The Next MySpace: Facebook

What ever happened to loyalty?





A shiny new social-networking site comes along and before you know it, we're all flirting with the frisky startup, leaving our dates back at the table to pay the check. At least, that's how it seems with Google+, the latest competition for our Facebook affections.

In just a few weeks, Google+ has enticed roughly 20 million people to join, according to Comscore. And that's before it's even officially debuted; you still have to be invited to go to this dance. Furthermore, while the service is still in pre-release mode, many of us using it have found it to already be simpler, slicker, and generally better at the social-networking waltz than Facebook (and it always lets you lead).

Uber-venture capitalist Roger McNamee of Elevation Partners recently argued that the social network war was over.

"The last 500 social companies funded by the venture capital community are all worthless," McNamee said during a presentation to a crowd of media types. As far as McNamee is concerned, the social platform has been established, and it's Facebook. He may be right. He has nearly 30 years experience investing in tech, including an early bet on Facebook. And Facebook, according to the company's own tally, has 750 million members.

Plenty of people have offered excellent reasons for abandoning Facebook, however. Some of my FB friends have already switched because changing networks is as simple as a mouse click, and there's no exit cost whatsoever -- indeed there may be several benefits.

Many FB friends, for example, would rather switch than fight Facebook's ever-evolving privacy settings. Purposively convoluted, Facebook's pages of inscrutably marked multiple boxes have made it about as friendly as Windows Millennium Edition. So one day your chat line is closed, the next you're open online for everyone to see. It's created Facebook fatigue.

Then there's the grandma factor: If everyone is on Facebook, not only is it no longer cool but it also means I can't say anything without fear of retribution -- or being outed for playing beer pong by my boss or mom.
That's no fun at all, and Google+ at least makes it easier to compartmentalize friends, acquaintances, and business associates (unlike Facebook's lists, which are a pain in the you-know-what). Some Google+ members are even creating "frenemy" circles (now there's an idea that's bound to get you in trouble).
There are two other important undercurrents to the rising tide boosting Google+: momentum and the nature of social circles.

The first issue looks ominous for Facebook when one looks back at the fall of MySpace. The switch from MySpace to Facebook seemed predicated on a number of factors. There was the sheer clutter of MySpace, which looked like something out of an early GeoCities blog. It became a blinking, flashing, honking mess. And Facebook connected people and conversations more seamlessly.

Perhaps more critical was the sheer momentum of Facebook as it picked up speed, sucking in more and more friends until it became an irresistible social vortex. Now, Google+ looks poised to possibly do the same to Facebook, draining away members and eyeballs.

The second point is a lesson about social behavior. Switching from one network to another may just be an inevitable part of our social habits. Every once in a while, we simply need a change. No one can eat the same meal every day, and we can't visit the same bar or coffee shop every day without getting bored. Some folks have been on Facebook for nearly 7 years; that's a long time to be hanging out at the same watering hole. And what is it they say about the 7-year itch?

So switching social circles may be preordained. And Google+ is simply the next hot hangout.

Mozilla challenges Android with new web OS

Throws down challenge with Boot to Gecko

Mozilla has announced an audacious project to build an open source smartphone and tablet operating system to rival the increasingly cosy three-way domination of Android, Apple’s iPhone and Windows Phone.

Under the name of Boot to Gecko (B2G), the new OS will take the Gecko HTML rendering engine of Mozilla’s Firefox browser and Thunderbird email client and build around it a wholly open source project capable of running atop Android-compatible hardware thanks to re-use of a few nuggets of low-level code from that OS.

The B2G project is still at a very early stage but the outline of something complex and unusual can be discerned form the blog comments that announced it.

Its foundation will be to use open web standards rather than “single-vendor stacks”, risky given the immaturity of that environment, but consistent with Mozilla’s open web vision.

The development team announced four areas that are needed to get Boot to Gecko off the ground, including new APIs to tie the underlying Android hardware layer to software for interfaces such as telephony, storage, cameras, and networking comms. Security design is also a key issue; source code resulting from all development will be released in real time.

“This project is in its infancy; some pieces of it are only captured in our heads today, others aren’t fully explored. We’re talking about it now because we want expertise from all over Mozilla - and from people who aren’t yet part of Mozilla - to inform and build the project we’re outlining here,” announced the Mozilla project team.

As is the nature of open source, the exact direction of future development will depend to some extent on those who contribute to it.

Whatever B2G turns into, perhaps its biggest challenge isn’t to Android itself but to Google’s model for developing that operating system, which sees source code released at the company leisure in a way that some believe has fragmented application development across different versions. The pointed release of source code as development proceeds is a backhanded reference to frustrations at Google’s approach.

“We want to do Boot to Gecko the way we think open source should be done. In the open, from day 1, for everyone to see and participate,” said Mozilla project leader, Andreas Gal.

Boot to Gecko is also a way of proposing not just a market alternative to established proprietary mobile operating systems, but a different direction altogether, one centred on web applications.
It has some similarities to Google’s own ChromeOS – in other words the belief that web applications will be the foundation of future operating systems – and could turn into a slightly different version of the same thing minus the association with a single commercial interest.
Boot to Gecko will attract a lot of interest but hurdles remain. The pace of development will be watched very closely on the gitub project repository.

They also claim that Facebook has "no penetration into the search market" which ignores Facebook's close ties with Microsoft and integration with Bing, never mind the recent partnership between Bing and Baidu.


Productivity and communication

Google has a plethora of online productivity and communications services: Google Docs, Gmail, Google Chat, Google Voice, etc. Google+ and Google+ Business Profiles will ostensibly give Google an opportunity to integrate these into a cohesive whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Fair enough, but Facebook has Microsoft and Skype (soon to be one and the same). Facebook is already integrated with Microsoft Office Web Apps for productivity, and with Skype for video chat. I don't know the actual numbers, but I am fairly sure that Microsoft Office has a few more users than Google Docs, and my experience with Google Docs left a little something to be desired when trying to work in a Microsoft Office world.


E-Commerce

Mitaru and Wenzel cite the Google Checkout payment system as a factor in favour of Google+ Business Profiles as an e-commerce platform. I see it as limited, and an opportunity for Google to lock businesses in to using Google Checkout.

My peers go on to point out that Facebook only offers e-commerce through third party tools like TabJuice, and paint that as a negative. The e-commerce landscape is much larger than TabJuice, including other vendors such as Payvment, and Facebook has e-commerce ties with both eBay and Amazon who are two of the biggest names in online commerce. The scope and variety of e-commerce options give Facebook the advantage.


Advertising and analytics

Google has a dominant pseudo-monopoly in online advertising to rival its dominant pseudo-monopoly of online search. Google AdWords, and the growing empire of Google online and mobile advertising services, are a force that businesses can't ignore. However, the points made by my peers only explain why Google AdWords will remain a tour de force, they don't have any relation to Google+ Business Profiles.

The same is true for Google Analytics. It is a great service and a valuable tool. It is more mature and has broader reach across the web than Facebook Pages Insights, but the Facebook Pages Insights offer tremendous analytics for all it is intended for: Facebook Pages.


Don't hold your breath

The article by Mitaru and Wenzel has some other questionable points. For example, it speculates that Google will simply integrate Google+ Business Profiles and Google Places, while Facebook is allegedly struggling to get businesses to merge Facebook Places and Facebook Pages to achieve similar synergy.

I don't doubt that Google will just do that, which is part of what makes Google+ creepy and undesirable. Google will take bold liberties in merging and integrating services whether you like it or not, while Facebook leaves it up to each business to merge services, or grant permission to third party services on a case by case basis.

Facebook has the audience with over 750 million users. Facebook has services in place equivalent to virtually everything Google can throw into Google+, some of it just needs to be tweaked or repackaged to shift the focus. If there are gaps, Facebook has can form partnerships and alliances as it has done with Microsoft, Skype, Amazon and eBay.

From a business perspective, Facebook Pages trumps Google+ Profiles because businesses are already invested and established there. Facebook also has an advantage because of its close ties with Microsoft. Google+ is impressive on some levels, and it will most likely be the primary competitor for Facebook for the foreseeable future. But don't hold your breath waiting for Google to crush or trump Facebook any time soon.  

How to digitise your music collection, Rip CDs, records and tapes to high quality audio files

In my lifetime, music has been delivered on vinyl, cassettes, eight track tapes, CDs and audio DVDs. How do I listen to it now? Usually with a PC or a smartphone, and occasionally with an MP3 or other media player. I downloaded much of that music or ripped it from CDs, but the rest of it came from LPs and cassettes.

If you have an analogue turntable, digitising 33-rpm LPs and 45-rpm single re­­cords is straightforward. Old school turntables require grounding and a preamp, so you can't plug them directly into most PC audio interfaces. Instead, connect the turntable to a stereo receiver's phono jacks and the ground wire to the ground screw on the receiver. Then run the re­­ceiver's tape or line out to the line input of your PC's audio interface (normally the light blue mini-stereo jack on the back). You'll need an RCA-to-mini-stereo converter cable.

Tape players (aka tape decks), whether they are cassette, eight-track or reel-to-reel, have line-level outputs that you can attach directly to the line inputs of your computer's audio interface. To convert music from these players, too, you must have an RCA-to-mini-stereo converter cable.

USB-connected audio recording

USB turntables and cassette decks make digitising your LPs, 45s and cassettes a bit simpler by performing the analogue-to-digital conversion onboard, and then transferring the results to your PC via USB cable. If you're not picky about audio quality, these devices work fine. However, none of the units that I tested could create sound files that were up to rigorous audiophile standards.

Crosley Radio's products have a distinctive, appealingly retro look. The CR2413A Memory Master that I tested in­­cludes a turntable (33, 45 and 78 rpm), a cassette player, an FM radio, a CD player and auxiliary line-level stereo audio inputs for other audio devices such as MP3 players, all of them recordable to your PC via a USB connection.

Alas, the quality of the unit's components (especially the turntable) was a tad disappointing. The digitised sound was decent, but again, it did not approach audiophile quality.

Ion LP 2 CD is a turntable with USB connections for analogue-to-digital audio conversion, the unit subsequently transfers digitised recordings to your PC via USB cable. The quality of Ion Audio's LP 2 CD turntable, in contrast, was im­­pressive, offering the anti-skate and tracking pressure adjustments missing from the Crosley CR2413A. The sound from its pre-amped analogue line outputs was very good, but its USB output sounded little better than the Crosley's.

Another Ion product, its Tape 2 PC cassette deck, created middling audio recordings in my tests, regardless of whether I connected it via the USB or via the analogue line outputs.

Editing your sound files

Once you've connected your hardware, use a program such as Audacity to record, edit and save your newly digitised music.

Don't bother trying to separate each song during the recording process, record wholes sides of records and cassettes. Any audio editor or recording app worth its salt lets you select and save individual sections of an audio file. The start and end points of songs are easy to spot by the changes in the visual wave form. The editing software will let you se­­lect and save each individual track to a file that you create on your PC.
You can ditch the larger file once you've split it up. If you intend to apply noise reduction, don't trim your recordings until after you've cleaned them up. Noise reduction software can use the spaces between tracks to "profile" noise for more effective processing with less loss of dynamic range throughout the spectrum.

If you're not especially concerned about the sound quality, saving your recordings to compressed MP3, AAC or WMA is fine. Experts differ on which bit rate sounds best for each format. I use at least 192 kilobits per second for MP3 and AAC files, and 160 kbps for WMA files. For classical music, I bump those rates up to the maximum (320, 256 or 192 kbps, depending on the format) or use the free FLAC lossless codec. For devices that don't support FLAC, and many do not, I use Windows' or Apple's lossless formats.

If you want audiophile quality sound and your audio interface supports doing so, you should record at something higher than the CD-standard 44.1kHz/16 bits, and then save your recordings as uncompressed WAV files. Recording at 24 bits or 32 bits, and at 48kHz or even 96kHz can alleviate the "sterile sound" that audiophiles complain about. It also yields better results when you apply effects and noise reduction. You can always export the files later as MP3, AAC or another format. If you don't have enough drive space to accommodate these larger files, get a bigger hard drive.

De­­spite manufacturers' touting of high definition, surround sound and high bit-rate features, most PCs don't output sound that's audiophile quality. Nor do they handle the analogue-to-digital conversion of in­­put content very well. For dramatically better analogue transfers, use a USB audio interface such as Presonus's Audiobox USB, Avid's Pro Tools Mbox Mini or Focusrite's Saffire 6. Internal sound cards are available, but USB devices are portable and are suitable for use with laptops.

Cakewalk Pyro Audio Creator 1.5 is a program designed specifically for digitising analog music. If the above-mentioned Audacity is a little too geeky for your taste, you can find a number of affordable recording/editing programs such as Cakewalk's Pyro Audio Creator 1.5 and Bias's SoundSaver that are designed specifically for digitising analogue music. Both of these products also offer easier, more effective noise reduction than Audacity.

Noise reduction

The biggest problem with analog audio is noise, which gets digitised along with the music. Vinyl suffers from clicks, pops and scratchiness, while hiss plagues tape.

Recording apps such as Audacity include restoration features that can help remove the noise, but they're difficult to use and can kill the dynamic range of your music if you use them improperly. Most commercial high end sound editors such as Adobe's Audition 3 provide effective noise removal.

If you want the best restoration software, however, you should look to either Bias's SoundSoap 2 or iZotope's RX 2. In my tests, I found SoundSoap 2 simple to use and the audio files that I created with it sounded great. Nevertheless, I got even better results from RX 2, which created audio that blew me away, especially during quiet passages.

Audio and video transfer tips

Clean It

Before digitising your audio, don't forget to clean your vinyl, turntable needle or the playback head of your tape deck (audio or video). Cheap accessories and fluids are available for removing the dust and grunge from your LPs, but Q-Tips and isopropyl alcohol will work just fine for a cassette deck. Eyeglass cleaning cloths also work well on record/playback heads.

Old cassettes and tape (music, video, or data) can be finicky, especially if they haven't been used in a while. Richard Corsello, a professional engineer and transfer specialist of 30 years who currently works with Sonny Rollins, recommends a quick fast forward and rewind through the entire tape to respool and loosen the mechanism before transfer, as well as every couple of years in storage.

Also, believe it or not, giving the tapes an overnight stay in a food dehydrator can pull out the mold or other moisture-related gunk. I did that recently with some old reel-to-reels from the 70s, and it worked like a charm.

Cables

Make sure your audio cables are in good shape, and that there's no rust, corrosion, or junk on the connectors. However, don't go crazy with "pro" audio cables. Vendors play on the subconscious perception that the more valuable the metal, the better anything made with it must be.

To a slight extent this is true. Gold tips reduce oxidation, and the softness of the metal makes for slightly firmer connections. However, in the chart below, look where platinum winds up. According to every blind test ever done, you'll hear no difference between a £5 cable and a £50 cable, as long as they are reasonably well made. In other words, the cables that came with your equipment are most likely all you need.

Metal, specific resistance per cubic centimetre, in micro-ohms*
Silver, annealed, 1.50
Copper, annealed, 1.62
Gold, annealed, 2.05
Aluminum, annealed, 2.91
Zinc, pressed, 5.61
Platinum, annealed, 9.04
*A lower number means less resistance and better conductivity.

Turntables, needles and 78s

There's a ream of information about turntables out there, the features and sound of these marvels were an obsession with audiophiles long before boutique cables, oversampling of CDs and so on. Any decent turntable should do, but tracking and pressure adjustments will reduce degradation of your vinyl and help with records that skip. If the turntable has seen a lot of use, a new needle and/or cartridge might be in order.
However, I've never heard any difference after changing these, but that's with my ears. If there's a problem with warbling (regular pitch changes), the belt might need to be replaced.

While you can play 78 rpm records with a 33/45 needle, 78s have a wider groove and require a specialised needle for best results as well as preserving the record. Needle Finder or Needle Doctor sell these for just about every turntable ever made.

If your turntable doesn't spin at 78 rpm, you may record at 33 or 45 rpm and increase the speed using the recording app. The free Audacity makes this particularly easy, all you have to do is pick the rpm you recorded at and the rpm that the record was made at, for example 33/78, press Enter and the recording will be changed to the proper speed.

Tape decks and belts

That vast majority of tape decks sold to consumers used belts as part of their drive system. These belts tend to stretch with age as well as usage, I've seen older, never used cassette decks come straight out of the box that still needed new belts. Most vendors who sold cassette or tape decks still have belts in stock, and you can buy belts by size at Studio Sound Electronics.

Caveat: While replacing a turntable belt generally requires nothing but lifting the actual spinning turntable that the records lay upon and slapping a new one on, changing the belts on a cassette deck can be more daunting.
Removing the outer case is easy, and many decks require removal of only one or two parts. However, some bury the belts beneath a Rube Goldberg-ian maze of interconnected components. It can be easier just to buy a new deck, though if you like puzzles, solving the order and disassembly methods can be rewarding.

Music OCR and Sheet Music From MP3s

There are some interesting ways to digitise and manipulate any sheet music or recordings you may have.

Hear your sheet music

If musical notation is Greek to you, but you still want to hear what all the sheet music your aunt left you sounds like, simply scan it and convert it to a MIDI file. MIDI files will play back using such readily available programs as Windows Media Player and QuickTime Player. The process is called music OCR.

The big players in music OCR are Neuratron with its PhotoScore Midi Lite 5 and PhotoScore Ultimate 6, and Musitek with its SmartScore Midi and SmartScore X Pro. They not only create MIDI files, but create notation and allow you to edit that notation.

Most users will be fine with the less expensive versions, and you can even get a free music OCR program, the Java-based Audiveris. Audiveris is pretty geeky, though, and you must come up with the required Maestro font on your own if you want to view the results as onscreen notation. The program will still save the results to a MIDI file whether you have the fonts or not.

If your granddad or aunt was an aspiring composer or orchestrator, you may even import the resulting MIDI file into a high-end notation program such as MakeMusic's Finale 2011, Avid's Sibelius 6, or Notion Music's Notion 3, and listen to it played by a full symphony orchestra. Who knows? Maybe Beethoven will finally have to roll over.

If you're interested in better notation editing than that provided by PhotoScore and SmartScore OCR applications, but don't need the sounds of a full orchestra or other advanced features of the pricey editors listed above, more affordable consumer versions are available: MakeMusic's PrintMusic, Avid's Sibelius First and Notion Music's Progression to name three.

Create sheet music from recordings

If you don't have sheet music, but do have audio recordings that you'd like to hear as MIDI files or see as sheet music, there are programs that transcribe your audio to MIDI and notation as well. Though the technology is far from perfect, Neuratron's AudioScore Ultimate 6 and the Intelliscore Ensemble 8 do a much better job recognising the notes in a recording than you might think possible.
The simpler the material and the more diverse the range of the instruments, the better the results, but you should be able to get a broad, usable sketch of just about anything, and maybe even turn that recording of the ditty that Uncle Joe used to sing at the family picnic into a top 10 hit. More likely, you'll wind up with a nice piece of sheet music with Joe's name on it. A treasure in any case, depending, of course, on how much you liked Joe.

By Jon L. Jacobi

Edited by Anthony Ian G. Etcobanez