TS> You could easily MUX 5,000 channels of 32 bit conversion at 100,000
 TS> bps sampling onto a single fiber, and run the 
 TS> signal 50 feet or 5,000
 TS> miles with infinite splits, adds, and drops, with no ground loops or
 TS> degradation.  (Thinking of telco SONET OC-48 standards as to fiber
 TO> That sounds great! Are you sure about the 5000 miles figure with 
nfinite
 TO> splits? 
They'd be called add-drop MUX insertions.  There'd be more than a little fine 
print about self healing redundant architecture if you went for more than 5 
points of connection spread over more than 20 or 30 miles, though using 64 
bit signals at a 200 kbps clock would be easy.  Compared to the use of 
Synchronous Optical Carrier NETworks by telcos, linking a stage monitor feed, 
PA board, recording console, broadcast mix, off premise network site, and 
across town recording studio with identical digital signals would be simple.  
I'll predict the telcos will have upgraded from 2 gigabit OC-48 to 8 gigabit 
OC-192 before this becomes common for archaic pro audio folks.  With such 
presently available technology, you could even have the live mix done by the 
band's expert in LA who doesn't like touring, with the gig in NY.  
 TO> I suppose that folks DO run hundreds of feet with standard
 TO> twisted pair, but I wouldn't even attempt it. For that sort of thing, I 
 TO> would be careful to run all line levels from the stage. How about
 TO> those folks who run the return feeds down the same mulitcore with the
 TO> mic level signals? I have always found this practice to be an awful
Cheap, cheap, and cheap, the first three rules of many pro audio 
designs(???).  Maybe you've even seen unbalanced line levels next to the 
mics?  Or RatShack SM-58 copies with unbal outs?  Not many folks who 
understnand both the engineering theory and the practical art want to live on 
the road for long.  
Terry
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------