Re: Flight of fantasy

[nigel@xxxxxxx]

On 16-Nov-2000 Paul Gordon wrote:
> I just _knew_ that Nigel "Copperhead" Orr would state the
case for
> pullimg LOTS of cable!  :-)))

I'll take that as a complement... if you're using existing cables, it
might save hassle to put everything over IP, but if you have to pull
one new cable, it's very little extra effort to pull 10, and if you
want to you can then use all of those for IP traffic at a later
date...

> Low cost - has anyone costed up a multi-zone amplifier? - I'd be
> quite
> (happily) impressed if a 4-zone one could be got for less than
> £1000.

Depends what functionality you need.  For me, most 'living rooms'
don't need the volume control adjusted much, and other rooms do just
fine with a fixed volume level and just a mute control.  That's very
cheap, but if you need independent volume controls for each room,
with remote control, it's a bit pricier.  But an amp with IR remote
would probably cost about £100, add 3 more for multi-zone, still
smaller than 4 PCs.  And if you use PCs you still need amplifiers
anyway...

> can? - the PC based system can be expanded to ANY number of zones
> for no more than the cost of a cheap PC per zone.

And an audio amplifier.  You'll also need PCs with no fans in the
power supply and on the chip, but that's doable (PC104 would be worth
a look).

> High reliability? - hmm debatable - with PC's the reliability (or
> not) is
> almost always the fault of the software (read Windows!), PC
> hardware is (I
> would suggest) every bit as reliable as the hardware in an
> amplifier.....

Good hard drives have a MTBF of about 40,000 hours.  That's 5 years
of average use.  There are plenty of amplifiers in the world that
have been used regularly or constantly for 20-30 years, with maybe a
couple of capacitors needing replaced.

Number of components directly reduces reliability.  Moving parts are
always less reliable.  PCs have thousands of components, magnetic
drives have moving parts.  You could probably get it running on a
single DSP card, with FLASH or EPROM memory, and all the ethernet
interfaces, and have a very reliable system, but commodity PCs aren't
built for reliability.

> Also, when PC hardware fails, it's easier (for us non-electronics
> guru's) to
> fix, because it's all modular - anyone can swap out a soundcard!!

You have to find the fault before you fix it, on a single PC that's
close to trivial, on a distributed network, it's not.

> don't need to get a soldering iron out!

If I didn't solder myself, I'd expect I'd get an amp fixed for less
than £30, inc parts for typical age-related faults.  If I couldn't fix
my own PC it would probably cost somewhat more, a typical replacement
part alone costs £20, and you have to be sure what is faulty first.

> Complexity? - hmm again possibly not clear cut. - generating the
> output at the point of use means that there is no need
> for centralised switching & routing systems.

No, but you still need to do the same work, just because it's not
visible, in software, doesn't mean it's not complex.  As someone who
regularly debugs software and hardware of comparable complexity,
hardware is _always_ easier to fix.  Software might be 'prettier',
though I would say that 2 Krone boxes on the wall in a cupboard have
never attracted any negative comments, draw no power, and are smaller
than a PC, and easily reconfigured without soldering.

> zones could be simultaneously pulling an MP3 feed from a jukebox
> server?

Around 800, assuming 100% ethernet use and no other function
(probably about 50% or less in reality).  Enough for domestic use, at
least in any house I'll ever own!  I'm not sure what % capacity
ethernet runs at with, say, 10 devices on the net?

> Easy interfacing? - the PC is the undisputed KING of easy
> interfacing! - all
> of the types mentioned in brackets are easily interfaced to a PC.

That's a remarkable statement.  Possible != easy.

> as has been said before, there has to be a better way, and my plan

Like I said before:

>>> There's always a better way

And IP might be it, though it's far from ideal.  Don't let me put you
off though!  A while back I was e-talking to someone in Dundee (IIRC)
who produces multizone distribution systems for large commercial
premises, leisure centres and the like, and was hoping to replace it
with a digital distribution system, with something like 24 zones, to
reduce cabling requirements.

At that time, he reckoned the cost would be prohibitive (about 5x the
current system), but there's always changes in price, so that
shouldn't be a consideration when forward-thinking!

It's certainly worth discussing, the 'better way' might become clear!

Nigel

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/3/_/2065/_/974562676/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->