Friday, April 29, 2005

LCD vs. DLP TVs

LCD vs. DLP TVs By Bradley James
Two new technologies in the world of TV, DLP and LCD, are now in a tight competition. Not long ago, everyone was talking about Plasma and LCD - which one would win? It became clear to most that Plasma, with its short lifespan of just 3-4 years, was simply not the best choice. In fact, the LCD screen has several benefits over plasma. For instance, LCD screens run much cooler than the average plasma TV, and thus require less power to operate. Plasma TVs run so hot, in fact, that they require a fan to cool them down – which can be noisy. In addition, plasma screens have a tendency to degrade over time, slowly becoming dimmer. LCD screens, on the other hand, run relatively cool, and do not degrade over time. Some Plasma owners, who have used their TVs for a few years now, have already witnessed the dimming of their screens. Also, LCD screens tend to have overall better picture quality, and are typically 10 to 15 percent lighter than plasma.

Now the choice is mainly between LCD and DLP - two distinct technologies that offer slight differences in display, price, and performance. If you are looking to buy a new flatscreen TV this year, you are probably wondering which one is right for you.
What are DLP, LCD TV Screens?

DLP stands for Digital Light Processing, while LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display. DLP technology, developed by Texas Instruments, uses a DMD, or Digital Micromirror Device, contructed of 1.3 million microscopic mirrors. Each of these mirrors is essentially a single pixel. When a digital signal enters the DLP system, each mirror is either activated or not, resulting in tapestry of mirrors tilting either towards the DLP light source or away. This process produces different levels of light and dark reflected by each individual mirror. The colors are produced when the DLP light sources run through a red, green, and blue color filter on a moving wheel. Depending on the lightness/ darkness of each mirror, the colors come in an enormous amount of shades, producing vivid color images.

LCD screens are made of several polarized glass panels, between which are liquid crystal molecules. An electric current is run through the crystal molecules, changing their position in respect to the glass. As light passes through the molecules, these changes in angle result in different lightness/ darkness patterns that produce images on the screen. There are usually three polarized glass panels, one with red pixels, blue, and green. This system also produced very accurate, vivid images, but angle is important. You may notice that the best colors in an LCD display are seen straight-on.

Is DLP, LCD TV Screens better than the other?
Simply put, that is a difficult question to answer. Unlike Plasma TV screens DLP and LCD last much are longer, and are considered to both have superior image quality. LCD screens tend to have slightly better contrast, with a larger range of black and white color shades. DLP, however, still has faster refresh rates than LCD (although LCD has been vastly improved in this area over the last two years). This can have implications if you are really into high-action motion (sports, action movies), because movement may seem a little blurred with LCD at times. Also, you'll want to remember that in order for you to get the best color out of your LCD, you have to sit right in front of it. LCD TVs also have a slightly shorter lifespan than DLPs, with only 45,000 to 60,000 hours compared to 75,000 hours or more. As far as price goes, LCD and DLP are still more expensive than Plasma, but like all things in time, their price has been coming down. And right now, DLP is slightly more expensive than LCD, but not by much. DLP, in our eyes, is the best investment, at least for the next few years.Click here for popular DLP TV units and prices.
Bradley James is a senior editor at SciNet.cc, a website containing many helpful consumer electronics review articles. For more information on DLP and LCD TV technology, please visit our DLP vs LCD Tvs webpage.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Tuesday, April 26, 2005

HDMI or Component: Which is Best?

HDMI or Component: Which is Best? By Kenny Hemphill
You've just bought a new HDTV, complete with HDMI connector and are delighted that you had the foresight to buy a DVD player with HDMI interface a while ago, even though you couldn't use HDMI at the time.

So you can ignore those component outputs and inputs and plug an HDMI cable between your two favourite bits of home theater kit. After all, HDMI, being all digital, is bound to be better than component, isn't it?

Well, no, actually. Not necessarily. It's true that convering a DVD signal to analog, sending it over component video and then switching it back to digital in the TV will result in a slight degradation of picture quality. And it's true that HDMI removes this issue. However, the degradation in the signal over component is virtually imperceptable and HDMI does introduce a few problems of its own.

Firstly, although DVD players "up-convert" video from 420p resolution to the native resolution of the HDTV (720p or 1080i), the signal still has to be "re-clocked" in the television before it is displayed. Some experts suggest that this re-clocking introduces more artefacts than the process of digital-to-analog-to-digital conversion. And the quality of the processor in the DVD player doing the "up-converting" is important here, if it's not up to scratch that could have a negative impact on picture quality.

Secondly, any equipment with HDMI (or DVI for that matter) connectors must support an anti-piracy measure known as HDCP (High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection). This takes the form of a code which is embedded into the digital video signal when its sent from a content player, such as a DVD player, and must be de-coded by the HDTV or HD projector. This puts additional pressure on the TV's video processor with no benefit to picture quality and so could, potentially, result in a slight loss in picture quality.

Using component video connections means that no anti-piracy protection is necessary.
None of this means that you should avoid HDMI. However, it does mean that you shouldn't take it for granted that HDMI will always be better than component. The only way to find out which is best for your equipment is to try both and see which one you prefer.

Kenny Hemphill is the editor and publisher of The HDTV Tuner - a guide to the kit, the technology and the programming on HDTV.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Wednesday, April 20, 2005

HDTV and the iPod Photo: A Perfect Marriage?

HDTV and the iPod Photo: A Perfect Marriage? By Robert Armstrong
They may seem like an odd combination, but the iPod photo could be the perfect choice for anyone who wants to view photo slideshows on an HDTV. The iPod photo can store thousands of digital photos, and syncs with a Mac or PC via iTunes. It will read any slideshows you’ve created in iPhoto on a Mac or Photoshop Album on a PC and copy them to the iPod. Alternatively you can tell it to copy a folder full of images from your hard drive as a slideshow.

Also, with the addition of an optional camera connector($29), you can copy photos directly from a digital camera and automatically create a slideshow from them on the iPod photo. All slideshows can be set to music.

To connect the iPod photo to an HDTV you’ll need to first make sure that your HDTV has composite video and audio inputs and then purchase the iPod photo AV cable ($19) from Apple. Connect the iPod to your TV, select the appropriate input and hey presto, your slideshow can be seen in beautiful, bright widescreen glory on your HDTV.

It’s worth bearing a few things in mind when creating slideshows for HDTV. First of all, the screen of an HDTV set has an aspect ratio of 16:9 (length: height) so if you size your photos with this aspect ratio you’ll be able to fill the screen without cropping the photo or seeing ugly black space around it. Secondly, the resolution required for optimal viewing on HDTV at full screen is less than that needed for printing even an A4 image. So if you only intend viewing your photos on-screen, whether on your computer or HDTV, you can save space on your iPod photo by reducing the capture resolution on your digital camera. If you set it at three mega-pixels, that will be enough to allow you to crop photos to the correct aspect ratio and still view them at the highest possible quality on an HDTV.

Of course, the iPod photo can store more than just photographs. Anything that can be saved as an image file, such as JPEG, can be included in a slideshow, so you could even use it to carry around business presentations which can be viewed by anyone with access to a TV or projector.

Robert Armstrong is a contributor to The HDTV Tuner - a guide to the kit, the technology and the programming on HDTV.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Saturday, April 16, 2005

How Many Songs Are In Your Pocket?

How Many Songs Are In Your Pocket? By Rick David
The portable MP3 player continues to be the hot item for those who want music on the go. I was talking to a teen the other day wearing a wristwatch MP3 player she takes on her walks. She showed me how it stores & plays about 60 songs and does everything but tell time. “Cool”, I said, “That’s a lot of music.” “Yeah, it’s not an iPod, but good enough for me now.” She explained apologetically. Why was the 60 song capacity such a disappointment? I can’t even name 60 songs.

Well, the iPod is the undisputed king of all MP3 players and it holds a lot of music. I got my first real demo from my 16 year old niece last Christmas. Her cute and wanting little sister threatened to enter the work force early to obtain her own. Every kid wants one bad, but read on, these gizmos aren’t cheap!

The iPod has caused the rebirth of Apple Computer, Inc., which has sold over 10 million units as of Q1 2005, with annual sales growing at a respectable 525 percent! I haven't seen that kind of growth since the invention of toilet paper. Apple has also become an industry-leading innovator in selling music online from their iTunes website.

Take an iPod Tour
The iPod Shuffle is the baby of the family, offering 512MB of space, which can hold about 120 songs and set you back $99.00. But everyone must ask themselves in the mirror, "Can you show your face at a party packing only 99 songs?" If you’re not sure, better buy a little insurance in the form of the 1-gigabyte Shuffle, which can hold 240 songs. ($149.00) Your peers will recognize that you’re in the iPod game, albeit entry level.

For some, 240 songs barely scrapes the surface dust of their collection, coercing them to consider the iPod Mini which can hold 1,000 songs ($199) or the 6GB Mini, which holds 1500 songs. ($249) I noticed that Apple is still using diminutive adjectives for this product level, and I guess the message is that the "Mini" is for a puny music collection that is tiny and rather small-ish. So be careful when giving this one as a gift. "Here son, I got you an "iPod Mini" for your birthday!" "Thanks Dad, but what do I look like, a baby? It only holds 1500 songs! They'll laugh at me! " "But son, my generation needed a moving crane and a 3 man crew to bring in a machine that could play that much music." "I thought you loved me..."

If your unsure of the size of your child's music library, the "regular" iPod is the way to go. ($299) Everyone on this level is "normal" and "common" and no one can be singled out for ridicule. Perfect for a young teen! And 20GB of space gives you that benchmark 5,000 songs, which is probably considered usual and customary in a world economy that had a ten-year run at emptying the product off the digital shelves of the record industry for free.

Granted, there are many who would beg for death rather than leave the house with so many songs left behind on their ‘big’ computers. The 60GB iPod Photo ($449.00) would be the choice for them. It can hold 15,000 of your favorite songs, or 25,000 of only your best looking photos. I keep my 25,000 photos in bins out in the garage. (Admittedly, they're a little bulky to carry around, and I have difficulty with retrieval when I desire to look up a particular birthday or holiday memory.)

But if you’re buying any of these for your kids birthday, better up their allowance, or put them to work down at the mill because these iPods are specifically designed to download from the iTunes website for 99 cents a track.

Napster
Napster began hollering “Do the Math!” from the sidelines with a spot during the Superbowl. They spent $2.2 million to ask the question, “How much does it cost to fill up your player?” The spot is no longer on the company website, but it showed a guy in the Superbowl stands holding a sign that read, "Do The Math"

iTunes + 10,000 songs = $10,000.00

Napster + MP3 player = $15.00 per month

It appears like Napster wins the championship of MP3 players hands down! Napster has a million songs that you can download day and night for only $15.00! (I wonder if they paid for all those.) But there was a sentence printed in the ad, that was so small I didn’t catch it on my father-in-law’s big screen which takes two houses to contain. They only flashed it for a moment so it must not have been important. I looked it up later: “Subscription must be maintained to continue to access songs downloaded from service.” Turns out, with Napster’s service, you’re not buying, but rather, you're renting the music. You can't burn them onto a CD and you can only use them on certain MP3 players. When you quit paying the $15.00 per month, the music disappears...no matter how long it took you to download it all. If you want to buy a song from Napster, it will cost you... drum roll please... 99 cents! So is the real math?

iPod = Napster?
So my music loving friends, here is how I add up the numbers:
For $9900 you can download 10,000 songs from either Napster or iTunes and own them. Or for the same price you can download an unlimited amount of songs from Napster for 55 years, but you can't leave them to your children.

Rick David writes a humor column called,
"Don't Laugh It Could Happen To You" forhttp://sandiego.merchantamerica.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Thursday, April 14, 2005

Buying the Best Digital Camera for Your Needs!

Buying the Best Digital Camera for Your Needs By Kevin Rockwell
Choosing a digital camera can be a daunting task with the wide number of choices available in today’s market place. There are lots and lots of things that you need to keep in mind while going to choose a camera for yourself. The best digital camera for your friend might not be the best option for you.

So, the first question that you need to answer is that for what purpose you are planning to buy a digital camera. Is it to take photos of your family while on vacation or are you planning to become a photographer? This will help you to narrow down your choices to a limited few. So lets take a look at the options that we have : A camera for emailing photos, taking family photos etc. : Most people use a digital camera for taking personal photos and then emailing them to family and friends. For this purpose, a simple and relatively cheap camera costing $100 to $200 and having a 2 mega pixel range is sufficient.

A camera for photographing images for online auctions : With more and more business taking place through the Internet, you might also need a camera to take photos of your antique furniture which you would like to sell. So, you need a camera which can take pictures at an extremely close range, say within 12 inches of the object. Thus, a camera consisting of 3-4 mega pixel is suitable for such purposes. The prices of these cameras are falling nowadays since they fall into mid-segment, i.e. they are neither hi-fi nor low end. So if you go and do a little bit of research, it is most likely that you will hit a good bargain.

A camera for images of top quality for web pages, desktop publishing etc : Now, if you need a camera for taking pictures for desktop publishing or web site development, then you need one with a 4-5 mega pixel range. These cameras normally have lots of additional features which you can use to enhance your images. Even though they are quite costly, they provide the best options with respect to resolution, features, and creativity. They also allow you create prints up to 8x10 inches in size with very good quality. Besides the above points, you also need to consider other issues such as the ergonomics of the camera. How does it feel when you hold it in your hand ? Are you comfortable with its size and weight ? Is it practical to carry it throughout the day ? Is its shape user friendly or does it look like a gizmo out of Star Wars ?

If you emphasize on a light-weight and small camera, then you must also keep in mind the fact that you will compromising on the battery life. Most small cameras do not have powerful batteries since larger the battery, more the power. Also, small cameras have very small flash lights – so the amount of flash generated by these pea-sized flashes will be considerably less than a bigger camera. Hence, it is very important that you know exactly what you need your camera for in order to ensure that you are truly buying the best digital camera for yourself. Find the best comprimis between form and function that fits the bill in your digital camera lifestyle.

Don't forget to take lots of pictures when you do get into digital. That is one of the great things about these cameras. No penalty for bad photos. Hit the erase button and move on to new images, that is my motto.

Kevin Rockwell worked as a network TV cameraman for 20 years shooting news and sports. Now a devoted fan of digital photography and video he works to gather information, tips and news for digital camera users. Oh and he loves to shoot pictures of his kids playing sports.http://www.great-digital-cameras.com/gdcj.html
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Saturday, April 09, 2005

Getting the Most From Your Digital Camera Memory Card.

Getting the Most From Your Digital Camera Memory Card By Kevin Rockwell
Imagine taking your new digital camera on a vacation and then realizing that you can barely click 20-30 images at a go. So, what do you do to avoid such a situation? The answer to this question lies in the purchase of an extra memory card or two.

One of the important components of a digital camera is the memory card. Most digital cameras come with quite a low amount of memory and it is always better to include the cost of a memory card while purchasing a camera. There are several types of memory cards so you must check out the memory options available in the camera that you are planning to buy.

Also, remember that if the resolution of your camera is high, then you will also need a high capacity memory card. There is no predetermined number of images that you can store on a particular memory card. It depends on the kind of images, the file type of the images and the compression rate per photograph. Normally, a 128 or 256 megabyte card is adequate for the average photographer using a 3-5 mega pixel camera.

There are several types of memory cards available. Here is a list of the kinds of memory cards available in the market today:

· Compact Flash Memory Card: Compact Flash is a relatively cheap memory card. It is available in most shops and is compatible with a large number of digital cameras. It is very popular and is commonly used by camera lovers. These cards come with an in-built controller which results in high transfer speeds. However, in order to use this facility, you normally need to be using a digital SLR.
· Secure Digital & Multimedia Cards: Commonly known as the SD card, these cards are one of the smallest memory cards which are available today. These cards can be used in different types of equipment, i.e. digital cameras, phones, MP3 players and video cameras as well. However, the maximum memory capacity is only 512 MB. The difference between the SD card and the multimedia card is that, as the name suggests, the SD card comes with an additional write-protect switch for data security.

· Memory Stick: The memory stick is an invention by Sony. As a result, these cards can mostly be used only on Sony devices. Hence, if you have a Sony digital camera, a Toshiba laptop; then it is most likely that you will not be able to use your memory stick on both equipments. It is a very durable and rugged memory option. So, unless and until you are a Sony fan, the memory stick has limited use for you.

· Card Reader: Once you have purchased a memory card for yourself, you will also need a card reader in order to transfer your pictures onto your laptop or PC. The advantage of a card reader is that it can be directly attached to your computer through the USB port. Then you simply need to slot in the memory card into the reader, and you can transfer files easily. The card reader does not require any additional cables and neither does it use up the battery of your digital camera.

The bottom line with digital camera memory cards is that you need to always have more on hand than you need, prices are often very affordable, and you should choose your camera based on the version of memory card that it takes. Don’t buy into a camera system if you feel the memory card will not accommodate your photo taking needs.

Kevin Rockwell worked as a network TV cameraman for 20 years shooting news and sports. Now a devoted fan of digital photography and video he works to gather information, tips and news for digital camera users. Oh and he loves to shoot pictures of his kids playing sports.http://www.great-digital-cameras.com/gdcj.html
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Thursday, April 07, 2005

Expert Guide to DVD Camcorders

Expert Guide to DVD Camcorders By Kenny Hemphill
Thinking about a mini DVD camcorder? You're not alone, it's a rapidly growing sector of the camcorder market, with Hitachi, Sony and Panasonic all making more than one mini dvd camcorder.

These camcorders differ from regular digital video cameras in one important way - they record video onto mini DVD discs, rather than DV tape. This has a number of advantages. DVD discs are more robust than tape and won't get chewed up in the camera. Although this is thankfully a rare occurance, it scares me every time I here a strange noise coming from my camcorder, so it's with bearing in mind. The second advantage is that DVD discs are random access, compared to tape on which everything is recorded sequentially. This means that there's no need to rewind and fast forward to find the clip you're after, just select it from the menu. Some cameras even allow you to perform basic editing functions on-camera. An additional side-benefit is that a mini DVD camcorder doesn't have tape heads to get worn or dirty as happens in regular mini DVD cameras. And thirdly, you can easily watch your home movies by removing the DVD from the camera and playing it in practically any DVD player.

However, there are negative factors to. The most siginificant one is that video is encoded as MPEG-2 on a mini DVD camcorder, as opposed to DV format. This means that it needs specialist software to edit - you can't just use your regular video editing program (unless it specifically supports MPEG-2). And if a Mac user you're out of luck, as there are no MPEG-2 editing applications for the Mac.

Also, mini DVD camcorders tend to cost more than similarly specified mini DV cameras. And the media is also more expensive. However, if you don't intend editing your movies and don't mind the extra cost, a mini dvd camcorder does offer extraordinary convenience.

Kenny Hemphill is the editor and publisher of The HDTV Tuner, a site which aims to cut through the confusion surrounding HDTV and provide surfers with up to date, accurate and easy to read information on HDTV.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Wednesday, April 06, 2005

The Future Arrives As Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Becomes Reality.

The Future Arrives As Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Becomes Reality By Stan Allen
As the Consumer Electronics Show is kicking off 2005 in Las Vegas, one of the stars promises to be the emerging technology of Ultra-Wideband (UWB). UWB is wireless networking that is used for a multitude of electronic components and devices ranging from high definition TV, portable digital devices, to your traditional computer. UWB promises to blow away the current home wireless connections we are used to.
How will we use UWB? UWB could replace all of the wires and cables used in a home entertainment system. Your portable MP3 player could stream the audio to high-quality speakers placed anywhere in the room. A digital camcorder or still camera can play back the pictures on your TV without a wire connection. Your large LCD or plasma TV screen can be hung on any wall with no wires to attach. The wired USB connected peripherals could become obsolete as wireless UWB effectively makes the connections. That means you could set your mobile computer on a desk and be instantly connected to your printer, scanner and VoIP headset. In a word, wires may become a thing of the past.

UWB is seeking to make the "unwired" home a reality. To make this possible, UWB provides the vehicle to connect television programs, movies, games, output from hand-held devices, etc. without interference from other wireless transmissions. Current technologies have not been fast enough to route high bandwidth applications around the home without the use of wires or cables. Now the means exist with low cost, low power, high speed UWB.

The effective operating range for UWB is approximately ten meters or thirty feet. In this range, ultra-wideband operates across a wide range of frequency spectrum through the transmission of a series of very narrow and low power pulses. This provides much less interference than the narrowband radio designs. By incorporating UWB with the 802.15.3 PAN standard, it will provide a home wireless multimedia network that supports multiple devices without interference with other UWB networks of the neighbors.

There are other apparent advantages to the UWB technology. Since the UWB transceivers operate with low power, short burst radio waves, they are very easy and cheap to build compared to the traditional transceivers. The UWB systems consume around 1/10,000th of the power that a cell phone consumes. This makes UWB easily usable in small devices like cell phones and PDAs where small power consumption is a big advantage. Because of this low power operation, there will be little interference with other systems. In a recent test, an ultra-wideband transceiver yielded fantastic performance while operating in close proximity to an 802.11b network, a cordless phone, a microwave oven and a cellular/PCS phone.

The Federal Trade Commission (FCC) recently granted certification to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. for commercial use of the UWB technology. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and Universal Scientific Industrial Co., Ltd. Are collaborating on a UWB-enabled 1394 module and are the first to harness the benefits of ultra-wideband and the 1394 standard. They expect to sell the module to leading consumer electronic manufacturers for use in wireless LCD televisions and a variety of home media devices. Other companies, such as Intel, are working on different versions of the ultra-wideband module.

What had been speculation is now moving into the production stage in 2005. The way we use wireless will be rapidly changing when the standardization for ultra-wideband technology becomes set and all the devices are able to take advantage of a universal playing field. The winner will be the consumer as an exciting new world opens up for UWB wireless applications.

Stan Allen is a wireless-freak who lives to keep up with all the latest wireless technology coming down the pike. He is also the webmaster for http://www.frogwireless.com, an online directory for wireless resources. Wireless Accessories
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Tuesday, April 05, 2005

EDTV vs HDTV

EDTV vs HDTV By Kenny Hemphill
Confused by EDTV vs HDTV? We don't blame you. The number of acronyms floating about with regard to digital TV is frightening. What's even more worrying is that very often they are used by people who have little or no knowledge about what they mean. If the person selling you doesn't know the difference between EDTV vs HDTV, how are customers supposed to decide which TV or projector to go for?
In our guide below, we've tried to distill the technical info into as few words as possible and make it as straightforward to understand as we can.

To properly explain EDTV vs HDTV, we need to step back a bit. Traditional TV has 525 lines of video which are interlaced. Interlacing just means that every frame of video is split into two fields and each field is shown alternately. Although there are 525 lines in the signal, only 480 lines contain video, so it is sometimes referred to as 480i (480 lines interlaced). This is known as Standard Definition TV, or SDTV. While this has worked well enough for fifty years, as TV sets have got bigger and projectors more popular, the quality deficiencies have become increasingly apparent.

The ultimate answer to improving the quality of the image displayed on your TV is HDTV, however, as a step on the road to HDTV, the industry came up with Enhanced Definition TV, or EDTV. This system contains the same 480 lines as SDTV, but they are progressive scan. Hence EDTV is also known as 480p. Progressive scanning just means that instead of splitting the signal into two fields and showing half the lines at a time, all 480 lines of video are shown at once. This results in a noticeable improvement in the quality of video.
The bad news in relation to EDTV vs HDTV is that you need a completely new TV or projector to display both EDTV and HDTV. Most DVD players on the market today are progressive scan, meaning they output EDTV signals, however, in order to view the progressive scan picture in all its glory, you need a TV or projector capable of displaying it and that, unfortunately, means getting a new TV.

In terms of content, there is very limited TV content available in HDTV format, and there is still wrangling about the standard for HD DVDs. However, every DVD disc on the market can be displayed in EDTV right now. Bottom line? Pretty much every HDTV projector or TV on the market today will display EDTV as well. So even if you live in a country or area where HDTV content is limited or non-existent, it is worth it to watch your DVD collection in EDTV, the difference between SDTV and EDTV really is that big.
Kenny Hemphill is the editor and publisher of The HDTV Tuner - a guide to the kit, the technology and the programming on HDTV.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Saturday, April 02, 2005

Converting Formats Should Be Legal

Converting Formats Should Be Legal By Tim Smith
This is the official stance of K.A.P.A. (Karaoke Anti-Piracy Agency...essentially the RIAA of the karaoke world) taken directly from their website:

Q. If I own my own discs, can I load them onto a hard drive to play them in a show, etc.?
A. No, you MAY NOT load songs from other manufacturers on your hard drive. The licensing rights for music on a hard drive machine exist only between the machine manufacturer and the music provider. These rights do not extend to the owner of the machine, to load songs from other manufacturers on the hard drive player. Copying the discs on to a hard drive is still copying the discs. Legally, it is absolutely no different than burning a copy of the discs. In order to copy your discs on to your hard drive, you have to have the written permission of the company that produced the discs and owns the copyrights.

On this page I will attempt to convince you that format conversion should not be a crime and that businesses should be allowed to convert a phonorecord (That's the legal definition for a song) from one format to another. I am not making a case for piracy, the legitimacy of Peer to Peer networks, nor serial copying, but rather the simple process of encoding a compact disc to a compressed digital audio format like MP3. With piracy and serial copying, the artist is not paid for their work. With format conversion, it is assumed the work being converted was legally purchased, and thus the artist was paid his share of the royalties.

We'll begin with a little bit of history on the DJ industry. When the DJ industry first started, vinyl records were the most popular medium for their performances. How ever, these were heavy and easily damaged. Because of their weight and cost, many DJs only brought a few hundred records to a performance and much money was spent replacing records that hard worn out or become scratched. While this was good for the record industry, it was bad for consumers because it increased the costs for the DJ which were then passed on to the consumers. When the cassette tape was introduced, most DJ's began using them instead because they were lighter and more durable. It was impractical to copy records on to cassette tape because the noise of the record (especially if it was worn) combined with the tape noise made for a poor quality recording. While tapes were more durable than records, they too wore out. Again, this was good for the recording industry because it meant that DJs would have to purchase the same record they already owned in the cassette format. Of course, this cost was passed onto the consumers through higher prices charged by DJs. When the CD came out, DJs switched formats again. They now had a digital medium that wouldn't wear out no matter how many times it was played. It weighed less than a tape, and it offered the ability to find a particular track as quickly as DJs used to be able to with vinyl records. Now instead of bringing a few hundred records, or several hundred cassettes, DJs could bring one or two thousand CDs. This meant DJs had a consistent product and a wider selection of music than a band, so not surprisingly DJs are now the entertainment of choice at weddings and parties.

Now enter compressed digital audio. Most people are familiar with MP3, so I will use that term in place of compressed digital audio, however most DJs use other better compression formats than MP3. With the MP3 format, DJs can store not just one or two thousand CDs worth of music, but hundreds of thousands of CDs. Since MP3's are digital, they never wear out, and because they reside on a computer hard disk, they never get scratched. In 50 years they will sound the same as they do today. They take up less room because they are inside the PC, and not spread out on a 3 foot by 6 foot table. They are lighter because they are not a physical "thing". And since computers are really great at sorting information, requested music can be found instantly by the DJ instead of forcing him to search through thousands of CDs to find that one particular CD that has that one requested song. Compressed audio is a godsend for the DJ because it means he never has to replace a disc/cassette/record, he has less to carry, he can offer the widest selection of music possible, and reduce his cost. This is great for consumers because lower costs mean lower prices.

Some argue that compressed audio does not have the same sound quality as a CD, and I have to agree. However, it takes a very good ear and a good set of speakers to detect a difference between a high quality digital encoding and a CD. In a large hall filled with celebrating people the two are indistinguishable. Further, I would point out that CDs do not sound as good as a high quality analog recording like a vinyl record, but the public still embraced compact discs with open arms. The public seem quite happy with a good recording that is more durable than a great recording that degrades.

Unfortunately, as with every invention that threatens the status quo, it is illegal. Currently disc jockeys who convert a CD to another format (including another CD) are breaking copyright law because such a conversion is not considered "Fair Use". The courts use four factors set forth in section 107 of the Copyright Law to determine if a use is "Fair Use":

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In the case of Disk Jockeys, the questions would be answered as such:

1. Commercial use for private performance. It is a private performance because Joe Public can't simply walk into Jane Doe's wedding without an invitation, nor can he attend ACME Corp.'s company Christmas party unless he works there, but because the disc jockey is charging for his service, it is a commercial use.

2. The nature of the copyrighted material is a creative work. Creative works typically afforded a more restrictive definition of Fair Use than informational works like dictionaries and encyclopedias.

3. The entire work is used in the format conversion process. This should be seen as a plus, since the disc jockey is not altering the work in any way. The DJ is faithfully reproducing the entire work as intended by the artist.

4. The effect of this conversion increases the potential market for and the value of the copyrighted work. By allowing disc jockeys to convert formats, they will be able to carry more music to a performance, and potentially bring the artist more fans and ultimately more fame and money.

To add this all up, the fact that it is commercial use of a creative work argues against fair use, but the fact that the entire work is used and its use potentially increases the market for the artist should outweigh the negatives. The fact that it is a private performance is fairly neutral.
Another reason it is illegal is because the CD is not consumed during the process of conversion, so by nature of the process one is left with 2 copies of the recording instead of the one that was purchased. In theory the DJ should pay for that second copy. Unfortunately, no method for paying for this second copy is available, and since many DJs would rather have the music in digital format than CD format you would find them selling the CD after making the conversion which would hurt record sales even more since you would now have a glut of discs flooding an already battered market. This would be legal if the DJ were forced to pay for the copy, as the original CDs carry the Right of First Sale (which means you can sell it at a garage sale, sell it on eBay, or trade it in at a used music store). Having the DJ pay for the created copy would imply its legitimacy as a legal copy in and of itself, and thereby imply the Right of First Sale to it as well.

"What can I do about this?"
If like me you feel that the music industry is trampling your rights, contact your state senators and representatives and let them know that your vote is more important than the money they get from the music industry's special interest groups.

Tim Smith is the owner of By Request DJ & Karaoke Company and has worked towards getting US disc jockeys the right to use compressed digital audio since it became legal in Canada.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/



Friday, April 01, 2005

Universal Remotes: Some Things to Consider.

Universal Remotes: Some Things to Consider By Bear Cahill
We probably all have about 8 "universal" remotes these days. Every new component you buy comes w/ one, but none of them are really "universal" because there's always some feature on one device that the other remotes don't have a button for. But wdn't it be nice to really be able to use one remote for all your devices? I do!

There are so many different universals on the market these days that it's impossible to go over them all here. So I'll hit the high points and let you decide. I'll pick a few popular types/models and go over a few points that helped me decided for or against them.

One thing you need to understand is what a 'learning' remote is. That means that you can set the remote to learn other remotes' signals: you set it to be ready, aim another remote at it, press a button on that remote and the learning remote stores that signal.

Now whatever button you set up on the learning remote sends that same signal. This way even if your univeral remote doesn't have a 'Eject' button, it can send that signal.

All of the remotes listed here are learning b/c that's the only way to be truly universal.
Most universal remotes these days also allow you to run macros. That way when you want to watch a movie, w/ just a couple button clicks, you can have it turn the TV on, the stereo to DVD player, etc. Also, the usually have timers so you can turn the TV on and off while you're out of town for example.

Big LCD: Sony RM-AV3000
This remote was the 'big boy' on the block for a long time. It does it all and looks cool doing it. The two main draw backs to this model are size and buttons. Because it's so big, it's hard to use w/ one hand - you can't reach across the remote to press some buttons or parts of the LCD. Next time you're watching TV, see how often you just use one hand on the remote and think about giving that up. This model used to be pretty expensive, but it's getting better.

Internet: Harmony SST-659
I haven't actually tried this one, but I get the idea and I like it. You can program this remote to work w/ your devices and upload the configuration. That way others can use it. More directly, you can use other peoples' configurations!
The point of this one is ease of use so I'm assuming it wd be relatively straight forward to hook it up and program it. Maybe a little intimidating, but I bet most people cd do it and it wd be worth it. I'd say the main drawback here is price. Once it's setup, you probably wdn't need to go online w/ it again for months (until you bought a new component to control) so the hassle is limited.
Finally, setting up any universal remote is going to involve some learning and this one is probably worth it as much or more than the others if you're willing to spend the money.

Basic: Sony RM-VL1000
This is the remote I have and I love it. It's learning so it's really universal. It's the right size, weight and shape for either hand. It's got all the normal buttons w/o being too crowded, but also 4 buttons beside the LCD. You can program these buttons to be whatever you want and lable them what you want too. You can scroll thru 3 "screens" for these buttons so each component can actually have 12 buttons programmed in the LCD buttons. It's preprogrammed w/ most common components and those settings use the LCD buttons when necessary, but you can change any buttons programming as you wish.

It can control up to 12 components which is plenty for most people, but you can have the volume set to always control the same device. I have my volume buttons always control the stereo even if the rest of the buttons are working the TiVo. Similarly, I have my power button set for my TV even when I'm working the TiVo. It has a built in 'power off' macro that turns all Sony components off. You can define the rest of the macros yourself and even run them on a timer (I have it set my TiVo to standby every night). It's a bit of a pain to setup, but once it's done you're set and it's so worth it. And it's so cheap!

Summary
Take all things into consideration when shopping for a universal remote: is it learning, macros, timer, size, shape, weight, cost, buttons, setup, etc. What's important to you?

Recommendation
If you're willing to spend the money, I wd get the Harmony. Otherwise, I wd get the Sony VL1000 - it's (probably) harder to setup, but so much cheaper and a great remote.

Bear Cahill is a software engineer in the Dallas, TX area and runs a few websites: The Armchair Geek (thearmchairgeek.com), Webpage Hosting Info (webpagehostinginfo.com), Go To College Online (gotocollegeonline.com) and The Video Exchange Community (videoexchange.org)
Publish freely if this resource box is included and links maintained as links.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/