Doug Grant, K1DG and Tim Duffy, K3LR, both very active contesters and members of the CQ contest committee have led the committee to make a startling change in the contest rules for CW and SSB contests this coming CQ contest season. Doug came to the SDR forum at Dayton Hamvention this year and proposed the Xtreme Class for CQ WW major contests this year.
Doug wrote to me and asked me to allow him to speak and to trust him in that it would be of interest to software defined radio types. It was. I also learned that Tim Duffy, K3LR, has completely embraced SDR as a tool. He has a rack full of Perseus Receivers tied to CW Skimmer to look across the entire CW band during contests, and decode all signals. These signals are then introduced to regular contest logging software as "spots" in the same way that packet sends spots.
The big difference is that the Perseus/CW Skimmer spots are GUARANTEED to be audible by the station since they were collected from a receiver operating on site. Tim and others have become very impressed by what we geeks are offering to the contester. Please allow me to put the entire announcement from K1DG here:
"This year at Dayton, the new CQWW Xtreme categories were announced.
These new categories (single-operator and multi-operator) have been
established to allow amateurs to participate in the CQ WW Contest
while experimenting creatively with Internet-linked stations and other
new technologies that currently are not permitted in any of the
existing contest categories. The full rules for the new Xtreme
Category, as approved by the CQ WW Contest Committee, appear in June
CQ magazine and also at:
http://cqww.com/CQ_WW_Xtreme_Rules.pdf
This PDF file may be copied and re-posted to other Web sites as long
as this text is included: "Reprinted with permission from the June
2009 issue of CQ magazine; copyright CQ Communications, Inc."
Please forward this email to your local club reflectors and newsletters.
The new categories are effective with the 2009 CQ WW Contest later this year.
In essence, (almost) anything goes! The "almost" part means that you
must obey the rules of your country, including power (up to the CQWW
1500W maximum), licensing, and remote operation (if you use it).
It is permitted to use multiple transmitting sites with one callsign
(if legal in your country), but all transmitting sites must be located
in the same country and CQ zone, and only one signal is permitted on a
band at any time. Single-ops with packet, Skimmer, robot stations,
on-line databases, etc. are OK! Multiops with remote operators and
remote receiving sites around the world...OK!
The initial response at both the Contesting Forum and SDR Forum at
Dayton was very positive, with some of the SDR Forum attendees
actually challenging each other in public! This is a chance for
experimenters to see which technology innovations actually work best
in competitive situations.
If you have questions about the rules, please send them to Xtreme@cqww.com
There is an also email reflector (Xtreme-talk@contesting.com) set up
for discussions relating to these new categories. You can subscribe by
sending email to Xtreme-talk-request@contesting.com with the word
SUBSCRIBE in the subject line and message text, or go here:
http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/xtreme-talk
(thanks, K5TR)
K3LR has stepped up and is sponsoring the K3TUP Memorial Trophies for
the winners of the single-op and multi-op Xtreme categories.
73, and let the Xtreme Contesting Games begin!
Doug K1DG"
Thank you Doug and the entire CQ Contest committee. This is an impressive and thoughtful first attempt. I urge all to think about doing this. Flex users, HPSDR users, QS1R, Peseus, etc. can all make a valiant effort and with "innovation" being 50% of the score, a great single operator super star is not required to be a significant placeholder in this. Let's go!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Vuze, uPnP, Media Companies, and Freedom
I am wondering when media companies will be convinced that people will not pay for lousy service and crappy content. Freedom is the only way forward and people WILL PAY FOR CONVENIENCE AND NOT CONTENT. If the artists tailor their approach to this, they benefit and when the drip turns into the flood THEY WIN. As much as I support the right of artists to be compensated fairly for their work, the entire system built to support them, screws every person who does not sit in the middle, artist and consumer, people who should be peers and are not. Who has not felt raped by Ticketmaster, or Sony (embedding theft protection malware in the audio CD) or the horrors of DRM.
Some artists get this, but I fear most are too lazy or too stupid to understand that with action (concerted to be sure) on their part, we have reached the golden age.
Some artists get this, but I fear most are too lazy or too stupid to understand that with action (concerted to be sure) on their part, we have reached the golden age.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Adaptive Signal Processing, Polyphase Filter Banks, for the old and new
Recently I have spent enough time on adaptive signal processing algorithms to have driven my friends crazy (yes, I do have friends). Everyone wants the polyphase filter bank code. I completely sympathize. While I am not a Dionysius (a Greek king), I invite you to be Damocles and feel the sword as you sit in my chair for a few sentences and then I won't bore you any more with this.
The polyphase filter bank code is "done". It has been for months. The implementation of the filter banks in question? A completely trivial matter for someone with as much digital signal processing experience as I have suffered, err uhh, enjoyed. There is a problem. The problem is significant and I am absolutely determined to solve it. Polyphase filter banks should be everywhere, ubiquitous if you will. They should be easily used, and easy to get right. This is a major problem but it really is the only one I am interested in pursuing to the end. I find that all of the major players, from my new friends and colleagues, to those I have never had the pleasure of meeting, have failed to address an overall structure.
The structure in question is how to do all of this in a completely automated way. You give me a few design parameters, ones that are obvious, I give you back a pointer to a filter bank object and from that moment on, you give me signal, and I give you output. What is difficult about this? The filter bank's signal performance is completely determined by the filters and the filter performance is determined by the size of the computer word. If you ask me to implement a filterbank with brick wall edges and 100 dB adjacent channel suppression, the filter design and the flow of signal through the filter bank needs new work done by fred harris and I (soon to be published). If you need perfect reconstruction with these parameters (the channelization is reversible to high accuracy through a synthesis operation), I return with a "you are a fool" and tell you the best you can hope for is ...... The nature of the filters inside depends on whether or not you want linear phase or not and .......
The construction of all of this filter determination code has been the object of study for brains better than mine for decades (Julius O. Smith comes to mind) but it is not all collected into one object. I am determined to crack this nut once and for all. Irrespective of how much respect I have for my filter bank colleagues, they have written enough papers on one-off designs. They have charged enough money for one-off consulting. Through the power of doing this right and then giving it away GPL and probably publishing a treatise, I am determined to make this a sea change, once and for all.
The work done by fred harris and I needs publication approval from my masters. These are the ones that feed my children, send them to school, and allow me to drive a fancy sports car and go to Broadway twice a month. The approval is coming. The filter bank FILTER DESIGN work is being done and we will all have it soon.
Thank you for your patience. Understand that I do the other things knowing they are not as important as the filter bank code. They are nevertheless necessary. They show off the differences between these sdr signal processing chains and what is possible in traditional "narrow band high performance radios" to the SIGNIFICANT advantage of the SDR's. I may be mad, but there is method to my aggravating pace.
The polyphase filter bank code is "done". It has been for months. The implementation of the filter banks in question? A completely trivial matter for someone with as much digital signal processing experience as I have suffered, err uhh, enjoyed. There is a problem. The problem is significant and I am absolutely determined to solve it. Polyphase filter banks should be everywhere, ubiquitous if you will. They should be easily used, and easy to get right. This is a major problem but it really is the only one I am interested in pursuing to the end. I find that all of the major players, from my new friends and colleagues, to those I have never had the pleasure of meeting, have failed to address an overall structure.
The structure in question is how to do all of this in a completely automated way. You give me a few design parameters, ones that are obvious, I give you back a pointer to a filter bank object and from that moment on, you give me signal, and I give you output. What is difficult about this? The filter bank's signal performance is completely determined by the filters and the filter performance is determined by the size of the computer word. If you ask me to implement a filterbank with brick wall edges and 100 dB adjacent channel suppression, the filter design and the flow of signal through the filter bank needs new work done by fred harris and I (soon to be published). If you need perfect reconstruction with these parameters (the channelization is reversible to high accuracy through a synthesis operation), I return with a "you are a fool" and tell you the best you can hope for is ...... The nature of the filters inside depends on whether or not you want linear phase or not and .......
The construction of all of this filter determination code has been the object of study for brains better than mine for decades (Julius O. Smith comes to mind) but it is not all collected into one object. I am determined to crack this nut once and for all. Irrespective of how much respect I have for my filter bank colleagues, they have written enough papers on one-off designs. They have charged enough money for one-off consulting. Through the power of doing this right and then giving it away GPL and probably publishing a treatise, I am determined to make this a sea change, once and for all.
The work done by fred harris and I needs publication approval from my masters. These are the ones that feed my children, send them to school, and allow me to drive a fancy sports car and go to Broadway twice a month. The approval is coming. The filter bank FILTER DESIGN work is being done and we will all have it soon.
Thank you for your patience. Understand that I do the other things knowing they are not as important as the filter bank code. They are nevertheless necessary. They show off the differences between these sdr signal processing chains and what is possible in traditional "narrow band high performance radios" to the SIGNIFICANT advantage of the SDR's. I may be mad, but there is method to my aggravating pace.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Image Rejection along A Road Less Traveled.
"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference" (Frost)
Some time ago we began the process of studying, learning, suffering, failing, and then succeeding that always accompanies the creative process. Many wrong paths were taken. Life always intervenes as ruts in any roads taken. I write this for all those who have suffered with us, demonstrating the utmost patience and most especially to tell our long suffering European friends (with HF broadcaster images) that relief has arrived.
We have known for some time the mathematics of fixing the image suppression due to amplitude and phase imbalance in the QSD. Alex Shavkoplyas has done a fantastic job of following down one road in Rocky. It is a beautiful thing and my favorite cattle prod, Phil Harman, asked me very pointedly "What is the matter with you on this?" I explained and it immediately began to gnaw at me how can we do this. My apologies in advance for it haven taken so long to reach a place of an acceptable algorithm. I wrote a paper that I put in DCC (replete with errors). I followed that up with an article for QEX. I am grateful it was never published. Now the good one will be.
Unlike Rocky, we cannot take more than seconds, much less minutes and hours to converge to a useful image suppression result. Once rocky learns on a particular piece of hardware with its ROCK-bound frequency, it only needs to tweak for changes in temperature, age of crystal components, etc. You the user would be quite unhappy if it were commanded by Big Brother (Flex, DttSP) that you could not tune your radio but once a day! I suspect that amateur radio operator Winston Smith would be in rebellion and Gerald "OBrien" Youngblood could not even torture you to accept it. I know my Julia (Shann N2HPE) has suffered the torture of this with me. I am eternally grateful for her partnership. The ministry of truth has convinced you to be patient. For this I thank you.
Knowing the theory and mathematical equations necessary to accomplish a task does not make it easy to accomplish this in an algorithm. Image present is the result of nonlinearities in the QSD, RFIC, or any SSB mixer (IQ mixer). So nonlinearity must be present in the correct fix up. Nonlinearity introduced on purpose in a system hailed by all for the linearity and signal handling capability of its front end seems at best contradictory, at worst, immolation! Nevertheless, it is required. The application of these nonlinear processes must be done with some care.
Our first attempts at deriving an algorithm that would work in DttSP and PowerSDR succeeded. But they were calibration dependent. Calibration at the factory means man hours and increasing costs to Flex the manufacturer. We accepted the less than acceptable status quo until a month ago because we just didn't have a useful plan to do otherwise. Doubts, internal as well as external, began to consume. The realist among us went "who cares". The idealist averred as to how this was unacceptable. Shouldn't there be a middle way?
Traveling to Austin to work on an implementation of the image suppression algorithm became the top of the list of myriad demands on my time. The top of the heap being the work that is being done by Flex for my employer and sponsor. Knowing the mathematics as described above allows one to write down an iterative procedure where sequential estimation is used to estimate the solution (based on approximations to Newton's algorithm in an application of the fixed point theorem to real life).
The TEN LINES OF CODE were written in an hour. They were working immediately. It was clear that we needed to use something like this but it was unclear how to use it in the system as a whole. It will cause some dislocation to manufacturing, require dislocation to calibration, and require dislocation to the user access to those pieces that the user, heretofore, had come to expect. Klaus Lohman, in expert testing, pointed out an issue which seems troubling but in the end, isn't. But this had to be addressed. We learned that some of the parameters of our search algorithm were wrong. These resulted in occasional numerical instability. We did not have a plan on how to roll this out at all, but we knew we must.
Last week I returned to Austin and the magic of working in a partnership filled with respect but constant questioning allowed by mutual trust, Eric and I worked out a way to use this in any system that would attempt to use it. It is not enough to have the right algorithm in DttSP. The correct application is dependent ON THE USER not the algorithm designer so it requires knowledge of how one correctly uses it in a system for it to be effective.
So eight weeks ago, I added the math to DttSP v3.0. Four weeks ago I put a version in PowerSDR. Last week Eric Wachsmann and I made it practical. The practical comes in asking simply how can this mathematical magic be made useful to the user. It turned out to be remarkably simple. When you tune the radio and you tune it far enough that you change the synthesizer frequency, the algorithm starts a retraining cycle. This must be made stable. So, it starts VERY fast so that the image is almost suppressed completely in about 50ms but then it begins a step by step decrease in gain in the algorithm and at the end of the about 500ms, it has converged. So we can just turn it off then right? Wrong. The algorithm even works on noise BUT its answer is off because loud signal is a better input than noise. So we could not turn the algorithm off completely. We learned we need to leave it turned on at a low convergence rate. Then we ran into the problem that again, you Winston Smith, are not going to allow OBrien dictate to you what to do and think. You are going to tune rapidly and foul this learning algorithm up and the stack would run dry! That too turned out to be relatively easy to fix. If you change the DDS, the convergence algorithm is stopped and restarted and that is done in a thread safe manner.
Now that this lengthy TMI (too much information) account is done, we encourage you to use it. This information is provided for one reason only. So you who have suffered the long wait with us understand something of the creative process and why that MUST be married with the practical.
branches/n4hy/iqtest/bin/Release contains the new code.
I have been experimenting with fixes to the ANF and NR algorithm and I have fixed the complex but separable versions in this branch as well. The ANF and NR is most decidedly not stable code as it will continue to receive work all week long until we have convergence to the acceptable algorithm there as well.
The necessary steps to see this in the trunk must be done in stages. We need resampling in the IQ processing chain. We need to turn the receive training algorithm off when you are transmitting so that transmit training algorithm will run with the benefit of the perfectly adjusted receiver. All of this must be seamless. We learn from experience that you are mostly uninterested in how, you just want the damn thing to work.
Following this, the entire IQ imbalance conversation concerning Flex, QSD, etc. should be long gone. This will be useful for RFIC's, QSD, etc. It will work on RX and TX if you have full duplex hardware (Flex 3000,5000, RFX boards for GnuRadio). It will work on RX on the oldest and meanest of our hardware applications (for example, it will work on SDR-1000) and an appliqué for Flex 5000 and Flex 3000 will allow it to train the transmitter image to the noise floor in YOUR OWN RECEIVER not to mention your ionospheric neighbors.
I will tell you that success is sweet. But I am entirely aware of how long it took. I reject any gratitude because at the end of the process I am really quite critical of my having taken so long to arrive at what, in the end, amounts to no more than 20 lines of code and I had to have excellent help getting there.
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference" (Frost)
Some time ago we began the process of studying, learning, suffering, failing, and then succeeding that always accompanies the creative process. Many wrong paths were taken. Life always intervenes as ruts in any roads taken. I write this for all those who have suffered with us, demonstrating the utmost patience and most especially to tell our long suffering European friends (with HF broadcaster images) that relief has arrived.
We have known for some time the mathematics of fixing the image suppression due to amplitude and phase imbalance in the QSD. Alex Shavkoplyas has done a fantastic job of following down one road in Rocky. It is a beautiful thing and my favorite cattle prod, Phil Harman, asked me very pointedly "What is the matter with you on this?" I explained and it immediately began to gnaw at me how can we do this. My apologies in advance for it haven taken so long to reach a place of an acceptable algorithm. I wrote a paper that I put in DCC (replete with errors). I followed that up with an article for QEX. I am grateful it was never published. Now the good one will be.
Unlike Rocky, we cannot take more than seconds, much less minutes and hours to converge to a useful image suppression result. Once rocky learns on a particular piece of hardware with its ROCK-bound frequency, it only needs to tweak for changes in temperature, age of crystal components, etc. You the user would be quite unhappy if it were commanded by Big Brother (Flex, DttSP) that you could not tune your radio but once a day! I suspect that amateur radio operator Winston Smith would be in rebellion and Gerald "OBrien" Youngblood could not even torture you to accept it. I know my Julia (Shann N2HPE) has suffered the torture of this with me. I am eternally grateful for her partnership. The ministry of truth has convinced you to be patient. For this I thank you.
Knowing the theory and mathematical equations necessary to accomplish a task does not make it easy to accomplish this in an algorithm. Image present is the result of nonlinearities in the QSD, RFIC, or any SSB mixer (IQ mixer). So nonlinearity must be present in the correct fix up. Nonlinearity introduced on purpose in a system hailed by all for the linearity and signal handling capability of its front end seems at best contradictory, at worst, immolation! Nevertheless, it is required. The application of these nonlinear processes must be done with some care.
Our first attempts at deriving an algorithm that would work in DttSP and PowerSDR succeeded. But they were calibration dependent. Calibration at the factory means man hours and increasing costs to Flex the manufacturer. We accepted the less than acceptable status quo until a month ago because we just didn't have a useful plan to do otherwise. Doubts, internal as well as external, began to consume. The realist among us went "who cares". The idealist averred as to how this was unacceptable. Shouldn't there be a middle way?
Traveling to Austin to work on an implementation of the image suppression algorithm became the top of the list of myriad demands on my time. The top of the heap being the work that is being done by Flex for my employer and sponsor. Knowing the mathematics as described above allows one to write down an iterative procedure where sequential estimation is used to estimate the solution (based on approximations to Newton's algorithm in an application of the fixed point theorem to real life).
The TEN LINES OF CODE were written in an hour. They were working immediately. It was clear that we needed to use something like this but it was unclear how to use it in the system as a whole. It will cause some dislocation to manufacturing, require dislocation to calibration, and require dislocation to the user access to those pieces that the user, heretofore, had come to expect. Klaus Lohman, in expert testing, pointed out an issue which seems troubling but in the end, isn't. But this had to be addressed. We learned that some of the parameters of our search algorithm were wrong. These resulted in occasional numerical instability. We did not have a plan on how to roll this out at all, but we knew we must.
Last week I returned to Austin and the magic of working in a partnership filled with respect but constant questioning allowed by mutual trust, Eric and I worked out a way to use this in any system that would attempt to use it. It is not enough to have the right algorithm in DttSP. The correct application is dependent ON THE USER not the algorithm designer so it requires knowledge of how one correctly uses it in a system for it to be effective.
So eight weeks ago, I added the math to DttSP v3.0. Four weeks ago I put a version in PowerSDR. Last week Eric Wachsmann and I made it practical. The practical comes in asking simply how can this mathematical magic be made useful to the user. It turned out to be remarkably simple. When you tune the radio and you tune it far enough that you change the synthesizer frequency, the algorithm starts a retraining cycle. This must be made stable. So, it starts VERY fast so that the image is almost suppressed completely in about 50ms but then it begins a step by step decrease in gain in the algorithm and at the end of the about 500ms, it has converged. So we can just turn it off then right? Wrong. The algorithm even works on noise BUT its answer is off because loud signal is a better input than noise. So we could not turn the algorithm off completely. We learned we need to leave it turned on at a low convergence rate. Then we ran into the problem that again, you Winston Smith, are not going to allow OBrien dictate to you what to do and think. You are going to tune rapidly and foul this learning algorithm up and the stack would run dry! That too turned out to be relatively easy to fix. If you change the DDS, the convergence algorithm is stopped and restarted and that is done in a thread safe manner.
Now that this lengthy TMI (too much information) account is done, we encourage you to use it. This information is provided for one reason only. So you who have suffered the long wait with us understand something of the creative process and why that MUST be married with the practical.
branches/n4hy/iqtest/bin/Release contains the new code.
I have been experimenting with fixes to the ANF and NR algorithm and I have fixed the complex but separable versions in this branch as well. The ANF and NR is most decidedly not stable code as it will continue to receive work all week long until we have convergence to the acceptable algorithm there as well.
The necessary steps to see this in the trunk must be done in stages. We need resampling in the IQ processing chain. We need to turn the receive training algorithm off when you are transmitting so that transmit training algorithm will run with the benefit of the perfectly adjusted receiver. All of this must be seamless. We learn from experience that you are mostly uninterested in how, you just want the damn thing to work.
Following this, the entire IQ imbalance conversation concerning Flex, QSD, etc. should be long gone. This will be useful for RFIC's, QSD, etc. It will work on RX and TX if you have full duplex hardware (Flex 3000,5000, RFX boards for GnuRadio). It will work on RX on the oldest and meanest of our hardware applications (for example, it will work on SDR-1000) and an appliqué for Flex 5000 and Flex 3000 will allow it to train the transmitter image to the noise floor in YOUR OWN RECEIVER not to mention your ionospheric neighbors.
I will tell you that success is sweet. But I am entirely aware of how long it took. I reject any gratitude because at the end of the process I am really quite critical of my having taken so long to arrive at what, in the end, amounts to no more than 20 lines of code and I had to have excellent help getting there.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Beagle Board in a case
Dear reader:
As you know from my ramblings, there is great interest in achieving high performance with low power in an easily programmable chip in order to do software radio. That is, I can order it to be an HD radio, FM stereo receiver, police band scanner, HDTV receiver, etc. just by changing the software.
While this may seem extreme, rapid progress IS being made.
Texas Instruments released the OMAP family and many of us have become interested in pursuing the bleeding edge of technologies, including the OMAP family. In particular many of us have built up systems using the Beagle Board. The Beagle Board is nice, but you still have to download a bill of materials, screw driver the thing together, and pray it will do the right thing.
Stop the presses, this is no longer required. Though one can put together a system that is less expensive than the Always Innovating offerings, one would still have to buy parts, assemble, and then cross your fingers. With the Always Innovating computers, this is no longer necessary. Go check them out.
As you know from my ramblings, there is great interest in achieving high performance with low power in an easily programmable chip in order to do software radio. That is, I can order it to be an HD radio, FM stereo receiver, police band scanner, HDTV receiver, etc. just by changing the software.
While this may seem extreme, rapid progress IS being made.
Texas Instruments released the OMAP family and many of us have become interested in pursuing the bleeding edge of technologies, including the OMAP family. In particular many of us have built up systems using the Beagle Board. The Beagle Board is nice, but you still have to download a bill of materials, screw driver the thing together, and pray it will do the right thing.
Stop the presses, this is no longer required. Though one can put together a system that is less expensive than the Always Innovating offerings, one would still have to buy parts, assemble, and then cross your fingers. With the Always Innovating computers, this is no longer necessary. Go check them out.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Imogen and Web 2.0
A long awaited album entitled Polyfilla is almost finished for Imogen Heap. Thank goodness she is active and sharing eye candy and other tunes such as
Blanket (with Urban Species)
One gets the feeling in the undercurrents in her Web 2.0 submissions on blog, twitter, myspace, facebook, twitpix, 12seconds and so much more that she thrives on the slightly more than tenuous connection and interaction with her fans. For us it is a LOT better than a quick autograph from a sweaty hand, tired from the act, only wanting to escape our clutches unscathed. She has volunteered all of this surely for her own motives. But so what? It serves some of our needs. That is the give and take. It is interactive to the extent they wish it to be.
The clear message in the sharing with her followers is that she derives not only pleasure or amusement, but some kind of connection of her psyche to those who interact and follow. Without the pain of supporting the demands and needs of a lover or demands for time from a friend or acquaintance, this large collection of other psyche's constitutes a sort of muse or maybe just a release valve; helpful in either case it seems.
She is not the only artist, writer, actor, politician or just good old public figure to find this an inspirational or emotionally helpful interaction. Stephen Fry, Neal Gaiman, and even Jane Fonda all seem to derive exactly the same thing from twitter. All of them using the laptops or smartphones can twitter, blog, and share pictures with all who follow them minute by minute, blow by blow.
This connection, as tenuous as it is, is like the torrent going over Niagara Falls in comparison to the silent unheard voices of what surely used to be their isolation inside their circle of handlers or neurotic needy friends and associates. They seemingly do it because they appear to derive something they need from it and further, they personally control the level and degree without a NO NO NO publicity agent, lawyer, company, their phobias or neuroses, etc. meddling with their heads and needs.
We have watched Stephen Fry twitter his way to great acclaim in several venues, lose weight, and become 10 years younger before our eyes. Neil Gaiman shares freely in his achievements, one after another, and his family life with his daughter, loyal assistant and even all the way down to the sufferings and redemption of his own favorite white German shepherd. Gaiman feeds our voyeuristic cravings for the tidbits of our idols and in return, gets one of the greatest of marketing tools ever. He uses it as such with a true sense of decorum by twittering, blogging and more, aided by the word of mouth of fan boys like me Have you seen what is going on with Gaiman?" Their exhibitionism and our voyeurism, sanitized with these tools, like a condom if you will giving excellent safe fan-dom, allows us to share in their blow by blow to fulfill our needs. In turn, we derive entertainment, information, inspiration, or something else entirely as needed. We shower them with praise, sympathy, adoration, disgust, whatever ... to our hearts content, so long as it is 140 characters or less! No long winded, uncontrolled, fan girl squealing in their ears and seeping gushing noxious fumes of suffocating fandom tinged with jealousy.
If it all becomes too much or they lose focus, the Imogen solution is a simple click away: "Sorting out video/ live/ budgets/ schedule/ meetings...shite! I haven't finished it yet! Need to refocus, shut it out and make music today." After feeding the battery, it is charged and can be put to use off the mains without connection to the fuel the masses have been providing until it is time for recharging again.
Watch this and see the creation process in action on Polyfilla.
This sharing and the feedback which follows in other media mentioned mitigate in favor of the premise put forward here quite clearly. Then it dawns on you, this is just one artist (as fabulous as she is). Then you remember that even septuagenarian actresses are doing the Web 2.0 dance. Sharing with us their illnesses, joys, glee at those other famous friends attending her new play . Hmm. This is getting interesting. So..... What about ..... so and so? Hit Google and find them. Search for them on twitter, facebook, myspace, or whatever. It is a revolution and a great one. But wait, I am doing it here (not that many care but it is fun)!
Web 2.0 is the potential of the internet finally beginning to reveal itself in a glorious way. It is oh so much better than television because it is interactive to a much greater degree. It is not (yet?) quite as satisfying as feeling the insides of Raskolnikov or Humbert Humbert rot before you in your mind's eye. And it certainly is not based on decades of writing, no, struggling whilst neglecting Nora and the kids, just so Bloom can live a single day in our imagination for the rest of our lives. You don't need to read well, have a great vocabulary, or even just the time to read the novel .... but it is fascinating, entertaining. It is getting there.
Blanket (with Urban Species)
One gets the feeling in the undercurrents in her Web 2.0 submissions on blog, twitter, myspace, facebook, twitpix, 12seconds and so much more that she thrives on the slightly more than tenuous connection and interaction with her fans. For us it is a LOT better than a quick autograph from a sweaty hand, tired from the act, only wanting to escape our clutches unscathed. She has volunteered all of this surely for her own motives. But so what? It serves some of our needs. That is the give and take. It is interactive to the extent they wish it to be.
The clear message in the sharing with her followers is that she derives not only pleasure or amusement, but some kind of connection of her psyche to those who interact and follow. Without the pain of supporting the demands and needs of a lover or demands for time from a friend or acquaintance, this large collection of other psyche's constitutes a sort of muse or maybe just a release valve; helpful in either case it seems.
She is not the only artist, writer, actor, politician or just good old public figure to find this an inspirational or emotionally helpful interaction. Stephen Fry, Neal Gaiman, and even Jane Fonda all seem to derive exactly the same thing from twitter. All of them using the laptops or smartphones can twitter, blog, and share pictures with all who follow them minute by minute, blow by blow.
This connection, as tenuous as it is, is like the torrent going over Niagara Falls in comparison to the silent unheard voices of what surely used to be their isolation inside their circle of handlers or neurotic needy friends and associates. They seemingly do it because they appear to derive something they need from it and further, they personally control the level and degree without a NO NO NO publicity agent, lawyer, company, their phobias or neuroses, etc. meddling with their heads and needs.
We have watched Stephen Fry twitter his way to great acclaim in several venues, lose weight, and become 10 years younger before our eyes. Neil Gaiman shares freely in his achievements, one after another, and his family life with his daughter, loyal assistant and even all the way down to the sufferings and redemption of his own favorite white German shepherd. Gaiman feeds our voyeuristic cravings for the tidbits of our idols and in return, gets one of the greatest of marketing tools ever. He uses it as such with a true sense of decorum by twittering, blogging and more, aided by the word of mouth of fan boys like me Have you seen what is going on with Gaiman?" Their exhibitionism and our voyeurism, sanitized with these tools, like a condom if you will giving excellent safe fan-dom, allows us to share in their blow by blow to fulfill our needs. In turn, we derive entertainment, information, inspiration, or something else entirely as needed. We shower them with praise, sympathy, adoration, disgust, whatever ... to our hearts content, so long as it is 140 characters or less! No long winded, uncontrolled, fan girl squealing in their ears and seeping gushing noxious fumes of suffocating fandom tinged with jealousy.
If it all becomes too much or they lose focus, the Imogen solution is a simple click away: "Sorting out video/ live/ budgets/ schedule/ meetings...shite! I haven't finished it yet! Need to refocus, shut it out and make music today." After feeding the battery, it is charged and can be put to use off the mains without connection to the fuel the masses have been providing until it is time for recharging again.
Watch this and see the creation process in action on Polyfilla.
This sharing and the feedback which follows in other media mentioned mitigate in favor of the premise put forward here quite clearly. Then it dawns on you, this is just one artist (as fabulous as she is). Then you remember that even septuagenarian actresses are doing the Web 2.0 dance. Sharing with us their illnesses, joys, glee at those other famous friends attending her new play . Hmm. This is getting interesting. So..... What about ..... so and so? Hit Google and find them. Search for them on twitter, facebook, myspace, or whatever. It is a revolution and a great one. But wait, I am doing it here (not that many care but it is fun)!
Web 2.0 is the potential of the internet finally beginning to reveal itself in a glorious way. It is oh so much better than television because it is interactive to a much greater degree. It is not (yet?) quite as satisfying as feeling the insides of Raskolnikov or Humbert Humbert rot before you in your mind's eye. And it certainly is not based on decades of writing, no, struggling whilst neglecting Nora and the kids, just so Bloom can live a single day in our imagination for the rest of our lives. You don't need to read well, have a great vocabulary, or even just the time to read the novel .... but it is fascinating, entertaining. It is getting there.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
