Posted by Smarty on 04/22/07 20:41

I am making no argument whatsoever to offer this as a practical solution to
an external mic jack. I merely was pointing out that physics was ***NOT***
the issue.

Smarty


"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:132ngk2aols983f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Smarty" wrote ...
>> The laws of physics don't really need to be violated so much as cleverly
>> exploited. There actually is a method to cancel mechanical sounds at a
>> fixed location removed from the source of the noise, and this method,
>> "active noise cancellation" is particularly suited for this problem,
>
> Which would be an excelent argument if a mic jack weren't
> an infitessimal fraction of the cost of active noise cancelling
> circuitry/etc. If you were responsible for the design of a
> camcorder targeted to be sold for $350, take a wild guess
> what the management would say about such a feature.

[Back to original message]