Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

> I used to think that until I moved down South. Churches dropping 50-200k in
> tax free dollars on Enormo Dome quality PA and multi media without blinking
> an eye - not just once, but as an ongoing investment. "Church
> sales/installation" is probably the most profitable area for an MI salesguy
> to be in down here. This is pretty much the norm rather than the exception,
> and I know it's a similar situation in the Midwest, CO and CA.

It's absolutely jaw-dropping to see the installations in some of these
mega-churches. Their fascination with ever more, flashier, expensive,
material, earthly possessions, it's, well, it's un-Christian.

What would Jesus say? "Could I have a little more of me in the monitor?"

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > writes:

>> I used to think that until I moved down South. Churches dropping 50-200k in
>> tax free dollars on Enormo Dome quality PA and multi media without blinking
>> an eye - not just once, but as an ongoing investment. "Church
>> sales/installation" is probably the most profitable area for an MI salesguy
>> to be in down here. This is pretty much the norm rather than the exception,
>> and I know it's a similar situation in the Midwest, CO and CA.
>
> It's absolutely jaw-dropping to see the installations in some of these
> mega-churches. Their fascination with ever more, flashier, expensive,
> material, earthly possessions, it's, well, it's un-Christian.

Yyyyyyyyyup.

> What would Jesus say? "Could I have a little more of me in the monitor?"

Heh. Nice!

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http :// www .toddh,net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http :// www .toddh,net /netiquette/ | http :// myspace,com /bmiawmb

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Todd H. wrote:
> Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > writes:
>> What would Jesus say? "Could I have a little more of me in the monitor?"
>
> Heh. Nice!
>

I'm picturing Jesus at sound check pulling a Lemmy from Motorhead...

Jesus:
"I CAN'T FUCKING HEAR MYSELF!"

Monitor tech:
"Jesus, your monitor is like 130db...you HAVE to be able to hear it."

Jesus in all his majesty strides over to the monitor desk, leans across
it into the tech's face and demands:
"ARE YOU CALLING ME A FUCKING *LIAR*?"

sorry...the image just popped into my head and wouldn't leave.

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

I've mentioned this before, but one church I played at was a full on
rockshow - complete with individual risers, a full pro computerized lighting
rig and special FX.

We actually had to hit "marks" that were taped onstage. They would, for
example go to blackout onstage, then we'd run to the glowing pieces of tape
just in time for the spotlights to hit us and make the band magically
appear. It was cool, in a Spinal Tap sort of way. Plus we had Krispy Kreme
donuts in the Green Room.

All things being equal - if I cared about such things, I'd rather have that
than the same sit-stand-kneel every Sunday.


"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in message
news:frsNj.1984$7Z2.449@newssvr12.news.prodigy,net ...
> > I used to think that until I moved down South. Churches dropping 50-200k
in
> > tax free dollars on Enormo Dome quality PA and multi media without
blinking
> > an eye - not just once, but as an ongoing investment. "Church
> > sales/installation" is probably the most profitable area for an MI
salesguy
> > to be in down here. This is pretty much the norm rather than the
exception,
> > and I know it's a similar situation in the Midwest, CO and CA.
>
> It's absolutely jaw-dropping to see the installations in some of these
> mega-churches. Their fascination with ever more, flashier, expensive,
> material, earthly possessions, it's, well, it's un-Christian.
>
> What would Jesus say? "Could I have a little more of me in the monitor?"

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Speaking of which, anyone hear from Rankin? He's got to be playing to bigger
crowds than Hannah Montana and Fall Out Boy combined every Sunday.


"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in message
news:frsNj.1984$7Z2.449@newssvr12.news.prodigy,net ...
> > I used to think that until I moved down South. Churches dropping 50-200k
in
> > tax free dollars on Enormo Dome quality PA and multi media without
blinking
> > an eye - not just once, but as an ongoing investment. "Church
> > sales/installation" is probably the most profitable area for an MI
salesguy
> > to be in down here. This is pretty much the norm rather than the
exception,
> > and I know it's a similar situation in the Midwest, CO and CA.
>
> It's absolutely jaw-dropping to see the installations in some of these
> mega-churches. Their fascination with ever more, flashier, expensive,
> material, earthly possessions, it's, well, it's un-Christian.
>
> What would Jesus say? "Could I have a little more of me in the monitor?"

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

DGDevin wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Does anybody know with any certainty if any of the MI companies
make money? The background says "no." Wasn't GC bought recently?

Been to MARS lately?

Where does anybody have any info *at all* on who owns Line6?, for
example:
http :// line6,com /company/


--
Les Cargill

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

On Apr 16, 12:10 pm, Brian Running <brunn...@XXameritechXX,net > wrote:
> 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.
>

Can't ya just gripe about the drummer in your band, or something along
those lines? Maybe even club owners? Come on.....

Mike

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

I'm going to summer NAMM, complements of Bud. I'll have a talk with Hartley
P, and those Behr dudes for ya'. I'll make them an offer they can't refuse.

--
-rob Bartlett, TN
O>
/(\)
^^
"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

Kloka-mo' wrote:
> I'm going to summer NAMM, complements of Bud. I'll have a talk with Hartley
> P, and those Behr dudes for ya'. I'll make them an offer they can't refuse.
>

Is it under $500?

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

> I'm going to summer NAMM, complements of Bud. I'll have a talk with Hartley
> P, and those Behr dudes for ya'. I'll make them an offer they can't refuse.

Rob, you tell ol' Hartley there's a little somethin' in it for him.
I'll take care of him. Next time he's in Waukesha, I'll buy a... no,
wait, I'll buy the first two rounds.

So, what's new? You and Ted didn't get washed away by that high river?

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Brian Running wrote:
> 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,

Those are *driven* markets. Peter Drucker sez "computers are zero sum" -
the summed equity of all computer companies is zero, and the output
always ends up in a landfill.

The only exception is the effect of computers and telecomm on
trading floors on Wall Street. *That* matters.

Just for your computing pleasure, all the baby tech companies have
been killed. Isn't that exciting? When M$ and Intel finally hit
the wall... there will be no followon.

> 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.
>

1930s, mostly for interconnects. Some 1950s stuff in semiconductors,
some other stuff that's later. "1960s" is really Voice of the Theater or
A7 Altecs, topping out around 300 watts. With tubes. By Woodstock,
a little better than that.

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

I will give you $4500 good reasons - because people will pony up
the other $4500.

> A digital snake, with a 24-input box on stage with A/D converter,

Try 8, the maximum one CAT5 cable will carry reliably. This exists.
http :// namm.harmony-central,com /WNAMM04/Content/Whirlwind/PR/E-Snake.html

>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,

HAHAHAHAHA. Oh, my.

> 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.
>

This can be done now, but... it costs more than the old way.

> 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.
>

Uh huh. See topic "latency".

> 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.
>

Oh, this is just.... hilarious. I am very sorry, but... CAN YOU
IMAGINE???? "Be there eight hours early for soundcheck..." NEVER
GIVE THE DRUMMER ANYTHING WITH KNOBS. EVER!!!

I don't use any monitor *at all* anymore. Hate 'em. And I sing
lead on a third-fourth of the show, harmony on almost everything else.

> 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.
>

That is correct. And there are sound, non-market reasons for the cost.
Prediction: this sort of thing will get *MORE* expensive, much, much
more as time goes by.

> 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?

<begin voice of actor G.D Spradlin playing Lt. General Corman in
"Apocolypse Now">
They won't. Apple damn near lost the company on the iPod, dude.... very
near thing. Steve Jobs' methods... are not sound.
</voice>

They ain't outta the woods yet, either. Buzz ain't bucks, people.

> 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.
>

Oh dear....

> 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.

--
Les Cargill

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in
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:

$500 may be a little on the low end, but as an electrical engineer that
works with digital sampling systems... you're mostly correct. The ultra
low volumes involved in the audio industry are an issue, but there is no
reason the proces are as ridiculous as they are.

--
Aaron

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe


"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX,net > wrote in message
news:7ypNj.4324$iK6.975@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc,com ...
>
> 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.

Things are heading that way (Presonus, etc.) but there are a few things to
keep in mind:

- Digital is cheap and getting cheaper, analog is hard and not getting
cheaper. You still need good analog front ends to feed the D/A converters.
- Good power supplies for the analog part aren't cheap either
- Same for cases, knobs, sliders, buttons
- Cabling and connectors are expensive, especially if they are to take any
kind of abuse. Firewire and USB 2.0 has plenty of bandwidth for digital
audio but you still need beefy cables to hook stuff together.

So, even though you could buy a bunch of components from DigiKey or whatever
and put together a system like you describe I'm not really sure it's what
the market wants yet.

Andrew

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

> So, even though you could buy a bunch of components from DigiKey or whatever
> and put together a system like you describe I'm not really sure it's what
> the market wants yet.

All very good comments, and well-taken. Maybe we don't know what the
market wants yet, but here's the thing I think it doesn't want anymore,
and the thing that I see no reason even to exist anymore -- noisy,
hard-to-handle and very expensive analog snakes; analog mixers with
extremely limited capabilities for creating multiple monitor mixes;
analog mixers with extremely limited capabilities for recording outputs
(i.e., with only stereo outs, not retaining the capability for mixdown
of, say, 24 channels later), and no easy interface with multi-channel
computer recording software. The high-end market has already indicated
that it sees things going away from this and towards a fully-digital
signal path and integration with software, but it's strictly proprietary
and extremely expensive. If we have separate "interface boxes" now that
only handle eight channels at a time, I can't see any reason why the
interface can't be integrated into the mixer and have it output 24 or 32
channels.

Maybe the market isn't ready yet, but I think it is. I'm certain that
it shouldn't cost $15,000 to do it, as it does now. The market will see
a big adjustment soon.

Re: Gripe, Gripe, Gripe

On Apr 22, 11:18 am, Brian Running <brunn...@XXameritechXX,net > wrote:
> > So, even though you could buy a bunch of components from DigiKey or whatever
> > and put together a system like you describe I'm not really sure it's what
> > the market wants yet.
>
> All very good comments, and well-taken.  Maybe we don't know what the
> market wants yet, but here's the thing I think it doesn't want anymore,
> and the thing that I see no reason even to exist anymore -- noisy,
> hard-to-handle and very expensive analog snakes; analog mixers with
> extremely limited capabilities for creating multiple monitor mixes;
> analog mixers with extremely limited capabilities for recording outputs
> (i.e., with only stereo outs, not retaining the capability for mixdown
> of, say, 24 channels later), and no easy interface with multi-channel
> computer recording software.  The high-end market has already indicated
> that it sees things going away from this and towards a fully-digital
> signal path and integration with software, but it's strictly proprietary
> and extremely expensive.  If we have separate "interface boxes" now that
> only handle eight channels at a time, I can't see any reason why the
> interface can't be integrated into the mixer and have it output 24 or 32
> channels.
>
> Maybe the market isn't ready yet, but I think it is.  I'm certain that
> it shouldn't cost $15,000 to do it, as it does now.  The market will see
> a big adjustment soon.

I think the market is nearly ready. I'm extremely interested in seeing
this happen. If I could own a snake that runs across Ethernet, 250'
long (so I can put it as high as possible inside most venues) I'd be
extremely happy. I'm tired of people walking on my expensive analog
snakes.

Corey