Digital Noise: Music and Tech

The idea of a digital music kiosk, where customers can walk up, press a few buttons on a screen, and download music to some sort of portable storage medium (disc, phone, flash card), has been around for a few years now. Starbucks ended a two-year experiment with in-store CD burners back in 2006, and U.K. music retailer HMV began offering free downloads to USB drives from in-store kiosks in 2007.

CDs are so 20th century.

(Credit: MOD Systems)

Even if the trend hasn't exactly taken off, companies continue to try them out. Earlier this week, Seattle-based start-up MOD Systems entered the fray, announcing that it had signed deals with all four major labels, allowing it to package more than 5 million DRM-free songs for digital distribution via in-store kiosks.

There's a bit of irony in the announcement, as MOD co-founder Anthony Bay used to lead Microsoft's Windows Media Division, whose business model relied heavily on DRM (digital rights management). Microsoft hoped to convince content owners that it had a robust DRM system so they'd use Windows Media technologies to encode and host their content. But that was almost 10 years ago, and now that the recording industry has come around to the idea of selling DRM-free tracks on iTunes, Amazon, and countless other online stores, there's no reason to restrict retail kiosks from doing the same.

So is there any future for digital music kiosks? It's hard to imagine shopping at a digital-only record store when it's so much easier to buy MP3s over the Web on my home computer--which is where I store them anyway--or over the air from a phone or wireless-connected player. But kiosks might find a place in multipurpose retailers and big-box stores, where they'd take up a lot less space than the CD racks currently in place, or in other places with lots of foot traffic--hotel lobbies, malls, university campuses, and so on. I can even imagine a jukebox that not only lets you play songs, but also lets you download them to a flash drive--great for those late-night impulse buys.

Follow Matt on Twitter

Update 4:15 p.m. PDT: Two clarifications. First, Remote Media Streaming is not limited to music--you can also stream video and pictures. I focused on music because that's the main topic of this blog. Second, you are required to associate a Windows Live ID (which used to be called Passport) with each computer whose library you want to share, and each computer you want to be able to access that library. I assume Microsoft took this step to avoid complaints or possible litigation from content owners.

In the announcement of the impending release of Windows 7 RC (basically the final beta), Microsoft on Wednesday confirmed a rumor that I first saw reported by Zack Whitaker of ZDNet last month: a new feature called Remote Media Streaming will let you access the music library on your home PC from another computer over the Web.

(Credit: Renai LeMay/ZDNet Australia)

It's like Slingbox, only instead of accessing the cable box or DVR sitting in your home, you're accessing the music files stored on your home PC.

It could get really interesting, if combined with Windows Live ID--simply associate a Live ID with your home machine, and you could get immediate automatic access to your music library whenever you log on with that ID on another machine (though you might need the Windows Media Player 12 on that accessing machine).

This is the first exciting new digital-media feature I've seen in Windows 7, but it seems to be at cross-purposes with other Microsoft efforts. For instance, one selling point of Windows Home Server is the ability to access files remotely, and while I suppose that some families might use that feature to access their financial records or homework, it seems like digital media would be the most interesting use. Offering that feature in Windows 7 takes some of the steam out of Home Server.

Then there's the whole Zune factor--for the last two years, the Media Player has languished untouched while the Zune PC software has been updated several times. Now, just when I had finally abandoned the Media Player, it looks like I'll have a reason to re-employ it.

From Microsoft's perspective, does it really make sense to have two product teams working on different digital-media clients for the PC? I don't think so, and eventually, Microsoft may have to pick a winner. I thought that Zune had the inside track, but now I'm not so sure.

Images: A peek at Windows 7 release candidate

Update at 5:10 p.m. PDT: Changes were made based on a draft version of the Windows 7 Reviewers' Guide.

Microsoft took the wraps off the next version of Windows Tuesday at its Professional Developers Conference, and the Web's abuzz with first impressions and previews--most of which are positive.

It looks like Microsoft is making the right moves to counter some of the problems with Vista: application and hardware compatibility are top priorities, and most of the UI tweaks I've seen so far seem helpful rather than arbitrary, as many of the changes in Vista seemed to be. But the release of Windows 7 is still a year away, and there will no doubt be modifications between now and then.

But forget the big picture...what's in store for digital audio in the next version of Windows? Here's a quick rundown of what in known based on the very early pre-beta shown in Los Angeles:

The Media Center interface in Windows 7 will scroll through album covers in your collection when you play a song.

(Credit: Charlie Owen, Microsoft)

• Media Player not dead. Windows 7 will ship with a new version of the Windows Media Player. This is somewhat surprising, given Microsoft's complete neglect of the Media Player since Vista's release and its emphasis on the Zune PC software, which has its own playback and organizational features. But apparently Microsoft has realized that native playback of digital media within Windows is too important to force people to download an application separately. This is not the case with some other applications--for instance, Windows 7 will not come with Mail/Outlook Express, Photo Gallery, or Movie Maker--instead, users will have to download Windows Live versions of these applications. (Or PC makers will have to pre-bundle them.)

• Non-Microsoft formats supported. Microsoft is at long last capitulating to the inevitable and natively supporting AAC audio (as well as H.264 video--both are parts of the MPEG-4 standard), which has become a dominant format thanks to Apple's AAC support in iTunes. For years, Microsoft used the Player to promote its own Windows Media format--for instance, it didn't support full-bitrate ripping of CDs to MP3 until Windows Media Player 10, released in 2004--but apparently the Media Player team is following Zune's lead here.

• Networked music. Microsoft promises major ease-of-use improvements for home networking in Windows 7 (hallelujah), and streaming home audio is no exception. You'll be able to stream media from any Windows 7 PC to any network-connected device that supports version 1.5 of the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) standard, and vice-versa. The Windows Media Player will even transcode your media on the fly to the appropriate format for each device on your network. This sounds great on paper, but of course the devil's in the implementation details. Still, it's a great step forward from Windows Media Connect in XP and Vista, which only supports the Xbox 360 and a handful of other devices.

• Bluetooth audio. Windows 7 includes a Bluetooth audio driver, meaning it will natively support Bluetooth speakers and headphones--no installation required. (The lack of support for Bluetooth audio in Vista drew lots of complaints.)

• Intelligent routing. Microsoft promises that audio will flow more reliably to the proper devices--for example, a song will naturally play over your speakers, while a Voice-over-IP call will flow to your headphones. Again, nice idea, but wait to see if the implementation works.

• Libraries. A new feature, Libraries, will arrange similar types of files from across your PC--and across all the PCs in your network--within a single virtual folder. So all your music, even files you've neglected to put in your MyMusic folder, will appear in this virtual Music Library, which should make it easier to organize and find songs outside the context of the Media Player or Zune (or iTunes) libraries.

• Music Wall. It looks like the Media Center team has borrowed a trick from the Zune PC software: when you're listening to an album in Media Center, the background will gradually scroll through images from all the album art in your collection.

Dell gave up on MP3 players in 2006, after three years of fighting the iPod juggernaut. Initially, Dell's players relied on Musicmatch software for library organization, content syncing, and online music purchases, although they synced with the Windows Media Player as well in case of problems with Musicmatch (which CNET reviewer John Frederick Moore encountered back in 2005 with the flash-based Dell DJ Ditty). The reviews were middling at best, and the players never got much above 3 percent market share.

The Dell DJ Ditty, discontinued in 2006.

(Credit: CNET reviews)

According to a report in today's Wall Street Journal, Dell is considering re-entering the MP3 player market later this year. This time, the company is considering building its own software based on technology it gained in its acquisition of Zing, as well as a modified version of somebody else's subscription music service, most likely Rhapsody's.

Let's leave aside the question of whether the world needs yet another end-to-end hardware-software-services play in the MP3 player space. (Ask Microsoft how that's going with Zune.)

This is about something much bigger and more interesting: the shift of power in the PC market away from Microsoft and toward the hardware manufacturers. The process has been going on since the Department of Justice's antitrust settlement with Microsoft back in 2001--a lot of onlookers derided that settlement as toothless, but it actually made a difference with regard to Microsoft's relationships with OEMs (original equipment manufacturers--Microsoft parlance for the big PC makers like Dell and HP). Instead of being allowed to push them to include whatever software Microsoft bundled with Windows, the OEMs were free to choose their own bundling strategies. If Microsoft wanted placement, it would have to pay like everybody else.

Fast forward a few years. Vista launches to mostly bad reviews. Apple launches a series of brilliant advertisements slamming Vista. These advertisements, combined with the popularity of the iPod and a generally smoother experience on the Mac (even Ballmer admitted it last week) create a big spike in Macintosh sales. That hurts Microsoft a little bit, as Windows still has more than 90 percent of the market for personal computing operating systems. But it hurts the PC makers more: even the biggest ones, Dell and HP, have only about 30 percent share.

Instead of relying on Microsoft to fight back against Apple, Dell's taking matters into its own hands. The company's been focusing on better design for some time now--that's phase one, since Apple consistently wins praise for its hardware design. Phase two: create a differentiated consumer experience for digital media and entertainment, and make it available only on a Dell. The MP3 player's just a side note.

Which raises the question: how much marketing should Microsoft do for Windows anyway? Rumors have been flying about a $300 million rehabilitation campaign for Vista. Why bother if OEMs like Dell are going their own way anyway? Instead, Microsoft should focus on building the most reliable, secure, multipurpose operating system it can, one that the OEMs will be happy to put on their PCs and that end users will be happy to adopt. Forget the user interface bells and whistles. Scale back on the included apps, which Microsoft now has to pay OEMs to place anyway. Just build a great OS, let the OEMs figure out how to use it, then leave the sales, marketing, and user experience details to them.

CNET's MP3 Insider blog posted a fascinating entry the other day on how CNET Labs tests the audio response of different MP3 players. They load several files of the type that are used to test traditional stereo equipment, such as white noise and pure sine waves, then plays them back into an audio analyzer, which reports numbers for qualities such as signal-to-noise ratio and total harmonic distortion. Two Creative players come out on top, the iPod Classic in the middle, and Microsoft's Zune in seventh place due to fairly mediocre harmonic distortion scores.

Hardware isn't the only factor in how good an MP3 player sounds.

(Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

As Donald Bell correctly points out, numbers lie: some of the best sounding MP3 players actually boost or depress certain frequencies to make up for the fact that you're probably listening to a digitally compressed file through a middling audio processor and cheap earbuds, with lots of ambient noise around you. (Good audio engineers tell you the same thing: level meters, for example, aren't the final arbiter of whether there's unacceptable distortion on a recording--your ears are.)

But putting aside the subjectivity of hearing, I'm curious about the effect of different codecs--the specific technology used to create a compressed digital sound file. Presumably, CNET Labs uses uncompressed WAV files to check the hardware. But I wonder if they've ever done tests--subjective or objective--of different types of compressed files against one another, like SoundExpert has done. I've long read that MP3 offers the lossiest compression, but is there a noticeable difference between AAC and Windows Media Audio (WMA) and Ogg at the same bitrate? And one step beyond that: does one player sound better with a particular codec than others?

Subjectively, I prefer WMA files over AAC files on my Zune. My iPods (a new Shuffle and fourth-generation 20GB unit) can't play WMA files, but when I convert those files to AAC using iTunes, they don't sound as good as the AAC files I rip from scratch, even though the converted files have a higher bitrate. MP3s don't sound as good as either AAC or fixed-bitrate WMA, but actually seem to sound better than variable-bitrate WMA. And MP3s seem to sound best on my fourth-generation iPod. Go figure.

If you're one of the few who downloaded music from MSN Music, which Microsoft shuttered shortly after launching its Zune initiative, then you have until Aug. 31 to get that music onto the five devices you're allowed to put it on. After that date, Microsoft is shuttering the DRM servers used with the service, and any further transfers will render the songs unplayable.

Know your rights. They are your rights.

This is the inevitable last step in a transition that began when Microsoft killed its old PlaysForSure initiative. Why keep paying to maintain a service that's no longer offered, and runs counter to the current strategy? And I believe MSN manager Rob Bennett when he says that Microsoft was compelled to add DRM to songs on MSN Music--that's what labels demanded from legal download services at that time.

At the same time, Microsoft isn't totally innocent here. DRM was a big part of Microsoft's pitch for the Windows Media platform, and the company had a whole product team devoted to researching, developing, and updating DRM. Microsoft tried to sell content owners on the idea that Windows Media DRM was much more flexible than its competitors, allowing business scenarios like subscription-based content being transferred to devices (stop paying, the songs stop working on all your devices) and various rental models (like content expiring after a certain time period or number of plays). The laughable part: Microsoft tried to portray these scenarios as offering more consumer choice.

No. DRM is and always has been about about restricting choice. In fact, the whole notion of having "rights" to music you purchase is completely backwards--digital rights management should have been called digital restriction management. So for all of you buying restricted content from iTunes or the Zune Marketplace or anywhere else, let this serve as a warning: the provider or distributor of that content can unilaterally change your "rights" to it at any time. If you've invested a lot in DRM-protected music, burn it to audio CDs and then re-rip those CDs into MP3 files. Better yet, buy it in a non-protected format--like vinyl, audio CD, or MP3--in the first place.

It's the law of entropy: as your digital music collection increases, you're bound to run into mislabeled songs, duplicate tracks in multiple file formats, and other problems. Apple's iTunes does a fine job of displaying song data and letting you edit it--as long as the song's in a format that iTunes supports (if you try to import a WMA file, for instance, iTunes will ask if you want to convert it first). Microsoft's Windows Media Player has an advanced tag editor, but it's buried a few menu options down, and it only lists songs in your My Music library. And as I've mentioned before, the new Zune software apparently wasn't designed to help you manage your library--it's hard, and in some cases impossible, to edit song data.

Reading through the Zune forums, I came across a very helpful post from user Khu entitled "10 ways to reduce your Zune-related stress." In that post, he suggests using a program called Mp3Tag to edit metadata (such as song order) before you fire up the Zune software (which does a nice job of auto-importing songs from My Music and any other folder you choose into your Zune library).

I downloaded and installed Mp3tag, and it's exceptionally helpful. As you can see in the screenshot, you can point it at any folder on your hard drive and it will list all music files in that folder. You can arrange them any way you like. Arranging them by album title me to see when I had duplicate WMA and AAC (.mp4) files for a particular album--a common occurrence for me, since I rip into WMA and then use iTunes to make the songs playable on my iPod. Since my Zune supports AAC files, and my iPod doesn't support WMA, I could delete the WMAs to save space. It also showed me where the file title didn't match the song title, where song order was missing, and any other flaws. Changing data is easy--use the upper left panel, type what you want, and hit save.

Kudos to Florian Heidenreich, the person behind the program and the site. He's offering it for free, but donations are welcome--if you download it, don't be cheap.

Mmm, metadata. Mp3tag shows it all (more than could fit into this screenshot) and makes it easy to edit.

(Credit: Screenshot)

Yesterday, top cellphone maker Nokia announced Ovi, an umbrella brand for a forthcoming set of online services. Among these services is a new Nokia Music Store, which will offer both over-the-air and PC-based downloads, with two-way sync between device and PC. The service will launch in Europe, featuring a catalog of "millions" of tracks. Individual song downloads will cost 1 Euro and full albums 10 Euros. A subscription, PC-tethered, streaming-only service will also be available for 10 Euros per month. (The whiz-bang Flash site introducing Ovi is here. A press release is here.)

The service leverages Nokia's acquisition of Seattle-based Loudeye last August. Loudeye was founded in 1997 by Martin Tobias, an ex-Microsoftie, and created online music stores for third parties, similar to what MediaNet (formerly MusicNet) does. Microsoft cited Loudeye as an important Windows Media partner, although Loudeye also employed other technologies in its stores.

Nokia and Loudeye originally partnered back in 2004 to create an music platform for wireless carriers. Nokia reasoned that as these stores became more common, it would help Nokia sell more expensive multimedia-capable handsets. But while ringtones have been a reasonably good (if rapidly maturing) business, full-song over-the-air downloads haven't really taken off. For example, according to a Jan. 2007 study by Telephia, while 10.5% of U.S. phone users have a music player on their phone, only 8.5% of those users have actually bought a song over the air.

The relatively lackluster performance of carriers' music stores, combined with Apple's entry into the handset business, appears to have spooked Nokia into creating its own music store. But there's a problem here: Apple's brand is so strong, and demand for its phone was so high, that the company was able to extract some concessions from AT&T. In particular, instead of letting users download songs over the air from an AT&T store, Apple requires iPhone users to transfer songs from their computers using iTunes, just like an iPod. (This may change on Sept. 5, although I suspect any over-the-air downloads would come courtesy of a wireless version of iTunes, not an AT&T store.)

Is Nokia's brand as strong as Apple's? I don't think so. Nokia makes some great handsets, but people don't wait in line for days to buy them. In addition, Apple controls its distribution through its Web site and Apple Stores, while Nokia depends mainly on carriers to resell its handsets.

The upshot? Carriers have a lot more leverage over Nokia than over Apple. European wireless carrier Orange has already threatened to boycott handsets that feature the new Nokia store. The dispute is supposedly over "user experience," but I suspect that Orange would simply prefer to keep any profit from music downloads for itself, rather than collecting only data fees.

Who do you think will win this war of wills, the carriers or Nokia? And could Apple face similar resistance as it tries to expand into other markets?

San Francisco Chronicle music critic Joel Selvin mourns the loss of audio quality in our iPod-obsessed culture.

He's right: MP3 files and other forms of data-compressed audio, such as AAC (used by Apple's iTunes) and Windows Media Audio, don't contain as much audio data as an uncompressed song on a CD. For long-time music listeners such as Selvin, the difference is striking. (Note that he's talking about data compression, not the audio compression that's misused to "punch up" many modern recordings.)

The first time I heard a CD full of burned MP3 files back in 1999, I was struck at how flat and lifeless the music sounded. It was almost like listening to a Xerox copy of the music rather than the music itself.

The feeling is even worse if it's music you've recorded. After spending weeks getting tones (which includes the painstakingly dull process of hearing the drummer hit the same drum over and over and over again for several hours), fine-tuning the sound of each part with the perfect combination of instruments and amplifiers and offboard effects, playing several times to get the perfect take, overdubbing extra parts and haggling over the perfect mix, you end up with a streaming MP3 that sounds like a radio broadcast from Mars played on a cheap transistor radio.

But I also recall the first time I heard a CD back in the early 1980s, and how sterile it sounded compared with the vinyl records I was accustomed to (and still prefer). And no recording will sound as vibrant as live music.

The point is, music can serve many purposes. When I listen to an MP3 file over my car stereo, it might not sound as good as a clean vinyl record on a high-end stereo system, but the setting's different: maybe it's a sunny day, and there's no traffic, and I haven't heard this particular song in so long that I almost forgot why I liked it in the first place. It's not exactly background music, but it's more of a soundtrack to my day than an activity in itself.

Or, when I hook my iPod up to my small Bose system for a dinner party, it's meant to be a backdrop for food and conversation, the real stars of the show. If it's the right crowd on the right night, we'll end up downstairs, listening to the real thing on vinyl.

I'd feel sorry if I imagined that there were kids who'd never heard anything but compressed music, but I'm not sure that these kids exist or will ever exist.

Like John Cage knew, music exists all around us every day. Natural-born audiophiles will seek out live music, buy CDs and maybe a turntable--and perhaps even learn to play an instrument.

For the rest of the world, music never would have been much more than background material anyway. With compressed audio files, they have access to more of it than ever before. Perhaps one of the countless tracks they've burned from their little-used CD collection will hit them just right one day and spark them to investigate further.