[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:34:57 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** With good quality, commercial mic pre-amps, that is true enough.

But with the pile of CRAP the Ian Bell Boy Moron is planning - it is
not.

Actually, it won't be problem. He's on the right track, and
it was done well, well before we were born.


You are a MONUMENTALLY AUTISTIC PITA FOOL - Hornbeck


**** the HELL OFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!


Kiss, kiss,

Chris Hornbeck

[robert casey]

Go measure a real room and get back to me.


I suppose a room with acoustic anaotic(sp) (the triangular like cone
shaped spikes of sound absorbing foam lining the walls and ceiling)
would be pretty quiet. Quiet enough to make you think that there's
something wrong with your ears.

Years ago I was on a company visit to Dolby Labs in 'Frisco. They had a
theater room that was pretty quiet.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:15:23 GMT, robert casey
wrote:

Go measure a real room and get back to me.


I suppose a room with acoustic anaotic(sp) (the triangular like cone
shaped spikes of sound absorbing foam lining the walls and ceiling)
would be pretty quiet. Quiet enough to make you think that there's
something wrong with your ears.

Years ago I was on a company visit to Dolby Labs in 'Frisco. They had a
theater room that was pretty quiet.

Anechoic rooms are built for measurement of loudspeakers and
microphones, and anyone who's been in one can tell you how
strange it feels.

They're usually pretty quiet too, but that's not what feels
strange. We're customarily and genetically conditioned to
a half-space environment outdoors, so why does a slightly
(factor-of-two) larger space seem so alien?

It's WIEIRRRRRRRD!

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Iain Churches]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:29:57 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

In practice, a 90dB SNR is *never* achievable, if recording
music in any conventional space. No room air handling, musicians,
or especially (if present) audience is quiet enough.


** For a mic to produce a s/n ratio of 90 dB at its terminals only
requires
the SPL at the diaphragm to be around 105 dB.

Very easily achieved by close micing a singing voice, drum kit, piano,
trumpet, clarinet etc etc. Close micing a drum kit can produce peak SPLs
at
the mic of over 130dB !!

True, if that's what you consider to be "recording". I guess
that's the modern standard, but I don't agree with it.

Phil is maybe unaware that mic pads (attenuators) are
always switched in for drum close mic positions. Few drummers
can achieve 130dB or anything near it. Ginger Baker was one,
but he was an exception to the rule.

Things are nothing like as bad as they may appear Chris:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:31:42 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:

** But "A " weighted - of course.

Yes.

Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture
any number we like from any other number. In America
the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB".

Yes. We also use dBA. I have been present when studios
at which I have worked have been measured. The ambient
noise of a large recording space is somewhat higher, at
typically 16SPL, measured from the conductor's rostrum.
Small music or speech studios can be 12SPL. Anything
below this feels very odd indeed. However these figs bears
little relevance to the noise of a studio full of musicians.

At our summer cottage in Eastern Finland, not far from the
Russian border, the forest at night is below the threshold
of my Dawe meter, at SPL 10

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...

But one guy I know has all his vinyl CD'd by a pro with very good gear.
And the recordings are often very old, SNR maybe 55dB....

Two glasses of wine improves the sound.

:-) And those CDs will have that vinyl sound to boot!

If only it were that easy:-)

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:21:02 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture
any number we like from any other number. In America
the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB".

Yes. We also use dBA. I have been present when studios
at which I have worked have been measured. The ambient
noise of a large recording space is somewhat higher, at
typically 16SPL, measured from the conductor's rostrum.
Small music or speech studios can be 12SPL. Anything
below this feels very odd indeed. However these figs bears
little relevance to the noise of a studio full of musicians.

At our summer cottage in Eastern Finland, not far from the
Russian border, the forest at night is below the threshold
of my Dawe meter, at SPL 10

SPL? What does this mean? I'm up too late and getting cranky,
but this is meaningless as is. dBA? dBC? dB unweighted, etc.
SPL is as bad or worse. That's the problem.

I'd go so far as to say that any use of the term "dB" that
didn't exactly mean a log power ratio was misleading.

Read this newsgroup long enough and you'll soon see my POV,
methinks. Or maybe I'm just sleepy.

Much thanks, as always, and goodnight,

Chris Hornbeck

[Iain Churches]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:21:02 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture
any number we like from any other number. In America
the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB".

Yes. We also use dBA. I have been present when studios
at which I have worked have been measured. The ambient
noise of a large recording space is somewhat higher, at
typically 16SPL, measured from the conductor's rostrum.
Small music or speech studios can be 12SPL. Anything
below this feels very odd indeed. However these figs bears
little relevance to the noise of a studio full of musicians.

At our summer cottage in Eastern Finland, not far from the
Russian border, the forest at night is below the threshold
of my Dawe meter, at SPL 10

SPL? What does this mean? I'm up too late and getting cranky,
but this is meaningless as is. dBA? dBC? dB unweighted, etc.
SPL is as bad or worse. That's the problem.

I'd go so far as to say that any use of the term "dB" that
didn't exactly mean a log power ratio was misleading.

Read this newsgroup long enough and you'll soon see my POV,
methinks. Or maybe I'm just sleepy.

Your POV is and always has been very much my own,
(even though we come from totally different backgrounds)
That's why we are both demented autistic f*ckw*ts :-))

Noise measuring meters come in many flavours. The common
ones are cheap as chips and probably not of much use.

I have a Dawe type 14198 which came from the
British Aerospace labs at Filton, and was used for noise testing,
both internal and external, on Concorde.

It can measure SPL to the A, B, and C curves with additional
band filters. It has an amplifier extender to take the threshold down to
10dB

It has a built in measuring microphone on a stem which when swivelled
to the operating position switches the unit on. These were commonly
used in the UK for studio evaluation.

See:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...op/DaweSPL.jpg



Cheers
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

I'm curious. With the 6DJ8 having 3 to 4 times the gm what's the
advantage to a trioded 6AU6 for the first stage rather than the 6DJ8?

Cost?

I guess. I thought we were talking technical.

The trioded 6AU6 with equal Ia to 1/2 a 6DJ8 has similar gm, does it
not?

From the triode data curves which YOU should have consulted before
posting your comment,

At Ea = approx 120V and Ia = 5mA, for both 6AU6 and 1/2 6DJ8,

6AU6 in triode :- gm 5mA/V, Ra =7k, µ = 35.

6DJ8 real triode, :- gm = 4.6mA/V, Ra = 6k, µ = 28.

What were your measurements when you measured samples of each tube
unsder similar Ea & Ia conditions?

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:07:52 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

Shame you are so ****ed in the head you cannot comprehend them either and
insanely think 65dB s/n at mid gain setting is OK when 90 dB is the expected
and needed norm.

I missed the part where this 65dB number became accepted. There
was an excess of bogusosity rampent at the time, so it may have
flown under the wire.

Where did this come from?

And even worse, nobody has defined "s/n". It's another number
subject to everybody's manipulation. So, what do *you* define
as "s/n"?

Specifics matter here,

Chris Hornbeck

I mentioned that if you had a mic which produced 0.5mV,
and you had a 1:10 step up tranny, then you'd have 5mV input for an amp.
If the amp had a triode gain stage of 25, you'd get 125mV output.

If the noise of the mic was say 0.5uV, which is an -60dB below 0.5mV,
then you'd have 5uV of noise at the amp input, and the 2uV produced by
the
triode input won't make any difference to the snr established by the
mic.

The triode could produce 12.5Vrms without trouble which is 40dB above
125mV.
So mic level could be 0.05V without causing clipping in the triode.

If the mic noise was 0.5uV, then the SNR would be -100dB.

I have not ever had to select a mic for recording say a jazz ensemble,
or orchestra,
and have never had to make a decision about building an amp
to act with the chosen mic for the wanted recording.
But if a mic made say 5uV of noise, you could easily end up
with a very noisy recording.

Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny
could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB
network
would do.

Patrick Turner.

[Eeyore]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

** But "A " weighted - of course.

Yes.

Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture
any number we like from any other number. In America
the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB".

No it isn't. A weighting has a specific meaning even in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_weighting

Graham

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore ****wit "

I reckon a quiet bedroom will make 15dB too.

** Not if a live person has to read the meter on the mic - gentle
breathing noise is about 32 dBA at 1 metre !!

!!!!!

After a long run ?

** Go test it - you PITA pathetic pommy imbecile.

According to Paul Tipler's Physics For Scientists and Engineers (Third Edition,
1991 by Worth Publishers):

Normal Breathing 10dB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel#dBA_ratings

[Eeyore]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

SPL? What does this mean?

Sound Pressure Level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level


Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

** But "A " weighted - of course.

Yes.

Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture
any number we like from any other number. In America
the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB".

Yes. We also use dBA. I have been present when studios
at which I have worked have been measured. The ambient
noise of a large recording space is somewhat higher, at
typically 16SPL, measured from the conductor's rostrum.

Since even a B&K SPL meter can have a self-noise in the 16dB region, you're
probably just measuring its noise floor there.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it.

Depends on the measuring distance.

With close miking it's readily acheivable. Remember the 130dB refers to
instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the average.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

See:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...op/DaweSPL.jpg

I see the RTS2 as well.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Patrick Turner wrote:

Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny
could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB
network would do.

Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear 'gain cell'
with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor.

You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"
Iain Cherchus wrote:

Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it.

Depends on the measuring distance.


** Why not be more specific ?

At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate 130dB
peak SPL.


With close miking it's readily achievable. Remember the 130dB refers to
instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the
average.


** Don't confuse a mere congenital, cock sucking, bum licking, helium
sniffing, tea making, paedophile expat like Churches with a FACT !!

Or the PUKE will internally **** HIMSELF !!!!!



........ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"

According to Paul Tipler's Physics For Scientists and Engineers (Third
Edition,
1991 by Worth Publishers):

Normal Breathing 10dB


** Go test it out with an SPL meter

- you PITA pathetic pommy imbecile.

That idiot web ref is totally wrong !




..... Phil

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"

According to Paul Tipler's Physics For Scientists and Engineers (Third
Edition, 1991 by Worth Publishers):

Normal Breathing 10dB

** Go test it out with an SPL meter

I don't have a suitably sensitive one of my own.


That idiot web ref is totally wrong !

Here's another one for you then .....
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/DB_SPL.html

Human breathing (at 3m) 10dB

I know this much. When I took those 30dB readings outisde the local venue it was
quite clear that breathing wasn't registering as a significant component of the
noise.

You are quite quite wrong about this or you must have some serious nasal defect.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"


** Go test it out with an SPL meter

I don't have a suitably sensitive one of my own.


** Then go get ****ing ****ed.



....... Phil

[Iain Churches]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Eeysore"
Iain Cherchus wrote:

Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it.

Depends on the measuring distance.


** Why not be more specific ?

At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate
130dB peak SPL.

But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick, we are talking
about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns. That's quite a different thing.


With close miking it's readily achievable. Remember the 130dB refers to
instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the
average.

I have sat in a drum booth, and measured the levels at the mic face.
Even with a fast meter it did not reach 130dB.


Phil's sad rant deleted.

Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Eeyore wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny
could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB
network would do.

Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear 'gain cell'
with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor.

You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes.

What is the URL for a schematic?

Patrick Turner.

Graham

[Rudy]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
:
:
: Eeyore wrote:
:
: Patrick Turner wrote:
:
: Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny
: could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt
NFB
: network would do.
:
: Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear
'gain cell'
: with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor.
:
: You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes.
:
: What is the URL for a schematic?
:
: Patrick Turner.
:
: Graham

an example would be the THAT 1510, see he
http://www.thatcorp.com/1500desc.html
only USD 2.05 (if ya get a 1000

may be a good idea to build as a reference mic amp.
Rudy

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote
"Eeysore"
Iain Cherchus wrote:

Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it.

Depends on the measuring distance.

** Why not be more specific ?

At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate
130dB peak SPL.

But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick,

Who said that ? Most drummers use drumsticks.


we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns.

Pardon ? Rythmic =/= loud ?


With close miking it's readily achievable. Remember the 130dB refers to
instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the
average.

I have sat in a drum booth, and measured the levels at the mic face.
Even with a fast meter it did not reach 130dB.

'Fast' on an SPL meter is actually about as slow as a VU meter, possibly slower.
It will *never* catch the transients that cause clipping.

I'm sure you wouldn't record a piano at 0VU on a moving coil meter would you ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Patrick Turner wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny
could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB
network would do.

Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear 'gain cell'
with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor.

You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes.

What is the URL for a schematic?

For a fairly state of the art solid state mic pre ?

I'd suggest TI's INA163
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/ina163.html

Fully integrated. You can improve on it a bit by going discrete for the input devices
and pushing the boat out a bit further though.

I seem to mislaid my Mackie Onyx schematic that shows a cost sensitive but high
performance example. I'll look further.

Graham

[Ian Bell]

Eeyore wrote:

I'm sure you wouldn't record a piano at 0VU on a moving coil meter would
you ?



Depends on how much headroom above 0VU our system has ;-)

Ian

[robert casey]

At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate
130dB peak SPL.

But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick,


Who said that ? Most drummers use drumsticks.

Not chicken wings? :-) (running, ducking for cover)



we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns.


Pardon ? Rythmic =/= loud ?


As a test of the microphone and the rest of the equipment, a single loud
bash of the drum should do. A drummer playing musical hot licks may
distract you from noticing a distortion problem you'd want to correct.

[Eeyore]

Ian Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I'm sure you wouldn't record a piano at 0VU on a moving coil meter would
you ?

Depends on how much headroom above 0VU our system has ;-)

You missed the point (as I might have expected).

It has nothing to do with steady state sinewave levels and associated headroom.


Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:41:01 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:

SPL? What does this mean?

Sound Pressure Level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level

Silly me, and I though it stood for Supercilious Posting
Level, which has increased to such depressing numbers
of late hereabouts. Long hot summer, wot?


Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture
any number we like from any other number. In America
the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB".

No it isn't. A weighting has a specific meaning even in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_weighting

You may obscure the discussion as you wish. "A" weighted
measurements are always called "dBA" if one wishes to
clarify rather than to obscure.

As a side note, your devotion to Wikipedia is touching.

No emoticons were harmed in the construction of this post.
Arf.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Eeyore]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

You may obscure the discussion as you wish. "A" weighted
measurements are always called "dBA" if one wishes to
clarify rather than to obscure.

According to the IEC, strictly dB(A) SPL. The A must be in brackets since it's
not a unit. You're quite right about common use though.

Graham

[Iain Churches]

"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...

At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate
130dB peak SPL.

But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick,


Who said that ? Most drummers use drumsticks.

Not chicken wings? :-) (running, ducking for cover)



we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns.


Pardon ? Rythmic =/= loud ?


As a test of the microphone and the rest of the equipment, a single loud
bash of the drum should do. A drummer playing musical hot licks may
distract you from noticing a distortion problem you'd want to correct.

If you are so distracted then you should not be sitting in the 1E chair:-)

It is normal, when checking mics, for the assistant engineer to give each
drum "a single loud bash" from which one can hear the quality of the
signal. This however bears no relationship to the level or sound from the
drum when played by a professional drummer.

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote
"Eeysore"
Iain Cherchus wrote:

Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it.

Depends on the measuring distance.

** Why not be more specific ?

At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate
130dB peak SPL.

But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick,

Who said that ?

See below

Most drummers use drumsticks.

As sold by Col. Sanders? :-)

we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns.

Pardon ? Rythmic =/= loud ?

There is a world of difference between single beats on a
snare or TT head ("bashing a drum skin with a stick" as
Phil called it) and playing a rhythmic pattern.


With close miking it's readily achievable. Remember the 130dB refers
to
instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the
average.

I have sat in a drum booth, and measured the levels at the mic face.
Even with a fast meter it did not reach 130dB.

'Fast' on an SPL meter is actually about as slow as a VU meter, possibly
slower.
It will *never* catch the transients that cause clipping.

But the peak LEDs certainly will.

I'm sure you wouldn't record a piano at 0VU on a moving coil meter would
you ?

Haven't used a VU meter since about 1965 when I looked at the
levels of a Rolling Stones master recorded at Bell Sound.

One of my Tonmeister tutors, did a very good demo to illustrate
the ballistics of the VU meter. He recorded 1kHz tone at
+4dBm (OVU) onto a short length of audio tape, which he then
leadered top and tail, and played back from start to finish to
show that the output level as indicated by the meter was indeed
0VU right through. Then he cut a short section out of the tape
and cut this on to the ene of the second leader, and added a third
leader to its tail. This shorter section also played to 0VU. Then he cut
an even shorter chunk, and added this to the third leader and
stuck a fourth leader to its tail. The short burst of 1kHz gave only
a reading of -4VU. He repeated this over and over again, and
each time the level indicated as the duration of the signal decreased
became lower and lower, until finally, he had a tiny segment of
audio (similar in duration to a choked hi-hat hit) to which the meter
hardly reacted at all:-)

VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape
mchines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation
for a musical signal was much too variable.

In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of
eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters
became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the
UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators
which could be fitted to the console overbridge.

One of my favourite meters is a venerable NTP light-meter which I
rescued from an old EMT film recording console that was being scrapped.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...p/NTPmeter.jpg

It has a mirrored scale, and a fastish rise-time with slow decay. I used
it a lot for piano recordings, fitted to a Studer console.



Iain

[Ian Bell]

Iain Churches wrote:

VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape
mchines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation
for a musical signal was much too variable.

In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of
eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters
became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the
UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators
which could be fitted to the console overbridge.


Our memories obviously differ. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, VUs
were standard in recording studios in the hey day of multitrack tape. When
I was at Neve, 99% of all our consoles were fitted with VUs. The only
exceptions I remember were the BBC and Pete Townshend. We might fit a bar
graph meter on a stereo out but that was about it.

Ian

[bassett[_2_]]

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:

VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape
mchines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation
for a musical signal was much too variable.

In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of
eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters
became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the
UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators
which could be fitted to the console overbridge.


Our memories obviously differ. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned,
VUs
were standard in recording studios in the hey day of multitrack tape. When
I was at Neve, 99% of all our consoles were fitted with VUs. The only
exceptions I remember were the BBC and Pete Townshend. We might fit a bar
graph meter on a stereo out but that was about it.

Ian

Once again Churches makes a **** of himself.. [and his little boy friend
will be happy]
What do they say about digging a hole for yourself, In your case
"keep digging"


bassett

[Eeyore]

Ian Bell wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape
mchines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation
for a musical signal was much too variable.

In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of
eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters
became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the
UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators
which could be fitted to the console overbridge.


Our memories obviously differ. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, VUs
were standard in recording studios in the hey day of multitrack tape. When
I was at Neve, 99% of all our consoles were fitted with VUs. The only
exceptions I remember were the BBC and Pete Townshend. We might fit a bar
graph meter on a stereo out but that was about it.

Correct.

The rock and roll industry always used VUs. PPMs were for the broadcaster mainly
and VUs were about all that existed at the time in N America.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Bell wrote:

When I was at Neve

So that's you, me and Tony Aayer in uk.r.a

Anyone else.

1985-88 here : 'operations dept' - project leader. The most interesting stuff I
did was on V series + custom derivatives and I managed to get in on some of the
digital department's work too.

Graham

[Iain Churches]

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:

VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape
machines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation
for a musical signal was much too variable.

In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of
eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters
became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the
UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators
which could be fitted to the console overbridge.


Our memories obviously differ. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned,
VUs
were standard in recording studios in the hey day of multitrack tape. When
I was at Neve, 99% of all our consoles were fitted with VUs. The only
exceptions I remember were the BBC and Pete Townshend. We might fit a bar
graph meter on a stereo out but that was about it.

The Neve in Decca studio II was fitted with Decca type PPMs, to bring
compatibility with the other consoles. The API had VUs, with the kind of
meterbridge I mentioned. Both the old and the new consoles in studio
III had PPMs,as did all cutting and dubbing rooms, so I suppose we
were luckier than most. These meters had Ernest Turner and Sifam
movements and Decca built driver amps designed by Alan Reeve.


Iain

[Ian Bell]

Eeyore wrote:



Ian Bell wrote:

When I was at Neve

So that's you, me and Tony Aayer in uk.r.a

Anyone else.

1985-88 here : 'operations dept' - project leader. The most interesting
stuff I did was on V series + custom derivatives and I managed to get in
on some of the digital department's work too.

Graham

74 -76 in Sales Engineering (the tree hut) with Tony Cornwell and Betty
Harmer-Smith. Lots of interesting stuff. Consoles for the Kinks, The Who
(Rampart), ABBA and Pete Townshend (Eel Pie). Radio Brunei - complete radio
sation. Watching Flying Faders for the first time. Working with Rupert on
the new CRC (cheap radio console). But best of all was helping the Bunny
Girls get changed behind a big console (8038 perhaps) at APRS show ;-)

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

Rudy wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
:
:
: Eeyore wrote:
:
: Patrick Turner wrote:
:
: Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny
: could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt
NFB
: network would do.
:
: Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear
'gain cell'
: with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor.
:
: You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes.
:
: What is the URL for a schematic?
:
: Patrick Turner.
:
: Graham

an example would be the THAT 1510, see he
http://www.thatcorp.com/1500desc.html
only USD 2.05 (if ya get a 1000

may be a good idea to build as a reference mic amp.
Rudy

Thanks Rudy, I've saved the files for when I may need them.

Patrick Turner.