, all you'd need is a "flash" conversion between the voltage levels and an 8-bit data word. We have that technology on the shelf now, too. The current chips are plenty fast enough to digitize video (4mhz bandwidth), so it wouldn't take much tweaking to make them faster. A caching or shared-access arrangement would improve this dramatically.

Or, if you redesign the processors to act on these 256-level data "bytes," you've gained the equivalent of a magnum increase in speed, too.

Of course, I disagreed with Intel's decision to move everything into One Big Pentium, anyway. Multimedia (video, audio, you name it) SHOULD be done in separate co-processors. It's insane to cram everything into one chip.

But hey, they never listen to me. :)

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

"Scaling" was a technique required to model a system using an analog computer. Fortunately I never had to master it, I just knew it was there (lurking).

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

Lars,

Oh, OK. Sure. We use that all the time nowdays as well. If a piece of equipment will only do from 0-1V, you have to scale things to fit that range.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

Well, you don't have to make it sound so trivial.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

Lars,

Who said it was trivial? :)

The field strength points for my 50KW AM assume that it's at 50,000 watts. If we're at a lower power (say, due to a transmitter problem or something like that) than that, I get scale all of these readings. Lots of fun. :)

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

Have taken a few days off from work.

Scaling isn't trivial. Went fishing in the pond that surrounds two sides of my house. It was stocked in 1983. Haven't fished there since 91. First cast, I pulled out a bass. Weighed in at 10 lb 2 oz. I put it back because I can't stand scaling. All of those years in the west, catching trout and salmon; scales too small to worry about. Of course, I don't like the taste of trout and salmon.

Oh; now I see; you were talking about electronics. *<)))

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

If you store, say, 256 different voltage levels in that cell (quite do-able with today's technology), you've increase storage by several orders of magnitude.

Oh... yep, I would guess it would just a titch................................................ :o)

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2001