From: dpierce@cartchunk.org   
      
   ShadowTek wrote:   
   > On 2010-08-30, Dick Pierce  wrote:   
   >   
   >>ShadowTek wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>It makes replacing that speaker inconvenient.   
   >>   
   >>No, the connector doesn't make replacing the speaker   
   >>inconvenient, rather the multiple unique functions   
   >>that speaker provides (controls for fader, master   
   >>volume, and on-off) makes replacing that speaker   
   >>impossible, except from the manufacturer.   
   >   
   > Yeah, impossible; it's not like I could actually cut a hole in the   
   > speaker box, run the speaker wires to another speaker, and effectively   
   > "replace" the old speaker, while still using it's build in controls.   
    >   
   > Like I said, inconvenient.   
      
   Let's all remember what this guy considers 'inconvenient'.   
      
   >>The   
   >>connector is irrelevant other than the fact that it   
   >>makes connecting the necessarily unique replacement   
   >>easier.   
   > So a serial cable with 2 screws is "easier"? Easier   
    > than what? The other speaker plugs that simply push in?   
      
   So, let's make sure we all got this right.   
      
   You're saying that when it comes time to replace this speaker,   
   it's easier to unscrew two screws, unplug a cable, and, as you   
   say,   
      
       "cut a hole in the speaker box, run the speaker wires to   
       another speaker,"   
      
   presumably cutting and stripping wires, soldering on connectors,   
   to, as you say:   
      
       "effectively 'replace' the old speaker"   
      
   than it is to plug a new connector in and tighten two screws?   
      
   > You're sounding a bit trollish, dude.   
      
   Thank you for your relevant, well reasoned technically   
   informed comment. Clearly, people such as yourself have   
   made enigneering and technical contributions if such   
   significance as to advance the Internet to where it is   
   today.   
      
   Let me guess: what do we all think the chances are that   
   this guy actually went out and bought these unmitigated   
   pieces crap, and now wants the rest of the world to   
   make him feel good and forget the fact that he screwed   
   up?   
      
   Or what about the possibility that he might actually   
   realize that a DB9 is NOT a "damn parallel plug" as   
   he first claimed and that, in fact, it's not at all   
   uncommon for even high-end audio interfaces to use   
   DB9s for multiple analog channel interfacing?   
      
   Since he DID ask "why the hell would anyone EVER   
   do such a thing," let's see why.   
      
   Note, for example, products such as the Audio Science   
   AS15111 professional analog I/O card, which provides   
   multiple channels of very high-quality balanced analog   
   I/O at sample rates up to 96 kHz, sample lengths to   
   24 bits, and WHAT kind of connector is used? To quote   
   from their spec sheet:   
      
      3 SPECIFICATIONS   
        BALANCED INPUT/OUTPUT   
          Connector   DB-9 Female   
      
   Or, on the digital putput ports:   
      
        DIGITAL INPUT/OUTPUT   
          Type       AES/EBU   
                      (EIAJ CP-340 Type I/IEC-958 Professional)   
                     S/PDIF   
                      (EIAJ CP-340 Type II / IEC-958 Consumer)   
                      (software selectable)   
          Connector  DB-9 Male   
      
   So to answer your question, dipsh*t   
      
       "Why the hell would anyone ever do such a thing?"   
      
   Because people who know what the hell they are doing decided,   
   using perfectly sound and reasonable engineering criteria,   
   that it was the best approach that, in some cases, led to a   
   no-compromise, near ideal solution to a connection problem   
   they needed to solve. Because a properly manufactured and   
   installed DB9 connector set can provided a highly reliable,   
   mechanically secure and high signal integrity demountable   
   connection point where more than two conductors are needed.   
      
   So let's take your, obviously well-engineered choice: multiple   
   common conectors. First, is there the real estate on the back   
   of that enclosure for those connectors. Second, does expanding   
   the board compromise its mechanical intergity when it comes   
   to the force needed to insert multiple RCA plugs over a small   
   area. Third. Are you SURE there are no connections that do not   
   require more than two condutors per signal. Fourth, and how to   
   YOU guarantee that the end user is going to stick the right   
   plug into the right socket? Fifth, since this thing is a cheap   
   piece of shit, how are you going to reconcile the fact that the   
   extra connectors AND the extra labor of multiple connectors   
   likely not a trivial incremental increase in manufacturing cost?   
   Sixth, since a DB9 is, in the vast majority of uses, self-   
   mounting, such that the mechanical strain is born not by the   
   PC board it's mounted to but by the bulkhead it's screwed to,   
   how are you going to justify the added expense of all the   
   mounting hardware required for your obviously expert designed   
   solution.   
      
   And seventh, how are you going to make all this work when you   
   have clearly demonstrated you haven't a clue of what you are   
   talking about?   
      
   Troll? Yeah, right. Whatever you say.   
      
   --   
   +--------------------------------+   
   +         Dick Pierce            |   
   + Professional Audio Development |   
   +--------------------------------+   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)