[Macworld]

Post your comments for SRS introduces iWow Universal audio enhancer here

[gblan]

Retrieves audio cues, what a pile of horse crap.

[whitedog]

 gblan, on 07 May 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Retrieves audio cues, what a pile of horse crap.

Given that you haven't even tried the device, your comment is "a pile of horse crap." The reviewer described what he heard using it, which is, in contrast to your brain fart, actually useful. "Retrieves audio cues" - obviously - is a simplified explanation of what the iWow Universal does, designed for a non-technical audience. That doesn't mean it's in any way inaccurate. The "cues" are undoubtedly specific frequency thresholds derived from the audio signal which are used to direct the reprocessing of the signal to produce diferentiated results. A more technical explanation would probably get into trademarked technology, so any public description must, of necessity, be an abstraction to one degree or another.

[chimerical77]

 whitedog, on 07 May 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

 gblan, on 07 May 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Retrieves audio cues, what a pile of horse crap.

Given that you haven't even tried the device, your comment is "a pile of horse crap." The reviewer described what he heard using it, which is, in contrast to your brain fart, actually useful.

The article says nothing about the reviewer having used this device.

[Jon Seff]

 chimerical77, on 07 May 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

 whitedog, on 07 May 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

 gblan, on 07 May 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Retrieves audio cues, what a pile of horse crap.

Given that you haven't even tried the device, your comment is "a pile of horse crap." The reviewer described what he heard using it, which is, in contrast to your brain fart, actually useful.

The article says nothing about the reviewer having used this device.

Correct. The article references the review of the dock connector model to put the product in context, as they use the same technology.

[bigh]

 Jon Seff, on 07 May 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

 chimerical77, on 07 May 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

 whitedog, on 07 May 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

 gblan, on 07 May 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Retrieves audio cues, what a pile of horse crap.

Given that you haven't even tried the device, your comment is "a pile of horse crap." The reviewer described what he heard using it, which is, in contrast to your brain fart, actually useful.

The article says nothing about the reviewer having used this device.

Correct. The article references the review of the dock connector model to put the product in context, as they use the same technology.

Do they really use the same technology? The dock model is likely processing digital audio, which is closer to the source of the material. The earphone model is likely processing analog audio after the iPhones reportedly mediocre DAC has done its work. I would guess that the first commenter was addressing this, albeit in a colloquial manner.

[ChayWesley]

"; and then lets you connect it to headphones, speakers, or care audio systems."

What is a "care audio system"?

[whitedog]

 bigh, on 07 May 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Do they really use the same technology? The dock model is likely processing digital audio, which is closer to the source of the material. The earphone model is likely processing analog audio after the iPhones reportedly mediocre DAC has done its work. I would guess that the first commenter was addressing this, albeit in a colloquial manner.

You make a good point about the difference between a digital and analog source. Any headphones you use with an iPhone or iPod now must rely on the onboard DAC, whether good, bad or indifferent. It's reasonable to suppose, however, that the two SRS devices use the same technology to extract the "cues" and extrapolate enhancements. As for the quality of the DAC, one must rely on one in the iWow 3D as well; whether it's superior to the one in the iPhone is an open question as far as I know. There's also the issue of whether the 3D enhancement process is applied to the audio before (as you suppose) or after it passes through the 3D DAC. It would be simpler, and the SRS devices would be more similar, if they both enhance an analog signal - which seems to me to be the more likely scenario. The process would be more complex (and more expensive) if SRS had to find a way to apply the same filtering process to a digital and an analog signal, one each for the two devices. I'm not saying that's not how they've done it but, rather, that we don't know. You cannot reasonably base a conclusion on such an intrinsic but unknown factor. In either case, there's no way to remove a DAC from the equation.

Your remarks were directed at the language, as quoted in the article, that SRS uses to describe the process their devices employ to enhance audio. Given that the two products obviously use the same underlying technology (your doubts to the contrary notwithstanding), and that the reviewer found the 3D does a good job, the reasonable conclusion is that the iWow D will do so as well, at least until we have actual evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, you might have expressed your doubts without invective. Your opinion would be more credible and less abrasive that way.

[filebunch]

While similar, I love my HiFiMan DAC--it is a USB connector, but does a nice digital/analog conversion for the money. I may try this out for a 3.5mm connection.

[Paradise]

 whitedog, on 07 May 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

 gblan, on 07 May 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Retrieves audio cues, what a pile of horse crap.

Given that you haven't even tried the device, your comment is "a pile of horse crap." The reviewer described what he heard using it, which is, in contrast to your brain fart, actually useful. "Retrieves audio cues" - obviously - is a simplified explanation of what the iWow Universal does, designed for a non-technical audience. That doesn't mean it's in any way inaccurate. The "cues" are undoubtedly specific frequency thresholds derived from the audio signal which are used to direct the reprocessing of the signal to produce diferentiated results. A more technical explanation would probably get into trademarked technology, so any public description must, of necessity, be an abstraction to one degree or another.

If it actually did significantly enhance audio one has to assume that the company would have been bought out long ago, as it would give an distinct advantage to whoever owned it and could build it directly and exclusively into their products. The fact that that hasn't happened casts a large shadow of doubt on the actual effectiveness of the technology. The entire company is valued at only $135M, so it'd be a no-brainer for someone like Apple, unless of course it doesn't quite live up to the claims.

It just doesn't make sense that something that could significantly improve existing audio devices is simply being ignored by the big players. That'd be really stupid.

This post has been edited by Paradise: 08 May 2012 - 03:47 AM

[meta]

Pardon me for interjecting some facts into the idle speculation, but the basic SRS technology is patented; the first few patents recently expired. http://en.wikipedia....etrieval_System

It's a completely analog system. It consists of taking the L and R signals, and transforming them into L-R and L+R. The former represents the stereo aspect of the image, where the sound is coming from. The L-R difference signal is then amplified, and the L+R signal reduced. Finally, the two are added back together. The effect is that the stereo soundfield is made to sound wider. This part is easy to do in software, you'll find a slider in iTunes with some vague label like "sound enhance" which enables it.

The WOW aspect adds in a head transform, which models the acoustic absorption of your head and ears at different frequencies, so that the amount the difference is boosted by depends upon the frequency. Our ears are much better at localizing direction of high pitched sounds, so that is also worked into the equation. But still, it's all analog. Doing all the processing digitally without introducing non-linearities in your transfer function is much harder, and the iPod doesn't to my knowledge have a way to pass digitally modified data in and through the iPod DAC, so I very much doubt that the iPod version is digital.

The head transform technique is pretty standard for headphone amplifiers; the bit that will be covered by patent is SRS's specific curve and the circuit to implement it. A head transform is good for headphone listening, with or without the SRS soundstage widening. My matchbox-sized headphone amp has a head transform switch.

Ironically, the only reason we need any of this crap is that sound engineers still record and mix for stereo (loudspeakers), even though most listening is probably on headphones these days. If albums were mastered in binaural, everyone would get much better sound on headphones, and it would still sound OK on speakers. Few bands use binaural, though. One example that does is Radiohead -- if you listen to IN RAINBOWS there are some nice examples, and there's a picture of Thom Yorke with his binaural artificial head microphone floating around the web. I have a set of binaural mics I use for ambient sound recording.

[whitedog]

 meta, on 08 May 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Pardon me for interjecting some facts into the idle speculation, but the basic SRS technology is patented; the first few patents recently expired. http://en.wikipedia....etrieval_System

It's a completely analog system. It consists of taking the L and R signals, and transforming them into L-R and L+R. The former represents the stereo aspect of the image, where the sound is coming from. The L-R difference signal is then amplified, and the L+R signal reduced. Finally, the two are added back together. The effect is that the stereo soundfield is made to sound wider. This part is easy to do in software, you'll find a slider in iTunes with some vague label like "sound enhance" which enables it.

The WOW aspect adds in a head transform, which models the acoustic absorption of your head and ears at different frequencies, so that the amount the difference is boosted by depends upon the frequency. Our ears are much better at localizing direction of high pitched sounds, so that is also worked into the equation. But still, it's all analog. Doing all the processing digitally without introducing non-linearities in your transfer function is much harder, and the iPod doesn't to my knowledge have a way to pass digitally modified data in and through the iPod DAC, so I very much doubt that the iPod version is digital.

The head transform technique is pretty standard for headphone amplifiers; the bit that will be covered by patent is SRS's specific curve and the circuit to implement it. A head transform is good for headphone listening, with or without the SRS soundstage widening. My matchbox-sized headphone amp has a head transform switch.

Ironically, the only reason we need any of this crap is that sound engineers still record and mix for stereo (loudspeakers), even though most listening is probably on headphones these days. If albums were mastered in binaural, everyone would get much better sound on headphones, and it would still sound OK on speakers. Few bands use binaural, though. One example that does is Radiohead -- if you listen to IN RAINBOWS there are some nice examples, and there's a picture of Thom Yorke with his binaural artificial head microphone floating around the web. I have a set of binaural mics I use for ambient sound recording.

No apology necessary. You are correct that this discussion was in need of some facts.

The problem, of course, is that SRS put out a press release that Macworld then summarized (as they usually do with such things) before the product was available for testing. This is the standard publicity cycle for product releases which usually leads to more questions than answers. The intention is to develop buzz and anticipation, but, as in this case, seems to generate more skepticism than enthusiasm. Not that I expect corporate PR departments to notice. They routinely do what's expected of them with no thought for what's useful and effective. SRS has a Flash ad up on their web site promoting the iWow D with impressive claims and no real information - a typical fact free product promotion. A cynic would say that if their new device was worth a fig they would be sending out pre-release versions to reviewers for testing. That they depend instead on press releases to generate interest suggests they have no real confidence that they have a significant new product to sell.

[egelb]

 whitedog, on 07 May 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

 gblan, on 07 May 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Retrieves audio cues, what a pile of horse crap.

Given that you haven't even tried the device, your comment is "a pile of horse crap." The reviewer described what he heard using it, which is, in contrast to your brain fart, actually useful. "Retrieves audio cues" - obviously - is a simplified explanation of what the iWow Universal does, designed for a non-technical audience. That doesn't mean it's in any way inaccurate. The "cues" are undoubtedly specific frequency thresholds derived from the audio signal which are used to direct the reprocessing of the signal to produce diferentiated results. A more technical explanation would probably get into trademarked technology, so any public description must, of necessity, be an abstraction to one degree or another.

My first reaction to GBLAN's comment was to agree with him. But, you are correct. Thanks, for pointing out the facts.

[nekogami13]

 gblan, on 07 May 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Retrieves audio cues, what a pile of horse crap.

That's why DTS bought SRS Labs for 134 million, because they peddle horse crap.
That's why SRS labs 1st quarter revenue was up 10% because of increased PC manufacturer and telecom contracts because they peddle horse crap.