Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:34:57 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote: ** With good quality, commercial mic pre-amps, that is true enough. But with the pile of CRAP the Ian Bell Boy Moron is planning - it is not. Actually, it won't be problem. He's on the right track, and it was done well, well before we were born. You are a MONUMENTALLY AUTISTIC PITA FOOL - Hornbeck **** the HELL OFF !!!!!!!!!!!!! Kiss, kiss, Chris Hornbeck |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Go measure a real room and get back to me. I suppose a room with acoustic anaotic(sp) (the triangular like cone shaped spikes of sound absorbing foam lining the walls and ceiling) would be pretty quiet. Quiet enough to make you think that there's something wrong with your ears. Years ago I was on a company visit to Dolby Labs in 'Frisco. They had a theater room that was pretty quiet. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:15:23 GMT, robert casey
wrote: Go measure a real room and get back to me. I suppose a room with acoustic anaotic(sp) (the triangular like cone shaped spikes of sound absorbing foam lining the walls and ceiling) would be pretty quiet. Quiet enough to make you think that there's something wrong with your ears. Years ago I was on a company visit to Dolby Labs in 'Frisco. They had a theater room that was pretty quiet. Anechoic rooms are built for measurement of loudspeakers and microphones, and anyone who's been in one can tell you how strange it feels. They're usually pretty quiet too, but that's not what feels strange. We're customarily and genetically conditioned to a half-space environment outdoors, so why does a slightly (factor-of-two) larger space seem so alien? It's WIEIRRRRRRRD! Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:29:57 +1000, "Phil Allison" wrote: In practice, a 90dB SNR is *never* achievable, if recording music in any conventional space. No room air handling, musicians, or especially (if present) audience is quiet enough. ** For a mic to produce a s/n ratio of 90 dB at its terminals only requires the SPL at the diaphragm to be around 105 dB. Very easily achieved by close micing a singing voice, drum kit, piano, trumpet, clarinet etc etc. Close micing a drum kit can produce peak SPLs at the mic of over 130dB !! True, if that's what you consider to be "recording". I guess that's the modern standard, but I don't agree with it. Phil is maybe unaware that mic pads (attenuators) are always switched in for drum close mic positions. Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it. Ginger Baker was one, but he was an exception to the rule. Things are nothing like as bad as they may appear Chris:-) Iain |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:31:42 GMT, Eeyore wrote: ** But "A " weighted - of course. Yes. Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture any number we like from any other number. In America the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB". Yes. We also use dBA. I have been present when studios at which I have worked have been measured. The ambient noise of a large recording space is somewhat higher, at typically 16SPL, measured from the conductor's rostrum. Small music or speech studios can be 12SPL. Anything below this feels very odd indeed. However these figs bears little relevance to the noise of a studio full of musicians. At our summer cottage in Eastern Finland, not far from the Russian border, the forest at night is below the threshold of my Dawe meter, at SPL 10 Iain |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
"robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... But one guy I know has all his vinyl CD'd by a pro with very good gear. And the recordings are often very old, SNR maybe 55dB.... Two glasses of wine improves the sound. :-) And those CDs will have that vinyl sound to boot! If only it were that easy:-) |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:21:02 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote: Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture any number we like from any other number. In America the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB". Yes. We also use dBA. I have been present when studios at which I have worked have been measured. The ambient noise of a large recording space is somewhat higher, at typically 16SPL, measured from the conductor's rostrum. Small music or speech studios can be 12SPL. Anything below this feels very odd indeed. However these figs bears little relevance to the noise of a studio full of musicians. At our summer cottage in Eastern Finland, not far from the Russian border, the forest at night is below the threshold of my Dawe meter, at SPL 10 SPL? What does this mean? I'm up too late and getting cranky, but this is meaningless as is. dBA? dBC? dB unweighted, etc. SPL is as bad or worse. That's the problem. I'd go so far as to say that any use of the term "dB" that didn't exactly mean a log power ratio was misleading. Read this newsgroup long enough and you'll soon see my POV, methinks. Or maybe I'm just sleepy. Much thanks, as always, and goodnight, Chris Hornbeck |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ... On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:21:02 +0300, "Iain Churches" wrote: Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture any number we like from any other number. In America the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB". Yes. We also use dBA. I have been present when studios at which I have worked have been measured. The ambient noise of a large recording space is somewhat higher, at typically 16SPL, measured from the conductor's rostrum. Small music or speech studios can be 12SPL. Anything below this feels very odd indeed. However these figs bears little relevance to the noise of a studio full of musicians. At our summer cottage in Eastern Finland, not far from the Russian border, the forest at night is below the threshold of my Dawe meter, at SPL 10 SPL? What does this mean? I'm up too late and getting cranky, but this is meaningless as is. dBA? dBC? dB unweighted, etc. SPL is as bad or worse. That's the problem. I'd go so far as to say that any use of the term "dB" that didn't exactly mean a log power ratio was misleading. Read this newsgroup long enough and you'll soon see my POV, methinks. Or maybe I'm just sleepy. Your POV is and always has been very much my own, (even though we come from totally different backgrounds) That's why we are both demented autistic f*ckw*ts :-)) Noise measuring meters come in many flavours. The common ones are cheap as chips and probably not of much use. I have a Dawe type 14198 which came from the British Aerospace labs at Filton, and was used for noise testing, both internal and external, on Concorde. It can measure SPL to the A, B, and C curves with additional band filters. It has an amplifier extender to take the threshold down to 10dB It has a built in measuring microphone on a stem which when swivelled to the operating position switches the unit on. These were commonly used in the UK for studio evaluation. See: http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...op/DaweSPL.jpg Cheers Iain |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion, 6AU6 vs 6DJ8 triodes compared.
I'm curious. With the 6DJ8 having 3 to 4 times the gm what's the advantage to a trioded 6AU6 for the first stage rather than the 6DJ8? Cost? I guess. I thought we were talking technical. The trioded 6AU6 with equal Ia to 1/2 a 6DJ8 has similar gm, does it not? From the triode data curves which YOU should have consulted before posting your comment, At Ea = approx 120V and Ia = 5mA, for both 6AU6 and 1/2 6DJ8, 6AU6 in triode :- gm 5mA/V, Ra =7k, µ = 35. 6DJ8 real triode, :- gm = 4.6mA/V, Ra = 6k, µ = 28. What were your measurements when you measured samples of each tube unsder similar Ea & Ia conditions? Patrick Turner. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Signal to noise ratio, when recording.
Chris Hornbeck wrote: On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:07:52 +1000, "Phil Allison" wrote: Shame you are so ****ed in the head you cannot comprehend them either and insanely think 65dB s/n at mid gain setting is OK when 90 dB is the expected and needed norm. I missed the part where this 65dB number became accepted. There was an excess of bogusosity rampent at the time, so it may have flown under the wire. Where did this come from? And even worse, nobody has defined "s/n". It's another number subject to everybody's manipulation. So, what do *you* define as "s/n"? Specifics matter here, Chris Hornbeck I mentioned that if you had a mic which produced 0.5mV, and you had a 1:10 step up tranny, then you'd have 5mV input for an amp. If the amp had a triode gain stage of 25, you'd get 125mV output. If the noise of the mic was say 0.5uV, which is an -60dB below 0.5mV, then you'd have 5uV of noise at the amp input, and the 2uV produced by the triode input won't make any difference to the snr established by the mic. The triode could produce 12.5Vrms without trouble which is 40dB above 125mV. So mic level could be 0.05V without causing clipping in the triode. If the mic noise was 0.5uV, then the SNR would be -100dB. I have not ever had to select a mic for recording say a jazz ensemble, or orchestra, and have never had to make a decision about building an amp to act with the chosen mic for the wanted recording. But if a mic made say 5uV of noise, you could easily end up with a very noisy recording. Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB network would do. Patrick Turner. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Chris Hornbeck wrote: Eeyore wrote: ** But "A " weighted - of course. Yes. Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture any number we like from any other number. In America the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB". No it isn't. A weighting has a specific meaning even in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_weighting Graham |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore ****wit " I reckon a quiet bedroom will make 15dB too. ** Not if a live person has to read the meter on the mic - gentle breathing noise is about 32 dBA at 1 metre !! !!!!! After a long run ? ** Go test it - you PITA pathetic pommy imbecile. According to Paul Tipler's Physics For Scientists and Engineers (Third Edition, 1991 by Worth Publishers): Normal Breathing 10dB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel#dBA_ratings |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Chris Hornbeck wrote: SPL? What does this mean? Sound Pressure Level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level Graham |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Iain Churches wrote: "Chris Hornbeck" wrote Eeyore wrote: ** But "A " weighted - of course. Yes. Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture any number we like from any other number. In America the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB". Yes. We also use dBA. I have been present when studios at which I have worked have been measured. The ambient noise of a large recording space is somewhat higher, at typically 16SPL, measured from the conductor's rostrum. Since even a B&K SPL meter can have a self-noise in the 16dB region, you're probably just measuring its noise floor there. Graham |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Iain Churches wrote: Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it. Depends on the measuring distance. With close miking it's readily acheivable. Remember the 130dB refers to instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the average. Graham |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Iain Churches wrote: See: http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...op/DaweSPL.jpg I see the RTS2 as well. Graham |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Signal to noise ratio, when recording.
Patrick Turner wrote: Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB network would do. Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear 'gain cell' with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor. You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes. Graham |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
"Eeysore" Iain Cherchus wrote: Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it. Depends on the measuring distance. ** Why not be more specific ? At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate 130dB peak SPL. With close miking it's readily achievable. Remember the 130dB refers to instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the average. ** Don't confuse a mere congenital, cock sucking, bum licking, helium sniffing, tea making, paedophile expat like Churches with a FACT !! Or the PUKE will internally **** HIMSELF !!!!! ........ Phil |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
"Eeysore" According to Paul Tipler's Physics For Scientists and Engineers (Third Edition, 1991 by Worth Publishers): Normal Breathing 10dB ** Go test it out with an SPL meter - you PITA pathetic pommy imbecile. That idiot web ref is totally wrong ! ..... Phil |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore" According to Paul Tipler's Physics For Scientists and Engineers (Third Edition, 1991 by Worth Publishers): Normal Breathing 10dB ** Go test it out with an SPL meter I don't have a suitably sensitive one of my own. That idiot web ref is totally wrong ! Here's another one for you then ..... http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/DB_SPL.html Human breathing (at 3m) 10dB I know this much. When I took those 30dB readings outisde the local venue it was quite clear that breathing wasn't registering as a significant component of the noise. You are quite quite wrong about this or you must have some serious nasal defect. Graham |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
"Eeysore" ** Go test it out with an SPL meter I don't have a suitably sensitive one of my own. ** Then go get ****ing ****ed. ....... Phil |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... "Eeysore" Iain Cherchus wrote: Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it. Depends on the measuring distance. ** Why not be more specific ? At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate 130dB peak SPL. But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick, we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns. That's quite a different thing. With close miking it's readily achievable. Remember the 130dB refers to instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the average. I have sat in a drum booth, and measured the levels at the mic face. Even with a fast meter it did not reach 130dB. Phil's sad rant deleted. Iain |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Signal to noise ratio, when recording.
Eeyore wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB network would do. Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear 'gain cell' with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor. You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes. What is the URL for a schematic? Patrick Turner. Graham |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Signal to noise ratio, when recording.
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... : : : Eeyore wrote: : : Patrick Turner wrote: : : Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny : could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB : network would do. : : Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear 'gain cell' : with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor. : : You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes. : : What is the URL for a schematic? : : Patrick Turner. : : Graham an example would be the THAT 1510, see he http://www.thatcorp.com/1500desc.html only USD 2.05 (if ya get a 1000 may be a good idea to build as a reference mic amp. Rudy |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
Iain Churches wrote: "Phil Allison" wrote "Eeysore" Iain Cherchus wrote: Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it. Depends on the measuring distance. ** Why not be more specific ? At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate 130dB peak SPL. But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick, Who said that ? Most drummers use drumsticks. we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns. Pardon ? Rythmic =/= loud ? With close miking it's readily achievable. Remember the 130dB refers to instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the average. I have sat in a drum booth, and measured the levels at the mic face. Even with a fast meter it did not reach 130dB. 'Fast' on an SPL meter is actually about as slow as a VU meter, possibly slower. It will *never* catch the transients that cause clipping. I'm sure you wouldn't record a piano at 0VU on a moving coil meter would you ? Graham |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Signal to noise ratio, when recording.
Patrick Turner wrote: Eeyore wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB network would do. Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear 'gain cell' with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor. You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes. What is the URL for a schematic? For a fairly state of the art solid state mic pre ? I'd suggest TI's INA163 http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/ina163.html Fully integrated. You can improve on it a bit by going discrete for the input devices and pushing the boat out a bit further though. I seem to mislaid my Mackie Onyx schematic that shows a cost sensitive but high performance example. I'll look further. Graham |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
Eeyore wrote:
I'm sure you wouldn't record a piano at 0VU on a moving coil meter would you ? Depends on how much headroom above 0VU our system has ;-) Ian |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate 130dB peak SPL. But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick, Who said that ? Most drummers use drumsticks. Not chicken wings? :-) (running, ducking for cover) we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns. Pardon ? Rythmic =/= loud ? As a test of the microphone and the rest of the equipment, a single loud bash of the drum should do. A drummer playing musical hot licks may distract you from noticing a distortion problem you'd want to correct. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
Ian Bell wrote: Eeyore wrote: I'm sure you wouldn't record a piano at 0VU on a moving coil meter would you ? Depends on how much headroom above 0VU our system has ;-) You missed the point (as I might have expected). It has nothing to do with steady state sinewave levels and associated headroom. Graham |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:41:01 GMT, Eeyore
wrote: SPL? What does this mean? Sound Pressure Level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level Silly me, and I though it stood for Supercilious Posting Level, which has increased to such depressing numbers of late hereabouts. Long hot summer, wot? Any of us can design a weighting curve to manufacture any number we like from any other number. In America the number you've used is called "dbA" rather than "dB". No it isn't. A weighting has a specific meaning even in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_weighting You may obscure the discussion as you wish. "A" weighted measurements are always called "dBA" if one wishes to clarify rather than to obscure. As a side note, your devotion to Wikipedia is touching. No emoticons were harmed in the construction of this post. Arf. Thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Canceling distortion
Chris Hornbeck wrote: You may obscure the discussion as you wish. "A" weighted measurements are always called "dBA" if one wishes to clarify rather than to obscure. According to the IEC, strictly dB(A) SPL. The A must be in brackets since it's not a unit. You're quite right about common use though. Graham |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
"robert casey" wrote in message nk.net... At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate 130dB peak SPL. But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick, Who said that ? Most drummers use drumsticks. Not chicken wings? :-) (running, ducking for cover) we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns. Pardon ? Rythmic =/= loud ? As a test of the microphone and the rest of the equipment, a single loud bash of the drum should do. A drummer playing musical hot licks may distract you from noticing a distortion problem you'd want to correct. If you are so distracted then you should not be sitting in the 1E chair:-) It is normal, when checking mics, for the assistant engineer to give each drum "a single loud bash" from which one can hear the quality of the signal. This however bears no relationship to the level or sound from the drum when played by a professional drummer. Iain |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Phil Allison" wrote "Eeysore" Iain Cherchus wrote: Few drummers can achieve 130dB or anything near it. Depends on the measuring distance. ** Why not be more specific ? At 100 mm, nearly anyone bashing a drum skin with a stick can generate 130dB peak SPL. But we are not talking about bashing a drum with a stick, Who said that ? See below Most drummers use drumsticks. As sold by Col. Sanders? :-) we are talking about a drummer playing rhythmic patterns. Pardon ? Rythmic =/= loud ? There is a world of difference between single beats on a snare or TT head ("bashing a drum skin with a stick" as Phil called it) and playing a rhythmic pattern. With close miking it's readily achievable. Remember the 130dB refers to instantaneous pressure (that's what's relevant to clipping) not the average. I have sat in a drum booth, and measured the levels at the mic face. Even with a fast meter it did not reach 130dB. 'Fast' on an SPL meter is actually about as slow as a VU meter, possibly slower. It will *never* catch the transients that cause clipping. But the peak LEDs certainly will. I'm sure you wouldn't record a piano at 0VU on a moving coil meter would you ? Haven't used a VU meter since about 1965 when I looked at the levels of a Rolling Stones master recorded at Bell Sound. One of my Tonmeister tutors, did a very good demo to illustrate the ballistics of the VU meter. He recorded 1kHz tone at +4dBm (OVU) onto a short length of audio tape, which he then leadered top and tail, and played back from start to finish to show that the output level as indicated by the meter was indeed 0VU right through. Then he cut a short section out of the tape and cut this on to the ene of the second leader, and added a third leader to its tail. This shorter section also played to 0VU. Then he cut an even shorter chunk, and added this to the third leader and stuck a fourth leader to its tail. The short burst of 1kHz gave only a reading of -4VU. He repeated this over and over again, and each time the level indicated as the duration of the signal decreased became lower and lower, until finally, he had a tiny segment of audio (similar in duration to a choked hi-hat hit) to which the meter hardly reacted at all:-) VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape mchines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation for a musical signal was much too variable. In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators which could be fitted to the console overbridge. One of my favourite meters is a venerable NTP light-meter which I rescued from an old EMT film recording console that was being scrapped. http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...p/NTPmeter.jpg It has a mirrored scale, and a fastish rise-time with slow decay. I used it a lot for piano recordings, fitted to a Studer console. Iain |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
Iain Churches wrote:
VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape mchines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation for a musical signal was much too variable. In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators which could be fitted to the console overbridge. Our memories obviously differ. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, VUs were standard in recording studios in the hey day of multitrack tape. When I was at Neve, 99% of all our consoles were fitted with VUs. The only exceptions I remember were the BBC and Pete Townshend. We might fit a bar graph meter on a stereo out but that was about it. Ian |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
"Ian Bell" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape mchines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation for a musical signal was much too variable. In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators which could be fitted to the console overbridge. Our memories obviously differ. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, VUs were standard in recording studios in the hey day of multitrack tape. When I was at Neve, 99% of all our consoles were fitted with VUs. The only exceptions I remember were the BBC and Pete Townshend. We might fit a bar graph meter on a stereo out but that was about it. Ian Once again Churches makes a **** of himself.. [and his little boy friend will be happy] What do they say about digging a hole for yourself, In your case "keep digging" bassett |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
Ian Bell wrote: Iain Churches wrote: VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape mchines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation for a musical signal was much too variable. In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators which could be fitted to the console overbridge. Our memories obviously differ. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, VUs were standard in recording studios in the hey day of multitrack tape. When I was at Neve, 99% of all our consoles were fitted with VUs. The only exceptions I remember were the BBC and Pete Townshend. We might fit a bar graph meter on a stereo out but that was about it. Correct. The rock and roll industry always used VUs. PPMs were for the broadcaster mainly and VUs were about all that existed at the time in N America. Graham |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
Ian Bell wrote: When I was at Neve So that's you, me and Tony Aayer in uk.r.a Anyone else. 1985-88 here : 'operations dept' - project leader. The most interesting stuff I did was on V series + custom derivatives and I managed to get in on some of the digital department's work too. Graham |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
"Ian Bell" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: VUs were not really popular in the UK or Europe. Some tape machines had them just for alignment purposes, but their interpretation for a musical signal was much too variable. In addition, with the advent of multitrack,. the visual monitoring of eight or more analogue meters proved tricky. That's why bar meters became so popular. Some companies (IIRC Surrey Electronics in the UK was one) made add-on meter units, 8,16,24,32 track indicators which could be fitted to the console overbridge. Our memories obviously differ. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, VUs were standard in recording studios in the hey day of multitrack tape. When I was at Neve, 99% of all our consoles were fitted with VUs. The only exceptions I remember were the BBC and Pete Townshend. We might fit a bar graph meter on a stereo out but that was about it. The Neve in Decca studio II was fitted with Decca type PPMs, to bring compatibility with the other consoles. The API had VUs, with the kind of meterbridge I mentioned. Both the old and the new consoles in studio III had PPMs,as did all cutting and dubbing rooms, so I suppose we were luckier than most. These meters had Ernest Turner and Sifam movements and Decca built driver amps designed by Alan Reeve. Iain |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
PUKE will **** HIMSELF
Eeyore wrote:
Ian Bell wrote: When I was at Neve So that's you, me and Tony Aayer in uk.r.a Anyone else. 1985-88 here : 'operations dept' - project leader. The most interesting stuff I did was on V series + custom derivatives and I managed to get in on some of the digital department's work too. Graham 74 -76 in Sales Engineering (the tree hut) with Tony Cornwell and Betty Harmer-Smith. Lots of interesting stuff. Consoles for the Kinks, The Who (Rampart), ABBA and Pete Townshend (Eel Pie). Radio Brunei - complete radio sation. Watching Flying Faders for the first time. Working with Rupert on the new CRC (cheap radio console). But best of all was helping the Bunny Girls get changed behind a big console (8038 perhaps) at APRS show ;-) Ian |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Signal to noise ratio, when recording.
Rudy wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... : : : Eeyore wrote: : : Patrick Turner wrote: : : Having gain adjustment in stage one following the step up tranny : could be a good idea, perhaps a gain control with a pot in its shunt NFB : network would do. : : Today's typical high performance mic amps have a single very linear 'gain cell' : with voltage gain usually set by a single resistor. : : You simply can't come close to their performance with tubes. : : What is the URL for a schematic? : : Patrick Turner. : : Graham an example would be the THAT 1510, see he http://www.thatcorp.com/1500desc.html only USD 2.05 (if ya get a 1000 may be a good idea to build as a reference mic amp. Rudy Thanks Rudy, I've saved the files for when I may need them. Patrick Turner. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Seinnheiser PXC 250 Question on Noise canceling headphones. | Audio Opinions | |||
Sennheiser Noise-Canceling Headphones | High End Audio | |||
Best CD (whitenoise) to use with Bose noise canceling headphones | Tech | |||
noise-canceling standalone units? | Tech |