an indecent proposal (for people who know something about operating systems)

[[email protected]]

the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
nothing but an audio API.

has anyone done/thought about doing this?

What does anyone/everyone think?


Joseph Stavitsky
Donovan Digital Media
Fair Lawn,
NJ

[Boris Lau]

wrote:
> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.
>
> has anyone done/thought about doing this?
>
> What does anyone/everyone think?

Isn't that exactly what all those dedicated hardware DAWs do?
But I agree, it would be nice to have this on a of-the-shelf PC as well.
Maybe some linux flavour...

Boris

--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[[email protected]]

Dedicated hardware DAWs are a stupid, stupid way to be - completely
inflexible

Linux is (to my limited understanding) usuitable for a microkernel
implementation for various reasons.

The real problem is that too much of the serious software is
proprietary. Before any ofthis happens we need another Alan Lomax to
start traversing the planet, sampling instruments and donating the
samples to the library of congress ;).

What kind of music do you make?

[Sean Conolly]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.
>
> has anyone done/thought about doing this?
>
> What does anyone/everyone think?

QNX. Load what you need and skip what you don't. The real issue is finding
or writing a driver for the kind of audio hardware that you need in a DAW,
as opposed to a 'sound card'.

Sean

[Joseph Ashwood]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.
>
> has anyone done/thought about doing this?

I had thought of doing this, but reconsidered. The truth is that
microkernels may not be the way to go for that. True a good microkernel
would provide the near realtime necessary, but generally they slow
computation a bit on the machine. It would actually be better to have a
strict monolithic kernel designed for the purpose.

> What does anyone/everyone think?

I think it's something worth looking at periodically. As the multi-core cpus
become more available I think it may reach the point where the microkernel
design becomes universally superior.
Joe

[Laurence Payne]

On 8 Apr 2007 17:51:10 -0700, wrote:

>the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
>nothing but an audio API.
>
>has anyone done/thought about doing this?
>
>What does anyone/everyone think?

Dedicated hardware is the logical extension. We've got it, and have
had for years :-)

How is that evolution? Sounds like a dead end to me.

[Boris Lau]

wrote:
> Dedicated hardware DAWs are a stupid, stupid way to be - completely
> inflexible
That's right :)

> Linux is (to my limited understanding) usuitable for a microkernel
> implementation for various reasons.
Hm, maybe. I'd care more about a realtime kernel than a microkernel.

> What kind of music do you make?
I play piano, mostly Jazz/Funk/Soul/Latin (these have just "documentary"
style, bad sound quality):
http://www.borislau.de/music/quartett/blq-offroad.mp3
http://www.borislau.de/music/payback_live_mix.mp3

My own home-recordings go more into Pop. Just for fun I recorded a
couple of songs where I play and sing everything. The results would be
certainly better if I'd only play piano, but it was fun:
http://www.borislau.de/music/summer.mp3
http://www.borislau.de/music/ifwherewhen.mp3

For this I use Cubase. I'd like to use some linux software because I use
it for everything else besides recording. But my hardware (Yamaha mLAN
stuff) would make a lot of trouble. And I'm not enough of an idealist to
do it anyway...

Boris

--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 8, 9:34 pm, wrote:
> Dedicated hardware DAWs are a stupid, stupid way to be - completely
> inflexible

This is what's so wonderful about them. They do what they do, they do
it one way, they always do it, and they don't stop doing it because
you've loaded some other software or accidentally deleted a file.

Of course there are some that aren't very well designed and make you
do easy things in a complicated way. But that's a different issue.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com

> On Apr 8, 9:34 pm, wrote:

>> Dedicated hardware DAWs are a stupid, stupid way to be -
>> completely inflexible

Sometimes inflexibility can pay dividends. Inflexible things are more likely
to reliable, small, and efficient.

> This is what's so wonderful about them. They do what they
> do, they do it one way, they always do it, and they don't
> stop doing it because you've loaded some other software
> or accidentally deleted a file.

I have a couple of these for audio - my old Nomad 3, and my new Microtrack.
The Nomad 3 is fading as a capture device because its input jacks are
becoming intermittant.

The Nomad and Microtrak are great portable devices for capturing raw audio,
but they suck as editing and general production platforms.

I seem to have evolved to the same basic technology for both my audio and
video work - use a stripped-down platform for capturing video too, followed
by the use of a high-function editing platform for the rest of the process.

In video, I've found that DV cameras and DVD recorders make good
stripped-down capture devices. Again, a PC running high-function editing and
production software is used to do most of the work and finish the job for
distribution.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
>nothing but an audio API.

No, that was the last step. The previous generation of systems included
dedicated audio appliances, but that seems to have fallen into disfavor
today.

>has anyone done/thought about doing this?

The first generation of workstations were pretty much like this, or else
they ran over a non-multitaking OS and took the hardware over with their
own dedicated scheduler and memory manager.

I think the last system like that was the original RADAR, which ran on a
reduced version of BeOS. It was stable as a rock and very fast on fairly
limited hardware.

>What does anyone/everyone think?

I think it's a good idea, but it's not what the market wants for some
reason.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Dedicated hardware DAWs are a stupid, stupid way to be - completely
>inflexible

Yes, but I don't WANT a DAW that is flexible. I want a DAW that does
one thing and does it very well.

>Linux is (to my limited understanding) usuitable for a microkernel
>implementation for various reasons.

This is true. Linux _is_ the kernal. If you were to use a different kernal,
you couldn't call it Linux. But I don't think the original poster was
talking about Linux anyway.

>The real problem is that too much of the serious software is
>proprietary. Before any ofthis happens we need another Alan Lomax to
>start traversing the planet, sampling instruments and donating the
>samples to the library of congress ;).

Why is this a problem? I'm okay with proprietary software if it does the
job and is maintainable.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen]

wrote:

> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.

> has anyone done/thought about doing this?

Search term: AmigaDOs or AmigaOS.

> What does anyone/everyone think?

Bill should'a bought it and scrapped his poor imitation.

> Joseph Stavitsky


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ben Hanson]

To what end? For most DAW users, it's an answer to a question that no one is
really asking. A manufacturer is going to expect a quantification of why it
is compelling and that's a tough sell given what is already available.

-Ben

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.
>
> has anyone done/thought about doing this?
>
> What does anyone/everyone think?
>
>
> Joseph Stavitsky
> Donovan Digital Media
> Fair Lawn,
> NJ
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ian Bell]

wrote:

> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.
>
> has anyone done/thought about doing this?
>
> What does anyone/everyone think?
>

It's been around for years. It is called an AKAi DPS24.

Ian

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben Hanson > wrote:
>To what end? For most DAW users, it's an answer to a question that no one is
>really asking. A manufacturer is going to expect a quantification of why it
>is compelling and that's a tough sell given what is already available.

Why it is compelling is because it gives you an appliance. You get a
standalone system that can't run any external applications, and therefore
has no chance of external applications causing interference. It is a
completely controlled environment for the application and therefore gives
you solid integration between hardware and software.

The thing is... the market doesn't seem to _want_ appliances. And that's
a shame, because I do. Oh well, the Ampex is still running just fine...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Wilson]

I can't see it working. I'll stick to Windows because that's what I know,
although the approach might work with other OSs. You have to keep in mind
that your proposal probably means that all that software has to be rewritten
to work on a system with a limited set of APIs. That means inspecting and
testing every OS API call to make sure it actually exists in the specialised
kernel. And you've got to be able to install the software, and update it. So
you need all the file and directory APIs, the process and thread management,
Dlls, installation, registry, page files and so on. Is there a business case
for that? I doubt it.

In any case you could probably achieve the same result by not connecting to
the internet and turning off all unnecessary services etc. Then the only
overhead is disk footprint, and who cares about that?
--
Phil Wilson


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.
>
> has anyone done/thought about doing this?
>
> What does anyone/everyone think?
>
>
> Joseph Stavitsky
> Donovan Digital Media
> Fair Lawn,
> NJ
>

[Les Cargill]

wrote:

> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.
>
> has anyone done/thought about doing this?
>

Yes.

The problem is that soundcard makers
are reluctant to open the interface to the
cards. And there are a lot of cards.

> What does anyone/everyone think?
>

BeOS is already open source.

>
> Joseph Stavitsky
> Donovan Digital Media
> Fair Lawn,
> NJ
>
--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

wrote:

> Dedicated hardware DAWs are a stupid, stupid way to be - completely
> inflexible
>

They're a *great* way to go. They're reliable.

<snip>
--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Ben Hanson > wrote:
>
>>To what end? For most DAW users, it's an answer to a question that no one is
>>really asking. A manufacturer is going to expect a quantification of why it
>>is compelling and that's a tough sell given what is already available.
>
>
> Why it is compelling is because it gives you an appliance. You get a
> standalone system that can't run any external applications, and therefore
> has no chance of external applications causing interference. It is a
> completely controlled environment for the application and therefore gives
> you solid integration between hardware and software.
>
> The thing is... the market doesn't seem to _want_ appliances. And that's
> a shame, because I do. Oh well, the Ampex is still running just fine...
> --scott

The market is providing lots and lots of appliances, some
of which digitally transfer the data in real time
or faster to a general purpose computer running
DAW shrinkwrap.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On 8 Apr 2007 17:51:10 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
>>nothing but an audio API.
>>
>>has anyone done/thought about doing this?
>>
>>What does anyone/everyone think?
>
>
> Dedicated hardware is the logical extension. We've got it, and have
> had for years :-)
>
> How is that evolution? Sounds like a dead end to me.


It's how cockroaches evolved - they're done. Can't
be improved upon.

--
Les Cargill

[Laurence Payne]

On 9 Apr 2007 20:21:00 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Why it is compelling is because it gives you an appliance. You get a
>standalone system that can't run any external applications, and therefore
>has no chance of external applications causing interference. It is a
>completely controlled environment for the application and therefore gives
>you solid integration between hardware and software.
>
>The thing is... the market doesn't seem to _want_ appliances. And that's
>a shame, because I do. Oh well, the Ampex is still running just fine...

Aren't there still a fair number of stand-alone DAWs on offer?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 9, 8:21 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> The thing is... the market doesn't seem to _want_ appliances. And that's
> a shame, because I do.

The market probably really wants an appliance, but they really want a
lot of them, they don't have room for more than one, and they think
they're getting a bargain by only buying one set of hardware. They'll
come around eventually . . . to realizing that it's fun to spend money
in little chunks and put more time into fooling with computers than
finishing recordings.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 5:09 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> Aren't there still a fair number of stand-alone DAWs on offer?

Yes, but it's not clear who is buying them. I'm sure that there are
far more copies of Cakewalk sold than Akai DSP24s. For every mention
of a dedicated DAW on any forum and there will be a dozens of
responses about how the same thing can be done with a computer for
much less money.

Somehow it always (first) is about the capital cost, as if this is the
most important thing about putting together a recording system.
Admittedly, this is a powerful influence. A beginner doesn't know what
to do with ten different equalizer plug-ins and can work more
efficiently with a box with limited choices and a few knobs. But
there's a strong temptation to be able to do whatever you want with
few boundaries.

More often than not when I see someone who is a natural for a DAW
"appliance" they've already made up their mind to use their computer
and want to know what hardware and software they should buy. That's
where I duck out and let the confusion begin.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 9, 7:58 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> The Nomad and Microtrak are great portable devices for capturing raw audio,
> but they suck as editing and general production platforms.

I don't know what the Microtrak claims to do other than record and
play, but the Jukebox 3 makes no claims at all for editing or
production other than the ability to create a play list. If I want to
edit something I've recorded on my Jukebox, I dump the file to my
computer. Computers make great editors, whether for audio or text (and
maybe video and graphics, too, though that's not my thing).

But the term "edit" to most people today covers a lot more ground than
it does for me. To someone who didn't grow up with hardware, editing
includes equalization, compression, adding effects, adjusting pitch,
and maybe, just maybe, moving around or replacing pieces of the
recording. So people who want (or think they want) to do all of those
things want a one box solution.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com
> On Apr 9, 7:58 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> The Nomad and Microtrack are great portable devices for
>> capturing raw audio, but they suck as editing and
>> general production platforms.

> I don't know what the Microtrak claims to do other than
> record and play, but the Jukebox 3 makes no claims at all
> for editing or production other than the ability to
> create a play list. If I want to edit something I've
> recorded on my Jukebox, I dump the file to my computer.

Exactly. In time, we'll probably have Microtrack-sized appliances that
could potentially have the smarts required to be a full-function DAW.
However, the UI issue seems huge - its one thing to implement the necessary
functions in software and micro-miniature hardware, but quite another to
have the UI, the display and control facilities to back it up.

The UI is a huge issue. The largest single part of the computer system I'm
typing this on is the display, and by far. And, it is nominally a desktop
system almost entirely assembled out of standard desktop components.

> Computers make great editors, whether for audio or text
> (and maybe video and graphics, too, though that's not my
> thing).

I do all of the above and the answer is clear - computers are great for
editing information, whether text, graphics, sound or video.

> But the term "edit" to most people today covers a lot
> more ground than it does for me. To someone who didn't
> grow up with hardware, editing includes equalization,
> compression, adding effects, adjusting pitch, and maybe,
> just maybe, moving around or replacing pieces of the
> recording.

I grew up with all of the hardware implementations, and found transitioning
to the software implementations to be even more comfortable.

> So people who want (or think they want) to do all of those things want a
> one box solution.

The one box solutions are generally less capable, less flexible, less
extensible, less costly if that one function is all you want, and more
portable. The developer and vendor of the one box specialized solution does
the system integration for you. Where most people run into the most problems
with computer solutions, is being their own system integrator.

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:
>On 9 Apr 2007 20:21:00 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>Why it is compelling is because it gives you an appliance. You get a
>>standalone system that can't run any external applications, and therefore
>>has no chance of external applications causing interference. It is a
>>completely controlled environment for the application and therefore gives
>>you solid integration between hardware and software.
>>
>>The thing is... the market doesn't seem to _want_ appliances. And that's
>>a shame, because I do. Oh well, the Ampex is still running just fine...
>
>Aren't there still a fair number of stand-alone DAWs on offer?

Not so many. The Orban and AKG are gone. The RADAR is still around,
although it's different than it started out. There are still a couple
little boxes intended for broadcast use.

Oh, and there is the Sonoma, kind of.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 10, 8:57 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > So people who want (or think they want) to do all of those things want a
> > one box solution.
>
> The one box solutions are generally less capable, less flexible, less
> extensible, less costly if that one function is all you want, and more
> portable. The developer and vendor of the one box specialized solution does
> the system integration for you. Where most people run into the most problems
> with computer solutions, is being their own system integrator.

I guess I wasn't very clear about this. The one "box" I was talking
about here is the computer - augmented by whatever software the user
decides that he needs. So if the user needs 15 equalizers and 8
reverbs, he still has to buy only one box.

That's different from a box that's a dedicated DAW with a three band
EQ on each mixer surface channel and two assignable multi-effect
processors.

[philicorda[_2_]]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:51:10 -0700, donovandigital wrote:

> the next step in DAW evolution is a dedicated microkernel OS with
> nothing but an audio API.
>
> has anyone done/thought about doing this?

I always enjoy thinking about this kind of thing.

One approach that might work is to run a general purpose OS as a 'guest'
OS on a microkernel. Then, the microkernel could handle DSP and the
general purpose OS the GUI, network, etc.

L4 Linux works a bit like this... A linux kernel runs as a low priority
thread on an L4 microkernel. So the microkernel handles all the realtime
threads and interrupts and Linux does all the boring stuff.

This would mean very reliable 'hard' real time for the DSP code, but not
having to spend years reimplementing POSIX, Win32 or whatever to run the
applications.

If it's microkernel or bust, then give Haiku a look. It's a from scratch
rewrite of Beos that actually appears to solidifying into something useful.


>
> What does anyone/everyone think?
>
>
> Joseph Stavitsky
> Donovan Digital Media
> Fair Lawn,
> NJ

[Ben Hanson]

It's not the concept of an appliance the market doesn't like, but an
appliance that only does one thing. If all people wanted was a recording
interface then this wouldn't be an issue but the market for gear that is
specifically aimed at professional engineers is small. It's not compelling
financially or in regards to future hardware/software growth for the
remaining 90% of the audio technology consumers that need the device to do
more than just write bits.

A good example of an "appliance" that bridges this gap (and ergo an example
of an appliance that probably has a future) is a device like the Receptor.
It's a hardened, purpose-driven device, but under the hood all it really is
is x86 PC hardware running a cut down Linux distribution with a Windows
emulator that allows it to run VSTi's. You get hardware(-ish) reliability
but with the ability to expand the functionality of the device.



"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Ben Hanson > wrote:
>>To what end? For most DAW users, it's an answer to a question that no one
>>is
>>really asking. A manufacturer is going to expect a quantification of why
>>it
>>is compelling and that's a tough sell given what is already available.
>
> Why it is compelling is because it gives you an appliance. You get a
> standalone system that can't run any external applications, and therefore
> has no chance of external applications causing interference. It is a
> completely controlled environment for the application and therefore gives
> you solid integration between hardware and software.
>
> The thing is... the market doesn't seem to _want_ appliances. And that's
> a shame, because I do. Oh well, the Ampex is still running just fine...
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben Hanson > wrote:
>It's not the concept of an appliance the market doesn't like, but an
>appliance that only does one thing.

But that is the whole point of an appliance. It's a box, it does one thing,
it does that thing very well, and you don't worry about it. When you need
to do that thing, you plug it in. You don't worry about firmware revisions
or whether it has the latest anti-virus patches. It's just for one thing.

>If all people wanted was a recording
>interface then this wouldn't be an issue but the market for gear that is
>specifically aimed at professional engineers is small. It's not compelling
>financially or in regards to future hardware/software growth for the
>remaining 90% of the audio technology consumers that need the device to do
>more than just write bits.

And THAT, in short, is what has gone wrong with the whole pro audio industry.
The consumer electronics world of mass-produced crap is leaking into the
pro audio world, and the pro audio standards have lost considerably for it.

Pro audio products ARE niche products. They aren't designed for a wide
market. They are designed for fairly specialized purposes, and usually
built either in small production runs or as one-offs. They come with
complete documentation, including schematics and firmware source code,
and when something breaks you can call the designers and they trace you
through the circuit over the phone while you describe what you see on
the scope. They hold their value for years after you buy them, and you
depreciate them on a fifteen year schedule or longer.

Consumer audio products are stamped out like cookies, designed to be as
cheap as possible and to appeal to the largest possible audience. Support
is nonexistent; at best you get to talk to someone in India who can read
a script describing typical failure modes. If it fails, you throw it out
because it's too cheaply made to be worth any technician's time to open
the case. They are designed to have a two to five year lifetime and
have minimal to no resale value.

There is a very dramatic distinction between these.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Agent 86]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:44:17 -0400, Ben Hanson wrote:

> It's not the concept of an appliance the market doesn't like, but an
> appliance that only does one thing. If all people wanted was a recording
> interface then this wouldn't be an issue but the market for gear that is
> specifically aimed at professional engineers is small. It's not compelling
> financially or in regards to future hardware/software growth for the
> remaining 90% of the audio technology consumers that need the device to do
> more than just write bits.

Well, there's the root of the whole f-ing problem. The point at which a
product is compromised specifically in order to appeal to a
non-professional customer base is the point at which it stops being a
professional product.

That said, I love my Fostex D-824. I wouldn't call it a professional
level piece of gear by any stretch. But it does one thing really well, and
in use, it behaves much more like a tape recorder than like a computer.
That's important when you work with real musicians, because the first take
is often the best take, so you better not miss it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message


> Ben Hanson > wrote:
>> It's not the concept of an appliance the market doesn't
>> like, but an appliance that only does one thing.

> But that is the whole point of an appliance. It's a box,
> it does one thing, it does that thing very well, and you
> don't worry about it. When you need to do that thing,
> you plug it in. You don't worry about firmware revisions
> or whether it has the latest anti-virus patches. It's
> just for one thing.

Agreed. PC-centric guy that I am, I have at least two multimedia appliances,
being my Microtrack and my Magnavox DVD recorder, that under the covers are
quite obviously single-purpose computers that boot a special-purpose
operating system. I smirk a little bit internally when I watch them boot,
but so what?

>> If all people wanted was a recording
>> interface then this wouldn't be an issue but the market
>> for gear that is specifically aimed at professional
>> engineers is small. It's not compelling financially or
>> in regards to future hardware/software growth for the
>> remaining 90% of the audio technology consumers that
>> need the device to do more than just write bits.

> And THAT, in short, is what has gone wrong with the whole
> pro audio industry. The consumer electronics world of
> mass-produced crap is leaking into the
> pro audio world, and the pro audio standards have lost
> considerably for it.

Well, that I don't feel so strongly about. To me, the proof of a
professional tool is whether or not professionals can be comfortable
obtaining professional results with it.

> Pro audio products ARE niche products.

But pro audio has been largely replaced by audio production. I don't have
as clear of an idea what a audio professional is, as I have an idea about
what audio production is.

As technologies mature, the tools of professionals and enthusiastic amateurs
seem to converge. Take the building trades for example. The last set of
builders, plumbers, HVAC specialists and electricians that I paid the big
bucks to remodel my house, typically bought their tools and materials at the
exact same Home Depot store I do. And they used some of the same tools as I
do. Yet, in terms of quality for elapsed time, they were pros and I was
clearly the amateur.

Extrapolating a bit, while a lot of us love to hate Musician's Friend and
Guitar Center, they do sell audio tools that professionals can be
comfortable obtaining professional results with. They also sell a lot of
junk, and they don't sell a lot of things that many of us use and love, but
if they were all there was, life would go on.

[Ben Hanson]

I'm not saying it's the best thing for the trade (such as it is), just that
it is a reality that isn't going away. There will certainly always be niche
products made by niche companies that are immaculately designed and
engineered and excel for their created purpose, but that's not the reality
that most audio equipment manufacturers are in. Niche products for niche
markets = niche profits. Take a company like John Hardy from our earlier
discussion...no question they make products of this caliber, but it also
means that they will never be a very large company. Production costs and
economies of scale being what they are won't allow it, if the company is
going to be successful. To survive, large companies must be smart and figure
out ways to provide equipment for both types of consumer...take a company
like Focusrite, for example. Their consumer-grade gear gives them the
capital and exposure required to also offer high-end gear, and concurrently
grow their business. A small company that refuses to build consumer-grade
gear might have the best products but they will also never grow much. Again
I'm not saying that this should be their goal...I love that someone like
Hardy is content to make top-flight gear their highest pursuit, but most
audio companies aren't run by people with that goal (whether that is good or
bad depends on your point of reference).

You mentioned that top-flight gear comes with schematics, firmware source
code, and so on...but that is exactly one of the reasons why PC technology
has so deeply ingrained itself in the industry. It isn't proprietary...if it
tears up there's voluminous documentation available that tells you how to
fix it, and the parts are modular and field-replaceable. Again I'm not
saying that there aren't trade-offs but in general I think that this ball is
rolling and there won't be any way to really stop it...there will always be
niche products that are at the top of the pile but just because a company
creates products that target both segments doesn't mean that they can't
attain to nearly the same degree of excellence (think of Fender with their
normal and custom shop guitars, or Gibson with their Gibson and Epiphone
products...if they weren't so successful with their cheap stuff they
wouldn't have the luxury of making high quality stuff and still be as large
of a company as they are).





"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Ben Hanson > wrote:
>>It's not the concept of an appliance the market doesn't like, but an
>>appliance that only does one thing.
>
> But that is the whole point of an appliance. It's a box, it does one
> thing,
> it does that thing very well, and you don't worry about it. When you need
> to do that thing, you plug it in. You don't worry about firmware
> revisions
> or whether it has the latest anti-virus patches. It's just for one thing.
>
>>If all people wanted was a recording
>>interface then this wouldn't be an issue but the market for gear that is
>>specifically aimed at professional engineers is small. It's not compelling
>>financially or in regards to future hardware/software growth for the
>>remaining 90% of the audio technology consumers that need the device to do
>>more than just write bits.
>
> And THAT, in short, is what has gone wrong with the whole pro audio
> industry.
> The consumer electronics world of mass-produced crap is leaking into the
> pro audio world, and the pro audio standards have lost considerably for
> it.
>
> Pro audio products ARE niche products. They aren't designed for a wide
> market. They are designed for fairly specialized purposes, and usually
> built either in small production runs or as one-offs. They come with
> complete documentation, including schematics and firmware source code,
> and when something breaks you can call the designers and they trace you
> through the circuit over the phone while you describe what you see on
> the scope. They hold their value for years after you buy them, and you
> depreciate them on a fifteen year schedule or longer.
>
> Consumer audio products are stamped out like cookies, designed to be as
> cheap as possible and to appeal to the largest possible audience. Support
> is nonexistent; at best you get to talk to someone in India who can read
> a script describing typical failure modes. If it fails, you throw it out
> because it's too cheaply made to be worth any technician's time to open
> the case. They are designed to have a two to five year lifetime and
> have minimal to no resale value.
>
> There is a very dramatic distinction between these.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> But that is the whole point of an appliance. It's a box, it does one thing,
> it does that thing very well, and you don't worry about it. When you need
> to do that thing, you plug it in. You don't worry about firmware revisions
> or whether it has the latest anti-virus patches. It's just for one thing.

I'm working on a new wheelbarrow that doubles as a reclining lawn chair.
That, and the new PogoStik Shovel.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

Ben Hanson > wrote:
>I'm not saying it's the best thing for the trade (such as it is), just that
>it is a reality that isn't going away. There will certainly always be niche
>products made by niche companies that are immaculately designed and
>engineered and excel for their created purpose, but that's not the reality
>that most audio equipment manufacturers are in. Niche products for niche
>markets = niche profits. Take a company like John Hardy from our earlier
>discussion...no question they make products of this caliber, but it also
>means that they will never be a very large company.

Right, but why should I care that they will never be a large company?
All that matters to me is that I hav the toold that I need.

>Production costs and
>economies of scale being what they are won't allow it, if the company is
>going to be successful. To survive, large companies must be smart and figure
>out ways to provide equipment for both types of consumer...take a company
>like Focusrite, for example. Their consumer-grade gear gives them the
>capital and exposure required to also offer high-end gear, and concurrently
>grow their business.

A better example is Sony, which makes some high end pro audio gear and
also makes some of the worst of the consumer trash. Sony basically managed
to split apart into different divisions which design and support the different
kinds of products differently.

This is essential, BECAUSE the whole structure required to design and support
professional and consumer gear is completely different.

>A small company that refuses to build consumer-grade
>gear might have the best products but they will also never grow much. Again
>I'm not saying that this should be their goal...I love that someone like
>Hardy is content to make top-flight gear their highest pursuit, but most
>audio companies aren't run by people with that goal (whether that is good or
>bad depends on your point of reference).

Right, but most audio companies make trash, because that's what the market
demands. Take a trip to CES and you'll see just how badly things have
fallen.

>You mentioned that top-flight gear comes with schematics, firmware source
>code, and so on...but that is exactly one of the reasons why PC technology
>has so deeply ingrained itself in the industry. It isn't proprietary...if it
>tears up there's voluminous documentation available that tells you how to
>fix it, and the parts are modular and field-replaceable.

This is a good point, and it's certainly one of the things that has made
workstations based on PCs dominant in the market over the special-purpose
systems.

>Again I'm not
>saying that there aren't trade-offs but in general I think that this ball is
>rolling and there won't be any way to really stop it...there will always be
>niche products that are at the top of the pile but just because a company
>attain to nearly the same degree of excellence (think of Fender with their
>normal and custom shop guitars, or Gibson with their Gibson and Epiphone
>products...if they weren't so successful with their cheap stuff they
>wouldn't have the luxury of making high quality stuff and still be as large
>of a company as they are).

Yes, but the entire mentality required to make the different kinds of
products is ALSO different. You need to split your design, manufacture,
and support operations completely. This can be done: Sony has done it,
for instance. But it's hard to do, and it's hard for a large company to
justify having a small division with comparatively low profits around.
--scott

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