[HN Gopher] Shazam Turns 20 ___________________________________________________________________ Shazam Turns 20 Author : feross Score : 276 points Date : 2022-08-19 13:17 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.apple.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com) | atlas_shrugged wrote: | Ive always wondered why there is only 1 shazam. I was under the | impression the algorithm/patent was just licensed from another | company. Why havent people cloned this app? Also why arent the | shazam geo charts more detailed ie by city/neighborhood or | location. Would love to see what songs djs are playing at a | location even if im not there. Right now the geo charts are very | high level (only major cities) | zekica wrote: | https://musicbrainz.org/ existed at least from 2003, and it | does a similar, although a less impressive job. | | There are other apps such as SoundHound, and even some virtual | assistants have the same feature. | piperswe wrote: | The actual audio fingerprinting/music identification project | associated with MusicBrainz is AcoustID | (https://acoustid.org/). It's a separate project that happens | to be well integrated with MusicBrainz. | cannam wrote: | The Shazam algorithm was genuinely novel and invented by one of | their founders. They patented it to great effect. | FabHK wrote: | I used to use _Soundhound_ (used to be Midomi), until Shazam | was integrated into iOS. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundHound | dominotw wrote: | i feel old. | scarface74 wrote: | What really surprises me is that years after the Apple | acquisition that there is still the option to "open in Spotify" | on the app. | jklinger410 wrote: | It's crazy they even mentioned Shazam in a PR because it will be | folded into Siri at some point and disappear. | hackmiester wrote: | It is already folded into Siri. That's what happens if you ask | "What song is this?" It just shows you the answer with the | Shazam branding. | | edit to add: I only know this so well because, when I switched | to iPhone in 2016, I was REALLY confused about how you Shazam | something. I couldn't find it in the App Store. I tried to use | the Google app, since that's how I did the equivalent thing on | Android, but it didn't support it. Finally I figured out that | it's just built into Siri. | jklinger410 wrote: | Oh I know it's included, by folded in I mean it's going to be | completely removed as an additional app and the branding will | disappear. It's just going to be a feature of Siri and | nothing more at some point. | scarface74 wrote: | Apple acquired Siri from another company and kept the name. | I doubt that they will kill the 20 year old Shazam brand. | In fact on the control center, the Shazam icon is very | prominent and it's available as a complication on the | watch. | scarface74 wrote: | IIRC, Shazam was on the App Store since it's inception in | 2008. | cannam wrote: | It's obviously a cracking algorithm, but what made Shazam doubly | remarkable was how efficiently they turned it into a working | product. | | It wasn't _just_ a case of developing an algorithm that could in | theory be used to match an audio signal against all the world 's | pop songs. They presumably also had to get hold of a substantial | number of those songs, fingerprint them, and roll out the search | robustly against generally very poor audio hardware using simple | telephony services at (for the time) quite considerable scale. | They did it very quickly, it worked super well from launch, and | it's been running continuously ever since. | | I've read the paper about the method, but I would love to know | more about the original development and deployment. | mkarliner wrote: | Well, I was CTO at the time, AMA... | [deleted] | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | How'd y'all monetise back then? | schoen wrote: | How did you get the underlying corpus of audio for all | commercially recorded music? | CobrastanJorji wrote: | I have the same question. Did you make deals with the major | record labels? Did they ship you DVDs (or God forbid CDs) | full of songs or something? | jaredsohn wrote: | Or just collect mp3s? I'm guessing that at least happened | while prototyping. And it seems like the most efficient | way to make the service work in that era so it wouldn't | surprise me if that data got used in production initially | while handling licensing concerns separately. | harmmonica wrote: | Tangent, and this may be one of those cases where I learned about | this _on_ HN and am now passing it back to HN so pardon if I 'm | just late to the party, but if you're a regular Shazam user on | iPhone you don't need to open the app anymore. You can just add a | widget to control center. https://support.apple.com/en- | us/HT210331 | joezydeco wrote: | Saying "Hey Siri what song is this?" is even quicker. | muziq wrote: | Yeah, I've spent five minutes scrolling a thread before | someone says the obvious... Cepstrum for the win ;) | nicofcurti wrote: | I agree with the other folks here, Shazam is one of those things | that still works just fine and I have no fucking clue on how they | do it. What do they compare the audio recorded with? | duped wrote: | They "fingerprint" the audio and then compare the fingerprint | to a large corpus. The hard part is fingerprinting that is | resilient to noise (and position within a track!) and a fast | way to search the corpus of known fingerprints. | spaceheater wrote: | Shouldn't their patent expire soon? I remember them actively | issuing cease and desist letters to anyone who made code | tutorials about how their algo works. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9594480 | ksala_ wrote: | Shazam always blows my mind. It doesn't work 100% of the times, | but when it does it feels like magic. On top of that they | introduced (I don't know exactly when) the feature to see lyrics | for the song which are automatically synched with the music. This | is also mind-blowing. | | Only Google has managed to top Shazam in blowing my mind, and | only ~recently, by making this whole process happen completely | offline and continuously in the background on a phone. It's not | as broad but still incredible. Google's paper: | https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10958 | umaar wrote: | I used to work at Shazam as a front-end web developer and they | really supported me. Going to conferences, hackdays (20% time), | being exposed to real production-grade systems, it was great. | Very grateful to have worked there. | | Wrote about it too: https://umaar.com/blog/lessons-learned-from- | working-at-shaza... | IshKebab wrote: | How on earth have they survived so long when their core feature | was cloned by Google and Apple years ago? | doodlesdev wrote: | Apple acquired Shazam in 2018 [1] there is no Apple | alternative because Shazam IS what Apple uses. | | [1]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/09/apple-acquires- | shazam... | spinningarrow wrote: | Not Shazam but I remember a website back in the day called 'The | Song Tapper' where you could press your space bar to the rhythm | of a song in your head and it would suggest which song(s) it | might be. Teenage me thought that was very cool. | | The site seems no more but I found a Lifehacker post about it: | https://lifehacker.com/find-the-name-of-a-song-by-tapping-14... | halfmatthalfcat wrote: | I wish they would expand the ACR into movies and TV. Would be | awesome to Shazam a show/movie and get details, like X-Ray does. | kippinitreal wrote: | I too have always been blown away by Shazam and pondered how it | could possible index so much content for fast lookups. A few | years ago this article was super helpful in helping me understand | and learn a lot. Fun read which required a lot of side googling | for me http://coding-geek.com/how-shazam-works/ | msoad wrote: | Shazam loads so freaking fast and ready to listen on my iPhone I | really want to read an article on how they did it. It loads as | fast as an empty hello world app but the button is ready to press | and listen! | dylan604 wrote: | Sadly, that is not my experience with the app. I would equate | the time my Shazam loads and is ready to listen as roughly the | same amount of forever that it takes to launch the native | camera app and being able to take a picture. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | You can add it to Control Centre and it's seemingly instant, | just starts listening as soon as you press the button. | jimjambw wrote: | I'm a massive fan of Shazam in Control Centre. It let me | have space for another app on the home screen, and they | also sync with the iOS app now too. | dylan604 wrote: | interesting. i've never messed with these options. | Jackpillar wrote: | yarabarla wrote: | Only problem with that is that it doesn't save the results | in your list of Shazam'd songs. | beermonster wrote: | Try long pressing to see history. | jonny_eh wrote: | There's also a button in the iPhone control center. No need to | even unlock your phone, just swipe down from the top-right! | duped wrote: | The paper giving an overview of how shazam works (1) is one of my | favorites | | (1) https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf | xtracto wrote: | Reminds me a lot of MusicBrainz Tagger, I remember being | fascinated by it in 2001 ( | https://web.archive.org/web/20010107213100/http://musicbrain... | ) because it was able to "identify" the song in the mp3/wma/ogg | file and download the correct tags. | rmnclmnt wrote: | I remember studying this paper as a student, was completely | amazing, a bit mysterious and not so difficult to understand at | the same time. | | And most of all: no ML involved! All hail the heuristics! | bluetidepro wrote: | Shazam is one of the very few apps in the past 20 years that | STILL "wows" me. I have no idea how the tech works, and I even | sort of like not knowing, to be honest. It's one of the very few | apps out there that still in exist in a "magical" way to me. I am | constantly impressed with how fast/easy it works, even with very | obscure music. What an amazing app. | | Fun quick related story, about 10 or more years ago there was a | back tracking song on a TV show (Scrubs) that I really liked that | was only in the Netflix version. It was just an instrumental song | with some French sounding words speaking in it so there was no | easy way to search for it. However, it was distinct enough that | it didn't seem like something made just for the show. It was also | pretty quiet and under some talking in the tv show scene. I had | posted on reddit asking if anyone knew it, and never got any | responses. I searched all over the web, but no source had the | track details. It drove me crazy every time I would hear the song | in re-watching the show, and I still could not track it down | every few years when I tried again. Back then, Shazam had no | cataloging of it so it wasn't in there either yet. However, when | re-watching it a few years back again, I tried Shazam again and | to my surprise it finally worked. I was blown away that Shazam | was finally able to solve this 10+ year mystery. It was one of | the coolest feelings every to scratch that itch finding this rare | French song and hearing it in full. It was truly magical. | | EDIT: Oh sorry, I didn't think anyone would actually care about | the song itself lol It was called "Sans Hesitation" by the | French-Canadian band "Chapeaumelon". | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju4d3YQhByU - It's also | interesting cause now the song does in the episode in tv music | database sites. Very cool. | BrandoElFollito wrote: | And now Chapeaumelon is wondering why the sudden surge of the | youtube views. Comments are disabled so we cannot even help | them to understand :) | dec0dedab0de wrote: | which episode? and is it still in there? DVD, streaming, and | syndication have some different songs because of rights issues. | bluetidepro wrote: | https://scrubs.fandom.com/wiki/My_Ocardial_Infarction - In | the Netflix version. It does now show the song in there, | which is cool. But for like 10 years, it was unknown. | nemo1618 wrote: | You can't just post a story like that and not link the song! | | Personally, my main usage of Shazam is for identifying | vaporwave samples. Often all you have to do is throw the song | in Audacity, tweak the speed a bit, and Shazam it. | bluetidepro wrote: | haha Sorry, I updated the post. Didn't think anyone would | care about that part lol | actionfromafar wrote: | There are entire albums on Spotify which are full songs of | 80s pop classics, played at a slower speed, then uploaded as | a new album from another artist. | neon_electro wrote: | Highly recommend WhoSampled to help you track down samples | where possible: | | 1. https://www.whosampled.com/Washed-Out/Feel-It-All-Around/ | 2. https://www.whosampled.com/Macintosh- | Plus/%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B5... 3. | https://www.whosampled.com/song-tag/Vaporwave/ | muizelaar wrote: | This paper from the Shazam founder describes an approach for | doing it: | https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf | kleiba wrote: | _from the Shazam founder_ | | ...who by the way holds a PhD from Stanford... | caseyf7 wrote: | Shazam is probably the only Apple watch app I ever use. Very | convenient to have this on the watch. | terramex wrote: | Shazam is great but a similar app that really "wowed" me around | 2007 was Midomi - it could recognise humming with good results, | even though I'm really bad at hitting right notes and key. It | still exist but is not really talked about anymore, Shazam | seems to have dominated that market. | turkeygizzard wrote: | Don't want to spoil it for you if you really don't want to know | but I want to share to others in case they do because I found | it so interesting when I first learned! | | It looks like others shared the paper: | https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf | | It's short but very cool. I read it a while ago and honestly | can't pretend I fully grokked everything, but my understanding | was that you can't just use a Fourier transformation alone. | Noise would basically make this impossible. | | So what I'd consider the key insight is that they compressed | songs down to "fingerprints". IIRC they noticed that songs, | even in noisy environments, preserved certain bits of | information. Particularly, they could look at the spectrogram | and see peaks of amplitude in the tapestry. They essentially | set some radius and scanned the spectrogram. In a given radius, | only the largest amplitude value in time and frequency would be | preserved. So you've reduce a 3MB song to several bits. | | This would be good enough for small databases (I think). But | it's intractable for anything practical. So they built hashes | out of these fingerprints using pairs of the preserved peak | bits. They would choose a certain peak (called the anchor | point), record its time offset from the start of the song, and | then form pairs with other nearby peaks, saving the pairs of | frequencies (but discarding e.g their amplitudes). So for each | of these anchor points, you would get a 64 bit value: 32 bits | for the time offset and track ID and 32 bits of frequency- | pairs. | | When you wanted to look up a song, they would fingerprint your | snippet into multiple 32bit hashes and compare them against the | frequency-pair hashes in the database. If a song was a good | match, then you would see that your snippet matched against | multiple hashes from that song, and specifically they matched | linearly over time (I'm struggling to explain this bit but it's | visually obvious if you look at Figure 3 in the paper). | | I probably got some of this wrong, but I hope it's a helpful | summary of the paper. I remember struggling to understand parts | of it, so please let me know if anything I said is egregiously | wrong! | cooperadymas wrote: | Well? | robbyking wrote: | The first time I heard of Shazam was on a road trip with a | friend of mine who had minimal tech skills at best. I was | already 10 years into my career as an engineer, and when he | told me about it, I honestly didn't believe him; I was positive | he was mistaken, and speculated it was a service similar to | Aardvark[1], which was a peer-to-peer information engine. | | I was wrong, of course, Shazam really did live up to its hype. | I think it's interesting that the someone knows about how a | technology works the more sceptical they are of what it is | capable of. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardvark_(search_engine) | [deleted] | adnanaga wrote: | What was the song ?? | sexy_panda wrote: | You will get the result once $commenter is online again | bluetidepro wrote: | Updated the post, sorry! haha | WalterBright wrote: | > I have no idea how the tech works | | It does a Fourier analysis of sections of the song, and puts | the results in a database. A Fourier analysis yields what | frequencies make up a waveform along with their amplitudes, so | it is very compact. | duped wrote: | Taking the DTFT of a signal yields exactly the same amount of | information, so it's not really more compact. Shazam used a | spectrogram (which is more information than the original | signal) and searched for peaks to create a finger print. | | It's not the analysis that is compact, but the fingerprint | derived from it. | WalterBright wrote: | I know it contains the same information, but it makes it | easy to discard the low amplitude frequencies, and the | frequencies that are not heard by the ears, or are not | particularly important to our ears. | quantumduck wrote: | Shazam used to wow me, but then as others mentioned in the | replies it's essentially matching the signature of the sound to | the sounds in the database. If it's one of the song, it gets | matched fairly quickly. | | Wow blew my mind was when Google introduced 'hum and we'll | recognize the song for you' in Google assistant: | https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.google/products/search/hum... | | It works so well even with my shitty humming - even my | girlfriend can't recognize what the song is but Google can. It | doesn't even have the same signature as the original audio | file, just similar hums in a noisy environment and it still | works. Black magic fuckery. | thehappypm wrote: | What is a signature? How is a signature computed from a noisy | audio stream, over a mall speaker? How is a signature | computed from an arbitrary starting point? | turbohz wrote: | The closest to the ideal signature? | pfarrell wrote: | IIRC, it's uses a Fast Fourier Transform of the time delay | between high notes in the song to generate a series of | "hashes" that are stored a db. Those ids can be calculated | locally on the phone and then its a simple db lookup to | retrieve potential hits. When Shazam adds a song to the db, | they compute a series of "hashes" so you can identify at | any point in the tune. | daed wrote: | https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf | jakereps wrote: | > Wow blew my mind was when Google introduced 'hum and we'll | recognize the song for you' in Google assistant | | Their announcement actually made me roll my eyes a bit, as | Soundhound had that functionality nearly a decade before. I | had both SH and Shazam installed on my old phone for these | usecases - now Shazam is baked into Siri so I don't even have | the app itself installed. | ml_basics wrote: | How well does Shazam work for you when you hum or sing a | song? | macrolime wrote: | Doesn't work at all | jakereps wrote: | I haven't tried humming with Shazam recently, but I don't | think it worked well back when I did have the actual app. | It works very well for music though. I used it around | five times, just this Wednesday night at a concert, and | it got every track for me. | | Soundhound is what had humming "support" explicitly in | its product description, and it worked pretty well from | what I remember. It's been long enough though that I may | only be remembering the times it worked. | arthurcolle wrote: | What do you have to ask Siri to get this to work? | ValG wrote: | "Hey Siri, what song is this" works | nmarinov wrote: | I usually say "Hey Siri, what song am I listening to?" | but it works with a bunch of variations e.g.: "what song | is this?" | | There's also a bunch of other options to trigger Shazam, | main way I use it is from the Control Center: | https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210331 | bobthepanda wrote: | If you have an Apple Watch, you can also set it as a home | screen button, which is a lot more discreet in public. | _Microft wrote: | If you prefer to access it via your iPhone's control | center, you can configure it that way in the control | center settings. It is called "Music Recognition" there. | baxtr wrote: | I need to download the Google app (and I presume sign in) to | use that feature? Count me out | MiddleEndian wrote: | I enjoy salsa dancing, but I don't know any Spanish, so I use | that built-in Google functionality to hum various songs all | the time to figure out what they're called. | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: | Dude, spoiler alert. Did you miss the part where OP said they | liked not knowing how it works?? | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | I don't know about Shazam's current algorithm specifically, but | years ago I worked at a place with a mathematician that worked | on gracenote's algorithms, and asked him for the basics on how | it works. | | Basically, it records audio chopping it up into small segments | and throwing them through a FFT. Then it takes that, and | thinking of the data like a greyscale spectrograph image, runs | it through a quantization filter that helps reject some noise, | then converts that to locality sensitive hashes that are sent | to the server. So basically FFT, filter, hash, lookup. | Waterluvian wrote: | It's all just Fourier analysis I'm guessing? | | Which I always find to be simultaneously simple and obvious as | well as total magic. | goldcd wrote: | I think all (so simple) you have to do is parse all the tracks | ever made, and say generate a sequence of snapshots of what the | tune sounds like and the delta. e.g. if it was notes (for | simplicity) E,D,C,D,E,E,E,D,D,D,E,E,E is the start of "Mary had | a little Lamb" Millions of tracks contain the note E. Many | hundreds of thousands probably have the note D next - and as | you work through the sequence, you're pruning down that list | until you who what it is. Bit that makes my mind hurt though, | is the data-structure you put those sequences into to make it | quickly searchable. Users can start recording at any point in | the song - so you can't just prune a tree down from a known | starting point. There's going be be background nose - so you | need some way of "when you have no choice left", I presume | sticking wild-cards into the previous decisions, to see if you | end up back on a known track. | | Yeah - I think it's magic as well. | | Other thoughts: I used it back in the UK when it launched, and | the first track I ever used it on dialling (2580 - the numbers | down the middle of your keypad) was also a French track (MC | Solaar - La Vie Est Belle) | | I always felt they missed a trick, just identifying music (and | then trying to sell you stuff). Surely they could have used the | same tech to seamlessly mix all music together. (i.e. take the | sequences within tracks they find hard to differentiate, and | then use these points to allow two tracks to be mixed | together). What's the minimum number of tracks it would say | take to seamlessly mix from Megadeth to Mozart? | zelos wrote: | They used to have a paper on their website describing their | algorithm in simplified form but I can't find it any more. | Wikipedia has some details: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_fingerprint | | I believe it's very sensitive to changes in timing, so it | doesn't work on live performances etc. | | (based on reading I did 13 years ago before an interview at | Shazam, which to this day still remains my worst interview | performance) | muizelaar wrote: | This paper perhaps? | https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf | neon_electro wrote: | The "doesn't work with live performances" bit is borne out | by my consistent experience failing to identify _some_ | songs at live performances, but with the "DJ Set" form of | live performance, tempo shifting music without pitch | shifting it still appears to get the goods more often than | not. | m-p-3 wrote: | I'll also plug AcoustID from MusicBrainz | | https://musicbrainz.org/doc/AcoustID | senko wrote: | We use AcoustID in MusicBox[0] to identify and | deduplicate content, and it works great for us. | | What we do is calculate the acoustic fingerprint of every | uploaded content and compare/check for duplicates (only | authorized staff can upload, but this still helps a bunch | with user errors and in cases where you need to reupload | a track). Then we compare the fingerprints, using this[1] | approach, so we can fine-tune the similarity based on our | needs. | | In our case it's been very effective. Yes, live versions | are treated as different ones (which is exactly what we | need in our case, so it's a feature for us), but | mechanical differences between tracks (volume, slight | distortions from codec, different compression levels or | remasters, or track being cut differently) are just | ignored. | | If you ever want/need audio fingerprinting, I can warmly | recommend it. | | [0] Music streaming service optimized for cafes, | restaurants and other venues - https://musicbox.com.hr/ | [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/acoustid/Uq_ASj | aq3bw/k... | jefftk wrote: | _> live versions are treated as different ones_ | | I think you're talking about a live recording vs a studio | recording? But what I think zelos was talking about was | "someone is currently playing music live, what is it?", | which is a lot harder because you need to recognize the | essence of a song and not the essence of a recording of a | song. | senko wrote: | Yeah, agreed, that's way harder and not something | AcoustID can do. | bambataa wrote: | Shazam as a product feels a bit odd. Almost as if they've | never quite outgrown their slightly sketchy "advertised on | MTV2 alongside the Crazy Frog" origins. | | They must have loads of data on songs people actually want to | know yet never really managed to turn themselves into | anything more sophisticated. | nibbleshifter wrote: | > Surely they could have used the same tech to seamlessly mix | all music together. (i.e. take the sequences within tracks | they find hard to differentiate, and then use these points to | allow two tracks to be mixed together). What's the minimum | number of tracks it would say take to seamlessly mix from | Megadeth to Mozart? | | I noodled around with this idea in my free time a few years | ago, got absolutely nowhere really usable with it (I probably | put in a couple hundred hours). | | I knew I was limited by my dataset (small), code quality | (terrible) and understanding of musical theory (virtually | nil). | | Maybe I'll pick up that idea again - even doing beat matching | would be kind of neat. | saghm wrote: | My instinct is that it probably isn't as simple as you | describe because not only are there multiple notes at a time | in a given track (i.e. chords), but there are also several | tracks playing at once! It's possible that they're literally | generating data like {guitar 1: C chord, guitar 2: single | note E, bass: single note E} for every point in time, but | even then each instrument isn't playing the exact same rhythm | most of the time, so the notes won't exactly line up. I guess | I don't think it's completely computationally infeasible to | do it this way, but it seems more likely that they're just | trying to separate the music from the background noise and | then try to find the closest match to the music audio as a | whole rather than trying to separate it into component. | xhevahir wrote: | >if it was notes (for simplicity) E,D,C,D,E,E,E,D,D,D,E,E,E | is the start of "Mary had a little Lamb" | | As far as I can tell these operate on audio, not symbolic | music. | plussed_reader wrote: | FFT data tends to get quantized, normalized, and counted | for analysis purposes. | babypuncher wrote: | What really wows me is that Shazam started in 2002. It was a | phone number you would call on your cell phone and let it | listen to your environment. | | Way back then, it was doing everything you describe, but over | low quality band limited telephone lines. | HeckFeck wrote: | I remember Sony Ericsson handhelds all came with TrackID back | in the day (2007/2008) and I used it to name music I heard in | public. It was the same idea. I think it charged PS1-2 per | track! | ipaddr wrote: | Back then phone quality was much better. Cellphones killed | that. | martyvis wrote: | What? HD Voice using VoLTE or WiFi Calling is miles better | than any land line phone | swores wrote: | As an almost teenager at the time, that (Shazam over the | phone with an answer texted back - which I used on a Nokia | 3310) was the one thing that convinced me we would soon have | pocket devices that really could do anything. | | And while it took a few iterations (for me, from palm pilot | to blackberry as a teenager, then eventually moving to iPhone | after a few too many painful Blackberry upgrades - still | missing that unified inbox though, as is everyone else I know | who had a BB of that era... and frankly missing a great | physical keyboard on a phone, too) I still am impressed on a | daily basis that I do indeed have the device in my pocket | that 12 year old me dreamed of. | vlunkr wrote: | I didn't know it ever worked that way, that's incredible. | Reminds me of ChaCha, the texting service where you texted | questions and a human would quickly look up the answer and | text it back. It's a very cool idea that was quickly | outmoded by smart phones and is kind of lost to history | now. | oDot wrote: | Don't skip the credits next time :) | bluetidepro wrote: | haha wasn't in there! Def lookied :) | LargeWu wrote: | It's only been 20 years since Sinbad starred in this movie? I | would have guessed closer to 30. | chirau wrote: | This paper of how their algorithm works by one of their lead | developers at the time suggests that the company actually started | in 2000. | | https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf | rwmj wrote: | I turned them down after an interview in around 2000/2001 (they | started out in London). The reason was that the idea seemed | completely useless to me and I thought they'd never make a | business out of it :-) | cannam wrote: | That's interesting - I had a vague recollection of having | heard of them before launch - I guess they were hiring from | the pool of developers being laid off from the dotcom bust? | | I have an image in my mind of my boss at the time going | around the office asking if anyone was interested in talking | to this thing called Shazam. I've long wondered if I imagined | it. I certainly didn't act on it. | | I remember (not much later than this) interviewing at a place | where the product was intended to be "an automated assistant | that listens to your phone call and pipes supporting | information to your computer as you speak". Obviously I gave | them a wide berth. It's funny to think about the "gap" in | magic - Shazam seems magical but totally worked, this other | idea seemed magical and, at the time, totally was. | rwmj wrote: | I checked my email and the interview was actually in mid | March 2002, not 2000/2001. I think still just before they | did the initial launch of the premium phone service. Here's | the job spec: | | _> Role: Senior software engineer - Low Level Device , | Distributed Communications Role mission: To ensure that | Shazam 's subsystems are integrated and interface | effectively and efficiently with external partners' | systems/hosting environments, yielding available, robust | and scalable full offerings. Key Performance Areas: 1. | Design real time software using standard techniques and | protocols, to be scalable, maintainable and robust 2. | Manage & collaborate within and between team(s) 3. | Implement quality software solutions within budget 4. | Ensures that design and implementation of software is of | high quality 5. Ensures that all deliverables are | documented Required Skills/Capabilities <B7> Knowledge of | interfacing peripheral and devices to Linux <B7> Knowledge | of Linux device drivers a plus. <B7> Distributed messaging | techniques and protocols, eg: PVM, MPI <B7> Ability to | grasp and work with abstract concepts <B7> Familiar with | current software engineering methodologies e.g. RUP, XP | <B7> Understands and is able to manage quality assurance | e.g., module tests, code review Required Knowledge/Previous | Key Experience <B7> At least 4 years of full-time software | engineering within a team of at least 3 sofware engineers. | <B7> Must have been involved in all phases of the software | cycle from requirements engineering to launch. <B7> Must | have developed low level device or communications software | <B7> Experience with Computer telephony a big plus <B7> | Experience with a high-growth startup environment a plus | Ideal Qualifications Ideally University degree in Computer | Science (alternatively at least 4 years of proven software | engineering experience). Please forward your CV/resume', | with cover e-mail, including full details of your earnings | expectations, to recruit <at> shazamteam.com_ | saasxyz wrote: | Just read this paper, it is brilliant. And TIL about Shazam | and the idea still sounds useless to me. Seems like I have | never had this problem in my life. | The5thElephant wrote: | Do you like music? If so have you really never heard a song | playing somewhere that you did not recognize and wanted to | know what it was? | khazhoux wrote: | I use it several times a week. Driving with classical | station on. Is this Mozart? That cadence sounded like | Mozart, but I'm not sure. <Shazam and wait 10 seconds> Oh, | it's _Brahms_! And now I have it auto-saved to listen to | when I get home. | astrange wrote: | Don't use your phone while you're driving! | AtNightWeCode wrote: | Shazam is an amazing piece of tech. Always amazed me when you use | it in a noisy bar, and it finds the right track instantly. | | One used to be able to sing the songs as well which does not seem | to work anymore. Either that or my vocals are gone. | jmfldn wrote: | In the pre-app world I would call Shazam on my mobile when out in | clubs quite often. They were way ahead of the curve. Amazing | company. | 0xdeadbeee wrote: | Way before apps were even a thing, around 2002-2004, I lived in | the UK and shazam worked as calling service: you'd call 2580 (top | to bottom on the center column of a phone numpad), it would | listen for 30s, then would hang up and send you an sms with the | name of the song. IIRC it would charge you something like 50p if | it found a result. | | It really felt like pure magic! | nibbleshifter wrote: | I wonder how much getting that number cost them, I recall | vaguely that memorable premium short numbers were... Expensive | LeoPanthera wrote: | A lot of people don't realise that Shazam is built into iOS. You | don't actually need the app. Just ask Siri "What's playing?" and | it will start to listen. | jliptzin wrote: | I haven't used Shazam in at least 10 years, I know what music I | am listening to because I am streaming it. | danbr wrote: | Does it strike anyone else as being odd that Apple is noting this | in their "Newsroom" press release? Don't get me wrong, great for | Shazam and all ... but why is Apple - the company that bought | them just 4 years ago - is making a todo about it? | axg11 wrote: | I think it's great. Too often, when a larger company acquires a | smaller one, they try to erase all history and culture of the | smaller company. Obviously, there is still a self- | congratulatory tone to this press release, but I think it's | nice that they're recognizing Shazam's past. | dylan604 wrote: | No it doesn't. Does it strike anyone else as odd that someone | would question a company promoting/congratulating software | achievements that they own? | nailer wrote: | Google doesn't celebrate the history of Writely or Android- | pre-Google that much and Microsoft don't promote the history | of Excel-pre-Microsoft that much either. | Kwpolska wrote: | > Microsoft don't promote the history of Excel-pre- | Microsoft that much either. | | That's probably because no such history exists, Excel was | always a Microsoft product (even if they aren't the | inventors of spreadsheets). | jsmith45 wrote: | They were probably thinking of PowerPoint, which did | exist before Microsoft acquired it. | Jcowell wrote: | Sure but Apple does celebrate its products via Newsroom. | Hell they even did it for iTunes in 2004 | pohl wrote: | Their celebrations would be more like "10 years ago today | we killed the only product of ours that you ever loved." | trollied wrote: | I don't understand why you're so confused. Shazam is now part | of Apple, they are not going to do a press release as "Shazam". | The "Shazam" entity does not exist. | beefman wrote: | An Industrial-Strength Audio Search Algorithm (2003) | | https://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf | DevX101 wrote: | Short, recommended read on how Shazam works | swid wrote: | Here's the list on Spotify: | | https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2Z69DiD4sGs5aHt4OXE3fU?si=... | keepquestioning wrote: | Does Shazam now use Deep Learning? | dperalta wrote: | How Shazam works (Probably!): https://youtu.be/RRsq9apr5QY | munchler wrote: | TIL that Apple owns Shazam. | wincy wrote: | Heck yeah! If you've got an iPhone you literally just have to | say "Hey Siri, what's this song" and it'll start listening and | give you the Apple Music link. The only indication it's Shazam | is a little understated badge at the bottom. | [deleted] | Nextgrid wrote: | It's also available as a shortcut in the Control Centre - you | don't even have to install the app. | raghavbali wrote: | +1 and also the fact that Google Pixel's "Now Playing" feature | is such an amazing application of the same idea. Though I | wonder how different are their implementations | jaypeg25 wrote: | Google's now playing feature is somehow always offline (to | relieve privacy concerns) and is somehow still incredible at | recognizing even obscure songs. Really impressive. | | I also love that it just shows up on my lock screen. | nomilk wrote: | > August 2002: Shazam launches as a text message service based in | the UK. At the time, users could identify songs by dialing "2580" | on their phone and holding it up as a song played. They were then | sent an SMS message telling them the song title and the name of | the artist. | | Incredible! Curious to know what exactly happened backend after | it listened to the audio, and what hardware it ran on. | mortenjorck wrote: | Just as amazing to me is that the algorithms could identify a | song through the extremely limited bandwidth and spectrum of an | early-2000s CDMA stream and a cheap Kyocera microphone. | LeoPanthera wrote: | The UK was one of the first countries to introduce GSM-EFR | which used the ACELP codec at 12.2 kbit/s for phone calls. | The quality was actually pretty good. | | I don't really understand why phone call fidelity hasn't | improved since then. Sometimes it seems like it's even worse! | tialaramex wrote: | Imagine that audio fidelity is crucial. You are designing a | phone. Does it resemble a hand-sized rectangular piece of | glass? | | No? I guess the hypothesis that audio fidelity is crucial | was wrong. | KMnO4 wrote: | Low bandwidth is perfectly suitable for low frequency data | (ie melody). You lose some of the high frequency details (ie | timbre), but it's still very easy to recognize songs. | | It's the same as recognizing objects in a 256x256px image. | | Try resampling a song from 44kHz to 4kHz and you'll still | have no trouble recognizing it. | manderley wrote: | GSM, not CDMA. | post-it wrote: | CDMA on Verizon and Sprint in the USA and Bell and Telus in | Canada, at the time. | gridder wrote: | Yeah but we're talking about UK here.... So GSM is | correct. | sbuk wrote: | "> August 2002: Shazam launches as a text message service | based in the UK." | | AFAIR, we never had CDMA _in the UK_ , so what Verizon et | al. were using is irrelevant. | magicalhippo wrote: | Reminds me of a fun IRC moment 20 years ago or so. A buddy had a | song stuck in his head, but he couldn't recall the name of it. | | I asked how it went, and he typed something like "du du duu duu | du du duu du, du du duu duu du du duu du" and within 10 seconds I | replied "oh, Tom's diner by Suzanne Vega?" After a few moments he | replied "yes! how the hell?!" | | Anyway, Shazam is great when out and about and I hear something I | like. Clubs and other _loud_ venues provide a challenge, but | covering the mic usually does the trick. | | I'd love to read some more details about how such fingerprinting | works. I'm sure there are lots of interesting details on how it | deals with recording noise and such. | endorphine wrote: | Lol, I swear that while reading the 2nd "duu" the same song | came to mind. Not sure what happened here.. | bluedino wrote: | Thought for sure that was on bash.org as I'd seen it before | TacticalCoder wrote: | > I'm sure there are lots of interesting details on how it | deals with recording noise and such. | | There's more to Shazam than that but Fourier transforms gets | rid of the noise. I ported a FFT to Java back in the days and | it was, IIRC, not even 100 lines of code. Amazing algorithm. I | used it to record engine noise under acceleration and then | derive power/torque curve of my car (it took into account the | number of cylinders): drive the car several times, both ways, | on a street, record the noise. Apply the FFT. Input the rims | size / gear ratio etc. And I'd end up with about the exact same | plot as the official one from the car manufacturer. | | Noise simply disappears with a FFT. | | A more concerning issue is harmonics. | ducktective wrote: | Is there a CLI program similar to that? (for identifying songs | based on a sample). | | CLI app not Python notebook, btw. | rmnclmnt wrote: | You can << easily >> reproduce the process and make a CLI out | of it, but the hard part is to collect the enormous database... | aidenn0 wrote: | acoustid is an open-source database with an API; here's a list | of already existing applications. beets is definitely CLI, not | sure about some of the others: | | https://acoustid.org/applications | elboru wrote: | Sometimes, I like to stop and think about all the amazing things | that we can do with our phones and that we take for granted. | | What I do is to imagine myself finding a smartphone in elementary | school (90s kid). These are a few things that would blow my mind: | | - Having a digital global map, with multitouch, that can show me | where I am in that map. I can search anything and find reviews | from virtually anywhere in the world. I can zoom and see my | actual house. I can use street view. | | - I have access to any song I want. | | - The phone can listen to a song and it can tell me the name of | it (then I can listen to it again) | | - I can play video games with much better graphics than my N64 | | - I can watch movies and TV in there. | | - I can video call | | - I have a digital assistant | | - I can find any answer online | | - I can buy anything online | | - In the future all this technology is not just for the rich, | virtually anyone can buy a smartphone. | Vinnl wrote: | My goto example is that I'm now able to see the text of the | text message I'm replying to _while typing the reply_. | raamdev wrote: | In the mid-ninties, around the time I had just become a teenager, | I remember walking down the back corridor of a mall where my | parents were leasing a space for their business and hearing a | song playing overhead on the mall speakers that really caught my | attention. I had no idea what the song was called or who made it, | but I really liked it. I remember wishing I had some way to | quickly find out, before the song ended, the name of the song and | the artist. I remember thinking, "wouldn't it be great if this | cell phone in my pocket could somehow tell me the name of this | song?" | | A decade later I discovered Shazam, and even today, more than a | decade after that, Shazam still has a place on my home screen, | quickly within reach, helping me discover hundreds of great | artists and songs overheard from as many different places. The | magic of the experience, and the appreciation for the technology, | stem from the memory of that moment in the mid-nineties when I | stood under a speaker listening to a song that I might never hear | again. | yannis7 wrote: | Shazam belongs to that class of iPhone apps that when they were | released I was like "wow, the future is here" -- this alongside | the first accelerometer and AR ones | jfoster wrote: | I'm surprised that Apple have kept Shazam working well on Android | for this long. They acquired it 4 years ago already. | lhoff wrote: | If i remember correctly the main way shazam makes money is by | seeling statistics to the record companies and concert planer. | If they would break it, they would loose these informations in | certain areas of the world where iphones are not that common. | scarface74 wrote: | I have to believe that much of the reason for Apple buying | Shazam was to know what songs piqued people's interest. That | type of data has to be valuable. | jfoster wrote: | Good point. Otherwise $400m is quite a high price to pay just | for an entry point into Apple Music. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | It might have something to do with the big "Play Full Song" | button that opens Apple Music. Since they already have access | to their music catalog for fingerprinting and the app is | mature, maybe it pays for itself in subscriptions? | jfoster wrote: | That did cross my mind and probably explains it. I do wonder | how much Apple Music revenue really comes from Android users | via Shazam, but perhaps it's significant enough that they | don't want to ruin it. | cannam wrote: | Yeah, I imagine as long as Apple Music runs on Android, so | will Shazam. It's a gateway. | ricksunny wrote: | I'm confused - I love Shazam as much as the next person - but why | is an app's anniversary pushed to the top of Apple's newsroom | feed when there is no native write-up of comparable reach & | understandability for their critical, already-exploited security | update spanning the entire product line? | | I expose the extent of my confusion here: | https://twitter.com/walkaboutrick/status/1560713609948250113... | benjaminwootton wrote: | 20 years later and it still seems like magic. It's incredibly | impressive how it can identify a song in second even in noisy | environments. | nailer wrote: | The Shazam creators commissioned a movie to be made about their | company - they considered it to be like "The Social Network" | except them as the heroes. | | Source: I watched the Shazam founder awkwardly pitch Danny Boyle | at a director meet-and-greet while Danny tried his best to avoid | them. | willhackett wrote: | Shazam is truly magical. For those iPhone users that don't know, | you can add it to Control Centre for quick access. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-19 23:00 UTC)