"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message

I disagree. A standard set-up of such gear, with everything flat, makes
for a flat sound, in my opinion.

Did you not do a Masters in the subtle differences in the meaning of 'flat'
.. ?


geoff

The Ghost wrote:
Bob Cain wrote in
:

Yet it is amazing how many otherwise competent people still
believe in magic.


Competent people don't believe in magic. Too bad arrogant assholes
like you fail to recognize the distinction between magic and the
unknown.

Ssome of us know an awful lot more about what is unknown then many. How
much do you know about the say, the big bang theory actual details? What
alternative ere there? What about M-Branes?, or the ZPE of the vacuum?

To know what one don't know, actually requires quite a lot of study to
know things.

You mistake arrogance for ignorance.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

a $1500 preamp (in our context, we're talking about a mic preamp)
and one costing 1/100 of that, or $15, could be sonically identical,

Absolutely yes. No doubt about it. Its not debatable. As I said, its
pretty trivial to design a straight piece of wire with gain as far as
audibility is concerned.


Only if you're amplifying the output of a signal generator.

Oh dear...

Put a
real microphone on the frontend and try to cover a wide gain range
and it gets considerably more difficult.

Not at all. Sure, there are some extra details, but all pretty much all
in the wash for an experianced analogue designer.

Whats you backgound such that you can support this claim? Do you have
any experiance in actally designing mic amps?

Honestly, you really should
check the archives for some of the postings on this from Mark
McQuilken and Dan Kennedy.

I don't know who these guys are. Are they qualified, professional
analogue design engineers? I note he has some company FMR Audio,
flogging expensive mic amps, with poor noise specs, so I can quite well
reason as to why such claims are made.

Its always the same here, many claims by various individuals, that with
all due respect, apparently, don't have the background. There is so much
misinformation in this audio universe that its unreal. Audio electronic
is no different from any other electronic design. As far as technical
challenge goes, its **** easy compared to say, medical imaging scanners,
despite what many would like to think in order to flog expensive bits of
kit of dubious worth.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

reddred wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
k...

No you haven't. All you have heard, is me plugging the output of a 15
year old 8 track analogue tascam cassette recorder with 10 year old
tapes straight into my PC sound card and pressing "record".


Then where did all the missing information go?


Interesting problem. Apparently the black hole just gobbles it up. Even
Steven Hawking has made several attempts to solve the issue
e.g.http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...info_loss.html.
As far as I can gather its still an unsolved problem.

So, although I know a little about GR, I am not equipped to deal this
particular thorny issue.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

reddred wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
k...

I'll let you know, when I do a real recording.


All ears, mate.


I haven't heard any of your masterpieces yet?

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

If you just plug a mic in, with a standard
pa speaker set-up, invariable it sounds too midderly and hard. Every
time. Any and all sytems.

Wrong.

Nope.

What mic? What system?

Pretty, much any system. Sm57s, peavey, jbl, soundcraft, mackie,
studiomaste, etc





Plain as day. It was like this in my teens,
and its still the same

When was that?

Oh..I'm sure you can work it out.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

In article writes:

Oh dear...

Put a
real microphone on the frontend and try to cover a wide gain range
and it gets considerably more difficult.

Not at all. Sure, there are some extra details, but all pretty much all
in the wash for an experianced analogue designer.

Can you suggest a mic preamp designed by an experienced analogue
designer that's priced where you think it should be that I can get for
evaluation? I'd like to hear what your baseline sounds like. You can
surely find a dealer where you are who can lend you a Great River,
Millenia Media, or even FMR mic preamp for your evaluation. Where can
I can I find an Anasoft-designed mic preamp in the US? If you're
really on to something, I'm sure the pro audio community would like to
know about it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article , Geoff Wood wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Haven't seen the newer stuff, but the earlier stuff was pretty careful
about that sort of thing.

V Series isn't really that new. Goes back 17 yrs now ! Similar circuitry
was used
in the 51 series and 8108 / 8128 that significantly predate it too.

That's new. Part of what made the older stuff have such a strong sound
character was, I think, the huge number of tantalum caps in the signal
path.

Like Dolby #22 A and SR cards !

I think the Cat 22 card has a textbook example of just about every common
design error I can think of. But it works. Mostly. Sort of.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Pooh Bear wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote:

e.g. the aforementioned FMR RNP, with it's rather mediocre spec sheet
noise figures--see 'What Sucks' on http://fmraudio.com/RNP8380.htm

According to the specs the Mackie Onyx ought to stomp the RNP. But it
ain't even a ****ing horse race. The RNP hits go, and it's so far
ahead might as well unplug the Mackie.

Interesting stuff.

How would you describe the audible differences ? Are they more or less
apparent say at high gains or high level input signals for example too ?

I still haven't tried the RNP, but the two problems I have with the
Mackie are the "grainy" sound at high gains, and the fact that they
seem to present almost an open circuit to the mike. They aren't bad
at all if you plug a high output condenser mike into them (but don't
plug too many in or the phantom line will sag), but plug a Beyer M-160
in there and it's just time to throw up your hands.
--scott

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

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Of course I like "real" sound. I don't hum much in my head. Sound from
speakers is just as real as another sound. Trust me on that one.

No, not at all.
You're talking about audio _production_, not audio _reproduction_. Sounds
from speakers could sound like anything, since you don't have any reference
for what they are _supposed_ to sound like.
--scott


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

Pooh Bear wrote:
Recently I was looking specifically at the current rating of some polypropylene
film caps for use in a PSU actually. Couldn't find anything in the 220-330n 630V
area that was good for any more than around 8 amps.

Try Electronic Concepts in NJ. They make high current motor starting caps,
and I suspect they'd be willing to make you some smaller value ones with
similar current ratings. Their prices on custom caps isn't all that
high, to be honest.

Ferroxcube also used to do that sort of thing.


Funny how 100nF caps in amplifier zobel networks work so well with 5 ohms in
series ???

Look up maker's data or do your own tests Pooh - Stamler is a fool.

I was thinking of doing some tests. I'm curious about the lower values though,
say in the 1n to 10n region.

I'd like to see the numbers you get. While Stamler's numbers do seem
high to me, I also don't tend to trust manufacturer's data sheets much
either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Pooh Bear wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

If I recall correctly, 25 years ago at
Studiomaster, it was more a 3 to 1 of the totally build cost. This
meant, e.g. build at £100, cost to shop £150, the rrp £300, allowing the
shop to discount after the fact by say 20%

It hasn't changed.

It has, because the distribution model has changed. The advertising and
retail overhead costs are much higher than they used to be. Seven to one
or even ten to one is typical on consumer electronics, and that's about
what we're seeing in much of the pro audio world.

On higher end stuff, three to one is still respectable, but that has become
a tiny sector of the market.
--scott


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

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

a $1500 preamp (in our context, we're talking about a mic preamp)
and one costing 1/100 of that, or $15, could be sonically identical,

Absolutely yes. No doubt about it. Its not debatable. As I said, its
pretty trivial to design a straight piece of wire with gain as far as
audibility is concerned.

Only if you're amplifying the output of a signal generator.

Oh dear...


Put a real microphone on the frontend and try to cover a wide gain
range and it gets considerably more difficult.

Not at all. Sure, there are some extra details, but all pretty much all
in the wash for an experianced analogue designer.

Whats you backgound such that you can support this claim? Do you have
any experiance in actally designing mic amps?


I don't design them but I have enough basics from my EE to understand
what the designers are saying. I've also been using them professionally
for 25 years. I can hear differences that I'm willing to pay for.




Honestly, you really should check the archives for some of the
postings on this from Mark McQuilken and Dan Kennedy.

I don't know who these guys are. Are they qualified, professional
analogue design engineers?


Yes.



I note he has some company FMR Audio, flogging expensive mic amps,
with poor noise specs, so I can quite well reason as to why such
claims are made.

You haven't listened to either product, have you? McQ made design
decisions that produced lower distortion figures (and better sound) at
the expense of some noise, in order to keep the price down. He
describes why. What's the problem?




Its always the same here, many claims by various individuals, that with
all due respect, apparently, don't have the background. There is so much
misinformation in this audio universe that its unreal. Audio electronic
is no different from any other electronic design. As far as technical
challenge goes, its **** easy compared to say, medical imaging scanners


Very low noise analog frontends are tricky. I know a guy who does them
for military satellites (mostly with tubes.) The designer of the Gordon
preamp used to do similar work for NSA. You'd probably fall on the
floor listening to the stuff he sweats.

In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

Look mate. Show me a PA 15" with horn that is flat within 1db, that
costs less then 5 grand.

Show me ANY speaker that's flat within 1 dB that costs less than 5
grand. You're blowing smoke now.

Too right. A 15" cone and a 1" compression driver are a truly lousy combination.

To get even +/- 3dB you're likely to need a 3 way system anyway.

I'd be happy to see +/- 10dB on most of those things.

But to be honest, the distortion is much more of an issue than the response
aberrations, to my ears. Yeah, they have lots of narrowband resonances all
over the place, but even that isn't as bad as the other issues.

So many of those cheap 15" cabinets just sound wooly and poorly defined,
because of the phenomenally high IMD levels.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2 May 2005 10:34:07 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article , Geoff Wood wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

...

That's new. Part of what made the older stuff have such a strong sound
character was, I think, the huge number of tantalum caps in the signal
path.

Like Dolby #22 A and SR cards !

I think the Cat 22 card has a textbook example of just about every common
design error I can think of. But it works. Mostly. Sort of.

Is there a schematic of it on the web somewhere? I'm reminded of
the "Bad Circuits" pages in "The Art of Electronics" where the goal is
to discover the problem(s) with each circuit and explain why it is
bad.

--scott

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Scott Dorsey wrote:

No, not at all.
You're talking about audio _production_, not audio _reproduction_. Sounds
from speakers could sound like anything, since you don't have any reference
for what they are _supposed_ to sound like.

This is the essential basis for the skepticism some of us
have for all the focus on perfection of minutia?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

a $1500 preamp (in our context, we're talking about a mic preamp)
and one costing 1/100 of that, or $15, could be sonically
identical,

Absolutely yes. No doubt about it. Its not debatable. As I said,
its pretty trivial to design a straight piece of wire with gain as
far as audibility is concerned.

Only if you're amplifying the output of a signal generator.

Oh dear...


Put a real microphone on the frontend and try to cover a wide gain
range and it gets considerably more difficult.

Not at all. Sure, there are some extra details, but all pretty much
all in the wash for an experianced analogue designer.

Whats you backgound such that you can support this claim? Do you have
any experiance in actally designing mic amps?


I don't design them but I have enough basics from my EE to understand
what the designers are saying.

Oh. I am a professional analogue designer. Been so for 25 years. You
don't seem to be able to understand what I am saying.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html

I've also been using them
professionally for 25 years. I can hear differences that I'm willing
to pay for.


Well, if it makes you happy...



Honestly, you really should check the archives for some of the
postings on this from Mark McQuilken and Dan Kennedy.

I don't know who these guys are. Are they qualified, professional
analogue design engineers?


Yes.

Oh.. they dont state what Degrees they have, if any.




I note he has some company FMR Audio, flogging expensive mic amps,
with poor noise specs, so I can quite well reason as to why such
claims are made.

You haven't listened to either product, have you?

I am sure they sound fine, except, mabe a little noisy.

McQ made design
decisions that produced lower distortion figures (and better sound) at
the expense of some noise, in order to keep the price down. He
describes why. What's the problem?

I read his argument. Its marketing bull**** and completely bogus. I can
easily design a mic amp with the same spec, and much lower noise. Its
pretty much a no brainer.

Not that I am immune to marketing bull**** myself, I just don't try to
justify such creative prose in a real technical discussion.





Its always the same here, many claims by various individuals, that
with all due respect, apparently, don't have the background. There
is so much misinformation in this audio universe that its unreal.
Audio electronic is no different from any other electronic design.
As far as technical challenge goes, its **** easy compared to say,
medical imaging scanners


Very low noise analog frontends are tricky.

The can be. For example, I have designed medical imaging front ends with
a noise floor of maybe, 0.2nv/rthz, which is some 5 times better then
the best mic amps.

The main issues are preventing interfering digital clock signals, as
these circuits are heavily mixed mode.

I know a guy who does
them for military satellites (mostly with tubes.) The designer of
the Gordon preamp used to do similar work for NSA. You'd probably
fall on the floor listening to the stuff he sweats.

Why?

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

No, not at all.
You're talking about audio _production_, not audio _reproduction_. Sounds
from speakers could sound like anything, since you don't have any reference
for what they are _supposed_ to sound like.

This is the essential basis for the skepticism some of us
have for all the focus on perfection of minutia?

I dunno.
Personally, I am paid to focus on the perfection of minutia.
--scott


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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

If I recall correctly, 25 years ago at
Studiomaster, it was more a 3 to 1 of the totally build cost. This
meant, e.g. build at £100, cost to shop £150, the rrp £300,
allowing the shop to discount after the fact by say 20%

It hasn't changed.

It has, because the distribution model has changed.

What are you on about Scott? Graham has just told you, no get this, the
*facts* as to what Studiomaster are actually doing.

The advertising
and retail overhead costs are much higher than they used to be.
Seven to one or even ten to one is typical on consumer electronics,
and that's about what we're seeing in much of the pro audio world.

You have no idea what your talking about. Seriously. Some of us actually
design consumer stuff you know.

Look, mate. If I actually look inside an amp or mixer, and add up the
parts costs, say for a Behringer, I am amazed that it isn't being sold
at a loss. Go down to Tandy/Maplin and try and build a mixer from parts.

Have ever even done a cost analysis for a design of yours...? Oh that's
right, your not a designer of products.


On higher end stuff, three to one is still respectable, but that has
become a tiny sector of the market.

Oh dear... The higher end stuff is the market where ratios are higher,
not lower.

Any idea what the build cost of Chanel #5 is?

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

Of course I like "real" sound. I don't hum much in my head. Sound
from speakers is just as real as another sound. Trust me on that one.

No, not at all.

Oh dear again. Of course its real. I don't imagine the sound from the
speakers, I hear them. dah...

You're talking about audio _production_, not audio _reproduction_.

Nope. I am talking about sound pressure level on my ear drums. Such
pressure is a real, measurable effect, irrespective of where it came
from. What virtual univese to you live in mate?

Sounds from speakers could sound like anything, since you don't have
any reference for what they are _supposed_ to sound like.

So what? The sound is still real. We don't have holodecks yet mate.

On the point of reference, I don't always care. I prefer the sound of
vocals thorough a PA, rather then acoustic. Its irrelevant to me whether
or not the PA produces an accurate rendition of the raw singers voice.
However, for, micing up guitar (tube amp), I do want the PA to be
neutral.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

If I recall correctly, 25 years ago at
Studiomaster, it was more a 3 to 1 of the totally build cost. This
meant, e.g. build at £100, cost to shop £150, the rrp £300,
allowing the shop to discount after the fact by say 20%

It hasn't changed.

It has, because the distribution model has changed.

What are you on about Scott? Graham has just told you, no get this, the
*facts* as to what Studiomaster are actually doing.

No, he said what Studiomaster was doing 25 years ago. This is a _very_
different market today.

Have ever even done a cost analysis for a design of yours...? Oh that's
right, your not a designer of products.

Not in twenty-five years or so. I worked for a consumer stereo company
briefly when I was right out of college and it left a very unpleasant
taste in my mouth.

On higher end stuff, three to one is still respectable, but that has
become a tiny sector of the market.

Oh dear... The higher end stuff is the market where ratios are higher,
not lower.

Take a look at the Great River preamp. The input transformers alone are
1/5 the retail cost of the box.
--scott

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

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
k...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

If I recall correctly, 25 years ago at
Studiomaster, it was more a 3 to 1 of the totally build cost. This
meant, e.g. build at £100, cost to shop £150, the rrp £300,
allowing the shop to discount after the fact by say 20%

It hasn't changed.

It has, because the distribution model has changed.

What are you on about Scott? Graham has just told you, no get this, the
*facts* as to what Studiomaster are actually doing.

The advertising
and retail overhead costs are much higher than they used to be.
Seven to one or even ten to one is typical on consumer electronics,
and that's about what we're seeing in much of the pro audio world.

You have no idea what your talking about. Seriously. Some of us actually
design consumer stuff you know.

Look, mate. If I actually look inside an amp or mixer, and add up the
parts costs, say for a Behringer, I am amazed that it isn't being sold
at a loss. Go down to Tandy/Maplin and try and build a mixer from parts.

Have ever even done a cost analysis for a design of yours...? Oh that's
right, your not a designer of products.


On higher end stuff, three to one is still respectable, but that has
become a tiny sector of the market.

Oh dear... The higher end stuff is the market where ratios are higher,
not lower.

Any idea what the build cost of Chanel #5 is?


I'm trying to follow this thread with an open mind, but please, Behringer,
Studiomaster, Chanel#5... Could you possibly pull out a less relevant
reference?

Predrag

In article writes:

I read his argument. Its marketing bull**** and completely bogus. I can
easily design a mic amp with the same spec, and much lower noise. Its
pretty much a no brainer.

Then disengage your brain and go ahead and do it. Then get someone to
manufacture it for you. I'll bet that at even $50 people would be
beating down your doors.

Put up or shut up.

The can be. For example, I have designed medical imaging front ends with
a noise floor of maybe, 0.2nv/rthz, which is some 5 times better then
the best mic amps.

Bandwidth? Dynamic range?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Kevin Aylward wrote:

snip absurd belief in the 'harmonic distortion' principle - ignoring
non-liearity

How come there are all those switching amps out there with thd in the
0.5% range?

*All* those switching amps with *0.5%* THD ?

I think you need to wise up.


Graham

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:18:05 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

To know what one don't know, actually requires quite a lot of study to
know things.

You almost sound like Donald Rumsfeld.

You mistake arrogance for ignorance.

In your case it's about 50/50

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:27:41 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

reddred wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
k...

I'll let you know, when I do a real recording.


All ears, mate.


I haven't heard any of your masterpieces yet?

What's your resume as musician Kev? Brit-rock tribute bands with your
brother and a drum machine?

Ever been on a real tour? Done session work? Done any television?
Theatrical music? I've done all these things.

https://home.comcast.net/~playon/blues_intro.mp3

"Scott Dorsey"


I'd like to see the numbers you get. While Stamler's numbers do seem
high to me, I also don't tend to trust manufacturer's data sheets much
either.


** Stamler's numbers are out by a *** massive*** amount.

In the case of the electros, the frequency figures are out ( low) by a
factor of 10 and the ESR figures out ( high) by a factor of 5 to 10.

In the case of the film caps, the frequency figures are out ( low) by
factors of 3 to 5 and the ESR figures (high) by up to 100 times.




.......... Phil

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message

Oh.. they dont state what Degrees they have, if any.


I know people with Ist Class honours degrees that are total ****s and
wouldn't know their arses from their eblows with anything in hand other than
a book.

geoff

I read his argument. Its marketing bull**** and completely bogus. I can
easily design a mic amp with the same spec, and much lower noise. Its
pretty much a no brainer.

And it would, of course, sound exactly identical.

geoff

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message

Look, mate. If I actually look inside an amp or mixer, and add up the
parts costs, say for a Behringer, I am amazed that it isn't being sold at
a loss. Go down to Tandy/Maplin and try and build a mixer from parts.


Do you imagine that Behringer, or any manufacturer, goes down to RS and buys
one-off components ? They don't buy a single $3 op-amp, they buy 10,000 of
them for $0.25 each.

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message

Look, mate. If I actually look inside an amp or mixer, and add up the
parts costs, say for a Behringer, I am amazed that it isn't being sold at
a loss. Go down to Tandy/Maplin and try and build a mixer from parts.

Do you imagine that Behringer, or any manufacturer, goes down to RS and buys
one-off components ? They don't buy a single $3 op-amp, they buy 10,000 of
them for $0.25 each.

Sorry to disappoint you, but even I can get them costed in the BOM of our Asian
suppliers for about $0.15 ea in the 'small' quantities that we use !

It gets scary at that level ! It's not what I signed up for when I got into this
trade - but that's what it's become.


Graham

playon wrote:

https://home.comcast.net/~playon/blues_intro.mp3

Oh, my! That is _fine_. Where can I get more?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Thank you Bob. I don't really have anything available, that's just a
clip of a live recording done a couple of years ago. I was planning
to put something together but I lost my studio space. Guess I'll have
to hire a real studio at some point if I want to do it.

Al

On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:57:40 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:



playon wrote:

https://home.comcast.net/~playon/blues_intro.mp3

Oh, my! That is _fine_. Where can I get more?


Bob

Bob Cain wrote:
playon wrote:

https://home.comcast.net/~playon/blues_intro.mp3

Oh, my! That is _fine_. Where can I get more?


Any blues player. They all sound the same, just as amplifiers do:-)

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

playon wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:27:41 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

reddred wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
k...

I'll let you know, when I do a real recording.


All ears, mate.


I haven't heard any of your masterpieces yet?

What's your resume as musician Kev? Brit-rock tribute bands with your
brother and a drum machine?

In actual fact, the Blondie stuff started as a full bona fida band. It
had a few problems, they appear to be resolved, but awaiting on the
provision of a new drummer.


Ever been on a real tour? Done session work? Done any television?
Theatrical music? I've done all these things.

I am a professional analogue design engineer, I make way more then you I
wager. Why would I want to go on tour in some draughty old bus?

Secondly, success in music has nothing to do with musical ability. For
every successful musician that "makes" it, there are a 1000 better then
didn't because they were not in the right place at the right time.


https://home.comcast.net/~playon/blues_intro.mp3

Well, I don't like blues, did you not read my quote on my site?

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/band

"'12 bar blues', just another excuse to play the same song 12 times in a
bar" - Kevin Aylward

The issue with your demo, with all due respect, is that for all I know
it could be anyone. That is, not that I don't think its you playing, but
in absolute truth it could simply be any blues player. Literally. All
the phrases are stock blues ones. Why would anyone want to do this? How
does this set you apart from anyone else?

I don't like to get into this who is better who. Its all subjective. We
have technical competence, that is more easily quantified, and other
aspects such as, orgininality, feel and style.

I have one "blues". That is, it is based on a Dm7 blues progression,
other then that, its not a blues. Its me.

Do you have anything else that is you?

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Pooh Bear wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

snip absurd belief in the 'harmonic distortion' principle - ignoring
non-liearity

How come there are all those switching amps out there with thd in the
0.5% range?

*All* those switching amps with *0.5%* THD ?

Oh dear...

What can I say, without sounding too negative. The grammar, bad as it
is, of that sentence does not imply "all switching amplifiers" have 0.5%
thd.

I *do* know of companies that make some pretty low distortion switching
amps, contrary to the post title change, I just haven't seen such amps
in the music shops.

e.g. http://www.tripath.com/index.html - Class T

Some have, e.g. 0.03% 19Khz/20Khz imd.


I think you need to wise up.


Well, I did a little sample, e.g Crown. I checked some others and they
all came at that sort of figure. Even many linear amps have relatively
poor specs nowadays. The Mackie seems quite good though.

Care to point me to some mainstream, affordable switching power amps
with low distortion?

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Geoff Wood wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message

Oh.. they dont state what Degrees they have, if any.


I know people with Ist Class honours degrees that are total ****s and
wouldn't know their arses from their eblows with anything in hand
other than a book.

I agree. I don't have an honours degree at all. I went to a Polytech,
where the concept of honours degrees didn't even exist. Thankfully my CV
looks a bit better now, as the Polytech is now Napier University,
Edinbourgh.


geoff

I read his argument. Its marketing bull**** and completely bogus. I
can easily design a mic amp with the same spec, and much lower
noise. Its pretty much a no brainer.

And it would, of course, sound exactly identical.

Well, I haven't checked all the specs on said mic amp. If its 1% thd and
the specs are the same, there may be a difference in sound. My "all
sounds the same" are for the 0.01% 20khz imd, all things being equal
sort of thing. One having a 500 ohm input resistance, may well sound
different from one with 10k as far as mic loading is concerned.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article
writes:

I read his argument. Its marketing bull**** and completely bogus. I
can easily design a mic amp with the same spec, and much lower
noise. Its pretty much a no brainer.

Then disengage your brain and go ahead and do it. Then get someone to
manufacture it for you. I'll bet that at even $50 people would be
beating down your doors.

Oh dear...why on earth would I want to get into running my own hardware
company?

Successful products have nothing to do with quality. I can design a 500W
amp 0.001% at 20khz no problem, but why? The market is saturated with
amps.


Put up or shut up.

If you would like such a design, my services are available,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/services.html


The can be. For example, I have designed medical imaging front ends
with a noise floor of maybe, 0.2nv/rthz, which is some 5 times
better then the best mic amps.

Bandwidth? Dynamic range?

BW = 20Mhz

DR = 160db, but using swept gain.

This is medical imaging you know.

These are the sort of numbers.

Sound attenuation in the body is around 1db/cm/Mhz

Typically, ultrasound covers the 1Mhz to 10 Mhz as a centre frequency,
at a video BW of around 1Mhz. A typical system has transducers that are
set for specific frequencies, e.g. 2.5M, 3.5M, 5M, 7.5M, 1M

If we consider a fat dude, at 20cm at 5Mhz, we have attenuation of
100db, but we need say 60 db of grey scale range, giving a total of say,
160db. In reality more is required to do greater depths at higher
frequencies. One just tries to do the best one can. That is, the
imagining system, as to deal with all the signals coming from all
depths, which ideally, would be over 200db.

As I said, the main issue is digital noise. These system use dynamic
focusing (http://www.anasoft.co.uk/focus.html). Each transducer element
is fed to a switchable delay line (for analogue beamformers). Specific
delays are switched say, every 1cm, for a group of elements as the beam
is being returned, the selected group of element is then shifted for the
next scan lines. Typically, either 2 or 3 sets of focusing boards are
interlevaed to allow for setup of one board while the other board is
processing the signals. All of this switching can cause havoc on the
analogue signals if not very carefully controlled.

Audio, is really **** easy compared to many standard engineering
products.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Geoff Wood wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message

Look, mate. If I actually look inside an amp or mixer, and add up the
parts costs, say for a Behringer, I am amazed that it isn't being
sold at a loss. Go down to Tandy/Maplin and try and build a mixer
from parts.


Do you imagine that Behringer, or any manufacturer, goes down to RS
and buys one-off components ? They don't buy a single $3 op-amp,
they buy 10,000 of them for $0.25 each.

Like, you don't really think I am unaware of quantity buying do you?

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

If I recall correctly, 25 years ago at
Studiomaster, it was more a 3 to 1 of the totally build cost. This
meant, e.g. build at £100, cost to shop £150, the rrp £300,
allowing the shop to discount after the fact by say 20%

It hasn't changed.

It has, because the distribution model has changed.

What are you on about Scott? Graham has just told you, no get this,
the *facts* as to what Studiomaster are actually doing.

No, he said what Studiomaster was doing 25 years ago. This is a
_very_ different market today.

Have ever even done a cost analysis for a design of yours...? Oh
that's right, your not a designer of products.

Not in twenty-five years or so. I worked for a consumer stereo
company briefly when I was right out of college and it left a very
unpleasant taste in my mouth.

On higher end stuff, three to one is still respectable, but that has
become a tiny sector of the market.

Oh dear... The higher end stuff is the market where ratios are
higher, not lower.

Take a look at the Great River preamp. The input transformers alone
are 1/5 the retail cost of the box.

But they are an exception.

Indeed this brings me to a point I had forgotten to address. The
transformer completely demolishes the 0.001% thd, 3000v/us slew rate. If
said amps sound different from a Mackie font end, what do you guess the
real reason might be?

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Oh dear... The higher end stuff is the market where ratios are
higher, not lower.

Take a look at the Great River preamp. The input transformers alone
are 1/5 the retail cost of the box.

But they are an exception.

No, that's pretty much typical of the higher end preamps. Transformer
coupling with expensive transformers, tightly matched large area bipolar
arrays, parts that cost a lot of money.

Take a look inside the Gordon... it's a wonder he can sell that thing for
a few thousand bucks. It's phenomenally overbuilt in every possible way,
to the point where even I consider it excessive.

Indeed this brings me to a point I had forgotten to address. The
transformer completely demolishes the 0.001% thd, 3000v/us slew rate. If
said amps sound different from a Mackie font end, what do you guess the
real reason might be?

The transformers have a lot to do with it, and it's interesting to compare
the Millennia Media, which have a very fast bipolar front end, with the
Great River, which has a transformer front end. What is surprising is that
they actually sound pretty similar... the top end detail on the Great River
isn't as good probably because of the slew limiting from the transformer.
The bottom end is actually very good... much better than I'd ever expect
from a transformer design, but I could imagine the low end distortion is
higher than the Millennia.

BUT, the CMRR on the Great River is phenomenal. Noise rejection in every
possible way is amazing and that's worth the sonic hit in a lot of field
applications.

When you're trying to share mikes between the recording truck and a horribly
set-up PA system whose ground is floating 60 volts above your ground, the
sonic impact of transformer isolation suddenly doesn't seem so bad.
--scott


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