The Great Reboot: Outcome Engineering

Posted on by

Remember the “good old days” of broadcasting and studio design? If you’re over a certain age, your lower back definitely remembers.

Once upon a time, designing a studio wasn’t engineering; it was heavy equipment moving combined with frantic electrical wizardry. We measured progress in tonnage of rack gear and miles of copper cable. We lived by a simple, terrifying paradigm: The “Boxes and Wires” era.

But hang onto your ergonomic office chairs, folks, because we are in the middle of a massive evolutionary leap. We are shifting from selling pounds of metal to selling business results. And the best part? The jobs aren’t disappearing; they’re just getting way less sweaty and a whole lot more interesting.

Here is the funny, optimistic roadmap of how we stopped worrying about the wire and started loving the workflow.

Phase 1: The Paleo-Broadcast Era (Boxes, Wires, and Prayer)

Ah, the Golden Age of Hardware. In this era, “value” was defined by physical mass. If a console didn’t require a structural engineer to reinforce the control room floor, was it even a real console?

The business model was simple: I sell you a giant box that makes warm humming noises. Then, I sell you 5,000 feet of expensive spaghetti (cables) and a confusing map (schematics) that looks like the NYC subway system designed by M.C. Escher.

The Old Job: The Solder Warrior

The hero of this era was the engineer who smelled permanently of rosin core solder and stale coffee. Their value lay in an arcane, druidic knowledge of which cable in the terrifying nest behind the patch bay actually carried the left audio channel.

If you asked them, “How does this help our audience engagement?” they would gesture with a scorching hot soldering iron and grunt, “It makes noise come out. That’s the engagement.”

* The Value Proposition: “Here is 500lbs of gear. Good luck.”

Phase 2: The “Solution” Revolution (Wait, it’s all software now?)

Then, about ten or fifteen years ago, things got weird. The heavy metal started disappearing into the cloud. Audio started traveling down Ethernet cables (witchcraft!).

We entered the era of Solution Engineering. We stopped selling just the boxes; we started selling how it works.

Suddenly, studio design wasn’t about physical patching; it was about IP addresses, subnets, Dante flows, and NDI sources. We traded back problems for serious eye strain from staring at network configuration screens.

The Transitional Job: The IT Therapist

The broadcast engineer’s job shifted dramatically. They became high-stakes IT professionals who had to explain to grumpy audio mixers why their fader was now a “network endpoint.”

The value was no longer just connectivity; it was reliability and functionality. “We guarantee this IP workflow will let you route anything anywhere with under 2ms of latency.” It was cooler, faster, and required significantly fewer visits to the chiropractor.

* The Value Proposition: “We guarantee the system works perfectly, even if you don’t know why you need 64 channels of audio for a podcast.”

Phase 3: The Promised Land of Outcome Engineering

And that brings us to today. The paradigm shift. The moment we realized that nobody actually cares about the wires.

Clients—whether they are giant broadcasters, corporate media teams, or high-end YouTubers—don’t wake up at 3 a.m. sweating about ST 2110 standards compliance. They wake up sweating about monetization, speed-to-market, and audience retention.

We have entered the era of Outcome Engineering.

In this new world, we don’t sell a studio; we sell a business result. The technology is just the invisible engine underneath. The conversation has shifted from “How do I connect Studio A to Studio B?” to “How do I reduce production costs by 30% while doubling my content output across five social platforms?”

The New Job: The Workflow Architect (aka The Vibe Merchant)

This is where it gets optimistic. The new jobs are fantastic. We are liberated from the plumbing!

The modern broadcast designer is part data scientist, part creative strategist, and part media therapist. They use AI to automate the boring stuff (like logging footage or basic switching) so humans can do the fun stuff (like actually creating content).

Their value isn’t in knowing how to solder an XLR connector; their value is in understanding the client’s business model better than the client does.

* The Value Proposition: “Forget the gear. We guarantee this workflow will increase your live viewership by 20% and cut your post-production time in half. And yes, it fits in a closet.”

The Optimistic Outlook

This isn’t about robots taking our jobs. It’s about the tools finally getting smart enough that we don’t have to baby them.

We are moving up the food chain. We are no longer the mechanics underneath the car covered in grease; we are the navigators in the passenger seat, helping steering the ship toward success.

So, go ahead. Throw away that soldering iron. Your back will thank you, and honestly, your career will too. Welcome to the outcome economy. The air conditioning is much better up here.

“Don’t view current processes and technology as a jail”.

Whether you are dealing with a broadcaster clinging to their SDI router or a studio owner clinging to a specific vintage console, your job is to show them that “Outcome Engineering” isn’t about taking away their toys. It’s about building a workflow where those toys actually make them more money (Broadcast) or better art (Studios).

Part 1: The Broadcaster’s Playbook

The Goal: Moving from “Boxes and Wires” to Business Results.

The Context: High pressure, legacy constraints, and the need for monetization.

Guideline 1: Reframe the Entry Point (The “Workflow Summit”)

* Old Way: The engineering team builds a technically perfect SMPTE 2110 compliant rack room, and the production team is invited in later to figure out how to use it.

* The Outcome Engineering Way: Stop treating engineering and content creation as separate streams. Bring the “Solder Warriors” (IT/Engineers) and the Content Directors to the table at the very start.

* The Broadcast Application: Before a single cable is drawn, the engineer must understand the business goal (e.g., “We need to clip live sports for social media in under 60 seconds”). The technology is then selected solely to co-create that specific success.

Guideline 2: Operational Empathy (The “No-Panic” Standard)

* Old Way: “The system works; user error is not my problem.”

* The Outcome Engineering Way: Develop a deep understanding of the user’s frustration at every step of their journey.

* The Broadcast Application: Acknowledge that a Technical Director (TD) during a live broadcast has high anxiety. If a menu is three clicks deep, it’s a failure.

* Ask: “How does the operator feel when the breaking news alarm goes off?”.

* Solve: Use technology to reduce that friction—perhaps by implementing automation that triggers complex routings with a single button press.

Guideline 3: Iterate the Plant (Don’t Rip and Replace)

* Old Way: “We can’t upgrade until we have the budget to replace the entire SDI router.”

* The Outcome Engineering Way: You don’t need to invent the iPad; you just need small, incremental improvements.

* The Broadcast Application: Respect the legacy infrastructure (the “jail”) but don’t let it stop you. Look for “dead spots” in the workflow.

* Action: Keep the main SDI plant, but add a small cloud-based ingest tool for remote contributors. A small change in the journey creates an outsized change in the production capability.

Guideline 4: Validate via the Cloud (Prototyping)

* Old Way: Buying $200k of hardware to see if a workflow is viable.

* The Outcome Engineering Way: Use design sprints and prototypes to validate ideas before making major technology investments.

* The Broadcast Application: Use cloud instances to “prototype” a channel launch. Spin up a cloud switcher and run a test channel for a week.

* Result: You get data to prove the business case (ROI) to leadership before asking for CapEx for permanent hardware.

Guideline 5: Gamify the Shift (The “Vibe Merchant” Incentive)

* Old Way: “Learn this new IP system because I said so.”

* The Outcome Engineering Way: Give teams access to incentives to make an impact, showing them “what’s in it for them”.

* The Broadcast Application: Show operators that the new “Outcome” workflow automates the boring stuff (logging, tagging). Their “reward” is getting to go home on time or focusing purely on creative cutting. Motivation drives the adoption of the new tech.

Part 2: The Recording Studio’s Playbook

The Goal: Creating a Sanctuary for Art.

The Context: Emotional comfort, minimizing distraction, and “invisible” technology.

Guideline 1: Engineering the “Vibe” (Design + Acoustics)

* The Concept: Design and Engineering must sit at the top of the pyramid together.

* The Studio Application: In a studio, the “Engineer” (acoustics/wiring) and the “Designer” (lighting/mood) are often at odds. The acoustician wants hard surfaces; the designer wants soft vibes.

* The Outcome: They must co-create a solution where the bass traps are the aesthetic. The technology (the room’s sound) must enable the design, and the design must humanize the technology.

Guideline 2: Empathy for the Artist (Red Light Fever)

* The Concept: Empathy is understanding what a user hopes to accomplish and how they feel.

* The Studio Application: An artist is vulnerable. They are afraid of losing the “magic” take.

* The Outcome: The technology must be invisible. If a producer has to stop the creative flow to patch a cable, empathy has failed.

* Solution: Use “Outcome Engineering” to install normalized patch bays or digital routing that allows the artist to switch from vocals to guitar instantly without killing the mood.

Guideline 3: Small Tweaks to the Signal Chain

* The Concept: Identify incremental opportunities for improvement based on shifting demands.

* The Studio Application: You don’t need to rebuild the live room. Maybe the “outcome” the client needs is just faster file transfer so they can leave with a rough mix immediately.

* The Outcome: Scrutinize the session setup. Is the headphone mix always a hassle? Fix just that. Improving that one small step improves the entire “customer journey” of the session.

Guideline 4: Prototype the “Sound”

* The Concept: Test concepts to identify what customers actually want before building.

* The Studio Application: Before hard-wiring a complex analog outboard chain, use a “hybrid” approach to prototype the signal flow.

* The Outcome: Allow the producer to “test” a workflow (e.g., a specific vocal chain) using temporary patching. Once they confirm “This is the sound that makes hits,” then you engineer it into the permanent infrastructure.

Guideline 5: The Reward is the “Flow State”

* The Concept: Motivation is what causes a person to change their behavior.

* The Studio Application: In a creative space, the “gamification” isn’t points or badges; it’s the removal of barriers.

* The Outcome: The “trophy” for the engineer and artist is the Flow State. When the technology works so seamlessly that they forget it’s there, they are “winning.” Position your engineering services not as “tech support” but as “Flow Facilitation.”

The “Backpack Cinema”: Creating a Portable 22.4 Immersive Studio with USB

Posted on by

The “Backpack Cinema”: Creating a Portable 22.4 Immersive Studio with USB

Immersive audio is currently stuck in the “Mainframe Era.” To mix in true NHK 22.2 or Dolby Atmos, you traditionally need a dedicated studio, heavy trussing for ceiling speakers, and racks of expensive amplifiers. It is heavy, static, and incredibly expensive.

 

 

But what if a 26-channel Super Hi-Vision system could fit in the trunk of a car?

The solution lies in decentralized architecture. By utilizing 22 USB-powered speakers and 4 active subwoofers, we can build a rig that relies on the ubiquity of USB to handle audio, power, and clocking—all without a single XLR cable.

1. The Core Technology: The “Aggregate” Sound Card

The user’s intuition was that plugging devices into the same bus creates synchronization. In reality, every digital device has its own internal clock crystal. Left alone, 26 different speakers will “drift” apart within minutes, creating phase issues that destroy the immersive image.

The magic glue is the Aggregate Device.

On macOS: The Audio MIDI Setup utility allows you to virtually “glue” all 26 USB endpoints into a single 26-channel driver. Crucially, you must enable “Drift Correction” for 25 of the speakers, locking them to the 26th “Master” speaker.

On Windows: This requires middleware like ASIO4ALL or Dante Via, which performs a similar function, resampling the audio streams in real-time to ensure the “Front Left” speaker plays its sample at the exact same microsecond as the “Top Rear Right.”

2. The “.4” Challenge: The Subwoofer Hack

Standard USB speakers are small satellites (perfect for the 22 tweeter/mid channels) but lack earth-shaking bass. You cannot buy a “USB Subwoofer” easily.

The Solution: Use four cheap, 2-channel USB Audio Interfaces (like the $40 Behringer U-Control or similar).

Connect the USB interface to the hub.

Run an RCA cable from the interface to any standard Active Subwoofer (like a powered PA sub or home theater sub).

The system sees the interface as just another “speaker,” but you place it on the floor to handle the LFE (Low-Frequency Effects).

3. Rigging: The “Tent Pole” Method

Traditional immersive rigs use heavy aluminum trussing to hang speakers. A transportable system needs to be lightweight.

Instead of trussing, use Telescopic Lighting Poles (Autopoles).

These poles wedge between the floor and ceiling using tension, requiring no drilling.

The “Spider” Web: For the critical top layer (the Voice of God channel), run lightweight paracord between the tops of four corner poles to create a grid, and clip the lightweight USB speaker right in the center.

Because USB speakers weigh ounces rather than pounds, the rigging requirements drop by 90%.

4. The Cost Revolution: USB vs. Copper

The hidden genius of this setup is cabling.

Copper Costs: A 24-channel analog copper “snake” (50ft) can cost upwards of $600. It is heavy, fragile, and single-purpose.

USB Efficiency: A 50ft “Active” USB extension cable costs roughly $20-$40.

Availability: If a cable breaks in Tokyo, New York, or a small town, you can buy a replacement USB cable at any convenience store. Try finding a 24-channel analog breakout snake at a local shop.

Summary

By treating speakers as computer peripherals rather than audio components, we break the shackles of the physical studio. This 22.4 system isn’t just a listening environment; it is a networked cluster of computers that can be set up in a hotel room, a warehouse, or a field, delivering the future of sound for the price of a standard laptop setup.

Think Optionally – Why Apple’s Users Hate AI

Posted on by

In 1984, Apple introduced the Macintosh with a promise: we were here to smash the monolithic, droning conformity of Big Brother. We were the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. We bought computers not to balance spreadsheets or optimize logistics, but to write the great American novel in a coffee shop and edit films that would never make it into Sundance.

Apple sold us the “Bicycle for the Mind.” It was a tool that amplified human capability.

So, why is the company currently pivoting to sell us the “Uber for the Mind”—where you just sit in the back seat, drooling, while an algorithm drives you to a destination you didn’t choose?

The “Creative” Identity Crisis

Let’s be honest about who buys a Mac Studio or a loaded iPad Pro. It isn’t the guy trying to automate his dropshipping email campaign. It is the person who believes, perhaps with a touch of unearned arrogance, that they have a vision.

Apple’s entire marketing history is built on the veneration of the human spark. It’s Picasso painting on glass. It’s Lennon on the white piano. It is the distinct, messy, inefficient process of human creation.

The pivot to Generative AI is a direct insult to the ecosystem’s most profitable demographic: The Narcissistic Creative.

To an Apple user, AI is not a feature; it is an existential threat. We didn’t spend $4,000 on a brushed-aluminum slab to become “Prompt Engineers.” We view ourselves as creators, not synthesizers. We are the chefs; AI is the microwave. Apple investing in AI is like a Michelin-star restaurant announcing they are pivoting to Soylent because it’s “more efficient.”

Why Apple Intelligence Should Suck

There is a growing theory among the faithful that Apple’s AI lags behind OpenAI and Google not because of technical incompetence, but out of moral fortitude. Perhaps Siri is terrible on purpose.

Maybe when you ask Siri to “Draft a heartwarming email to my wife,” and she responds by playing Despacito on Apple Music, she is doing it to save your soul. She is saying, “No, Dave. Write it yourself. You are a human being. Have some dignity.”

If Apple truly “thinks different,” their AI strategy should be total incompetence. A truly “Pro” feature would be an AI that refuses to do the work for you.

User: “Siri, generate an image of a cat in the style of Van Gogh.”

Apple Intelligence: “I found some paintbrushes on Amazon. Create it yourself, you hack. Here is a playlist for focus.”

That is the courage we expect from Cupertino.

The Synthesizer vs. The Creator

The current tech industry narrative is that thinking is a bug, not a feature. They want to remove the friction of thought. But for the Apple demographic, the friction is the point.

When you use a Mac, you are signaling that you are part of the cognitive elite. You are the one who makes the things that the AI scrapes to train its models. If Apple turns the iPhone into a device that thinks for you, they are democratizing mediocrity. They are handing the keys to the kingdom to the Windows users—the people who just want to get the job done.

We don’t want to get the job done. We want to obsess over the kerning of a font for three hours. We want to struggle.

The Beige Box of the Soul

If Apple succeeds in AI, they fail at Apple.

If the iPhone 17 can write your poetry, edit your photos, and compose your emails with a single button press, then the “Crazy Ones” are extinct. We become the very drones from the 1984 commercial, marching in lockstep, mouths open, letting the machine feed us processed content.

So, here is the plea from the creatives, the designers, and the insufferable writers in Starbucks: Please, Apple, let your AI suck.

Let the others have the hallucinations and the automated plagiarism. Keep selling us the illusion that we are special, that our thoughts matter, and that the machine is subservient to the man.

Don’t make us “Think, Optionally.” Let us keep thinking different. Or at least, let us keep thinking we are.

Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development.

Posted on by

1. Forming (The “Honeymoon” Phase)

The team meets and learns about the opportunity and challenges, and then agrees on goals and tackles tasks.

  • The Vibe: Polite, positive, but uncertain. People are treating it like a cocktail party—putting their best foot forward and avoiding conflict.

  • Key Behaviors: Asking basic questions, looking for structure, defining the scope (e.g., “Which devices go where?”).

  • Leader’s Role: Directing. You must provide clear goals, specific roles, and firm timelines. The team relies on you for structure.

2. Storming (The Danger Zone)

This is the stage where different ideas compete for consideration. It is the most critical and difficult stage to pass through.

  • The Vibe: High friction. The polite facade drops. People may clash over work styles, technical approaches (e.g., “Why are we handling GPIO triggers this way?”), or authority.

  • Key Behaviors: Pushback against tasks, arguments, formation of cliques.

  • Leader’s Role: Coaching. You need to resolve conflicts, remain accessible, and remind the team of the “Why.” Don’t avoid the conflict; manage it so it becomes constructive.

3. Norming (The Alignment)

The team resolves their quarrels and personality clashes, resulting in greater intimacy and a spirit of co-operation.

  • The Vibe: Relief and cohesion. People start to accept each other’s quirks and respect differing strengths.

  • Key Behaviors: Establishing the “rules of engagement,” constructive feedback, sharing of data and resources without being asked.

  • Leader’s Role: Supporting. Step back a little. Facilitate discussions rather than dictating them. Let the team take ownership of the process.

4. Performing (The Flow)

The team reaches a high level of success and functions as a unit. They find ways to get the job done smoothly and effectively without inappropriate conflict or the need for external supervision.

  • The Vibe: High energy, high trust. The focus is entirely on the goal, not the internal politics.

  • Key Behaviors: Autonomous decision-making, rapid problem solving, high output.

  • Leader’s Role: Delegating. Get out of their way. Focus on high-level strategy and removing external blockers.

The “Hidden” 5th Stage: Adjourning

Tuckman added this later. It refers to the breaking up of the team after the task is completed.

  • The Vibe: Bittersweet. Pride in what was accomplished (the deployed system works!) but sadness that the group is separating.

  • Leader’s Role: Recognition. Celebrate the win and capture lessons learned for the next project.

The Art of Media-tion: Bridging the Gap Between “Secure” and “Now”

Posted on by

The Art of Media-tion: Bridging the Gap Between “Secure” and “Now”

In the high-stakes world of modern infrastructure, two distinct tribes are forced to share the same territory.

On one side, the Network Team. They are the gatekeepers. Their priorities are clear: Security, Stability, and Standardization. They live by the firewall and die by the protocol.

On the other side, the Media Team. They are the sprinters. Their priorities are equally clear: Perfection, Latency (or lack thereof), and Speed. They don’t care about the firewall; they care that the video feed is stuttering and the audio is clean.

These two groups rarely see eye to eye. The Media team thinks the Network team is the “Department of No.” The Network team thinks the Media team is a walking security vulnerability.

The Conflict

The disconnect is fundamental.

  • Network wants to inspect every packet to ensure safety.

  • Media needs those packets to fly through unhindered to ensure quality.

When these priorities clash, projects stall. The creative vision gets strangled by security policies, or conversely, the network gets flooded by unruly, high-bandwidth traffic that wasn’t accounted for.

The Solution: Media-tion

This is where the concept of Media-tion becomes essential.

Media-tion /mē-dē-ā-shən/ noun

The specialized diplomatic and technical process of aligning high-bandwidth media requirements with strict network security protocols.

Media-tion is more than just compromise; it is translation. It requires a partner who understands that “Jumbo Frames” aren’t a threat, NTP is not as good as PTP, and that “Multicast” isn’t a dirty word, it’s an efficiency tool.

The Role of the Media-tor: Stear

Successful Media-tion requires a guide who can hold the hands of both parties. This is where Stear steps in.

Stear acts as the ultimate Media-tor. They don’t just install technology; they translate intent.

  • They interpret the Media team’s “I need it NOW perfectly” into a language the Network team respects: QoS policies, VLAN segmentation, and bandwidth reservation.

  • They take the Network team’s “Zero Trust” mandates and architect a solution that secures the pipe without clogging it.

The Result

Through Media-tion, the impossible happens. The hostility evaporates. The Network team sleeps soundly knowing the enterprise is safe. The Media team pushes play, and the content flows flawlessly.

It turns out, you don’t have to choose between Security and Speed. You just need the right Media-tion to get them to shake hands.

The Invisible Connection: Why Radio Waves and Photons Are the Same Thing (and Why It’s So Confusing)

Posted on by

It’s a question that gets to the heart of how we understand the universe: “Does radio frequency (RF) move over photons?” The intuitive answer, based on how we experience sound traveling through air or ripples on water, might be “yes.” It seems logical to imagine radio waves “surfing” on a sea of tiny particles.

However, the reality of quantum physics is far stranger and more counterintuitive. The short answer is no. Radio frequency does not move over photons. Instead, a radio wave consists of photons.

This concept is notoriously difficult to grasp. It challenges our everyday perception of the world and requires us to accept one of the most mind-bending ideas in science: wave-particle duality. Let’s break down why this relationship is so complicated.

The Foundation: They Are the Same Phenomenon

To understand the connection, we first need to define the players.

* Radio Frequency (RF): RF is a form of electromagnetic (EM) radiation, which includes visible light, X-rays, and microwaves. We typically think of RF as continuous, oscillating waves used for communication—the invisible signals that carry music to our car radios and data to our smartphones.

* Photons: A photon is a single, discrete “packet” or particle of electromagnetic energy. It is the fundamental quantum unit of light and all other forms of EM radiation.

The crucial point is this: electromagnetic radiation has a dual nature. Depending on how you measure it, it can behave like a smooth, continuous wave or like a stream of individual particles. Therefore, a radio wave is simply a stream of countless photons traveling together.

The Core Misconception: The “Medium” Fallacy

The confusion often stems from a deeply ingrained mental model based on mechanical waves.

* Sound Waves: Need a medium like air or water to travel. The sound wave moves through the air molecules.

* Water Waves: Are disturbances moving through water. The wave moves, while the water molecules mostly bob up and down in place.

It’s natural to apply this logic to radio waves and assume that photons act as the “medium” for the RF signal. This is incorrect. A radio wave doesn’t need a medium; it can travel through a perfect vacuum.

A better analogy is to think of the water wave itself.

* Does the wave move over the water molecules? No.

* The wave is made of the collective motion of the water molecules. You cannot have the wave without the molecules that comprise it.

* Similarly, the RF wave is made of the collective behavior of photons.

Why It’s So Complicated: Wave-Particle Duality and Scale

The reason we don’t intuitively grasp this is due to the vast difference in energy across the electromagnetic spectrum.

1. The Spectrum of Energy

The electromagnetic spectrum is a continuous range of radiation, from low-energy radio waves to high-energy gamma rays. The only difference between them is the energy of their individual photons.

2. The Scale Problem

* High-Energy Photons (X-rays, Gamma Rays): Each photon packs a significant punch. When they interact with matter, they act like individual bullets. We can easily detect them one by one. Their “particle” nature is obvious.

* Medium-Energy Photons (Visible Light): These are in the middle. We can perceive them as waves (colors) and, with sensitive equipment, detect them as individual particles (like the grain in film or noise in a digital photo).

* Low-Energy Photons (Radio Waves): This is where the confusion lies. An individual RF photon has an incredibly tiny amount of energy—billions of times less than a photon of visible light. To create a detectable radio signal, a transmitter must emit trillions upon trillions of these photons per second, all synchronized in a coherent stream.

3. The Sand Dune Analogy

Imagine you are looking at a massive sand dune from a mile away. It looks like a single, smooth, continuous object with gentle curves—like a wave. This is the “RF wave” perspective.

Now, imagine walking up to the dune and picking up a handful of sand. You see it’s made of millions of tiny, individual grains. This is the “photon” perspective.

Because radio waves are made of such an enormous number of incredibly weak photons, we only ever perceive their collective, smooth “wave” behavior. We never notice the individual “grains.” It’s only in highly specialized physics experiments that the particle nature of radio waves becomes apparent.

A Modern Source of Confusion: Radio over Fiber

In the modern world, there’s a technology called Radio over Fiber (RoF) that might add to the confusion. In these systems, an RF electrical signal is converted into pulses of light and sent down a fiber optic cable. Since light is also made of photons, you are technically sending “data from an RF signal” via “optical photons.” However, the original RF signal isn’t “riding” on top of the light photons; it was converted into a different form of electromagnetic energy for transport.

The idea that radio waves are made of particles is a fundamental truth of our universe, but it’s one that our everyday experience obscures. We are designed to perceive the world at a human scale, not at the quantum scale. The confusion doesn’t come from the concept itself, but from trying to force quantum reality into our classical, intuitive mental models.

So, the next time you tune your radio, remember: you aren’t just catching a wave; you’re catching a torrent of unimaginable numbers of tiny, invisible particles of energy.

The Mixer, My Grandfather, and the Looming Crisis of Unfixable Electronics

Posted on by

💡 The Mixer, My Grandfather, and the Looming Crisis of Unfixable Electronics

My weekend project—a powered mixer for a friend—was a powerful, hands-on lesson in the changing nature of electronics and the fight for the Right to Repair.

For a friend, I made an exception to my usual “no bench work” rule. The diagnosis was classic: a blown channel, likely from speakers incorrectly wired in parallel. Instead of a minimal patch job, I opted for a full refurbishment, the way I was taught: new, high-quality Panasonic FC caps and fresh, matched transistors. A labour of love, not profit.

The true difficulty wasn’t the soldering; it was the manufacturer. My simple request for a 25-year-old service manual was flat-out denied. They are for “authorized repair depots only.”

This experience, though successful for my friend, crystallized a serious concern: we are rapidly entering a world of unservicable, unfixable electronics.

The Three Costs of Non-Repairability

The Cost of Time, Parts, and Labor:

I spent far more on parts, time, and labour than the powered mixer is worth on the used market. This is the reality of non-authorized repair—every component decision, every circuit trace, becomes a painstaking reversal of proprietary design. It was a labour of friendship, but it’s an impossible model for a business.

How can an electronics business operate today when manufacturers actively make repairs slow, opaque, and expensive?

The Environmental Cost (E-Waste):

When repair becomes economically or technically impossible, replacement is the only option. This fuels a massive surge in electronic waste (e-waste). That 25-year-old mixer, which is now ready for another decade of service thanks to a few dollars in components, would otherwise have been destined for the landfill. Denying access to manuals is effectively an enforced, premature death sentence for functional equipment.

The Loss of a Craft and a Livelihood:

My grandfather fixed electronics for 60 years. His profession, and the fundamental consumer assumption that “if it’s broken, it can be fixed,” is being systematically dismantled. The miniaturization, the proprietary software locks, and the refusal to share documentation are creating a technical barrier that few independent technicians can overcome.

The Hope in Right to Repair

My frustration is why the global Right to Repair movement is so critical. This isn’t just about saving money; it’s about:

Ownership: When we buy a product, we should own it—and the right to repair it, or have it repaired by whomever we choose.

Sustainability: Extending the lifespan of devices is the most effective form of recycling.

Competition: Allowing independent repair shops to thrive fosters competition, lowers costs, and drives innovation in repairability.

Legislative movements are gaining ground across North America and Europe, pushing manufacturers to release documentation, tools, and parts. It’s a fight to preserve the longevity of our technology and the expertise of those who can fix it.

For now, the mixer is singing again—a testament to what can be done with skill and dedication. But the struggle to keep 25-year-old gear alive is a clear warning sign for the future of new equipment.

Why Audio Interoperability Thrives on the Most Common Commonality

Posted on by

Beyond the “Lowest Common Denominator”: Why Audio Interoperability Thrives on the Most Common Commonality

In the complex symphony of modern technology, where devices from countless manufacturers strive to communicate, audio interoperability stands as a crucial pillar. From our headphones and smartphones to professional recording studios and live event setups, the ability for sound to flow seamlessly between disparate systems is not just convenient – it’s essential. While the concept of a “lowest common denominator” might seem like a pragmatic approach to achieving universal compatibility, in the world of audio interoperability, it is the pursuit of the “most common commonality” that truly unlocks value and drives innovation.

The Pitfalls of the Lowest Common Denominator in Audio

The “lowest common denominator” approach, when applied to technology, suggests finding the absolute minimum standard that every device can meet. Imagine a scenario where every audio device, regardless of its sophistication, was forced to communicate using only the most basic, universally available audio format – perhaps a very low-bitrate mono signal.

On the surface, this guarantees that everything can technically connect. However, this strategy quickly reveals its significant drawbacks:

* Stifled Innovation: If the standard is set at the absolute lowest bar, there’s little incentive for manufacturers to develop higher-fidelity, multi-channel, or advanced audio processing capabilities. Why invest in pristine audio engineering if the ultimate output will be constrained by the simplest common link?

* Degraded User Experience: High-resolution audio, surround sound, and advanced features become inaccessible. Users with premium equipment are forced down to the lowest quality, negating the value of their investment. This leads to frustration and dissatisfaction.

* Limited Functionality: Complex audio applications, like professional broadcasting, multi-instrument recording, or immersive gaming, simply cannot function effectively with such basic standards. The rich data required for these applications would be lost or compromised.

* A Race to the Bottom: Focusing on the LCD encourages a “race to the bottom” mentality, where the emphasis is on minimum viability rather than optimal performance or feature richness.

In essence, while the LCD guarantees some form of connection, it often does so at the expense of quality, innovation, and user experience. It creates a baseline, but one that is often too shallow to support the diverse and evolving needs of audio technology.

Embracing the “Most Common Commonality”: A Path to Richer Interoperability

Conversely, the “most common commonality” approach seeks to identify and leverage the features, protocols, or formats that are widely adopted and supported across a significant portion of the ecosystem, even if not absolutely universal. This approach recognizes that technology evolves and that users desire more than just basic functionality.

Consider the evolution of audio jack standards or digital audio protocols. Instead of reverting to a single, ancient, universally compatible (but highly limited) standard, successful interoperability often builds upon common, yet capable, platforms:

* USB Audio: While not the absolute lowest common denominator (some devices might only have analog out), USB Audio is a powerful “most common commonality” for digital audio. Most computers, many smartphones (with adapters), and countless peripherals support it. It allows for high-quality, multi-channel audio, device control, and power delivery – vastly superior to an LCD approach.

* Bluetooth Audio Profiles (e.g., A2DP): While there are many Bluetooth profiles, A2DP (Advanced Audio Distribution Profile) is the “most common commonality” for high-quality stereo audio streaming. It’s not the simplest Bluetooth profile, but its widespread adoption has allowed for excellent wireless audio experiences across headphones, speakers, and mobile devices.

* Standardized File Formats (e.g., WAV, FLAC, MP3): Instead of a single, highly compressed, lowest-common-denominator format, audio ecosystems thrive by supporting a few “most common commonalities.” WAV offers uncompressed quality, FLAC offers lossless compression, and MP3 offers efficient lossy compression – each serving different needs but widely supported, allowing users to choose the appropriate commonality.

* Professional Audio Protocols (e.g., Dante, AVB): In professional environments, dedicated network audio protocols like Dante or AVB become the “most common commonality.” They aren’t universally simple like a single analog cable, but they are widely adopted within the pro-audio sphere, enabling incredibly complex, high-channel count, low-latency audio routing over standard network infrastructure.

The Value Proposition of “Most Common Commonality”

Focusing on the “most common commonality” delivers several critical advantages:

* Elevated Baseline: It establishes a higher, more functional baseline for interoperability, ensuring that shared experiences are genuinely useful and satisfying.

* Encourages Feature-Rich Development: Manufacturers are incentivized to build upon these robust commonalities, adding advanced features and higher performance, knowing their products will still integrate broadly.

* Flexibility and Choice: It allows for a spectrum of quality and features. Users can choose devices that leverage these commonalities to their fullest, without being restricted by the lowest possible shared function.

* Scalability: As technology advances, the “most common commonality” can evolve. A new, more capable standard might emerge and become widely adopted, organically raising the bar for interoperability.

* Enhanced User Experience: Ultimately, users benefit from higher quality, richer features, and more seamless connections, leading to greater satisfaction and the ability to fully utilize their audio equipment.

Conclusion

In the intricate world of audio interoperability, merely connecting is not enough; the connection must be meaningful and valuable. While the “lowest common denominator” might guarantee a rudimentary link, it comes at the cost of innovation, quality, and user satisfaction. It’s a static, limiting approach.

The pursuit of the “most common commonality,” however, represents a dynamic and forward-thinking strategy. It identifies widely adopted, capable standards and protocols that enable rich, high-quality audio experiences across a diverse ecosystem. By building on these robust shared foundations, the audio industry can continue to innovate, deliver exceptional value, and ensure that the symphony of sound flows freely and beautifully between all our devices. It is through this intelligent identification of robust shared ground, rather than a retreat to minimal functionality, that the true potential of audio interoperability is realized.

SDP meta data and channel information

Posted on by

The Protocol-Driven Stage: Why SDP Changes Everything for Live Sound

For decades, the foundation of a successful live show has been the patch master—a highly skilled human who translates a band’s technical needs (their stage plot and input list) into physical cables. The Festival Patch formalized this by making the mixing console channels static, minimizing changeover time by relying on human speed and organizational charts.

But what happens when the patch list becomes part of the digital DNA of the audio system?

The demonstration of embedding specific equipment metadata—like the microphone model ($\text{SM57}$), phantom power ($\text{P48}$), and gain settings—directly into the same protocol (SDP) that defines the stream count and routing, paves the way for the Automated Stage.

The End of Changeover Chaos

In a traditional festival scenario, the greatest risk is the 15-minute changeover. Even with a standardized patch, every connection involves human decisions, risk of error, and lost time.

Integrating detailed equipment data into a standard protocol offers three revolutionary benefits:

  1. Instant Digital Patching: When a band’s touring engineer loads their show file (their mixer settings), the system wouldn’t just expect an input on Channel 3; it would receive a data stream labeled “Snare Top” with the $\text{SSRC}$ (Source ID) and an explicit metadata tag demanding the $\text{SM57}$ with $\text{P48}$ off and a specific preamp gain.

  2. Self-Correction and Verification: The stage can instantly perform a digital handshake. The physical stage box could verify, via a network query, “Is an Audix D6 connected to Kick Out? Is its phantom power off?” If the wrong mic is used, or $\text{P48}$ is mistakenly turned on (potentially damaging a ribbon mic), the system could flag the error to the patch master immediately, before the band even plays.

  3. True Plug-and-Play Touring: For the first time, a sound engineer could reliably carry a “show on a stick” that contains not just their mix, but the entire equipment specification and routing logic. As soon as the engineer’s control surface connects to the house system, the SDP-integrated metadata would automatically configure all relevant preamp settings, labeling, and signal flow, making festival sound checks obsolete for most acts.

This shift transforms the sound engineer’s role from a physical cable manager to a network systems architect. The complexity of a 64-channel festival stage doesn’t disappear, but the risk of human error and the pressure of the clock are drastically reduced, ensuring a higher quality, more consistent show for every single act.

Consider what a real session may contain

 

Ch # a=label (Console Label) Performer/Role a=track-name (DAW Slug) Mic Used P48 (Phantom Power) Gain Setting Pad Setting
01 Kick In Drummer $\text{KICK\_IN\_BETA91A}$ Beta 91A $\text{OFF}$ $\text{+10dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
02 Kick Out Drummer $\text{KICK\_OUT\_D6}$ Audix D6 $\text{OFF}$ $\text{+25dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
03 Snare Top Drummer $\text{SNARE\_TOP\_SM57}$ SM57 $\text{OFF}$ $\text{+35dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
04 Snare Bottom Drummer $\text{SNARE\_BOT\_E604}$ e604 $\text{OFF}$ $\text{+30dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
05 Hi-Hat Drummer $\text{HIHAT\_C451B}$ C451B $\text{ON}$ $\text{+40dB}$ $\text{10dB}$
06 Tom 1 (Rack) Drummer $\text{TOM1\_MD421}$ MD 421 $\text{OFF}$ $\text{+30dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
07 Tom 2 (Rack) Drummer $\text{TOM2\_MD421}$ MD 421 $\text{OFF}$ $\text{+30dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
08 Tom 3 (Floor) Drummer $\text{TOM3\_D4}$ Audix D4 $\text{OFF}$ $\text{+28dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
09 Overhead L Drummer $\text{OH\_L\_KM184}$ KM 184 $\text{ON}$ $\text{+45dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
10 Overhead R Drummer $\text{OH\_R\_KM184}$ KM 184 $\text{ON}$ $\text{+45dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
11 Ride Cymbal Drummer $\text{RIDE\_KSM137}$ KSM 137 $\text{ON}$ $\text{+40dB}$ $\text{10dB}$
12 Drum Room Stage Ambience $\text{DRUM\_ROOM\_RIBBON}$ Ribbon Mic $\text{OFF}$ $\text{+50dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
13 Percussion 1 Aux Percussionist $\text{PERC1\_E904}$ e904 $\text{ON}$ $\text{+35dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
14 Percussion 2 Aux Percussionist $\text{PERC2\_BETA98A}$ Beta 98A $\text{ON}$ $\text{+30dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
15 Talkback Mic Stage Manager $\text{TALKBACK\_SM58}$ SM58 $\text{ON}$ $\text{+20dB}$ $\text{0dB}$
16 Spare/Utility N/A $\text{SPARE\_UTILITY}$ N/A $\text{OFF}$ $\text{0dB}$ $\text{0dB}$

v=0
o=DrumKit – 16ch 3046777894 3046777894 IN IP4 192.168.1.10
s=Festival Drum Patch
c=IN IP4 192.168.1.10
t=0 0
m=audio 40000 RTP/AVP 97
a=rtpmap:97 L16/48000/16
a=sendrecv
a=mid:DRUMS16

a=Channel:01
a=label:Kick In
a=track-name:KICK_IN_BETA91A
a=i:Kick In – Low-frequency shell resonance.
a=ssrc:10000001
a=mic-info:Mic=Beta 91A; P48=OFF; Gain=+10dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:02
a=label:Kick Out
a=track-name:KICK_OUT_D6
a=i:Kick Out – Beater attack and air movement.
a=ssrc:10000002
a=mic-info:Mic=Audix D6; P48=OFF; Gain=+25dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:03
a=label:Snare Top
a=track-name:SNARE_TOP_SM57
a=i:Snare Top – Primary snare drum sound and attack.
a=ssrc:10000003
a=mic-info:Mic=SM57; P48=OFF; Gain=+35dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:04
a=label:Snare Bottom
a=track-name:SNARE_BOT_E604
a=i:Snare Bottom – Snare wires for sizzle/snap.
a=ssrc:10000004
a=mic-info:Mic=e604; P48=OFF; Gain=+30dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:05
a=label:Hi-Hat
a=track-name:HIHAT_C451B
a=i:Hi-Hat – Cymbals, rhythm, and clarity.
a=ssrc:10000005
a=mic-info:Mic=C451B; P48=ON; Gain=+40dB; Pad=10dB

a=Channel:06
a=label:Tom 1 (Rack)
a=track-name:TOM1_MD421
a=i:Tom 1 (Rack) – High rack tom resonance and attack.
a=ssrc:10000006
a=mic-info:Mic=MD 421; P48=OFF; Gain=+30dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:07
a=label:Tom 2 (Rack)
a=track-name:TOM2_MD421
a=i:Tom 2 (Rack) – Mid rack tom resonance and attack.
a=ssrc:10000007
a=mic-info:Mic=MD 421; P48=OFF; Gain=+30dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:08
a=label:Tom 3 (Floor)
a=track-name:TOM3_D4
a=i:Tom 3 (Floor) – Low floor tom resonance and thump.
a=ssrc:10000008
a=mic-info:Mic=Audix D4; P48=OFF; Gain=+28dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:09
a=label:Overhead L
a=track-name:OH_L_KM184
a=i:Overhead L – Stereo image, cymbals, and kit balance.
a=ssrc:10000009
a=mic-info:Mic=KM 184; P48=ON; Gain=+45dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:10
a=label:Overhead R
a=track-name:OH_R_KM184
a=i:Overhead R – Stereo image, cymbals, and kit balance.
a=ssrc:10000010
a=mic-info:Mic=KM 184; P48=ON; Gain=+45dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:11
a=label:Ride Cymbal
a=track-name:RIDE_KSM137
a=i:Ride Cymbal – Dedicated input for ride stick definition.
a=ssrc:10000011
a=mic-info:Mic=KSM 137; P48=ON; Gain=+40dB; Pad=10dB

a=Channel:12
a=label:Drum Room
a=track-name:DRUM_ROOM_RIBBON
a=i:Drum Room – Ambient sound for space and size (mono).
a=ssrc:10000012
a=mic-info:Mic=Ribbon Mic; P48=OFF; Gain=+50dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:13
a=label:Percussion 1
a=track-name:PERC1_E904
a=i:Percussion 1 – Primary percussion (e.g., Shaker, Tambourine).
a=ssrc:10000013
a=mic-info:Mic=e904; P48=ON; Gain=+35dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:14
a=label:Percussion 2
a=track-name:PERC2_BETA98A
a=i:Percussion 2 – Secondary percussion (e.g., Conga/Bongo).
a=ssrc:10000014
a=mic-info:Mic=Beta 98A; P48=ON; Gain=+30dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:15
a=label:Talkback Mic
a=track-name:TALKBACK_SM58
a=i:Talkback Mic – Communication from the stage.
a=ssrc:10000015
a=mic-info:Mic=SM58; P48=ON; Gain=+20dB; Pad=0db

a=Channel:16
a=label:Spare/Utility
a=track-name:SPARE_UTILITY
a=i:Spare/Utility – Reserved for last-minute needs or failures.
a=ssrc:10000016
a=mic-info:Mic=N/A; P48=OFF; Gain=0dB; Pad=0db

 

💡 Proposal: SDP Extension for Live Program & Ancillary Data

 

The core idea is to define a new set of media-level attributes that convey dynamic, human-readable, or system-critical metadata for each stream identified by its SSRC (Synchronization Source Identifier) or a=label.

 

1. New SDP Attributes for Metadata

 

We would define new media-level attributes (a=) to carry specific types of operational data. These attributes should be scoped to a specific stream using the a=label attribute, as defined in RFC 4574.

That is an excellent proposal. Extending SDP to carry rich, flow-specific metadata—like channel labels, track names, and operational status—moves it far beyond simple media negotiation and into the realm of a unified control and inventory protocol for all audio streams. This concept can be formalized as an SDP Extension for Live Program and Ancillary Data.

Here is a proposal for making SDP useful for this purpose, focusing on specific custom attributes and their applications.

💡 Proposal: SDP Extension for Live Program & Ancillary Data

The core idea is to define a new set of media-level attributes that convey dynamic, human-readable, or system-critical metadata for each stream identified by its SSRC (Synchronization Source Identifier) or a=label.

1. New SDP Attributes for Metadata

We would define new media-level attributes (a=) to carry specific types of operational data. These attributes should be scoped to a specific stream using the a=label attribute, as defined in RFC 4574.

Attribute Name Scope Purpose Example Value
a=program-id Session-Level (s=) Unique identifier for the overall production (e.g., “WXYZ Morning Show”). a=program-id:WXYZ-MORN-004
a=flow-name Media-Level (m=) Human-readable name for the stream’s purpose (e.g., “Mix-Minus Feed,” “Main PGM L/R”). a=flow-name:PGM-MAIN-STEREO
a=channel-label Source-Level (a=label) Primary label for the control surface/monitoring (FOH channel strip, Monitor wedge, etc.). a=channel-label:LEAD_VOX
a=track-name Source-Level (a=label) Track name for recording or playback (Pro Tools, DAWs). a=track-name:KICK_IN_SM91A
a=display-data Source-Level (a=label) Generic string for UMD (Under Monitor Display) / Ancillary displays. a=display-data:Guest_Mic_3
a=status-check Source-Level (a=label) Critical status information, like phantom power or line level requirement. a=status-check:P48=ON; Lvl=MIC

2. Applications of Metadata-Driven Activities

By embedding this metadata in the SDP, the audio infrastructure becomes self-identifying and self-correcting.

📻 Radio/Broadcast: Now Playing & Ancillary Data

  • SDP Use: The primary program streams (PGM-MAIN-STEREO) would contain the dynamic data for now-playing information.

  • Action: A gateway device (SRC) monitors the a=track-name or a dedicated a=now-playing attribute that is updated via an SDP re-offer/update. This information is automatically fed into broadcast automation systems, RDS encoders, and online streaming metadata APIs. The $\text{SRC}$ ensures the $\text{L/R}$ program feed is correctly labeled for the entire chain.

🎙️ Live Stage: UMDs and Channel Labels

  • SDP Use: The $\text{FOH}$ console and monitor desk receive the SDP. The $\text{a=channel-label}$ attribute is read for every $\text{SSRC}$ (microphone).

  • Action: Console surfaces and rack UMDs (Under Monitor Displays) automatically populate their text fields with LEAD_VOX or KICK_IN_SM91A. There is no need for a manual text input step, eliminating labeling errors and speeding up console setup.

✅ Self-Correcting Patching and Inventory

  • SDP Use: The a=status-check and a=track-name attributes contain the exact physical requirements and intended use.

  • Action: When a stage patch tech connects a mic to the stage box, a networked device reads the SDP for that channel’s expected status.

    • Self-Correction: If the SDP demands P48=ON but the stage box has phantom power off for that line, the system can flash an error indicator or automatically enable the correct state.

    • Self-Identification: If the patch tech plugs a spare vocal mic into the channel meant for the Kick Drum’s KICK_IN_SM91A, the system instantly alerts the operator to a patch mismatch. The metadata guarantees the signal is routed and labeled correctly at every point in the flow.

By standardizing this descriptive information within SDP, we leverage the protocol’s established routing and negotiation mechanisms to achieve the goal of metadata-driven activities, making live productions faster, safer, and inherently more reliable

Empowering the user

Posted on by

Empowering the User: The Boeing vs. Airbus Philosophy in Software and Control System Design

In the world of aviation, the stark philosophical differences between Boeing and Airbus control systems offer a profound case study for user experience (UX) design in software and control systems. It’s a debate between tools that empower the user with ultimate control and intelligent assistance versus those that abstract away complexity and enforce protective boundaries. This fundamental tension – enabling vs. doing – is critical for any designer aiming to create intuitive, effective, and ultimately trusted systems.

The Core Dichotomy: Enablement vs. Automation

At the heart of the aviation analogy is the distinction between systems designed to enable a highly skilled user to perform their task with enhanced precision and safety, and systems designed to automate tasks, protecting the user from potential errors even if it means ceding some control.

Airbus: The “Doing It For You” Approach

Imagine a powerful, intelligent assistant that anticipates your needs and proactively prevents you from making mistakes. This is the essence of the Airbus philosophy, particularly in its “Normal Law” flight controls.

The Experience: The pilot provides high-level commands via a side-stick, and the computer translates these into safe, optimized control surface movements, continuously auto-trimming the aircraft.

The UX Takeaway:

Pros: Reduces workload, enforces safety limits, creates a consistent and predictable experience across the fleet, and can be highly efficient in routine operations. For novice users or high-stress environments, this can significantly lower the barrier to entry and reduce the cognitive load.

Cons: Can lead to a feeling of disconnect from the underlying mechanics. When something unexpected happens, the user might struggle to understand why the system is behaving a certain way or how to override its protective actions. The “unlinked” side-sticks can also create ambiguity in multi-user scenarios.

Software Analogy: Think of an advanced AI writing assistant that not only corrects grammar but also rewrites sentences for clarity, ensures brand voice consistency, and prevents you from using problematic phrases – even if you intended to use them for a specific effect. It’s safe, but less expressive. Or a “smart home” system that overrides your thermostat settings based on learned patterns, even when you want something different.

Boeing: The “Enabling You to Do It” Approach

Now, consider a sophisticated set of tools that amplify your skills, provide real-time feedback, and error-check your inputs, but always leave the final decision and physical control in your hands. This mirrors the Boeing philosophy.

The Experience: Pilots manipulate a traditional, linked yoke. While fly-by-wire technology filters and optimizes inputs, the system generally expects the pilot to manage trim and provides “soft limits” that can be overridden with sufficient force. The system assists, but the pilot remains the ultimate authority.

The UX Takeaway:

Pros: Fosters a sense of control and mastery, provides direct feedback through linked controls, allows for intuitive overrides in emergencies, and maintains the mental model of direct interaction. For expert users, this can lead to greater flexibility and a deeper understanding of the system’s behavior.

Cons: Can have a steeper learning curve, requires more active pilot management (e.g., trimming), and places a greater burden of responsibility on the user to stay within safe operating limits.

Software Analogy: This is like a professional photo editing suite where you have granular control over every aspect of an image. The software offers powerful filters and intelligent adjustments, but you’re always the one making the brush strokes, adjusting sliders, and approving changes. Or a sophisticated IDE (Integrated Development Environment) for a programmer: it offers powerful auto-completion, syntax highlighting, and debugging tools, but doesn’t write the code for you or prevent you from making a logical error, allowing you to innovate.

Designing for Trust: Error Checking Without Taking Over

The crucial design principle emerging from this comparison is the need for systems that provide robust error checking and intelligent assistance while preserving the user’s ultimate agency. The goal should be to create “smart tools,” not “autonomous overlords.”

Key Design Principles for Empowerment:

Transparency and Feedback: Users need to understand what the system is doing and why. Linked yokes provide immediate physical feedback. In software, this translates to clear status indicators, activity logs, and explanations for automated actions. If an AI suggests a change, explain its reasoning.

Soft Limits, Not Hard Gates: While safety is paramount, consider whether a protective measure should be an absolute barrier or a strong suggestion that can be bypassed in exceptional circumstances. Boeing’s “soft limits” allow pilots to exert authority when necessary. In software, this might mean warning messages instead of outright prevention, or giving the user an “override” option with appropriate warnings.

Configurability and Customization: Allow users to adjust the level of automation and assistance. Some users prefer more guidance, others more control. Provide options to switch between different “control laws” or modes that align with their skill level and current task.

Preserve Mental Models: Whenever possible, build upon existing mental models. Boeing’s yoke retains a traditional feel. In software, this means using familiar metaphors, consistent UI patterns, and avoiding overly abstract interfaces that require relearning fundamental interactions.

Enable, Don’t Replace: The most powerful tools don’t do the job for the user; they enable the user to do the job better, faster, and more safely. They act as extensions of the user’s capabilities, not substitutes.

The Future of UX: A Hybrid Approach

Ultimately, neither pure “Airbus” nor pure “Boeing” is universally superior. The ideal UX often lies in a hybrid approach, intelligently blending the strengths of both philosophies. For routine tasks, automation and protective limits are incredibly valuable. But when the unexpected happens, or when creativity and nuanced judgment are required, the system must gracefully step back and empower the human creator.

Designers must constantly ask: “Is this tool serving the user’s intent, or is it dictating it?” By prioritizing transparency, configurable assistance, and the user’s ultimate authority, we can build software and control systems that earn trust, foster mastery, and truly empower those who use them.

Immersive audio demonstration recordings

Posted on by

From Artist’s Intent to Technician’s Choice

In a world full of immersive buzzwords and increasingly complex production techniques, the recording artist’s original intentions can quickly become filtered through the lens of the technician’s execution.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. I just acquired something that powerfully inspired my career in music—a piece of music heard the way it was truly intended before we fully grasped how to record and mix effectively in stereo. It was raw, immediate, and utterly captivating.

I feel we’re in a similar transition zone right now with immersive content production. We’re in the “stereo demo” phase of this new sonic dimension. We’re still learning the rules, and sometimes, the sheer capability of the technology overshadows the artistic purpose. The power of immersive sound shouldn’t just be about where we can place a sound, but where the story or the emotion demands it.

It brings me back to the core inspiration.

Putting the Mechanics into Quantum Mechanics

Posted on by

As we explore the frontier of quantum computing, we’re not just grappling with abstract concepts like superposition and entanglement—we’re engineering systems that manipulate light, matter, and energy at their most fundamental levels. In many ways, this feels like a return to analog principles, where computation is continuous rather than discrete.

A Return to Analog Thinking

Quantum systems inherently deal with waves—light waves, probability waves, electromagnetic waves. These are the same building blocks that analog computers once harnessed with remarkable efficiency. Analog systems excelled at handling infinite resolution calculations, where signals like video, sound, and RF were treated as continuous phenomena:

  • Video is light being redirected.
  • Sound is pressure waves propagating.
  • RF is electromagnetic waves traveling from point to point.

The challenge now is: how do we process continuously varying signals at the speed of light, without being bottlenecked by digital discretization?

Light as Information

I often joke that light moves at the speed of light—until it’s put on a network. But in the quantum realm, we’re literally dealing with light as both input and output. That changes the paradigm entirely.

To “put the mechanics into quantum mechanics” means:

  • Designing systems that physically embody quantum principles.
  • Treating light not just as a carrier of information, but as the information itself.
  • Building architectures that process analog signals at quantum scales, leveraging phase, amplitude, and polarization as computational resources.

Engineering Quantum Behavior

In this paradigm, we’re not just simulating quantum behavior—we’re engineering it. Quantum computing isn’t just about qubits flipping between 0 and 1; it’s about manipulating the very nature of reality to perform computation. This requires a deep understanding of both the physics and the engineering required to build systems that operate at the atomic and photonic level.

We’re entering an era where the boundaries between physics, computation, and communication blur. And perhaps, by revisiting the principles of analog computation through the lens of quantum mechanics, we’ll unlock new ways to process information—at the speed of light, and with the precision of nature itself.

The Most Powerful Computers You’ve Never Heard Of

 

Why “Red” and “Blue” Are Misleading in Network Architecture

Posted on by

In network design, naming conventions matter. They shape how engineers think about systems, how teams communicate, and how failures are diagnosed. Among the more popular—but problematic—naming schemes are “red” and “blue” architectures. While these color-coded labels may seem harmless or even intuitive, they often obscure the true nature of system behavior, especially in environments where redundancy is partial and control mechanisms are not fully mirrored.

“When you centralize the wrong thing, you concentrate the blast… Resiliency you don’t practice – is resiliency you don’t have” – David Plumber

The Illusion of Symmetry

The use of “red” and “blue” implies a kind of symmetrical duality—two systems operating in parallel, equally capable, equally active. This might be true in some high-availability setups, but in many real-world architectures, one side is clearly dominant. Whether due to bandwidth, control logic, or failover behavior, the systems are not truly equal. Calling them “red” and “blue” can mislead engineers into assuming a level of redundancy or balance that simply doesn’t exist.

Why “Main” and “Failover” Are Better

A more accurate and practical naming convention is “main” and “failover.” These terms reflect the intentional asymmetry in most network designs:

  • Main: The primary path or controller, responsible for normal operations.
  • Failover: A backup that activates only when the main system fails or becomes unreachable.

This terminology makes it clear that the system is not fully redundant—there is a preferred path, and a contingency path. It also helps clarify operational expectations, especially during troubleshooting or disaster recovery.

The Problem with “Primary” and “Secondary”

While “primary” and “secondary” are common alternatives, they carry their own baggage. These terms often imply that both systems are active and cooperating, which again may not reflect reality. In many architectures, the secondary system is passive, waiting to take over only in specific failure scenarios. Using “secondary” can lead to confusion about whether it’s actively participating in control or data flow.

Naming Should Reflect Behavior

Ultimately, naming conventions should reflect actual system behavior, not just abstract design goals. If one path is dominant and the other is a backup, call them main and failover. If both are active and load-balanced, then perhaps red/blue or A/B makes sense—but only with clear documentation.

Misleading names can lead to misconfigured systems, delayed recovery, and poor communication between teams. Precision in naming is not just pedantic—it’s operationally critical.

Alternative Terminology for Primary / Secondary Roles

  • Anchor / Satellite
  • Driver / Follower
  • Coordinator / Participant
  • Source / Relay
  • Lead / Support
  • Commander / Proxy
  • Origin / Echo
  • Core / Edge
  • Root / Branch
  • Beacon / Listener
  • Pilot / Wingman
  • Active / Passive
  • Initiator / Responder
  • Principal / Auxiliary
  • Mainline / Standby

The Case of the Conductive Cable Conundrum

Posted on by

I love interesting weird audio problems—the stranger the better! When a colleague reached out with a baffling issue of severe signal loading on their freshly built instrument cables, I knew it was right up my alley. It involved high-quality components behaving badly, and it was a great reminder that even experts can overlook a small but critical detail buried in the cable specifications.

The Mystery of the Missing Signal

My colleague was building cables using Mogami instrument cable (specifically 2319 and 2524) and Neutrik NP2X plugs, both industry-standard choices. The results were perplexing:

  • With Neutrik NP2X plugs: The signal was heavily compromised—a clear sign of signal loading—requiring a massive 15dB boost just to achieve a usable volume.

  • With generic ‘Switchcraft-style’ plugs: The cables functioned perfectly, with no signal loss.

The contradiction was the core of the mystery: Why would a premium connector fail where a generic one succeeded, all while using the same high-quality cable?

The Sub-Shield Suspect: A Deep Dive into Cable Design

The answer lay in the specialized design of the Mogami cable, particularly a feature intended to prevent noise. Most musical instrument pickups, like those in electric guitars, are high-impedance, voltage-driven circuits. This makes them highly susceptible to microphonic noise—the minute voltage generated when a cable is flexed or stepped on.

To combat this, the Mogami W2319 cable specification includes a specialized layer:

Layer Material Details
Sub-Shield Conductive PVC (Carbon PVC) Placed under the main shield to drain away this microphonic voltage.

This sub-shield is designed to be conductive.

The Termination Trap

My colleague’s standard, logical termination procedure was to strip the outer jacket and shield, then solder the hot wire to the tip connector with the inner dielectric butted right up against the solder post. This is where the problem originated.

I theorized that the internal geometry of the Neutrik NP2X plugs—which features a tightly-fitted cup and boot—was the culprit:

“It’s the way it sits in the cups. Sometimes it touches. Like when you put the boot on it goes into compression and jams it right up to the solder cup.”

 

When the cable was compressed by the tight Neutrik boot, the exposed, conductive sub-shield was being pushed into contact with the tip solder cup—creating a partial short circuit to ground (the shield). This resistive path to ground is the definition of signal loading, which robbed the high-impedance guitar circuit of its precious voltage and necessitated the hefty 15dB boost. The generic connectors, by chance, had just enough internal clearance to avoid this fatal contact.

The Professional Solution

The specifications confirm the necessity of a careful strip: Note: This conductive layer must be stripped back when wiring, or a partial short will result.

The fix was straightforward: cleanly peel or strip back the black, conductive PVC layer a small amount, ensuring it cannot make contact with the tip solder cup when the connector is fully assembled. This prevents the short and restores the cable’s proper functionality.

My colleague quickly confirmed the successful result:

“The issue was in fact the conductive PVC layer.”

“fuck yeah, nailed it!”

This experience serves as a powerful reminder that even seasoned professionals must respect the specific design and termination requirements of high-quality components. When troubleshooting audio problems, sometimes the most unusual solution is found not in a faulty part, but in a necessary step that was, literally, not in the wire.

Onset Vs Outset

Posted on by

Onset

Onset generally refers to the start of something negative, unwelcome, or intense, often an event that seems to happen suddenly or that you did not choose.

  • Meaning: The beginning or initial stage of something, especially something bad.
  • Connotation: Negative, unwelcome, or inevitable.
  • Typical Usage: Often used with diseases, weather, or negative conditions:
    • The onset of flu symptoms.
    • The onset of winter.
    • The onset of war.

 

Outset

Outset simply refers to the start or beginning of an activity, process, or endeavor and carries a neutral or positive connotation. It is often used to refer to a starting point of an undertaking or a journey.

  • Meaning: The beginning or start of a process, event, or period.
  • Connotation: Neutral, often referring to a planned or chosen start.
  • Typical Usage: Almost always used in the phrase “at the outset” or “from the outset”:
    • He made his intentions clear at the outset of the meeting.
    • There were problems with the project from the outset.
    • She felt positive at the outset of her new career.