Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

This is for all of you that complain that I don't complain enough. You
want to know what cranks me off? I'll tell you.

With the state of digital, computerized audio being what it is right
now, and with components for digital sound equipment being commodities
that are available everywhere and for cheap, there is absolutely no
excuse for PAs, sound reinforcement and live recording equipment being
stuck in 1960s technology.

You give me one good reason why the following system can't be bought at
any decent music store, for under $500:

A digital snake, with a 24-input box on stage with A/D converter, going
to a 24-channel digital mixer which has at least one parallel 24-channel
digital output to go directly to a laptop computer with recording
software which accepts 24 simultaneous inputs, and the mixer having a
digital return to a D/A converter in the stage box. All going through
CAT5, USB or Firewire cables. Not a single XLR cable anywhere, except
from on-stage mikes to the snake box. Everything in digital domain.
All processing and effects in the mixer. Everything except the laptop
computer itself included for under $500 -- or less.

I can buy a full-blown, state of the art computer system with enough
digital horsepower to put mainframe supercomputers of twenty years ago
to shame, for under $500. The actual physical components of the system
I'm describing would cost maybe $150.

And, there's no reason why, for about $50 apiece more, each player
couldn't have his own personal, 24-channel monitor mixer on stage with him.

Instead, I leaf through the latest Full Compass catalog, and see
proprietary systems that do the above for tens of thousands of dollars
-- Light Viper optical snakes for $4000? ProCo digital 8-channel snakes
for $1600? Roland 16-channel digital snakes for $3200? And you still
can't get a mixer that will directly accept the digital input for less
than about $8000? This is an absolute travesty.

Behringer, Peavey, where the hell are you? Event he bigger companies,
why is there no fully-integrated, non-proprietary system available for
complete mixing, monitoring and recording -- at any price? Is it going
to take some non-music company, like Dell or Apple, to jump in and take
this market over? I think there's a huge opportunity there. If Monster
Cable can become as big as they are selling shitty cables to musicians
and home-theater owners, then there's got to be enough market potential
out there to justify the investment to develop the kind of system I'm
talking about.

How much longer will it be for mikes, guitars, basses and keyboards to
have A/D converters built into them, powered by a source in the snake
box, so we can go direct to digital? The snake box could have parallel
outputs, to go to stage amps, like a DI does now, but with individual
monitoring possible, that could become obsolete. I could go on, but
we've all got better things to do.

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe


"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX . net > wrote in message
news:7ypNj.4324$iK6.975@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc . com ...
> This is for all of you that complain that I don't complain enough. You
> want to know what cranks me off? I'll tell you.
>

> How much longer will it be for mikes, guitars, basses and keyboards to
> have A/D converters built into them, powered by a source in the snake box,
> so we can go direct to digital? The snake box could have parallel
> outputs, to go to stage amps, like a DI does now, but with individual
> monitoring possible, that could become obsolete. I could go on, but we've
> all got better things to do.
>

I'm thinking beyond the snake and cabling.
When are they going to work on a wireless network?
No cables! Everything wireless.
Wireless bluetooth (BluesTooth?)mics and guitar transmitters that interface
with a digital mixer.
That's the future!

Jay S

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

J Stevens <IdontLikeSpamjay-stevens@telus . net spamsucksass> wrote:
> When are they going to work on a wireless network?
> No cables! Everything wireless.
> Wireless bluetooth (BluesTooth?)mics and guitar transmitters that interface
> with a digital mixer.

I have a bluetooth mouse - whenever the microwave is used in the next
room the mouse gets all jittery. This is because microwaves in
particular operate at roughly the same frequency as bluetooth (in the
same band of open use frequencies).

Most of us play in places like bars and cafes.

Imagine stepping up for your bass solo just as someone wants a pie
heated...

Wireless is good - but bluetooth isn't the technology I'd want used for
this particular application.

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
* w w w .manyhands.co.nz/

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe


"Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1ifjdpz.1q2pqgjc17grjN%derek@url.co.nz...
>J Stevens <IdontLikeSpamjay-stevens@telus . net spamsucksass> wrote:
>> When are they going to work on a wireless network?
>> No cables! Everything wireless.
>> Wireless bluetooth (BluesTooth?)mics and guitar transmitters that
>> interface
>> with a digital mixer.
>
> I have a bluetooth mouse - whenever the microwave is used in the next
> room the mouse gets all jittery. This is because microwaves in
> particular operate at roughly the same frequency as bluetooth (in the
> same band of open use frequencies).
>
> Most of us play in places like bars and cafes.
>
> Imagine stepping up for your bass solo just as someone wants a pie
> heated...
>
> Wireless is good - but bluetooth isn't the technology I'd want used for
> this particular application.
>
> --- Derek
>
I'm just using Bluetooth as an example.
I've invented "BluesTooth" It's wireless for Blues Bands.
Next I'll release RockTooth followed by JazzTooth.
I'll sue anyone who infringes on my trademark!! First up I'll sue Colgate
for making Toothpaste!
:0)
Sorry...I'm melding two different threads into one big tongue in cheek
post....

Jay S

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

J Stevens wrote:
> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX . net > wrote in message
> news:7ypNj.4324$iK6.975@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc . com ...
>> This is for all of you that complain that I don't complain enough. You
>> want to know what cranks me off? I'll tell you.
>>
>
>> How much longer will it be for mikes, guitars, basses and keyboards to
>> have A/D converters built into them, powered by a source in the snake box,
>> so we can go direct to digital? The snake box could have parallel
>> outputs, to go to stage amps, like a DI does now, but with individual
>> monitoring possible, that could become obsolete. I could go on, but we've
>> all got better things to do.
>>
>
> I'm thinking beyond the snake and cabling.
> When are they going to work on a wireless network?
> No cables! Everything wireless.
> Wireless bluetooth (BluesTooth?)mics and guitar transmitters that interface
> with a digital mixer.
> That's the future!
>
> Jay S
>
>

You guys are teh funnay.

Here is a start:

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley theorem


--
Les Cargill

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

There ARE some serious design considerations, you know. For instance,
Behringer is trying to figure out how to mount an LED underneath the
computer chip, so that it will glow.


"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX . net > wrote in message
news:7ypNj.4324$iK6.975@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc . com ...
> This is for all of you that complain that I don't complain enough. You
> want to know what cranks me off? I'll tell you.
>
> With the state of digital, computerized audio being what it is right
> now, and with components for digital sound equipment being commodities
> that are available everywhere and for cheap, there is absolutely no
> excuse for PAs, sound reinforcement and live recording equipment being
> stuck in 1960s technology.
>
> You give me one good reason why the following system can't be bought at
> any decent music store, for under $500:
>
> A digital snake, with a 24-input box on stage with A/D converter, going
> to a 24-channel digital mixer which has at least one parallel 24-channel
> digital output to go directly to a laptop computer with recording
> software which accepts 24 simultaneous inputs, and the mixer having a
> digital return to a D/A converter in the stage box. All going through
> CAT5, USB or Firewire cables. Not a single XLR cable anywhere, except
> from on-stage mikes to the snake box. Everything in digital domain.
> All processing and effects in the mixer. Everything except the laptop
> computer itself included for under $500 -- or less.
>
> I can buy a full-blown, state of the art computer system with enough
> digital horsepower to put mainframe supercomputers of twenty years ago
> to shame, for under $500. The actual physical components of the system
> I'm describing would cost maybe $150.
>
> And, there's no reason why, for about $50 apiece more, each player
> couldn't have his own personal, 24-channel monitor mixer on stage with
him.
>
> Instead, I leaf through the latest Full Compass catalog, and see
> proprietary systems that do the above for tens of thousands of dollars
> -- Light Viper optical snakes for $4000? ProCo digital 8-channel snakes
> for $1600? Roland 16-channel digital snakes for $3200? And you still
> can't get a mixer that will directly accept the digital input for less
> than about $8000? This is an absolute travesty.
>
> Behringer, Peavey, where the hell are you? Event he bigger companies,
> why is there no fully-integrated, non-proprietary system available for
> complete mixing, monitoring and recording -- at any price? Is it going
> to take some non-music company, like Dell or Apple, to jump in and take
> this market over? I think there's a huge opportunity there. If Monster
> Cable can become as big as they are selling shitty cables to musicians
> and home-theater owners, then there's got to be enough market potential
> out there to justify the investment to develop the kind of system I'm
> talking about.
>
> How much longer will it be for mikes, guitars, basses and keyboards to
> have A/D converters built into them, powered by a source in the snake
> box, so we can go direct to digital? The snake box could have parallel
> outputs, to go to stage amps, like a DI does now, but with individual
> monitoring possible, that could become obsolete. I could go on, but
> we've all got better things to do.

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Brian Running wrote:

> I can buy a full-blown, state of the art computer system with enough
> digital horsepower to put mainframe supercomputers of twenty years ago
> to shame, for under $500. The actual physical components of the
> system I'm describing would cost maybe $150.
>
> And, there's no reason why, for about $50 apiece more, each player
> couldn't have his own personal, 24-channel monitor mixer on stage
> with him.

I don't think you could get "state of the art" for under $500, wouldn't the
CPU alone would cost more than that?

I assume the reason you can't get a digital onstage setup such as you
describe for that kind of money is due to the economy of scale. The
computer industry sells millions of desktops and laptops every year, the
more they make the lower the cost per unit becomes especially since so many
of the components are interchangeable. But how many bands and clubs are
there to buy a system such as you describe? It can't be millions, it
probably isn't even in the hundreds of thousands. So somebody will have to
design and build these things with a potential market perhaps only in the
tens of thousands (given competition), that's got to push up costs and
require a higher price to make it profitable enough to be worth doing.

That doesn't mean that some of the current stuff isn't overpriced in part
because of a reliance on outmoded technology, but I have to think that if
the potential profits were really significant we'd have seen more movement
here already. It's one thing for cheeseball companies like L6 or Crate or
whoever to market cheap digital guitar amps, there are millions of potential
customers for cheap amps and guitars, but for a full-on band PA/recording
setup, especially one robust enough to do a year on the road without
cratering? I have to wonder if the potential market is big enough to do it
at that sort of price.

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

> I don't think you could get "state of the art" for under $500, wouldn't the
> CPU alone would cost more than that?

With advance apologies to Glenn Dowdy, I just recently spec'ed a Dell
Vostro: Core 2 Duo at 2.2 GHz and 2MB L2 cache, 2 GB RAM, DVD burner,
320 GB HD, and all the usual doo-dads, for $394.

> I assume the reason you can't get a digital onstage setup such as you
> describe for that kind of money is due to the economy of scale. The
> computer industry sells millions of desktops and laptops every year, the
> more they make the lower the cost per unit becomes especially since so many
> of the components are interchangeable.

That's the point. The vast market for personal computers has driven the
prices of the components down to the point of absurdity. They're the
same components that you'd use in the sound system, by and large. Every
industry that uses electronic components benefits from the economy of
scale created by the computer industry, not just the computer industry.

As for the size of the market, look at the competition out there. How
many companies right now are producing and marketing mixing consoles,
snakes, digital audio interfaces, etc. -- one hell of a lot! Ever been
to the NAMM show? It's a very large market, but it's going through some
readjustments right now. At the consumer end of the scale, margins are
getting squeezed until they're razor-thin. That adjustment will
eventually shake down through the entire market, to musicians and sound
professionals, I'm just saying, let's get to it sooner than later.

It's going to happen, why not now? What I'm describing is essentially
to do what Behringer has done in other areas of that very same market.

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Brian Running wrote:

>> I don't think you could get "state of the art" for under $500,
>> wouldn't the CPU alone would cost more than that?
>
> With advance apologies to Glenn Dowdy, I just recently spec'ed a Dell
> Vostro: Core 2 Duo at 2.2 GHz and 2MB L2 cache, 2 GB RAM, DVD burner,
> 320 GB HD, and all the usual doo-dads, for $394.

Okay, while that's amazing, my point is it ain't "state of the art" or even
close to it, that's a couple of year's ago state of the art at best. To
find out what's actually state of the art you need to consult hardcore
gamers, and those guys will cough up $500 just for a video card.

> That's the point. The vast market for personal computers has driven
> the prices of the components down to the point of absurdity. They're
> the same components that you'd use in the sound system, by and large.
> Every industry that uses electronic components benefits from the
> economy of scale created by the computer industry, not just the
> computer industry.

True dat, look at the itty bitty hard drives in iPods, flat-screen TVs and
so on, good point.

> As for the size of the market, look at the competition out there. How
> many companies right now are producing and marketing mixing consoles,
> snakes, digital audio interfaces, etc. -- one hell of a lot!

I'd still like to know how big those companies are and how much product
they're moving. A big fish in the mixing console market might be considered
bait in the larger electronics industry. Your company might be the 800lb
gorilla of say climbing ice axes, or scuba regulators or whatever and still
have tiny sales in comparison to companies that sell mass-market sporting
goods like soccer or baseball gear. There are lots of companies selling
surfboards or speed-skating helmets, I'd still rather have the profits of
one successful maker of soccer pads or baseball gloves deposited to my
account every month.

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

> Okay, while that's amazing, my point is it ain't "state of the art" or even
> close to it, that's a couple of year's ago state of the art at best. To
> find out what's actually state of the art you need to consult hardcore
> gamers, and those guys will cough up $500 just for a video card.

Okay, whatever. I'd say you ask "hardcore gamers" for any assessment of
reality and you're taking quite a risk. Their willingness to pay $500
for a video card to play games with speaks volumes about their common
sense. It might not be cutting edge, but the system I described is
definitely state of the art for right now, and more to the point,
contains vastly more technology and processing power than the sound
system I described would require.

> I'd still like to know how big those companies are and how much product
> they're moving. A big fish in the mixing console market might be considered
> bait in the larger electronics industry.

But, DG, the fact that there are manufacturers out there selling systems
that will do what I'm proposing (with some difficulty) for tens of
thousands of dollars is practically conclusive proof that there's a
market, and if someone could undercut their prices by a large margin and
make it usable, they'd make a killing. That market is artificially
high-priced right now. Someone will take advantage of that
circumstance, but it sure as hell won't be someone who only looks for
reasons that it can't be done. As that one smart guy once said, "You
will miss 100% of the shots you never take."

If all the buyers that are currently settling for 1960s technology could
have current technology for less money, they would take it. If someone
offered the system I described, it would wipe out the analog mixer/snake
market overnight.

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Brian Running wrote:

> If someone
> offered the system I described, it would wipe out the analog mixer/snake
> market overnight.

Then shut up and do it.

The reason it hasn't been done is because your assumptions about the
technology are wrong, but that's not what you want to hear. So, maybe
someone just tell you what you want to hear.

Yep, Brian, you've got it right. They are still total idiots over there
in the electronics for music industry. While every other industry is
flooded with low-cost electronics for dubious market ideas, the very
huge and very *real* market for digital electronics for musicians is
overlooked. Anybody with half a brain could take slap together some
off-the-shelf components and take the market by storm.

It's all incredibly easy and low risk. I mean, if I can buy a Dell
computer for $400, why can't I spend $500 for a system to digitally
route all of the sound at a gig? There's nothing to designing an easy to
use yet powerful system that will withstand the rigors of gigging.


--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages . com > wrote in
news:fZuNj.12278$CO2.9320@newsfe12.phx:

> Brian Running wrote:
>
>> If someone
>> offered the system I described, it would wipe out the analog
>> mixer/snake market overnight.
>
> Then shut up and do it.
>
> The reason it hasn't been done is because your assumptions about the
> technology are wrong, but that's not what you want to hear.

Nope - he's spot on about the technology. He's wrong about the size of the
market.

--
Aaron

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

The BorgMan wrote:
> Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages . com > wrote in
> news:fZuNj.12278$CO2.9320@newsfe12.phx:
>
>> Brian Running wrote:
>>
>>> If someone
>>> offered the system I described, it would wipe out the analog
>>> mixer/snake market overnight.
>> Then shut up and do it.
>>
>> The reason it hasn't been done is because your assumptions about the
>> technology are wrong, but that's not what you want to hear.
>
> Nope - he's spot on about the technology. He's wrong about the size of the
> market.

Just because you can by $8 sneakers at Wal Mart and get free cell phones
doesn't mean we should all have $5 shoe phones.

I'm saying that he doesn't understand the difficulties (read as
time/expense) in marrying these existing technologies into a viable
product. Therefore, it's a lot more expensive than he thinks. You say he
understands this, but just thinks they would sell a LOT more than they
actually would. Therefore, it's a lot more expensive than he thinks.

I don't consider it a point worth arguing over.

--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe


>
> Just because you can by $8 sneakers at Wal Mart and get free cell phones
> doesn't mean we should all have $5 shoe phones.
>
> I'm saying that he doesn't understand the difficulties (read as
> time/expense) in marrying these existing technologies into a viable
> product. Therefore, it's a lot more expensive than he thinks. You say he
> understands this, but just thinks they would sell a LOT more than they
> actually would. Therefore, it's a lot more expensive than he thinks.
>
> I don't consider it a point worth arguing over.
>

Me neither, but I want a $5 shoe phone. Where does Maxwell get his?
Gerry

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages . com > wrote in
news:PMNNj.8423$xd5.2238@newsfe17.phx:

> The BorgMan wrote:
>> Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages . com > wrote in
>> news:fZuNj.12278$CO2.9320@newsfe12.phx:
>>
>>> Brian Running wrote:
>>>
>>>> If someone
>>>> offered the system I described, it would wipe out the analog
>>>> mixer/snake market overnight.
>>> Then shut up and do it.
>>>
>>> The reason it hasn't been done is because your assumptions about the
>>> technology are wrong, but that's not what you want to hear.
>>
>> Nope - he's spot on about the technology. He's wrong about the size
>> of the market.
>
> Just because you can by $8 sneakers at Wal Mart and get free cell
> phones doesn't mean we should all have $5 shoe phones.
>
> I'm saying that he doesn't understand the difficulties (read as
> time/expense) in marrying these existing technologies into a viable
> product.

I'm saying *I* do... considering my daily job involves engineering just
those sorts of things (but not in audio) - and the difficulties aren't
THAT difficult. Once you've got the data digital, all that is even
remotely difficult is latency. Everything else is technologically a joke.

> Therefore, it's a lot more expensive than he thinks. You say
> he understands this, but just thinks they would sell a LOT more than
> they actually would. Therefore, it's a lot more expensive than he
> thinks.

I think the expense as far as production is minimal. I think expense as
far as design would be small. Expense for marketing, product placement,
distribution chain, etc. would get you.

The problem isn't that it's expensive, it's that the market is so small
as to require an existing supply chain/distribution channel to allow the
lack of material cost to be passed on to consumers.

--
Aaron