Note the right-click menu which offers some handy debugging features as well as the invitation to “Install Microsoft Media Pack”. If you choose this, you get a dialog offering the Microsoft codecs which are downloaded from Microsoft, not from Mono servers. You have to agree a EULA that restricts use to Moonlight running in a web browser.

That last bit is intriguing; it seems Microsoft is trying to prevent desktop or out-of-browser Moonlight (or Mono) from taking advantage of its codecs.

So what is in Moonlight 2? Miguel de Icaza explains:

Moonlight 2 is a superset of Silverlight 2. It contains everything that is part of Silverlight 2 but already ships with various features from Silverlight 3.

Those additional features include the pluggable pipeline, easing animation support, writeable bitmaps, and partial out-of-browser support. Further, de Icaza says:

We are moving quickly to complete our 3 support. Microsoft is not only providing us with test suites for Moonlight but also assisting us in making sure that flagship Silverlight applications work with Moonlight.

There is also a new patent covenant that:

ensures that other third party distributions can distribute Moonlight without their users fearing of getting sued over patent infringement by Microsoft

That said, the media pack is a source of friction. Only the Novell Moonlight distribution will raise the above dialog to install the Microsoft codecs; others will have to make their own arrangements; at least that is how I understand de Icaza’s post.

It seems an odd restriction, and means that most users should download from Novell.

Related posts:

1. Moonlight update: Silverlight 2 on Linux hardly started
2. First baby steps for Moonlight 2.0: Silverlight for Linux
3. Silverlight is released for Windows, promised for Linux

Feature-wise, the Sansa falls somewhere between a Nano and a Shuffle. There’s no camera, games or accelerometer on a Sansa Clip, and at 4GB it has half the storage of the least capacious Nano (though see below); but unlike a Shuffle the Clip has a screen, an FM radio, and a voice recorder.

Sansa’s device also has something all the iPods lack: a slot for a Micro SD or SDHC card, which means you can plug in extra capacity up to 16GB.  This port also supports a concept called slotRadio, where you purchase 1000 pre-selected songs on a card, but they are locked to that card. A slotRadio card costs $39.99 in the USA; as far as I can tell they are not available yet in the UK.

In use, the Sansa Clip+ offers none of the tactile pleasure of an iPod; but check out the price. This particular model is £34.99 at Amazon.co.uk; a new-generation Nano is over £100 and even a 4GB Shuffle is over £55.00.

The good news is that the Clip+ sounds very good. That’s just as well, since I doubt many will care about slotRadio (especially in the UK). Expandable storage is a nice feature, though I’d more likely stick in 4GB and forget about it, rather than trying to manage a set of tiny SD cards.

Another strong feature of the Clip+ is that it plays FLAC and Ogg Vorbis as well as MP3, though I’d have liked to see MP4 in there too, for DRM-free purchases from iTunes. I also like being able to attach the Clip+ to a PC via USB and simply copy songs to it, rather than having to use Apple’s bloated iTunes.

Still, I have to admit that the controls are rather fiddly and annoying; I kept clicking back when I needed to click the centre button and sometimes vice versa.

In the end, there are two reasons to get a Clip+. One is because you like having an Apple-free musical life. The other is because you value function over form. The Clip+ does a great job at a lower price than an iPod; but if you like the silky feel and stylish appearance of Apple’s toys, this alternative is not going to win you over.

Related posts:

1. iPod database successfully hacked – for now
2. New iPod locked more tightly to iTunes, will not work with Linux
3. The backward march of iPod/MP3 devices

The Squeezebox Radio has a trendy new feature: Facebook integration:

Say you just discovered a new track listening to Pandora® on your Squeezebox Radio. Now you can tell your friends about it instantly. You can display your Facebook page right on the screen; and send music recommendations to your Facebook friends the moment you hear that amazing new track.

There’s no remote included as standard, but a $50 accessory pack will provide both a remote and a rechargeable battery, for portable use (but don’t go too far, because it depends on a wi-fi connection).

I am a big fan of the Squeezebox system, though it is not the easiest thing to explain in a few words. It’s interesting that Logitech is choosing to emphasise the internet radio aspect – handy for UK listeners threatened with the loss of FM – rather than the networked music player using a local server that is the original Squeezebox concept. I’ve used Squeezebox in conjunction with a Napster all-you-can-eat subscription, and the combination works very well indeed. Logitech needs to support Spotify, which has faster start-up and more mindshare than Napster. It’s a logical move for both companies. Facebook support on the other hand I can live without.

The snag with selling this as a radio is that it looks very expensive for what it is. $199 for a radio with Facebook support? The high price together with the complexity of setting up SqueezeCenter (if you do) is what holds the system back.

Logitech Squeezebox Radio on Amazon.com (Black)

Logitech Squeezebox Radio on Amazon.com (Red)

Related posts:

1. Squeezebox and Napster – the perfect combination?
2. Trying out SqueezeCenter and Jive (updated)
3. BBC looking at OpenID for iPlayer social network

There is a detailed comment from the BBC’s Sam Dutton on why the proof of concept was put together here. There is an interesting remark on why the BBC is interested in this approach, which does not require a plugin like Adobe Flash or Microsoft Silverlight:

Flash and other Rich Internet Applications (RIAs) provide something like this already via timeline scripting, but RIAs are ‘black boxes’, using compilers and obfuscators to hide code and data: great if you want to protect intellectual property, whereas we needed to provide a mechanism whereby data and the code acting on it were open and accessible. HTML 5 and the jQuery JavaScript framework gave us the tools we needed without requiring extra plugins or proprietary software.

From a technical perspective, Dutton remarks that the HTML 5 solution is more efficient if you want to synchronize other elements with the playing video:

The HTML 5 audio and video elements remove the need for player plugins, work like any other HTML element in terms of styling and positioning, and standardise the programming interface for playback control. Less well known is that these elements emit a timeupdate event (at a frequency adjusted to fit available processing and memory) which removes the need to poll a player for the current time position. This makes media scripting far more efficient, since there is no need to run a loop or use setTimeout. In tests run on several machines we found that timeupdate events are emitted regularly and frequently (particularly in Firefox), whereas polling a media player for current video time is unreliable.

Dutton adds:

… it’s early days for us on this and there are a number of serious challenges before this becomes anything near mainstream – if ever.

The BBC is an influential site and its experiments will attract keen interest from those watching the evolution of web video.

Related posts:

1. Google buys On2, plans to integrate video into web platform
2. BBC standardizing on Flash for web video
3. Microsoft playing HTML 5 standards game alongside Silverlight game

Spotify lets you stream music from the company’s servers using a particularly fast and elegant user interface. The choice is huge, and of course shareable playlists are supported – I’ve had a lot of fun with these, using the desktop version.

Now here it comes for iPhone, with two big differences:

1. You can synch playlists to the device for playing offline – essential on a mobile device.
2. It’s not free; you have to be a premium user at £9.99 per month in the UK.

Although that is somewhat expensive, you get a lot for your money, including high quality 320kbs streaming on the desktop.

I noted a few further details from the comments to the above post:

• An Android version is under development.
• The iPhone app also works on the iPod Touch.
• Offline works whether or not a connection is live. So if you pay for your data transfer, you could synch over wi-fi at home, then enjoy offline while travelling.

One thing that is not officially discussed is whether the company has verified with Apple that the application is acceptable. The post merely says:

… we’ve finally completed work on the Spotify app for the iPhone and sent it over to the nice people at Apple.

Now imagine you are Apple. The iPhone is in part built on the iPod, which was designed as a closed system using iTunes server and client to deliver music and apps to the device. Accepting an app that is an alternative to iTunes for music, and which to my mind represents the next generation of music delivery after downloading, is a threat to part of its business. It is not just that users might purchase less through iTunes. If users use Spotify rather than iTunes for their music, there are fewer barriers to moving from iPhone to Android or some other device (if Spotify chooses to support it). Reject the app then?

On the other hand, iPhone Spotify is for premium users only – not that many iPhone users will sign up. And if Apple rejects Spotify, there will be a very public cry of “monopoly” – whereas accepting it would be great PR.

Watching with interest – update soon.

Related posts:

1. Apple, Spotify, Google and iPhone: how to get into App Store
2. Spotify demos mobile music streaming with offline option – for Android
3. Spotify is the new Napster

I clicked a few links in this informative Reddit discussion and was soon looking at the fridge on someone’s machine out there.

Shortly afterwards, I was enjoying one of their Beatles tracks:

Cool; never mind that the Beatles do not, as far as I know, allow any of their songs on legal download sites like iTunes or Spotify.

Today the UK government is publishing Digital Britain, which is expected to include new proposals for protecting digital rights. Opera’s new product is a reminder of how hopeless that is.

Security is not Unite’s strong point. Although users can protect their content or other services with a password, it is passed as plain text, which means it is vulnerable to network sniffers. Opera has sandboxed services to protect the user’s machine, though as ever bugs could produce security holes.

Developers can create their own services, of course, and there are some interesting possibilities here. One that users will like is the ability to share files such as photos without needing to upload them first.

I doubt Opera will mind much if the service is controversial. It’s great publicity for its minority-usage browser that is otherwise easy to forget.

Related posts:

1. Windows web server market share grows
2. Web advertising goes outside: digital signage using force.com and Media RSS
3. Microsoft rolls out its browser choice update – but which is really the best?

On the whole I think they sound good, and of course they also have multi-channel capability which is nice if you are properly set up for that. I haven’t purchased either type of disc in large numbers though, mainly because of the price premium, and also because they are awkward to rip to a music server, which is how I do most of my listening. Most SACDs are hybrid, which means they have a standard CD layer as well as a high resolution layer, and you can rip the CD layer easily enough; but then you do not get the benefit of high resolution sound.

But is there a benefit, other than more care in mastering that could equally have been applied to a CD? High resolution is certainly useful for audio professionals who are processing the sound, but some argue that even CD audio is sufficiently accurate for human hearing. Two people, Brad Meyer and David Moran, conducted a series of blind tests in 2007 to prove the point: Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. In other words, they used a box that converted the output from a high-resolution player to CD-quality digital and back, and found that nobody could reliably tell the difference at normal listening levels.

Meyer and Moran’s research throws into question much of the rationale behind SACD and DVDA, which is marketed on the basis of its superior sound quality. It’s caused a debate in the audio industry, though perhaps not as much as you might expect. Some argue that the test was flawed, others that these “absurd” results prove that blind testing simply does not work. Others agree with the results and find them unsurprising. It is notable though that even critics and vendors with a stake in the audible superiority of high-resolution sound have not yet (as far as I know) come up with a repeat test, correcting the flaws they see in the original, and achieving different results, though it is still possible that someone may do so.

I wrote this up with more detail here.

Related posts:

1. Hi res audio files that are no better than CD
2. Why Audio Matters: Greg Calbi and others on “this age of bad sound”
3. Why does audio glitch in Vista?

The neat aspect of this is that XP applications don’t have to run within an XP desktop, but can be published to the host system. What this means is that users can start an XP application from the Windows 7 desktop, and only see the application window. This is more user-friendly than having to cope with two operating systems at once.

The main advantage is compatibility. Since this really is XP, pretty much anything that works on XP should run correctly. That said, since the hardware is virtualized there could be issues with some devices, or with applications that require accelerated graphics.

Another aspect is security. For example, if you have some applications that do not work properly with UAC (User Account Control) enabled, you can run them in XP Mode rather than compromising the security of the entire system.

It is a clever move from Microsoft, since it will remove most compatibility concerns that could otherwise impede adoption.

Another interesting new feature is Remote Media Streaming:

Windows 7 offers new functionality called Remote Media Streaming that enables you to access your home-based digital media libraries over the Internet from another Windows 7-based computer outside the home. Simply associate two or more computers running Windows 7 with your online ID provider credentials (such as your Windows Live™ email address and password) and allow Internet access to your media.

says the press release. This feature extends to any PC in your home network, so if you have a fast enough connection you need never be parted from your music. Then again, you could just run Spotify. There’s also support for MOV files in Windows Media Player.

There’s a few more detail changes in the UI; I’ll report further when I’ve had a look.

Windows 7 RC will be released to Technet and MSDN subscribers on April 30th, and made generally available on May 5th.

Related posts:

1. Streaming media to a PSP
2. Windows 7 XP Mode dialogs confuse virtual with real
3. Fixing Windows Media Player after a system upgrade

Audiophiles have been complaining for years about the tendency of modern CD and download mastering to maximize the loudness of the music at the expense of the dynamic range. This type of compression squashes the peaks and amplifies the quieter parts to achieve a more even sound. This is encoded at a high volume level so that the music sounds as loud as possible. The idea is to make the music stand out more. Unfortunately the music also sounds less natural and loses the contrast between louder and quieter passages, making it more fatiguing and generally less interesting.

Once established though, this practice is hard to reverse, since new releases that have full dynamic range will sound quieter than average, which the industry considers risky.

Even the forthcoming Beatles remasters will be mastered to some extent for loudness. This is the careful but self-contradictory wording from the press release:

Finally, as is common with today’s music, overall limiting – to increase the volume level of the CD – has been used, but on the stereo versions only. However, it was unanimously agreed that because of the importance of The Beatles’ music, limiting would be used moderately, so as to retain the original dynamics of the recordings.

The latest counter-initiative is from German mastering engineer Friedemann Tischmeyer, who has set up the Pleasurize Music Foundation with the aim of establishing industry standards for loudness and dynamic range. Windows users can download a utility to measure the dynamic range of a WAV or MP3 file, the TT Dynamic Range Meter (a Mac version is in preparation). Higher numbers are better, and the Foundation intends to set 14 as the minimum standard, which to judge by my own measurements seems ambitious; even releases from well before the loudness wars do not meet it.

I did a few measurements. Here is one of the loudest releases of all time, Iggy Pop’s Raw Power remaster (score 2, ouch):

Here’s Katy Perry, I kissed a girl – a typical modern release (score 5):

Here’s a couple showing a progression. The track is This Year’s Girl, from This Year’s Model by Elvis Costello and the Attractions. Here is an early CD from the eighties (score 11):

and here’s the most recent Deluxe Remaster (score 7):

showing how remasters tend to boost volume and diminish dynamic range. But can anyone beat Iggy Pop?

Related posts:

1. The loudness wars: why many CDs sound bad
2. Loudness wars article remixed
3. Mastering engineer Greg Calbi on the loudness wars

Still, what intrigues me is how Silverlight has come from nowhere to what seems to be a central position in Microsoft’s product strategy in just a few years. What’s the business case? Or is it just that someone high up experienced a moment of horror – “Flash is taking over in web media and browser-hosted applications, we gotta do something”?

Let’s eliminate a few things. It’s not the design and developer tools. Making a profit from tools is hard, with tough competition both from open source, and from commercial companies giving away tools to promote other products. I don’t know how Microsoft’s figures look for the Expression range, but I’m guessing they bleed red, irrespective of their quality. Visual Studio may just about be a profit centre (though the Express series is free); but Silverlight is only a small corner of what it does.

Nor is it the runtime. Adobe can’t charge for Flash; Microsoft can’t charge for Silverlight.

I asked Twitter for some ideas. Here are some of the responses:

migueldeicaza @timanderson, my guesses:WinServer built-in-steaming;Strengthening .NET ecosystem, and client-server interactions;Keep share in RIA space

IanBlackburn @timanderson Isn’t Silverlight going to become the "Microsoft Client" and central to s+s?  Apps built with it can be charged in many way

harbars @timanderson no doubt with annoying adverts

mickael @timanderson isn’t silverlight a defensive move against other RIA platforms (like Adobe’s one)? They might only plan selling developmt tools

jonhoneyball @timanderson In the long term by hosting tv stations’ internet traffic and providing the charging/hosting/download/player model.

jonhoneyball @timanderson ie azure cloud + silverlight + someone elses content = ms revenue. no, it wont work, but its not unexpected ms-think.

jonhoneyball @timanderson why no work? price war to come on cloud host/delivery etc Someone will host BBC for free. Game over

There are two main themes here. One is media streaming; as the Internet takes over an increasing proportion of broadcasting and media delivery (note recent comments on Spotify) Microsoft plans to profit from server-side services. The challenges here are that there may be little money to be made; Adobe has a firm grip on this already; and Apple will do its own thing.

The other is about applications. This is the bit that makes sense to me. Microsoft knows that the era of Windows desktop clients, while not over, is in long-term decline; and that applies to applications like Office as well as custom business applications. Silverlight is a strong client platform for web-based alternatives. So I’m voting for Ian Blackburn’s comment above: it’s the Microsoft Client.

If that’s right, we’ll see Silverlight embed itself into more and more of Microsoft’s products, from desktop to server, just as Adobe is gradually remaking everything it does around Flash.

The difference is that Microsoft has far more invested in the status quo: selling Windows and Office. I’m guessing that there are heated internal battles around things like Web Office. The briefing I attended at the 2008 PDC on Office Web Applications was fascinating in respect of its ambivalence; for every web feature shown, the presenters wanted to emphasise that desktop Office was still the thing you should have.

Related posts:

1. Microsoft Silverlight: 10 reasons to love it, 10 reasons to hate it
2. Microsoft Silverlight vs Adobe Flex
3. Silverlight: developer win, designer fail?