Project BBQ - Audio Think Tank - Designing Musical Instruments for Flow

Started by Elantric, March 09, 2008, 09:06:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elantric



http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2004/12/29/flow_1204.html
If you ask musicians what they value most about making music, most of them will say—in some form or another—flow. Flow is that wonderful sense of being lost in your work, when "work" becomes joy. Time disappears, and so do distraction, anxiety, and just about everything else, yielding to a pure unity of creator and creation.

So wouldn't it be strange if many of today's musical instruments were designed to prevent or destroy flow? According to a recently convened group of audio experts, that seems to be the case. The group issued a report stating that most electronic musical instruments are complicated, confusing, and just plain frustrating to use—and when it comes to supporting flow, they compare poorly to instruments that have been around for centuries.

http://www.projectbarbq.com/bbq04/bbq04r6.htm


https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/steverowe/2007/01/02/project-bbq-reports-are-available/

admin

http://www.projectbarbq.com
http://www.projectbarbq.com/bbq04/bbq04r6.htm
http://www.projectbarbq.com/reports-4/
   
http://www.projectbarbq.com/bbq04/bbq04r6.htm
Participants: A.K.A. "Stroke-a-phone"   Pat Gleeson; composer
Alain Georges; MadWaves   Scott Snyder; Electronic Arts
Julian Colbeck (played with "Yes");
    KEYFAX NewMedia   Geoff Kirk; Atari
Alistair Hirst; Omni Interactive Audio   Robert Hooper; Atomic Games
Guy Whitmore; Microsoft   Jack Buser; Dolby Labs Licensing
Len Layton; C-Media Electronics   Rob Rampley; Line 6
Kris Carter; Gibson Technologies   Facilitator: Spencer Critchley; composer

Introduction
It is the considered opinion of group participants that the instruments and programs for making digital music universally suck.1 The objective of the group then, was to explore what it is about so many of these "instruments" that makes them so painful and frustrating to use, as well as to explore what it is about those few instruments that rise above this morass to become the standards for usability, musicality and fun.

Based on analysis of these bad and good examples, we then set out to define core principles of good digital instrument design. The core principle, from which the others emanate, is the principle of "Flow". Based on the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the principle of Flow states that all digital instruments should assist their users in achieving a state of creative Flow where logical, left-brain thinking is limited to the bare essentials and creative, right-brain thinking abounds.

Traditional Instruments as Guide
Before looking at good and bad examples of digital instruments, the group felt it was important to consider what it is about traditional instruments that makes them compelling. Why have the core traditional instruments that we have today (guitar, piano, drums, horns, stringed instruments, etc.) developed the way they have? Why have these particular instruments survived the process of hundreds or even thousands of years of evolution to become the standards for music creation? What about these instruments is lacking in our digital instruments?

While there are many answers to the above questions, one of the key features noted was the feedback these instruments provide. Their feedback is immediate . . . you strum it, bang it, or blow it and a compelling sound is produced. Also, their feedback is often physical . . . you can feel the vibration of the instrument as it resonates, etc. In short, traditional instruments have expressiveness and subtlety that digital instruments have not yet achieved.

Human limitations need to be taken into account when making instruments. One of the first instruments designed at the beginning of the industrial/machinery age was the hurdy gurdy. Turning a crank isn't a natural motion of the human body however, and this contributed to the instruments lack of popularity. Playing a keyboard synth shaped like a guitar was cool for a while but forces the hand into an uncomfortable and unfamiliar playing position. The accordion allows the player to perform standing up and with the hands in more comfortable positions and has been used in a variety of different musics all around the world.

Of course, it may be a tall order for digital instruments (at most 40 years old) to achieve similar levels of expressiveness and subtlety as instruments that have benefited from hundreds of years of refinement, but the lessons of traditional instruments should be applied nonetheless. One stated goal for this would be to create digital instruments that are worthy of virtuosity. Musicians dedicate years of their lives to becoming a virtuoso on traditional instruments, yet we rarely see the same devotion shown toward digital instruments.

Digital Instruments – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The group discussed the history of digital instrument products and analyzed examples of the rare good ones and the plethora of bad ones. Interestingly, some instruments actually made the list as both good and bad examples due to particularly well-designed features living alongside poorly designed ones.

Bad Examples
The criticisms below are meant only as examples for shortcomings in specific areas, and may actually be very good-sounding and popular products.

Roland D-50

Non-standard terminology
No buttons
Buried parameter settings
Logic Audio

First-time usage is overly complex. Takes too much knowledge to get started.
No layering of controls -- parameters distributed across windows, menus etc in confusing ways.
Eventide Harmonizer

Small screen
Many pages deep of menus
Illogical menu structure.
Andromeda

Complexity exposed to the surface of the interface (too many little fiddly knobs and millions of lights all shown at once).
Yamaha DX-7

Complex terminology
Lack of physical controls
Tedious programming system
Good Examples

Synclavier

Interface drew on existing analog synthesizer designs, but implemented FM synthesis for the first time.
Beautifully constructed with matching ergonomic furniture.
Great support and a collegial atmosphere among users.
Yamaha DX-7

Great new sound -- was the basis for a whole generation of music.
Instant gratification -- single button access to patches.
Got new hairstyle just by touching it.
Garage Band

Immediate feedback. Can learn it in 2-3 minutes and create good sounding music almost instantaneously.
Provides an entry to music production technology for non-experts.
Plays well with other applications.
Makes you feel good about yourself seeing your name against a song alongside famous artists in iTunes and on your iPod ("I'm famous" experience).
Roland TR-series

Matrix/Grid visualization of sequence/pattern -- very fast to program.
Great sound, editing parameters intuitive and fast.
Principles of Good Digital Instrument Design
Based on the analysis of both traditional instruments and the good and bad examples of digital instruments, the group developed the following set of core principles of good digital instrument design. Of course, there will certainly be rare cases where one or more of these principles could or even should be ignored, but the digital instrument designer must remember that ignoring these principles is dangerous and is done so at his peril.

Principle 1 – Flow
The core principle of good digital instrument design is that they should be designed to allow the user to achieve a state of "flow" as defined by psychologies and philosopher Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his groundbreaking theories on creativity and quality work.

The group's summary of the principle of Flow in the context of interaction with digital music instruments is that such instruments should assist their users in achieving a state of creative Flow where logical, left-brain thinking is limited to the bare essentials and creative, right-brain thinking abounds. To be more accurate, however, let us consider Csikszentmihalyi's own words:

Over and over again, as people describe how it feels when they thoroughly enjoy themselves, they mention eight distinct dimensions of experience. These same aspects are reported by Hindu yogis and Japanese teenagers who race motorcycles, by American surgeons and basketball players, by Australian sailors and Navajo shepherds, by champion figure skaters and by chess masters. These are the characteristic dimensions of the flow experience:

1. Clear goals: an objective is distinctly defined; immediate feedback: one knows instantly how well one is doing.

2. The opportunities for acting decisively are relatively high, and they are matched by one's perceived ability to act. In other words, personal skills are well suited to given challenges.

3. Action and awareness merge; one-pointedness of mind.

4. Concentration on the task at hand; irrelevant stimuli disappear from consciousness; worries and concerns are temporarily suspended.

5. A sense of potential control.

6. Loss of self-consciousness, transcendence of ego boundaries, a sense of growth and of being part of some greater entity.

7. Altered sense of time, which usually seems to pass faster.

8. Experience becomes autotelic: If several of the previous conditions are present, what one does becomes autotelic, or worth doing for its own sake.

The Evolving Self - Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 178-179

Principle 2 – Progressive Sophistication
One of the more interesting principles developed by the group was the concept of progressive sophistication, or progressive complexity. According to this principle, the design should invite the novice, but reward the sophisticated user by progressively revealing more and more advanced functionality. The initial experience of the instrument should not be intimidating, but it should allow the user to grow into deeper and more complex uses and encourage the user to move to ever-higher levels of skill.

It was noted that many traditional instruments have such progressive complexity built in, such as the ability to bend notes on a harmonica or horn, or the ability to pick rather than just strum a guitar. You don't need to know how to do these things from the beginning in order to make music, but they become important parts of the music creation experience as the musician becomes more sophisticated.

By way of comparison, digital instruments have a nasty habit of presenting all of the complexity at first. In software, for example, this is often an attempt to make all possibilities visible at once, but the net result is often just an overwhelming number of choices that do not help the novice or intermediate user achieve the specific activity they desire.

Principle 3 – Activity-Centered Design
A close correlation to the principle of progressive sophistication is the principle of activity-centered design. By presenting a simpler interface initially, a problem is created that only certain functionality is available. This problem, however, can be overcome by activity-centered design, which presents only those features required to achieve a particular activity. The interface should be based around the completion of activities as opposed to accessing specific functions. For example instead of setting a series of parameters and answer questions to record a track of music, the interface should collect common sequential activities under a single activity-centered control.

Starting with what the end user of the instrument will be doing and working backwards is a great practice. This leads to commonly performed actions being very simple to figure out, but less commonly used actions should be able to be structured via user-defined short cuts. For example, if you were interested in non-Western tunings being able to set up alternate scales easily would be very useful. If you perform on dark stages lights or glow in the dark writing would be helpful.

Principle 4 – Responsiveness
Like traditional instruments, digital instruments should provide the user immediate, and possibly even physical feedback. Such feedback should be consistent and non-arbitrary so that cause and effect is always maintained.

The benefits of a new interface must be cost-effective and reproducible. A therimin or the Air Fx/Air Synth offer a different and expressive way of changing notes or parameters. The skill required to do so in a way that can be repeated though is cumbersome and not transferable to other instruments. In a performance situation the fact that the user is standing still and making strange hand movements doesn't allow for audience to performer interaction. Plus it looks silly.

Principle 5 – Noodle-worthiness
The instrument should be capable of just being played without the intrusion of any technology. It should invite exploration and "noodling".

Principle 6 – Ergonomicalicious
Traditional instruments have developed their ergonomics over centuries through trial and error. Digital instruments should apply this knowledge as well as the modern knowledge of human-factors engineering to develop ergonomically appropriate digital instruments. Whenever possible name things the same and put things in the same place. Everyone calls patches, 'patches' except Roland, which called them 'partials' which is also a musical term. Headphone jacks, midi plugs should be in familiar places and in familiar orientations.

Principle 7 – Capture Everything
Digital instruments should attempt to capture and record as wide an array of human performance parameters and inputs as possible. With physical instrument interfaces, finger pressure, body tapping, torsion, licking, slapping, scraping, banging and blowing should all be captured digitally for later editing and prosecution. With digital recording instruments, a TiVo-like continuous recording buffer should be implemented to ensure that activities are captures and you don't have to all-too-common experience of playing the perfect lick without having pressed the record button.

Principle 8 – Positive Emotional Response
The instrument should evoke an immediate positive emotional response and continue to gratify throughout its useful life. Physical instruments should take industrial design seriously and software instruments should be designed both usability and beauty in mind. As Keats said, "Truth is beauty, beauty truth; that is all we know on earth, and all we need to know."

Of course, there are instruments that the performer or user looks stupid while playing , or that have interfaces that cause much teeth gnashing and stress....and yet if the instrument is loved enough all these flaws will be overlooked or seen as friendly quirks. We called this the Volvo factor and it's readily apparent in the way users relate to Apple computers -- new operating systems usually require the complete updating of applications; disk drives and card slots come and go, but the love remains.

Principle 9 – Performance Sex Appeal
Digital instruments need to look cool and be capable of usage on stage where the audience can see and appreciate the connection between the performer's actions and the musical result. By way of comparison to traditional instruments, the guitar is the obvious example of performance sex appeal. It provides physical freedom of movement and presents the actual musical performance (fingers on a fretboard) directly in front of the audience.



http://www.projectbarbq.com/bbq04/bbq04r6.htm

Elantric

http://www.projectbarbq.com/category/2015-workgroup-topic-proposals/
Project BBQ - past topics

2015 WORKGROUP TOPIC PROPOSALS


Open DSP Islands: how does the Open DSP ecosystem evolve to support an all wireless world?

Ok, so we championed the open DSP architecture in 2014. Now its 2020: audio accessories skipped our Smart Connector interface (also from 2014) and went straight to wireless (really Devon? BT inside the chassis?); our Open DSPs are now little islands isolated by high latency, low bandwidth links.

How does the Open DSP ecosystem evolve to support – and maximize – an all wireless world?

Are signal processing entities portable? How does the framework optimize processing?

Wireless Open DSP

SPE = Signal Processing Element

Monkey Bus Wireless = A wireless bus from a future bbq. It must be better than Bluetooth.

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on October 6, 2015 by Brad.TX.



Collaborative music creation – sh** or get off the pot
2 Replies
In 2006, 9 years ago, the Big Brain had a look at facilitating remote jam sessions.  Since then we've seen a plethora of online collaborative music creation platforms that have come and gone.

Is there a successful collaborative music creation platform out there today?

Or is this just Dropbox?

Is there a meaningful demographic of musicians and producers who actually want to collaborate online, whether in real-time or offline?

Or is this just a cool technical challenge that engineers enjoy solving and marketeers think is a differentiator, because Social and virality coefficients?

If there is a market, why are there no clear leaders?  What do we have to do to make a giant leap forward?

If there isn't a market, let's prove that and get off the pot.

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals and tagged collaboration on October 6, 2015 by Alex Westner.

Sonic Omniscience: If Everything Had Ears
2 Replies
What if every sound in the world was being recorded, and tagged with location and time?  What if it was all searchable, reusable and accessible from any device?  What new information could we learn from a sonic omniscience?  What could we detect and automate?  What problems could a system like this create or solve?  What would it disrupt?  What new forms of art could emerge?

As our world becomes increasingly filled with sensors and microphones, and the services we use are paid for with disclosure of data, it seems as though a system like this might one day be possible.  What are the long term implications of a sonic omniscience?  Is it all NSA and 1984, or are there opportunities to mitigate an Orwellian dystopia and use a system like this to create a better world?  What responsibilities should those developing sensor networks and search algorithms have to ensure the best possible outcome?  What should the equivalent be to Asimov's "Laws of Robotics?"

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on October 6, 2015 by adamsmithkipnis.

When To Standardize, vs. When Not To?
Leave a reply
Over the years we've all seen several promising standards efforts fail to bear timely fruit, consuming huge amounts of valuable volunteer time and energy in the process. I posit that this is a relevant problem for at least some of the industries represented at BBQ, and worthy of careful thought inside those industries.

Therefore, let the Big BBQ Brain think together upon: When to Standardize, vs. When Not To?  Each path has its peculiar advantages and disadvantages which some people understand well but others don't, particularly.  A BBQ Workgroup Report gathering knowledge on this subject could, perhaps, have practical use as inception-time advice for future efforts by helping them to choose whatever path's best for the particular project.

Discussion

Under certain circumstances standards development can be slow and contentious, and therefore frustrating.  Participants may burn out, then drop out, making subsequent progress even slower.  Sometimes standards efforts fail as a result.

When progress toward any important thing is perceived as excessively process-heavy, technical people naturally become impatient and seek a faster workaround... and start thinking of open-source projects etc. ... but this is also not always a perfect solution.  After the feel-good launch and coding-party stages, the practical end results from that path don't always display quite the required level of technical rigor, nor succeed quite as widely, nor attract quite the kinds of companies needed, nor exhibit quite the kind of technical stability over time that a large market may require.

A timely and good quality standard from a recognized standards development organization that's created by major relevant companies can, by contrast, powerfully succeed and prevail in the market for many years, even as individual vendors come and go.  And for the right kind of project with the right individual participants, the fluidity of an open source project is absolutely the best and most productive way to go.

What exactly is it about a given project that makes it likely to fail as a standard, or fail as an open-source project?  This topic is all about characterizing the two ways, and characterizing projects.

Key Questions

How to funnel precious volunteer-hours toward more (vs. less) productive outcomes?
What are the characteristics of successful standards efforts?
What are the characteristics of unsuccessful standards efforts?
What characteristics make something other than a standards effort – for example, an open-source project, or establishing a new community – a more effective path for a given project?
What does taking a standards path achieve that other approaches (open-source, etc.) don't, or can't?
What does taking a non-standards path achieve that a standard doesn't, or can't?
What about IPR models?
Is there anything standards bodies could be doing differently to help troubled projects succeed
Which of standardization's many inconveniences are simply unavoidable?
How about hybrid models, for example combining standardized specifications with open-source implementations?
This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on October 2, 2015 by Chris Grigg.


Protecting tomorrow's ears...
Leave a reply
'...or meaningful ways to safeguard hearing without becoming a nanny state.'

I know that protecting hearing is a major hot-button issue with several BBQers, and I think it is an important issue that we should talk about.

I have not recently been involved in any updates to the EU hearing protection rules, but when I last read the proposed changes I nearly fainted. What I read:

-Dupe users into thinking they're deaf or suffering from tinnitus when they've listened to too much loud music.

-Plaster ugly UI elements all over otherwise beautiful OSes.

-Hosts/players must psychically intuit rendering devices in order to know their output parameters.

-Track users across devices to monitor exposure.

If you are involved with the EU rulemaking and these do not reflect the current state of affairs (and assuming that you are permitted to do so), please correct my understanding. Note that I have taken some liberty in describing my observations.

What is the best way to protect hearing? What roll (or controls) should content creators/parents/governments/police have in protecting their fans/children/citizens/sheep? What can we do as technologists to help?

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on September 29, 2015 by Brad.TX.
Singing with Your Thumbs
Leave a reply


What could replace ringtones as the next big personalized audio upgrade?

I think Peter Drescher heard the future back in 2007 when he wrote "Singing With Your Thumbs: How To Make User Interfaces Musical." (If you're lucky, the little JavaScript audio player I wrote to present his examples will still work.)
http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/digitalmedia/2007/03/22/how-to-make-user-interfaces-musical.html
In the article, Peter, who's also a two-time BBQ speaker, shares his insights on adding warmth and personality to devices through evocative sound. In the emerging Internet of Things, imagine how much further that could go if devices not only sung beautifully, but also harmonized with each other and the environment.

Peter Drescher
Who says there's no sound in space?

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals and tagged composition, IoT, sonification, sound design, UI on September 24, 2015 by David Battino.


That Droning Sound
3 Replies
What's the hottest new consumer technology? Helicopter drone video. What's the worst thing about helicopter drone video? That droning sound. (Or no sound at all.) Imagine...

A drone-mounted mic that cancels the propeller sound, producing pristine soundtracks
A ring of drone-mounted speakers that follow you around, for mobile surround sound ("wingtones")
An app that synthesizes music from silent drone video
More practically, future noise cancellation algorithms will offer numerous opportunities for adding sound and music to previously hostile environments. What are some scenarios that would encourage that development?

Party Drone
The 450-watt flying party speaker. Just need four more. (Click for video.)

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on September 3, 2015 by David Battino.
Beyond Binaural: Mixing Realities With Sound
1 Reply
While the creators of augmented and mixed reality are pioneering great experiences in the realm of binaural audio, one might ask the question, what's next?  Where are the greatest opportunities for understanding our environment through sound, and seamlessly blending audio content with the world around us?  What would we do with greater contextual awareness and responsiveness?  What problems could we solve?  What are the limitations and the possibilities?

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on August 31, 2015 by adamsmithkipnis.


Vehicle Audio: Where do we go next?
1 Reply
From the earliest sputtering combustion engine of the Ford Model T, or the clackity-clack of a Mickey Mantle card in your bicycle spokes, to the modern stealthy sounds of the Tesla, the symphony of transportation continues to evolve.  Knight Rider's Kitt sold us on the dream of a car with the ability to carry on a conversation, although we're not there yet.  Car enthusiasts modify their exhausts to make them louder, and researchers are designing tires to make them quieter.   As vehicle sound systems become more complex, what will this mean for our interactions with them?  How will the sonic experience of vehicles impact the emotional relationships that users or bystanders have with them.  What risks and opportunities does the vehicle give us that's different from other platforms?

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on August 31, 2015 by adamsmithkipnis.


iOS device sales just topped Win PC sales. What does this mean for music and audio products and development?
Leave a reply
As Apple's dominance continues to sore, most recently with iOS device sales overtaking Win PC sales, what does this mean for us developers? How much do the current popular platforms define the products we build? How much should they define what we build? In the case of iOS and music production there are some serious hurdles, namely screen real-estate and until recently lack of a good standard for inter-app communication. In the case of musical instruments, lack of tactile feedback creates serious design challenges. And in the case of all iOS products (software at least) there are significant economic challenges, namely, how do you fund and profit a serious development with a $5 product (if you're lucky to charge any money at all)?  Is anybody other than Apple making money on iOS apps? Will El Capitan's AU3 and Audio Extensions change things? Will Windows 10 audio updates change things? Can touch devices really change the way music is produced without Android attending the party?

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on August 30, 2015 by jhruska.


AoT (Audio of Things)
Leave a reply
The IoT buzzword and concept has a lot of push behind it. The topic that I think would be interesting is does the Audio of Things in a given place want / need to use the internet. The companies with server side services are pushing it but that mean it is the "right" answer. Because of implied power (Radios) and security (information on shared server) can I keep the information local and still accomplish all of my home automation goals and get a benefit?

This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on August 28, 2015 by Big Bad.


tomorrows headset – what's needed beyond a pair of headphones, a mic and a button?
1 Reply
With the advent of digital interfaces for headset accessories, what kind of functionality are end-users wanting in their next gen headset/accessories?

Let's keep the conversation away from the "how" and "over what interface" and think bigger to what end users are really looking for in future systems. Sensor, lights, multichannel, floating cameras that take selfies! etc.



This entry was posted in 2015 Workgroup Topic Proposals on August 28, 2015 by Dafydd Roche.

http://www.projectbarbq.com/category/2015-workgroup-topic-proposals/


REPORTS / Conclusions
http://www.projectbarbq.com/reports-4/

admin

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2017/03/23/push-turn-move/?utm_source=related&utm_medium=related_box&utm_campaign=rel_stories

PUSH TURN MOVE is a new book on great interface design in electronic music that will be coming to Kickstarter April 18th. It is written by Danish designer, author and electronic musician Kim Bjørn and edited by Mike Metlay, editor at Recording Magazine and Paul Nagle, reviewer at Sound on Sound Magazine. The foreword is written by Jean-Michel Jarre. Here's the info that the publishers have sent us...

Meet the designers, makers, musicians and their instruments and learn how they have shaped the world of electronic music. Richly illustrated with a unique collection of sketches, photos and graphics and with a foreword by electronic music visionary Jean-Michel Jarre.

The book's essence is to celebrate innovative interface designs, provide a categorization of gear and explore the functional, artistic, philosophical and aesthetic world of user interfaces in the context of making and performing of electronic music.

Exclusive interviews with: Roger Linn, Dave Smith,Keith McMillen, Richard Devine, Suzanne Ciani, Olivier Gillet, Ean Golden, Brian Crabtree, Matt Moldover, Axel Hartmann, Dorit Chrysler, DiViNCi, Skinnerbox, Native Instruments, Ableton, Teenage Engineering, Roland and many more.

A wide range of landmark pieces of equipment is featured along with chapters on design principles, interface elements, visualisation of sound and instrument and controller concepts such as grids, touch and modular. PUSH TURN MOVE is the very first of its kind in both scope and depth.

Pricing and Availability:
TBC

More information:
www.pushturnmove.com


http://www.pushturnmove.com/













admin

https://www.google.com/search?q=dsp+simd&oq=dsp+simd

Project Bar-B-Q 2017
October 9-12, Comfort, Texas
https://www.projectbarbq.com/
MISSION STATEMENT

INFLUENCING AUDIO HARDWARE & SOFTWARE OVER THE NEXT 5 YEARS

To this end, three to five workgroups are formed, each consisting of hardware developers, software developers, audio engineers, composers, and tech executives. Each group tackles a problem that has been identified as one of the industry's most important, spending two days of facilitated brainstorming to formulate its best shot at a solution. The result of this work is the annual BBQ report.

General categories of discussion are:

Predicting and/or Directing the Future of Audio on Mobile Devices, the Web, Consoles, Computers, and Any Other Technology Platform
Exploring and Influencing Business Models for IP, Distribution, and Other Concerns
Exploring and Influencing Hardware Design
Software, Tools, and Architecture: Innovations and Standardization
Audio Evangelism and Empowerment of the Audio Community
Anything Else Relating to Audio Technology Brought Forward by the Attendees


must read
https://www.projectbarbq.com/reports/

--

Project Bar-B-Q Reports

2016ENTIRE PROJECT BAR-B-Q 2016 REPORT
      The Future of Voice Interfaces
Defines the future opportunity spaces for seamless, environment-to-environment, human like, voice cognitive, affordable, voice interfaces in the home
      Audio Sensor Opportunities: Market Requirements and Technology Challenges for the next Decade
Defines what an acoustic sensor is today and what it might be in the future, identifies opportunities in various market segments, and investigates challenges
      Always Be Closing (This isn't marketing after all)
Discusses methods that can be used to make a compelling argument to an internal or external stakeholder for a new audio feature, innovation, or quality improvement
      R.I/O.T: The Next Great Interactive Group Listening Experience!
Describes a "next level" listening experience in which there is feedback between listeners and the artist/event, and presents the design of an abstract system model that supports an ongoing feedback and processing loop, creating a generative experience based on real-time collective group input
       The Need for a New Wireless Audio Network Standard
Presents a compelling case for the creation of a new, audio first, ad hoc network standard, and describes use case scenarios/market opportunities
      Creating Immersive Music with Audio Objects
Discusses immersive music creation and music listening experiences that utilize audio objects (located in 3D space), describes the attributes of these audio objects, and presents new capabilities that creation tools will need

2015ENTIRE PROJECT BAR-B-Q 2015 REPORT
      The Smartest Person in the Room is the Room: Applications for Virtual and Augmented Music Production
Discusses the impact and opportunities presented by Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in regards to music and sound creation, performance, education, and experience.
      Audio Of Things: Audio Features and Security for Smart Homes/Internet of Things
Examines and makes recommendations for security, privacy, interoperability and collaboration/cooperation considerations for audio aspects of the Internet of Things.
      A Brief History of Time
Presents the case for, and details of, adding the concept of "clockspace" (a description of the time relationships between code and data within a particular hardware clock domain) to programming languages.
      This Ain't Your Mom's Horn Tone
A ten-year plan for increasing safety and improving comfort and user experience via audio implementations in vehicles.
      Protecting Tomorrow's Ears
Discusses the issue of hearing damage caused by headphone/earbud use and steps that can be taken to minimize it while providing the best possible listening experience for users, regardless of their hearing profile and listening environment.

2014ENTIRE PROJECT BAR-B-Q 2014 REPORT
      Metadata = Money
Presents short-term and long-term recommendations, and identification of opportunites, for the flow and preservation of metadata through Production, Transmission, Render Device, Monitor Device, Browser, and Application.
      Reinventing the Audio Ecosystem with an Updated Smart-Connector
Argues for the replacement of analog audio connectors with USB-C in order to overcome current limitations and foster innovation, and provides details on the specification features.
      What does an Open DSP environment look like?
Addresses the problem that it is currently difficult or impossible for parties external to specific products to develop and release IP that can take advantage of integrated or external audio DSPs (Digital Signal Processors), and details some of the primary elements that are key to having a successful Open Audio DSP architecture.
      Interactive Music Creation and Adoption: The Quest Continues!!!
Addresses the barriers currently in place for the creation and distribution of interactive music by making recommendations for improvements in tools and workflow, and presenting a description of the end user experience and potential business opportunities.
      Audio opportunities in the Internet of Things
Discusses compelling audio-related applications within Smart Homes and the technical issues surrounding them that need to be considered.

2013ENTIRE PROJECT BAR-B-Q 2013 REPORT
      Ubiquitous Networked Audio
A discussion of, and recommendations for, next-generation networked audio in regards to the creation of a standardized solution to enable all networked audio devices to interoperate.
      HD Audio Capture in Consumer Devices
A presentation of use cases highlighting the current deficiencies in audio capture on multi-purpose devices such as tablets and smart-phones, and a proposed full-platform design approach to improve quality and fidelity.
      Enabling More Profound Human Expression with Modern Musical Instruments
A description of the anatomy of a musical instrument that can be used as a guide in designing modern instruments that use new technologies to make more expressive, accessible, and better sounding musical instruments.
      Using Sensor Data to Improve the User Experience of Audio Applications
A detailed exploration of fusing audio and many non-audio sensors to significantly improve the user experience of audio applications.
      When is Hardware Offloading Preferable, Now and in the Future?
An exploration of the use cases that justify the need for the additional engineering effort, expense, and implementation of audio hardware offloading.

2012ENTIRE PROJECT BAR-B-Q 2012 REPORT
      Smart and Connected Microphones and Speakers
Explores the use external input/data to improve the capture and/or rendering of audio and voice streams on small and thin consumer devices.
       The Speakers are Talking, are the Microphones Listening? Connecting Smart Speakers & Microphones
Presents preliminary recommendations for extending existing standards to support the added functionality of smart microphones and speakers, and describes a new phyisical interface.
       Form Factors and Connectivity for Wearable Audio Devices
Describes form factors for audio enabled wearable computing devices, how they will be connected to each other, and the kinds of data will they receive, record, and transmit.
       BACON™ for Your Ears: Designing a Musical Hearing Enhancer
Defines a system that collects subjective data about users" hearing and audio environments in order to create personalized presets which are used to enhance the audio experience for each individual in their current environment and with their specific hardware.
       Enhanced Input Method for Glass Tablet Instruments
Describes a glove that can provide haptic feedback to a musician performing on glass tablet instruments.

2011ENTIRE PROJECT BAR-B-Q 2011 REPORT
       What's Next for HD Audio?
Explores and addresses the challenges of the audio architecture that is emerging due to the convergence of portable computing devices.
       Making Spatialization Work Within Constraints of New Form Factors
Describes a scalable audio spatialization system that preserves the original artistic intent and supports authoring, transmission and rendering of audio that adapts to the environment, the listener(s), and the hardware.
       Creating Mobile Audio Architectures that Support Flexibility and Differentiation
Proposes a cooperative gathering of key players in the mobile audio space to generate a flexible framework (as opposed to a standard implementation) for mobile audio design.
       Cloud Music Services
Presents a multi-layered system for transparent delivery of music to consumers via cloud services.
       Definition of Audio Quality and Happiness
Explores audio quality in terms of experience and presents 6 metrics that attempt to revitalize the definition of "quality audio" by focusing on consumer experiences.

2010ENTIRE PROJECT BAR-B-Q 2010 REPORT
       Wherever You Go, There You Are: Audio that Understands Context and Mobility
Describes and discusses an online, connected service to defragment the experience of listening to music and other audio material across diverse media sources, devices and contexts.
       Making Music Magical Again For Fun And Profit
An approach to compelling audio product design that looks at "magical" experiences in theater and life and how they map onto various audio scenarios.
       The iPhatBack
Descriptions of various design ideas for add-ons to existing portable devices to augment and/or enhance their audio performance and capabilities.

2009ENTIRE PROJECT BAR-B-Q 2009 REPORT
       Hear, There, and Everywhere
Examines the evolution of mobile audio and what opportunities are available for developing hardware and software
       Dick and Jane Tracy plug into the Matrix
The search for a breakthrough rather than an incremental improvement in stand alone VOIP application
       Mobile Infra-Structure
Addresses the over-all lack of efficient and effective methods to collaborate across multiple devices and resources
       Re-imagining Operating System/Hardware Services for Applications
Investigates possible remedies to limitations in operating system and standardized audio hardware and external audio interconnect standards

chrish

Quote "7. Altered sense of time, which usually seems to pass faster."

I would describe this more as experiencing a natural (actual, or real) state of time which during flow states does not appear to be as a precise linear phenomenon, but rather time experienced as a wave.