software programmers' families

I don't want to get to involved in a subject I know very little
about. To me it's amazing what these programmers can come up with. I
certainly want them to be able to take care of their homes and families.

But, to make a general point, this 'copyright'/'intellectual
property' etc. war that is being waged all over the world in so many
areas, from genetically modified food to drugs and medicines, to
information technology to MP3s etc. is one which profits certain big
companies and greatly damages everybody else, especially the
destitute in Africa, Latin America, Asia etc. It is a form of
protectionism which once had a purpose but which is now holding back
human creativity, self-confidence, independence, imagination and
initiative in general every bit as much as the royal privilege given
to certain music publishers in the 16th and 17th century served a
useful role for a while but became outdated and constrictive as the
new technology of music printing etc. developed. For example Bach did
not have to hide behind artificial ideas of private property to keep
his family. There are or could be other ways of paying creative
people than making them work for firms who have monopolised rights to
produce and market certain technologies, who then have a commercial
interest in restricting developments to what is most saleable etc.
The point is that these music software programmes are one small
example of a general problem: [information] technology has grown
beyond the confines of the system which developed it. Until the
system is changed it will hold back progress in the technology.

But before calling for a complete change of system one surely has a
right to ask at least 1] for prices that would make these useful
softwares more generally accessible without having to go to software
'pirates'? 2] for more flexibility/openness in e.g. revealing the
source code and allowing for individual tweaks, offshoots and
alterations to suit the personal enthusiasm of particular human
beings such as ourselves?

Or have I missed the point?

On 7 Jan 2008, at 19:55, Carl Lumma wrote:

> At 11:38 AM 1/7/2008, you wrote:
> >It might be getting off topic, but... hfmlacerda wrote:
> >
> >> those programs are not free software, they belong to that evil
> group
> >> of software packages that are subject to _artificial scarcity_ and
> >> enclose users into proprietary cages. Their secret and incompatible
> >> native file formats are part of the cages. They are not made for
> the
> >> users, but for their owners. They are not in the "right direction".
> >
> >Not all software can just be "free". Someone has to write it, and
> there
> >are lots of people who write software who like to take care of
> their homes
> >& families. Do you find crowds of people making free furniture, or
> farmers
> >giving away free vegetables?
> >
> >And what is "artificial scarcity"? We're talking about software, not
> >diamonds! Just buy a copy. It's as easily available as anything
> else that
> >isn't quite "free", and since it's software it can be replicated
> basically
> >infinitely. What you pay for is the development cost.
>
> Without having this explode into a flame war, I generally agree
> with this. However, I do think software has a special status above
> that things like carpentry don't share. It's more like literacy.
> There should still be room for professional writers, but everybody
> should be able to write.
>
> >As for proprietary formats, well... Who cares what it looks like
> on disk?
>
> Now here I disagree strongly. When the fate of a huge body of
> information rests with one company, that's not good. If proprietary
> software is so good, it shouldn't fear open file formats. The
> ability to exchange data between programs is also really empowering
> in its own right. Things like VST do come out of the industry, but
> not often enough if you ask me.
>
> >Finale and other packages can export to PDF and print onto paper.
> What
> >more open and compatible format does the musician want?
>
> This strikes me as a very weak argument.
>
> >Wasn't paper good enough for Bach?
>
> Yes, but we hope art can move beyond Bach. If not in absolute
> quality, then in some cultural sense that's meaningful.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"For example Bach did
not have to hide behind artificial ideas of private property to keep
his family. There are or could be other ways of paying creative
people than making them work for firms who have monopolized rights to
produce and market certain technologies, who then have a commercial
interest in restricting developments to what is most saleable etc. "

I completely agree...once control is handed over to such "marketing" firms the inevitable result is those firms focus on putting up barriers-to-entry for others to help improve on growing innovation (such as producing/advertising products in numbers no individual could match and/or patenting formulas/ideas that could/should ultimately be open to the public for improvement).

Personally I write open-source, specifically the Dot100 sound clarification, micro-tonal consonance optimization tool at http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdsound/. Many of the ideas in it may be "patentable" but earnings is not the point.

On the other hand, though, I agree there is a narrow job span for those wholeheartedly dedicated to working on innovative ideas as a full time job. Thus I believe such people should get some sort of minimal resource grants from government (IE $35,000 US per year) to support them EVEN if they aren't world-renowned professors or the like.
It is sad, for example, that MIDI software suites are being sold for over $400 when the number of aspiring MIDI songwriters would probably double to triple if prices were lowered...the cost of material for software is essentially nothing and advertising is not expensive...there should easily be enough to support software designers/developers per year even if the software went for $120 a copy. Also, people who are truly passionate about promoting music and musicians through software creation shouldn't need a $100,000/yr.+ salary to make it worth their while.

The reason the music industry in so many ways has gone downhill since the 60's despite technology is the fact record labels, software designers...have focused on expensive studios, concerts, overpriced software...as the "entry point/barrier" for musical success and/or scene participation rather than the talent and/or passion of the musicians and their supporters. Bands nowadays are often just known well for months or about a year at most due to, say, the decades the Beatles and Rolling Stones have been known for and music magazines IE Keyboard often talk about studio tech and expensive equipment rather than actual music theory.

As a software developer I feel much obliged to help reverse this nasty trend and put the power of creating music toward anyone with the passion to learn to do so regardless of background and networking. And I, for one, would rather have $35,000 a year for an open-source software product that was constantly being improved than $120,000 a year for one that isn't financially available to most of those who want it and/or is being pirated without any input from customers for improvement.

-Michael

BT <julian.silverman@...> wrote: I don't want to get to involved in a subject I know very little
about. To me it's amazing what these programmers can come up with. I
certainly want them to be able to take care of their homes and families.

But, to make a general point, this 'copyright'/'intellectual
property' etc. war that is being waged all over the world in so many
areas, from genetically modified food to drugs and medicines, to
information technology to MP3s etc. is one which profits certain big
companies and greatly damages everybody else, especially the
destitute in Africa, Latin America, Asia etc. It is a form of
protectionism which once had a purpose but which is now holding back
human creativity, self-confidence, independence, imagination and
initiative in general every bit as much as the royal privilege given
to certain music publishers in the 16th and 17th century served a
useful role for a while but became outdated and constrictive as the
new technology of music printing etc. developed. For example Bach did
not have to hide behind artificial ideas of private property to keep
his family. There are or could be other ways of paying creative
people than making them work for firms who have monopolised rights to
produce and market certain technologies, who then have a commercial
interest in restricting developments to what is most saleable etc.
The point is that these music software programmes are one small
example of a general problem: [information] technology has grown
beyond the confines of the system which developed it. Until the
system is changed it will hold back progress in the technology.

But before calling for a complete change of system one surely has a
right to ask at least 1] for prices that would make these useful
softwares more generally accessible without having to go to software
'pirates'? 2] for more flexibility/openness in e.g. revealing the
source code and allowing for individual tweaks, offshoots and
alterations to suit the personal enthusiasm of particular human
beings such as ourselves?

Or have I missed the point?

On 7 Jan 2008, at 19:55, Carl Lumma wrote:

> At 11:38 AM 1/7/2008, you wrote:
> >It might be getting off topic, but... hfmlacerda wrote:
> >
> >> those programs are not free software, they belong to that evil
> group
> >> of software packages that are subject to _artificial scarcity_ and
> >> enclose users into proprietary cages. Their secret and incompatible
> >> native file formats are part of the cages. They are not made for
> the
> >> users, but for their owners. They are not in the "right direction".
> >
> >Not all software can just be "free". Someone has to write it, and
> there
> >are lots of people who write software who like to take care of
> their homes
> >& families. Do you find crowds of people making free furniture, or
> farmers
> >giving away free vegetables?
> >
> >And what is "artificial scarcity"? We're talking about software, not
> >diamonds! Just buy a copy. It's as easily available as anything
> else that
> >isn't quite "free", and since it's software it can be replicated
> basically
> >infinitely. What you pay for is the development cost.
>
> Without having this explode into a flame war, I generally agree
> with this. However, I do think software has a special status above
> that things like carpentry don't share. It's more like literacy.
> There should still be room for professional writers, but everybody
> should be able to write.
>
> >As for proprietary formats, well... Who cares what it looks like
> on disk?
>
> Now here I disagree strongly. When the fate of a huge body of
> information rests with one company, that's not good. If proprietary
> software is so good, it shouldn't fear open file formats. The
> ability to exchange data between programs is also really empowering
> in its own right. Things like VST do come out of the industry, but
> not often enough if you ask me.
>
> >Finale and other packages can export to PDF and print onto paper.
> What
> >more open and compatible format does the musician want?
>
> This strikes me as a very weak argument.
>
> >Wasn't paper good enough for Bach?
>
> Yes, but we hope art can move beyond Bach. If not in absolute
> quality, then in some cultural sense that's meaningful.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am curious how this compression system defines "disonant" parts of the sound. And also would it be possible to compress removing the consonant :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sheiman [

Personally I write open-source, specifically the Dot100 sound clarification, micro-tonal consonance optimization tool at http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdsound/.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It defines dissonant as anything too close in space according to the critical band IE it takes any peak within the critical band and pushes it toward the side IE a 20hz peak and a 22hz peak would be added/averaged to the 20hz peak while, say, a 28hz peak would be moved/averaged to 32hz. A schema that stacks critical bands on top of each other forms the list of frequencies a peak can be moved to and ultimately compressed to IE, as you said, there is a compression mode (although not good enough yet to be feasible as, say, an OGG replacement). The compression mode does just as you said, eliminates all the "empty" areas between the critical band...it basically downsamples each peak to match the # slot in the critical band schema IE a 2048 block FFT's peak become fit into the first 130 or so blocks then downsampled so the highest frequency is the 130th block.

I've found a 130 peak schema usually capture most of the harmonics of tonal and microtonal music alike to be fairly indistinguishable from the originals far as which musical key is heard, at least in anything with a decent # of overtones that, on average, point the ear to the original base frequency. This is really just a take on a formula Bill Sethares founded to measure dissonance between 2 peaks given two amplitudes and 2 frequency locations.

As always I admit to being a hobbiest with a lot of ideas rather than a DSP or theory "pro"...and if anyone, yourself or otherwise, has any ideas feel free to join the project and update the code...Lord knows I need the help. :-)

-Michael

kraiggrady@... wrote:
I am curious how this compression system defines "disonant" parts of the sound. And also would it be possible to compress removing the consonant :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sheiman [

Personally I write open-source, specifically the Dot100 sound clarification, micro-tonal consonance optimization tool at http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdsound/.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for writing in again, Michael!

I'm still interested in your software. Do you have any
'before and after' examples (of the compression mode and/or
enhancement mode)? Before I get your source and compile it
and learn to use the command-line options, it'd be nice to
hear what it can do.

-Carl

At 04:30 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
> It defines dissonant as anything too close in space according to
>the critical band IE it takes any peak within the critical band and
>pushes it toward the side IE a 20hz peak and a 22hz peak would be
>added/averaged to the 20hz peak while, say, a 28hz peak would be
>moved/averaged to 32hz. A schema that stacks critical bands on top of
>each other forms the list of frequencies a peak can be moved to and
>ultimately compressed to IE, as you said, there is a compression mode
>(although not good enough yet to be feasible as, say, an OGG
>replacement). The compression mode does just as you said, eliminates
>all the "empty" areas between the critical band...it basically
>downsamples each peak to match the # slot in the critical band schema
>IE a 2048 block FFT's peak become fit into the first 130 or so blocks
>then downsampled so the highest frequency is the 130th block.
>
> I've found a 130 peak schema usually capture most of the harmonics
>of tonal and microtonal music alike to be fairly indistinguishable
>from the originals far as which musical key is heard, at least in
>anything with a decent # of overtones that, on average, point the ear
>to the original base frequency. This is really just a take on a
>formula Bill Sethares founded to measure dissonance between 2 peaks
>given two amplitudes and 2 frequency locations.
>
> As always I admit to being a hobbiest with a lot of ideas rather
>than a DSP or theory "pro"...and if anyone, yourself or otherwise, has
>any ideas feel free to join the project and update the code...Lord
>knows I need the help. :-)
>
> -Michael
>