Veganism – thoughts about

Having lived an almost vegan lifestyle for close to 3 years offered me a position to at least talk about it.

While the actual claims about the benefits of Veganism are at least questioned, see here, this is not what I want to talk about.

What I want to talk about is what happens when a trend like Veganism, with its health claims, gets picked up by Big Food.

You had a company that produced cheap cookies for instance. Because of their price point they couldn’t afford real butter, so resorted to using margarine or hydrogenated palm oil.

While even the most optimistic product manager saw that as a clear flaw, suddenly it became an asset. A big green V on the packaging, and voila, your foremost cheapie cookie is no a truly vegan fest.

It’s astounding how much hyper-processed, cheaply produced food get’s rebranded as Vegan today, in the hope to cash in on the health claims. The vegan community is playing accomplice in return of mass-promotion for their agenda. This needs to stop. Vegans, you’re not doing yourself or your lifestyle any favor here. Step up. Expose. And most important of all: don’t buy that junk.

representative Democracy – misgivings about

I loathe our current governments. There, I said it!

They seem slow, tepid even. Unable to act. Unable to cast vision or execute on their plans. Forever gridlocked in pointless debates that only seem to revolve around topics that Facebook just brought up.

And I feel: they’re antiquated.

chainbreakWe needed representatives when it took a four day journey with a very fast horse to travel between cities. We needed that because communication took so long, that decision-making was impossible otherwise.

That’s over now!

What we need now is a nimble, agile (ah.. buzzwords!) government. That allows Maximum participation by it’s subjects. That’s truly by the People, for the People and through the People. And it’s absolutely within reach.

Imagine: a reddit-like system of policy submission. Everybody can submit a proposal, promote it, and the proposals that get the most upvotes get voted on. Then the new government Software, let’s say iGovern(TM) publishes a tender for a policiy draft, and citizens select a law firm to generate the actual policy.

This can be done with scope relevance so that regional issues are handled only by people in the Region.

The main advantages here are: speed, direct citizen involvement and transparency.

No more fat cats that get elected for 5 years and then can do pretty much what they want with near impunity. Experts get employed by citizens for a single project, with permanent reporting and evaluation.

No more guessing about what your government does with your tax dollar, you voted on every major project.

We would save a ton of money, be directly involved in every aspect of steering the nation, and be pretty savvy about that quick.

Let’s start digging a grave for the old boys network that is todays ruling class. Let’s start demanding some real change. Let’s start demanding direct control. After all, who’s footing the bill?

Let’s start! Now!

spotify revenues, ideas about

There has bspotify-genericeen a lot of press about Spotify lately. More specifically about what Spotify pays to artists (or doesn’t). Taylor Swift pulled her album from the music service and some others preceded her or followed suit. I often hear from musician friends of mine, that they receive mere cents for a couple of thousand plays. And if that was their sole revenue, they would have to quit making music professionally.

Now, I compared Spotify to what artists receive in royalties when played on terrestrial radio, and that compares quite favorably. Radio stations royalty payouts are quite complicated, and depend on a lot of factors. But divided by number of listeners the revenue for the artist per track, of she is also the composer or text author is less than a thousandth of a cent.

When you feel that Spotify competes with album sales, their payout seems frivolous.

So what is Spotify? Does it sell music? Or is it a radio station of sorts. The answer is: Neither! It’s something new. Spotify customers often play specific tracks or specific artists. This is an important distinction to a traditional radio station, because people discover less music on Spotify compared to listening consciously to a good radio station.

“But nobody consciously listens to radio”, I hear you say. Hot adult contemporary and other formats have made pretty sure about that. So maybe Spotify is better, in that it really helps people discover new music? Could be!

It certainly doesn’t sell music. Even if you use the offline feature music gets stored in a container, and the minute you stop subscribing, you lose access to the music that is stored on your computer!

So how much should artist get paid for a service like that?

One way to calculate that would be:

  • Take average album price (say 15€)
  • Divide by number of tracks (let’s say 15)
  • Divide by times listened to a song on average

The last point is tricky. How many times does the average consumer listen to the average track on the average CD? Certainly, a 14 year old, infatuated with her new boy superstar will listen to his hit a couple of thousand times. While lesser, so called “album tracks”, get probably skipped after 10 secs for 3-4 times.

But let’s develop 3 scenarios:

  1. afficionado = 200 listens per track
  2. regular guy = 70 listens per track
  3. indifferent = 10 listens per track

So here would be our payouts:

  1. 0,5 cent per play
  2. 1,4 cent per play
  3. 10 cent per play

Here is what spotify does pay: Between 0.6 and $0.84 cents per play. (link here, skip to: “Wait I thought…”) I’d say we’re pretty much in the ballpark for the afficionado scenario, which in my view models the listening behaviour for the average spotify user (young) pretty well.

So do artists make less money then when selling albums? Yes! Because with an album you sell a whole block of tracks in one transaction, and you get all the plays paid up front.

In my opinion artists should stop making albums. That’s just a thing of the past, when physical mediums necessitated this format. With the exception of very few artists, mostly an album is just a bunch of tracks nowadays. Producing only those that an artists finds really promising would reduce his production cost (although not in a linear fashion. producing one track doesn’t cost a fifteenth of an album). At the same time this allows artists to fully concentrate on their strongest tracks. But that is a different topic for a different post.

For now, I’m pretty surprised that Spotify seems to pay as much as I thought made sense it should.

mixing basics, collection of

mixingI’ve been mixing music, film and shows for 14 odd years now, and learned a lot during this time. Recently I’ve been thinking about the basics of mixing. The “how” to mix, and I want to share what I found with you here on my blog.

The most important aspect of mixing is setting levels. For me this is where good can start and end. Have your levels wrong? Your mix will suck, no matter how great the individual sounds are, no matter how much time you spent agonizing over the low end content of your Kick.

So how do you set levels? This was something that vexed me. Nobody seemed to be able to give an answer.

Some engineers pushed the faders up very slowly, 1db more, listen, 1db more, listen. Others threw the faders up, wiggled a bit, and tore them back down if they didn’t like what they heard.

I think the slow approach is great for getting a feel of how the mix changes with a given signal (especially lead vocals). The second approach is very instinctual and makes for bold mixes. Good.

But what do you listen to, when listening while setting levels?

And here is where I found a gem: I used to listen to the signal on the fader I was pushing. “Where’s the bass at, can I hear it, does it sound good?” Then I switched, and that changed the mixes for the better.

When pushing up a fader, I listen to the rest of the mix, most importantly to a signal that gets directly affected by the one I’m pushing.

Let’s say I’m adjusting Bass level. Then I would listen to the Kick, and the Lead Vocals. Is there a level where the Kick sounds better because of the Bass? Usually yes! Is there a level where the whole mix sounds louder or softer? Yes, again!

Now, let’s say I bring up the Guitars. When does the Vocal suffer? I go slightly below that. Now those guitars might sound a bit tame, if it’s a rock song. Then I reach for EQ, and do the same:

I scoop out some mids, let’s say I start at 1,5 kHz. And then I move the frequency, while listening to the Lead Vocal. Is there a frequency where the Lead pops out better? Usually, yes, again! (Warning for plug in users: don’t look at the screen, look away, just listen, you’ll be surprised!)

Great! I push the guitars up, now that I have more space.

Now, let’s say, I have a synth layer that I want to use to create space. At what level does the mix sound most spacious? Can I even hear the synth directly? Probably not!

This brings up another important truth about mixing (and life, hehe): Things come in opposites. For some things to be loud, others have to be soft. A phat mix usally has just one or two sparse signals that have bass; the mix is still pretty flat, frequency wise. The human ear adapts very quickly and adjusts frequency content to “normal”, so if every second signal has a lot of bass, the mix will actually sound flat, muddy, and not phat at all.

So, to sum things up: When mixing, listen to what you’re NOT doing at the moment. Nobody is ever going to hear anything in Solo out there. And everything affects everything else. So account for that.

Comments more than welcome.

music marketing – best practices of

Remember a time, in a galaxy, not far away, when artists werMusic Doodlee given record contracts, that made them rich and famous, simultaneously with record companies, who had their longevity and best interest at heart?

Well, those times are gone! We live in a very different world now, that requires new modes of thinking about music, and new ways of approaching fans.

1.) Forget the Album

Once spelled out, it’s obvious: Who needs a physical medium for digital informartion. Nobody! Maybe very high quality movies are still somewhat bothersome to download. But not really, as Amazon Prime and Netflix prove.

2.) Forget the Album

Why 12 songs? Why 50+ minutes? Why? If you have a story to tell, go ahead, record it. If it takes 12 songs and 55 minutes, perfect! But if you have 2 great songs and a fantastic interlude – put those out. Stop agonising about album length and sequencing. People play songs in the order they want, or in the order algorithms like Genius music decide.

3.) Split bills

So you want an album to sell at shows? Makes sense. Why not split it with your favourite musician? Half the costs, double the fans. And while you’re at it, plan a tour together. Half the work, double the fans.

4.) Split bills

Stop seeing music in isolation. It never was. In the 60ies and 70ies it was part of a global political movement. In the 80ies it was part of fashion. Connect with dancers, visual artists, or programmers and web or app artists to design spectacular and unprecedented (… wait for it … disruptive! there, I said it.) experiences for your, now joint, audiences. Getting out of the music box also helps keeping the paralysis by analysis action in check.

5.) Connect

You need more $FB friends, more YouTube clicks, more email adresses. So get out there. On your merch table have an iPad where people can stream your YouTube vids. And get as near to requiring them to become your $FBriends as possible, whenever somebody comes near your table. This is way out of the comfort zone, so you may want to hire somebody who is capable of doing this.

6.) Conclusion

These, for me, are some of the best practices I have seen in the last years. Do they guarantee near-instant rock-stardom? You bet they do! And when you get there, be kind, drop a VIP pass to one of your shows.

Also, if you think I could help you out with more details or info, don’t hesitate to contact me.

Is Google harming its search results with its online ad business model?

A few years ago, the internet was a lot simpler.

Information was to be found on websites, for the most part. Shure, Internetsome obscure ftp and telnet sites, some chat channels, and a lot of newsgroups.

Google just had to crawl usenet plus the http space, index all the information it found, and make sure users found what they wanted. Google did an amazing job here, and was rewarded by stellar growth, incredible user loyalty, and thanks to its superbly implemented way of auctioning off ad slots, a massive income stream.

Today, the internet is a lot more complicated. Information is often stored in Apps. Some of them are web apps, some aren’t. Some of the Apps’ content is searchable for Google, a lot isn’t.

And here is where it becomes difficult for Google: Why would a company make its App searchable, just so that Google could display more relevant search results, and as a return sell ads better.

Content providers not only get no share from ad sales, but actually have to pay, if they want an ad to link to their content.

Right now this paradigmt becomes questionable. Google’s search results are only as good as the amount of content they can access. Would you use a search engine that only had access to every second page?

Google has to start sharing some revenue with App devs if they want to have access to their content.

App developers do not rely on Google for the promotion of their apps. Here App stores have become the main channel. And this weakens Googles biggest strength as a gateway to traffic and users.

This becomes increasingly pressing as the Internet transforms from a very homogenous WWW to a polymorphic interconnection of Apps, Channels, Websites and streams of data.

Maybe its time for a new competitor in the search field. A disruption, to further abuse this horribly strained word. A company that builds its paradigms in the present form of the internet, Maybe even a collective effort. The ‘Net would be better of for it.

Limits of AI – inklings of

I adore Jeff Jonas work for IBM, and his take on Big Data. So from time to time I check his blog. I stumbled upon his update on the G2 sensemaking engine a while ago. As I reread it today a thought struck me: One of the limits to AI stems not from the algorithms deployed, or their processing power. But from their access to input, to data. From their lack of senses, if you will.

AIA human infant is born with all 5 senses wide open, and an infinte stream of information constantly available, or, more concise, unmutable. Human senses seem custom tailored to interface reality. Much has been written about the ability of the unconcious to parallel-process Megabits of information vs. the 7 or so bits the concious mind can access simultaneously.

Computers on the other hand have to rely on humans to feed them information. Now we have two problems at hand here:

1) Translational loss: As information is digitized, a lot of context gets lost and left out, equaling a substantial bandwidth reduction.

2) Selection bias: In decinding what to feed an algorithm, we choose what’s important for us, vs what would be optimal for AI performance. A nontrivial issue as algorithms scale in complexity.

This in turn severely limits an AIs ability to truly learn and scale. Now I don’t claim to be an expert on AI. But this clearly merits some consideration. If you have any input or information on how this is addressed please share.

Linking – a nice mnemonic trick

Have you ever been in a situation, where you had to make sure you remembered something? Like “take my passport with me when I leave my home”? Brain

Usually saying “Don’t forget your passport!” will not work or worse set you up for forgetting. What to do? Luckily I have a nice little procedure for you that works really, really well for me.

When I want to make sure I remember to do something, I mentally link it with an event that I am sure will happen. In our example that would be : “When picking up my bag to leave the house, I will think of my passport, and retrieve it”.

The trick here is to really picture the event, and your passport. The more vivid this picture or short film is, the more effective this procedure will be.

Linking stuff has long been a standard mnemonic trick to remember random items on list. And it works. Your brain is set up to walk along connections. So if you connect picking up my bag with thinking of your passport, your brain will bring up an image of your passport the moment you pick up your bag to leave the house.

Try this with small things, that don’t carry a lot of emotional relevance first, since you will be much more open to experimenting and finding your personal way to implement this much easier when not stressed and result-agnostic.


messaging – ramblings about


It’s been a while since the news of Facebook acquiring WhatsApp for $19bn astounded me. That worked out to a P/E of 950! Wow, just wow! Talk about value investing! (pun intended).

But it also made me think. Why could a messaging company be deemed so valuable. And as I walked in the Bavarian forest today, without a smartphone in my pocket, it dawned on me.

But let me tell you a little  bit about my messaging preferences first. I used to do phone calls, in times before mobile phones. I liked keeping them as short and concise as possible. When mobile phones arrived I took to SMS immediately, aided in no small part by a short-lived but passionate SMS romance. What a thrill! 160 character love poems.

But the permanent availability takes its toll; and so now, I often find my phone on silent mode, calling back, or using messaging apps. WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and email or SMS mostly. With some Google Hangouts thrown in for my family.

Even after years of using it, I still don’t enjoy typing on virtual keyboards, and never got as fast as on my BlackBerry. I started using voice messages on WhatsApp about 5 months ago. I find them fascinating. It’s easier and faster than typing, and also a much richer experience. Whereas small inflections of irony where often completely lost in SMS or WhatsApp, they are now clear.

So here comes my point: We are moving towards a richer messaging experience, as users slowly abandon the notion of: asynchronous communication means written communication (stemming from letters) and synchronous communication means face to face or phone calls (or IRC chats or the like).

Here is my distinction:







That means people will move more and more to asynchronous forms of communication, because these can be fit into their schedules as they see fit. As they become richer and easier to use, these will replace phone calls, and, to a certain extent emails.

Because they are quicker to compose, and offer a more honest and direct experience of the sender, a lot of times, people will gravitate towards using messaging apps.

Messaging in the future will mean rich messaging. Voice, or probably video or 3D video, or who knows what comes next.

And this makes WhatsApp, that, in my opinion, got the Messaging work flow and user experience completely nailed down, a very valuable prospect. Worth $ 19bn? Only time will tell.

Hearing – remarks about

The question: “Does HD Audio matter, and why do we need to produce frequencies above 20k” still nettles me.

In the woods

Today, while taking an exceptionally beautiful walk through the Bavarian forest near my house, I head some insights, that I’m about to share with you.

1.) A lot of research points out, that the human ear is incapable of hearing anything above 20k and hence reproduction, recording and transport of frequencies above that are unnecessary.

2.) David Blackmer pointed out here, that 2/3rds of the hairs in the human cochlea are used to detect not the frequency, but the waveform of incoming audio.

Blackmers rearch has apparently been refuted, or could not be reproduced. His findings still make a lot of sense to me, seen from  biological or evolutional viewpoint. Now I am very well aware of the dangers of biologisms and other half-baked cross references, still, consider this:

Say, you are in the woods, looking for food, or an animal that you might hunt, at the same time, aware that you need to stay clear of wolves, bears or sabre-tooth tigers. Hearing is very relevant to that task. Specifically, the transients of the incoming audio make all the difference. A sharp, short spike, when an animal breaks a twig or steps down upon dry grass is very different from wind blowing through trees. This difference is in the micro-second time domain and is vital to your survival.

So to have a lot of capacity dedicated to distinguish waveforms, transients and rise time, makes clear sense.

Why can this not be detected in tests: I believe that these tests ask questions from a frequency domain point of view. Not from a time domain point of view.

And here comes the hard part: some argue that since frequency requires time, there is no need to look at the time domain. This seems correct, but on closer inspection puts the horse before the cart. Time is primary, frequency secondary. With time comes frequency, but frequency requires time!

So, yes, the human ear cannot hear frequencies above 20k. But also: waveform detection, rise times and transient response are of utmost importance to natural sounding reproduction. I could detect that time and again, without knowing about the rise times of the equipment being used.

I suggest that the human ear has different windows for the frequency and the time domain. Frequency is limited to approx. 20Hz to 20 kHz. Time is very sensitive to small differences in waveforms and transients.

I would be very interesting in any research about that, that does not stem from a frequency domain point-of-view and would love to collaborate to develop adequate tests. So if you are thinking about hearing, working in the field of hearing research or just want to team up, please do not hesitate to leave your comment below or contact me.