[DTS Neural Upmix is] marketed as a spatializing upmixer that can also decode Neural Surround (which is a third format not necessarily related to Neo:X).

No, there is no "Neural Surround" format as such. Neural Downmix uses phase encodings and the output is just an audio stream (can be analog, saved as a wave file, saved as DTS Master Audio, saved as MP3, etc.).

Look at this PDF. There are two columns: one shows different disk formats and how many bits per second each one needs; the other column has one thing in it, Neural Surround. This is because Neural Surround isn't a format as such.

http://www.dts.com/~/media/d5aad4e0d179439c8588ac3b61e37444/DTS_Broadcast_infosheet.pdf

See also this press release. A radio station was broadcasting in 5.1 using Neural Surround... broadcasting in ordinary stereo FM as well as HD radio. Anyone could listen in stereo, but those with Neural Upmix in their stereo receivers could hear 5.1 sound.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wguc-fm-begins-51-broadcasting-with-neural-surroundtm-56267632.html

But this feature is sorta incidental, as literally nothing is mixed in Neural Surround.

I'm sorry but you are completely mistaken on this point. Let's look at the DTS web site again:

DTS Neural Surround DownMix technology reduces multichannel surround sound to a stereo mix that accurately represents the original intent of the content creator.

The DTS Neural Surround DownMix uses patented âoeActive Correctionâ technology. By analyzing the audio, the phase and intensity are rewritten, creating a pristine Lt/Rt stereo mix.

This process eliminates problems that traditionally occur in matrix surround downmix systems, such as comb filtering and spatial distortion. DTS Neural Surround DownMix creates a natural sounding stereo mix that is spatially true to the original multichannel localization.

http://www.dts.com/professionals/sound-technologies/audio-processing/dts-neural-surround.aspx#downmix

Note the phrase "pristing Lt/Rt stereo mix" and the concerns about comb filtering in the output mix. There is mixing going on here.

DTS Neural Downmix produces a stereo output stream which may be saved in any format. You can feed the result to DTS Neural Upmix, even as an analog waveform, and it will upmix using the encoded signals. There is no disk format for "DTS Neural Surround" as such.

My understand is that the height channels are encoded sum-and-difference with the main L-R channels, and a special decoder reads reads additional channel data to subtract out the height channels from the mains.

I think it is possible that there is some additional metadata embedded in the DTS Master Audio bitstream, because old DTS decoders do understand metadata tags and will ignore them. But there is no bitstream change from plain DTS 7.1 to DTS 11.1, and you can play the 11.1 stream on an old DVD player and you will get 7.1 out. (Just like you could play Dolby Surround on a stereo and get stereo out, if you didn't have the Dolby Surround decoder to upmix from stereo to surround.)

If you are still convinced that DTS 11.1 has additional discrete channels, please find a reference and show me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I think the DTS web page I referenced in the previous post backs me up.

By "actual format" I mean its a communications channel where the sender and recipient agree on what goes into the channel and what is supposed to come out.

Then I would say that DTS 11.1 is an actual format exactly the way Dolby Surround was an actual format. Both rely on specific, agreed-upon phase encodings that are decoded to produce additional channels, and both are played back on older equipment just by playing them back. (Possibly DTS 11.1 uses metadata tags, which have no real equivalent in analog audio. But both just play back unchanged on older equipment; there are no extra channels to be dropped.)

There's a fundamental difference between an encoded mix and an upmixer. Dolby Surround is intended to be decoded from 2 tracks into LCRS, the filmmakers mixed the film in Dolby Stereo and were listening to the surrounds so they know what's in them. The phase encoding is part of the channel spec.

I'm with you so far.

An upmixer takes a stereo or 5.1 mix and applies effects to it to make it sound like it was mixed in a wider format, but there's nothing really being decoded, it's just synthesizing or guessing what should be in the additional channels using heuristics, all-pass filters, delays, crossover networks and other stuff that sounds cool or "provide a good experience" but, in fact, interfere with the filmmaker's intent.

The original Dolby surround and DTS Neural Upmix can both be applied to any stereo recording and some sort of upmix will occur, but both were designed to be used with a mix that was intended to be upmixed. DTS also sells DTS Neural Downmix which can take a 5.1 or 7.1 stream and output stereo with intentionally encoded signals that decode back to 5.1 or 7.1 sound.

When DTS Neural Upmix is working from a stereo signal that was made using DTS Neural Downmix, you get a really clean surround sound with no leakage. I used to listen to the multichannel recording of "Money" by Pink Floyd, and the cash register and coin sound effects very cleanly came from all the different directions like the original multichannel mix.

Again, you can't fit 8 kilos of flour into a 2-kilo sack, so 7.1 audio sent through downmix, then upmixed back to 7.1, can never perfectly reproduce the original multichannel recording. But I was impressed by just how well it did.

Despite the name "Neural Upmix", it is designed to work with phase-encoded signals intentionally mixed using Neural Downmix.

Neural Upmix is an upmixer, DTS Neo:X is an actual format that decodes an 11.1. Neo:X home receivers also employ upmixing, mainly because no films are mixed in 11.1 Neo:X, it's a surround audiophile format, and it needs to do an upmix in order to justify people spending money on it.

My understanding is that DTS 11.1 audio uses intentionally encoded signals for the height channels, but the on-disk format is DTS Master Audio 7.1 (no additional discrete channels).

Just as the original Dolby surround could be listened to in stereo if you didn't have surround speakers, the 11.1 mix can be listened to in 7.1 if you don't have height speakers; in both cases, the downmix process is supposed to not add anything objectionable.

I don't know what you mean by "DTS 11.1 is an actual format"... if you mean that it has 12 discrete channels, I believe you are mistaken on this point.

Here's how DTS describes the 11.1 system:

An important goal of the DTS multi-tiered plan is to enable content creators to produce 3D audio and provide it to consumers without changing the delivery chain. With the DTS Neo:X capability for near discrete Height/Wide output, studios can produce directional cues intended only for these speakers, with no audible leakage into other channels. Studios can also produce soundtracks optimized for DTS Neo:X that offer a compatible listening environment in âoestandardâ multi-channel playback configurations.

From the "How it works" tab on this page:

http://www.dts.com/professionals/sound-technologies/audio-processing/dts-3d-audio.aspx

"without changing the delivery chain": no new audio format, disks play fine on older DTS decoders

"no audible leakage": there's no problem with leakage if you have discrete channels; if we are even talking about leakage, we are talking about an upmix.

I don't believe Imade any mistakes in my original post.

binaural = stereo

Actually in the audio world, "binaural" is used to specifically mean a recording intended for being played directly into the ears.

I was once present for a binaural recording session. The guy doing the recording had brought a fake human head, and the two microphones for the recoding were positioned in the two ears. The idea was to reproduce as fully as possible what you would have heard if you had been sitting in that spot in the room, with your head in that position.

You can listen to a binaural recording on speakers of course, but for the best experience you should use headphones.

For the absolute best experience, the recording should use a fake head that is exactly like your head. Not many people are ever going to experience that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording

Audio can do funny things as it travels around your head. For the absolute best 3D experience with headphones, you want to measure what happens to audio around your head; this is called your "Head-Related Transfer Function" or "HRTF". Instead of recording the audio with a fake head shaped just like yours, companies can just record a good 5.1 or 7.1 recording, and then you can mix that down to a binaural stereo mix that is perfect for your head if you have your HRTF. According to the article the AES is standardizing a file format for HRTF data, so that the software you get will be more likely to be able to work with your HRTF data if you have it measured.

The ultimate in VR audio will be headphones with motion tracking, and real-time mixing that uses your HRTF and changes the mix as you turn your head. If something is supposed to be coming from your left, and you turn your head to the left, that sound should get louder; then if you turn your head away from it, it should get quieter. If this is done right it should be incredible. People have been working on this for years and I'm sure someone somewhere has done it right, but I haven't seen any commonly available products to do it yet.

But with VR goggles you should totally have VR audio like I described above. It would be really immersive.

3d audio = surround sound (5.1/7.1/8.1/etc)

Pretty much, 3D audio is intended to include speakers above the plane of the 5.1 or 7.1 speaker setup; the industry calls these "height speakers". DTS 11.1 audio, for example, has a standard 7.1 setup, and then 4 height speakers: two in the front and two in the back.

The current ultimate in 3D audio is a 22.2 setup, where the ceiling has a 3x3 array of speakers, there are speakers at mid height, and there are speakers at ground level. However, IMHO there is zero chance that 22.2 will catch on as an audio standard.

Before the 5.1 and 7.1 digital standards, there was Dolby Surround that was encoded within a stereo soundtrack. A simple audio mixer could "upmix" from stereo to surround. DTS Neural Upmix can make a very clean 7.1 from a stereo signal, and it works from an analog signal (it's not something tricky inside a digital encoded format). You can't get 8 kilograms of flour into a 2-kilo bag, and Neural Upmix 7.1 can't completely reproduce the same mix as you can play through 8 discrete channels, but it can provide a good experience.

DTS 11.1, as I understand it, uses technology similar to DTS Neural Upmix to encode the 4 "height" channels within the other 7.1 channels. Turning 7.1 into 11.1 should be a lot easier than turning 2.0 into 7.1 so it should provide a good experience.

I expect the industry to go to "object oriented" audio. This means that audio will have metadata tags saying what direction the audio is coming from, and then a real-time mixer upmixes from the digital format with the metadata tags to whatever mix you need (i.e. if you have 11.1 speakers you get an 11.1 mix, if you actually have 22.2 speakers you get that, if you have 7.1 you get that, etc.) I believe Dolby Atmos works this way, and I believe DTS will be coming out with something similar.

Few people even want a standard with 24 discrete channels of audio. It just makes more sense to encode the audio you need in a digital format and then mix it on the fly. In a 22.2 audio mix, if there is no sound coming from overhead, you have 9 channels being used just to play silence; with object-oriented you would simply not have any encoded signal tagged to be coming from overhead.

Despite my mentioning the Cree 4FLOW, I still recommend buying Cree's more-expensive but better-made bulbs. The 4FLOW costs less, but it has a much shorter warranty and isn't nearly as well made.

The 4FLOW would be perfect for a light inside a closet that's rarely turned on, but then if it's rarely turned on you might as well leave the incandescent bulb in there until it burns out.

I had a similar experience with fluorescents. I replaced most of the ordinary light fixtures in my home with special fixtures with a circular fluorescent bulb (not "compact fluorescent"). I liked the quality of the light and I figured I'd be saving electricity.

Then the fixtures started burning out. Sometimes it would just be the bulb, but usually it was the whole fixture. At first I replaced the fixture with another (at $20 per fixture), but eventually I decide it was stupid and I started replacing the fluorescent fixtures with ordinary fixtures that take standard bulbs. At the time I installed compact fluorescents. And of course the compact fluorescents, which would be easy to replace if they die, never die. (I don't care, I'm replacing them with LEDs anyway.)

As for avoiding burning your house down, I suggest you do as I do: buy Cree products. I get the top of the Cree line, the "TrueWhite" bulbs, but they have new "4FLOW" bulbs that cost less and run very cool.

The cheapest LED bulbs will be like the cheapest anything electronic: made at some random factory in China with possibly bad quality control and even possibly bad safety. Sounds like you had the bad luck to get a bad bulb. Sometimes it's worth it to pay a bit more for a name brand.

waiting for a good price point

I don't know how much these cost where you live, but where I live I can get LED bulbs at Home Depot from $6 to $20 depending on quality and brightness. They have an expected lifetime of 20+ years, and I don't have to change the light in that time. To me, this is a no-brainer and I've been buying LEDs for my whole house.

In fairness, I know that the power company where I live is subsidizing the bulbs, and absent the subsidy they would cost more. But it seems likely that you might be able to buy subsidized bulbs where you live too.

Also, I just checked the EarthLED web site, and without asking me where I live, the site showed me a deal: $100 for a 20-pack of LED bulbs. I've never heard of the brand ("Euri") but surely you could pay $5 per bulb for something that will last so long?

I like the Cree TrueWhite bulbs and I pay extra for them. LED bulbs tend to be a bit too yellow, so Cree developed a "notch filter" that takes out some of the yellow from the light, correcting the color. But now the light is a bit dimmer since some was taken out; so Cree puts a few extra LED modules into the bulb. Result: same amount of light, better color, consumes a little more power but not too much more.

I have also replaced all the 48-inch fluorescent fixtures in my home with Cree Linear LS4 fixtures at 3500K color temperature. Wow, it's so much nicer light and completely silent. Totally worth it.

If you are using incandescent bulbs, and you replace your most-commonly-used ones with LED bulbs, you will save enough money on electricity to pay for the new bulbs within a reasonable time. If you already have compact fluorescent bulbs, and you don't mind their light, then LEDs aren't guaranteed to pay for themselves right away and it might make sense to keep waiting. Otherwise, go for it.

It's interesting the headphone jack is still there since bluetooth chips are so cheap, easy to use, and are smaller than the headphone jack itself. I guess the problem for wireless headphones is powering them requires too many batteries.

Current Bluetooth headsets require the audio stream to be compressed using lossy compression. If you want the best audio quality, you buy nice headphones and plug them into the analog jack.

According to a post on soundexpert.org, Bluetooth audio has 721 kbps bandwidth. That's bits, not bytes. Thus the requirement for lossy compression.

Unless Bluetooth becomes able to carry FLAC or Apple Lossless with at least 2 channels at CD quality, the headphone jack is still essential.

And as you noted, Bluetooth means battery hassles while wired headphones always work.

Don't forget:
Overdrawn at the Memory Bank

2.1 out of 10 on IMDB.

On the other hand, I rather liked the adaptation of The Lathe of Heaven.

From TFA:

held up by a tangle of clean power foes, regulatory and financing woes, and Cape Cod homeowners afraid it'd ruin the view.

Who exactly are "clean power foes"?

This seems like using an epithet to delegitimize others.

I'm sure there are people who oppose this project for stupid reasons, like "it'd ruin the view". But I am equally sure that absolutely nobody opposes this project because it is too clean.

I suppose that if you looked and looked, you could find someone who is so certain that an ice age is coming that he wants all power generated by burning stuff. But even this imaginary guy isn't really a foe of clean power, he's just a fan of carbon dioxide.

If you want a really awesome chemistry set, you can buy one:

http://hms-beagle.com/heirloom-chemistry-set/

This was a KickStarter project. He was trying to raise $30K and he raised almost five times that much.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1742632993/heirloom-chemistry-set

If you can't afford the full set, contact the store; the web page says they can sell any subset of the kit.

Hmm, if I ever make it to Kansas City I will try to go check out the H.M.S. Beagle science store.

How about a one-button waterproof cell phone?

I've read about phones where you program which number the phone calls, but I can't find any now. Maybe they are no longer sold.

But here's a phone that calls some sort of operator, who can then decide how to handle the situation. You need to pay a monthly fee for the operator but I think that's better for a 2-year-old than a phone that just dials 911.

http://www.greatcall.com/products/greatcall-splash

If you could find a 1-button programmable phone, and program it to call you, that might be ideal.

IMHO, the sooner the world standardizes on Python 3.x, the better. It contains numerous small improvements, no one of which is invaluable, but together which add up to a better language.

As for print as a statement, I only miss that for interactive use, and you can assuage the issue by using ipython with the --autocall feature enabled. And I like the simple way you can now control how the output is formatted and where it goes, and you can re-bind the name print to completely hook the behavior of printing. Overall it's a win.

The big shocking change is that you are now required to be careful about character encodings on I/O because all strings are Unicode. My own name can be perfectly written with 7-bit ASCII, but there are many people in the world whose names require more than ASCII provides, and Python 3.x programs will work out of the box for those people. I wish everyone using a web framework to build a website would use Python 3.x and be international-ready from day 0.

As for Python 2.6.x, there are some things in Python 2.7.x that I definitely want. I find it odd that you called out 2.6 specifically.

P.S. I agree with you that Python was already pretty darn good even in 2.x.

Pascal might be underrated but it doesn't matter. There is no place for Pascal in the modern programming world.

When I went to college, Pascal was the standard teaching language. I have studied it pretty thoroughly and I understand it pretty well.

Pascal was designed as a teaching language. There are features in Pascal that are stripped-down, and I think it was just to make the teaching easier. In particular, why must all goto labels be integers rather than strings? I'd much rather write goto cleanup_after_fatal_error than goto 1000. It was a tiny bit simpler to write a Pascal compiler because of this limitation.

If you know C and really want to understand why Pascal didn't win over C, get a copy of Software Tools in Pascal. Look at all the places they had to work around limitations in Pascal, and consider how to write similar code in C. In all the cases, I realized that they simply wouldn't have had a problem in C.

Also, after writing the above book, Brian Kernaghan wrote an essay Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Programming Language and if you have rose-colored glasses for Pascal I suggest you read it.

C really is the king of the "third-generation languages". In its earliest form it had dangerously little type-checking, but in its modern form (where you use function prototypes so the compiler can check types) it has type checking similar to Pascal, with all the benefits that provides. And it has all the little things I appreciate, such as terminating a loop early using break. In Pascal, to terminate a loop early you needed to either clutter up the loop conditionals with an extra flag variable (early_exit or some such) or else you had to use goto to break out (with a numeric label target, of course).

"But wait," some of you are muttering. "I used to write Pascal programs and I remember using break..." No, you didn't used to write Pascal programs: you used to write Turbo Pascal programs. When Borland created Turbo Pascal they fixed all of the worst problems of Pascal, pretty much by just doing whatever C did first. I wrote a lot of Turbo Pascal and I liked it very much.

But this points out the biggest problem of Pascal: it was not well specified, and as a result it didn't work a lot of the time. Where a spec is weak, you tend to get different implementations doing different things, which is horrible for portability. The wonderful book Oh, Pascal! discusses the brokenness of the I/O in Standard Pascal, and the various ways that Pascal implementations work around the problem, and summarizes with Cooper's Law of Standards: "If it doesn't work, it doesn't stay standard."

For Pascal to have a niche, it should do something a lot better than C, for it is C that it needs to displace. But IMHO there really isn't anything it does very much better than C, and there are numerous areas where it's a non-starter unless it copies features from C.

Given the massive installed base of C, C isn't going anywhere, and that leaves no room for Pascal; Pascal does the same sort of things as C does, but not as well.

So when things are wrong a frequent reason to use such a command is used), it wastes my time to display something I didn't request and don't want to see.

When things are wrong, you don't want to see the recent log events to diagnose what went wrong?

It's a legit complaint if this display slows you down, but I'm amazed that you are so hostile to the idea. However, as a sysadmin I'm just a dilettante so I will defer to your expertise.

Citation needed? I seem to remember that X could also run as non-root before systemd.

http://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/14268.html

The main problem with systemd is that it is beeing pushed onto and by the mayor distributions without fixing the problems first.

Makes sense to me. I'm glad that Debian did the work to leave SystemD as optional.