Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (35693)	9/15/2010 3:20:20 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

"For example, if mics were to be properly designed and adapted with IP, there would be no pipe-lining to speak of, nor would there be very much variability in propagation times across randomly picked routes, such as occurs today over the Internet." Frank, can you describe this physically? Let's assume codecs with sufficient dynamic range. Even cell phone lag would be unacceptable; 10 ms. would be too much. Multiple mics (as in harmony) would need perfect sync. Would you work with a local server, just in-house? How could sufficient QOS could be maintained unless all transmission and reception was local? All-IP could be okay, but it's difficult to envision reaching "performance" standards on a wireless WAN. In 3 years as assistant technical director/stage manager at a booking theater, symphonies to rock stars, "the sound" was a key element for artists. Musicians don't want any lag between what they play or sing, and what they hear. Well, Woodstock excepted ;) Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (35693)	9/15/2010 9:35:21 AM
From: fred g	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank, I'm happy that Axial agrees with me here. Delay beyond a few milliseconds simply is not acceptable. Move the whole wireless mic thing to LBR codecs, packetization delays, buildout buffers, etc., and you're basically saying that live music should sort of sound like an MP3, just with the players out of time with each other. Is this iPod triumphalism, earbud junkies trying to bring live performance down to their level? The whole point of packet switching was to handle applications that had bursty loads, unlike the CBR nature of the PSTN, which already existed, not to mention FM, which already existed. So the whole movement to IP-ize everything is just more of "teh stupid", a triumphalist fantasy of net-heads who think the whole world is like their hobby, the TCP/IP Internet. But it ain't. Wireless mics are local devices. They go from mic to receiver, on-site, and don't need any switching. So the whole IP packet switching thing is unnecessary. It's simply a matter of radio discipline. IP is generally mated to listen-before-transmit disciplines, like WiFi. Wireless mics don't listen; they're CBR. So you find them a frequency and leave them there. If you want to get clever and frequency-agile, you can have the receiver (base station) tell the transmitters (mics) what frequency to use, set when they're plugged in to recharge their batteries. (They need no receiver after all.) But that's about as dynamic as it can get. Not the "every 60 seconds" of white space data rules. You know I'm not one to throw around unpleasantries loosely. (We'll leave that for the likes of, say, Dave "Triumph" Reed.) But WLD needed a little "correction", as he was doing a compound-conflation of memes (Network neutrality -> Internet -> transmission medium -> radio spectrum -> wireless microphones) that was several steps beyond nonesensical even if you believe in the "network neutrality" faerie in the first place. Arguing it on its own terms would be like, well, in the words of one of my heroes, Barney Frank (for whom I happily voted yesterday), it would be like arguing with a dining room table. And by the same standards, it makes no sense to apply "network neutrality" to walkie-talkies, CB radios, automatic teller machines, SCADA, high frequency trading circuits (well, if it broke them, that would be a good deed...), and TV transmitters. Indeed, the FCC has a rule that broadcast licensees must remain in control of their stations. I don't think they intended to create a conflict there.