Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
mcp6453[_2_] mcp6453[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 749
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

What are the best "value" 1:1 mic transformers you're aware of? "Value"
means cheaper than Lundahl or Jensen and better performance than the
transformers in Shure mixers. Shielding is important. Does Edcor make
mic transformers?
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

mcp6453 wrote:
What are the best "value" 1:1 mic transformers you're aware of? "Value"
means cheaper than Lundahl or Jensen and better performance than the
transformers in Shure mixers. Shielding is important. Does Edcor make
mic transformers?


Edcor makes some very good mike transformers but there is no mu-metal shield
at all on them. Sescom used to have some decent shielded ones, I don't know
if they still do. Neutrik did too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
mcp6453[_2_] mcp6453[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 749
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On 10/1/2018 1:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
mcp6453 wrote:
What are the best "value" 1:1 mic transformers you're aware of? "Value"
means cheaper than Lundahl or Jensen and better performance than the
transformers in Shure mixers. Shielding is important. Does Edcor make
mic transformers?


Edcor makes some very good mike transformers but there is no mu-metal shield
at all on them. Sescom used to have some decent shielded ones, I don't know
if they still do. Neutrik did too.
--scott


Apparently Sescom doesn't make them any more, and the Neutrik is 50%
more expensive than the Jensen.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford[_2_] Ty Ford[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

I was just talking to John Hardy about transformers. I have an old Revox C279 desk with six preamps. I always liked the sound of the preamps and the desk has both pre and post fader outs, but they're unbalanced.

I can go from them to my A/D converter and into Pro Tools via light pipe and they sound nice, but I'm wondering how much if any difference there'd be if I used a good transformer to balance the signal before the A/D converter.. I'm only running a 3 ft cable so I'm pretty sure I'm not losing a lot.

Regards,

Ty
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On 02/10/2018 15:43, Ty Ford wrote:
I was just talking to John Hardy about transformers. I have an old Revox C279 desk with six preamps. I always liked the sound of the preamps and the desk has both pre and post fader outs, but they're unbalanced.

I can go from them to my A/D converter and into Pro Tools via light pipe and they sound nice, but I'm wondering how much if any difference there'd be if I used a good transformer to balance the signal before the A/D converter. I'm only running a 3 ft cable so I'm pretty sure I'm not losing a lot.

I'd say that depending on the material, it may sound better or worse,
with another thing to bear in mind being the load driving capability of
the preamps, as the transformers won't be the pure resistive load they
are possibly expecting and experience at the moment.

The sound will almost certainly change.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On 10/2/2018 10:43 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
I have an old Revox C279 desk with six preamps. I always liked the sound of the preamps and the desk has both pre and post fader outs, but they're unbalanced.

I can go from them to my A/D converter and into Pro Tools via light pipe and they sound nice, but I'm wondering how much if any difference there'd be if I used a good transformer to balance the signal before the A/D converter.


Why, for sure, you'd get the groovy/warm/full/punchy/gritty/saturated
transformer sound on everything you record through them. Take your pick.

Unless you have a serious EMI problem, adding transformers won't give
you any other enhancements. And if your converters have a differential
("balanced") input you could take advantage of their common mode
rejection by "Mackieizing" the mixer outputs. Measure the source
impedance of the output, replace the TS jack with a TRS jack, connect
the mixer output to the tip terminal of the jack, and connect a resistor
with a value equal to the output impedance between the ring terminal of
the jack and ground. Sleeve goes to ground, as usual, by the shortest
path possible.

This converts the mixer's unbalanced outputs to what's commonly called
"impedance balanced" outputs. But of course, balancing is really about
impedance - the tip and ring (or pins 2 and 3 of an XLR) don't both have
to have signal on them.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On 3/10/2018 3:43 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
I was just talking to John Hardy about transformers. I have an old Revox C279 desk with six preamps. I always liked the sound of the preamps and the desk has both pre and post fader outs, but they're unbalanced.

I can go from them to my A/D converter and into Pro Tools via light pipe and they sound nice, but I'm wondering how much if any difference there'd be if I used a good transformer to balance the signal before the A/D converter. I'm only running a 3 ft cable so I'm pretty sure I'm not losing a lot.

Regards,

Ty



Well you certainly will lose something if you bung through a transformer
for the sake of it. How much depends on the transformer. And you may
actually gain something that you like - but in reality it will be a loss.

geoff
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

mcp6453 wrote:

Apparently Sescom doesn't make them any more, and the Neutrik is 50%
more expensive than the Jensen.


I'm right now trying to find a 1:5 mike transformer with good electrostatic
shielding. The customer's budget won't accept the Lundahl, and we can't meet
the quantities for the Tamura. The Edcor sounds find but isn't shielded at all.
Trying to hit about $20 in 100 quantities.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] digitaltrousers@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:34:09 PM UTC+10, Scott Dorsey wrote:
mcp6453 wrote:

Apparently Sescom doesn't make them any more, and the Neutrik is 50%
more expensive than the Jensen.


I'm right now trying to find a 1:5 mike transformer with good electrostatic
shielding. The customer's budget won't accept the Lundahl, and we can't meet
the quantities for the Tamura. The Edcor sounds find but isn't shielded at all.
Trying to hit about $20 in 100 quantities.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


What about this: https://au.rs-online.com/web/p/products/1237209/
....with this screening can: https://au.rs-online.com/web/p/audio...rmers/2106469/

As a learning project, I've been experimenting with the jfet preamp from Tapeop issue 37 (https://web.archive.org/web/20170831...-jfet-mic-pre/) using this transformer and can, and it sounds good to me. Maybe a little lacking in the bottom-end, but I'm still experimenting/debugging.

OEP have lots of transformers and prices seem reasonable: https://au.rs-online.com/web/c/power...ons=4294965919

Cheers,
Dan.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
nickbatz nickbatz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:08:17 AM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:

Unless you have a serious EMI problem, adding transformers won't give
you any other enhancements.


I don't know why the transformer changes the color, but anyone who has a Millennia Media STT-1 will agree with me that switching it in or out of the circuit definitely does.

It's probably due to nonlinear, artifact, and other words that make me sound extremely intelligent.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On 5/02/2019 8:48 AM, nickbatz wrote:
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:08:17 AM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:

Unless you have a serious EMI problem, adding transformers won't give
you any other enhancements.


I don't know why the transformer changes the color, but anyone who has a Millennia Media STT-1 will agree with me that switching it in or out of the circuit definitely does.

It's probably due to nonlinear, artifact, and other words that make me sound extremely intelligent.


I guess when 'in' it becomes a type of filter, then there are iron
losses in the transformer, non-linearity ;-), and frequency response
limitations.

..... which is why I think transformers (and tape) are often described as
having 'warmth' and 'mellow'.

geoff
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On 5/02/2019 9:19 am, geoff wrote:
On 5/02/2019 8:48 AM, nickbatz wrote:
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:08:17 AM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:

Unless you have a serious EMI problem, adding transformers won't give
you any other enhancements.


I don't know why the transformer changes the color, but anyone who has
a Millennia Media STT-1 will agree with me that switching it in or out
of the circuit definitely does.

It's probably due to nonlinear, artifact, and other words that make me
sound extremely intelligent.



But as Mike wrote, NOT "enhancements".


I guess when 'in' it becomes a type of filter, then there are iron
losses in the transformer, non-linearity ;-), and frequency response
limitations.

.... which is why I think transformers (and tape) are often described as
having 'warmth' and 'mellow'.


And vinyl.



  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford[_2_] Ty Ford[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:48:21 PM UTC-5, nickbatz wrote:
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:08:17 AM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:

Unless you have a serious EMI problem, adding transformers won't give
you any other enhancements.


I don't know why the transformer changes the color, but anyone who has a Millennia Media STT-1 will agree with me that switching it in or out of the circuit definitely does.

It's probably due to nonlinear, artifact, and other words that make me sound extremely intelligent.


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! ::joke filter:: Sorry, Nick, you set yourself up for that one. Long time. Good to read you.

People a lot smarter than me have written a lot more than me about the effect that transformers have on sound.

I have an STT-1 (and feel lucky that I do). Yes, the transformer changes the sound. I think a more interesting question is, why would you want to do that?

I think initially, transformers were used to make impedance ins and outs more compatible. They also have been used to ignore noise and/or block it. The iron or nickel in the core does have an audible effect. Also, the windings. The last time I talked to Mark Fouxman at SAMAR audio in Utah, he had just finished building transformer winding rigs to make the wire lay down in layers a lot more precisely. I think he said that this also meant that fewer circuit compensations had to be made due to variations caused by less precise windings.

And there's a lot more to it. Check him out he

https://www.samaraudiodesign.com/cat...nsformers.html

In doing it the way he's doing it, one has to ask if the old comparatively more funky designs are part of what people expect when they THINK they want the sound of a transformer. But, you kind of really WANT to hear the effects of all the cleaning up he's done. Is it a brand new sound???? Hmmmm. THE CURIOSITY AWAKENS!!

The STT-1 I have doesn't suffer from any of these. I think it may have been another way to fancy up the input with options. You want it? There it is. Ask John LaGrou.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

Ty Ford wrote:

I think initially, transformers were used to make impedance ins and outs mo=
re compatible. They also have been used to ignore noise and/or block it. Th=
e iron or nickel in the core does have an audible effect. Also, the winding=
s. The last time I talked to Mark Fouxman at SAMAR audio in Utah, he had ju=
st finished building transformer winding rigs to make the wire lay down in =
layers a lot more precisely. I think he said that this also meant that fewe=
r circuit compensations had to be made due to variations caused by less pre=
cise windings.


Yes, for years a lot of people have spent a lot of time trying to make
transformers cleaner and less colored. Jensen spent an enormous amount
of effort working out winding mechanisms to get interwinding capacitance
on high impedance transformers way down. Samar has much of the opposite
problem where they are trying to make transformers with crazy low source
impedances. It's nontrivial, and in the past people have made a lot of
compromises by using lower ratio and less efficient transformers than
would have been optimal, in order to get lower distortion.

But, now we have a lot of people who want transformer coloration as an
effect, and there are a lot of people spending a lot of money on vintage
transformers which were considered kind of lousy-sounding when they were
new.

I wound up making a gadget with a special transformer that is very colored
but has a coloration which is constant with level, for people who want to
specifically use the smearing and blending of older transformers but want
more control. The idea is kind of a silly one, but I figure I can't stop
people from doing it and so I might as well help them do it in a controlled
manner where they get the artifacts they want without the ones they don't.

You can see some propaganda at http://kludgeaudio.com/500/transwarmer.html
if you're curious. It does what it claims it does, but whether that is
something you want or not is your judgement call.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On 5 Feb 2019 11:06:37 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:

I think initially, transformers were used to make impedance ins and outs mo=
re compatible. They also have been used to ignore noise and/or block it. Th=
e iron or nickel in the core does have an audible effect. Also, the winding=
s. The last time I talked to Mark Fouxman at SAMAR audio in Utah, he had ju=
st finished building transformer winding rigs to make the wire lay down in =
layers a lot more precisely. I think he said that this also meant that fewe=
r circuit compensations had to be made due to variations caused by less pre=
cise windings.


Yes, for years a lot of people have spent a lot of time trying to make
transformers cleaner and less colored. Jensen spent an enormous amount
of effort working out winding mechanisms to get interwinding capacitance
on high impedance transformers way down. Samar has much of the opposite
problem where they are trying to make transformers with crazy low source
impedances. It's nontrivial, and in the past people have made a lot of
compromises by using lower ratio and less efficient transformers than
would have been optimal, in order to get lower distortion.

But, now we have a lot of people who want transformer coloration as an
effect, and there are a lot of people spending a lot of money on vintage
transformers which were considered kind of lousy-sounding when they were
new.

I wound up making a gadget with a special transformer that is very colored
but has a coloration which is constant with level, for people who want to
specifically use the smearing and blending of older transformers but want
more control. The idea is kind of a silly one, but I figure I can't stop
people from doing it and so I might as well help them do it in a controlled
manner where they get the artifacts they want without the ones they don't.

You can see some propaganda at
http://kludgeaudio.com/500/transwarmer.html
if you're curious. It does what it claims it does, but whether that is
something you want or not is your judgement call.
--scott


Transformers were an unfortunate necessity back in the days of valves,
both for hum rejection and impedance matching. Now, though, when an
op-amp and a couple of discrete transistors at the front can give an
ideal noise match to about 160 ohms (ideal for most mics), and CMRR of
in excess of 100dB is not a problem, there is really no point in using
a transformer, unless it is as an effect (more distortion and more
noise). Although why anyone would really want that is beyond me.

d


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
nickbatz nickbatz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 6:24:40 AM UTC-8, Ty Ford wrote:

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! ::joke filter:: Sorry, Nick, you set yourself up for that one. Long time. Good to read you.


Yo Ty, it's been a long time!

People a lot smarter than me have written a lot more than me about the effect that transformers have on sound.


Okay, but did they write "spurious artifacts?"

If not, they're not really smarter than you.

I have an STT-1 (and feel lucky that I do). Yes, the transformer changes the sound. I think a more interesting question is, why would you want to do that?


It works well on... well, to be specific I run my Yamaha VL1 through it sometimes just for the color. It's an amazing synth, but brighter than thick - like many Japanese instruments from the early digital era. That was their taste, apparently, i.e. I mean it purely as a comment rather than a dis.

You can ask the same question you ask about the tube paths (I have Telefunkens in there) - why would you want anything other than the straight wire sound? The first thing that surprised me, going back a lot of years, was that the solid-state path can often sound more like what you'd think the tubes would sound.

And there's a lot more to it. Check him out he

https://www.samaraudiodesign.com/cat...nsformers.html


Great, thanks.

In doing it the way he's doing it, one has to ask if the old comparatively more funky designs are part of what people expect when they THINK they want the sound of a transformer. But, you kind of really WANT to hear the effects of all the cleaning up he's done. Is it a brand new sound???? Hmmmm. THE CURIOSITY AWAKENS!!

The STT-1 I have doesn't suffer from any of these. I think it may have been another way to fancy up the input with options. You want it? There it is.. Ask John LaGrou.


And that's what happened, no doubt. I know that's what happened when he started offering NOS tubes - there wasn't a fly poop of difference between the stock tubes and the op-amps, and he responded to the feedback.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

Don Pearce wrote:



Transformers were an unfortunate necessity back in the days of valves,
both for hum rejection and impedance matching. Now, though, when an
op-amp and a couple of discrete transistors at the front can give an
ideal noise match to about 160 ohms (ideal for most mics), and CMRR of
in excess of 100dB is not a problem, there is really no point in using
a transformer, unless it is as an effect (more distortion and more
noise). Although why anyone would really want that is beyond me.




** A few words in defence of audio transformers.

1. When used for coupling a mic to a pre-amp, the audio signal is truly floating - so incidental DC voltages have no effect and it is very easy ( using a CT on the tranny) to provide full 48V phantom power for those mics that need and or benefit from it.

2. The use of a step up transformer inside a ribbon mic is virtually essential to match the sub 1 ohm impedance of a ribbon to typical mic input stages.

3. Conventional dynamic mics can benefit from an internal step-up tranny - as found in many older mics and still fitted to Shure SM57s and 58s. This allows the voice coil be of much lower impedance using fewer turns of heavier gauge wire improving both ruggedness and longevity of the mic.

NB:

I am well aware of the various issues with transformers which require some real "audio engineering" to render negligible in practice.


..... Phil







  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford[_2_] Ty Ford[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:08:18 PM UTC-5, nickbatz wrote:
I have an STT-1 (and feel lucky that I do). Yes, the transformer changes the sound. I think a more interesting question is, why would you want to do that?


It works well on... well, to be specific I run my Yamaha VL1 through it sometimes just for the color. It's an amazing synth, but brighter than thick - like many Japanese instruments from the early digital era. That was their taste, apparently, i.e. I mean it purely as a comment rather than a dis.

You can ask the same question you ask about the tube paths (I have Telefunkens in there) - why would you want anything other than the straight wire sound? The first thing that surprised me, going back a lot of years, was that the solid-state path can often sound more like what you'd think the tubes would sound.


I used to enjoy using an Aphex Type C while transferring cassettes because it did just the opposite; put a little edge back on the lossy cassette audio.

In addition to the GML pres I have here, Jim Mikles, a local friend, has just finished prototype work on a device with a solid state preamp that sounds really nice, even on the somewhat finicky TLM102 and AKG C414 BULS. No transformers and really smooth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIMfgQ6-7yU

I've had a positional statement for years that still rings true. "Good analog is better than bad digital. Good digital is better than bad analog. Good solid State is better than bad tubes. Good tubes are better than bad solid state."

I think the answer to, "Why would you want to do that?", is, in many cases, the same as "Why does a dog lick his balls?" Because he can!

Nick are you still writing somewhere?

Regards,

Ty
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

Don Pearce wrote:
Transformers were an unfortunate necessity back in the days of valves,
both for hum rejection and impedance matching. Now, though, when an
op-amp and a couple of discrete transistors at the front can give an
ideal noise match to about 160 ohms (ideal for most mics), and CMRR of
in excess of 100dB is not a problem, there is really no point in using
a transformer, unless it is as an effect (more distortion and more
noise). Although why anyone would really want that is beyond me.


I'm willing to buy people wanting that distortion as an effect. If done
well, the resulting IMD gives a sense of blending that can be a useful
tool. I'm also willing to believe that a lot of people think they want it
but really shouldn't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

Phil Allison wrote:

2. The use of a step up transformer inside a ribbon mic is virtually essent=
ial to match the sub 1 ohm impedance of a ribbon to typical mic input stage=
s.


No virtually about it... lots of folks have tried low-Z input circuits
without much luck. Unfortunately not only is a transformer required for
this application, but the low primary Z makes it one of the most difficult
kinds of transformers to build.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
nickbatz nickbatz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 7:22:48 AM UTC-8, Ty Ford wrote:

I've had a positional statement for years that still rings true. "Good analog is better than bad digital. Good digital is better than bad analog. Good solid State is better than bad tubes. Good tubes are better than bad solid state."

I think the answer to, "Why would you want to do that?", is, in many cases, the same as "Why does a dog lick his balls?" Because he can!

Nick are you still writing somewhere?


Yes, I've been moving into public affairs journalism, including the podcast I asked about mics for in another thread. In the audio/music industry I've been doing some product manuals and marketing bumph, although by coincidence I am about to pitch a product review - because I'm not limber enough to lick my balls, so why not. Thanks for asking!

How about you?
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On 2/7/2019 11:08 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
Hmm, do you NOT have a blog for reviews? Do we need to talk?


I have a blog for reviews, but these days, when I ask for a piece to
review, the first question is "What publication do you write for?" When
I tell them that I plan to put the review on my web site (I don't like
to call it a "blog"), the next question is "How many visitors do you
have per month?" When I give them the honest answer of about 200, that's
the last I hear.

My reviewing has about ground to a halt. Recording won't let me review
anything any more. I figure that if it's worth writing about, it'll take
5,000 words or so, maybe more, and they want 2,000 or less.

George Petersen told me once that a review that long isn't a review,
it's a manual, to which my response was something like "Yeah, it's what
the the manufacturer didn't put in the manual." I don't figure that
everyone who reads one of my reviews, or anyone else's, for that matter,
is going to run out and buy the product. I write a review so that even
someone who already owns one can learn something from reading it, and
someone who's considering buying it can learn something about operating
levels or specifications.

But kids these days don't care about that stuff. They just want to know
how it sounds on drums or how cleanly it distorts (go figure that one out).

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
nickbatz nickbatz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

Ty, I sent you an email to take our conversation offline.

Hopefully the Comcast address I got off your site is good; if not, please email me (my first initial last name @ gmail, no periods) so I have the right one.
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford[_2_] Ty Ford[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default "Value" Mic Transformers

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 12:14:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/7/2019 11:08 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
Hmm, do you NOT have a blog for reviews? Do we need to talk?


I have a blog for reviews, but these days, when I ask for a piece to
review, the first question is "What publication do you write for?" When
I tell them that I plan to put the review on my web site (I don't like
to call it a "blog"), the next question is "How many visitors do you
have per month?" When I give them the honest answer of about 200, that's
the last I hear.

My reviewing has about ground to a halt. Recording won't let me review
anything any more. I figure that if it's worth writing about, it'll take
5,000 words or so, maybe more, and they want 2,000 or less.

George Petersen told me once that a review that long isn't a review,
it's a manual, to which my response was something like "Yeah, it's what
the the manufacturer didn't put in the manual." I don't figure that
everyone who reads one of my reviews, or anyone else's, for that matter,
is going to run out and buy the product. I write a review so that even
someone who already owns one can learn something from reading it, and
someone who's considering buying it can learn something about operating
levels or specifications.

But kids these days don't care about that stuff. They just want to know
how it sounds on drums or how cleanly it distorts (go figure that one out).

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


Well said, Mike. Mine are longer and I get somewhat of a similar reaction.
Yes, "clean distortion" wtf?

Regards,

Ty Ford
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Volume Level of "Tuner" vs that of "CD" "Tape" or "Phono" on my homestereo, boombox, or car receiver ChrisCoaster Tech 10 June 14th 11 10:05 PM
"Industrial Control Transformers" for HV supplies [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 2 November 11th 08 12:24 PM
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 January 31st 06 10:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"