One of the questions I often get now that we are finally and totally converted to digital broadcasting has to do with the increased frequency of audio problems on TV programs? The most prevalent and irritating problems are the increased instances of lip sync errors. We have all experienced it. The person speaking and the audio track are not in sync. Sometimes it is so pronounced and distracting that it makes the program unwatchable. Watching a drummer hit the drum or guitarist strum a chord only to hear the lick 2 seconds later is not pretty.
In the old days, before digital broadcasting, most often lip sync problems were caused by the circuitous path the video program traveled from its source to your living room. For example, news reports coming from Europe or Asia, because they were being transmitted using two or more satellite hops, had many incidents of audio delay and audio / video separation.
Today’s problems seem to be more pronounced and harder to fix. In the analog days the audio and video for a TV program were transmitter separately to your TV. They were joined inside the TV set. With digital, from the very beginning, the audio and video are all part of one stream of “1”s and “0”s and once joined they can’t easily be pulled apart. So if the audio is out of sync at the source there is virtually nothing you can do to fix it.
There are some instances where the problem is in your TV set or cable set top box. I have noticed that with some Time Warner set top cable boxes when a program has a lip sync problem you can fix it by powering down the cable box for a few seconds and then turning it back on. I am betting that this is a bug in the box where by its buffer gets filled. Turning it off clears the buffer. I am not sure, but my fix does work. I have tried this on some digital TVs as well with mixed success.
Another audio issue is the varying audio level or loudness. This is often experienced when a station switches from the network to a local source. The most pronounced is on Channel 12’s second channel The CW. When they go to the 10 PM news the audio level jumps almost 50%. Why? Because someone is not paying attention at the station.
Here is hoping that stations and networks will begin to pay as much attention to what we hear as they do to what we see.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
You Can't Easily Turn the Internet Off
Recent news reports from various parts of the world have spotlighted the ubiquitous Internet and how it is shaping the fabric of society. Its impact is reminiscent of the old song “How You Gonna Keep’em Down On the Farm after They’ve Seen Paree.” In reality, the Internet is much more powerful than any communications tool that has gone before it. Governments, especially those that are closed and restrictive, are finding this out the hard way.
Other communications technologies were much easier to control by those in power. Radio and TV programming can be censored and even rogue stations can be jammed if the people in charge disagree with the message.
Recently in Iran, during the short-lived but pervasive unrest, the Internet was used by dissidents to communicate both internally with the protesters as well as to release to the world what was happening in the streets even after traditional media were barred from reporting.
The dilemma facing the Iranian government was how to control the Internet. In days gone by, you could just shut it down, pull the plug. That is no longer a viable option. The same Internet that allows the free flow of information and the same Internet that makes embarrassing YouTube videos available to the world, also is the backbone for commerce, banking, the power grid, the airline system and most anything else that a modern society relies on. To have the water pump and the sanitation system operate in most case requires the control and interconnection provide by the Internet.
The vital role of the Internet in modern society is not lost on those who would seek to do us harm. Just a week or so ago, cyber attacks were launched against the US and South Korea seeking to slow down or even to cripple the Internet and the computer connected to it. While the government and academia are hard at work to prevent such a catastrophic event, right now we have a lot of eggs in this basket and much more than a big omelet will result if that basket ever breaks.
Other communications technologies were much easier to control by those in power. Radio and TV programming can be censored and even rogue stations can be jammed if the people in charge disagree with the message.
Recently in Iran, during the short-lived but pervasive unrest, the Internet was used by dissidents to communicate both internally with the protesters as well as to release to the world what was happening in the streets even after traditional media were barred from reporting.
The dilemma facing the Iranian government was how to control the Internet. In days gone by, you could just shut it down, pull the plug. That is no longer a viable option. The same Internet that allows the free flow of information and the same Internet that makes embarrassing YouTube videos available to the world, also is the backbone for commerce, banking, the power grid, the airline system and most anything else that a modern society relies on. To have the water pump and the sanitation system operate in most case requires the control and interconnection provide by the Internet.
The vital role of the Internet in modern society is not lost on those who would seek to do us harm. Just a week or so ago, cyber attacks were launched against the US and South Korea seeking to slow down or even to cripple the Internet and the computer connected to it. While the government and academia are hard at work to prevent such a catastrophic event, right now we have a lot of eggs in this basket and much more than a big omelet will result if that basket ever breaks.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Europeans Can Teach Us A Few Things
OK, look in that junk drawer in the kitchen. Mixed in among the dead AA batteries, a 1998 calendar and several pens …all of which will not write more than two words without skipping … I bet you will find more than one cell phone charger that is no longer compatible with your current phone. You are not alone.
Not only do models from the same manufacturer use different chargers, essentially no common charger and interconnecting plug design is available for any two phones from different manufacturers. In light of the fact that most phones, no matter the style or maker use the same basic innards and operate on the same voltages, this is crazy. In fact, most any cell phone charger in your drawer would work if only the plug was compatible.
Well, the people across the pond are doing something about it. Beginning in 2010 several major mobile manufacturers in Europe, including Nokia, Apple and Research in Motion, have signed up for the universal charger initiative. The goal of this decision is to adopt the use of the Micro USB plug as the charging standard for all cell phones by 2012. Some of the major brands are getting a head start and have agreed to implement Micro USB in their phones next year.
What a great idea! As a rule, even chargers in your drawer can last ten or more years. They are simple devices. The only problem is they don’t fit your new phone. Planned obsolescence.
According to an industry press release, it is estimated that in Europe alone the universal charger initiative will cut down on the energy and materials required to produce chargers by 51,000 tons annually, reducing the overall amount of chargers produced by 50 percent. This would also decrease the amount of waste created by discarded, useless cell phone chargers.
When will this great idea come to our shores? Who knows? The last time I bought a new phone the sales person mentioned that they were thinking about it. That was almost two years ago.
Of course it is not just cell phones that have non-compatible chargers. In any home today there are most likely five or more little chargers plugged in and energizing that iPod, GPS, portable radio, flashlight, camera, etc, etc, etc. Since most of these devices require different battery voltage and amperage, a universal charger is a bit more of a problem to design. Not so with the cell phone. So, let’s get on with it. I don’t know about you, but my drawer is getting too full already.
Not only do models from the same manufacturer use different chargers, essentially no common charger and interconnecting plug design is available for any two phones from different manufacturers. In light of the fact that most phones, no matter the style or maker use the same basic innards and operate on the same voltages, this is crazy. In fact, most any cell phone charger in your drawer would work if only the plug was compatible.
Well, the people across the pond are doing something about it. Beginning in 2010 several major mobile manufacturers in Europe, including Nokia, Apple and Research in Motion, have signed up for the universal charger initiative. The goal of this decision is to adopt the use of the Micro USB plug as the charging standard for all cell phones by 2012. Some of the major brands are getting a head start and have agreed to implement Micro USB in their phones next year.
What a great idea! As a rule, even chargers in your drawer can last ten or more years. They are simple devices. The only problem is they don’t fit your new phone. Planned obsolescence.
According to an industry press release, it is estimated that in Europe alone the universal charger initiative will cut down on the energy and materials required to produce chargers by 51,000 tons annually, reducing the overall amount of chargers produced by 50 percent. This would also decrease the amount of waste created by discarded, useless cell phone chargers.
When will this great idea come to our shores? Who knows? The last time I bought a new phone the sales person mentioned that they were thinking about it. That was almost two years ago.
Of course it is not just cell phones that have non-compatible chargers. In any home today there are most likely five or more little chargers plugged in and energizing that iPod, GPS, portable radio, flashlight, camera, etc, etc, etc. Since most of these devices require different battery voltage and amperage, a universal charger is a bit more of a problem to design. Not so with the cell phone. So, let’s get on with it. I don’t know about you, but my drawer is getting too full already.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Libraries More Than a Collection of Books
Recently there has been much reported about the potential funding cuts that will be experienced by the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. With more than 50 % of the state funding in jeopardy, the library may have to radically scale back services and programs. This funding situation has fostered many citizens to express opinions and ideas in letters to the local newspapers, calls to radio stations and on blogs.
While some of these ideas are well thought out, there have been several that have expressed dismay that the library provides access to the internet. The gist of the argument is that libraries should stick to the “core business,” that is, traditional books.
This argument really gets to some very basic definitions of the role of institutions like libraries. Is the role of a library the conservation of and distribution of books and periodicals or to provide access to information and the collective knowledge and ideas of our society? For sure I would come down on the side of the latter.
Seems to me that to make the definition of the library contingent on its collection of printed books would be like defining a carpenter as someone who builds things but only with a hand saw and wooden pegs. Few of us would agree with that as we understand the need and desirability to use whatever tools we can develop to do things better and more efficiently.
I am all for books. I like to pick up a book with pages and black printed text and read. Most days I read two newspapers and many trade periodicals. Most of these are printed on paper. So I don’t see this as an “either/or” argument.
The fact is that with the amount of information generated each year increasing almost exponentially, it is neither possible nor desirable to have all of this information stored on paper and in many individual locations. In many cases with some science and research information, by the time the material is printed in a book and distributed, it is already out of date. The electronic storage and retrieval of information via the Internet and other electronic distribution is the only practical way we can provide this important library function.
Seems to me that not only should the library offer access to the Internet, we should expect that such access will someday be the prime function of this institution. We should demand it and make sure that the funds are available to staff them with individuals who can help us identify how to search for information and to critically evaluate what we find. For sure there is a lot of misinformation distributed via the Internet, but I bet if we looked hard enough we might find some less than factual paper books on the shelves of libraries, too. Now, where is that book on alchemy?
While some of these ideas are well thought out, there have been several that have expressed dismay that the library provides access to the internet. The gist of the argument is that libraries should stick to the “core business,” that is, traditional books.
This argument really gets to some very basic definitions of the role of institutions like libraries. Is the role of a library the conservation of and distribution of books and periodicals or to provide access to information and the collective knowledge and ideas of our society? For sure I would come down on the side of the latter.
Seems to me that to make the definition of the library contingent on its collection of printed books would be like defining a carpenter as someone who builds things but only with a hand saw and wooden pegs. Few of us would agree with that as we understand the need and desirability to use whatever tools we can develop to do things better and more efficiently.
I am all for books. I like to pick up a book with pages and black printed text and read. Most days I read two newspapers and many trade periodicals. Most of these are printed on paper. So I don’t see this as an “either/or” argument.
The fact is that with the amount of information generated each year increasing almost exponentially, it is neither possible nor desirable to have all of this information stored on paper and in many individual locations. In many cases with some science and research information, by the time the material is printed in a book and distributed, it is already out of date. The electronic storage and retrieval of information via the Internet and other electronic distribution is the only practical way we can provide this important library function.
Seems to me that not only should the library offer access to the Internet, we should expect that such access will someday be the prime function of this institution. We should demand it and make sure that the funds are available to staff them with individuals who can help us identify how to search for information and to critically evaluate what we find. For sure there is a lot of misinformation distributed via the Internet, but I bet if we looked hard enough we might find some less than factual paper books on the shelves of libraries, too. Now, where is that book on alchemy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)