Mic level A/D Converters?

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark T. Wieczorek

unread,
Jun 2, 2003, 8:19:06 PM6/2/03
to
There was a recent thread called "Why aren't there more of these" about
these digital mic's... After thinking about it for a few seconds I realized
that if someone built an A/D converter that accepted mic level inputs, it
would accomplish much the same task... with nearly any mic.

So as a purely academic exercise, are there any boxes like this out there?
Is self-noise in the sound card the issue here? What about all those 24bit
A/D converters with amazingly low noise floors, could you plug a mic into
that and just keep boosting the 1's and 0's until it was audible?

Are mic's susceptible to loading the same way guitar pickups are?

Regards,
Mark

--
http://www.marktaw.com/

http://www.prosoundreview.com/
User reviews of pro audio gear

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Jun 2, 2003, 8:23:41 PM6/2/03
to
Mark T. Wieczorek <sp...@marktaw.mailshell.com> wrote:
>So as a purely academic exercise, are there any boxes like this out there?
>Is self-noise in the sound card the issue here? What about all those 24bit
>A/D converters with amazingly low noise floors, could you plug a mic into
>that and just keep boosting the 1's and 0's until it was audible?

Apogee AD-1000 is a combined converter and preamp. Millennia Media made
such a thing, Panasonic did, and I think dbx does.

Trouble is that you can't put any analogue processing before the converter
this way.

>Are mic's susceptible to loading the same way guitar pickups are?

Some are. Moving coil dynamics and ribbons are very touchy about loading.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger

unread,
Jun 2, 2003, 10:11:37 PM6/2/03
to
"Mark T. Wieczorek" <sp...@marktaw.mailshell.com> wrote in message
news:Xns938ECEE5...@130.81.64.196

> There was a recent thread called "Why aren't there more of these"
> about these digital mic's... After thinking about it for a few
> seconds I realized that if someone built an A/D converter that
> accepted mic level inputs, it would accomplish much the same task...
> with nearly any mic.

A mic-level ADC = a line level ADC + a mic preamp.


Mark T. Wieczorek

unread,
Jun 2, 2003, 11:39:52 PM6/2/03
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in
news:vOqcnaL4VpJ...@comcast.com:

>> There was a recent thread called "Why aren't there more of these"
>> about these digital mic's... After thinking about it for a few
>> seconds I realized that if someone built an A/D converter that
>> accepted mic level inputs, it would accomplish much the same task...
>> with nearly any mic.
>
> A mic-level ADC = a line level ADC + a mic preamp.

Aww, c'mon, you guys are taking all the fun out of it. If Neumann can make
a mic with a built in preamp and have people go gaga over it, we can do
this and have people go gaga over it.

You guys are no fun. =b...

Kurt Albershardt

unread,
Jun 2, 2003, 11:41:48 PM6/2/03
to
Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Mark T. Wieczorek <sp...@marktaw.mailshell.com> wrote:
>
>> So as a purely academic exercise, are there any boxes like this out there?
>> Is self-noise in the sound card the issue here? What about all those 24bit
>> A/D converters with amazingly low noise floors, could you plug a mic into
>> that and just keep boosting the 1's and 0's until it was audible?
>
>
> Apogee AD-1000 is a combined converter and preamp. Millennia Media made
> such a thing, Panasonic did, and I think dbx does.

Grace Lunatec V3
various Presonus things


others I left out...


Kurt Albershardt

unread,
Jun 2, 2003, 11:45:04 PM6/2/03
to
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> A mic-level ADC = a line level ADC + a mic preamp.

Mostly.

Preamp - remove the need for driving really long lines, the need for
outputting +30dBV levels, etc. Design for a known load impedance and
config.

ADC - known input level, etc. here too.


The usual savings in chassis, PSU, connector costs.

George Perfect

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 3:19:20 AM6/3/03
to
In this place, Mark T. Wieczorek was recorded as saying ...

> There was a recent thread called "Why aren't there more of these" about
> these digital mic's... After thinking about it for a few seconds I realized
> that if someone built an A/D converter that accepted mic level inputs, it
> would accomplish much the same task... with nearly any mic.

There are several preamps out there now with onboard AD convertors. The
Focusrite ISA-428 is on my wish list at the moment.

>
> So as a purely academic exercise, are there any boxes like this out there?
> Is self-noise in the sound card the issue here? What about all those 24bit
> A/D converters with amazingly low noise floors, could you plug a mic into
> that and just keep boosting the 1's and 0's until it was audible?

OK - on a different tangent, those DDD markings on early CDs always
confused me. Surely the mic was analogue to start with so what's with
the first D?

What we need is to do away with the capsule altogether. My vote goes to
replacing all our fancy mics and preamps with ... the digital barometer.
Clock one of these babies at your sampling rate of choice and there you
go - true DDD! (still not sure about the final D - anyone know how to
turn a bitstream into sound without some kind of transducer? Spark
machine?)

Or how about using a strain gauge to control a VCO then sampling its
pulse rate? Getting closer to a digital mic?

Heath-Robinson was British, you know.

--
George >{ňżó}<

Newcastle, England
(please remove leading 'x' from email address to reply, thanks)

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth, by hitting back - Piet Hein

David Morley

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 4:13:01 AM6/3/03
to
In article <MPG.19465c40a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
George Perfect <xgeo...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote:

> OK - on a different tangent, those DDD markings on early CDs always
> confused me. Surely the mic was analogue to start with so what's with
> the first D?

Multitrack. Still silly.
I remeber when DDD was a positive!

Romeo Rondeau

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 4:23:37 AM6/3/03
to
The DDD only refers to the recorders used. Says nothing about mics or
mixers. The first D is the multitrack recorder, the second D is the mixing
recorder and the last D is the mastering recorder. Since all CD's have the
last D, I wonder why they thought it was necessary.

"George Perfect" <xgeo...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19465c40a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

> George >{蚩髛<

John L Rice

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 6:45:59 AM6/3/03
to
So they could mark vinyl LP's DDA? Never saw that used myself.

John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com

"Romeo Rondeau" <romeor...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:vdom9d1...@corp.supernews.com...

Arny Krueger

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 6:59:34 AM6/3/03
to
"Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:10546118...@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:

> Mostly.

I'm of the opinion that the major benefits relate to data transmission. A
well-defined digital standard would allow us to hook up mics in any kind of
arrangment, star, daisy-chain, etc that put copper between the mic and the
console.

Given the burgeoning popularity of wireless, maybe forget the copper! I
can't see anybody trying to do an analog-based wireless system at this point
in time.

I say this having just worked over a 10 channel mix where 3 of the channels
were randomly (thankfully infrequently) corrupted at different times by some
kind of impulsive EMI that went FS or nearly FS. One of the channels dropped
about 10 dB and became somewhat distorted for about 20 seconds. Then it
"fixed" itself.

Needless to say, channels have already been swapped at the console end. Mics
have been swapped where possible, which was almost total. In one case the
line serves a direct box.

At the moment I'm prone to blame the wiring. I don't think any of these
things can happen in the digital domain.


Mike Rivers

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 8:55:13 AM6/3/03
to

> OK - on a different tangent, those DDD markings on early CDs always
> confused me. Surely the mic was analogue to start with so what's with
> the first D?

It has to do with the storage media, not the signal chain.

D = First generation recorder digital (usually a multitrack)
D = Final mix or production master digital (mostly DAT at the time)
D = Delivery medium digital (almost always a CD)


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 10:01:37 AM6/3/03
to
John L Rice <Dru...@ImJohn.com> wrote:
>So they could mark vinyl LP's DDA? Never saw that used myself.

Some Telarc LPs did this.

Len Moskowitz

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 10:18:03 AM6/3/03
to

Mark T. Wieczorek <sp...@marktaw.mailshell.com> wrote:

>There was a recent thread called "Why aren't there more of these" about
>these digital mic's... After thinking about it for a few seconds I realized
>that if someone built an A/D converter that accepted mic level inputs, it
>would accomplish much the same task... with nearly any mic.
>
>So as a purely academic exercise, are there any boxes like this out
>there?

What you're describing is a mic pre/A-to-D. For portables, there's our
new Mic2496, the Denecke AD-20, Grace Lunatec V3 and probably a few
others.

Our Mic2496 has typical noise levels under -140 dB. See the graph on
our Web page:

http://www.core-sound.com/HighResRecorderNews.html

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
mosk...@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

Steve Hilmy

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 10:45:49 AM6/3/03
to
> >So as a purely academic exercise, are there any boxes like this out there?
> >Is self-noise in the sound card the issue here? What about all those 24bit
> >A/D converters with amazingly low noise floors, could you plug a mic into
> >that and just keep boosting the 1's and 0's until it was audible?
>
> Apogee AD-1000 is a combined converter and preamp. Millennia Media made
> such a thing, Panasonic did, and I think dbx does.
>
> Trouble is that you can't put any analogue processing before the converter
> this way.


Try this one then:

<http://www.mhlabs.com/mobileio/uln2.html>

It's a high end 96K 24 bit converter, a low noise high gain mic pre,
and has insert send/returns allowing for processing before conversion.

Cheers,
Steve Hilmy

Mike Rivers

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 12:30:56 PM6/3/03
to

In article <vdov49l...@corp.supernews.com> Dru...@ImJohn.com writes:

> So they could mark vinyl LP's DDA? Never saw that used myself.

They could, but they didn't and wouldn't. But you did see a lot of
ADD. In fact some times I think I have it myself.

John L Rice

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 1:59:03 PM6/3/03
to

"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1054655273k@trad...

LOL!


Bob Cain

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 5:51:34 PM6/3/03
to

Len Moskowitz wrote:
>
> Our Mic2496 has typical noise levels under -140 dB. See the graph on
> our Web page:
>
> http://www.core-sound.com/HighResRecorderNews.html

To try and put that in terms more familiar I constructed an example of two
tracks, one white noise and one signal, whose FFT spectral levels differ by 122
dB, as Len's graph does, and I find that the RMS level of the noise is -85.6 dB
relative to the signal. Given that the signal in the test is 50 mV that would
give about 2.62 uV RMS input noise for the Mic2496. Anybody who feels that is
an invalid procedure for estimating total input noise from such a spectral plot,
fire away.

If a mic with about 10 mV/PA (-40 dB) sensitivity were plugged into it that
would be about 22.3 dB SPL _unweighted_ equivalent. A-weighted, which is the
norm for mic self noise specification, will be lower. Anybody know the
conversion from unweighted white noise to A-weighted or have A-weighting filter
presets for any of CEP's filters? Arny?

Len, what will the Mic2496 cost?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Kurt Albershardt

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 7:02:16 PM6/3/03
to
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Given the burgeoning popularity of wireless, maybe forget the copper! I
> can't see anybody trying to do an analog-based wireless system at this point
> in time.
>
> I say this having just worked over a 10 channel mix where 3 of the channels
> were randomly (thankfully infrequently) corrupted at different times by some
> kind of impulsive EMI that went FS or nearly FS. One of the channels dropped
> about 10 dB and became somewhat distorted for about 20 seconds. Then it
> "fixed" itself.

It's not cheap, but so far the only true digital solution I know of is
Zaxcom http://www.zaxcom.com/audio/wireless.shtml

Chris Hornbeck

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 7:25:51 PM6/3/03
to
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:59:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>At the moment I'm prone to blame the wiring. I don't think any of these
>things can happen in the digital domain.

Hi Arny,

You're no doubt right, and this is all bound to happen
sooner or later, but I hate batteries worse than wires.
When do we get the one watt nukes to run all these
little contraptions?

Actually, the low power drains of modern stuff might
bring back wound-spring generators. Ahhh..progress...

Thanks,


Chris Hornbeck,
guyville{at}aristotle{dot}net

question authority

Len Moskowitz

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 10:20:57 PM6/3/03
to
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>Len, what will the Mic2496 cost?

Under $500. Pricing to be fixed over the next few weeks.

Len Moskowitz

unread,
Jun 3, 2003, 10:31:59 PM6/3/03
to
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>To try and put that in terms more familiar I constructed an example of two
>tracks, one white noise and one signal, whose FFT spectral levels differ by 122
>dB, as Len's graph does, and I find that the RMS level of the noise is -85.6 dB
>relative to the signal. Given that the signal in the test is 50 mV that would
>give about 2.62 uV RMS input noise for the Mic2496. Anybody who feels that is
>an invalid procedure for estimating total input noise from such a spectral plot,
>fire away.

It's a convenient way to state a noise specification in a single number
but it doesn't tell the whole story (what spec does?).

The graph shows that there *no* noise components higher than -140 dB
(other than the power supply bumps caused by the circuit board being out
of its shielded case). Compare that graph to one that showed spurious,
narrow discrete noise components much higher than that and an overall
noise level lower than that. The overall single number RMS noise spec
might be the same but it probably wouldn't sound the same.

Arny Krueger

unread,
Jun 4, 2003, 10:28:55 AM6/4/03
to
"Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:10546813...@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net

Thanks for the reference. It goes into the knowlege bank with many other
informative RAP posts.

Of course eventually it's gonna be cheap. Very cheap. So cheap nobody thinks
about doing it any other way.


Arny Krueger

unread,
Jun 4, 2003, 10:29:57 AM6/4/03
to
"Chris Hornbeck" <guyv...@removethisaristotle.net> wrote in message
news:b3bqdv0d1208mudpk...@4ax.com

> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 06:59:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> At the moment I'm prone to blame the wiring. I don't think any of
>> these things can happen in the digital domain.

> You're no doubt right, and this is all bound to happen


> sooner or later, but I hate batteries worse than wires.
> When do we get the one watt nukes to run all these
> little contraptions?

I don't think we've seen the peak of low-power and/or battery energy density
technology.

> Actually, the low power drains of modern stuff might
> bring back wound-spring generators. Ahhh..progress...

LOL!

Justin Ulysses Morse

unread,
Jun 4, 2003, 3:55:12 PM6/4/03
to
DDD is a larger cup size than DD. Personally, I think it's overkill.
If you think you need AAA, you don't really need to wear one at all.

ulysses


In article <520031991064-0001-8...@news.fu-berlin.de>,

Kurt Albershardt

unread,
Jun 4, 2003, 4:36:10 PM6/4/03
to
Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Chris Hornbeck" <guyv...@removethisaristotle.net> wrote in message
> news:b3bqdv0d1208mudpk...@4ax.com
>
>

>> Actually, the low power drains of modern stuff might
>> bring back wound-spring generators. Ahhh..progress...
>
>
> LOL!

Don't laugh too hard--sliding weights are already back
http://www.foreverflashlight.com/

George Perfect

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 2:50:10 AM6/5/03
to
In this place, Justin Ulysses Morse was recorded as saying ...

> DDD is a larger cup size than DD. Personally, I think it's overkill.
> If you think you need AAA, you don't really need to wear one at all.
>

Finally - a serious answer!

LOL!

Mark T. Wieczorek

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 3:02:47 AM6/5/03
to
George Perfect <xgeo...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote in
news:MPG.1948711d5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:

>> DDD is a larger cup size than DD. Personally, I think it's overkill.
>> If you think you need AAA, you don't really need to wear one at all.
>>
>
> Finally - a serious answer!

I know. I was beginning to question the validity of this newsgroup for
humorous/offbeat semi-on-topic postings. The dry/sarcastic ones seem to go
right over their heads.

Len Moskowitz

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 7:30:20 AM6/5/03
to
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

> ...Anybody who feels that is an invalid procedure for estimating total


> input noise from such a spectral plot, fire away.

I'll add one more comment.

The point of a single number noise spec is to try to convey how quiet a
device is in the absence of signal, and how quiet a signal it can pass
(or record) without adding significant noise.

The single number spec doesn't really give you that information because
it doesn't take into account the ear/brain's sensitivity to the noise's
spectra and its ability to both integrate and/or reject noise (e.g.,
critical banding phenomenon, Fletcher-Munson curves). It assumes that
the ear/brain heads RMS noise.

So an RMS noise spec of, for example, -107.6 dBFS only gives you a very
rough idea of how quiet a device is. It doesn't tell you where the
noise energy is, or whether it will be heard in relation to a music
signal. Also, it's misleading in that, looking at a -107.6 dBFS spec,
you might think that you won't be able to record a tone that's at -130
dBFS, when that's not the case -- you *will* be able to record a -130
tone with our Mic2496. So the single number spec doesn't tell you how
quiet a signal you'll be able to record.

A frequency response graph is more informative. You can see the
character of the noise and if you understand how the ear/brain system
works, you can extrapolate how the noise will manifest under different
signal conditions.

James Boyk

unread,
Jun 7, 2003, 9:14:01 PM6/7/03
to
George Perfect wrote:
> those DDD markings on early CDs always confused me.

First letter - master tape A/D. 2nd - Two-ch. mixdown A/D. 3rd - final
storage medium A/D. Examples: Analog master multi-track to digital
2-track to CD: ADD. Digital 2-track master to CD: DD. Analog 2-track
master tape to Lp: AA. (Yes, I checked this last with the standards
authority; but I don't think anyone but me has ever used it.) HOWEVER,
note that what was identified was only the storage medium. If you went
through analog for EQ, say, on an otherwise pure-digital production, the
letters were still DDD because you still had no analog storage. That was
one reason for the gradual disuse of the designations. Another was that
many labels lied, calling things DDD when they weren't. (Spectral
analysis would show the "once-around" from analog deck's capstan
eccentricity.) Final reason is that the letters don't particularly
correlate with sound quality, as many labels found that CDs came out
sounding better from analog master tape.

> What we need is to do away with the capsule altogether.
My vote goes to replacing all our fancy mics and preamps with ... the
digital barometer.

I had an idea more than 20 years ago for a direct digital mike, where
the input was sound-pressure variation and the output was a bit stream,
with no intermediate analog electronic step. Didn't have funding or time
to prototype it.

James Boyk

Mark T. Wieczorek

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 1:32:43 AM6/8/03
to
James Boyk <bo...@caltech.edu> wrote in news:3EE28DD9...@caltech.edu:

> I had an idea more than 20 years ago for a direct digital mike, where
> the input was sound-pressure variation and the output was a bit stream,
> with no intermediate analog electronic step. Didn't have funding or time
> to prototype it.

Sounds like that april fools mic Dave Moulton 'reviewed.'

James Boyk

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 8:42:15 AM6/8/03
to
Mark T. Wieczorek wrote:
>>James Boyk wrote: I had an idea more than 20 years ago for a direct digital mike, where

>>the input was sound-pressure variation and the output was a bit stream,
>>with no intermediate analog electronic step. Didn't have funding or time
>>to prototype it.

> Sounds like that april fools mic Dave Moulton 'reviewed.'


No; it was real; would definitely have worked to some resolution and at
some rate; the question was what resolution and what rate.

James Boyk

Richard Crowley

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 9:51:25 AM6/8/03
to
James Boyk wrote ...

> I had an idea more than 20 years ago for a direct digital mike,
> where the input was sound-pressure variation and the output
> was a bit stream, with no intermediate analog electronic step.
> Didn't have funding or time to prototype it.

As analog IC development continues in the direction of smaller and smaller,
and lower and lower power (for the mobile products markets), it may be
possible one day to make A/D converters that work at traditional mic-level
voltages.

Of course, how they "sound" may be a whole 'nuther matter! I don't have my
hopes up for anything like that to be developed for anything but perhaps the
"cell-phone" market where a 30dB SNR and 1% distortion would be considered
"excellent" :-)

OTOH, what about using a condenser mic in an L/C oscillator (at RF) and
using a very-high speed frequency counter to derive the signal? IIRC, this
(V/F conversion) is the method used in test equipment like Audio Precision
for (effective) high-resolution A/D conversion.

Maybe I should experiment with my spare Sony C-37 capsules?


Les Cargill

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 9:31:39 PM6/8/03
to
Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> James Boyk wrote ...
> > I had an idea more than 20 years ago for a direct digital mike,
> > where the input was sound-pressure variation and the output
> > was a bit stream, with no intermediate analog electronic step.
> > Didn't have funding or time to prototype it.
>
> As analog IC development continues in the direction of smaller and smaller,
> and lower and lower power (for the mobile products markets), it may be
> possible one day to make A/D converters that work at traditional mic-level
> voltages.
>

Maybe, but somebody has a job on trying to get
the S/N down in the face of low voltage parts.

THe power consumption thing is oriented towards
laptop computers, and therefore more interested in
low voltage.

> Of course, how they "sound" may be a whole 'nuther matter! I don't have my
> hopes up for anything like that to be developed for anything but perhaps the
> "cell-phone" market where a 30dB SNR and 1% distortion would be considered
> "excellent" :-)
>
> OTOH, what about using a condenser mic in an L/C oscillator (at RF) and
> using a very-high speed frequency counter to derive the signal? IIRC, this
> (V/F conversion) is the method used in test equipment like Audio Precision
> for (effective) high-resolution A/D conversion.
>

Seems like that is gonna draw a lot of current. Maybe? And the low-output
parts are going to be RF sensitive.

> Maybe I should experiment with my spare Sony C-37 capsules?

TI's DSP parts are getting smaller and cooler every day. I believe you could
probably deadbug a RAM chip on one and have a full-on fancy software-driven
A/D in the mic barrel.

--
Les Cargill

Fletcher

unread,
Jun 9, 2003, 6:30:18 AM6/9/03
to
Richard Crowley wrote:

> As analog IC development continues in the direction of smaller and smaller,
> and lower and lower power (for the mobile products markets), it may be
> possible one day to make A/D converters that work at traditional mic-level
> voltages.

Neumann has accomplished this... from what I understand, they haven't
"released" the product, but the 'Solution D' was up and running at their AES
booth a few years ago. Before our final falling out they had threatened to send
the thing up to be tried... then again I had been hearing the same threat for
several years so it could be that they got it working properly... it could be
that they're full of shit. I reckon only time will tell.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"


Frank Raffaeli

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 5:23:21 PM6/12/03
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<yTOdnYeqFKm...@comcast.com>...

What's your definition of cheap?

Frank Raffaeli

http://www.aomwireless.com/

David Morgan (MAMS)

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 5:54:33 PM6/12/03
to

"Frank Raffaeli" <SNIPrf_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message ...

> What's your definition of cheap?
>
> Frank Raffaeli
>
> http://www.aomwireless.com/


Microphones, amplifiers and cables. ;-)


Frank Raffaeli

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 7:33:42 AM6/13/03
to
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message news:<tE6Ga.2093$%8.1...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...

Sounds like you're handing me a 'line'. ;-)

David Morgan (MAMS)

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 2:39:50 PM6/13/03
to

"Frank Raffaeli" <SNIPrf_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2c8119eb.03061...@posting.google.com...


Thanks for taking that little pun in good stride.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com


Frank Raffaeli

unread,
Jun 17, 2003, 3:35:55 AM6/17/03
to
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message news:<WToGa.1205$fh7...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...

> "Frank Raffaeli" <SNIPrf_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2c8119eb.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message news:<tE6Ga.2093$%8.1...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> > > "Frank Raffaeli" <SNIPrf_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > > What's your definition of cheap?
> > > >
> > > > Frank Raffaeli
> > > >
> > > > http://www.aomwireless.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > Microphones, amplifiers and cables. ;-)
> >
> > Sounds like you're handing me a 'line'. ;-)
>
>
> Thanks for taking that little pun in good stride.

Ok, Dave, I'm guessing after checking your site that you may have more
to say. My initial response was to Arny Krueger's post:

> <<Of course eventually it's gonna be cheap. Very cheap. So cheap nobody thinks
> about doing it any other way.>>

Where I believe he was talking about the relative future cost of
digital wireless. I'm just wondering if he really knew anything, in
which case I'd be interested in hearing an opinion, or if he was just
trying to evoke a response.

A teacher of mine once told me that "nothing beats a direct
connection". So, of course, I studied radio. I haven't browsed this NG
before, so I'm learning from the R.A.P. perspective.

Best Regards,

Frank Raffaeli

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages