I have been on far too many conference calls to count. I see no redeeming value with acoustic separation. I am listening for what is important in a conference call?not whether Betty or Bob are pleasantly acoustically separated. Business has fundamentals; this is just bordering on the ridiculous. Now, in an entertainment situation...that's an entirely different matter.
I have been on far too many conference calls to count. I see no redeeming value with acoustic separation. I am listening for what is important in a conference call?not whether Betty or Bob are pleasantly acoustically separated. Business has fundamentals; this is just bordering on the ridiculous. Now, in an entertainment situation...that's an entirely different matter.
If this could actually be offered by real conferencing system I would disagree strongly. On conference calls you not only need to hear 'what' but also 'by whom'. Without that information a tremendous about of context of the meaning is often lost leading to miscommunication. If everyone has significantly difference vocal characteristics that all is well but if two, more or several pairs of people of similar vocal characteristics you find yourself asking 'who was that' or, if you don't want to interrupt the flow simply letting it go. This, in principle, would be extremely valuable but, with standard telephony you don't have even the possibility of two-channel transmission to make this possible.
If this could actually be offered by real conferencing system I would disagree strongly. On conference calls you not only need to hear 'what' but also 'by whom'. Without that information a tremendous about of context of the meaning is often lost leading to miscommunication. If everyone has significantly difference vocal characteristics that all is well but if two, more or several pairs of people of similar vocal characteristics you find yourself asking 'who was that' or, if you don't want to interrupt the flow simply letting it go. This, in principle, would be extremely valuable but, with standard telephony you don't have even the possibility of two-channel transmission to make this possible.
You're using a bloody mobile phone! C'mon get real. It's a bloody mobile phone used in various environments—because it's mobile—not some cozy conference room where I'd use the office phone versus a mobile phone for obvious reasons. How many people here have actually worked in major corporate environments?
You're using a bloody mobile phone! C'mon get real. It's a bloody mobile phone used in various environments?because it's mobile?not some cozy conference room where I'd use the office phone versus a mobile phone for obvious reasons. How many people have actually worked in major corporate environments?
Do you read before you write?
I'm talking about in a 'corporate environment', and yes I'm familiar. That said, having this in 'stereo' on a mobile phone with headsets would still be VERY valuable. I am often on a conf. call in a lounge or similar where it is quiet enough to utilize what this type of approach would offer. But, again, current standard telephony would not allow this as it is a single channel of audio. (Along with other limitations such a frequency range, phase alignment, etc. I am aware of our '3D audio' works).
Don't know about anyone else but before I saw the image showing the UI, I was thinking of a more touchflo style interface for positioning the sources than the top-down diagram they have there?
Sort of like iChat, which I think has a sort of 3d layout when you share a presentation or document - imagine that, but with you and two other participants in a conference - one could be video, the other maybe a contact picture if it was voice only (or any combination video/contact picture obviously..) - tap, hold and drag the video/picture to swap positions -audio doesn't jump across or cut out as you drag, but is 3d positioned from start to finish, a-la Creative EAX, but maybe simpler and in software - and the overall appearance is like everyone is facing inwards in a triangle as you look into the screen? (with all the usual touchflo Appley black reflect-i-ness going on around it )
Bit of a tangent, but I'm wondering whether current 3G infrastructure can even support a handset aggregating a video call with two others either voice or video..? Would the video participants have to receive half-resolution video on the downlink to fit two video channels into one call (assuming we're not talking about building two radios into the handset)? and how would you get two separate channels of audio coming down as others have mentioned? I always thought GSM (and I guess 3G) conference calling was handled at the operator end and you always got the pre-mixed audio down a mono audio channel? (assuming they can't go in and rewrite the audio codecs and GSM protocols at this point)
Who knows/anyway, if not, they could always just do all this over wifi instead - wonder if the SDK allows the necessary kind of access to do this eh?
I'm talking about in a 'corporate environment', and yes I'm familiar. That said, having this in 'stereo' on a mobile phone with headsets would still be VERY valuable. I am often on a conf. call in a lounge or similar where it is quiet enough to utilize what this type of approach would offer. But, again, current standard telephony would not allow this as it is a single channel of audio. (Along with other limitations such a frequency range, phase alignment, etc. I am aware of our '3D audio' works).
With all due respect...I simply do not buy it. Given the myriad of corporate environments, all the way from the plush office to the being in the most adverse of field conditions, I prefer something more purpose-built. In the field I carry a military spec mobile phone (because is has to work for all the right reasons); at the office I carry a different phone. It is what being said versus whom the hell said it that is important to most serious business people. I wonder what Warren Buffet would have to say about all this nonsense? For that matter I dare you to ask Steve Jobs if he gives a true rat-arse about this as he runs Apple (I seriously doubt it as have read about Jobs, and in speaking with the friends I have that have worked with him).
I have been on far too many conference calls to count. I see no redeeming value with acoustic separation. I am listening for what is important in a conference call?not whether Betty or Bob are pleasantly acoustically separated. Business has fundamentals; this is just bordering on the ridiculous. Now, in an entertainment situation...that's an entirely different matter.
Think of what happens when you're on a many-way conference call and a few people all try to speak at once. The voices all get muddled and you can't make out anything that was said.
With decent stereo separation, it will be much easier to separate the voices - just like you can do in a face-to-face meeting.
The real interesting thing here is going to be getting carriers involved. When you make a conference call over land lines, the sound from the various parties is multiplexed in the central office (or at a PBX or a conference bridging-center). Under that circumstance, then the phone won't be able to separate the streams and reposition them.
If, however, you receive each party's sound as a separate data stream, then this system shouldn't be that hard to implement. I've already seen this feature in standalone video conferencing systems. (Doesn't iChat also do this to some extent when you have a multi-way video chat?)
Does anyone know where the audio is mixed for GSM-based conference calls? If they're mixed at a centralized location, then I think this feature will require changes to the carrier's infrastructure in order to make it all work.
Think of what happens when you're on a many-way conference call and a few people all try to speak at once. The voices all get muddled and you can't make out anything that was said.
With decent stereo separation, it will be much easier to separate the voices - just like you can do in a face-to-face meeting.
Simply a matter of basic etiquette versus trying to assimilate garbled information. A good read and use of Robert's Rules provides for better meetings, and conference calls than this iPhone feature will ever provide.
As someone who spends a couple hours a day in audio conferences, lack of positional audio is a huge, huge frustration. It makes a lot of conversations turn into an unintelligible jumble. Giving each member a position is a great first step, but I'd love to see stereo/surround microphones specially built for audioconferencing and a protocol to match.
You beat me to my post.
Insteand of "mano a mano" confence calls they will be "mono a mono"
So much for that "stereo" effect one enjoys out of their earplugs/headsets.
Alright "mano a mano" is Spanish for hand to hand. What?! you wanted the Spanish version of "ear to ear"? "oido a oido" for you men or "oreja a oreja" for you women. It just wouldn't sound right "pun" wise.
Alright "mano a mano" is Spanish for hand to hand. What?! you wanted the Spanish version of "ear to ear"? "oido a oido" for you men or "oreja a oreja" for you women. It just wouldn't sound right "pun" wise.
As I understand this no bandwith/data rate changes are required. This is basically like assigning a different balance level to each source on the conference call. I assume this can only work if the iPhone is the aggregator of the caller
Sounds right to me. Only the aggregator gets to hear the separated voices... the others on the call get it all combined. Of course, if the iPhone is the only phone in the conference with stereo headset then who cares... but the long term plan would have to be to separate them out for all participants - much like an iChat video conference.
Simply a matter of basic etiquette versus trying to assimilate garbled information. A good read and use of Robert's Rules provides for better meetings, and conference calls than this iPhone feature will ever provide.
Directional sound is not new technology, and has been implemented by many companies. How would having directional sound "hurt" in any ways? First of all, it can easily be made completely optional. Secondly, you dont necessarily need to place someone behind you, and someone else in front of you, but instead if you are in a conference call with two people, and instead of both persons sounding like they are speaking from the same place (e.g. front), if one sounds like he/she is speaking from slightly left of front, and the other slightly right of front, how would this be any worse than what you have now? On the other hand, it will make it very easy to identify who is speaking what even if the voices sound similar.
Btw, if this issue prevents a person from reading a 400+ book just to have a conference call, then more power to them! Additionally, a lot of conference calls are not even done with people from your own company. Are you gonna hang up on your client who is giving you half your business because he is not courteous? Also, basic etiquette does not help identify who is speaking when you are speaking to 3 or 4 complete strangers, whose voices possibly sound similar (very common especially in international calls).
Simply a matter of basic etiquette versus trying to assimilate garbled information. A good read and use of Robert's Rules provides for better meetings, and conference calls than this iPhone feature will ever provide.
That's a good suggestion for advanced civilizations that aren't based on naked apes in suits, but this is Earth here, that's the best we have. I doubt that you'll get a whole lot of the suited naked apes to go along with it.
That's a good suggestion for advanced civilizations that aren't based on naked apes in suits, but this is Earth here, that's the best we have. I doubt that you'll get a whole lot of the suited naked apes to go along with it.
It was also Earth when the apes were suited.
BTW, how can something be in a suit and be naked at the same time?
It's quite possible to do 3D sound with two audio sources. Clever frequency and harmonic processing will give very good 3D spatialization. Speakers will work ok, but headphones should much better as they know the sources are directly at your ears.
This is a pretty cool idea.
Not when they are stuck in your ear. In that situation the sound is only coming from a single point that is fixed with respect to the head. So the only parameter that can change is the blend between right and left and hence 2D only.
Not when they are stuck in your ear. In that situation the sound is only coming from a single point that is fixed with respect to the head. So the only parameter that can change is the blend between right and left and hence 2D only.
That's not really true because of the psychoacoustics used. The audio spectrum can be adjusted because sounds that come from above and below sound different because of how it hits our ears, the lobes reflect and scatter sounds in different ways depending on position. The software mimics that effect to make it sound like it's "out there".
That's not really true because of the psychoacoustics used. The audio spectrum can be adjusted because sounds that come from above and below sound different because of how it hits our ears, the lobes reflect and scatter sounds in different ways depending on position. The software mimics that effect to make it sound like it's "out there".
Yes but when you have an ear bud stuck in your ear there is no "above" or "below". Your lobes are out of the equation because the buds are stuck in the ear past the lobe.
Yes but when you have an ear bud stuck in your ear there is no "above" or "below". Your lobes are out of the equation because the buds are stuck in the ear past the lobe.
You clearly aren't getting the point. The incoming audio signal coming to the earbuds is readjusted to simulate that effect.
Comments
I have been on far too many conference calls to count. I see no redeeming value with acoustic separation. I am listening for what is important in a conference call?not whether Betty or Bob are pleasantly acoustically separated. Business has fundamentals; this is just bordering on the ridiculous. Now, in an entertainment situation...that's an entirely different matter.
If this could actually be offered by real conferencing system I would disagree strongly. On conference calls you not only need to hear 'what' but also 'by whom'. Without that information a tremendous about of context of the meaning is often lost leading to miscommunication. If everyone has significantly difference vocal characteristics that all is well but if two, more or several pairs of people of similar vocal characteristics you find yourself asking 'who was that' or, if you don't want to interrupt the flow simply letting it go. This, in principle, would be extremely valuable but, with standard telephony you don't have even the possibility of two-channel transmission to make this possible.
If this could actually be offered by real conferencing system I would disagree strongly. On conference calls you not only need to hear 'what' but also 'by whom'. Without that information a tremendous about of context of the meaning is often lost leading to miscommunication. If everyone has significantly difference vocal characteristics that all is well but if two, more or several pairs of people of similar vocal characteristics you find yourself asking 'who was that' or, if you don't want to interrupt the flow simply letting it go. This, in principle, would be extremely valuable but, with standard telephony you don't have even the possibility of two-channel transmission to make this possible.
You're using a bloody mobile phone! C'mon get real. It's a bloody mobile phone used in various environments—because it's mobile—not some cozy conference room where I'd use the office phone versus a mobile phone for obvious reasons. How many people here have actually worked in major corporate environments?
You're using a bloody mobile phone! C'mon get real. It's a bloody mobile phone used in various environments?because it's mobile?not some cozy conference room where I'd use the office phone versus a mobile phone for obvious reasons. How many people have actually worked in major corporate environments?
Do you read before you write?
I'm talking about in a 'corporate environment', and yes I'm familiar. That said, having this in 'stereo' on a mobile phone with headsets would still be VERY valuable. I am often on a conf. call in a lounge or similar where it is quiet enough to utilize what this type of approach would offer. But, again, current standard telephony would not allow this as it is a single channel of audio. (Along with other limitations such a frequency range, phase alignment, etc. I am aware of our '3D audio' works).
Sort of like iChat, which I think has a sort of 3d layout when you share a presentation or document - imagine that, but with you and two other participants in a conference - one could be video, the other maybe a contact picture if it was voice only (or any combination video/contact picture obviously..) - tap, hold and drag the video/picture to swap positions -audio doesn't jump across or cut out as you drag, but is 3d positioned from start to finish, a-la Creative EAX, but maybe simpler and in software - and the overall appearance is like everyone is facing inwards in a triangle as you look into the screen? (with all the usual touchflo Appley black reflect-i-ness going on around it
Bit of a tangent, but I'm wondering whether current 3G infrastructure can even support a handset aggregating a video call with two others either voice or video..? Would the video participants have to receive half-resolution video on the downlink to fit two video channels into one call (assuming we're not talking about building two radios into the handset)? and how would you get two separate channels of audio coming down as others have mentioned? I always thought GSM (and I guess 3G) conference calling was handled at the operator end and you always got the pre-mixed audio down a mono audio channel? (assuming they can't go in and rewrite the audio codecs and GSM protocols at this point)
Who knows/anyway, if not, they could always just do all this over wifi instead - wonder if the SDK allows the necessary kind of access to do this eh?
Do you read before you write?
I'm talking about in a 'corporate environment', and yes I'm familiar. That said, having this in 'stereo' on a mobile phone with headsets would still be VERY valuable. I am often on a conf. call in a lounge or similar where it is quiet enough to utilize what this type of approach would offer. But, again, current standard telephony would not allow this as it is a single channel of audio. (Along with other limitations such a frequency range, phase alignment, etc. I am aware of our '3D audio' works).
With all due respect...I simply do not buy it. Given the myriad of corporate environments, all the way from the plush office to the being in the most adverse of field conditions, I prefer something more purpose-built. In the field I carry a military spec mobile phone (because is has to work for all the right reasons); at the office I carry a different phone. It is what being said versus whom the hell said it that is important to most serious business people. I wonder what Warren Buffet would have to say about all this nonsense? For that matter I dare you to ask Steve Jobs if he gives a true rat-arse about this as he runs Apple (I seriously doubt it as have read about Jobs, and in speaking with the friends I have that have worked with him).
I have been on far too many conference calls to count. I see no redeeming value with acoustic separation. I am listening for what is important in a conference call?not whether Betty or Bob are pleasantly acoustically separated. Business has fundamentals; this is just bordering on the ridiculous. Now, in an entertainment situation...that's an entirely different matter.
Think of what happens when you're on a many-way conference call and a few people all try to speak at once. The voices all get muddled and you can't make out anything that was said.
With decent stereo separation, it will be much easier to separate the voices - just like you can do in a face-to-face meeting.
The real interesting thing here is going to be getting carriers involved. When you make a conference call over land lines, the sound from the various parties is multiplexed in the central office (or at a PBX or a conference bridging-center). Under that circumstance, then the phone won't be able to separate the streams and reposition them.
If, however, you receive each party's sound as a separate data stream, then this system shouldn't be that hard to implement. I've already seen this feature in standalone video conferencing systems. (Doesn't iChat also do this to some extent when you have a multi-way video chat?)
Does anyone know where the audio is mixed for GSM-based conference calls? If they're mixed at a centralized location, then I think this feature will require changes to the carrier's infrastructure in order to make it all work.
Think of what happens when you're on a many-way conference call and a few people all try to speak at once. The voices all get muddled and you can't make out anything that was said.
With decent stereo separation, it will be much easier to separate the voices - just like you can do in a face-to-face meeting.
Simply a matter of basic etiquette versus trying to assimilate garbled information. A good read and use of Robert's Rules provides for better meetings, and conference calls than this iPhone feature will ever provide.
Yes! Yes! OMG YES FTW!
As someone who spends a couple hours a day in audio conferences, lack of positional audio is a huge, huge frustration. It makes a lot of conversations turn into an unintelligible jumble. Giving each member a position is a great first step, but I'd love to see stereo/surround microphones specially built for audioconferencing and a protocol to match.
You beat me to my post.
Insteand of "mano a mano" confence calls they will be "mono a mono"
So much for that "stereo" effect one enjoys out of their earplugs/headsets.
Alright "mano a mano" is Spanish for hand to hand. What?! you wanted the Spanish version of "ear to ear"? "oido a oido" for you men or "oreja a oreja" for you women. It just wouldn't sound right "pun" wise.
Alright "mano a mano" is Spanish for hand to hand. What?! you wanted the Spanish version of "ear to ear"? "oido a oido" for you men or "oreja a oreja" for you women. It just wouldn't sound right "pun" wise.
Technically it's oral to aural.
As I understand this no bandwith/data rate changes are required. This is basically like assigning a different balance level to each source on the conference call. I assume this can only work if the iPhone is the aggregator of the caller
Sounds right to me. Only the aggregator gets to hear the separated voices... the others on the call get it all combined. Of course, if the iPhone is the only phone in the conference with stereo headset then who cares... but the long term plan would have to be to separate them out for all participants - much like an iChat video conference.
Simply a matter of basic etiquette versus trying to assimilate garbled information. A good read and use of Robert's Rules provides for better meetings, and conference calls than this iPhone feature will ever provide.
Directional sound is not new technology, and has been implemented by many companies. How would having directional sound "hurt" in any ways? First of all, it can easily be made completely optional. Secondly, you dont necessarily need to place someone behind you, and someone else in front of you, but instead if you are in a conference call with two people, and instead of both persons sounding like they are speaking from the same place (e.g. front), if one sounds like he/she is speaking from slightly left of front, and the other slightly right of front, how would this be any worse than what you have now? On the other hand, it will make it very easy to identify who is speaking what even if the voices sound similar.
Btw, if this issue prevents a person from reading a 400+ book just to have a conference call, then more power to them! Additionally, a lot of conference calls are not even done with people from your own company. Are you gonna hang up on your client who is giving you half your business because he is not courteous? Also, basic etiquette does not help identify who is speaking when you are speaking to 3 or 4 complete strangers, whose voices possibly sound similar (very common especially in international calls).
Simply a matter of basic etiquette versus trying to assimilate garbled information. A good read and use of Robert's Rules provides for better meetings, and conference calls than this iPhone feature will ever provide.
That's a good suggestion for advanced civilizations that aren't based on naked apes in suits, but this is Earth here, that's the best we have. I doubt that you'll get a whole lot of the suited naked apes to go along with it.
That's a good suggestion for advanced civilizations that aren't based on naked apes in suits, but this is Earth here, that's the best we have. I doubt that you'll get a whole lot of the suited naked apes to go along with it.
It was also Earth when the apes were suited.
BTW, how can something be in a suit and be naked at the same time?
It was also Earth when the apes were suited.
BTW, how can something be in a suit and be naked at the same time?
Make that hairless apes.
Really? How many ears do you have?
It's quite possible to do 3D sound with two audio sources. Clever frequency and harmonic processing will give very good 3D spatialization. Speakers will work ok, but headphones should much better as they know the sources are directly at your ears.
This is a pretty cool idea.
Not when they are stuck in your ear. In that situation the sound is only coming from a single point that is fixed with respect to the head. So the only parameter that can change is the blend between right and left and hence 2D only.
Not when they are stuck in your ear. In that situation the sound is only coming from a single point that is fixed with respect to the head. So the only parameter that can change is the blend between right and left and hence 2D only.
That's not really true because of the psychoacoustics used. The audio spectrum can be adjusted because sounds that come from above and below sound different because of how it hits our ears, the lobes reflect and scatter sounds in different ways depending on position. The software mimics that effect to make it sound like it's "out there".
That's not really true because of the psychoacoustics used. The audio spectrum can be adjusted because sounds that come from above and below sound different because of how it hits our ears, the lobes reflect and scatter sounds in different ways depending on position. The software mimics that effect to make it sound like it's "out there".
Yes but when you have an ear bud stuck in your ear there is no "above" or "below". Your lobes are out of the equation because the buds are stuck in the ear past the lobe.
Yes but when you have an ear bud stuck in your ear there is no "above" or "below". Your lobes are out of the equation because the buds are stuck in the ear past the lobe.
You clearly aren't getting the point. The incoming audio signal coming to the earbuds is readjusted to simulate that effect.