[Robo]

Internet darling RED Digital Cinema has spilled more beans on their RED RAY product. Some had speculated that the name, while clever, was likely a misnomer - that it was their brand of Blu-ray burner - but no. It actually uses a red laser. I.e., standard DVDs.

Cinema 4K. On a standard DVD.

The bitrate? 10 megabits - much less than that of miniDV. Even at 700:1 compression, party attendees couldn't tell a difference between the compressed video and the uncompressed video being projected right next to it.

If it was anybody else I would call snake oil but RED has actually delivered on, well, a promise so far. And EPIC and SCARLET are coming. So it might just be real.

Link

And no, I don't think this is going to "kill" Blu-ray. It is, y'know, $1,000. But if that compression were to hit, say, iTunes...we might be able to get past 720p.

Oh, and can I just say this? Why don't we have 2K televisions out...now? It's the same height as 1080p, just a little bit wider (17:9). If 4K and beyond are going to be 17:9, and I'm shelling out megabucks for a 1080p set now, I at least want it to be the same aspect ratio.

[hmurchison]

REDRAY is absolutely unbelievable. And I mean that literally ...unbelievable. I saw argument breaking out on
reduser.net based on the incredulity of 4k video being played back at 10 megabits per second being possible.

My guess is that REDRAY is going to be an optical drive with a damn fast processor attached to it. While the bitrates
needed to obtain fantastic wavelet compression will be small the processing hit will be high. To that I saw "so what" .


I'm very disappointed in the display and projector vendors. They whine about prices and margins
yet we're still not at 4k resolution for really high end panels or sensors. My guess is Jim Jannard and
crew will have to find a way to roll their own 4k monitoring solutions because everyone else is protecting
some high end product.

REDRAY is going to be a grand per playback device (no recording folks that's happening in the cameras)
and it's going to look far better than Blu-ray yet you won't be watching hit Hollywood movies on it.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by hmurchison My guess is that REDRAY is going to be an optical drive with a damn fast processor attached to it. While the bitrates needed to obtain fantastic wavelet compression will be small the processing hit will be high. To that I saw "so what" .

Oh yeah, there's definitely a beefy processor in there, which is why the drive is larger and more expensive than my entire desktop computer (!!!). Blu-ray has comparatively low requirements - mainly just the blue LED. So I'm not saying Blu-ray is going anywhere any time soon (I think I'm one of the bigger Blu-ray proponents on this board, to be honest!).

The cool thing is, Blu-ray is really one of the first "upgradeable" disc formats. So when Cinema 4K becomes more commonplace (which might be sooner than you expect - I've already received an email from Circuit City trying to psych me up for it. Yes, that Circuit City - this was some time ago), a 4K compatible Blu-ray player is just a firmware update away. As for space on the discs, they continue to add layers - four layers (100GB) is nothing compared to what they've got cooking in the labs, so I don't think space will be an issue.

That's why I wish we had more 2K TVs now. It's basically nothing over 1080p - just another 128 vertical lines* - but if 4K is going to be the future, then I at least want a future-proof aspect ratio for my money.

*Typing that seems weird, considering that was a quarter of the screen of my first Mac. 512x342, lolz.

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by Roboman That's why I wish we had more 2K TVs now. It's basically nothing over 1080p - just another 128 vertical lines* - but if 4K is going to be the future, then I at least want a future-proof aspect ratio for my money. *Typing that seems weird, considering that was a quarter of the screen of my first Mac. 512x342, lolz.

Don't get me started on the state of the so called "HD" content I'm getting at home. What a con job.

[Moogs]

Yah depends on the channel. Some HD content is basically re-encoded SD stuff AFAICT. Walk up to the TV and you can see clearly which channels are using true HD and which are peddling BS HD.

As for 2K and 4K, none of that stuff is relevant in television land until the majority of studios and broadcasters start recording with it. Look how long it's taken to get partial HD content out there. We were supposed to be all HD back in 2006 or whatever it was. The FCC and the studio political dicks make sure everything happens as slowly as possible so they can find ways to control as much of it as possible. I bet we won't see the disappearance of interlaced and low def TV for another 6-10 years in the US.

And somehow I'm sure that when Europe and the US and the world have a chance to make ONE FRICKIN SET OF STANDARDS for TVs, playback devices etc... they'll screw that up too. No more NTSC, no more PAL, no more interlaced, no more varied frame rates... none of that shit. Just a question of resolution, right? Never happen...

[Swox]

Why move so quickly to the ultimate standard when you can get people to keep buying new TVs every time you make a slightly better one? Once they think everyone's got an HD TV, they'll start convincing us that those ones suck, and what we really need is the incrementally better one. They'll likely include a bunch of stages between 1080 and 4k.

That's why CDs weren't widely used for music for decades after their invention - people were still buying so many records and record players. One they felt they'd milked us enough in that medium, they brought out CDs so we had to buy our whole catalogue all over again in a different format. Same goes for FM radio - why bring it out when AM radios are still selling like hot cakes?

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Swox Why move so quickly to the ultimate standard when you can get people to keep buying new TVs every time you make a slightly better one? Once they think everyone's got an HD TV, they'll start convincing us that those ones suck, and what we really need is the incrementally better one. They'll likely include a bunch of stages between 1080 and 4k. That's why CDs weren't widely used for music for decades after their invention - people were still buying so many records and record players. One they felt they'd milked us enough in that medium, they brought out CDs so we had to buy our whole catalogue all over again in a different format. Same goes for FM radio - why bring it out when AM radios are still selling like hot cakes?

Exactly.

If RED wants affordable 4k monitoring products like LCD panels and projectors they're going to have to ally with someone who can do it without fear of cannibalizing their higher end Pro stuff. Sony has no intention of delivering an affordable 4k projector and killing their current high end models margins.

I trust in them to find a solution it may take a few years but I already like what RED has done to break up the stagnant market.

[Moogs]

It's times like this when unchecked capitalism doesn't work because there's no one there to look out for the consumer in terms of helping them to understand the technology game that's being played by the manufacturers and studios. All this stuff goes over the head of 98% of consumers, even with the internet. If the manufacturers had an ounce of integrity they'd say "no, we're not going to mass-produce an inferior panel / disc technology for three years and then start mass-producing something much better for the same spot in people's living rooms, when we could start doing that right now." Ahh but it's all about climbing ladders and making big green. As long as the products aren't "defective", anything goes, including collusion.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Moogs there's no one there to look out for the consumer in terms of helping them to understand the technology game

That would be... the consumer. If you don't bother to research the technology, and you buy an inferior product... that's kind of your own fault, IMO. Hell, I'm still going along on a 1992 Sony 19" CRT because I haven't been happy with the offerings as of yet.

Education FTW.

The alternative is a governing body that forces companies to sell specific products at specific prices. I believe that was tried for a few decades in Soviet Russia, and it kinda didn't work. It's like open source - if you have many eyes looking at a situation, you'll get better quality than if you only have a couple. The many eyes are the consumers, the couple are a hypothetical governing board. If nothing appeals, don't buy.

Now what *would* be useful is a central clearing house for non-biased information, removed from marketing, lobbyists, and so on. Unfortunately, that will never happen from government, IMO (hell, the FDA can't keep itself clean of either political dicking over *or* collusion with big pharma...), and the closest we have is Consumer Reports. Whoo.

Yeah, I'd like to see the electronics industry move forward a whole hell of a lot faster, but I don't think an oversight body that dictates products/technologies/pricing is the way to go. Talk about a single failure point... it's just bad engineering.

I mean, imagine if a decade ago, such a hypothetical body had said "HDTV across the board! This is what you'll sell, and only this!" Where would RED be? "Sorry, it's not HDTV compliant... you can't sell it." And before you say that wouldn't happen, you know damned good and well that any standards body can be rigged to support current business models, *especially* when government is involved, where you can simply push for legislation to make it *illegal* to do otherwise. When it's the market that punishes a company, they're more likely to take risks. cf RIAA/MPAA - legislation to support business models is for cowards.

[Swox]

If I thought government could do something about things like this, you know I'd be all for it, but I think Kickaha is right. More regulation on advertising would be awesome, though I'm not thinking of anything specific. Better education in high school about advertising and being a smart consumer would be excellent, too.

Most people are way too out of it to realize what slaves they are to the man - someone just has to tell them it's the latest and greatest, that it's what cool people have, or just play a song they like during the ad, and suddenly they've just got to have it!

I'd love it if RED were able to speed up the process here and help us skip some of the pointless and wasteful incremental stages, but I'm not hopeful. You'd need a company with deep pockets to start researching and manufacturing affordable (at least to enthusiasts - people with too much money) 4k TVs. I think they'd all rather ride the sweet gravy train of incrementalism for the next 20-30 years. I'm guessing they'll be affordable around the time I'm considering retirement.

[addabox]

Back in another life I used to make 16mm films. When it came time to screen them, you could be pretty certain that most reasonably well equipped theaters had at least one reasonably well performing 16mm projector, and that your film would look more or less as you expected it to.

Now, we have multiple video formats and a motley collection of video projectors that range from gorgeous to hideous.

If you're an independent filmmaker or digital artist who sends stuff out for screenings, you have no way of knowing if the projection system is going to good, bad or unwatchable.

It would be a huge boon to all the image makers who aren't showing things at the local mulitplex if there were both reasonably affordable HD projectors and a reasonably standardized distribution format.

What's the point of shooting 1080p (much less 4k, which abruptly technology is bringing to the reach of mere mortals) if you can't depend on much more than DVD level presentation tech?

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by Roboman Oh, and can I just say this? Why don't we have 2K televisions out...now? I

Physics. Specifically the Dawes limit of optical resolution for your eyes. You would have to either sit twice as close or make the TV twice as wide/high. Either are possible I suppose but in a normal home... I doubt it any time soon. People won't like sitting five feet away so you are looking at 100" screens. Maybe some folks could shell out the bucks for screen that big but for average folk s, who the industry wants buying blue-ray, its not feasible. Unless you ARE at 50", blue-ray isn't much of a step up from DVD as it is.. And 4k? Save that for when we build the Star Trek Enterprise..

JTA

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Kickaha That would be... the consumer. Education FTW.

I don't disagree with that in most cases... the problem is you can't assume everyone is a web nerd like us who look up specs on LCD panels and the like. And you can't -in this case- rely on the people in television to "educate" us the way they might WRT to say... auto crash test scores or tainted food ingredients or whatever. They and others in their industry have a vested interest in not sharing information that "in three years your shiny new TV will be outdated". The inferences can be made from the tech press online, and places like this, but it's not a cut and dry situation. There's no definitive information about specs, dates, etc. The average Joe could do some decent research online, but if they don't know what the hell interlacing is or don't know what 4K means, etc... they have no chance, really.

I have to remind myself that there's a whole segment of the population -smart people- who if you use even the most basic tech terminology with them, they're completely lost. They don't have time to understand this stuff in many cases, and the usual source of information (the TV), certainly won't provide any when it comes to giving you straight advice about television purchasing decisions. That said, it's probably true that the size of the screens and rooms we're viewing in would have to be quite different to take real advantage of 2K or 4K screens so maybe it's a moot point.

What's not a moot point is, it would be great if the assholes in TV land made up their minds RSN to go with true 720p minimum programming and if the whole world decided on a color space and frame rate, video editors the world over will praise the maker.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA Physics. Specifically the Dawes limit of optical resolution for your eyes. You would have to either sit twice as close or make the TV twice as wide/high.

Except 2K isn't twice as sharp as 1080p. It's just slightly wider - 17:9 instead of 16:9 - for 128 extra vertical lines. It's still 1080 horizontal lines. I, er, mentioned that all in my post. The one that you quoted. Remember?

Unless you ARE at 50", blue-ray isn't much of a step up from DVD as it is..

Bullshit. I've never had an HDTV larger than 27" and I can see a noticeable improvement from EDTV.

And 4k? Save that for when we build the Star Trek Enterprise..

Your points about "higher resolutions only make sense if you're getting a larger TV" would be valid, except people are getting larger and larger TVs, which is why increasingly high resolutions are necessary to keep the same level of quality. If someone were to replace a 32" 1080p TV with a 65" one, it would have to support 4K in order for the pixels to not quadruple in size. (And let's not even start about projectors.)

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Roboman Your points about "higher resolutions only make sense if you're getting a larger TV" would be valid, except people are getting larger and larger TVs, which is why increasingly high resolutions are necessary to keep the same level of quality. If someone were to replace a 32" 1080p TV with a 65" one, it would have to support 4K in order for the pixels to not quadruple in size. (And let's not even start about projectors.)

It's about viewing distance. Viewing angle is a function of screen size, resolution and viewing distance. Generally 36˚ is optimal. For a 50" widescreen, this comes out to about 6 feet.

This is part of why Blu-ray isn't as significant an improvement as DVD. Even those with big screens aren't sitting close enough to see the difference. It doesn't matter if the pixels are smaller, the eye has a limit to its resolution power.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Ryan It's about viewing distance.

I know that. But, for the most part, people aren't getting a bigger screen, and then moving their seats far enough away from it so that it appears to be the same size as their old screen. Most people would consider that "defeating the point."

Increasingly, people are wanting that vision-filling theater experience in their homes. Hell, a few years ago, anybody having a "theater room" in their house would have been written off as incredibly wealthy and showy. But that seems to be becoming more common, even among people I know (and I'm hardly a millionaire). Even my mom considered getting a projector instead of a traditional panel in our living room (but that mainly had to do with the awkward shape of the room, and her desire to have the TV disappear when not in use).

Originally Posted by Ryan It doesn't matter if the pixels are smaller, the eye has a limit to its resolution power.

Which, lemme guess, happens to be exactly 1080p, right? (Wasn't it 720p, a few years ago, back when everybody was making the same "nobody could ever possibly tell the difference" arguments? What happened? Oh, that's right - people started getting larger TVs, and not sitting farther away from them.)

[hmurchison]

The next step is 10-bit color

If Hollywood tried to say that Blu-ray is indistinguishable from the Master they are lying. 8-bit color vs 10-bit color is easy to see.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by hmurchison If Hollywood tried to say that Blu-ray is indistinguishable from the Master they are lying.

In their defense, I'm not sure if Hollywood has ever said that.

[Frank777]

Okay, I'm confused.

Who exactly is this new format for? How will it be be used in products? When will it be available?

Is this simply an archiving medium for independent filmmakers? Or maybe a cheaper distribution alternative?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Roboman Which, lemme guess, happens to be exactly 1080p, right? (Wasn't it 720p, a few years ago, back when everybody was making the same "nobody could ever possibly tell the difference" arguments? What happened? Oh, that's right - people started getting larger TVs, and not sitting farther away from them.)

I'm not saying that resolution is anything. It depends on how big your screen is and where you sit. For a lot of people, 720p will be indistinguishable from 1080p because they sit too far away. For others, it will matter. The number of people who see improvement from increased resolution shrinks as resolution gets better since generally people don't like sitting less than a certain distance from their television.

I'm not saying 1080p and higher resolutions are pointless for consumers, I'm saying the many simply don't need to bother spending the money to upgrade.

[Moogs]

Viewing Distance Table



I've found the distances noted here to be pretty accurate. Maybe someone should make an updated version for theoretical 2K and 4K Screens.

And yes 10 bit color would be huge. Just like you can get much more vivid colors from a 10 bit LCD computer screen (when editing pictures) and more from 12 than 10. Most TVs are 8 bit at best and further limited by NTSC.

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by Roboman Except 2K isn't twice as sharp as 1080p. It's just slightly wider - 17:9 instead of 16:9 - for 128 extra vertical lines. It's still 1080 horizontal lines. I, er, mentioned that all in my post. The one that you quoted. Remember?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

2K = 2048×1536
4K = 4096×3112

More Res..

Bullshit. I've never had an HDTV larger than 27" and I can see a noticeable improvement from EDTV.

Ofcourse you are! Look at Moogs chart! If you are sitting 3 - 4 feet from your 27 incher you will see the difference. For a small room or like maybe a desk somewhere thats a good viewing distance. But for home living room viewing distances of say 8 - 12 feet you really need to get into the 50+ size of TV to see the difference.

Your points about "higher resolutions only make sense if you're getting a larger TV" would be valid, except people are getting larger and larger TVs, which is why increasingly high resolutions are necessary to keep the same level of quality. If someone were to replace a 32" 1080p TV with a 65" one, it would have to support 4K in order for the pixels to not quadruple in size. (And let's not even start about projectors.)

Its NOT the number of pixels that matter to the eye. Its the angular dimensions of a single pixel that does. You have to do the math is both vertical and horizontal. If you double the number of pixels in one dimension you have to double that dimension (vert or horz size) to keep the pixel size the same. So you are right in a sense that doubling the 32" to 65" allows for more pixels but ONLY for 2 times as many. BUT because the allowable 1080p viewing distance is about 4-5 feet, you would have to sit that close to the 65" beast to keep that same angular pixel size.

The point here is that for normal living room where people sit say... 10 feet away.. The optimum size for 1080p is about 70" AS IT IS (look at that chart). You start going to 2K and 4K, you start getting into REALLY large screens like 140" or 210". Not really doable. The OTHER option is to keep the screen at 65" and then sit 5 feet or 3 feet where, as you have seen with your 27", THAT becomes the optimum range. Thats kind of strange as well.

Most of this HDTV stuff is just marketing hype anyway. Its a small improvement sure... But the VAST majority of people with a 42" or 50" set probably can't tell the difference between a blu-ray and an up-scaled DVD. The difference is there, you can probably make it out, but you can't backup your media either (I know its off topic..) For most people, its not worth the extra cash to watch a comedy or crime film. I think for sci-fi and maybe nature shows its pretty cool but those are niches. HDTV is eventually going to take over but 2k and 4k? Forget about it in the home...

Spend your money on a nice pair or triplet of BIG computer monitors and sit right next to them like Al Gore does. THAT makes sense.

JTA

[Robo]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution 2K = 2048×1536 4K = 4096×3112

Except thats...4:3. Since the "2K" simply refers to the picture's width, of course a 4:3 2K picture is going to have more pixels than a widescreen 2K picture - it's significantly taller.

In a TV resolution context, 2K is widescreen. "Cinema 2K" is actually slightly wider than existing widescreens, at about 17:9. So it's...1080x2048. Or just like 1080p in a slightly wider aspect ratio, with 128 extra columns. Like I, um, said.

You'll forgive me for ignoring your assertions that I "do the math" when you seem to be ignoring everything I post. I find your insistence that I sat only three feet away from my 27" TV laughable, though.

Edit: From the link you posted:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia For example, 2K reference resolution is 2048×1536 pixels, whereas 4K reference resolution is 4096×3072 pixels. Nevertheless, 2K may also refer to resolutions like 2048×1556, 2048×1080 or 2048×858 pixels, whereas 4K may also refer to 4096×3112, 3996×2160 or 4096×2048 resolution.

Emphasis added. That's the only mention of "2K" I found on that page. That is, other than this handy graph:



I'm not trying to be an asshole about display resolutions but really, it was on the page you linked to...

[curiousuburb]

Non-square pixels, eh?

WUXGA sounds cool... though phoneticizing most of the ones on your chart does sound a bit Klingon.

MBP 17 WUXGA (16:10) isn't that far from 2K as you say... requires some pillarboxing to view '2K widescreen' on MBP17, but it's a reasonable proxy.

4k represents diminishing returns compared to earlier bumps from VGA to HD.

I've mentioned before the Jurassic Park CGI audience testing.

4k renders were reportedly indistinguishable from 2k renders by cinema test crowds. Equal result for 1/4 the render time and cost.
I'm guessing the cinemas were 35 or 70mm with typical viewing distances, but haven't seen specific breakdowns of where the detection thresholds are due to equipment - vs - Dawes/Nyquist/etc limit

IMAX isn't just higher res... it's faster frame rate. But at the end of the day the sweet spot in resolution isn't always a pure specwhore number that's bigger for the sake of it.

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by Roboman I'm not trying to be an asshole about display resolutions but really, it was on the page you linked to...

I'm just saying that there exists some sort of diminishing return for resolutions on TVs. I'm not saying the pictures are not better. I'm just saying for the average consumer, going much over what we already have isn't probably worth it. I suppose if the marketing people got to work on it, they can convince people that certain types of technologies are "the best" regardless of viewing distance, room light levels, etc... There will always be a videophile consumer level I suppose. I suppose that might be you. But if you can resolve pixels of a 27" 1080 screen at 12 feet, you would have to have pretty large pupils.

As far as how close I thought you were sitting. Again it gets down to physics. Here is a link with a bad, but factual, description of the Dawes limit of optical resolution:

http://www.cityastronomy.com/rez-mag-contrast.htm

Okay, for a 27" set, the vertical length would be ~ 16.2" or 411.5mm. That gives us a pixel height of 411.5/1080 in mm. If you sit 12 feet back from your set, that comes out to 3658 mm away. So the angular size of a pixel (which should be pretty close to the angular separation of the pixels) is tan-1(411.5 / 1080 / 3658) or .0202 deg -> 7.27 seconds of arc. Given the Dawes equation in the linked site, the diameter of your pupil would have to be 16 mm. No human has eyes that big. In darkness they probably can expand to 7 mm and even then only for the young. As we get older the pupil's maximum aperture shrinks somewhat. Thus you have to sit even closer...

There is your opinion and my opinion but none of us can argue with physics. Sony and Pioneer might try to convince people otherwise though...

JTA

[Robo]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA But if you can resolve pixels of a 27" 1080 screen at 12 feet, you would have to have pretty large pupils.

Um, wow. For starters, when did I say...

A) It was a 1080p set?
B) I was sitting twelve feet away?
C) I could resolve each individual pixel?

You're swinging from one extreme to the other, in your "examples." Three feet. Twelve feet. Whatever.

All I said was that your claims that Blu-ray wasn't noticeably better than DVD (and that if it was, I must be sitting 3-5' away from my TV) were laughable. That was all I was saying. (Besides, even if I couldn't resolve each individual pixel, being "noticeably better" than EDTV doesn't mean that I had to resolve all 720/1080 lines on the screen, just noticeably more than 480 of them.)

You're saying there comes a point of diminishing returns on resolution. Shocker: I agree with you. That's why I'm not talking about wanting a 4K set, because I, personally, would likely not buy a large enough set for that resolution to matter. I merely wanted a 2K set, so that I could have a wider and more future-proof aspect ratio. That's it. That's all I said.

It's just a bit annoying to me when you build up a strawman that nobody is arguing against, knock it down with "the laws of physics" so nobody can argue against it, and then use that as undeniable proof of your other, more baseless assertions. When did anybody claim that people could resolve every line in a 27" 1080p display at 12 feet? But the fact that people can't somehow proves your earlier assertion that there's no major difference between DVD and Blu-ray? WTF?

You keep going off and disproving things that nobody was even arguing about, and you seem to ignore every point I make, so this entire exchange is pointless. I really don't see any reason to continue it. If anyone else wants to explain to me why wanting a 2K (that's 2048x1080, folks) TV is ridiculous, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I'll be operating under the assumption that the reason why 17:9 TVs haven't taken off is because people are already gearing up for something even wider.

[zippy]

I just wish they would have made 'widescreen' TVs, truly widescreen (Cinematic). I realize that TV doesn't film in this format, but we should make them start.

[709]

Originally Posted by Roboman ... something even wider.

That's pretty slick. I'd love to have a set that displayed movies "full-screen."

Oooh. I just thought of something...it'd be neat if you could watch 2 SD channels side-by-side too (like picture-in-picture, except the second picture is the same size as the first ). I could watch Judge Alex and Judge Mathis at the same time!!!

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by 709 That's pretty slick. I'd love to have a set that displayed movies "full-screen." Oooh. I just thought of something...it'd be neat if you could watch 2 SD channels side-by-side too (like picture-in-picture, except the second picture is the same size as the first ).

Holy crap, that's an awesome idea.

*scribble*

You'd have a total of 135 pixels of black stripe on the top and bottom for two 4:3 images butted right up against each other side by side.

21:9 = 2520x1080 = 2x(1260x1080)

1260xA @ 4:3 = 1260x945

1080-945 = 135 left over

For sports fans, this would be great... one HD signal, or two full SD signals?

Now... what about audio?

[709]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Now... what about audio?

Funny you mentioned that, because as I was daydreaming I was thinking about the best way to control audio as well. I settled upon a Wii-remote-like " + " button, where up/down is general volume, and left/right raises the volume one one side while lowering it on the other. I want it!