Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 92633" data-attributes="member: 126">Re: Best inexpensive wireless mixerThese days it&#039;s a cook book app-note exercise...&nbsp; Back in the day we had to dial in the current density of discrete parts to optimize noise figure for mic source impedance etc. The hoopla is not made by the whole industry but by marketing pukes trying to differentiate between otherwise similar products. Throw enough money at a big lie and any number of people buy the blarney.&nbsp; Consumers after being sold on the conceit repeat it to justify purchase decisions and pride of ownership. really... not nothing... You need to understand mixer math... an X$ preamp is X dollars times 24 or 32. Even Mackie a skillful and successful marketer, hyped up the imaginary R &amp; D investment to develop their pre, not the preamp parts cost. I never argue with people about what they hear or think they hear. The rest of the chain is even easier than the mic pre, except maybe a bus amp with lots of stems. I suspect people hear EQ voicing, gain structure (some mixers do not have comprehensive clip detection), and who knows what. Modern ICs even very cheap ones are pretty good. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; I write some software, generally digital path stuff works or doesn&#039;t, not as much gray area as analog design. One exception is some early cheap digital software recording environments, running on inadequate processor power. Some sample rate conversion algorithms and data crunching may cut corners to work on marginal platforms. We concur... speakers matter... JR</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 92633, member: 126"] Re: Best inexpensive wireless mixer These days it's a cook book app-note exercise... Back in the day we had to dial in the current density of discrete parts to optimize noise figure for mic source impedance etc. The hoopla is not made by the whole industry but by marketing pukes trying to differentiate between otherwise similar products. Throw enough money at a big lie and any number of people buy the blarney. Consumers after being sold on the conceit repeat it to justify purchase decisions and pride of ownership. really... not nothing... You need to understand mixer math... an X$ preamp is X dollars times 24 or 32. Even Mackie a skillful and successful marketer, hyped up the imaginary R & D investment to develop their pre, not the preamp parts cost. I never argue with people about what they hear or think they hear. The rest of the chain is even easier than the mic pre, except maybe a bus amp with lots of stems. I suspect people hear EQ voicing, gain structure (some mixers do not have comprehensive clip detection), and who knows what. Modern ICs even very cheap ones are pretty good. :-) I write some software, generally digital path stuff works or doesn't, not as much gray area as analog design. One exception is some early cheap digital software recording environments, running on inadequate processor power. Some sample rate conversion algorithms and data crunching may cut corners to work on marginal platforms. We concur... speakers matter... JR [/QUOTE]

Verification