My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

The April edition of Mix magazine shows a graph of the RE20 being up
10 db at 125 Hz at 1/8" distance.

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_commercials_really_loud/

Is a 10 db boost less than that typically found in other directional
microphones?

The article recommends increasing distance between talent and the mic
to avoid mud and boominess in broadcasts. At the station, I always eat the
mic, at a 1 to 2 inch distance, speaking across the mic at about a 45
degree angle. With my soft voice and low output of the RE20, the faders are
pushed almost to the top on the Wheatstone console. Been broadcasting
this way for 20 years. I'm wondering if I should rethink this.

At home my RE20 goes into a RNP.

-Tim Sprout

Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

This "variable-D" system dates back to the EV 666 and is actually pretty
ingenious.

The April edition of Mix magazine shows a graph of the RE20 being up
10 db at 125 Hz at 1/8" distance.

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_commercials_really_loud/

Is a 10 db boost less than that typically found in other directional
microphones?

I think so, but I think if you actually look at the distance, once you
fall back to an inch or so the proximity effect drops way back. If you
get right up against it there is still proximity because the body of
the mike is blocking the sound to the rear vents.

But you can still get a good bass boost on the RE-20 if you get right up
there. On the other hand, when you get way off-mike, it doesn't sound thin.

The article recommends increasing distance between talent and the mic
to avoid mud and boominess in broadcasts. At the station, I always eat the
mic, at a 1 to 2 inch distance, speaking across the mic at about a 45
degree angle. With my soft voice and low output of the RE20, the faders are
pushed almost to the top on the Wheatstone console. Been broadcasting
this way for 20 years. I'm wondering if I should rethink this.

There's nothing wrong with pushing the faders all the way up. The question
is whether the voice sounds the way you want on the air. Tape yourself,
listen to the playback, and think about whether this is the tonality that
you really want. If so, stop worrying.
--scott

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

"Tim Sprout" wrote in message
...
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

The April edition of Mix magazine shows a graph of the RE20 being up
10 db at 125 Hz at 1/8" distance.

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_commercials_really_loud/

Is a 10 db boost less than that typically found in other directional
microphones?

The article recommends increasing distance between talent and the mic
to avoid mud and boominess in broadcasts. At the station, I always eat the
mic, at a 1 to 2 inch distance, speaking across the mic at about a 45
degree angle. With my soft voice and low output of the RE20, the faders
are
pushed almost to the top on the Wheatstone console. Been broadcasting
this way for 20 years. I'm wondering if I should rethink this.

At home my RE20 goes into a RNP.

-Tim Sprout


if its working don't fix it.

processing at the transmitter should be adjusted such that a wide range of
levels will produce 100% modulation. trying to get "more" by pushing up the
board will be a futile endeavor.

Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

I don't believe it. In a gradient mic the proximity effect is entirely a
function of the front to back distance of the element and the distance from
it. I know of no directional mic based on anything other than measuring
the pressure gradient, including ribbons. Not sure there is any other way.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:

Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

I don't believe it. In a gradient mic the proximity effect is entirely a
function of the front to back distance of the element and the distance from
it. I know of no directional mic based on anything other than measuring
the pressure gradient, including ribbons. Not sure there is any other way.

EV's 'variable D' principle allows some sound to reach the rear of the capsule
reducing the proximity effect.

Graham

Bob Cain wrote:
Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

I don't believe it. In a gradient mic the proximity effect is entirely a
function of the front to back distance of the element and the distance from
it. I know of no directional mic based on anything other than measuring
the pressure gradient, including ribbons. Not sure there is any other way.

Get the white paper on the Variable-D stuff, from EV. It works. Basically
there is a seperate set of vents rigged with an acoustical low-pass filter
that connects to the rear venting of the capsule. You get up close, and
the signal from the additional vent cancels out the added low end from the
proximity effect. It is a really, really ingenious technology and EV has
been using it since the 1950s. It does work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

I don't believe it. In a gradient mic the proximity effect is entirely a
function of the front to back distance of the element and the distance from
it. I know of no directional mic based on anything other than measuring
the pressure gradient, including ribbons. Not sure there is any other way.

Get the white paper on the Variable-D stuff, from EV. It works. Basically
there is a seperate set of vents rigged with an acoustical low-pass filter
that connects to the rear venting of the capsule. You get up close, and
the signal from the additional vent cancels out the added low end from the
proximity effect. It is a really, really ingenious technology and EV has
been using it since the 1950s. It does work.
--scott

Not only does it work, it's a lifesaver if you need to mic a guy with a
deep, chesty voice who loves to eat the mic. The RE-xx mics are so
good, it always astonishes me that they didn't become the "standard"
mic instead of the crappy SM58 that everybody uses. The smaller ones,
like the re-10, 11, 15 & 16 all have a screw in the middle of the grill
which diffuses plosives. They don't pop, and achieve intelligilbility
without resorting to a super-hyped presence peak.

The lack of proximity effect, coupled with the extremely uniform
pattern over the frequency range, means the tone of the vocal doesn't
change as the talent moves around on the mic. It's THE reason you see
them in so many radio stations, because the jock can cue up tracks,
shuffle scripts, grab some coffee, look at the clock, and the vocal
sound going out over the air is the same. They're perfect for singers
or on-air guests who don't have a clue how to work a mic.

If you're still dubious, take a look at MSNBC in the morning. Everyone
on the Imus show uses Re20 or 27s. Those guys move around all the time
while they're talking.

-glenn

Pooh Bear wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:


EV's 'variable D' principle allows some sound to reach the rear of the capsule
reducing the proximity effect.

I think it's the other way around, Graham. The D restricts what makes it
to the back which introduces an omni component that has no proximity effect
and places the mic in the cardiod family.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:

Get the white paper on the Variable-D stuff, from EV. It works. Basically
there is a seperate set of vents rigged with an acoustical low-pass filter
that connects to the rear venting of the capsule. You get up close, and
the signal from the additional vent cancels out the added low end from the
proximity effect. It is a really, really ingenious technology and EV has
been using it since the 1950s. It does work.

Will do, thanks. Got a link for the lazy by any chance? :-)


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:57:16 -0400, "TimPerry"
wrote:

processing at the transmitter should be adjusted such that a wide range of
levels will produce 100% modulation.

You have no idea how much I despise you for this. You are one of those
who have conspired to ruin broadcast sound. Shame on you.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On 13 May 2006 22:39:29 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:
Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

I don't believe it. In a gradient mic the proximity effect is entirely a
function of the front to back distance of the element and the distance from
it. I know of no directional mic based on anything other than measuring
the pressure gradient, including ribbons. Not sure there is any other way.

Get the white paper on the Variable-D stuff, from EV. It works. Basically
there is a seperate set of vents rigged with an acoustical low-pass filter
that connects to the rear venting of the capsule. You get up close, and
the signal from the additional vent cancels out the added low end from the
proximity effect. It is a really, really ingenious technology and EV has
been using it since the 1950s. It does work.
--scott

I've searched the EV site for the white paper, and can't find it - can
you help? Also, I read in many places that EV have patented this, but
a search of the US patent office reveals nothing for variable-d.

The cardioid pattern for this mic certainly is impressive, even if he
actual frequency response is pretty lumpy.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:04:04 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

I don't believe it. In a gradient mic the proximity effect is entirely a
function of the front to back distance of the element and the distance from
it. I know of no directional mic based on anything other than measuring
the pressure gradient, including ribbons. Not sure there is any other way.


Bob

No, it is nothing to do with the dimensions of the microphone.
Proximity effect is inherent in the air close to the source. The
pressure level of the sound wave obeys the inverse square law all the
way up to the source. Air velocity on the other hand turns cubic in
the close-up part of the wave where the wavelength is comparable to
the curvature of the wave front. Hence microphones that follow the
velocity (pressure gradient if you like, but velocity is much easier
to picture) will have a proximity effect. Microphones which mix
pressure and velocity, like cardioids, will have a diluted proximity
effect.

There are of course other ways to make a mic directional. An omni will
be directional at high frequencies where the size of the diaphragm is
significant compared to the wavelength. And an omni mounted in a
paraboloidal reflector is directional. This suffers the opposite of
proximity effect, with a gain which rises at 6dB per octave.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sun, 14 May 2006 03:52:40 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:04:04 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

I don't believe it. In a gradient mic the proximity effect is entirely a
function of the front to back distance of the element and the distance from
it. I know of no directional mic based on anything other than measuring
the pressure gradient, including ribbons. Not sure there is any other way.


Bob

No, it is nothing to do with the dimensions of the microphone.
Proximity effect is inherent in the air close to the source. The
pressure level of the sound wave obeys the inverse square law all the
way up to the source. Air velocity on the other hand turns cubic in
the close-up part of the wave where the wavelength is comparable to
the curvature of the wave front. Hence microphones that follow the
velocity (pressure gradient if you like, but velocity is much easier
to picture) will have a proximity effect. Microphones which mix
pressure and velocity, like cardioids, will have a diluted proximity
effect.

There are of course other ways to make a mic directional. An omni will
be directional at high frequencies where the size of the diaphragm is
significant compared to the wavelength. And an omni mounted in a
paraboloidal reflector is directional. This suffers the opposite of
proximity effect, with a gain which rises at 6dB per octave.

d

Bob Heil seems to be making inroads in prying EV's deathgrip from the radio
station market with his new dynamics. The side to side comparisons at the
shows seem to indicate he may be on to something.

Anyone else hear them but me?

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Bob Cain wrote:
EV's 'variable D' principle allows some sound to reach the rear of thecapsule
reducing the proximity effect.

I think it's the other way around, Graham. The D restricts what makes it
to the back which introduces an omni component that has no proximity effect
and places the mic in the cardiod family.

Graham had it right. From the Engineering Data Sheet for the EV-667a
mic:

"The use of Continuously Variable-D, a highly developed version of
the patented Electro-Voice Variable-D® principle, makes possible
extremely uniform rejection of unwanted background noise. The rejection
pattern is unusually symmetrical in all planes. The CV-D principle, as
employed in the 667A, uses a matched pair of slotted tubes coupled to
the back of the diaphragm. The acoustic length of the tubes varies
inversely with sound frequency, permitting them to phase out unwanted
sound from all portions of the audible spectrum for maximum
front-to-back ratio."

The smaller RE-xx & PL-xx mics use a single slotted tube.

-glenn

Don Pearce wrote:

The cardioid pattern for this mic certainly is impressive, even if he
actual frequency response is pretty lumpy.

The frequency response is actually pretty darn smooth, varying by only
a couple of dB over most of the frequency range... The EV response
plot uses a 5dB scale, as opposed to the 10dB you see in most published
curves.

-glenn

Don Pearce wrote:

I've searched the EV site for the white paper, and can't find it - can
you help? Also, I read in many places that EV have patented this, but
a search of the US patent office reveals nothing for variable-d.

I have a piece of paper here that my EV rep gave me back in the eighties
and I'd bet a letter to EV would get you a copy of it. I very seldom have
web access so I don't really know what is up with EV's web site, especially
since EV's microphone division has changed totally in the last couple years.

On the base of this EV 664 is a note saying it's protected under US Patent
3,115,207. I bet a nickel that's the Variable-D patent number.

The cardioid pattern for this mic certainly is impressive, even if he
actual frequency response is pretty lumpy.

As I think Bob points out, the variable-D stuff does screw up the pattern
on the low end, at frequencies higher than where the mike naturally becomes
an omni. You don't get something for nothing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ty Ford wrote:

Bob Heil seems to be making inroads in prying EV's deathgrip from the radio
station market with his new dynamics. The side to side comparisons at the
shows seem to indicate he may be on to something.

Anyone else hear them but me?

They have a huge, huge presence peak and are really pitched up on top.
This might be the new sound, I dunno. It's not very natural, but then
broadcast announcers aren't normally supposed to be natural anyway.
--scott

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

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Don Pearce wrote:

I've searched the EV site for the white paper, and can't find it - can
you help? Also, I read in many places that EV have patented this, but
a search of the US patent office reveals nothing for variable-d.

I have a piece of paper here that my EV rep gave me back in the
eighties
and I'd bet a letter to EV would get you a copy of it. I very seldom
have
web access so I don't really know what is up with EV's web site,
especially
since EV's microphone division has changed totally in the last couple
years.

On the base of this EV 664 is a note saying it's protected under US
Patent
3,115,207. I bet a nickel that's the Variable-D patent number.

Indeed, it is. Including a full cross-section diagram of the 664.
Quite fascinating to see what the technology was back in 1954
but how the principles are unchanged today. www.uspto.gov

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:04:04 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:


No, it is nothing to do with the dimensions of the microphone.

I remember that the front to back distance affects the frequency at which
the proximity effect kicks in. The slope is fixed for a gradient element.

Your point about the addition of an omni component diluting the effect is
the same one I was trying to make in response to Graham. With appropriate
mechanical filtering I suppose in theory it could be entirely eliminated
but at the expense of being omni over those frequencies. Without the paper
to look at I'm speculating that is what the variable-D accomplishes.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:57:16 -0400, "TimPerry"
wrote:

processing at the transmitter should be adjusted such that a wide range
of
levels will produce 100% modulation.

You have no idea how much I despise you for this. You are one of those
who have conspired to ruin broadcast sound. Shame on you.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


that's ridiculous.

there are good reasons why broadcasters spend $10,000 on Bob Orbans latest
digital doodad. try to imagine a deaf DJ at any live event. the DJ would
have no idea of the loudness as his source material varies. the result would
be too loud at times and too soft at times, making it very uncomfortable to
most listeners. sure the studio DJ has headphones and monitors, but they can
be adjusted to any level. it is important to maintain a constant level to
the listener without exceeding bandwidth limits hence AGC, compression,
limiting.

i ran across this definition the other day. consultant: a man who uses your
own watch to tell you what time it is and then charges you for it.

Bob Heil seems to be making inroads in prying EV's deathgrip from the
radio
station market with his new dynamics. The side to side comparisons at the
shows seem to indicate he may be on to something.

Anyone else hear them but me?

Regards,

Ty Ford


many if not most radio studios use some form of mic processor which
incorperates some EQ adjustments. it's almost inevitable that the high end
will be set to boost. if the mic boost the upper mids/highs within reason,
for this application, its no problem.

given price/performance i would consider the PR-40. on any new project you
may need the cost savings just to help pay for the new costs of copper wire.

Bob Cain wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:04:04 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

No, it is nothing to do with the dimensions of the microphone.

I remember that the front to back distance affects the frequency at which
the proximity effect kicks in. The slope is fixed for a gradient element.

Your point about the addition of an omni component diluting the effect is
the same one I was trying to make in response to Graham. With appropriate
mechanical filtering I suppose in theory it could be entirely eliminated
but at the expense of being omni over those frequencies. Without the paper
to look at I'm speculating that is what the variable-D accomplishes.

Somewhere I have an ancient EV pamplet that explains it. I'll see if I can find
it. Doesn't seem to be anything of interest on their website.

Graham

On Sun, 14 May 2006 13:15:58 -0400, "TimPerry"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:57:16 -0400, "TimPerry"
wrote:

processing at the transmitter should be adjusted such that a wide range
of
levels will produce 100% modulation.

You have no idea how much I despise you for this. You are one of those
who have conspired to ruin broadcast sound. Shame on you.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


that's ridiculous.

there are good reasons why broadcasters spend $10,000 on Bob Orbans latest
digital doodad. try to imagine a deaf DJ at any live event. the DJ would
have no idea of the loudness as his source material varies. the result would
be too loud at times and too soft at times, making it very uncomfortable to
most listeners. sure the studio DJ has headphones and monitors, but they can
be adjusted to any level. it is important to maintain a constant level to
the listener without exceeding bandwidth limits hence AGC, compression,
limiting.


What has this to do with maintaining 100% modulation from a range of
levels? Nothing. And of course the reason broadcasters spend money on
Orban's abortions is that they are locked into a loudness mindset.
They have lost every vestige of artistic integrity.

i ran across this definition the other day. consultant: a man who uses your
own watch to tell you what time it is and then charges you for it.


I'm not the one promoting the maintenance of 100% modulation from a
variety of input levels.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sun, 14 May 2006 18:44:35 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:


Bob Cain wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:04:04 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

No, it is nothing to do with the dimensions of the microphone.

I remember that the front to back distance affects the frequency at which
the proximity effect kicks in. The slope is fixed for a gradient element.

Your point about the addition of an omni component diluting the effect is
the same one I was trying to make in response to Graham. With appropriate
mechanical filtering I suppose in theory it could be entirely eliminated
but at the expense of being omni over those frequencies. Without the paper
to look at I'm speculating that is what the variable-D accomplishes.

Somewhere I have an ancient EV pamplet that explains it. I'll see if I can find
it. Doesn't seem to be anything of interest on their website.

Graham

I've read the patent now. It is just an extension of the techniques
already used in cardioids to maximise the range over which they
exhibit cardioid patterns. Not a huge deal, actually.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Get the white paper on the Variable-D stuff, from EV. It works. Basically
there is a seperate set of vents rigged *with an acoustical low-pass filter*
that connects to the rear venting of the capsule.

"with an acoustical low-pass filter"
Now I get it. Thanks!

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

TimPerry wrote:

there are good reasons why broadcasters spend $10,000 on Bob Orbans latest
digital doodad. try to imagine a deaf DJ at any live event. the DJ would
have no idea of the loudness as his source material varies. the result would
be too loud at times and too soft at times, making it very uncomfortable to
most listeners. sure the studio DJ has headphones and monitors, but they can
be adjusted to any level. it is important to maintain a constant level to
the listener without exceeding bandwidth limits hence AGC, compression,
limiting.

Once upon a time, this was done by manual gainriding done by the operator
at master control.

These days you'd be hard-pressed to find a station with a a control op
position.

I don't take the extreme position that all audio processing for broadcast
is bad, the way our friend from the UK does. But I do agree that it got
totally out of hand twenty years back and continues to get more so.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Graham,

See my earlier post principle of variable d in this thread
Quoted from the EDS of the 667a.

-glenn

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Once upon a time, this was done by manual gainriding done by the
operator at master control.

These days you'd be hard-pressed to find a station with a a control op
position.

I don't take the extreme position that all audio processing for
broadcast is bad, the way our friend from the UK does. But I do
agree that it got totally out of hand twenty years back and continues
to get more so. --scott

So how many links in the chain each have people potentially trying to knock
any dynamics out of the music - mixing, mastering, radio jock chain, plus
broadcast !

geoff

Bob Cain wrote:

Tim Sprout wrote:
My RE20 spec sheet says "The bass-boosting proximity effect common to
most directional microphones when used close to the sound source, is
eliminated in the RE20."

I don't believe it. In a gradient mic the proximity effect is entirely a
function of the front to back distance of the element and the distance from
it. I know of no directional mic based on anything other than measuring
the pressure gradient, including ribbons. Not sure there is any other way.

Ever used any of the E-V Variable-D mics? They severely reduce proximity
effect. At any reasonable distance from a s source, talking inches here,
they do not exhbiit the big boost so common in directional mics.

--
ha

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 May 2006 13:15:58 -0400, "TimPerry"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:57:16 -0400, "TimPerry"
wrote:

processing at the transmitter should be adjusted such that a wide
range
of
levels will produce 100% modulation.

You have no idea how much I despise you for this. You are one of those
who have conspired to ruin broadcast sound. Shame on you.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


that's ridiculous.

there are good reasons why broadcasters spend $10,000 on Bob Orbans
latest
digital doodad. try to imagine a deaf DJ at any live event. the DJ would
have no idea of the loudness as his source material varies. the result
would
be too loud at times and too soft at times, making it very uncomfortable
to
most listeners. sure the studio DJ has headphones and monitors, but they
can
be adjusted to any level. it is important to maintain a constant level to
the listener without exceeding bandwidth limits hence AGC, compression,
limiting.


What has this to do with maintaining 100% modulation from a range of
levels? Nothing.

everything, Don everything. consistent level to the listener is absolutely
necessary or that listener will switch to another station or another media.

And of course the reason broadcasters spend money on
Orban's abortions is that they are locked into a loudness mindset.

not really anymore, at least here in the US. true some markets are "loud".
but with the present market conditions the pressure is of to be the loudest
thing on the dial (mostly). of course a lot of situations are different in
various markets.

They have lost every vestige of artistic integrity.


you sound like someone who wants to hear his favorite song every 5 min.
however you and every other individual is entitled to judge the artistic
merits of anything you consider to be art.


i ran across this definition the other day. consultant: a man who uses
your
own watch to tell you what time it is and then charges you for it.


I'm not the one promoting the maintenance of 100% modulation from a
variety of input levels.


promoting? it's required.

overmodulate: the licensee risks being fined and risks exceeding the
tolerance of receivers (modulation acceptance for FM)


under modulate: poor S/N ratio loss of 'fringe' coverage.


maybe IBOC or whatever type of Digital broadcast is implemented in the UK
will allow processing to be more to your liking, however even there it's not
going to go away.

hank alrich wrote:
Ever used any of the E-V Variable-D mics? They severely reduce proximity
effect. At any reasonable distance from a s source, talking inches here,
they do not exhbiit the big boost so common in directional mics.


Hank,

I don't want to be disrespectful, but you apparently don't realize
that actually trying something removes the pleasure of theorizing why
it won't work. Geez, you start actually trying things, and before you
know it, you're in a position where you have to admit that somebody
else had a good idea.

-glenn

"geezer" wrote in message
oups.com...

hank alrich wrote:
Ever used any of the E-V Variable-D mics? They severely reduce proximity
effect. At any reasonable distance from a s source, talking inches here,
they do not exhbiit the big boost so common in directional mics.


Hank,

I don't want to be disrespectful, but you apparently don't realize
that actually trying something removes the pleasure of theorizing why
it won't work. Geez, you start actually trying things, and before you
know it, you're in a position where you have to admit that somebody
else had a good idea.

-glenn

Hank, I'll send you privately a list of convenient support groups that will
help you overcome your compulsion to try things for yourself and get you
back on the theorizing track that never ends. We're all thinking of you.

Steve King

Steve King wrote:

"geezer" wrote...

hank alrich wrote:
Ever used any of the E-V Variable-D mics? They severely reduce proximity
effect. At any reasonable distance from a s source, talking inches here,
they do not exhbiit the big boost so common in directional mics.

Hank,

I don't want to be disrespectful, but you apparently don't realize
that actually trying something removes the pleasure of theorizing why
it won't work. Geez, you start actually trying things, and before you
know it, you're in a position where you have to admit that somebody
else had a good idea.

-glenn

Hank, I'll send you privately a list of convenient support groups that will
help you overcome your compulsion to try things for yourself and get you
back on the theorizing track that never ends. We're all thinking of you.

Steve King

Wow. Thanks, guys.

I have a friend who recently got divorced. Some of his buddies went in
together and bought him some support ho's. I don't think I'm in such bad
shape, but I appreciate the good thoughts.

Today I plan to try to figure out what happend to the pressure in our
gravity fed water system. So I'm trying to think up things to try. I
hope gravity isn't failing us. That acould have severely trying
consequences.

--
ha

geezer wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

Hank,

I don't want to be disrespectful, but you apparently don't realize
that actually trying something removes the pleasure of theorizing why
it won't work. Geez, you start actually trying things, and before you
know it, you're in a position where you have to admit that somebody
else had a good idea.

How long must one be involved with audio to become as jaded, cynical and
often bitter as most of you "old timers" seem to be? As it seems
inevitable from the sample I see here, I hope to move on to something else
before the syndrome sets in.

Anyway, thanks to the guys who helped me see how it could work in theory.
I guess it's heretical and considered pointless here but nonetheless I do
take a sinful pleasure in finding out how and why things work at a
technical level.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:21:21 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

I hope gravity isn't failing us. That could have severely trying
consequences.

Even worse when negativity don't pull you through, IME.

Always the best,

Chris Hornbeck

Bob Cain wrote in
:

....mindless drivel snipped...

I guess it's heretical and considered pointless here but
nonetheless I do take a sinful pleasure in finding out how and why
things work at a technical level.
Bob


Sorry, but it's time for a reality check.

Your pleasure is not in actually finding out how and why things work at a
technical level. Your pleasure is in believing and thinking that you do.

One recent example is your mindless, moving-target position on the
existence of Doppler distortion. To date, you still do not understand the
fundamental physical principles that are involved.

You are a fraud and anyone who takes anything that you say seriously is a
fool.

Bob Cain wrote:

How long must one be involved with audio to become as jaded, cynical and
often bitter as most of you "old timers" seem to be?

I think it varies. BTW, if you think we're cynical & jaded, you should
get to know some of the guys who don't post any more.

As it seems
inevitable from the sample I see here, I hope to move on to something else
before the syndrome sets in.

That's the problem with you kids today - can't stick with anything long
enough to get good at it.


Anyway, thanks to the guys who helped me see how it could work in theory.

Well, you're welcome. I did post the info from EV's engineering data
sheet.

I guess it's heretical and considered pointless here but nonetheless I do
take a sinful pleasure in finding out how and why things work at a
technical level.


Actually, you dismissed the idea before you knew anything about it,
when you could have merely asked for clarification.

BTW, the various comments weren't particularly directed at you, but at
the whole class of responses where folks on this list want to argue
theory, instead of actually trying something. It's frustrating to
suggest a product or technique, only to be challenged that the very
thing you've been doing successfully for 10 or 20 years "can't work"

As far as heresy goes, that's off-topic. Go to
alt.audio.pro.live-sound & check into the ongoing Christians v. Pagans
threads. They're loads of fun...

-glenn

geezer wrote:

Go to
alt.audio.pro.live-sound & check into the ongoing Christians v. Pagans
threads. They're loads of fun...

Those threads have died out since Phildo was taken ill it seems. Thank God (
perhaps ). ;-)

Graham

On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:21:21 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:


Today I plan to try to figure out what happend to the pressure in our
gravity fed water system. So I'm trying to think up things to try. I
hope gravity isn't failing us. That acould have severely trying
consequences.

That is because gravity "is only a theory." Things move toward the
surface of the earth because God pushes down on them. Read the Bible,
pray more, and put not your faith in the bogus scientific "theories."

"Willie K. Yee, MD" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:21:21 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:


Today I plan to try to figure out what happend to the pressure in our
gravity fed water system. So I'm trying to think up things to try. I
hope gravity isn't failing us. That acould have severely trying
consequences.

That is because gravity "is only a theory." Things move toward the
surface of the earth because God pushes down on them. Read the Bible,
pray more, and put not your faith in the bogus scientific "theories."


sometimes i think gravity may not exist and the reason our feet point toward
the ground is because the whole world sucks.

i cant prove this but have you ever noticed how a realistic hi-ball mic that
has been dropped fifty times looks like the earth from space?