Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
The BorgMan wrote:
> 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.
Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to this
new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
* Amp
* Speaker
* Cabinet
* Coax connector
* Brain to separate the streams
* Some sort of interface so that the user can visually identify the
sound sources and set the individual levels as well as the overall levels.
* Brain to do things like EQ, compression, and other effects.
* Brain to mix it all together.
* Digital to analog converter.
* And make the whole thing rugged enough to haul around from gig to gig.
There's no new technology just like there's no new technology required
for a shoe phone.
So, what would it cost to design such a system and build the
infrastructure to start making these boxes? $500? $50,000? $5,000,000?
The BorgMan wrote:
> 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.
Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to this
new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
* Amp
* Speaker
* Cabinet
* Coax connector
* Brain to separate the streams
* Some sort of interface so that the user can visually identify the
sound sources and set the individual levels as well as the overall levels.
* Brain to do things like EQ, compression, and other effects.
* Brain to mix it all together.
* Digital to analog converter.
* And make the whole thing rugged enough to haul around from gig to gig.
There's no new technology just like there's no new technology required
for a shoe phone.
So, what would it cost to design such a system and build the
infrastructure to start making these boxes? $500? $50,000? $5,000,000?
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
> Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
> create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to this
> new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
http :// www .fullcompass,com /product/244997.html
> Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
> create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to this
> new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
http :// www .fullcompass,com /product/244997.html
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Brian Running wrote:
>> Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
>> create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to
>> this new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
>
> http :// www .fullcompass,com /product/244997.html
Which is pretty much what I described, except the interface is weak. I'm
sure I could figure it out in a couple of minutes, but it's not dirt
simple by any means. If you want to crush the analog world, you'll need
to do better.
That price point is about what I would expect. We're talking about
$1,200 for the module that takes the output from your analog mixer,
converts it to digital, then sends it out over CAT-5. Each individual
mixer runs about $600. Then you'll still need to shell out the money for
your IEM.
What do *you* think a system like they make should cost? Are you saying
that the mixer itself should also be converting to digital thus
combining two units into one?
Personally, for what I've been doing for years, I'm okay having just
vocals in the monitors and keeping the stage volume manageable. I don't
feel like there's any great problem I need solved.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Brian Running wrote:
>> Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
>> create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to
>> this new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
>
> http :// www .fullcompass,com /product/244997.html
Which is pretty much what I described, except the interface is weak. I'm
sure I could figure it out in a couple of minutes, but it's not dirt
simple by any means. If you want to crush the analog world, you'll need
to do better.
That price point is about what I would expect. We're talking about
$1,200 for the module that takes the output from your analog mixer,
converts it to digital, then sends it out over CAT-5. Each individual
mixer runs about $600. Then you'll still need to shell out the money for
your IEM.
What do *you* think a system like they make should cost? Are you saying
that the mixer itself should also be converting to digital thus
combining two units into one?
Personally, for what I've been doing for years, I'm okay having just
vocals in the monitors and keeping the stage volume manageable. I don't
feel like there's any great problem I need solved.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Wow, I think this is some sort of record, because I actually agree with Jim
on this one.
The problem is NOT that the technology isn't up to snuff, it that
a) The interfaces are not terribly gigworthy. They are good for
installations, but not one nighters. I work with the Avion a lot. It's cool;
everyone gets to make and save their own monitor mix. But since we have to
break down/set up 2x a week, the cat 5 cable takes a serious beating. The
mixer boxes aren't all that sturdy either; I'd guess after a month of being
tossed into a truck 3-5 nights a week, they'd be toast.
b) The nature of "digital" itself: all the devices must be compatible, all
the drivers must be compatible, the processing power needs to be devoted to
the primary in/out at any given moment, there are a finite number of errors
before the thing crashes/freezes/ignores an input. And God forbid you forget
to save a scene, the drive crashes, or the power goes out. It's back to
square one.
OTOH, all you need to run an analog system is a few standardized 70 yr old
ham radio cables that match the gear you're using, and a wall outlet.
What's really needed are some standardized digital audio specs, as was one
with MIDI - standard connectors, # and content of channels, amount of
"autosave" memory and save time, sampling rate, processing power, etc.
(remember that there is a theoretical top limit for audio - the Nyquist
Theorem. We don't ALWAYS have to have the latest and greatest)
"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in message
news:jGVNj.167146$nr1.66065@newsfe13.phx...
> Brian Running wrote:
> >> Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
> >> create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to
> >> this new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
> >
> > http :// www .fullcompass,com /product/244997.html
>
> Which is pretty much what I described, except the interface is weak. I'm
> sure I could figure it out in a couple of minutes, but it's not dirt
> simple by any means. If you want to crush the analog world, you'll need
> to do better.
>
> That price point is about what I would expect. We're talking about
> $1,200 for the module that takes the output from your analog mixer,
> converts it to digital, then sends it out over CAT-5. Each individual
> mixer runs about $600. Then you'll still need to shell out the money for
> your IEM.
>
> What do *you* think a system like they make should cost? Are you saying
> that the mixer itself should also be converting to digital thus
> combining two units into one?
>
> Personally, for what I've been doing for years, I'm okay having just
> vocals in the monitors and keeping the stage volume manageable. I don't
> feel like there's any great problem I need solved.
>
> --
> Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
> - Anonymous
Wow, I think this is some sort of record, because I actually agree with Jim
on this one.
The problem is NOT that the technology isn't up to snuff, it that
a) The interfaces are not terribly gigworthy. They are good for
installations, but not one nighters. I work with the Avion a lot. It's cool;
everyone gets to make and save their own monitor mix. But since we have to
break down/set up 2x a week, the cat 5 cable takes a serious beating. The
mixer boxes aren't all that sturdy either; I'd guess after a month of being
tossed into a truck 3-5 nights a week, they'd be toast.
b) The nature of "digital" itself: all the devices must be compatible, all
the drivers must be compatible, the processing power needs to be devoted to
the primary in/out at any given moment, there are a finite number of errors
before the thing crashes/freezes/ignores an input. And God forbid you forget
to save a scene, the drive crashes, or the power goes out. It's back to
square one.
OTOH, all you need to run an analog system is a few standardized 70 yr old
ham radio cables that match the gear you're using, and a wall outlet.
What's really needed are some standardized digital audio specs, as was one
with MIDI - standard connectors, # and content of channels, amount of
"autosave" memory and save time, sampling rate, processing power, etc.
(remember that there is a theoretical top limit for audio - the Nyquist
Theorem. We don't ALWAYS have to have the latest and greatest)
"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in message
news:jGVNj.167146$nr1.66065@newsfe13.phx...
> Brian Running wrote:
> >> Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
> >> create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to
> >> this new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
> >
> > http :// www .fullcompass,com /product/244997.html
>
> Which is pretty much what I described, except the interface is weak. I'm
> sure I could figure it out in a couple of minutes, but it's not dirt
> simple by any means. If you want to crush the analog world, you'll need
> to do better.
>
> That price point is about what I would expect. We're talking about
> $1,200 for the module that takes the output from your analog mixer,
> converts it to digital, then sends it out over CAT-5. Each individual
> mixer runs about $600. Then you'll still need to shell out the money for
> your IEM.
>
> What do *you* think a system like they make should cost? Are you saying
> that the mixer itself should also be converting to digital thus
> combining two units into one?
>
> Personally, for what I've been doing for years, I'm okay having just
> vocals in the monitors and keeping the stage volume manageable. I don't
> feel like there's any great problem I need solved.
>
> --
> Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
> - Anonymous
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in
news:yGONj.8426$xd5.3920@newsfe17.phx:
> The BorgMan wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
> create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to
> this new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
>
> * Amp
Headphone amp.
> * Speaker
IEMs
> * Cabinet
Plastic is cheap.
> * Coax connector
Coax? Why in the world would you use coax? CAT5, one line for each 6
channels or so.
> * Brain to separate the streams
>* Brain to do things like EQ, compression, and other effects.
> * Brain to mix it all together.
Basic DSP chip.
> * Some sort of interface so that the user can visually identify the
> sound sources and set the individual levels as well as the overall
> levels.
Sort of like the interface on my $99 Boss B2?
> * Digital to analog converter.
18b/96KHz DA and AD convertors - $10-$20 per converter, SINGLE UNIT
PRICE.
> * And make the whole thing rugged enough to haul around from gig to
> gig.
>
> There's no new technology just like there's no new technology required
> for a shoe phone.
Ummm... do you think if there was market your average cell phone company
couldn't have a shoe phone out tomorrow?
> So, what would it cost to design such a system and build the
> infrastructure to start making these boxes? $500? $50,000? $5,000,000?
To start making them, ignoring distribution and supply chain
considerations? Probably less than $50,000.
--
Aaron
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in
news:yGONj.8426$xd5.3920@newsfe17.phx:
> The BorgMan wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Take a moment to think about what it would take for each musician to
> create his own monitor mix. Assume everything is already coming to
> this new box over coax or whatever. What does this box need?
>
> * Amp
Headphone amp.
> * Speaker
IEMs
> * Cabinet
Plastic is cheap.
> * Coax connector
Coax? Why in the world would you use coax? CAT5, one line for each 6
channels or so.
> * Brain to separate the streams
>* Brain to do things like EQ, compression, and other effects.
> * Brain to mix it all together.
Basic DSP chip.
> * Some sort of interface so that the user can visually identify the
> sound sources and set the individual levels as well as the overall
> levels.
Sort of like the interface on my $99 Boss B2?
> * Digital to analog converter.
18b/96KHz DA and AD convertors - $10-$20 per converter, SINGLE UNIT
PRICE.
> * And make the whole thing rugged enough to haul around from gig to
> gig.
>
> There's no new technology just like there's no new technology required
> for a shoe phone.
Ummm... do you think if there was market your average cell phone company
couldn't have a shoe phone out tomorrow?
> So, what would it cost to design such a system and build the
> infrastructure to start making these boxes? $500? $50,000? $5,000,000?
To start making them, ignoring distribution and supply chain
considerations? Probably less than $50,000.
--
Aaron
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
The BorgMan wrote:
>> So, what would it cost to design such a system and build the
>> infrastructure to start making these boxes? $500? $50,000? $5,000,000?
>
> To start making them, ignoring distribution and supply chain
> considerations? Probably less than $50,000.
Well, we can end this right here because I think you're WAY optimistic.
You're saying an entirely new product line could be established with the
equivalent of 1/2 a man-year of labor and essentially no hard costs,
right? I say for that kind of money the best you could do would be to
start a one-man business building expensive boutique widgets by hand.
If you know how to set up a system to manufacture what we described for
just $50K, you should go do it. I'll invest so long as you give me
personal guarantees on budget and timelines.
$50K is nothing when it comes to venture capital. Even if no conceivable
market existed, a $50K investment just to *test* the idea would not be
inconceivable. In this case a market clearly exists, so only a complete
and total idiot would not plunk down $50K to get the ball rolling.
At this point my argument is essentially circular: The proof that your
$50K number is bullshit is evidenced by the fact that nobody has done it.
The BorgMan wrote:
>> So, what would it cost to design such a system and build the
>> infrastructure to start making these boxes? $500? $50,000? $5,000,000?
>
> To start making them, ignoring distribution and supply chain
> considerations? Probably less than $50,000.
Well, we can end this right here because I think you're WAY optimistic.
You're saying an entirely new product line could be established with the
equivalent of 1/2 a man-year of labor and essentially no hard costs,
right? I say for that kind of money the best you could do would be to
start a one-man business building expensive boutique widgets by hand.
If you know how to set up a system to manufacture what we described for
just $50K, you should go do it. I'll invest so long as you give me
personal guarantees on budget and timelines.
$50K is nothing when it comes to venture capital. Even if no conceivable
market existed, a $50K investment just to *test* the idea would not be
inconceivable. In this case a market clearly exists, so only a complete
and total idiot would not plunk down $50K to get the ball rolling.
At this point my argument is essentially circular: The proof that your
$50K number is bullshit is evidenced by the fact that nobody has done it.
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
> Well, we can end this right here because I think you're WAY optimistic.
Okey dokey -- we can just end this right here, no need to discuss
anything any further, because some guy with no particular knowledge, no
relevant education, no experience, no vision, no imagination, and with a
backwards, negative, blindered and close-minded view of the world says
he thinks that it's way too optimistic -- no matter that the optimistic
opinion is coming from someone with knowledge, education, experience and
probably a little vision and imagination.
Might as well just stop all the R&D, world, we're as far as we're ever
going to get! Mission accomplished. What a relief!
> Well, we can end this right here because I think you're WAY optimistic.
Okey dokey -- we can just end this right here, no need to discuss
anything any further, because some guy with no particular knowledge, no
relevant education, no experience, no vision, no imagination, and with a
backwards, negative, blindered and close-minded view of the world says
he thinks that it's way too optimistic -- no matter that the optimistic
opinion is coming from someone with knowledge, education, experience and
probably a little vision and imagination.
Might as well just stop all the R&D, world, we're as far as we're ever
going to get! Mission accomplished. What a relief!
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Brian Running wrote:
>> Well, we can end this right here because I think you're WAY optimistic.
>
> Okey dokey -- we can just end this right here, no need to discuss
> anything any further, because some guy with no particular knowledge, no
> relevant education, no experience, no vision, no imagination, and with a
> backwards, negative, blindered and close-minded view of the world says
> he thinks that it's way too optimistic -- no matter that the optimistic
> opinion is coming from someone with knowledge, education, experience and
> probably a little vision and imagination.
>
> Might as well just stop all the R&D, world, we're as far as we're ever
> going to get! Mission accomplished. What a relief!
You can be so cute at times.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Brian Running wrote:
>> Well, we can end this right here because I think you're WAY optimistic.
>
> Okey dokey -- we can just end this right here, no need to discuss
> anything any further, because some guy with no particular knowledge, no
> relevant education, no experience, no vision, no imagination, and with a
> backwards, negative, blindered and close-minded view of the world says
> he thinks that it's way too optimistic -- no matter that the optimistic
> opinion is coming from someone with knowledge, education, experience and
> probably a little vision and imagination.
>
> Might as well just stop all the R&D, world, we're as far as we're ever
> going to get! Mission accomplished. What a relief!
You can be so cute at times.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in news:TnVNj.167143$nr1.6789
@newsfe13.phx:
> The BorgMan wrote:
>
>
>>> So, what would it cost to design such a system and build the
>>> infrastructure to start making these boxes? $500? $50,000?
$5,000,000?
>>
>> To start making them, ignoring distribution and supply chain
>> considerations? Probably less than $50,000.
>
> Well, we can end this right here because I think you're WAY optimistic.
> You're saying an entirely new product line could be established with
the
> equivalent of 1/2 a man-year of labor and essentially no hard costs,
> right? I say for that kind of money the best you could do would be to
> start a one-man business building expensive boutique widgets by hand.
I built a one off digital measurement system, including a 30 ton press,
PLC control, analog signal muxing, all programming and machine work
included - the system measured voltage repeatedly/accurately in the
1/10th millivolt range....
It cost significantly less than $50k to build.
> If you know how to set up a system to manufacture what we described for
> just $50K, you should go do it. I'll invest so long as you give me
> personal guarantees on budget and timelines.
If I don't have to care about supply chain or distribution - sure. I'll
outsource PCB design/manufacture/assembly, I'll outsource case design and
manufacture, I'll use industry standard off the shelf components...
Getting the design done is the easy (and cheap) part - producing the
units in low quantities will kill it, and the
marketing/supply/distribution end would suck up a lot of money before
generating enough interest to make much profit I think.
> $50K is nothing when it comes to venture capital. Even if no
conceivable
> market existed, a $50K investment just to *test* the idea would not be
> inconceivable. In this case a market clearly exists, so only a complete
> and total idiot would not plunk down $50K to get the ball rolling.
>
> At this point my argument is essentially circular: The proof that your
> $50K number is bullshit is evidenced by the fact that nobody has done
it.
But people HAVE done it - and we don't have any idea what their costs
were.
--
Aaron
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in news:TnVNj.167143$nr1.6789
@newsfe13.phx:
> The BorgMan wrote:
>
>
>>> So, what would it cost to design such a system and build the
>>> infrastructure to start making these boxes? $500? $50,000?
$5,000,000?
>>
>> To start making them, ignoring distribution and supply chain
>> considerations? Probably less than $50,000.
>
> Well, we can end this right here because I think you're WAY optimistic.
> You're saying an entirely new product line could be established with
the
> equivalent of 1/2 a man-year of labor and essentially no hard costs,
> right? I say for that kind of money the best you could do would be to
> start a one-man business building expensive boutique widgets by hand.
I built a one off digital measurement system, including a 30 ton press,
PLC control, analog signal muxing, all programming and machine work
included - the system measured voltage repeatedly/accurately in the
1/10th millivolt range....
It cost significantly less than $50k to build.
> If you know how to set up a system to manufacture what we described for
> just $50K, you should go do it. I'll invest so long as you give me
> personal guarantees on budget and timelines.
If I don't have to care about supply chain or distribution - sure. I'll
outsource PCB design/manufacture/assembly, I'll outsource case design and
manufacture, I'll use industry standard off the shelf components...
Getting the design done is the easy (and cheap) part - producing the
units in low quantities will kill it, and the
marketing/supply/distribution end would suck up a lot of money before
generating enough interest to make much profit I think.
> $50K is nothing when it comes to venture capital. Even if no
conceivable
> market existed, a $50K investment just to *test* the idea would not be
> inconceivable. In this case a market clearly exists, so only a complete
> and total idiot would not plunk down $50K to get the ball rolling.
>
> At this point my argument is essentially circular: The proof that your
> $50K number is bullshit is evidenced by the fact that nobody has done
it.
But people HAVE done it - and we don't have any idea what their costs
were.
--
Aaron
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
The BorgMan wrote:
> I built a one off digital measurement system, including a 30 ton press,
> PLC control, analog signal muxing, all programming and machine work
> included - the system measured voltage repeatedly/accurately in the
> 1/10th millivolt range....
>
> It cost significantly less than $50k to build.
Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about
building one-offs. I'm talking about what kind of financial investment
it takes to be ready to produce these items in quantity. You'll have
built and tested a number of prototypes before you settle on a design
that is functional, durable and lends itself to mass production. That
alone would be several months of labor, would it not? Your $50K is gone
right there.
If you're gonna do this, what would it cost to be ready for your first
production run of 10,000?
The BorgMan wrote:
> I built a one off digital measurement system, including a 30 ton press,
> PLC control, analog signal muxing, all programming and machine work
> included - the system measured voltage repeatedly/accurately in the
> 1/10th millivolt range....
>
> It cost significantly less than $50k to build.
Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about
building one-offs. I'm talking about what kind of financial investment
it takes to be ready to produce these items in quantity. You'll have
built and tested a number of prototypes before you settle on a design
that is functional, durable and lends itself to mass production. That
alone would be several months of labor, would it not? Your $50K is gone
right there.
If you're gonna do this, what would it cost to be ready for your first
production run of 10,000?
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in news:vM3Oj.167184
$nr1.125272@newsfe13.phx:
> The BorgMan wrote:
>
>> I built a one off digital measurement system, including a 30 ton
press,
>> PLC control, analog signal muxing, all programming and machine work
>> included - the system measured voltage repeatedly/accurately in the
>> 1/10th millivolt range....
>>
>> It cost significantly less than $50k to build.
>
> Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about
> building one-offs. I'm talking about what kind of financial investment
> it takes to be ready to produce these items in quantity.
Notice my original post said design - not including supply or
distribution chain.
> You'll have
> built and tested a number of prototypes before you settle on a design
> that is functional, durable and lends itself to mass production. That
> alone would be several months of labor, would it not?
Not necessarily. The original IBM PC design only took about that long.
The key is using a design which is highly flexible and re-programmable
(DSP and PALs), using as much off the shelf horsepower as is available
(see PC104 CPU, IO, DSP, etc. cards for example), and using
commercial/contract coders and designers.
For my press measurement system we had the press/automation people code
the software. I spent about3 days writing up a spec, and a mere $1000
later we had code.
> If you're gonna do this, what would it cost to be ready for your first
> production run of 10,000?
Hard to say... Can I get an existing OEM to throw it in one of their
factories in China? Can I get financing to stockpile items at 10k unit
quantities instead of buying single (or even hundred unit) quantities on
parts? Do I have to meet RoHS?
--
Aaron
Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in news:vM3Oj.167184
$nr1.125272@newsfe13.phx:
> The BorgMan wrote:
>
>> I built a one off digital measurement system, including a 30 ton
press,
>> PLC control, analog signal muxing, all programming and machine work
>> included - the system measured voltage repeatedly/accurately in the
>> 1/10th millivolt range....
>>
>> It cost significantly less than $50k to build.
>
> Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about
> building one-offs. I'm talking about what kind of financial investment
> it takes to be ready to produce these items in quantity.
Notice my original post said design - not including supply or
distribution chain.
> You'll have
> built and tested a number of prototypes before you settle on a design
> that is functional, durable and lends itself to mass production. That
> alone would be several months of labor, would it not?
Not necessarily. The original IBM PC design only took about that long.
The key is using a design which is highly flexible and re-programmable
(DSP and PALs), using as much off the shelf horsepower as is available
(see PC104 CPU, IO, DSP, etc. cards for example), and using
commercial/contract coders and designers.
For my press measurement system we had the press/automation people code
the software. I spent about3 days writing up a spec, and a mere $1000
later we had code.
> If you're gonna do this, what would it cost to be ready for your first
> production run of 10,000?
Hard to say... Can I get an existing OEM to throw it in one of their
factories in China? Can I get financing to stockpile items at 10k unit
quantities instead of buying single (or even hundred unit) quantities on
parts? Do I have to meet RoHS?
--
Aaron
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
The BorgMan wrote:
> Hard to say... Can I get an existing OEM to throw it in one of their
> factories in China? Can I get financing to stockpile items at 10k unit
> quantities instead of buying single (or even hundred unit) quantities on
> parts? Do I have to meet RoHS?
I'm not sure what we're even talking about anymore.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
The BorgMan wrote:
> Hard to say... Can I get an existing OEM to throw it in one of their
> factories in China? Can I get financing to stockpile items at 10k unit
> quantities instead of buying single (or even hundred unit) quantities on
> parts? Do I have to meet RoHS?
I'm not sure what we're even talking about anymore.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
The BorgMan wrote:
> Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in news:vM3Oj.167184
> $nr1.125272@newsfe13.phx:
<snip>
>
> For my press measurement system we had the press/automation people code
> the software. I spent about3 days writing up a spec, and a mere $1000
> later we had code.
>
I think you should put you house up as security that this will cost
$1000 for all the software/firmware.
>> If you're gonna do this, what would it cost to be ready for your first
>> production run of 10,000?
>
> Hard to say... Can I get an existing OEM to throw it in one of their
> factories in China? Can I get financing to stockpile items at 10k unit
> quantities instead of buying single (or even hundred unit) quantities on
> parts? Do I have to meet RoHS?
>
--
Les Cargill
The BorgMan wrote:
> Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages,com > wrote in news:vM3Oj.167184
> $nr1.125272@newsfe13.phx:
<snip>
>
> For my press measurement system we had the press/automation people code
> the software. I spent about3 days writing up a spec, and a mere $1000
> later we had code.
>
I think you should put you house up as security that this will cost
$1000 for all the software/firmware.
>> If you're gonna do this, what would it cost to be ready for your first
>> production run of 10,000?
>
> Hard to say... Can I get an existing OEM to throw it in one of their
> factories in China? Can I get financing to stockpile items at 10k unit
> quantities instead of buying single (or even hundred unit) quantities on
> parts? Do I have to meet RoHS?
>
--
Les Cargill
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Brian Running wrote:
>> 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,
It proves to me that it costs tens of thousands.
> and if someone could undercut their prices by a large margin and
> make it usable, they'd make a killing.
Two brothers run a truck farm. The one that can add sez to
the other one "we're losing a buck a bushel on everthing."
The other brother sez "we're gonna need a bigger truck."
> That market is artificially
> high-priced right now.
You can by *a* gun at WalMart for $170, a Marlin .22.
http :// www .walmart,com /catalog/product.do?product idF65643
I will guarantee you that a military grade weapon costs a lot more than
that. CZ surplus runs $800-$1000
http :// www .atlanticfirearms,com /programming/listview.asp?CatId=2
> 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."
>
And I'll still have my "ammo".
> 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.
Uh huh. alt.audio.pro.live-sound .
--
Les Cargill
Brian Running wrote:
>> 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,
It proves to me that it costs tens of thousands.
> and if someone could undercut their prices by a large margin and
> make it usable, they'd make a killing.
Two brothers run a truck farm. The one that can add sez to
the other one "we're losing a buck a bushel on everthing."
The other brother sez "we're gonna need a bigger truck."
> That market is artificially
> high-priced right now.
You can by *a* gun at WalMart for $170, a Marlin .22.
http :// www .walmart,com /catalog/product.do?product idF65643
I will guarantee you that a military grade weapon costs a lot more than
that. CZ surplus runs $800-$1000
http :// www .atlanticfirearms,com /programming/listview.asp?CatId=2
> 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."
>
And I'll still have my "ammo".
> 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.
Uh huh. alt.audio.pro.live-sound .
--
Les Cargill
Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe
Brian Running wrote:
> 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.
As opposed to bassists who will pay multi-thousands of dollars for their
11th bass you mean? ;^) It's worth what it's worth to them. Some people
will pay incredible prices for gee-whizz cameras or stereos or mountain
bikes or whatever, that we don't share their particular passions doesn't
make them short of common sense, it merely shows they have different
priorities.
> 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 respectfully suggest you're using "state of the art" in a sense other than
it would normally be used, where it doesn't mean average or typical, it
means the best there is, i.e.
"state of the art
n.
The highest level of development, as of a device, technique, or scientific
field, achieved at a particular time:"
> 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.
I believe you, so why isn't someone doing it? Sometimes large markets go
undiscovered for some reason or no reason at all, until somebody like Sony
starts selling Walkmans or Apple sells iPods or whatever. As you say it
might only be a matter of time, there might be 10 such systems on the
drawing board as we speak.
Brian Running wrote:
> 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.
As opposed to bassists who will pay multi-thousands of dollars for their
11th bass you mean? ;^) It's worth what it's worth to them. Some people
will pay incredible prices for gee-whizz cameras or stereos or mountain
bikes or whatever, that we don't share their particular passions doesn't
make them short of common sense, it merely shows they have different
priorities.
> 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 respectfully suggest you're using "state of the art" in a sense other than
it would normally be used, where it doesn't mean average or typical, it
means the best there is, i.e.
"state of the art
n.
The highest level of development, as of a device, technique, or scientific
field, achieved at a particular time:"
> 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.
I believe you, so why isn't someone doing it? Sometimes large markets go
undiscovered for some reason or no reason at all, until somebody like Sony
starts selling Walkmans or Apple sells iPods or whatever. As you say it
might only be a matter of time, there might be 10 such systems on the
drawing board as we speak.
