Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Iain Churches" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Iain Churches" wrote: No mystery Patrick. I stated clearly that it is an active load cathode follower, which was chosen after comparison with a mu-follower and a cascode. I have no schematic drawn. It can be found in any one of a dozen books The cathode follower part sounds straight forward enough, but the "active load" part could be anyone of a number of things. Is the circuit what I think is called a "White" cathode follower? The White CF is similar, except that the anode of the bottom triode and the cathode of the upper triode are usually at the same potential. The grid of the top triode is biased by a pair of resistors from the B+ to ground, with the junction of these two Rs connected to the grid. On the ALCF the grid of the lower tube is biased in this way. The anode of the lower tube and the cathode of the upper tube are separated by a resistor of about 1k2 to give a differential of about 2V between them. 1M is then connected from anode 1 to grid 2 for bias (rather like the mu-follower) OK, Thanks, I think I understand. The bias sounds like it is done the same way as the circuit at the link I posted. It is not clear from your description if the bottom triode serves simply as a passive load for the cathode follower, or if a signal is applied to the grid of the lower triode making it an active load? Just as in the White topology, the input to the ALCF is taken to the grid of the upper tube. The lower triode is a CCS. Iain So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the cathode dc load? But unless the unbypased cathode resistor of the CCS "lower" triode is of a large value, the actual value of the "CCS" isn't a very high dynamic resistance. So a pentode makes a better CCS. A single transistor makes an effective CCS, and is a passive type of active load because the collector resistance, Rc, is so high; it has nothing but a passive effect on the signal, so the only ac load the follower sees is the load of the amp to which it is connected. If the load is say 220k, and CF is 12AU7, THD of the follower at 0.5Vrms is difficult to measure, and a lot less than if the dc load was the standard 47k. Patrick Turner. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... I must be the exception. I have access to a bunch of little secret groups and won't take part in any of them. I think you are mistaken Patrick.The groups to which you refer are moderated but not closed groups. That's a totally different thing altogether. OK, you make a further important distinction. The "little" groups I refer to are the ones the public is free to read, but you have to subscribe, use a pass word, and obey rules or get banned. I have nothing against all these things, its just that I find most of the groups are clumsy to use and read and there simply isn't enough content for me to become involved with. **and strangly enough they manage quite well without YOU. Closed groups, for example the broadcast and recording group to which I have access, are used by professionals. If they are not members of the university, institute or company which runs the group, they are there strictly by invitation only. They wouldn't like me being around then. **O' I don't know, they might find your Psychotic dribble quite entertaining Your are correct in saying that people do keep an eye on RAT. Recruiting to closed groups is not uncommon, and I have never met anyone who has refused the invitation:-) I recall I have subscribed to a few, been accepted, made one post, and never returned. I read a dozen posts later and not feel I could say much that wasn't already being said about the trivial / beginner issue being discussed. ** in other words you had bugger all to offer the discussion. Some weeks I get serveral private queries from around the world, and some guys are building things and need the help, and deserve it, because rather than just sit typing BS, they are soldering and measuring and calculating their way through a project. ** And the weeks you don't get any inquiries, you write crap about nothing on here. You bump into lot of familiar and respected names. Have you ever wondered why, with the exception of yourself, no other professional audio designer or manufacturer has a presence here? ** you don't know that., Because they are thin skinned, and when skinned alive here they die fast after shrivelling up. ** if there not here in the first place , how do they shrivel up and die, ???? Their high profile name rests on a delicate ego. ** but you have just said, there not here, ***AND this is where the rant about nothing starts, enjoy it folks bassett. They are very choosy about who they sit next to in the railway carriage of discussions, and as you know, r.a.t .is a bit like a Bombay train full of noisy smelly workers going home for the day after sundown. If they don't like Hindu morons, they better keep quiet. If they can afford it, they go in the 1st Class carriage, and talk about the weather, politics, and the economy. There is no kudos to be gained when talking to the masses, unless you want them to vote for you, and then you tell them what they want to hear, even in the 1st class carriage. If you start asking questions, making criticisms, they might throw you off the train. Many "well respected" ppl's ideas can certainly be challenged, questioned, ridiculed, parodied, and their elete status can be reduced to being fairly ordinary. Here there are NO SACRED COWS!! Everything and anything is fair game for comment. If someone survives here, they are fit, agile, and durable indeed, and truly one who belongs to all manner of people, at home in a pub, or in court of a king. I once tried rec.audio.hi-end, and found it had the the most stultifying atmosphere. To be someone of influence there I should have become far wealthier from audio, after starting 40 years ago. I felt I was very much a johnny come lately there. And they didn't like tube gear much, let alone boutique DIY. So after a few weeks I found I just didn't enjoy r.a.h-e My ego fell off the back of a truck 20 years ago, and being from a building worker background, I got use to spending all day working hard down some hell hole with mud up to my knees, until the job is done. When confronted with unruly people around me I wasted no time dealing with them. I don't have to be too rugged too long, and they get the drift. I don't have a "high profile" worth keeping mud free. I'm just a bloke who enjoys audio and making gear and I have some ideas about it worth sharing. So I have written a website to make sure everyone knows what i know if they want to read something. So I save having to repeat what is mainly common sense. If people follow my reasoning, they will find good music. When I was about 25, I was working as a sub-foreman on a large multi-storey building at NSW University. I'd begun there after being drawn from ranks of my peers as being worth being trained for such large complex works. I had a tendency to waffle on, and not compose language properly. A seriously no-nonsense project general foreman once told me "Look here mate, say only what you mean, and mean what you say, OK!" The othe boss in charge was the project manager, and once had me run to the 17th floor with messages for people or to find something, or find out about something 4 times before morning tea one day. I just tried to obey, and he must have been impressed, because I was quick and efficient, and showed no strain. But he told me plainly, "Spit it out man!, which do you mean? don't speak to me in riddles!", after I'd given a contradictory answer to his questions. In the trades, there can only be one answer. I was somewhat overwhelmed at first by the size of the job, and could easily be distracted, and it took me a month to stop bull****ting, and make each word count especially when addressing my superiors, so I had to start each day commanding myself to be a Better Builder Today!, OK. I needed to ask more questions, and observe more thouroughly. I became a better builder indeed, and years later I could thank the hardened task masters for their NO BS approach to all they did. When others were sacked, I was retained. Apprentices sent to me for training didn't have a picnic either, they actually had to work, and sometimes motivation meant some very heated discussions with a deal of acrimony about the sloppy, untidy, un-timely, incompetent efforts they presented while they still expected to be paid the same wages. Luckily this didn't happen often, and I had a good reputation for running peaceful productive sites with a low panic level and good safety record. I could see trouble coming, and didn't provoke it. One foreman the company had who'd been an Olympic rower in '56 and who was the most rugged and powerful person once hung an apprentice over a balcony of a 14 storey building by holding onto only one ankle to impress upon the lad that misbehaviour was not going to occur again, and if it did, another session over the balcony would occur, only he would let go. "Big Dennis" as we called him was otherwise a very fine foreman we all liked. I don't plan to enforce learning here like Dennis tried then. Too over-the-top! In other areas of my life, such as personal relationships, I've tried to have the same NO BS approach, and I've always preferred to back truth, even if it embarrassed mates, or a succession of females. I was damn honest, and although some office managers and shielas sometimes didn't like it during disputes, they could respect it. When I come here, I naturally expect competent standards, and will try to help anyone get there who isn't there yet. Many in other groups are not very prolific, and just want to sit around and chat without any great goal in mind, and that's all fine, but I like to see things achieved after a day's efforts. Patrick Turner Regards Iain |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... To measure noise below 300uV, you need a low noise amplifier to raise its level to work a meter or display it on a CRO or both. So you need to make a wide band amp, at least 10Hz to 20kHz with gain of up to 1,000 for noise measurements, but gain able to be varied between say 10 and 1,000. So if noise = 3uV, it is amplified to 3mV after the amp, and able to be measured/displayed by gear you have already. Ok. Understood. Thanks for that. I have a good selection of op-amps used in prof recording consoles. I can get something put together without too much trouble. A "lurker" on RAT sent me an e-mail with the same info as you supplied, and offered to make such a measurement amp, so that is also an option. Its so darn easy, but takes time and understanding, and you are short of both. For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start, Patrick? :-) Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right without any gear clipping. Judging from what i have heard from various recording engineers, editing can't be that difficult. Placing the mics and doing the actual production of the tracks you are editing would be much more difficult to optimise IMHO. I'd be happier doing a live to air FM broadcast though using just a pair of two crossed over mics. They even got automatic level setting, just switch on, and away you go. For a solist, place a mic, ditto... I once heard a friends recording made in 1974 where they have about 8 tracks for an american jazz ensemble, and they take you through the steps of the recording process and post recording process. After a listen I felt like sacking all the post processors. They equ'd signal up, down, sideways, all over the place. It ends up being an interpretation, not a recording. And beyond this they so often compress it, maybe add reverb, and this makes it go fizzy, so they de-ess it, bah, knob twiddling! You end up with fatty sausage instead of real meat. Mankind isn't at ease with what has been naturally created. Patrick Turner. The remainder of your post contains much interesting info. Thanks. I have printed it out for careful study. Best regards Iain |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: Tremaine 4th edition dates from 1975. No mystery Patrick. I stated clearly that it is an active load cathode follower, which was chosen after comparison with a mu-follower and a cascode. I have no schematic drawn. It can be found in any one of a dozen books Hardly any of us have a copy of Tremaine's 4th Edition, Audio Encyclopedia. That's probably because its name is Audio Cyclopedia:-)) There IS a MYSTERY. How can we talk about your amp details without a schematic???????? It will be just bull****ting into the wind without one. You may indeed have a nice device, but here you have to proove it. No Patrick. I don't have to *proove* (sic) anything to anyone, here. This is not the Spanish Inquisition. Neither is it a professional group (if it were, you would be the sole member:-) As I understand it, RAT is a recreational (hobby) group. Against the wished of my pal with whom I shared this project, I started this thread on RAT to relieve the monotony of Arny's OT drivel and Phil's cut-and-paste invective. Here is where when someone says something, it better be right, and reasons given, or its deemed to be wrong. When you show something, its prudent to offer the full story with a schematic. Few hobbyists can meet your expectations. That is probably why so few project threads appear. If you set the threshold too high you will end up with a pleasant but fast-shrinking band of tubeheads, plus one autistic Australian toaster repairer, and a Born Again tambourine basher from Michigan:-) My standards are the most basic ones. People coming here as hobbyists wanting to argue BS points of view as being truth will be challenged as far as i am concerned. Sure i take in the fact that recreational non experts lurk here, and sure nobody is perfect, me included. And they lurk in greater abundance in their little cliques where nobody says boo. Hobbyists often post with such seriousness that you'd think they might be pros but you find the greatest errors in their thinking, and they need exposure to criticism. Some have found great error in my thinking, and for me to live longer amoung error is regretable. All my best friends don't let me make misconceptions about many things. Much of what i have learnt well has come from ppl saying "Hey, shut up, you are wrong because X and because Y etc.." I grew up in an argumentative family, and dinner time discussions were sometimes hectic. We challenged each other's BS. This was a healthy state of affairs IMHO. At least we spoke to each other about many things, and sometimes laughed our sides off. Better than watching ****ing TV. Patrick Turner. Iain |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
In article ,
"bassett" wrote: If you where happy, you would complain about the cost of breathing, and the time it took out of your day. I don't get your meaning here, can you elaborate? Breathing is a parallel process and doesn't take time away from being happy. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
John Byrns wrote: In article , "bassett" wrote: If you where happy, you would complain about the cost of breathing, and the time it took out of your day. I don't get your meaning here, can you elaborate? Breathing is a parallel process and doesn't take time away from being happy. Regards, John Byrns Don't worry about Bassett. He's depressed far more than he says I am and he transfers his mindset to others humourlessly all the time. No wonder things are crook at aus.hi-fi. Bassett droppings all over the yard. Happiness isn't something Bassett is quite capable of AFAIK. Notice how he posted a picture of four very depressed bassett dogs at r.a.t ? naughty naughty doggies, the organizers of Usernet shall not be pleased. one doggie picture was enough, but we get 4! It says of bassett how strongly he identifies with such sad looking deprived dogs. Patrick Turner -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the cathode dc load? I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load cathode follower) You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about 18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could find no fault with it at that time. But unless the unbypased cathode resistor of the CCS "lower" triode is of a large value, the actual value of the "CCS" isn't a very high dynamic resistance. Rc is 62k. So a pentode makes a better CCS. Yes. I considered a 6U8A, but the 6SN7 sounds very good indeed. A single transistor makes an effective CCS, and is a passive type of active load because the collector resistance, Rc, is so high; it has nothing but a passive effect on the signal, so the only ac load the follower sees is the load of the amp to which it is connected. Thanks. That may be something to try in the future. Best regards Iain |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start, Patrick? :-) Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right without any gear clipping. LOL. We are talking about editing here, that means cutting from take to take across 24 tracks! It looks as if you don't even grasp the basic concept! Judging from what i have heard from various recording engineers, editing can't be that difficult. Try it some time:-) You need to be able to read the score as well as the conductor, and interpret the notes he has written "for your guidance" That puts 99% of people out of the running right away (and would probably include you also?) We used to edit 24 track 2" inch analogue masters at Decca. It takes a bold heart and a steady hand to mark up the edit point with a chinagraph pencil and takes a razor blade to the one and only session multitrack master, chop it into little bits, and then cut it back together in a different order. It is quite easy to leave the bits you need on the floor, and insert the bits you don't, especially if your score reading skills are not fully developed. Things are much much easier now in digital as editing workstations have unlimited levels of undo. A skilled editor rarely needs to undo anything. You are expected to work fast and with extreme accuracy. A classical five-CD boxed set may have many hundreds of edits if the music is complex. Each has to be a perfect cut, in and out, and level matched. Placing the mics and doing the actual production of the tracks you are editing would be much more difficult to optimise IMHO. I do that also. Recording. mixing, dubbing (instrumental and voice overs) editing and also post production/mastering are all part of the job. Each phase of the production required a separate set of skills, and all the time you are pushing hard against the clock. Big sessions are incredibly expensive. You may also be recording music to picture working with LTC to an accuracy of one sub frame (1/100th part of a frame, at 25 fps) You have to be familiar with the major brands of console, and their automation. They are all different. I'd be happier doing a live to air FM broadcast though using just a pair of two crossed over mics. They even got automatic level setting, just switch on, and away you go. For a solist, place a mic, ditto... :-) You would not get much work! Two gigs on the same day, - your first and last:-)) Working with a crossed-pair is one of the basic techniques. It is a lot more difficult than you might think to get just the right mix of direct sound and acoustic from the hall. There is nothing you can do to correct mis-balance within the orchestra, and very little you can do afterwards to change the wet/dry ratio. You need to be extremely versatile, and skilled in all the varied techniques ranging from two mics close (vocal and acoustic gtr) and co-incidental or crossed pairs, to 40 mic multitrack sessions. I once heard a friends recording made in 1974 where they have about 8 tracks for an american jazz ensemble, and they take you through the steps of the recording process and post recording process. After a listen I felt like sacking all the post processors. They equ'd signal up, down, sideways, all over the place. It ends up being an interpretation, not a recording. And beyond this they so often compress it, maybe add reverb, and this makes it go fizzy, so they de-ess it, bah, knob twiddling! You end up with fatty sausage instead of real meat. The kind of recording you mention above, and also many of the jazz recordings that I do, just don't work with a co-incidental or crossed pair. The sections of the band, and even the individual instruments within those sections have to be close mic if you want a the hard-hitting dynamic of which a big-band is capable. Your choice of mics is crucial. In addition to the three trumpets and three trombones, piano, guitar bass, drums and percussion, there are five saxes in a standard big band set up. Sometimes they play alto, and then switch to baritone, or clarinet or flute or even cor Anglais. How would you handle all that with your crossed-pair? :-) How are you going to keep the drums off your woodwinds mics? Think about it. For other than acoustic recording(orchestra, small ensemble etc) you need to have good separation, that is a basic requirement, and yet every musician has to be able to hear every other. Sometimes the pianist wants to hear more of the acoustic guitar and much less of the bass and drums. You have to be pretty skilled in simultaneous foldback mixing also to give everyone what they need. Then often you need to place a vocal on the top of all this. The clock ticks in multiples of the Euro, not in seconds. Think about that too. Regards Iain |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"robert casey" wrote in message link.net... Comments were interesting. Most people were averse to the ubiquitous silver anodised equipment that seems to adorn every hi fi shop. Most preferred filament indicator lamps to LEDs (when someone bothered to show them the difference) That's just styling decoration, which has no effect on the sound (unless someone does something that removes shielding to a sensitive part of the circuit, or such). Agreed. But those are exactly the kind of points people bring up in discussion. But I do admit to not liking the current fashion that has the tubes sticking outside the "cabinet" without any metal cage or such to enclose them. Tubes get hot, and I don't like burning myself on them... But a cage should have lots of holes for ventilation, so you still get to see the cool looking heater glow! Here in the EU, a power amplifier must have a protective cage to meet the Class II safety regs. In addition, this cage must be attached in such a way that it needs to tool to remove it. The regulations are quite strict. Equipment built for sale must conform to safety regs and have the CE mark. Here in Scandinavia, although it is no longer a legal requirement, most audio equipment also has the SWE, FIN or N(orway) safety test mark also. Most preferred engraved panels to silk screen. All preferred our laser etched dials to either of the other two possibilities. I prefer the silver box over a black box, if for the only reason that I can actually see the black markings on the silver panel a lot better than white (or gray) markings on a black panel. I have a few black boxes, and I always have to look closely at the markings to see which button to press. PITA! Yep.We thought so too, that's why the dials are stainless steel with dark grey markings. Iain |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Most preferred filament indicator lamps to LEDs (when someone bothered to show them the difference) If the device uses miniature 7 or 9 pin tubes with a big heater and cathode in the center, you could use molded tube sockets that have the cylinder shaped shield placed in the center of the tube pins. Mount the tubes sideways, with the base pointing to the front panel, near the front panel. The shield becomes a tunnel to pass the heater glow to the front panel. Use a glass pilot light bead to let the stray orange heater glow light up that glass bead. The user gets to see the heater heat up when he turns it on... |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the cathode dc load? I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load cathode follower) You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about 18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could find no fault with it at that time. At that time you weren't selling preamps and thus competing with Patrick. What has caused the change in Patrick's attitude is that you are offering to take orders. I do sincerely hope that Patrick won't go the way of several predecessors who came to believe that their services to RAT entitled them to consider it their own exclusive promotional channel. What happened to them is no secret. All this business about any poster proving himself is the utmost crap. It was tried by the Magnequest Scum as a way of grabbing an exlusive marketing channel for Creepy Mike Lafevre and his mates; they got stomped into the ground, and Patrick can't have forgotten that the same thing was tried by a bunch of hangers-on on behalf of Patrick, whose relict is the sad Jon Yaeger. I can't even remember the names of the others who tried it and came short. Neddie whatsisface from Chicago was one, and Vinnie the Nodding Dog Man. and scads of others. RAT isn't the Fourth Reich, electricity to the testicles if your project doesn't conform in triplicate to some grumpy old man's wet dream that all information should be accessible to him for no better reason than that he wants it. And when there is even the whiff of a commercial motive in blowing up a big pseudo-storm about someone's project, the hackles of the RATs who lived through it all so often before start rising. It's a bad sign; we may be dinosaurs but we're carnivorous until our final half-ton snack taken on our dying breath. What's even worse -- since Patrick will soon come to his senses -- is that his present behaviour gives aid and comfort to malicious slime like Poopie and Worthless who, without the tiniest fraction of Patrick's knowledge of tubes and with none of Patrick's normal goodwill to all men, are trying to set themselves up as arbiters on RAT. The only worse thing I can think of that can happen to RAT is the return of Chernofsky, the infamous BobC, Creepy Mike LaFevre's rotweiler. This is just a case of midlife crisis. Patrick will live through it, we'll live through it. Andre Jute Electromonter |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the cathode dc load? I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load cathode follower) You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about 18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could find no fault with it at that time. Indeed, perhaps its on my older PC, but now I remember, under a title " triode project anyone? " presumably from a thread here at r.a.t. None of my textbooks refer to it as ALCF. Such a thing isn't even in RDH4, maybe they thought it was a wank of an idea. But in fact the ALCF is a good idea, because of the increase in AC load ohms by replacing the normal R with a CCS. It reduces THD, and enhances the sound quality by removing artifacts. But unless the unbypased cathode resistor of the CCS "lower" triode is of a large value, the actual value of the "CCS" isn't a very high dynamic resistance. Rc is 62k. So a pentode makes a better CCS. Yes. I considered a 6U8A, but the 6SN7 sounds very good indeed. Nobody could/would suggest otherwise. The schematic you sent me has 6CG7, with the bottom triode with Rk = 62k, so the effective Ra load to the top triode at its cathode = approx 1.3M, a load way above any load likely to be connected and near enough to a CCS. The problem if any is that you have a 420V B+ supply just for a preamp. There is about 130V across the 62k, so idle current in the two series tubes is only 2mA, so the best linear operation giving high gm and low Ra is not possible with 6CG7/6SN7. Having 5mA of current would be better. So, starting with + and - rails of +/- 150V, you can direct couple a pot wiper to the CF grid. Then have a CCS using a BJT for the bottom active load, taken to -150V. A full implementation of the what I mean which you are cordially invited to try is at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/line-preamp-2003.html The schematic and all facts figures are at the page. Patrick Turner. A single transistor makes an effective CCS, and is a passive type of active load because the collector resistance, Rc, is so high; it has nothing but a passive effect on the signal, so the only ac load the follower sees is the load of the amp to which it is connected. Thanks. That may be something to try in the future. Best regards Iain |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start, Patrick? :-) Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right without any gear clipping. LOL. We are talking about editing here, that means cutting from take to take across 24 tracks! It looks as if you don't even grasp the basic concept! Judging from what i have heard from various recording engineers, editing can't be that difficult. Try it some time:-) You need to be able to read the score as well as the conductor, and interpret the notes he has written "for your guidance" That puts 99% of people out of the running right away (and would probably include you also?) I'm not even interested in editing recordings. What you say ppl need, ie, musical training isn't what most of the industry needs at all. We used to edit 24 track 2" inch analogue masters at Decca. It takes a bold heart and a steady hand to mark up the edit point with a chinagraph pencil and takes a razor blade to the one and only session multitrack master, chop it into little bits, and then cut it back together in a different order. It is quite easy to leave the bits you need on the floor, and insert the bits you don't, especially if your score reading skills are not fully developed. Things are much much easier now in digital as editing workstations have unlimited levels of undo. A skilled editor rarely needs to undo anything. You are expected to work fast and with extreme accuracy. A classical five-CD boxed set may have many hundreds of edits if the music is complex. Each has to be a perfect cut, in and out, and level matched. And you think they get all the edits right? Placing the mics and doing the actual production of the tracks you are editing would be much more difficult to optimise IMHO. I do that also. Recording. mixing, dubbing (instrumental and voice overs) editing and also post production/mastering are all part of the job. Each phase of the production required a separate set of skills, and all the time you are pushing hard against the clock. Big sessions are incredibly expensive. You may also be recording music to picture working with LTC to an accuracy of one sub frame (1/100th part of a frame, at 25 fps) You have to be familiar with the major brands of console, and their automation. They are all different. People come to me to have me do things which take time to do. I don't wear a watch. OK, what you do is highly technical, no doubt about that, and btter you do than me, I have never trained for it. But it is a marvel that recorded music escapes alive from all thar processing. Probably I could have been a merchant banker or brain surgeon, just learn to count money, or wield a scalpel, and she'll be right mate. The mistakes you make can send a nation broke while you sip champagne, or a patient just dies, and he cannot complain. More champagne. Naturally you need to learn for awhile, many years in fact, to be good at anything that is complex. If we keep things simple, anyone can be good at it with little training. Members of the audio club in Sydney did some two track recordings, all valve gear fully restored, analog tape, and no post processing. Just marvellous, all without musical training or any complexities. I'd be happier doing a live to air FM broadcast though using just a pair of two crossed over mics. They even got automatic level setting, just switch on, and away you go. For a solist, place a mic, ditto... :-) You would not get much work! Two gigs on the same day, - your first and last:-)) I have seen what hap[pens when the ABC come to Llewellen Hall here in Canberra to record live to air broadcasts. Its just as simple as I said. No post processing. Marvellous sound!!! I'm not lookong for work, or saying that I know all about the recording industry. I am saying post recording processes are largely questionable. Why, for pete's sake? Working with a crossed-pair is one of the basic techniques. It is a lot more difficult than you might think to get just the right mix of direct sound and acoustic from the hall. There is nothing you can do to correct mis-balance within the orchestra, and very little you can do afterwards to change the wet/dry ratio. And nothing I can do about the seat position in the hall I attend. But if I can get a system to reproduce what I hear at the seat I do choose, I am quite happy. Its the best sound possible, because its real. The reality is well captured by the simple live to air broadcast, anything from a full 40 strong orchestra or a solo seems fine from my radio set, and visitors cannot tell the FM from a CD. You need to be extremely versatile, and skilled in all the varied techniques ranging from two mics close (vocal and acoustic gtr) and co-incidental or crossed pairs, to 40 mic multitrack sessions. Indeed you would have to be extremely gifted to work with so much gadgetry. COWPAT = 1 / N squared, where COWPAT is Chance Of Working Perfectly Any Time, and N is the number of things you need to get right. I once heard a friends recording made in 1974 where they have about 8 tracks for an american jazz ensemble, and they take you through the steps of the recording process and post recording process. After a listen I felt like sacking all the post processors. They equ'd signal up, down, sideways, all over the place. It ends up being an interpretation, not a recording. And beyond this they so often compress it, maybe add reverb, and this makes it go fizzy, so they de-ess it, bah, knob twiddling! You end up with fatty sausage instead of real meat. The kind of recording you mention above, and also many of the jazz recordings that I do, just don't work with a co-incidental or crossed pair. The sections of the band, and even the individual instruments within those sections have to be close mic if you want a the hard-hitting dynamic of which a big-band is capable. Your choice of mics is crucial. In addition to the three trumpets and three trombones, piano, guitar bass, drums and percussion, there are five saxes in a standard big band set up. Sometimes they play alto, and then switch to baritone, or clarinet or flute or even cor Anglais. How would you handle all that with your crossed-pair? :-) How are you going to keep the drums off your woodwinds mics? Think about it. I just go for whatever it sounds like at 30 feet away. Two mics do it. They hear what I hear. When you close mic 101 things, it all makes the HF unaturally huge; Even one violin is a screachy thing up close, better to be a bit away from it. The natural experience of music is never to have your head stuck down a tuba to hear its real sound. We don't need to stand in front of the french horn soloist to get it. We don't need to move over in front of the grand piano to hear that. A band or orchestra playing acoustic instrments should be able to make a pleasant sound worth recording as is without processing. For other than acoustic recording(orchestra, small ensemble etc) you need to have good separation, that is a basic requirement, and yet every musician has to be able to hear every other. Sometimes the pianist wants to hear more of the acoustic guitar and much less of the bass and drums. You have to be pretty skilled in simultaneous foldback mixing also to give everyone what they need. So how come orchestras and bands have been well able to play together for hundreds of years WITHOUT any amps or ****ing fold back speakers onstage? Each trained musician hears enough of each other, but never can he hear just one out of many, but the miracle of human ability is they can all interact subconsciously as a team, with accurtae timing and keeping in tune. We have a number of renowned local bands here playing all mainly acoustic instruments. Not a single foldback anywhere. Sometimes we get concerts where electric guitars are used, and they always seem to sound wrong in the context. But one lady with an electric Harp last year performed magic, and had such skills you rarely ever see, she used both hands and both feet to work the darn thing, and the darn thing included digital delay interfaces and effects that were nothing but enchanting. Her tech had a fine ear so that the speaker unit used to produce the delayed sound was something that sounded OK in its own right. In the world of pop and rock its all different. All the things you cherish are total BS. Players have very poor musical ability, and ****ed hearing. Levels must be loud and with severe beat to make up for nil talent, and all to please vacuum packed brains of the punters attending concert who'd fall asleep at Motzart, and they want/need something to give them a simple buzz. I have only been to very few rock concerts, and wore earplugs. But rock and pop is the vast majority of music sold. The live gigs are all amplified way above levels I was ever happy with, so I avoid them all. Then they try to record this ****e and its process, process, process. Its sausages made with all the mainly otherwise unedible parts of the animal. Then often you need to place a vocal on the top of all this. The clock ticks in multiples of the Euro, not in seconds. Think about that too. I don't think about it. I just spend as long as it takes to get things right. I make no money, but there is no other way for the dedicated craftsman. Much of what the world makes is screwed by the clock. The clock ticks, sure, but trained ppl just turn up and do their thing, and good stuff results. The purpose of training is so this can happen without mistakes, and within budgets. The craftsman is never within budget, but so highly trained and fussy, so budgets simply poison quality. Was Leonardo thinking of the time when he painted the Mona Lisa? Patrick Turner. Regards Iain |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... Speaking of perfection, did you ever consider building a matching equalizer to go with the preamp? Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-) But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded grid cascode which will run from the same psu. What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"? Then I thought about an equaliser, a subtle three-band -3dB, 0, +3dB at LF MF and HF. Being a barbarian I would prefer something a little less subtle, I was thinking of maybe -6dB through +6dB max at LF MF and HF, with the frequencies adjustable in addition to the amount of boost/cut. What sort of knobs to tweak were you thinking of providing? Plus of course an ME (eye tube) to indicate level:-)) I could do without the "ME", a nice peak reading meter would be more to my taste. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote: For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start, Patrick? :-) "A 24 track big band recording", Ugh! I'm a huge fan of big band music and I much prefer recordings made with the sort of minimalist microphone technique that was used back in the day. I suppose being on the consumer side of the business my opinion doesn't count for much with today's record companies though. Back in the early 1960's I was on the other side of the microphone, and did some live to FM stereo orchestral broadcasts. Large condenser microphones in a minimalist setup were used for this. As this was a regular series of broadcasts the same microphone setup was used every time which was a good thing as microphone setup, beyond simple spoken word, was not one of my skill sets, the microphone setup, with an X marks the spot, was determined by someone far more skilled than me. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-) But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded grid cascode which will run from the same psu. What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"? I think it's a circuit that has a triode with the signal feeding its grid, and that its plate feeds directly into the cathode of another triode. And that 2nd triode's grid is biased, but bypassed to ground. Done to avoid Miller capacitance, but usually done in RF work. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
In article et,
robert casey wrote: Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-) But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded grid cascode which will run from the same psu. What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"? I think it's a circuit that has a triode with the signal feeding its grid, and that its plate feeds directly into the cathode of another triode. And that 2nd triode's grid is biased, but bypassed to ground. Done to avoid Miller capacitance, but usually done in RF work. What you are describing is the standard cascode, if that is what Iain was talking about why did he have to add the "grounded grid" bit which we would assume for a standard cascode? I assume Iain's circuit has another twist. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
robert casey wrote: Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-) But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded grid cascode which will run from the same psu. What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"? I think it's a circuit that has a triode with the signal feeding its grid, and that its plate feeds directly into the cathode of another triode. And that 2nd triode's grid is biased, but bypassed to ground. Done to avoid Miller capacitance, but usually done in RF work. See the schematic of the Rocket at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp...hono-2005.html Go about 20% down the page. The input stage for MC has 2SK369 "in casode with" 6DJ8 with both halves paralleled. The triode has its grid taken to a fixed bias voltage, and the signal is grounded. Input to the triode is to the cathode. Full notes about the amp are at the site. A pair of tubes can be used for a cascode circuit but you'll never get the low noise and high gain that you get with the Rocket circuit. Patrick Turner. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Iain Churches" wrote: For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start, Patrick? :-) "A 24 track big band recording", Ugh! I'm a huge fan of big band music and I much prefer recordings made with the sort of minimalist microphone technique that was used back in the day. I suppose being on the consumer side of the business my opinion doesn't count for much with today's record companies though. No, sadly it probably doesn't. Nor with today's audiences either. People expect a big band to be drivin' hard. Most big band recordings have been multi-mic (but not necessarily multitrack) since the mid 50s. There were multi-mic recordings made right at the beginning of the elelectrical recording era. If you listen carefully at a concert, however good the band, there are very few titles played without errors in intonation (I hesitate to say "wrong notes:-) or balance. For a concert, or even a broadcast this is OK. The visual reference does a lot to compensate. But a recording may remain in catalogue for 30 years, and so must be as close to blemish-free as possible. Once you notice a tiny fault, or one is pointed out to you, it tends to grow bigger and bigger every time you hear the recording, until you reach the point when your are not listening to the music at all, but waiting for the wrong note. The first take (the one you would hear in concert) is rarely the best, and "play it till you get it right" is not an option either. So if the 2nd trumpet forgets to take out his mute for a tutti passage you can run back and drop him in for four bars without the whole band having to repeat an otherwise good performance. Back in the early 1960's I was on the other side of the microphone, and did some live to FM stereo orchestral broadcasts. Large condenser microphones in a minimalist setup were used for this. As this was a regular series of broadcasts the same microphone setup was used every time which was a good thing as microphone setup, beyond simple spoken word, was not one of my skill sets, the microphone setup, with an X marks the spot, was determined by someone far more skilled than me. That's something you learn by working as a 2E with someone who has been doing it a long long time. You get to rig the studio under this person's beady eye, and gradually you start to hear what he can hear, and know why he has taken the decisions he has. There are no shortcuts to this kind of experience. Classical recording and choirs are now almost the only genre in which crossed pairs or co-incidental pairs are used. If, as a freelance engineer that was all you knew how to do, you would be lean and hungry:-) Cheers Iain |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Iain Churches" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... Speaking of perfection, did you ever consider building a matching equalizer to go with the preamp? Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-) But first comes the matching RIAA stage, a grounded grid cascode which will run from the same psu. What exactly do you mean by a "grounded grid cascode"? Then I thought about an equaliser, a subtle three-band -3dB, 0, +3dB at LF MF and HF. Being a barbarian I would prefer something a little less subtle, I was thinking of maybe -6dB through +6dB max at LF MF and HF, with the frequencies adjustable in addition to the amount of boost/cut. If you need 6dB there is something wrong either with the recording, the system, the room or all three. What sort of knobs to tweak were you thinking of providing? A three position toggle switch Centre off. Plus of course an ME (eye tube) to indicate level:-)) I could do without the "ME", a nice peak reading meter would be more to my taste. OK. What about an analogue BBC type PPM. Not a lot of people have those:-) Iain |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start, Patrick? :-) Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right without any gear clipping. LOL. That equates in the language of RAT to "Building a tube amp is easy. Just connect all the wires together in different combinations until it sounds just right!" I'm not even interested in editing recordings. I am pleased to hear it:-) What you say ppl need, ie, musical training isn't what most of the industry needs at all. Musical training is only one small part of what is required. The full score is to me what the amp schematic is to you. In addition every classical engineer is expected to have a knowledge of the major classical works. There are a great many of them. And you think they get all the edits right? Generally speaking, yes I do. The production team are a pretty unforgiving bunch:-) Are you interested to take part in an experiment Patrick? I have some teaching material, audio files which I can transfer to .mp3. The first of these is a short baroque passage with about ten edits in it. The first is made fairly obvious, being a cut between two takes, one recorded at 0900 hrs and one the following day at 1700 hrs. Vocal quality varies considerable during the day. (Despite being obvious, many people find even the first splice) I would place a friendly wager that even if I help you with the first, you cannot find a single one of the others. Like to try? In addition I have some big band material recorded simultaneously on digital and analogue, and mixed down to digital. It was an interesting exercise to cut between the two. Once again, the first splice is obvious. Few people can distinguish the digital from the analogue sections. One musician who faired quite well in this test, told me, "The trumpets with harmon mutes in the second movement sounded better from the analogue tape!" COWPAT = 1 / N squared, where COWPAT is Chance Of Working Perfectly Any Time, and N is the number of things you need to get right. But you said before how easy it was! Now you are contradicting yourself. If it is as easy as you seem to think, how can anyone *not* get it right? :-) Despite the fact that it is far more difficult than you think, prof editors still get it right, most of the time, in much the same way as your amplifiers work when they leave your bench. Please don't get the idea you are the only competent person on this earth:-) I work for clients who first booked me thirty years ago. I must be doing something right:-) There is no sentiment in business. I just go for whatever it sounds like at 30 feet away. Two mics do it. You have to be joking Patrick! So how come orchestras and bands have been well able to play together for hundreds of years WITHOUT any amps or ****ing fold back speakers onstage? I am the first to agree with you that a symphony orchestra, or any other classical ensemble, choir etc, needs no PA system. (You are, by the way using the term foldback incorrectly: When I used it, it was to describe the "internal mix" sent to members of the band via headphones. That is the correct definition of foldback, for the rest of the world excluding Arny, that is:-)) Few other concerts can work without PA/sound reinforcement or stage mixing. Our team does a lot of that. It's highly paid. They would not have us there if it were not deemed necessary:-) Each trained musician hears enough of each other, but never can he hear just one out of many, but the miracle of human ability is they can all interact subconsciously as a team, with accurate timing and keeping in tune. I can see from the above that you have never played in an orchestra or a band. Sit in the 2nd tenor sax seat. You will probably have the 2nd Trombone blowing down your neck. Sometimes you can hear little else. In the world of pop and rock its all different. All the things you cherish are total BS. Players have very poor musical ability, and ****ed hearing. Levels must be loud and with severe beat to make up for nil talent, and all to please vacuum packed brains of the punters attending concert who'd fall asleep at Motzart, and they want/need something to give them a simple buzz. I have only been to very few rock concerts, and wore earplugs. But rock and pop is the vast majority of music sold. The live gigs are all amplified way above levels I was ever happy with, so I avoid them all. That's a sad appraisal You grew up in the 60s, the greatest pop era of them all:-) Pop and rock both have a lot to recommend them, Be selective, listen carefully without pre-judgement. Was Leonardo thinking of the time when he painted the Mona Lisa? No. But he was not painting 70 musicians being paid at Euro 150/hour was he? :-) Best regards Iain |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start, Patrick? :-) Quite possibly. twiddle all the knobs until its sounded just right without any gear clipping. LOL. That equates in the language of RAT to "Building a tube amp is easy. Just connect all the wires together in different combinations until it sounds just right!" I'm not even interested in editing recordings. I am pleased to hear it:-) What you say ppl need, ie, musical training isn't what most of the industry needs at all. Musical training is only one small part of what is required. The full score is to me what the amp schematic is to you. In addition every classical engineer is expected to have a knowledge of the major classical works. There are a great many of them. And you think they get all the edits right? Generally speaking, yes I do. The production team are a pretty unforgiving bunch:-) Are you interested to take part in an experiment Patrick? I have some teaching material, audio files which I can transfer to .mp3. The first of these is a short baroque passage with about ten edits in it. The first is made fairly obvious, being a cut between two takes, one recorded at 0900 hrs and one the following day at 1700 hrs. Vocal quality varies considerable during the day. (Despite being obvious, many people find even the first splice) I would place a friendly wager that even if I help you with the first, you cannot find a single one of the others. Like to try? Not really, I am time challenged. In addition I have some big band material recorded simultaneously on digital and analogue, and mixed down to digital. It was an interesting exercise to cut between the two. Once again, the first splice is obvious. Few people can distinguish the digital from the analogue sections. One musician who faired quite well in this test, told me, "The trumpets with harmon mutes in the second movement sounded better from the analogue tape!" COWPAT = 1 / N squared, where COWPAT is Chance Of Working Perfectly Any Time, and N is the number of things you need to get right. But you said before how easy it was! Now you are contradicting yourself. If it is as easy as you seem to think, how can anyone *not* get it right? :-) Depends on too many darn things. Just use two mikes. Give the band plenty of time to practice, but tell them they only have one chance to make themselves famous. Otherwise they'll all be shot. Tell the conductor to hold his mouth right, or else. Tell them "Make good music, OK". Press the start button. Wait until they are finished. Press the stop button. Go around and tell the CD and vinyl guys to print off copies. That should be that :-)) Despite the fact that it is far more difficult than you think, prof editors still get it right, most of the time, in much the same way as your amplifiers work when they leave your bench. Please don't get the idea you are the only competent person on this earth:-) I work for clients who first booked me thirty years ago. I must be doing something right:-) There is no sentiment in business. I just go for whatever it sounds like at 30 feet away. Two mics do it. You have to be joking Patrick! Last time I went to a concert, I was not joking. At one concert, 6 concert harpists played either all together on in duets, triplets, quads etc, and I came away thinking "I MUST NOT SIN AGAIN!!!!" I figured I'd had two hours of music from heaven, and that's were I would like to go, where such music is played all day, so no more sinning. No more arguments with recording studio ppl on news groups, no more ridiculous assertions about BS or complexity. Nothing, NO MORE.Good. So how come orchestras and bands have been well able to play together for hundreds of years WITHOUT any amps or ****ing fold back speakers onstage? I am the first to agree with you that a symphony orchestra, or any other classical ensemble, choir etc, needs no PA system. (You are, by the way using the term foldback incorrectly: When I used it, it was to describe the "internal mix" sent to members of the band via headphones. That is the correct definition of foldback, for the rest of the world excluding Arny, that is:-)) Few other concerts can work without PA/sound reinforcement or stage mixing. Our team does a lot of that. It's highly paid. They would not have us there if it were not deemed necessary:-) Each trained musician hears enough of each other, but never can he hear just one out of many, but the miracle of human ability is they can all interact subconsciously as a team, with accurate timing and keeping in tune. I can see from the above that you have never played in an orchestra or a band. yep, I used to play in a band for 6mths. But I really didn't like being poor. The girls I met after they'd been staring at us all night were wanting of the rodger a lot but even that got boring. Then I got busy with studies, and work, so no more band. Sit in the 2nd tenor sax seat. You will probably have the 2nd Trombone blowing down your neck. Sometimes you can hear little else. They all manage somehow though..... Have done for centuries. In the world of pop and rock its all different. All the things you cherish are total BS. Players have very poor musical ability, and ****ed hearing. Levels must be loud and with severe beat to make up for nil talent, and all to please vacuum packed brains of the punters attending concert who'd fall asleep at Motzart, and they want/need something to give them a simple buzz. I have only been to very few rock concerts, and wore earplugs. But rock and pop is the vast majority of music sold. The live gigs are all amplified way above levels I was ever happy with, so I avoid them all. That's a sad appraisal You grew up in the 60s, the greatest pop era of them all:-) Pop and rock both have a lot to recommend them, Be selective, listen carefully without pre-judgement. My collection of 60s and 70s music is very very tiny. That stuff is still played on commercial radio all the time and is the reason I can't listen to it. One more tune about puerile lerv and i'll scream. The message was BS. The medium OK,and somethings i didn't mind, but the vast majority of pop musicians wasted all their time artistically. They did it for the money. Was Leonardo thinking of the time when he painted the Mona Lisa? No. But he was not painting 70 musicians being paid at Euro 150/hour was he? :-) Best regards Iain Supermarket checkout counter girls at my local give me Mona's smile when they ask me how I am. I answer, "Much better, now that i've seen you." Now there, I get a Mona Smile for nothing. Cheaper than the groceries. Who needs to go to France, and to that Gallery, and to That Painting? I like to keep life simple. Patrick Turner. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: LOL. That equates in the language of RAT to "Building a tube amp is easy. Just connect all the wires together in different combinations until it sounds just right!" Are you interested to take part in an experiment Patrick? I have some teaching material, audio files which I can transfer to .mp3. The first of these is a short baroque passage with about ten edits in it. The first is made fairly obvious, being a cut between two takes, one recorded at 0900 hrs and one the following day at 1700 hrs. Vocal quality varies considerable during the day. (Despite being obvious, many people find even the first splice) I would place a friendly wager that even if I help you with the first, you cannot find a single one of the others. Like to try? Not really, I am time challenged. OK. I will let you bow out gracefully, to spend the time fixing up those 60s stereos that the owners will never collect:-)) Depends on too many darn things. Just use two mikes. If only it was that easy:-) Give the band plenty of time to practice, but tell them they only have one chance to make themselves famous. Otherwise they'll all be shot. Tell the conductor to hold his mouth right, or else. Tell them "Make good music, OK". Press the start button. Wait until they are finished. Press the stop button. Go around and tell the CD and vinyl guys to print off copies. That should be that :-)) You could start your own label "Reich Records" Last time I went to a concert, I was not joking. At one concert, 6 concert harpists played either all together on in duets, triplets, quads etc, and I came away thinking "I MUST NOT SIN AGAIN!!!!" I figured I'd had two hours of music from heaven, and that's were I would like to go, where such music is played all day, so no more sinning. That sounds like an amazing experience. Most harpists are ladies. Where they pretty as well as talented? No more arguments with recording studio ppl on news groups, no more ridiculous assertions about BS or complexity. Not arguments - discussions:-) Nothing, NO MORE.Good. Please make sure they you do qualify to get past the Pearly Gates. The alternative is too frightening to think about. I have reliable inside information that once Lucifer's supply of kerosene or natural gas or whatever he uses to feed the fires of Hades is exhausted, he has a new surprise in store for those who are condemmed to eternal damnation. He plans to play all of Arny's 1000 recordings, in a non stop loop at SPL140 on Bose speakers via an SS amp!! yep, I used to play in a band for 6mths. But I really didn't like being poor. Both my father ane my brother were professional classical musicians, I could have followed in their footsteps, but I preferred three square meals a day so I decided to take a position on the other side of the control room glass. The girls I met after they'd been staring at us all night were wanting of the rodger a lot but even that got boring. So it was a rock band? That's fun, with good basic bonking at the end of the gig. The girls who follow jazz outfits are really weird! Supermarket checkout counter girls at my local give me Mona's smile when they ask me how I am. I answer, "Much better, now that i've seen you." Now there, I get a Mona Smile for nothing. Hmm. Here they smile (just as sweetly) and ask "MasterCard or Visa?" Cheers Iain |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Iain Churches" wrote: For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. Don't be too pretentious about "understanding" You are a professional amp builder, one would expect you to know the detail. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Would you know where to start, Patrick? :-) "A 24 track big band recording", Ugh! I'm a huge fan of big band music and I much prefer recordings made with the sort of minimalist microphone technique that was used back in the day. I suppose being on the consumer side of the business my opinion doesn't count for much with today's record companies though. No, sadly it probably doesn't. Perhaps the current sorry state of the music business relates to this. Nor with today's audiences either. That might be true, but it isn't obvious, it could simply be recording industry talking points. People expect a big band to be drivin' hard. What does "drivin' hard" have to do with multi track recording/michrophone techniques? One relates to the music, and the other relates to the technicalities of the recording process. Most big band recordings have been multi-mic (but not necessarily multitrack) since the mid 50s. Sure, but that doesn't make it right or even best, it is simply a convenience for the recording engineer, to make his life easier. There were multi-mic recordings made right at the beginning of the elelectrical recording era. "multi-mic" can mean as few as two, how many mics are you saying were used at the beginning of the electrical recording era? Of course there is going to be an accent mic or two, but 24? If you listen carefully at a concert, however good the band, there are very few titles played without errors in intonation (I hesitate to say "wrong notes:-) or balance. For a concert, or even a broadcast this is OK. For "pop" recordings where the tracks are short, simply do several takes and pick the best. The visual reference does a lot to compensate. But a recording may remain in catalogue for 30 years, and so must be as close to blemish-free as possible. Once you notice a tiny fault, or one is pointed out to you, it tends to grow bigger and bigger every time you hear the recording, until you reach the point when your are not listening to the music at all, but waiting for the wrong note. This is an interesting point, although I suspect that its effect depends on the psychological makeup of the individual listener, it would make an interesting psychological study. Tiny faults don't seem like a big deal to me, it's mor4e realistic. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Iain Churches" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... Speaking of perfection, did you ever consider building a matching equalizer to go with the preamp? Gosh, John. You must have a crystal ball:-) Then I thought about an equaliser, a subtle three-band -3dB, 0, +3dB at LF MF and HF. Being a barbarian I would prefer something a little less subtle, I was thinking of maybe -6dB through +6dB max at LF MF and HF, with the frequencies adjustable in addition to the amount of boost/cut. If you need 6dB there is something wrong either with the recording, the system, the room or all three. I'm assuming the system and room have already been dealt with, and the purpose of the equalizer is to correct faulty recordings, and to allow the tonal balance to be adjusted to accommodate the listeners personal taste. What sort of knobs to tweak were you thinking of providing? A three position toggle switch Centre off. Have you been able to locate suitable toggle switches for this application? I have not been able to find easily available toggle switches that will work in this type of circuit. I think there are two forms of commonly available toggle switches, one where both circuits are off in the center position, and one where both are on in the center position, neither very useful for equalizer circuits like we are talking about. You are probably more willing to search out unusual switches than I am, and hopefully will find the required type. For my purposes I would probably go with -6, -4, -2, 0, +2, +4, +6 dB using rotary switches. It sounds like you plan on using fixed corner frequencies, what frequencies would you use? What about the MF band where you need to choose not only a center frequency, but also the "Q"? What does the response of your equalizer look like when all three switches are in the +3 dB positions, and when all three are in the -3 dB position? Plus of course an ME (eye tube) to indicate level:-)) I could do without the "ME", a nice peak reading meter would be more to my taste. OK. What about an analogue BBC type PPM. Not a lot of people have those:-) That would be ideal, but you also need more toggle switches, I figure at least six 3 position toggle switches would be the minimum, and eight or more would be better. Using rotary switches would reduce the required number of switches. A combination of rotary and toggle switches might be the most sensible. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: LOL. That equates in the language of RAT to "Building a tube amp is easy. Just connect all the wires together in different combinations until it sounds just right!" Are you interested to take part in an experiment Patrick? I have some teaching material, audio files which I can transfer to .mp3. The first of these is a short baroque passage with about ten edits in it. The first is made fairly obvious, being a cut between two takes, one recorded at 0900 hrs and one the following day at 1700 hrs. Vocal quality varies considerable during the day. (Despite being obvious, many people find even the first splice) I would place a friendly wager that even if I help you with the first, you cannot find a single one of the others. Like to try? Not really, I am time challenged. OK. I will let you bow out gracefully, to spend the time fixing up those 60s stereos that the owners will never collect:-)) Depends on too many darn things. Just use two mikes. If only it was that easy:-) Give the band plenty of time to practice, but tell them they only have one chance to make themselves famous. Otherwise they'll all be shot. Tell the conductor to hold his mouth right, or else. Tell them "Make good music, OK". Press the start button. Wait until they are finished. Press the stop button. Go around and tell the CD and vinyl guys to print off copies. That should be that :-)) You could start your own label "Reich Records" Last time I went to a concert, I was not joking. At one concert, 6 concert harpists played either all together on in duets, triplets, quads etc, and I came away thinking "I MUST NOT SIN AGAIN!!!!" I figured I'd had two hours of music from heaven, and that's were I would like to go, where such music is played all day, so no more sinning. That sounds like an amazing experience. Most harpists are ladies. Where they pretty as well as talented? No more arguments with recording studio ppl on news groups, no more ridiculous assertions about BS or complexity. Not arguments - discussions:-) Nothing, NO MORE.Good. Please make sure they you do qualify to get past the Pearly Gates. The alternative is too frightening to think about. I have reliable inside information that once Lucifer's supply of kerosene or natural gas or whatever he uses to feed the fires of Hades is exhausted, he has a new surprise in store for those who are condemmed to eternal damnation. He plans to play all of Arny's 1000 recordings, in a non stop loop at SPL140 on Bose speakers via an SS amp!! yep, I used to play in a band for 6mths. But I really didn't like being poor. Both my father ane my brother were professional classical musicians, I could have followed in their footsteps, but I preferred three square meals a day so I decided to take a position on the other side of the control room glass. The girls I met after they'd been staring at us all night were wanting of the rodger a lot but even that got boring. So it was a rock band? That's fun, with good basic bonking at the end of the gig. The girls who follow jazz outfits are really weird! Supermarket checkout counter girls at my local give me Mona's smile when they ask me how I am. I answer, "Much better, now that i've seen you." Now there, I get a Mona Smile for nothing. Hmm. Here they smile (just as sweetly) and ask "MasterCard or Visa?" Cheers Iain Well wadaya reckon Mona was telling Leo? "That'll be 15 duckets please" Maybe at Leo's age, it'd have cheaper to paint the girl's picture than root her, and painting her would have taken much more of her time than a bonk, so maybe the cost was the same. Either way, she looks pleased with the deal Leo must have offered. And maybe in reality she didn't look as well as Leo painted. Its a bit like Vogue magazine, they remove all the blemishes. I guess you remove all the bum notes. Patrick Turner. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Iain Churches" wrote: If you need 6dB there is something wrong either with the recording, the system, the room or all three. I'm assuming the system and room have already been dealt with, and the purpose of the equalizer is to correct faulty recordings, and to allow the tonal balance to be adjusted to accommodate the listeners personal taste. Understood. I know a lot of people who would find +/- 3dB too brutal. Have you been able to locate suitable toggle switches for this application? I have not been able to find easily available toggle switches that will work in this type of circuit. I think there are two forms of commonly available toggle switches, one where both circuits are off in the center position, and one where both are on in the center position, neither very useful for equalizer circuits like we are talking about. You are probably more willing to search out unusual switches than I am, and hopefully will find the required type. They are used in audio consoles. For my purposes I would probably go with -6, -4, -2, 0, +2, +4, +6 dB using rotary switches. That is an easy way round it. One could lift this idea to any level sophistication one chooses. If it makes good sense to do so is a different matter:-) I have seen an EQ unit with three push buttons which step up to +6dB and then down through 0dB to -6dB. The level of equalisation is indicated by a Nixie tube. That's fun, but a bridge too far in my book. It sounds like you plan on using fixed corner frequencies, what frequencies would you use? What about the MF band where you need to choose not only a center frequency, but also the "Q"? What does the response of your equalizer look like when all three switches are in the +3 dB positions, and when all three are in the -3 dB position? I don't think most people need that level of EQ. If I ever need to sweep any f or have variable Q, I use a digital processor. But going back to your suggestion, it could be implemented also with rotary stepped attenuators, or with toggle switches controlling relays or FETs. The possibilities are endless. That would be ideal, but you also need more toggle switches, I figure at least six 3 position toggle switches would be the minimum, and eight or more would be better. Using rotary switches would reduce the required number of switches. A combination of rotary and toggle switches might be the most sensible. The BBC analogue meter is no longer in production, though I do know a source from which they can probably be obtained NOS. There are a large number of tone control designs, some of them pretty radical which are not even flat when all controls are set to zero, but them of course this kind of design can always be switched out of circuit. I would probably use the Peter Baxandall topology with an SRPP in front and a cathode follower to follow:-) John, please give some more thought to this idea. It might be interesting to have a group project on RAT, as many closed groups do. There are enough clever people here to come up with a very good design (but on the other hand there are also enough lunatics to destroy such a thread very early on, as we have seen before) Cordially Iain |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com... Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the cathode dc load? I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load cathode follower) You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about 18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could find no fault with it at that time. At that time you weren't selling preamps and thus competing with Patrick. What has caused the change in Patrick's attitude is that you are offering to take orders. Hello Andre It was not my intention to give that impression. At this moment, I have nothing to sell. In fact we have one 2 channel preamp between two people. So I guess I own a mono channel and half a psu:-) I am certainly not offering to take orders. I seem for some reason, to have put Patrick's nose out of joint. I don't know how or why, and this was certainly not my intention. I hold him in very high esteem. Perhaps the reason is that a couple of hobbyists have built (but not designed) an amp of quality to match his own work? Given the limited spare time I have, if I were to spend the next fifty years studying tube audio theory I would not reach Patrick's level, so I do not compete with him in any way. But there again, he doesn't compete with me either. It would be fun to have him as a member of a recording team and there would certainly be no shortage of topics of conversation in-flight, or while driving in the truck to the gig. But what could he actually *do* Probably nothing! Perhaps technical support? Knowing how a Quad II works is of small consolation. Most tech support staff have a degree in digital technology. There is no shortage of such people. Patrick's age exceeds by 8dB the maximum for basic-level employment, and from what he writes about "twiddling all the knobs till it sounds right" his knowledge of recording techniques and music is probably 60dB below what is expected at entry level:-) This "just twiddle all the knobs until you get it right" is something you hear quite often, but not from an intelligent person such as Patrick. In RAT language, it translates as "Building tube amps is easy. You just connect all the wires up in different combinations till it sounds right" Translating further for the musicians amongst us (and I know there are many who read but do not post) who play a brass or woodwind instruments, this comes out as "Press all the keys or valves one by one or in combination until you get the right note." This makes two further assumptions. One, that you can read the "dots" to determine what the right note might be, and two, that you have the skill to produce the embouchure required to produce a basic note in the first place:-) Something about Shakespeare, typewriters and monkeys comes to mind:-) This whole preamp project started off as an exercise to find out what people (thought they) would like from a preamp. Deciding the topology was not difficult. Most seemed to prefer the ALCF compared with a cascode or a mu-follower (probably because most listen from CD so no additional gain is required) The cathode follower sounded good (and most could not tell it from the sound produced when the CD player was plugged straight into the power amp with stepped attenuators). The cathode follower preamp has the advantage of four or more switched inputs. Then came the question of functions, and the question of whether or not to have a separate psu. Most liked the idea. The discussion proceeded through front and rear panel facilities and design to footprint and general shape. We built a preamp that pleased everyone consulted in the matter, and many that were not. I was interested to get the reactions of a wider range of people and so took some pics, and made some brief notes on two identical web pages each with an embedded counter and its own address. I then posted one to RAT and the other to a Scandi closed group. The post to RAT attracted 84 hits in 48hrs, and posts from three people, plus four e-mails. The post to the Scandi group attracted 50 hits, and nearly 40 replies, with 12 e-mails. On the Scandi group, most replied. "Looks very good. Would be interested to hear it" A couple of people wrote. "Clearly there is an error in your noise measurement methodology. Please proceed as follows ..........." Another sent a list of suitable OP amps to make a 60dB measuring amp. A fourth offered to build me such a device for cost of parts and postage. The timbre of replies on RAT was somewhat different:-) Regards to all Iain |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Andre Jute wrote: Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... So why didn't you just say so, a standard CF with CCS triode as the cathode dc load? I didn't say so because the textbooks call it an ALCF (Active load cathode follower) You may recall that I e-mailed this very schematic to you, about 18 months ago, Patrick, and asked for your opinion. You could find no fault with it at that time. At that time you weren't selling preamps and thus competing with Patrick. What has caused the change in Patrick's attitude is that you are offering to take orders. I do sincerely hope that Patrick won't go the way of several predecessors who came to believe that their services to RAT entitled them to consider it their own exclusive promotional channel. What happened to them is no secret. I rarely sell anything, and I never ever contemplated I should change attitude because of competion. Good luck to all who compete with me. I hope you all laugh all the way to the bank. My criticism this time has been resolved. 18mths ago I did indeed endorse the design Iain was using, and i endorse it now, but I have now tendered some simple recomendations and brough his attention to circuits at my website allowing a very similar basic topology to operate from much lower supply rails seen in the schematic at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/line-preamp-2003.html All this business about any poster proving himself is the utmost crap. It was tried by the Magnequest Scum as a way of grabbing an exlusive marketing channel for Creepy Mike Lafevre and his mates; they got stomped into the ground, and Patrick can't have forgotten that the same thing was tried by a bunch of hangers-on on behalf of Patrick, whose relict is the sad Jon Yaeger. I can't even remember the names of the others who tried it and came short. Neddie whatsisface from Chicago was one, and Vinnie the Nodding Dog Man. and scads of others. I expect an absense of BS and freedom to say the truth just like you expect. I think such humble expectations are not "utmost crap". I have never made a sale of anything to any regular poster at r.a.t, and have never expected to. I never came here to dominate what I could have seen as a supply of possible customers. I came here to talk about tube craft and I have had a fair amount to say because I have become so experienced at tube craft from which I make part of my living. The past belongs in the past, I'm not like Le Fevre. I forgive all who have wronged me, so please pardon me for bruising what ever egos asked to be bruised, and let's move along soon. RAT isn't the Fourth Reich, electricity to the testicles if your project doesn't conform in triplicate to some grumpy old man's wet dream that all information should be accessible to him for no better reason than that he wants it. yes, but its easier if ppl give the full bootful of info. Nobody will really think this is the 4th Reich. We all know why you have a website; its to make yourself known, make your ideas clear, and make them available, just a few clicks away. Our perceptions are now dependant on which clicks we make, and perhaps which cliques we hang out with. I have a website where its hard to find a price on anything. Since having a website hasn't made a miraculous increase in my earnings, the vast majority of content are ideas freely given and able to be tried by anyone, spamming diyers just makes them puke... And when there is even the whiff of a commercial motive in blowing up a big pseudo-storm about someone's project, the hackles of the RATs who lived through it all so often before start rising. It's a bad sign; we may be dinosaurs but we're carnivorous until our final half-ton snack taken on our dying breath. What's even worse -- since Patrick will soon come to his senses -- is that his present behaviour gives aid and comfort to malicious slime like Poopie and Worthless who, without the tiniest fraction of Patrick's knowledge of tubes and with none of Patrick's normal goodwill to all men, are trying to set themselves up as arbiters on RAT. The only worse thing I can think of that can happen to RAT is the return of Chernofsky, the infamous BobC, Creepy Mike LaFevre's rotweiler. This is just a case of midlife crisis. Patrick will live through it, we'll live through it. I must of had several life crisies along the way, dunno if this is another. Winston Churchill summed up politics as being "just one damn thing after another" He had black dog depression, and wouldn't anyone, trying to save Britain? He laid bricks for therapy; his garden walls remain standing somewhere I think for folks to admire. Seems perhaps I had to resort to some bricklaying for the mind at times to feel complete during my time as a builder. But unlike Winston, I became master tradesman of all things to do with construction; there wasn't anything I wouldn't or couldn't do. But way above my efforts, Winston went on laying the bricks of his nation to build a better Britain, and despite his faults, he wasn't such a bad grumpy old statesman. Jesus was a carpenter, so we should not criticise tradesmen too unkindly. Patrick Turner, who may have once voted for Jesus if he'd stood for election as Roman Emperor, had I been around at the time. Patrick Turner. Andre Jute Electromonter |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... I rarely sell anything, and I never ever contemplated I should change attitude because of competion. Good luck to all who compete with me. I hope you all laugh all the way to the bank. Patrick. I was surprised to read the above paragraph. I got the impression that you had an order book as thick as the London telephone directory. My criticism this time has been resolved. 18mths ago I did indeed endorse the design Iain was using, and i endorse it now, but I have now tendered some simple recomendations and brough his attention to circuits at my website allowing a very similar basic topology to operate from much lower supply rails seen in the schematic at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/line-preamp-2003.html Hmm. The B+ on the ALCF is 285V. is it marked as something higher on your copy? I have never made a sale of anything to any regular poster at r.a.t, and have never expected to. I never came here to dominate what I could have seen as a supply of possible customers. I came here to talk about tube craft and I have had a fair amount to say because I have become so experienced at tube craft from which I make part of my living. I doubt that anyone could sell anything to the members of what is essentially a DIY fettlers group:-) Nobody will really think this is the 4th Reich. A lot of people seem to think it is. I received an e-mail from a non.English speaker just an hour or so ago. I am thinking whether or not I should post it here, without his name. We all know why you have a website; its to make yourself known, make your ideas clear, and make them available, just a few clicks away. Our perceptions are now dependant on which clicks we make, and perhaps which cliques we hang out with. :-)) I have my website because I still keep contact with a huge number of old friends and colleagues, even kids that I went to boarding school with. They often asked "What's life like in Finland?" So I posted a few pics to show 'em how grim it is:-) and it all started from there. I must of had several life crisies along the way, dunno if this is another. Winston Churchill summed up politics as being "just one damn thing after another" He had black dog depression, and wouldn't anyone, trying to save Britain? He laid bricks for therapy; his garden walls remain standing somewhere I think for folks to admire. Yes indeed. It is called Chartwell, in Westerham Kent It has fine but unpretentious gardens and a huge collection of his painting. The wall to which you refer it also still there. You probably know that Adolf Hitler was something of an amateur painter. Churchill blamed the selection committee for the Vienna Academy of Art ( who turned AH down) for WW2. Best regards Iain |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Using tubed electronics exclusively? |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Using tubed electronics exclusively? Byfåne :-)) |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Using tubed electronics exclusively? Byfåne :-)) Meaning exactly what, Iain? |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Iain Churches wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... I rarely sell anything, and I never ever contemplated I should change attitude because of competion. Good luck to all who compete with me. I hope you all laugh all the way to the bank. Patrick. I was surprised to read the above paragraph. I got the impression that you had an order book as thick as the London telephone directory. I have had to refuse several clients because I have six months work in front of me. I do a lot of repairs and re-engineering jobs and a pair of amps might take 2 weeks to get right. This is how long a pair of Manley Labs are now taking. You only need a dozen jobs, and it all adds up. The ESL job was siupposed to make a month, but problems with the kits have delayed it, I have to complet a pair of new 845s, and get a cash flow, so I have to do a lot of different things. one thing delays the other. I don't have any assistant, except for all the solid state gear. Nobody wants to train to be a tube amp technician so they can earn low wages. Nobody wants to pay me prper tradesmans rates for the work I do. So I couldn't ever find an assistant. My criticism this time has been resolved. 18mths ago I did indeed endorse the design Iain was using, and i endorse it now, but I have now tendered some simple recomendations and brough his attention to circuits at my website allowing a very similar basic topology to operate from much lower supply rails seen in the schematic at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/line-preamp-2003.html Hmm. The B+ on the ALCF is 285V. is it marked as something higher on your copy? seemed to be 400V. If you have only 285V, then idle current would be very low indeed. It will still work fine, but in a preamp the more idle current there is the greater the voltage able to be swing into a load without THD and that makes for the better amp. I have never made a sale of anything to any regular poster at r.a.t, and have never expected to. I never came here to dominate what I could have seen as a supply of possible customers. I came here to talk about tube craft and I have had a fair amount to say because I have become so experienced at tube craft from which I make part of my living. I doubt that anyone could sell anything to the members of what is essentially a DIY fettlers group:-) Nobody will really think this is the 4th Reich. A lot of people seem to think it is. I received an e-mail from a non.English speaker just an hour or so ago. I am thinking whether or not I should post it here, without his name. r.a.t is just a discussion group. So are the national Parliaments of countries where democracy is a feature. Big arguments happen with democracies, just like big arguments happen between family members. By way of argument and discussion the truth encouraged to surface in the presence of Bull****, Muck, Spurious Ideologies, Crap Behaviours, Incalcitrant poo Rakers, Idiots Masquerading Professors, Experts who are Drips Turned Off, Off Topic Distractions etc. Almost every facet of human behaviour is to be found here. Its more like a Circus, surely, than the 4th Reich. There are many people who would like things more civilised, controlled, respectful, BS free, acrimony free, but these poor misguided souls do not understand the nature of mankind whenever men gather to discuss anything any time. Even before humans evolved from monkeys, they argued over everything, and they still do. arguement is instinctual, and it also smells. Its never ever going to cease. So post what you like here and risk being ridiculed. Just remember, if someone wants to call me pork chop, I'll have them looking like a rotten old bit of sausage in no time. So don't anyone call me a pork chop. Its easier that way. People forget though, they backslide into BS and insult, and their emotions cloud up any attempt to fly amoung the technical issues. In democracies, the minorities are given voice to argue for their own rights and protection. Not in the 4th Reich, guys are sent around at 2am to cart away the noise makers. We all know why you have a website; its to make yourself known, make your ideas clear, and make them available, just a few clicks away. Our perceptions are now dependant on which clicks we make, and perhaps which cliques we hang out with. :-)) I have my website because I still keep contact with a huge number of old friends and colleagues, even kids that I went to boarding school with. They often asked "What's life like in Finland?" So I posted a few pics to show 'em how grim it is:-) and it all started from there. Mine is for information, not friends. My ISP said I had 118,000 hits in February alone. I emailed him back to say he must be kidding me, hell, how come not one about a sale? My site is about information. I must of had several life crisies along the way, dunno if this is another. Winston Churchill summed up politics as being "just one damn thing after another" He had black dog depression, and wouldn't anyone, trying to save Britain? He laid bricks for therapy; his garden walls remain standing somewhere I think for folks to admire. Yes indeed. It is called Chartwell, in Westerham Kent It has fine but unpretentious gardens and a huge collection of his painting. The wall to which you refer it also still there. You probably know that Adolf Hitler was something of an amateur painter. Churchill blamed the selection committee for the Vienna Academy of Art ( who turned AH down) for WW2. Artists do so often have tempestuous tempers. Basically, many artists have not yet grown up, and have a childlike intuitive way of interpreting their world. These days there are many misfits who become artists because they are useless at doing anything else. And most have zero talent and just make more mess in the world than both artists and non artists have already made. They get very terse when you tell then your dog could paint a better mess than they did. Its so hard to be unique and original that they resort to all manner of mess making. They want their hideous art to be well galeried, displayed at public expense in the town square, but most modern "art" is an eyesore. Same goes for most music composed yesterday. Its crap. Just noise, peurile canned rebellion. Why can't artists get a decent wage? nobody really likes what they produce. Non artists, ie 99% of us might like to say we like art, and artists, and that makes us feel we are not dull and boring, and in fact we are unique, eclectic, broad minded et all. Reality is that we really hate artists and thier art, we won't pay them a cent to portray us, especially not if the portrayal is one big lie, and warped by the artistic expressionism. Much art though is just messageless, colour for colours sake, like visual jazz, and it rests on the eye a bit easier. Artists sometimes have the brains to provoke us and we cannot ignore them, and sending their wok to the tip is like demolishing our wisdom. But most artists haven't the brains for this. Being at all logical is being anti-artistic. I've never known an artist who could remotely understand Ohm's Law. In 3 days time people will have forgotten all about bad art because it was so bad. Yes, there is BAD ART. There are awful looking buildings. Woeful city landscapes. We must not leave out the architects and town planners when we desire to place people in the stocks so we may throw rotten vegetables at them. Trouble is that last time ppl here tried to take an offending artist to the town stocks for poetic justice, the stocks were crammed with politicians begging for mercy. Patrick Turner. Best regards Iain |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Iain Churches" wrote in message For me this is a hobby. I devote as much time to it as I am able. .. My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. In addition I have some big band material recorded simultaneously on digital and analogue, and mixed down to digital. It was an interesting exercise to cut between the two. Once again, the first splice is obvious. Few people can distinguish the digital from the analogue sections. One musician who faired quite well in this test, told me, "The trumpets with harmon mutes in the second movement sounded better from the analogue tape!" Speaking only as a consumer, or buyer, I find this interesting, not from a perspective of doing it, but as to the intricacies of the work involved. A while ago I started converting Vinyl to C.D. using "sound forge" anyway after buggering round for a couple of day's , attempting to remove bings and bongs, I gave the thing away, make a list of the vinyls I wanted to copy, throw all the vinyl's in the garbage bin, and took my list down to my local CD shop, and bought the CD's. End of project. But there does not seem to be a lot of demand for big band music in Australia. my local music store might keep the very basic's of classical, while our "lone'' hi-end store tells me he can get anything in with-in a couple of days. but they simply don't stock it, simply because there is little or no one buying that type of music. You would even be hard pushed to find anything in Sydney, with possably only a couple of places stocking a small selection . Establishments like "Fish" and the Vinyl specialist [ or whatever there called] might stock some , but the list would be short. So are the production numbers high, and is it a viable proposition to record and market this type of music in the first place. perhaps the European music scene is different in there requirements. I know that some of the stuff I like to buy does come with a high price, and I would be looking at $40 for a Classical Guitarists CD, while a "Doof Doof brigade" thing, comes at $9.95. or 4 bucks on special. I had this strange woman in Madrid or somewhere used to send me Flamenco stuff, she also collected stray cats, and husbands, preferable de-sexed and wealthy. The husbands not the cats, so she got the elbow, when the CD's stopped arriving, Someone said she travelled the world visiting people she met on Forums. Another lucky escape, I did hear she was also into whips and chains. I have also found that quite a bit of stuff comes out of the studio, completely un-edited, if that is the word. Classical Guitarists of the vain of Armik, Ottmar Liebert, and Govi, all produce stuff that comes straight of the recording floor, with little or no editing. And people like Rodrigo and Gabriela, also come with passages with loud scrapes, clicks and dings. They even advertise there stuff as completely un-edited. then you get people like John Williams, who produce sterile, super clean recordings, and really compared to the un-edited stuff it just does not sound right. So are recording enginners a dieing breed , or will the small market big band // classicial stuff still be produced even if in small numbers, and reduced to a couple of sound studio's. bassett |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Using tubed electronics exclusively? Byfåne :-)) Meaning exactly what, Iain? "By phone", you idiot. Patrick Turner. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Using tubed electronics exclusively? Byfåne :-)) Meaning exactly what, Iain? "By phone", you idiot. Patrick Turner. Nice try Patrick. But no cigar:-) Iain |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Using tubed electronics exclusively? Byfåne :-)) Meaning exactly what, Iain? "By phone", you idiot. Actually Patrick, you just acted like a Byfåne. ;-) |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
Arny Krueger wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Iain Churches" wrote in message .fi... My skillset and training is totally different. I am currently editing a 24 track big band recording from a full score. Using tubed electronics exclusively? Byfåne :-)) Meaning exactly what, Iain? "By phone", you idiot. Actually Patrick, you just acted like a Byfåne. ;-) Arnoldius, you have no zence of hoomer. Patrick Turner. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Recently completed project
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote: "John Byrns" wrote in message ... In article , "Iain Churches" wrote: If you need 6dB there is something wrong either with the recording, the system, the room or all three. I'm assuming the system and room have already been dealt with, and the purpose of the equalizer is to correct faulty recordings, and to allow the tonal balance to be adjusted to accommodate the listeners personal taste. Understood. I know a lot of people who would find +/- 3dB too brutal. Have you been able to locate suitable toggle switches for this application? I have not been able to find easily available toggle switches that will work in this type of circuit. I think there are two forms of commonly available toggle switches, one where both circuits are off in the center position, and one where both are on in the center position, neither very useful for equalizer circuits like we are talking about. You are probably more willing to search out unusual switches than I am, and hopefully will find the required type. They are used in audio consoles. Are you talking about real toggle switches, or lever switches? If you can provide a link to specifications/sources for real toggle switches, in other than the two standard configurations I mentioned, I would appreciate it greatly. I have now realized however that the standard toggle switch configurations are adequate for the equalizer you are talking about, although not for a project I have been contemplating. For my purposes I would probably go with -6, -4, -2, 0, +2, +4, +6 dB using rotary switches. That is an easy way round it. One could lift this idea to any level sophistication one chooses. If it makes good sense to do so is a different matter:-) I have seen an EQ unit with three push buttons which step up to +6dB and then down through 0dB to -6dB. The level of equalisation is indicated by a Nixie tube. That's fun, but a bridge too far in my book. It sounds like you plan on using fixed corner frequencies, what frequencies would you use? What about the MF band where you need to choose not only a center frequency, but also the "Q"? What does the response of your equalizer look like when all three switches are in the +3 dB positions, and when all three are in the -3 dB position? I don't think most people need that level of EQ. If I ever need to sweep any f or have variable Q, I use a digital processor. The LF and HF ranges of your proposed +/- 3 dB equalizer are obvious enough, but it is not so obvious what you are talking about for the MF range? But going back to your suggestion, it could be implemented also with rotary stepped attenuators, or with toggle switches controlling relays or FETs. The possibilities are endless. That would be ideal, but you also need more toggle switches, I figure at least six 3 position toggle switches would be the minimum, and eight or more would be better. Using rotary switches would reduce the required number of switches. A combination of rotary and toggle switches might be the most sensible. The BBC analogue meter is no longer in production, though I do know a source from which they can probably be obtained NOS. I did not mean to imply and actual BBC meter should be used, I assumed a peak reading meter circuit designed specifically for this project, or a clone of the BBC circuit if desired. I assume that analog meter movements are still manufactured, or am I wrong about this? There are a large number of tone control designs, some of them pretty radical which are not even flat when all controls are set to zero, but them of course this kind of design can always be switched out of circuit. I would probably use the Peter Baxandall topology with an SRPP in front and a cathode follower to follow:-) What do you mean by the "Peter Baxandall topology"? When I think of a "Peter Baxandall topology" I always think of his feedback tone control circuit, but today many people, at least here on this usenet group, seem to consider the "Baxandall" tone control circuit to be the standard passive tone control circuit. I would like to see some evidence of who actually developed the common passive tone control circuit, it is not obvious to me that it was "Peter Baxandall" was responsible for it as many today claim, although it is possible, I don't know and would like to see some evidence to settle the issue once and for all. Unfortunately I don't think the passive topology, whoever may have designed it, easily accommodates the addition of a "MF" band. John, please give some more thought to this idea. It might be interesting to have a group project on RAT, as many closed groups do. There are enough clever people here to come up with a very good design (but on the other hand there are also enough lunatics to destroy such a thread very early on, as we have seen before) I have been giving this idea quite a bit of thought. There are a lot of alternatives, but I have picked one as a starting point, although it is difficult to proceed very far without having a better idea what you want the "MF" equalizer to do? Could you provide some input on the specifications desired for the "MF" equalizer? Once I have had a chance to think a bit about the requirements for the "MF" equalizer, I will write up my thoughts and post them here. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Speaker Arrays - completed project | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Pro Tools joke heard recently | Pro Audio | |||
SE Tube Headphone Amp Completed | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS: Gilmore Jr Kit completed build pics posted | Vacuum Tubes | |||
2003 Infiniti G35 stereo project completed | Car Audio |