My wife and I recently pulled up stakes and moved from Chicago to Denver. It was a move I have wanted to make for many years and now was an ideal time to take the leap and go. Since we're not rich by any means we decided to move ourselves across country. Trust me when I say that there is not a whole lot that compares to driving a 16' Budget truck 1000 miles through the American heartland. As someone who is an aggressive driver to begin with, the idea of driving about 70 mph the entire time was only made bearable by the rattling and shaking the truck made when surpassing 75mph.
We decided to pack up the truck and leave Chicago on Friday evening and drive to Davenport, IA. The original plan was to pack up on Saturday morning and drive to Kearney, NE. Suffice it to say that it was a good thing the original plan gave way to the final plan. We didn't get on the road in Chicago until 3pm... on a Friday... the same weekend as the Air and Water Show in Chicago. Needless to say traffic was terrible and I had been unable to adjust my passenger side mirror, making lane changes virtually impossible. What should have been a 3 hour drive to Davenport took 5 hours. Not only did it take us 2 hours to get out of Chicago, but we hit a nasty rain storm driving across Illinois. Couple that with the fact that I was not used to driving the truck yet, and the fact that we were traveling with a dog, it quickly dawned on us the trip would take longer than anticipated.
After a quiet evening in Davenport, we got up early, managed to adjust the mirrors on the truck (FINALLY!) and set off across the country. I had not driven across country since 1992 and I have to admit that Iowa is a nice state. Plenty of green, rolling hills makes for pleasant scenery. Our destination for the evening was North Platte, NE. Once we hit Nebraska the only elevation change seemed to be the actual curvature of the Earth. What should have taken about 8-8.5 hours took closer to 10-11. That's a long day in Nebraska.
Some random thoughts while driving through Nebraska:
1. If one were to pick an interstate and drive from end to end, stopping at every "Americana" site along the way, how long would it take to make the trip?
2. One such sign advertised a "Danish Museum" and "Danish Windmill." It's pretty obvious what the latter was, but I couldn't help but wonder if the former was a museum of all things Danish, or a collection of pastries.
3. I don't know what Taco John's is, but it looks disgusting.
Sunday we made the last leg of the journey in 4 hours on the dot. Not too bad, and once we got into Colorado at least there were a few hills to break up the monotony. The northeast corner of Colorado isn't much to write home about, but it's better than Nebraska. Seriously, it seems as though when people were drawing the state boundaries they said, "we can't include that hilly part of there. It would ruin the whole flat thing we're going for here..."
The moral of the story: Either hire movers and fly across country or drive a car that is capable of attaining speeds of 80-90mph for long stretches of time in order to get out of Nebraska as quickly as possible.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
We don't need no stinkin' bandwagon...
As some who know me can testify, I have a real problem with bandwagon fans. This is particularly a problem with hockey because there is so much parity in the league and they have the best playoffs in professional sports. Being a die-hard Detroit Red Wings fan, it has always been obnoxious to hear fans of teams like the Pittsburgh Penguins and the Chicago Blackhawks jaw on-and-on about their teams, when the vast majority of these folks didn't even know the city had a team just a few season prior. No don't get me wrong, I'm all for the growth of the NHL, but bandwagon fans, in general, resemble Chicago Cubs fans. They are loud, usually drunk, obnoxious, and have no idea what they are talking about in terms of the actual team. Aside from yelling "Detroit Sucks" most Hawks fans couldn't name anyone on the team's 3rd or 4th line before May of this year. Hell, I've been to more Hawks games during my 6 years in Chicago than most people (and one of those years was the lockout). So while I may come off as an elitist, especially when talking hockey I am in some ways vindicated by a recent Forbes list of the best fans. Best in the NHL and 3rd best in the country as a whole is a pretty good endorsement of the Red Wing faithful.
Now if only something could be done about the other problem plaguing the NHL... the horrible commentators on their national broadcasts, but that is an entirely different issue all together.
Now if only something could be done about the other problem plaguing the NHL... the horrible commentators on their national broadcasts, but that is an entirely different issue all together.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Plagiarism in the digital age
I came across this article from the New York Times today about plagiarism in the digital age. I found it interesting because while teaching last year I caught two different cases of plagiarism. What really stood out to me in the article was this:
One problem is that students simply don't understand what plagiarism is. One may expect college students to be able to figure that out, but many would be surprised what type of students get into good schools these days. On my syllabi this past year, I had an entire page discussing plagiarism, what constituted plagiarism, and what the penalty for plagiarism was. I went over this thoroughly the first day of class both semesters, and still two students took the risk. (I even used turnitin.com and they still had the gall to copy and paste from the internet.)
I think the bigger issue that was addressed in the NYT article is what to do about sources that do not have a specific author, like a wikipedia or other random website. Because no author is given is it correct to assume that something on the internet is then common knowledge? Such a deduction is asinine because it assumes that everyone is familiar with all parts of the internet, which is totally unfeasible. That's precisely why one needs to site wikipedia if they choose to use it (which is also highly recommended against in my classes). In the very least, if you site the wikipedia page you won't get dinged for plagiarism. You might get points taken off for using poor sources, but if those quotation marks are present and the footnote good enough to decipher, most of my students will dodge a major bullet.
Oh, and the penalty for plagiarism in my class? A ZERO for the class, not the assignment, the entire course. That'll put a serious dent in your GPA. Harsh? Perhaps, but such a rigid policy forces students to be more careful with their work. My two plagiarizers were in my Fall class and I think having that experience dealing with it (which is never pleasant), and the ammo of actually having failed students the previous semester, made my Spring semester students much more attentive and careful NOT to plagiarize.
But these cases — typical ones, according to writing tutors and officials responsible for discipline at the three schools who described the plagiarism — suggest that many students simply do not grasp that using words they did not write is a serious misdeed.
It is a disconnect that is growing in the Internet age as concepts of intellectual property, copyright and originality are under assault in the unbridled exchange of online information, say educators who study plagiarism.
Digital technology makes copying and pasting easy, of course. But that is the least of it. The Internet may also be redefining how students — who came of age with music file-sharing, Wikipedia and Web-linking — understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image."
One problem is that students simply don't understand what plagiarism is. One may expect college students to be able to figure that out, but many would be surprised what type of students get into good schools these days. On my syllabi this past year, I had an entire page discussing plagiarism, what constituted plagiarism, and what the penalty for plagiarism was. I went over this thoroughly the first day of class both semesters, and still two students took the risk. (I even used turnitin.com and they still had the gall to copy and paste from the internet.)
I think the bigger issue that was addressed in the NYT article is what to do about sources that do not have a specific author, like a wikipedia or other random website. Because no author is given is it correct to assume that something on the internet is then common knowledge? Such a deduction is asinine because it assumes that everyone is familiar with all parts of the internet, which is totally unfeasible. That's precisely why one needs to site wikipedia if they choose to use it (which is also highly recommended against in my classes). In the very least, if you site the wikipedia page you won't get dinged for plagiarism. You might get points taken off for using poor sources, but if those quotation marks are present and the footnote good enough to decipher, most of my students will dodge a major bullet.
Oh, and the penalty for plagiarism in my class? A ZERO for the class, not the assignment, the entire course. That'll put a serious dent in your GPA. Harsh? Perhaps, but such a rigid policy forces students to be more careful with their work. My two plagiarizers were in my Fall class and I think having that experience dealing with it (which is never pleasant), and the ammo of actually having failed students the previous semester, made my Spring semester students much more attentive and careful NOT to plagiarize.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Who to blame next year when the Blackhawks don't repeat?
**For full disclosure, I am a die-hard Detroit Red Wings fan, but I can readily admit that I prefer the Blackhawks to be a strong team rather than the weak shell of a team that they were for the past decade.**
I was talking with my dentist this morning (who is Canadian and, obviously, a hockey fan) about the Hawks' chances of repeating next year. Training camp hasn't even started and I can single out the two people primarily responsible for the Hawks' inevitable playoff exit next year.
Some may say that Dale Tallon, the Hawks GM who signed both players deserves some of blame, and that may be true. But folks have to remember that after the campaigns throughout most of the 00's the only way players would come to Chicago was by being overpaid. Tallon did what he had to do, and in many respects it paid off. The Hawks won the Cup, but local opinions about an embryonic dynasty are premature. The problem with Campbell and Huet is just how egregiously overpaid they are.
Campbell was the cream of the defensive crop in the free agent class on 2008. His cap number is over $7M and he's signed through the 2015-2016 season. Clearly, the cap his is one problem, another is the way that his contract is structured. He's going to make $7,142,875 every year of his contract, virtually making him impossible to move. Campbell has only played in 75 or more games in four seasons out during his professional career, and for an offensive defenseman has only eclipsed 50 points once (in 2008-2009 he was 7g, 45a, 52pts). His career statistics are not that impressive so someone making so much money. He's been a decent player, but he's not worth what he's being paid. Campbell is the Blackhawk's albatross. Is it too soon to make comparisons to Alexei Yashin's deal with the Islanders here? To his credit, Campbell is a solid player, perhaps in the $4-5.5M range, but no where near $7+. If you're not in the Norris mix annually you don't deserve Nick Lidstrom or Scott Niedermayer money.
While Campbell's signing illustrates throwing money at a player's potential, the Huet signing demonstrates poor scouting and delusions of rehabilitation. Seriously. Huet won more than 30 games once, during the 07-08 season and that was with two different teams. He won 26 for the Hawks this past season, but eventually lost his starting role down the stretch and played all of 20 minutes in the playoffs. Two things about Huet: 1.) He's streaky. He always has been and always will be. He wins games in bunches but seems to lack the mental fortitude to push past obstacles when he's not getting the bounces. This also makes him impossible to trade because no one wants to take on a $5.6M cap hit for a back-up goalie; 2.) As a result of #1, it's clear that Huet is not a bone-fide starting goalie. Huet's cap hit is over $5.5M and he's making $5,625,000 for the next two years. (To put this in perspective, Martin Brodeur, arguably the best goalie in the history of the game makes $5.2M/year.) Fortunately, his contract length is not as bad as Campbell's, but that just means that the Hawks will lose more players in the short-term that they could otherwise lock-up at reasonable salaries before they earned huge pay days. Given Heut's past, he's best suited for a tandem goalie system, much like what the Hawks did this year, which is probably why he won 26 games. However, in a tandem goalie system a team should be spending $5-6M on both goalies, not just one. Huet's poor play has all but eliminated the possibility of keeping Antii Niemi, who actually has some upside potential, very difficult. It should be interesting to see what the outcome of Niemi's arbitration is.
Only time will tell if the speed with which the Hawks' won the Cup after new management took over will be a blessing or a curse. Certainly, hockey is back on the map in Chicago, but the vast majority of those people are band wagon fans. The question is will they stick around when the Hawks aren't winning with the same regularity that they did during the 2009-2010 season?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
This is what happens when you marry a history nerd
Everyone has their idiosyncrasies. Some of us, perhaps, have more than others and they can range from the minute to the all out weird. Myself, I may be borderline OCD in a couple of respects (my music library, for example), and just plain determined on several other fronts. To the latter, I can add the convergence of historical ideas to present a scenario that drives my wife batty at times.
We already have a dog. He's a rescue and somewhere down the line before we got him he must have undergone some sort of traumatic experience because he's about as jumpy as a dog can be. He's settled down in the past couple of years, but he's still pretty high energy, something that is made worse by the fact that we live in a small apartment. Given these pre-conditions, we are quite a ways away from getting a second dog, but when the time comes I'm dead set on what type of dog I want. A vizsla (pron. Vee-shlah).
My quest for a Vizsla.
Now you may be asking yourself, what's the big deal about a vizsla? Well, for starters, they are just really cool looking dog's. They're really intelligent and very trainable. While they are a high energy breed, they're also very good at just lazing around. The fact that they don't shed much is a bonus too. Usually, that's enough for someone to want a dog, right? Ok, here comes the geeky historian justification as to why this is the perfect dog.
The vizsla is a hungarian hunting dog. In 1904, Arthur Griffith, an Irish politician, wrote a treatise called The Resurrection of Hungary. This served as a model for the first Sinn Fein political platform, something that would change in later years, but nevertheless, Griffith drew the connection between Ireland and Hungary, using Hungary as a model for political change. So I can justify to myself having an historically hungarian dog for this reason (not that one has to justify why they want a dog, but just let me have my idiosyncrasies).
To show how much I've thought this out, I've already picked out a name for my future dog. It has to be a male dog for the name to work, and again this harkens back to Irish history. The vizsla is a red dog, and looks like a hound (if you ask me, I don't know if there is an actual hound family, and if there is, if the vizsla is a member, but it looks the part to me). In Irish mythology the hero of Ulster (Cu Chulainn) is known as the hound of Ulster. The symbol for Ulster is a red hand. Combine those two things and what do you get? A red hound. Good enough for me. So obviously the dog's name has to be Cu Chulainn.
Of course I tell all of this to my wife, and I get all geeked up while she can't do much but shake her head.
We already have a dog. He's a rescue and somewhere down the line before we got him he must have undergone some sort of traumatic experience because he's about as jumpy as a dog can be. He's settled down in the past couple of years, but he's still pretty high energy, something that is made worse by the fact that we live in a small apartment. Given these pre-conditions, we are quite a ways away from getting a second dog, but when the time comes I'm dead set on what type of dog I want. A vizsla (pron. Vee-shlah).
 |
| Sambuca, our current pet, is afraid of the camera. |
My quest for a Vizsla.
Now you may be asking yourself, what's the big deal about a vizsla? Well, for starters, they are just really cool looking dog's. They're really intelligent and very trainable. While they are a high energy breed, they're also very good at just lazing around. The fact that they don't shed much is a bonus too. Usually, that's enough for someone to want a dog, right? Ok, here comes the geeky historian justification as to why this is the perfect dog.
 |
| How could anyone saw no to this face? |
The vizsla is a hungarian hunting dog. In 1904, Arthur Griffith, an Irish politician, wrote a treatise called The Resurrection of Hungary. This served as a model for the first Sinn Fein political platform, something that would change in later years, but nevertheless, Griffith drew the connection between Ireland and Hungary, using Hungary as a model for political change. So I can justify to myself having an historically hungarian dog for this reason (not that one has to justify why they want a dog, but just let me have my idiosyncrasies).
To show how much I've thought this out, I've already picked out a name for my future dog. It has to be a male dog for the name to work, and again this harkens back to Irish history. The vizsla is a red dog, and looks like a hound (if you ask me, I don't know if there is an actual hound family, and if there is, if the vizsla is a member, but it looks the part to me). In Irish mythology the hero of Ulster (Cu Chulainn) is known as the hound of Ulster. The symbol for Ulster is a red hand. Combine those two things and what do you get? A red hound. Good enough for me. So obviously the dog's name has to be Cu Chulainn.
 |
| A good looking dog if I ever saw one. |
Of course I tell all of this to my wife, and I get all geeked up while she can't do much but shake her head.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The most amusing animal is...
 |
| We'll call this guy Doug. |
To reinforce the fact that I'm a total nerd, one thing that I enjoy about the platypus is the fact that the word ends in an "s" which allows me to bastardize its plural form as "platypi," which I find equally as humorous as the animal itself. What are some other words that end in "s" and sound funnier when pluralized with an "i" at the end? Thoughts?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Rethinking "Common" Sense
Recently I read "Freakonomics" and one of the things that struck me while reading it was the authors' point that conventional wisdom is neither conventional nor wise. I think that similar re-evaluation of common sense is in order. I am increasingly aware in recent years that having any "sense," that is an understanding of considerate behavior and respect for others, among other things, is by no means common. Perhaps this is exacerbated in an urban environment where there are large numbers of people and very few structures in place to enforce or at the very least ensure awareness of "common sense."
A few examples:
1. My earlier blog post about my neighbors dog.
2. On the subject of dogs, our direct next-door neighbor currently has her sister staying with her, who in turn brought her dog. Instead of taking the dog outside to relieve itself, the sister just opens the door to the SHARED terrace and lets the dog do it's business. Now this wouldn't be a huge issue if she immediately picked up after the dog, but in the month or so she's been staying there we've only seen her do so once, and it was just after we had already picked up a week or more worth of dog droppings (which we have done at least 4-5 times). Now this is a SHARED terrace. Not only is it disgusting to have dog crap festering out there, it smells, and it's unhealthy. We take extra care to make sure that our dog, when he's out there, stays away from the soiled area. My wife even asked the sister to pick up after the dog, but this request has gone unheeded (today I picked up 2-4lbs of dog crap from the past couple of weeks). Having a bit of sense would incline one to ensure that their shared terrace was not covered with dog crap or stink like crazy in the hot, humid Chicago summer heat, but remember, sense is by no means common.
3. Public Transportation. Don't get me wrong, public transportation is great. It's affordable, (relatively) reliable, and it's (a bit) more eco-friendly. However, I've noticed that with both trains and busses people cannot figure out how to board and de-board. With trains people wait at the doors and rush on right when they open. A bit of sense would help people realize that if you step back for 10 seconds and let the people de-boarding off the train first, then you can get on much easier and likely find a place to sit or stand with relative ease. On busses the same principle applies, but is much worse. There are two doors, a smart person enters through the front and exits via the rear door. Now if one is elderly or needs help on or off, I can understand exiting through the front door where help is available. But for the rest of the able-bodied population this just prolongs the bus ride for everyone else. On many occasions I've seen people sitting in the very back of the bus, walk all the way to the front to get off, pushing past people boarding, only to walk back down the street past the rear door they chose not to use. How does this make any sense at all? Just as obnoxious is when people have been waiting for a bus for any period of time, get up to the pay box (usually with a queue behind them and an already packed bus), and spend the next 3 minutes fishing around for their fare. How difficult is it to have your fare ready when you board, especially when you've been doing nothing but waiting for the bus to show up for the past 5-10 minutes?
4. Airport security. People know this is a painful and cumbersome procedure already, but a collective lack of sense just makes it worse. Fortunately some airports have different lanes for families, experienced travelers, and folks in between. Usually the experienced line is quick and efficient (people with some sense), and the other lines are a total crap shoot. It's amazing that the new TSA rules have been in effect for almost 10 years and people still seem shocked that they can't bring large liquid containers through security or that they need to take out their laptop for the x-ray machine.
My favorite exchange from the film "Men In Black" was between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones where the latter explains that a person is intelligent, but that people are basically idiots. Perhaps I'm just becoming an old curmudgeon and noticing these things more often, but it seems to me that even this truism needs revision to state that SOME, but not all people are intelligent (i.e., have some 'sense'). I'm hoping that moving out of the city will mean that there are less folks around with the me-first attitude and more people with a hint of 'sense', common or not.
A few examples:
1. My earlier blog post about my neighbors dog.
2. On the subject of dogs, our direct next-door neighbor currently has her sister staying with her, who in turn brought her dog. Instead of taking the dog outside to relieve itself, the sister just opens the door to the SHARED terrace and lets the dog do it's business. Now this wouldn't be a huge issue if she immediately picked up after the dog, but in the month or so she's been staying there we've only seen her do so once, and it was just after we had already picked up a week or more worth of dog droppings (which we have done at least 4-5 times). Now this is a SHARED terrace. Not only is it disgusting to have dog crap festering out there, it smells, and it's unhealthy. We take extra care to make sure that our dog, when he's out there, stays away from the soiled area. My wife even asked the sister to pick up after the dog, but this request has gone unheeded (today I picked up 2-4lbs of dog crap from the past couple of weeks). Having a bit of sense would incline one to ensure that their shared terrace was not covered with dog crap or stink like crazy in the hot, humid Chicago summer heat, but remember, sense is by no means common.
3. Public Transportation. Don't get me wrong, public transportation is great. It's affordable, (relatively) reliable, and it's (a bit) more eco-friendly. However, I've noticed that with both trains and busses people cannot figure out how to board and de-board. With trains people wait at the doors and rush on right when they open. A bit of sense would help people realize that if you step back for 10 seconds and let the people de-boarding off the train first, then you can get on much easier and likely find a place to sit or stand with relative ease. On busses the same principle applies, but is much worse. There are two doors, a smart person enters through the front and exits via the rear door. Now if one is elderly or needs help on or off, I can understand exiting through the front door where help is available. But for the rest of the able-bodied population this just prolongs the bus ride for everyone else. On many occasions I've seen people sitting in the very back of the bus, walk all the way to the front to get off, pushing past people boarding, only to walk back down the street past the rear door they chose not to use. How does this make any sense at all? Just as obnoxious is when people have been waiting for a bus for any period of time, get up to the pay box (usually with a queue behind them and an already packed bus), and spend the next 3 minutes fishing around for their fare. How difficult is it to have your fare ready when you board, especially when you've been doing nothing but waiting for the bus to show up for the past 5-10 minutes?
4. Airport security. People know this is a painful and cumbersome procedure already, but a collective lack of sense just makes it worse. Fortunately some airports have different lanes for families, experienced travelers, and folks in between. Usually the experienced line is quick and efficient (people with some sense), and the other lines are a total crap shoot. It's amazing that the new TSA rules have been in effect for almost 10 years and people still seem shocked that they can't bring large liquid containers through security or that they need to take out their laptop for the x-ray machine.
My favorite exchange from the film "Men In Black" was between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones where the latter explains that a person is intelligent, but that people are basically idiots. Perhaps I'm just becoming an old curmudgeon and noticing these things more often, but it seems to me that even this truism needs revision to state that SOME, but not all people are intelligent (i.e., have some 'sense'). I'm hoping that moving out of the city will mean that there are less folks around with the me-first attitude and more people with a hint of 'sense', common or not.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Libraries, Books, & Digitization
I'm a big proponent of digitization. I can totally get behind Google Books. One of the most useful aspects of digitization is that it makes books, and other text-based media, fully searchable. So in that light this story about Stanford University is quite interesting. Digital books also eliminates the need to place a hold on a book, or recall it because more than one person can download and use a digital book at the same time. Likewise, interlibrary loans would become much faster, easier, and cheaper.
Saving space is certainly a big deal for the library and I can understand the desire to create more space for essential services. However, relying solely on digitized books does not bode well for all disciplines. Especially in the humanities, where so much is reliant on books, there really is something to be said for walking the stacks. Every scholar has had a serendipitous moment and found a useful book they had no idea existed simply by perusing what was located near the book they were looking for in the first place. This is somewhat similar to actually holding a physical copy of the newspaper and perusing the news instead of just searching for the one story you know is there.
Digital books are more difficult to take notes with - jotting a quick note in the margin gives way to a series of clicks that can be cumbersome for some people.
As someone is not a very fast reader to begin with, this story also perked up my eyebrows and made me think that total digitization is not desirable, at least not yet. I noticed that it took much longer to read digital books before I saw this news item, so I can't say that it surprised me.
The question remains, how do we decide what balance to strike between digital and physical books, and what books should be kept in physical form in addition to having digital copies (because let's face it, ALL books can be digitized)?
On a related note, I am all for the complete digitization of archival records. Doing so would make primary research much faster and cheaper, and would greatly extend the life of documents because they would be handled much less.
Saving space is certainly a big deal for the library and I can understand the desire to create more space for essential services. However, relying solely on digitized books does not bode well for all disciplines. Especially in the humanities, where so much is reliant on books, there really is something to be said for walking the stacks. Every scholar has had a serendipitous moment and found a useful book they had no idea existed simply by perusing what was located near the book they were looking for in the first place. This is somewhat similar to actually holding a physical copy of the newspaper and perusing the news instead of just searching for the one story you know is there.
Digital books are more difficult to take notes with - jotting a quick note in the margin gives way to a series of clicks that can be cumbersome for some people.
As someone is not a very fast reader to begin with, this story also perked up my eyebrows and made me think that total digitization is not desirable, at least not yet. I noticed that it took much longer to read digital books before I saw this news item, so I can't say that it surprised me.
The question remains, how do we decide what balance to strike between digital and physical books, and what books should be kept in physical form in addition to having digital copies (because let's face it, ALL books can be digitized)?
On a related note, I am all for the complete digitization of archival records. Doing so would make primary research much faster and cheaper, and would greatly extend the life of documents because they would be handled much less.
To DVR or not to DVR...
How did people watch television before the invention of DVR? Granted I've never owned a Tivo, the Uber-DVR, but I would like to. We've always had the standard DVR that one gets from the cable company. The benefits of DVR are well known - you can watch your favorite shows whenever you want and not restrict yourself to the scheduled and the ability to fast-forward through commercials - are two of the main advantages in my opinion. However, DVR does have its limitations.
I'm not a HUGE TV guy, but I certainly don't mind it. My preference is to watch sports. My wife likes all kinds of shows, including many mind-numbing reality shows. With so many channels and so many shows on, especially sporting events, scheduling conflicts are inevitable. Our DVR can record two programs simultaneously. Supposedly the AT&T box can do four; four would be good at our house. It's bad enough when you have to decided between two of three weekly programs, but the situation gets exponentially worse when you factor in sports, which do not necessarily follow the same predictable schedule. (Weekly programs can become an even bigger issue when networks change the day and time of a given show.)
This begs the question - which program should get preference - the weekly program that's bound to be re-run or available online soon after airing, or the one-time sporting event? Certainly, the way that question is phrased shows my bias. But two people with differing opinions on television viewing inevitably leads to missing programs.
For most people, two shows at once is plenty, and for the most part, it's enough for us. Sports is the inconstant factor. So what can we glean from all of this pontificating? Multiple television programs, live sporting events, two people, and one TV/DVR combo is not enough. The solution? TWO TVS!
I'm not a HUGE TV guy, but I certainly don't mind it. My preference is to watch sports. My wife likes all kinds of shows, including many mind-numbing reality shows. With so many channels and so many shows on, especially sporting events, scheduling conflicts are inevitable. Our DVR can record two programs simultaneously. Supposedly the AT&T box can do four; four would be good at our house. It's bad enough when you have to decided between two of three weekly programs, but the situation gets exponentially worse when you factor in sports, which do not necessarily follow the same predictable schedule. (Weekly programs can become an even bigger issue when networks change the day and time of a given show.)
This begs the question - which program should get preference - the weekly program that's bound to be re-run or available online soon after airing, or the one-time sporting event? Certainly, the way that question is phrased shows my bias. But two people with differing opinions on television viewing inevitably leads to missing programs.
For most people, two shows at once is plenty, and for the most part, it's enough for us. Sports is the inconstant factor. So what can we glean from all of this pontificating? Multiple television programs, live sporting events, two people, and one TV/DVR combo is not enough. The solution? TWO TVS!
Sunday, June 20, 2010
"So you want to teach?"
Having spent the past six years pursuing a graduate degree it never ceases to amaze me how little the majority of people know about higher education. On Thursday I will defend my doctoral dissertation and wrap up my graduate career. One thing that has annoyed me for years, and has become even more irksome since I've been looking for jobs, is the assumption that I want to teach. (The other annoying thing is when people call the dissertation a "paper.")
Granted, most people who earn a PhD in history probably would like to have a full-time, tenure track teaching job when they finish their degree, but in the current higher ed environment, those opportunities are becoming fewer and the competition for those available jobs has increased exponentially over the years. Now I can admit that when I first went to graduate school, the goal was to end up teaching at the university level. In many respects, I'd still love to do that. However, I am not willing to make the sacrifices in order to achieve that goal - including enduring visiting professorships, languishing in adjunct positions, living in a place I would never want to visit, let alone reside, and never come close to making enough money to pay off my student loans. I'd prefer to move to a place I want to live, and find a job that I enjoy and go from there.
The problem is when meeting new people or explaining "what I do" the first thing that 99% of people say is some variation of "so you want to teach?" I can't blame them. Most people probably took there 100 level history course in undergrad and never looked back once it was over. Most people haven't the faintest idea about the training and skill sets that graduate education in history provides for someone with a PhD and how those skills might be used in other industries. Therefore, the problem is really with me. But I'm sure one can image that it gets VERY annoying to have to explain the following to almost everyone when asked what is it you do: why I went to graduate school, how I got interested in my subject, what my dissertation is about, why I no longer want to be a full-time teacher, which inevitably leads into a tangent about the supply and demand economics of the current employment climate of the history profession as well as the changing structure of the American university.
Now as I said, it's difficult to expect people to understand all of this, and that is why I often feel obligated to explain to them why I am no longer seeking a full-time teaching job. Although recently, when faced with the teaching question, I just say no, and that I'm keeping my options open.What really frustrates me is that since I am now searching for non-academic jobs, people outside of the academy tend to be too lazy to think about how the skills of an historian might be applied to something other than history. Even when I spoon feed them my skill set, some people have no idea what to make of it. Of course the current job situation in America isn't helping anything thing. So too is that fact that despite the state of the profession, the only thing that graduate school prepares you to do after you graduate is to be an academic. Being 28 and entering the non-academic world with little experience and a high degree can be quite frustrating.
If I have to keep explaining to people why I don't want to teach, so be it, but the question has gotten very old. After all, I'm the one who is annoyed and still without employment. When I first decided to go to graduate school the question was always, "what are you going to do with that?", which, at present, is a much more relevant question. In reality, this is a much better question because it is to so open ended. Apparently that the difference between pursuing a PhD in the humanities and completing one: at the outset, people can't understand what you would do with said degree, but the time you're done, people can't imagine you doing anything but staying in the academy. So people, please do me a favor and undertake a history project on behalf of anyone with a PhD in the humanities and look to the past question you used to ask ("What are you going to do with that") and not the question you ask today ("So you want to teach?"). While neither question is a fun one to answer, at least the former doesn't reduce people of high education to an extremely narrow field.
Granted, most people who earn a PhD in history probably would like to have a full-time, tenure track teaching job when they finish their degree, but in the current higher ed environment, those opportunities are becoming fewer and the competition for those available jobs has increased exponentially over the years. Now I can admit that when I first went to graduate school, the goal was to end up teaching at the university level. In many respects, I'd still love to do that. However, I am not willing to make the sacrifices in order to achieve that goal - including enduring visiting professorships, languishing in adjunct positions, living in a place I would never want to visit, let alone reside, and never come close to making enough money to pay off my student loans. I'd prefer to move to a place I want to live, and find a job that I enjoy and go from there.
The problem is when meeting new people or explaining "what I do" the first thing that 99% of people say is some variation of "so you want to teach?" I can't blame them. Most people probably took there 100 level history course in undergrad and never looked back once it was over. Most people haven't the faintest idea about the training and skill sets that graduate education in history provides for someone with a PhD and how those skills might be used in other industries. Therefore, the problem is really with me. But I'm sure one can image that it gets VERY annoying to have to explain the following to almost everyone when asked what is it you do: why I went to graduate school, how I got interested in my subject, what my dissertation is about, why I no longer want to be a full-time teacher, which inevitably leads into a tangent about the supply and demand economics of the current employment climate of the history profession as well as the changing structure of the American university.
Now as I said, it's difficult to expect people to understand all of this, and that is why I often feel obligated to explain to them why I am no longer seeking a full-time teaching job. Although recently, when faced with the teaching question, I just say no, and that I'm keeping my options open.What really frustrates me is that since I am now searching for non-academic jobs, people outside of the academy tend to be too lazy to think about how the skills of an historian might be applied to something other than history. Even when I spoon feed them my skill set, some people have no idea what to make of it. Of course the current job situation in America isn't helping anything thing. So too is that fact that despite the state of the profession, the only thing that graduate school prepares you to do after you graduate is to be an academic. Being 28 and entering the non-academic world with little experience and a high degree can be quite frustrating.
If I have to keep explaining to people why I don't want to teach, so be it, but the question has gotten very old. After all, I'm the one who is annoyed and still without employment. When I first decided to go to graduate school the question was always, "what are you going to do with that?", which, at present, is a much more relevant question. In reality, this is a much better question because it is to so open ended. Apparently that the difference between pursuing a PhD in the humanities and completing one: at the outset, people can't understand what you would do with said degree, but the time you're done, people can't imagine you doing anything but staying in the academy. So people, please do me a favor and undertake a history project on behalf of anyone with a PhD in the humanities and look to the past question you used to ask ("What are you going to do with that") and not the question you ask today ("So you want to teach?"). While neither question is a fun one to answer, at least the former doesn't reduce people of high education to an extremely narrow field.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
People and their dogs
I am a dog owner. Like most dog owners, I love my dog despite all of his quirks and bad tendencies. One of our neighbors in our building have a pug that has been inciting my dog into a barking and growling frenzy for a while now. Yesterday, when this occurred once again, I decided to try to speak with the pug owner to see if there was something they might be willing to do to prevent the distracting exchange between our pets. First, a quick description of the problem:
Our dog is a mutt and he is very protective of our apartment. My neighbors dog is a young pug that is a very playful dog, according to its owner. Now the main hallway in our building runs north/south, with the elevator that leads to the main lobby at the south end of the building. The pug neighbors live north of us down the hall and must pass by our door when taking their dog outside. There are plenty of dogs on our floor, and the issue of dogs passing by in the hallway is usually a minor one. Our dog might run to the door and bark once, perhaps sniffing around for good measure, but that's about the extent of it. The pug owners routinely take their dog out and either a) neglect to leash him while in the building, or b) give his lead so much slack that he can go wherever he wants. Well, being a dog the pug knows that another dog lives behind our door. So often times when going outside, because he basically has free roam of the hallway, the pug runs directly to our door and begins sniffing under it. This incites our dog and he barks and growls violently at the door until the pug moves away. There is a direct cause and effect relationship going on here:
P + D = N
Where P=the pug with free reign, D=our apartment door, and N=the noise frenzy from our dog. There is at least one other dog on our floor that used to incite growling and the like from our dog, but it's owner wised up and keeps it under control when walking past our apartment.
So back to last night. When our dog went into a frenzy last night, I stepped out in the hall and politely asked my neighbor if she wouldn't mind leashing her dog when walking by our apartment. Apparently, she took this as a reproach and to keep things succinct absolved herself and her dog of any blame. She came back a few minutes later and we had a civilized conversation about the situation. In hindsight, I can see how my approach may have been seen as confrontational, and I duly apologized as that was not my intent. However, no matter how I tried to explain the above cause/effect relationship it did not sink in. I explained to her several times that if she would simply keep her dog leashed and on the other side of the hallway away from our door when walking down the hall, my dog would not go into such a violent sounding fit. Apparently this logic was too complicated because today the pug ran by our door and my dog was growling and barking again.
What she failed and continues to fail to understand is that using your dog's "personality" to support is a poor argument. Dogs are animals and it is up to their handlers to keep them from misbehaving. Since her dog is the antagonist, it is up to her to correct her dogs animal instinct and keep it away from our door. You may be thinking - why don't you just train your dog not to bark at the door? Well, the rest of the time, it's not a problem. Only when my dog feels that this other dog is impinging on his territory does he get so defensive. Since this is an isolated situation with a simple solution (i.e. keeping the pug away from our door) the onus really falls on the pug owner to simply control and leash their dog (which is building policy).
I have a feeling that despite our conversation, which ended amicably, will not be productive in the end because my arguments were based on logic and reason, her's were simply based on her feelings toward her dog, the breed's natural traits, and the typical American perspective that I can do what I want, when I want, because it's my right. Apparently, being considerate of all her neighbors isn't a priority, so her dog will continue to annoy ours, and in turn, the rest of the floor.
If I'm way off base, tell me in the comments.
Our dog is a mutt and he is very protective of our apartment. My neighbors dog is a young pug that is a very playful dog, according to its owner. Now the main hallway in our building runs north/south, with the elevator that leads to the main lobby at the south end of the building. The pug neighbors live north of us down the hall and must pass by our door when taking their dog outside. There are plenty of dogs on our floor, and the issue of dogs passing by in the hallway is usually a minor one. Our dog might run to the door and bark once, perhaps sniffing around for good measure, but that's about the extent of it. The pug owners routinely take their dog out and either a) neglect to leash him while in the building, or b) give his lead so much slack that he can go wherever he wants. Well, being a dog the pug knows that another dog lives behind our door. So often times when going outside, because he basically has free roam of the hallway, the pug runs directly to our door and begins sniffing under it. This incites our dog and he barks and growls violently at the door until the pug moves away. There is a direct cause and effect relationship going on here:
P + D = N
Where P=the pug with free reign, D=our apartment door, and N=the noise frenzy from our dog. There is at least one other dog on our floor that used to incite growling and the like from our dog, but it's owner wised up and keeps it under control when walking past our apartment.
So back to last night. When our dog went into a frenzy last night, I stepped out in the hall and politely asked my neighbor if she wouldn't mind leashing her dog when walking by our apartment. Apparently, she took this as a reproach and to keep things succinct absolved herself and her dog of any blame. She came back a few minutes later and we had a civilized conversation about the situation. In hindsight, I can see how my approach may have been seen as confrontational, and I duly apologized as that was not my intent. However, no matter how I tried to explain the above cause/effect relationship it did not sink in. I explained to her several times that if she would simply keep her dog leashed and on the other side of the hallway away from our door when walking down the hall, my dog would not go into such a violent sounding fit. Apparently this logic was too complicated because today the pug ran by our door and my dog was growling and barking again.
What she failed and continues to fail to understand is that using your dog's "personality" to support is a poor argument. Dogs are animals and it is up to their handlers to keep them from misbehaving. Since her dog is the antagonist, it is up to her to correct her dogs animal instinct and keep it away from our door. You may be thinking - why don't you just train your dog not to bark at the door? Well, the rest of the time, it's not a problem. Only when my dog feels that this other dog is impinging on his territory does he get so defensive. Since this is an isolated situation with a simple solution (i.e. keeping the pug away from our door) the onus really falls on the pug owner to simply control and leash their dog (which is building policy).
I have a feeling that despite our conversation, which ended amicably, will not be productive in the end because my arguments were based on logic and reason, her's were simply based on her feelings toward her dog, the breed's natural traits, and the typical American perspective that I can do what I want, when I want, because it's my right. Apparently, being considerate of all her neighbors isn't a priority, so her dog will continue to annoy ours, and in turn, the rest of the floor.
If I'm way off base, tell me in the comments.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
How To Create A Lossless Music Archive (FLAC)
Some people may be looking for information on how to archive their CDs or wondering why one would even be interested in doing so. This post will try to address those questions as thoroughly as possible. There is a lot of information here and it could probably be broken down into several posts, but that can be harder to keep track of and I think it's better to have everything in one place.
First off, why would one create a lossless audio archive? One reason is convenience. Having a CD quality file on a hard drive allows users to do many things quickly with their music without having to continuously re-rip it. Transcoding, which I will cover below, is much easier and convenient once you already have your files properly archives. One of the primary reasons that I do it, is with the pace of change in terms of digital music formats and technology dealing with the consumption of audio media, archiving your music in FLAC enables me to easily keep pace with these changes with little effort.
Of course for every benefit there are some drawbacks. If you have a lot of CDs or if you do a lot of legal music trading (i.e. Grateful Dead, Phish, etc.) your music library might be very large. This means you will need a sizable hard drive (or perhaps several). This process can be very time consuming as well. Fortunately, for myself, I find this entire process cathartic, and, as you will probably see, I am OCD enough that I enjoy the attention to detail it sometimes requires.
It is probably worthwhile to say something about file formats at this juncture to ensure that there is no confusion for those who are new to the world of digital media. To keep things simple I'll deal with 3 different file formats: WAV, FLAC, and MP3.
Ok, so now that I've talked about the advantages and disadvantages of creating a FLAC audio archive and outlined the three basic file types, it is fit to proceed to discuss the software involved in creating such an archive. My primary machine is an Apple MacBook running SnowLeopard, but I will include some links and comments for a few key PC programs as well.
Audio Rippers:
Encoder/Decoder/Transcoder:
Metadata:
Playback:
As I already mentioned, iTunes does not include FLAC support. Feel free to contact Apple and request FLAC support in the future (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunesapp.html). While I may not be a huge fan of iTunes as a whole, it is the best music database program and it would be great to be able to apply that organizational structure to a FLAC library.
Miscellaneous:
For PCs, the best audio ripper is Exact Audio Copy. A panacea encoding program can be found in Trader's Little Helper. I've found FLAC Frontend and MD5 Summer useful over the years as well.
Archival Workflow
Alright. Now that the software issue has been covered I'll describe my actual archival work flow. I've done this hundreds of times and although it can be a time consuming process, especially if you have scratched CDs, the final product is worth it, in my opinion. I will go through the entire process and explain what all the checksums, transcoding, tagging, etc. is all in the successive section.
Step 1: Insert CD in disc drive. Also create a destination folder. I have a folder for the artist, and a separate folder for each album. If it is a multi-disc set, each disc gets its own folder within the album folder. I prefer to label mine chronologically. In the example pictured, you can see that I label the folder with the Year, Album Title, and the file type. WIthin the parent album folder I have folders for each disc where I keep that disc's relevant data.
Step 2: Open XLD. Edit disc metadata to your liking. Make sure that the drop down menu at the bottom of the window is on "Include pre-gap for all tracks" to ensure that your rips are verified with the AccuRip database. If XLD finds artwork for you, you can save it right from the program in the target folder. When you have everything to your liking, press decode. In the picture you can see that I have XLD set to rip to both WAV and encode those WAV files to FLAC from the get-go. This is something the user can set up in the preferences. Note: Although it is an option, I opt to not add an MP3 file set at this point. This is done on purpose and will be explained later. If you do not have XLD set to automatically save the Rip log, make sure to save a copy of the Log file in the parent album folder. An example of a log report is provided.
Step 3: Once you have your set of WAV and FLAC files, open xACT and choose the "Checksum" tab.
Step 4: Select all of the WAV files and drag them into xACT. Press checksum and you will be prompted with a dialog box. Select "shntool," name the file, and save it to the parent album folder. Once you have generated the ST5 checksum you can delete the WAV files.
Step 5: Select all of the FLAC files and drag them into xACT. Press checksum and you will be prompted with a dialog box. Select "Fingerprint," name the file, and save it in the parent album folder.
Step 6: Open Tag, and drag-and-drop all of the FLAC files into the program. A drawer should pop open and the files should be visible in a list. Select all of the files in the list.
Step 7: Select "Guess Tags" from the Tools menu, or simply press command-G. A dialog box will appear. Fill out the appropriate tags. Remember the formatting must be identical to the actual file name otherwise the tags will not be properly created. Once you have everything properly filled out, press "Guess" and Tag will automatically populate the specified fields.
Step 8: Fill in any remaining metadata fields you desire. Remember to select all of the files to change the metadata for all files at once. When a file's metadata has changed it will be bolded in the tray window. Make sure to save all of your changes before exiting.
At this point you have created a verified and verifiable, losslessly compressed digital copy of your original CD. At this point I like to create an MP3 version of my CD and add it to my iTunes.
Step 9: Open Max. The first time you open Max it's a good idea to set your preferences. Select the appropriate encoding format under "Format" tab. Be sure to set your encoder settings how you like them. Like I mentioned before, I encode MP3s at 128kbps because I can always go back and make a higher quality one now that I have a FLAC copy. You can specify the MP3 default file name structure under the "Output" tab, and you can automatically add encoded files to "iTunes" under the "iTunes" tab.
Once you've established your preferences, select "Convert Files" from the File Menu and add your FLAC files. Press "Convert" and you'll have MP3 files in a few short minutes. Add these files to iTunes if you have not already done so.
Note: Depending on how particular you are about your ID3 tags in iTunes you may need to go and edit the MP3 tags. Fortunately, this is a since in iTunes, and one of the reasons I'd like to see native FLAC integration. iTunes has many more tag fields than the standard FLAC file and you would have to go back and fill in Album Artist field and any other options a particular album might require. Also, if you insert comments in your FLAC tags, for some reason Max does not write those to the MP3 files. If the comment was important, you would have to re-add that. FLAC files can technically have Album Art added, but Tag does not seem to support this function. There is no tag field for lyrics either.
Why did I wait to create MP3 files rather than just have XLD create them for me? The answer is in the metadata. WAV files do not support metadata so the information you edit in XLD only goes so far. For other formats XLD will write metadata. If you have basic tagging needs, this will probably suffice for you and even save a few steps along the way. I tend to be pretty particular about my metadata tagging and prefer the above method because it provides greater flexibility. Using XLD's auto-tagging doesn't make much sense if I plan to revise or add additional tags to my files, so I do not use the option in XLD.
Additional thoughts, loose ends, and explanations
As you might be able to tell, this is somewhat of a cumbersome work flow and unless you work from home and can do all of this in the back ground, or you have a lot of time on your hands, creating a FLAC library, especially of a large CD collection would take a long time. Unfortunately, there is no single program that can do everything I need it to. One of big things seems to be generating ST5 and FLAC Fingerprint (FFP) checksums.
Ideally, there would be one program that would have all of the components of this work flow that could be customizable as the user needs. If that were the case it would be possible for the end user to write a script to cover all the steps laid out above. Because this work flow spans several programs that task becomes increasingly difficult. (If there is anyone reading this who knows about AppleScripts and can help with this, please let me know.)
Throughout all of this I may come off as critical of Apple. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple and most of their products, however, they are not without flaw. I don't understand how they can have multiple lossy codecs native to iTunes, but ignore the accepted standard in lossless compression (FLAC) in lieu of their proprietary ALAC. FLAC is open source, so it shouldn't be an issue of cost. It's really beyond me because they don't do anything with that codec. If they sold music on iTunes in ALAC it would make sense (and do the music a favor, too), but business isn't about what's right, it's more about what will make money.
Some may say, why go through all this trouble when I can just rip a CD with iTunes? Doesn't iTunes have error-correction? The short answer is, yes. However, specialty ripping programs are capable of verifying the integrity of a rip and are much more thorough than iTunes. If you're an audiophile, iTunes is not doing you any favors.
Others might wonder if they can use a program like Max to convert their MP3s to FLAC. Obviously, the answer is, again, yet. However, there really is no point in doing so. Think of the WAV (or FLAC) to MP3 conversion in terms of analog equipment. In the days of making mix tapes if you dub a track from one tape onto another, the audio on the new tape loses a generation of quality, and is inferior to the original. The same thing happens when you encode from WAV/FLAC to MP3. Remember that WAV files process at 44.1kHz/second. That's really fast. Compare that to an MP3 where the number drops from 44,100, to 128. Even a 320kbps MP3 pales in comparison to the original file. And while most people might not be able to tell the difference, if you encode a file to 128 MP3 and back to WAV, you would be able to tell the difference. The situation is the same between MP3 bit rates. A 128 MP3 can be convert to 160, 256, or even 320, but it will not improve in quality at all. Sure, the file size will grow, but the actual audio quality will decrease in this conversion. An MP3s audio quality is, at best, as good as its lowest encoded bit rate.
Finally, let me address the issue of checksums. Many folks on the internet like to use CUE files, which makes no sense to me. A CUE file is only really useful when a CD is ripped as one single track and a playback program needs to know where to insert the track splits. Since most people would never think to rip a CD as one long track, the use of CUE files is moot.
The benefit of having checksums created at the time of the initial ripping/encoding is that you have a means to detect file corruption, and the ability to verify the quality of the files that you have. Originally I used MD5 checksum files, but later learned of their limitations. Once you encode a file and generate a MD5 checksum for it, any change to the file, including metadata, will cause the file to fail it's checksum verification. For this reason, I switched to ST5 checksums, which look at the actual wave form of the audio and not it's container format. I use ST5 checksums for WAV files. Using MD5 for FLACs is a big problem because of metadata tagging. Everyone wants their music tagged their own way, but changing that information causes the MD5 to fail. By using FFPs one can avoid this problem. The FLAC metadata is essentially tacked onto the end of the file and the FFP checks the audio portion, but ignores the metadata section. If you make a typo in your metadata and find it after you generate your checksum you can simply edit the metadata if you have FFPs, whereas it would be necessary to regenerate a new MD5 for the file. The rip LOG simply verifies that a CD was properly ripped.
So used in concert, the LOG, ST5, and FFP verify the quality of your music and make it verifiable at the same time.
For more on checksums, see: http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=17951
Have I forgotten something? Is anything unclear? Provide any and all feedback in the comments section.
First off, why would one create a lossless audio archive? One reason is convenience. Having a CD quality file on a hard drive allows users to do many things quickly with their music without having to continuously re-rip it. Transcoding, which I will cover below, is much easier and convenient once you already have your files properly archives. One of the primary reasons that I do it, is with the pace of change in terms of digital music formats and technology dealing with the consumption of audio media, archiving your music in FLAC enables me to easily keep pace with these changes with little effort.
Of course for every benefit there are some drawbacks. If you have a lot of CDs or if you do a lot of legal music trading (i.e. Grateful Dead, Phish, etc.) your music library might be very large. This means you will need a sizable hard drive (or perhaps several). This process can be very time consuming as well. Fortunately, for myself, I find this entire process cathartic, and, as you will probably see, I am OCD enough that I enjoy the attention to detail it sometimes requires.
It is probably worthwhile to say something about file formats at this juncture to ensure that there is no confusion for those who are new to the world of digital media. To keep things simple I'll deal with 3 different file formats: WAV, FLAC, and MP3.
WAV is the format that you end up with when you rip a CD to your hard drive. One minute of music in WAV format takes up about 10MB. The complement of WAV on the Mac system is called AIFF. However, Mac has no problem handling WAV and since it is the standard and works across platforms I use WAV as my default raw audio format.
FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. When encoding a WAV file to FLAC the same minute of music will take up anywhere from 4.5MB-6MB. Depending on the original WAV files, the FLACs of the same files will use 40-60% of the original drive space. So a 30 minute CD would be around 300MB in WAV format and circa 150MB in FLAC. Although FLAC is the standard in lossless audio compression, Apple's iTunes does not support it. Apple has their own proprietary lossless audio compression format, but I prefer FLAC. I have conducted checksum tests with Apple's lossless codec and they routinely fail whereas I have had no problems with FLAC. (On rare occasion one might see reference to SHN files as well. SHN or Shorten is a lossless file format that pre-dates FLAC, but is not as flexible as FLAC and has been replaced by FLAC in recent years.)
MP3 is the standard lossy audio compression format. The size of MP3 files depends on the bit-rate with which they are encoded. Because I have lossless copies of everything, I encode all of my MP3s at 128kbps, which is the standard rate. The same 1 minute of music encoded in MP3 format at 128kbps takes up about 1MB, or 10% of the original file disc space. This reduced file size does not come without consequences. The audio quality of the MP3 is inferior to both WAV and FLAC. With modern production techniques most people cannot tell the difference, but trust me, it's there and it doesn't sound as good. Therein lies my problem with Apple's iTunes - customers are paying good money for an inferior product. I will always opt to purchase a CD and create my own MP3s. That way I can create a perfect, CD-quality, lossless version of the same album. (While MP3 is the standard in lossy audio compression other formats exist, such as Apple's AAC format. Again, I deal with the standard format because they work error free on any platform.)
Ok, so now that I've talked about the advantages and disadvantages of creating a FLAC audio archive and outlined the three basic file types, it is fit to proceed to discuss the software involved in creating such an archive. My primary machine is an Apple MacBook running SnowLeopard, but I will include some links and comments for a few key PC programs as well.
Audio Rippers:
XLD: The best audio ripper is Exact Audio Copy, and unfortunately there is no version for the Mac. XLD is the closest thing to EAC on the Mac. It's got a simple interface and is pretty straight-forward. XLD can rip to a variety of file formats, not just WAV, and can automatically grab album artwork, too. Most importantly, it taps into the AccuRip database to ensure that rips are 100% accurate. XLD is also actively being developed. Make you have your preferences check for new versions because updates come out all the time for this software (See Right).
Rip/Max: These are two of several tools offered by programmer Stephen Booth. I find Max's ripping interface to be less user-friendly that XLD's, and I like XLD so much that I have not used Rip. However, it's good to know there are options and Rip continues to be developed.
Encoder/Decoder/Transcoder:
xACT: Is able to convert files between multiple formats, although depending on what you're trying to do, transcoding may take several steps. One of the best things about xACT is its ability to generate and verify file checksums (which will be discussed below) including, MD5, ST5, and FLAC Fingerprints.
Max: Supports an even wider spectrum of audio formats and while it lacks the checksum capabilities of xACT as a transcoder, this is my go-to program.
Metadata:
xACT: Also has metadata capabilities, but I find its FLAC Tagging to be rather cumbersome. One of the nice things about xACT's tagging is that it allows users to batch tag the song title and track number of FLAC files. However there is a glitch in the software that I have consistently ran into where, if you are trying to tag more than one album at a time you must tag one. Quit the program, re-open it, and tag the next one, and so on. There seems to be a problem with clearing the clipboard with the auto-title function.
Tag: If you've planned ahead with your original ripping settings the shortcomings of xACT can easily be circumvented with Tag. When setting up XLD to rip users can set the default format for the filenames of the ripped files (See Picture).I use the string "%n - %a - %t" which uses the CD data (which can be edited before ripping) to provide the track number, artist, and track title for each song ripped. This will look like "01 - Grateful Dead - Promised Land." Tag has a feature where the program will "guess" certain criterion based on a similar string. More on this below.
Playback:
As I already mentioned, iTunes does not include FLAC support. Feel free to contact Apple and request FLAC support in the future (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunesapp.html). While I may not be a huge fan of iTunes as a whole, it is the best music database program and it would be great to be able to apply that organizational structure to a FLAC library.
Cog: A standard drag and drop music player. There's not a whole lot of flash to this program, but it doesn't use a lot of system resources and plays a wide spectrum of audio formats. There are no playlists or equalizers, which would be nice, but for those who just want a solid, reliable music player, Cog is tough to beat.
Play: I fiddled around with Play a while back and found myself appreciating the simplicity of Cog more. However, this is another Stephen Booth program and a definitely a worthwhile audio player.
Miscellaneous:
Album Artwork: Both Amazon.com and Wikipedia are good sources for tracking down album artwork, and I can go into a trick for getting high quality iTunes artwork on your hard drive, but the Album Art Exchange is a wonderful place to find quality album artwork.
Fluke: Fluke claims to enable users to play FLAC files in iTunes. I've never got it to work, and, quite frankly, I'd prefer native support for FLAC so I didn't invest much time in making it work. However, installing Fluke has a positive Finder benefit by allowing users to preview FLAC files in the Finder. Simply select a FLAC file in the Finder and press the space-bar. You'll see a preview screen and the file will start playing (the same work for WAV and MP3, and well all files). Press space-bar again to close the preview.
FLAC & Spotlight: Once you have your FLAC library built installing this little utility will allow Spotlight to search the metadata in your library. A really useful feature.
Hardware: I would recommend an external hard drive. The size depends on how big your music collection is. At present I have my entire FLAC library on a 1TB external hard drive and it takes up almost 700GB. I have the entire library backed up on a second 1TB drive as well. I also have a 320GB external hard drive where I store my iTunes library.
For PCs, the best audio ripper is Exact Audio Copy. A panacea encoding program can be found in Trader's Little Helper. I've found FLAC Frontend and MD5 Summer useful over the years as well.
Archival Workflow
Alright. Now that the software issue has been covered I'll describe my actual archival work flow. I've done this hundreds of times and although it can be a time consuming process, especially if you have scratched CDs, the final product is worth it, in my opinion. I will go through the entire process and explain what all the checksums, transcoding, tagging, etc. is all in the successive section.
Step 1: Insert CD in disc drive. Also create a destination folder. I have a folder for the artist, and a separate folder for each album. If it is a multi-disc set, each disc gets its own folder within the album folder. I prefer to label mine chronologically. In the example pictured, you can see that I label the folder with the Year, Album Title, and the file type. WIthin the parent album folder I have folders for each disc where I keep that disc's relevant data.
Step 2: Open XLD. Edit disc metadata to your liking. Make sure that the drop down menu at the bottom of the window is on "Include pre-gap for all tracks" to ensure that your rips are verified with the AccuRip database. If XLD finds artwork for you, you can save it right from the program in the target folder. When you have everything to your liking, press decode. In the picture you can see that I have XLD set to rip to both WAV and encode those WAV files to FLAC from the get-go. This is something the user can set up in the preferences. Note: Although it is an option, I opt to not add an MP3 file set at this point. This is done on purpose and will be explained later. If you do not have XLD set to automatically save the Rip log, make sure to save a copy of the Log file in the parent album folder. An example of a log report is provided.
Step 4: Select all of the WAV files and drag them into xACT. Press checksum and you will be prompted with a dialog box. Select "shntool," name the file, and save it to the parent album folder. Once you have generated the ST5 checksum you can delete the WAV files.
Step 5: Select all of the FLAC files and drag them into xACT. Press checksum and you will be prompted with a dialog box. Select "Fingerprint," name the file, and save it in the parent album folder.
Step 6: Open Tag, and drag-and-drop all of the FLAC files into the program. A drawer should pop open and the files should be visible in a list. Select all of the files in the list.
Step 7: Select "Guess Tags" from the Tools menu, or simply press command-G. A dialog box will appear. Fill out the appropriate tags. Remember the formatting must be identical to the actual file name otherwise the tags will not be properly created. Once you have everything properly filled out, press "Guess" and Tag will automatically populate the specified fields.Step 8: Fill in any remaining metadata fields you desire. Remember to select all of the files to change the metadata for all files at once. When a file's metadata has changed it will be bolded in the tray window. Make sure to save all of your changes before exiting.
At this point you have created a verified and verifiable, losslessly compressed digital copy of your original CD. At this point I like to create an MP3 version of my CD and add it to my iTunes.
Step 9: Open Max. The first time you open Max it's a good idea to set your preferences. Select the appropriate encoding format under "Format" tab. Be sure to set your encoder settings how you like them. Like I mentioned before, I encode MP3s at 128kbps because I can always go back and make a higher quality one now that I have a FLAC copy. You can specify the MP3 default file name structure under the "Output" tab, and you can automatically add encoded files to "iTunes" under the "iTunes" tab.
Once you've established your preferences, select "Convert Files" from the File Menu and add your FLAC files. Press "Convert" and you'll have MP3 files in a few short minutes. Add these files to iTunes if you have not already done so.
Note: Depending on how particular you are about your ID3 tags in iTunes you may need to go and edit the MP3 tags. Fortunately, this is a since in iTunes, and one of the reasons I'd like to see native FLAC integration. iTunes has many more tag fields than the standard FLAC file and you would have to go back and fill in Album Artist field and any other options a particular album might require. Also, if you insert comments in your FLAC tags, for some reason Max does not write those to the MP3 files. If the comment was important, you would have to re-add that. FLAC files can technically have Album Art added, but Tag does not seem to support this function. There is no tag field for lyrics either.
Why did I wait to create MP3 files rather than just have XLD create them for me? The answer is in the metadata. WAV files do not support metadata so the information you edit in XLD only goes so far. For other formats XLD will write metadata. If you have basic tagging needs, this will probably suffice for you and even save a few steps along the way. I tend to be pretty particular about my metadata tagging and prefer the above method because it provides greater flexibility. Using XLD's auto-tagging doesn't make much sense if I plan to revise or add additional tags to my files, so I do not use the option in XLD.
Additional thoughts, loose ends, and explanations
As you might be able to tell, this is somewhat of a cumbersome work flow and unless you work from home and can do all of this in the back ground, or you have a lot of time on your hands, creating a FLAC library, especially of a large CD collection would take a long time. Unfortunately, there is no single program that can do everything I need it to. One of big things seems to be generating ST5 and FLAC Fingerprint (FFP) checksums.
Ideally, there would be one program that would have all of the components of this work flow that could be customizable as the user needs. If that were the case it would be possible for the end user to write a script to cover all the steps laid out above. Because this work flow spans several programs that task becomes increasingly difficult. (If there is anyone reading this who knows about AppleScripts and can help with this, please let me know.)
Throughout all of this I may come off as critical of Apple. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple and most of their products, however, they are not without flaw. I don't understand how they can have multiple lossy codecs native to iTunes, but ignore the accepted standard in lossless compression (FLAC) in lieu of their proprietary ALAC. FLAC is open source, so it shouldn't be an issue of cost. It's really beyond me because they don't do anything with that codec. If they sold music on iTunes in ALAC it would make sense (and do the music a favor, too), but business isn't about what's right, it's more about what will make money.
Some may say, why go through all this trouble when I can just rip a CD with iTunes? Doesn't iTunes have error-correction? The short answer is, yes. However, specialty ripping programs are capable of verifying the integrity of a rip and are much more thorough than iTunes. If you're an audiophile, iTunes is not doing you any favors.
Others might wonder if they can use a program like Max to convert their MP3s to FLAC. Obviously, the answer is, again, yet. However, there really is no point in doing so. Think of the WAV (or FLAC) to MP3 conversion in terms of analog equipment. In the days of making mix tapes if you dub a track from one tape onto another, the audio on the new tape loses a generation of quality, and is inferior to the original. The same thing happens when you encode from WAV/FLAC to MP3. Remember that WAV files process at 44.1kHz/second. That's really fast. Compare that to an MP3 where the number drops from 44,100, to 128. Even a 320kbps MP3 pales in comparison to the original file. And while most people might not be able to tell the difference, if you encode a file to 128 MP3 and back to WAV, you would be able to tell the difference. The situation is the same between MP3 bit rates. A 128 MP3 can be convert to 160, 256, or even 320, but it will not improve in quality at all. Sure, the file size will grow, but the actual audio quality will decrease in this conversion. An MP3s audio quality is, at best, as good as its lowest encoded bit rate.
Finally, let me address the issue of checksums. Many folks on the internet like to use CUE files, which makes no sense to me. A CUE file is only really useful when a CD is ripped as one single track and a playback program needs to know where to insert the track splits. Since most people would never think to rip a CD as one long track, the use of CUE files is moot.
The benefit of having checksums created at the time of the initial ripping/encoding is that you have a means to detect file corruption, and the ability to verify the quality of the files that you have. Originally I used MD5 checksum files, but later learned of their limitations. Once you encode a file and generate a MD5 checksum for it, any change to the file, including metadata, will cause the file to fail it's checksum verification. For this reason, I switched to ST5 checksums, which look at the actual wave form of the audio and not it's container format. I use ST5 checksums for WAV files. Using MD5 for FLACs is a big problem because of metadata tagging. Everyone wants their music tagged their own way, but changing that information causes the MD5 to fail. By using FFPs one can avoid this problem. The FLAC metadata is essentially tacked onto the end of the file and the FFP checks the audio portion, but ignores the metadata section. If you make a typo in your metadata and find it after you generate your checksum you can simply edit the metadata if you have FFPs, whereas it would be necessary to regenerate a new MD5 for the file. The rip LOG simply verifies that a CD was properly ripped.
So used in concert, the LOG, ST5, and FFP verify the quality of your music and make it verifiable at the same time.
For more on checksums, see: http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=17951
Have I forgotten something? Is anything unclear? Provide any and all feedback in the comments section.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Do people actually like Circus Peanuts?
A recent foray into a Colorado hobby store prompted me to remember how gross Circus Peanuts are. My cousin and I went to the store to buy some model rockets, which are wicked fun I might add. As we were preparing to checkout my cousin quickly perused the candy near the checkout. Seeing that I am never one to deny my sweet tooth, I, too, took in the Hobby Lobby candy selection. As I scanned the available carbohydrate concoctions, I saw what I consider to be one of the grossest candies this side of black licorice: Circus Peanuts.
Not only do Circus Peanuts taste terrible, they have a gross spongy texture. You may be saying, "Well, duh. They're basically marshmallows." Well guess what, I'm not a huge fan of marshmallows either.
As we were checking out, I made a comment about how gross I thought Circus Peanuts. To my amazement, the woman working at the checkout said they actually sold a fair share of Circus Peanuts. Needless to say I was shocked. However, what she said next partially affirmed my sentiments on the red-headed step-child of the candy aisle. She said that one or two on occasion were not bad, but when pushed further she agreed that consuming an entire package in a short span of time would not be a satisfying endeavor. Of course, the problem with a marshmallow candy is that if you let it sit, it will quickly go stale.
What this anecdotal evidence suggests is that Circus Peanuts should be sold in 2 packs, and even that might be too great of a quantity. And because a two-pack of Circus Peanuts does not represent a sound production or marketing strategy, the folks at Brach's or whoever makes those hideous "treats" should simply cease production all together.
Not only do Circus Peanuts taste terrible, they have a gross spongy texture. You may be saying, "Well, duh. They're basically marshmallows." Well guess what, I'm not a huge fan of marshmallows either.
As we were checking out, I made a comment about how gross I thought Circus Peanuts. To my amazement, the woman working at the checkout said they actually sold a fair share of Circus Peanuts. Needless to say I was shocked. However, what she said next partially affirmed my sentiments on the red-headed step-child of the candy aisle. She said that one or two on occasion were not bad, but when pushed further she agreed that consuming an entire package in a short span of time would not be a satisfying endeavor. Of course, the problem with a marshmallow candy is that if you let it sit, it will quickly go stale.
What this anecdotal evidence suggests is that Circus Peanuts should be sold in 2 packs, and even that might be too great of a quantity. And because a two-pack of Circus Peanuts does not represent a sound production or marketing strategy, the folks at Brach's or whoever makes those hideous "treats" should simply cease production all together.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Get "Lost"
Like many other folks my wife and I have spent the past six television seasons watching "Lost" on ABC. This show has been so uneven, so up-and-down that I have to really think about watching anything else produced by J. J. Abrams. I know I'm not the first to say this, but as the series wraps up later tonight, let me join in the horde that says "who cares."
Excuse the pun, but "Lost" lost it a while ago. The writer's staunch refusal to answer questions and the inadequate way in which they answer the ones they do makes the show unpleasant to watch. For instance, the episode that focused on Jacob and his brother (would it really be that hard to give him a name) could have been a 10-15 minute piece within an episode that moved the rest of the story line further. But no, as time wound down on the show the writers decided to dedicate an entire episode to something they continued to not fully explain.
Similarly, the entire "parallel universe" motif that has been going on the entire sixth season is just a ploy. Seriously? The only good J. J. Abrams show is "Fringe" and that show has so much parallel universe stuff it's not even funny - but it's interesting. In "Lost" it seems like the whole plot was thought out willy-nilly. It is as though the writers were planning to write 7 shows but were give 12, and they thought, "oh crap, we better come up with some filler."
Two or three years ago, when "Lost" was spiraling out of control (remember the episode where Paolo died?) and the writers announced that the show would end in 2010, the show actually started to move forward instead of chasing it's proverbial tail. With an end date in sight, the writers seemed to have an idea of where they wanted the story to go and how they wanted to get there. Somewhere along the line, while writing the last season, it appears obvious that the task of answering all the questions they had prompted during their 40 years in the desert period proved too daunting. Having shot themselves in the foot, the writers threw up their hands in frustration, jumped into the safety net of post-modernism and said "We don't have to answer all the questions. Not all questions need to have answers. You have the body of work, what does it mean to you?" To me, it means a total cop out. People can parse and analyze the show all they want, a recent article in the Washington Post suggested that the show was a metaphorical mirror of contemporary America. Hog wash. It's a piece of escapist television that was crushed under its own popularity and the indecisiveness of its writers.
The entire sixth season my wife and I have been watching the show. Like suckers. We figured that since we had already invested so much time into the show we might as well finish it out. However, the entire season has been like pulling teeth. Neither of us really cares what happens at this point, we just want the show to end. If I had to do it over again I would have jumped ship when the show initially went downhill, like we did with "Heroes."
So while many may be going crazy over what will happen in tonight's final episode, like the final episode of the Sopranos many will be content with the ending and many will not. In my household, the feeling will simply be "thank God it's over." We don't care.
Excuse the pun, but "Lost" lost it a while ago. The writer's staunch refusal to answer questions and the inadequate way in which they answer the ones they do makes the show unpleasant to watch. For instance, the episode that focused on Jacob and his brother (would it really be that hard to give him a name) could have been a 10-15 minute piece within an episode that moved the rest of the story line further. But no, as time wound down on the show the writers decided to dedicate an entire episode to something they continued to not fully explain.
Similarly, the entire "parallel universe" motif that has been going on the entire sixth season is just a ploy. Seriously? The only good J. J. Abrams show is "Fringe" and that show has so much parallel universe stuff it's not even funny - but it's interesting. In "Lost" it seems like the whole plot was thought out willy-nilly. It is as though the writers were planning to write 7 shows but were give 12, and they thought, "oh crap, we better come up with some filler."
Two or three years ago, when "Lost" was spiraling out of control (remember the episode where Paolo died?) and the writers announced that the show would end in 2010, the show actually started to move forward instead of chasing it's proverbial tail. With an end date in sight, the writers seemed to have an idea of where they wanted the story to go and how they wanted to get there. Somewhere along the line, while writing the last season, it appears obvious that the task of answering all the questions they had prompted during their 40 years in the desert period proved too daunting. Having shot themselves in the foot, the writers threw up their hands in frustration, jumped into the safety net of post-modernism and said "We don't have to answer all the questions. Not all questions need to have answers. You have the body of work, what does it mean to you?" To me, it means a total cop out. People can parse and analyze the show all they want, a recent article in the Washington Post suggested that the show was a metaphorical mirror of contemporary America. Hog wash. It's a piece of escapist television that was crushed under its own popularity and the indecisiveness of its writers.
The entire sixth season my wife and I have been watching the show. Like suckers. We figured that since we had already invested so much time into the show we might as well finish it out. However, the entire season has been like pulling teeth. Neither of us really cares what happens at this point, we just want the show to end. If I had to do it over again I would have jumped ship when the show initially went downhill, like we did with "Heroes."
So while many may be going crazy over what will happen in tonight's final episode, like the final episode of the Sopranos many will be content with the ending and many will not. In my household, the feeling will simply be "thank God it's over." We don't care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)