On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers. Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

Regards,
JS

On Dec 14, 8:21*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.

NT

Yeah, like computers. *Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, *a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

Regards,
JS

Its usually the manufacturer that introduces a new line, consumers can
only buy from what's available.


NT

On 12/14/2011 1:38 PM, NT wrote:

...
Its usually the manufacturer that introduces a new line, consumers can
only buy from what's available.


NT

Exactly, right up to and including the death of radio ... people still
buy a seperate TV, then a stereo, etc.

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo ... a few years ago I had
an am/fm radio on a pci card in a computer, it was never "great" but
lead for me to await the development of better ... none has come.
Everyone I had shown it to wanted one, and many ordered and some are
still using them, in my family ...

So, I use my Flex for listening (www.flex-radio.com), and wait, and wait
.... I now think radio is going to have to die and "be rediscovered" ...
but we will see ...

But, the one device for every purpose is as dead as I can make it in my
house ...

Regards,
JS

"Modular radio" is indeed possible. Almost all GOOD RF test equipment
and professional grade receivers (Watkins Johnson, Racal etc) are
modular in that each section is a tray or block with a 50 ohm
connectorized input and output. But each module costs more than any
consumer radio.

The 10.7 IF module for the IFR 1200 series is basically a fixed
frequency single conversion superhet that has a parts cost of about
thirty dollars, fifteen of which are the connectors and the metal tray
and pan. Last I heard if you were so unfortunate as to need to buy one
it was well in four figures. It is simpler than any AM/FM pocket
'transistor radio' you can get at Radio SHack and contains no ASICs,
no microprocessor, and no custom coils or hybrids. All the miniature
IF cans are Coilcraft catalog parts.

By contrast the total profit in the notebook PC I am typing this on
is probably less than a hundred dollars and that includes that made by
the silicon makers for the chips which constitute nine figure
development budgets. The IF module has a board that could be laid out
in twenty minutes by any competent OrCad operator from a netlist. 10.7
MHz and 455 kHz are trivial to lay out for. The single layer board
probably costs three dollars apiece. he bare board fab in thei
notebook's motherboard is probably considerably more and probably has
eight to twelve layers.

The difference? Several Volume is one. Competition is another.

Very few people are even INTERESTED in radio outside the broadcast
receiver in their car and the various wireless digital gizmos they
own. The market is tiny. And that there is tends to be governments
and such, so the businesses that cater to it are spoiled rotten.

On 12/14/2011 10:37 PM, wrote:
"Modular radio" is indeed possible. Almost all GOOD RF test equipment
and professional grade receivers (Watkins Johnson, Racal etc) are
modular in that each section is a tray or block with a 50 ohm
connectorized input and output. But each module costs more than any
consumer radio.

The 10.7 IF module for the IFR 1200 series is basically a fixed
frequency single conversion superhet that has a parts cost of about
thirty dollars, fifteen of which are the connectors and the metal tray
and pan. Last I heard if you were so unfortunate as to need to buy one
it was well in four figures. It is simpler than any AM/FM pocket
'transistor radio' you can get at Radio SHack and contains no ASICs,
no microprocessor, and no custom coils or hybrids. All the miniature
IF cans are Coilcraft catalog parts.

By contrast the total profit in the notebook PC I am typing this on
is probably less than a hundred dollars and that includes that made by
the silicon makers for the chips which constitute nine figure
development budgets. The IF module has a board that could be laid out
in twenty minutes by any competent OrCad operator from a netlist. 10.7
MHz and 455 kHz are trivial to lay out for. The single layer board
probably costs three dollars apiece. he bare board fab in thei
notebook's motherboard is probably considerably more and probably has
eight to twelve layers.

The difference? Several Volume is one. Competition is another.

Very few people are even INTERESTED in radio outside the broadcast
receiver in their car and the various wireless digital gizmos they
own. The market is tiny. And that there is tends to be governments
and such, so the businesses that cater to it are spoiled rotten.

Any mid to high range video card --NVIDIA/ATI/etc. are much more
powerful and would be much more expensive, if they were totally
proprietary and required all other components in their system to be
proprietary and manufactured/sold/marketed by the same corp/company.

As already stated, manufacturers will fight to maintain the systems as
they are, and they will damn well use any scare tactic or manufactured
"monster" to cause the status quo to remain untouched and undisturbed.
However, the SW hobby will continue to decline, the media available on
those declining platforms will continue to decline and be limited, etc.

Like I say, this will all have to fall, apparently, to a greater low
than our eyes are reporting at the present time, before someone will
finally stand against the downstream and cause improvements in design
and hardware and software ...

What is happening is obvious, it seems like the only debate is what is
responsible and causing it ... however, no matter what debate and
arguments are posed, it is quite obvious all the WRONG things are being
done at this present time ... but, all the hardware manufactures seem
insane, as they keep churning out the same old, same old antiquated crap
but expecting a different trend ... all we are seeing are the results of
those endeavors ...

TV has gotten a partial reprieve, and probably will be rather short
lived. The big screen TVs, plasma, then LED has kept the focus off the
important question of, "I already have a computer, why don't I just drop
in a card, or hook up an external USB dongle, and use my computer as my
TV -- the big screen HD monitor can then serve as my computer monitor
also?" If you visit a software engineers home, or hardware engineers
home, you are likely to see such systems in use -- it is only for the
general public to realize the benefits before they start doing the same ...

But, those ahead of the curve can, and are, already enjoying this ...
perhaps the rest are simply unwilling or unable ... but I'd suggest the
TV you buy have digital, HD, S-Video, etc. hookups ...

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:17:27 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo

You have just taken me back to my first ever computer - some years ago
now. The only monitor option was the TV and a royal pain in the arse
it was. I still remember the day I got a proper, separate monitor for
it and the feeling of liberation that came with it. I would never go
back there again.

d

On 12/14/2011 11:47 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:17:27 -0800, John
wrote:

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo

You have just taken me back to my first ever computer - some years ago
now. The only monitor option was the TV and a royal pain in the arse
it was. I still remember the day I got a proper, separate monitor for
it and the feeling of liberation that came with it. I would never go
back there again.

d

Too high a pixel definition is just wasted with even HD TV, however, it
makes such a TV perfect for use as a computer monitor ... you are
correct, I'd never go back from there, again ...

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers.

Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.

Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.

So do I.

But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...

"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS

On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers.

Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.
...

You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq
control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM & harddrive), etc., or are
simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a
card on the motherboard of computer ...

But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.


Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ...

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.


No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB
dongle --albeit might be a large one.

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.


I was talking HD screens on TVs ...

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...

"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS

Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ... what
I am pointing out needs changed ...

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:13:50 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 12:39 AM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers.

Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.
...

You are gravely mistaken, top of the line contain a CPU, PLL freq
control, dynamic and static data storage (RAM & harddrive), etc., or are
simply computer controlled through USB ... indeed, they only need be a
card on the motherboard of computer ...

No, I'm not 'mistaken'. DSPs and microcontrollers are not like the
'modular computer' you were speaking of nor are the reasons and
cost/benefit ratios even remotely similar.


But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.


Yeah, that is the part which need fixed ...

Good luck. It's not likely to be because of the component costs,
manufacturing efficiencies, and market demand.

A hard drive, for example, is 'naturally' a 'modular component'
because the platters, motor, head mechanism, read/write electronics,
interface, and air tight enclosure are all necessary for the thing to
function regardless of any 'intent' to make it 'modular'.

On the other end, sound cards and NICs, which used to be your 'modular
components', are usually integrated onto the motherboard these days
and the trend is to do the same with the display card. AMD even
integrates these into their APU processors.

Fact of the matter is large scale integration and automated board
assembly are fantastic cost savers and, using the above examples, by
the time you consider the 'modular cost' of additional board real
estate, connectors, mechanicals, handling, stock and packaging the
on-board sound and NIC are essentially 'free', or less.

Btw, for a large chunk of consumers your 'modular computer' isn't seen
as 'modular' because even replacing the internal hard drive is a
frightening mystery and you might as well ask them to do brain surgery
on themselves as imagine they'll ever replace a motherboard.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.


No, a simple receiver only need be a card in my computer, or a USB
dongle --albeit might be a large one.

Your 'simple receiver' on a card or dongle isn't a 'modular radio' and
people looking for a 'travel' receiver are going to have a hard time
backpacking a PC.

Okay, so "that's not the market." Fine. What *is* the market, how big
is it, what do they really want, and what would they pay for it?

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.


I was talking HD screens on TVs ...

You said "Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio
boards... right up to HD"

Look, this is typical, what I call, 'engineers syndrome': fascination
with technology and 'what you could do'. That's a wonderful thing, and
necessary, but what's missing is whether it actually serves a need and
whether people would buy it.

It's also a common 'marketing survey' mistake. "Which of the following
features would you like? check box check box check box check
box " Well, hell yes I'd 'like' all those.

Add "would you pay $x for it" and the answers are usually quite
different.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...

"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS

Sounds like you suffer "brand loyalty" and proprietary thinking ...

No, I'm just using my product manager hat and, as I said in another
post, I just don't see it. But maybe that's because everyone makes
little but grandiose generic claims with no specifics.

what
I am pointing out needs changed ...

Says you. The real question is how many would pay good money for what?
And I mean specifically, not "would you like a modular radio?" Hell,
yes, I'd 'like' a modular radio.

"Would you pay $??? for it?"

Well, that's another question.

Regards,
JS