Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

So really very straighforward.


Only, imagine what a 1:1 technical implementation in tubes would look like!

IOW, replace the IC op amps with comparable tube op amps, but use the same
gain staging, equalization, controls, etc.

(1) It would a lot larger.
(2) It would be a lot heavier.
(3) It would use a lot more power.

For a moment I thought of an implementation based on the subminiature
wire-in tubes that I worked with in the Army back in the 60s. But, that
would be way over the head of your average tubie.


No problem, we just call in Robert Casey to convert the design to
sub-mini tubes for us.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Eeyore wrote in
:



Ian Iveson wrote:

I have been dipping into the thread occasionally hoping to
find the bit where voicing is discussed. I wonder by what
process an agreement about desired quality of sound can be
reached remotely with a prospective end user who wants
"something special"


Indeed. I'd like to know if Tynan has a particular benchmark tubed mic
pre that he likes already.

snip

Ian (wondering in passing what a pad is...but don't worry,
I'll look it up)


Attenuator.

Graham





Yes, Graham. I like the pendulum MDP-1 mic pres, the VAC RAC(which I guess
a lot of folks have not heard of), the Ampex 300 recorder amps, and Pultec
tube preamps. (of course all the designs ive seen for the pUltec amps were
"one-offs", and never saw any model numbers, unlike the outboard processors
(eq/comp, etc)..which did have model #s)
If I could have the "300 sound" with a touch less noise, id be in heaven.
those sound perfect to these ears.

the VAC RACs are amazing too, but noone has heard of em.

schematics for some vintage things...

http://www.one-electron.com/FC_ProAudio.html

http://www.reevesaudio.com/studiothree.html




  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Eeyore wrote in
:



"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote:

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote
Tynan AgviŠr wrote:


As far as layout goes, and features, the Wendt X4/x5 is nearly
perfect. Unfortunately, it sounds like hot ass. I of course know
that the actual layout on the requested mixer could not be
anything like that, but the features are spot-on. (I dont need the
ENG port though)

http://www.wendtinc.net/x4specs.pdf

http://www.wendtinc.net/x4specs.htm


Doesn't seem to mention the gain provided.



Ian, i meant features, Sir. The Features are pretty much what I would
want.


So really very straighforward.

Graham



Yes, Sir. No fuss, no muss. K.I.S.S as we used to say in the Infantry
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote in message
. 70...
is 80 dB enough for this?

Regards,

John Byrns

With the mics I am currently using, 80dB is good.My current mic pres
have
66, and that is *barely* enough.


OK. So that's me back to the drawing board:-)
Except that my mic pre is to be plugged into the
line input of a console so 60dB is more than sufficient.


Line in of a console - sorry can you explain what that is??


Most stand-alone tube mic preamps are designed to take the
place of the SS mic stage built into the console, some of which
have a separate XLR input for mic or line level, which often
starts at 0dBu or maybe -10 depending on the console.

Iain



  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
robert casey robert casey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



For a moment I thought of an implementation based on the subminiature
wire-in tubes that I worked with in the Army back in the 60s. But, that
would be way over the head of your average tubie.



No problem, we just call in Robert Casey to convert the design to
sub-mini tubes for us.


:-) I had the thought to use sub-mini filament tubes, as those would
burn much less power, and thus be cooler. But a major flaw in that
design is such tubes tend to be quite microphonic.


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

"robert casey" wrote in message

For a moment I thought of an implementation based on
the subminiature wire-in tubes that I worked with in
the Army back in the 60s. But, that would be way over
the head of your average tubie.



No problem, we just call in Robert Casey to convert the
design to sub-mini tubes for us.


:-) I had the thought to use sub-mini filament tubes,
as those would burn much less power, and thus be cooler. But a major flaw
in that design is such tubes tend to be
quite microphonic.


That surprises the dickens out of me, because the Doppler (highly analog)
radars that I worked with that used subminiature tubes by the 100's would
have been acutely sensitive to microphonic tubes. They vibrated very
noticably all the time.

OTOH, its my recollection that their use of filament power was about the
same as regular tubes. I do remember that they used DC on the filaments.


  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Thompson-Bell Ian Thompson-Bell is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 493
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote in message
. 70...
is 80 dB enough for this?
Regards,

John Byrns

With the mics I am currently using, 80dB is good.My current mic pres
have
66, and that is *barely* enough.
OK. So that's me back to the drawing board:-)
Except that my mic pre is to be plugged into the
line input of a console so 60dB is more than sufficient.

Line in of a console - sorry can you explain what that is??


Most stand-alone tube mic preamps are designed to take the
place of the SS mic stage built into the console, some of which
have a separate XLR input for mic or line level, which often
starts at 0dBu or maybe -10 depending on the console.


Got it. It was your use of the term console in isolation that threw mw -
I had visions of some 1950s radiogramophone monstrosity, LOL.

Cheers

Ian
  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Ian Iveson wrote:

I have been dipping into the thread occasionally hoping to
find the bit where voicing is discussed. I wonder by what
process an agreement about desired quality of sound can be
reached remotely with a prospective end user who wants
"something special"


Indeed. I'd like to know if Tynan has a particular benchmark tubed mic
pre that he likes already.


snip


Yes, Graham. I like the pendulum MDP-1 mic pres, the VAC RAC(which I guess
a lot of folks have not heard of), the Ampex 300 recorder amps, and Pultec
tube preamps. (of course all the designs ive seen for the pUltec amps were
"one-offs", and never saw any model numbers, unlike the outboard processors
(eq/comp, etc)..which did have model #s)
If I could have the "300 sound" with a touch less noise, id be in heaven.
those sound perfect to these ears.


Oh !

The Ampex mic amps are widely considered to be somewhat mediocre. There never
was any intention for them to be anything special, just to 'do the job'.
That'll explain your noise comment for sure. It ought to be simple to 'upgrade'
an Ampex design to a lower noise level. The Pultecs I would expect to be
better. I've already found a schematic for one of those. It was astonishingly
'routine' however, just 2 triode stges with a cathode follower.


the VAC RACs are amazing too, but noone has heard of em.


I shall look into those.


schematics for some vintage things...

http://www.one-electron.com/FC_ProAudio.html

http://www.reevesaudio.com/studiothree.html


Thanks.

Graham


  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Eeyore wrote in
:



"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote


I shall look into those.



Ben Maas of 5th Circle Audio in California(LA I believe?) Is quite familiar
with those mic preamps, maybe I can get some info from him.

  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Eeyore wrote in
:

It was astonishingly 'routine' however, just 2
triode stges with a cathode follower.



That doesnt suprise me, Sir. Ive found that most of what I really enjoy
using is relatively simple build-wise. (I have no knowledge of these
things, but my comments are based on feedback ive gotten over the years and
things ive read from other audio engineers and builders.) I dont know if
the simplicity of the design really has any bearing on me liking the sound,
but it is what it is. Occams razor...


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

Most stand-alone tube mic preamps are designed to take the
place of the SS mic stage built into the console, some of which
have a separate XLR input for mic or line level, which often
starts at 0dBu or maybe -10 depending on the console.


Got it. It was your use of the term console in isolation that threw mw -
I had visions of some 1950s radiogramophone monstrosity, LOL.


USA = console : UK = desk.

Graham

  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
robert casey robert casey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



OTOH, its my recollection that their use of filament power was about the
same as regular tubes. I do remember that they used DC on the filaments.



Oh sorry, I meant to talk about directly heated filament tubes (where
the filament is the cathode), not the tubes with indirectly heated
cathodes.
  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
John Byrns wrote in news:byrnsj-
:

In article ,
"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote:

As far as layout goes, and features, the Wendt X4/x5 is nearly perfect.
Unfortunately, it sounds like hot ass. I of course know that the actual
layout on the requested mixer could not be anything like that, but the
features are spot-on. (I dont need the ENG port though)

http://www.wendtinc.net/x4specs.pdf

http://www.wendtinc.net/x4specs.htm


How can the layout of the Wendt X4/x5 be nearly perfect, it looks like
it uses rotary faders?


Regards,

John Byrns


I meant the features, primarily.

(of course the extra stuff like all the bass cuts..not needed)



You may not think you need LF step filters until you have
your string quartet in a studio (or school hall)
with rumble. You will be glad you have them, then.

Iain



  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

I wasn't thinking of short throw faders, but proper P&G types.

I shudder to think of the cost of those now !


Indeed very expensive. Some old-style "quadrant" faders
would be appropriate if they could be found.


I'm not sure what you think they could offer other than an antique look.
I'd certainly not like to mix in 3dB steps or whatever it is they
provide.


Some were studded -2dB. Others had some kind of continuous
track. They needed to be cleaned often.

Plus aren't they mostly 600 ohm and therefore need further
buffering ?


200 or 600 Ohms as I recall. Some had illumination that
increased in brightness as you pushed the fader up.
How could one resist such a feature?

Iain




  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

"Iain Churches" wrote in
ti.fi:



"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
John Byrns wrote in news:byrnsj-
:

In article ,
"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote:

As far as layout goes, and features, the Wendt X4/x5 is nearly
perfect. Unfortunately, it sounds like hot ass. I of course know
that the actual layout on the requested mixer could not be anything
like that, but the features are spot-on. (I dont need the ENG port
though)

http://www.wendtinc.net/x4specs.pdf

http://www.wendtinc.net/x4specs.htm

How can the layout of the Wendt X4/x5 be nearly perfect, it looks
like it uses rotary faders?


Regards,

John Byrns


I meant the features, primarily.

(of course the extra stuff like all the bass cuts..not needed)



You may not think you need LF step filters until you have
your string quartet in a studio (or school hall)
with rumble. You will be glad you have them, then.

Iain




Sir, that is why I dont work in those sorts of venues. My recording
business is such that I only take jobs when the conditions allow me to do
the best that I can do. Recording is not my full time business, I am a
musician(singer and VO actor). As such I do not have to take recording
gigs that may not work out..just the ones that I want. I really dont need
all the extras.



  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote in message
. 70...
is 80 dB enough for this?
Regards,

John Byrns

With the mics I am currently using, 80dB is good.My current mic pres
have
66, and that is *barely* enough.
OK. So that's me back to the drawing board:-)
Except that my mic pre is to be plugged into the
line input of a console so 60dB is more than sufficient.
Line in of a console - sorry can you explain what that is??


Most stand-alone tube mic preamps are designed to take the
place of the SS mic stage built into the console, some of which
have a separate XLR input for mic or line level, which often
starts at 0dBu or maybe -10 depending on the console.


Got it. It was your use of the term console in isolation that threw mw - I
had visions of some 1950s radiogramophone monstrosity, LOL.


LOL :-) Sorry Ian. Again we are divided by our common
language. In Europe we don't think of a console as a
radiogram. If I had used the term recording desk, mixer
or board it might have been clearer.

Iain


  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


The Ampex mic amps are widely considered to be somewhat mediocre. There
never
was any intention for them to be anything special, just to 'do the job'.
That'll explain your noise comment for sure. It ought to be simple to
'upgrade'
an Ampex design to a lower noise level.


The Ampex 300 and 350 series were indeed a little on
the side of mediocre, to say the least, but there was
not a lot of competition at that time. In the UK
we had the venerable EMI TR90 and later the
BTR 2

But old Ampex machines have a certain mystique
about them. People sell the electronics on as a
mic amp and scrap the deck or break it for parts,
motor and headblock, which is rather sad.

Iain



  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Thompson-Bell Ian Thompson-Bell is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 493
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote in message
. 70...
is 80 dB enough for this?
Regards,

John Byrns

With the mics I am currently using, 80dB is good.My current mic pres
have
66, and that is *barely* enough.
OK. So that's me back to the drawing board:-)
Except that my mic pre is to be plugged into the
line input of a console so 60dB is more than sufficient.
Line in of a console - sorry can you explain what that is??

Most stand-alone tube mic preamps are designed to take the
place of the SS mic stage built into the console, some of which
have a separate XLR input for mic or line level, which often
starts at 0dBu or maybe -10 depending on the console.

Got it. It was your use of the term console in isolation that threw mw - I
had visions of some 1950s radiogramophone monstrosity, LOL.


LOL :-) Sorry Ian. Again we are divided by our common
language. In Europe we don't think of a console as a
radiogram. If I had used the term recording desk, mixer
or board it might have been clearer.

Iain



Er, I live in the UK! but maybe I am a tad older than you as I can still
remember those old radiograms.

Cheers

Ian
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

The Ampex mic amps are widely considered to be somewhat mediocre. There
never was any intention for them to be anything special, just to 'do the

job'.
That'll explain your noise comment for sure. It ought to be simple to
'upgrade' an Ampex design to a lower noise level.


The Ampex 300 and 350 series were indeed a little on
the side of mediocre, to say the least, but there was
not a lot of competition at that time. In the UK
we had the venerable EMI TR90 and later the
BTR 2

But old Ampex machines have a certain mystique
about them. People sell the electronics on as a
mic amp and scrap the deck or break it for parts,
motor and headblock, which is rather sad.


Yes. Just shows how little most tube nuts actually know or understand. The
reverence for old transformers is barking mad too.

Graham

  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

John Byrns wrote

For what reasons do you perceive PP to be preferable in
this
application?

In particular, why, after converting from balanced to SE,
you decided on PP for the output stages?


Two main reasons. First to eliminate DC from the output
transformer so
that it can be smaller and have better performance.


OK, although the "and" could be misleading.

Second to achieve
the output power level I desired with a small tube that is
used at other
locations in the mixer, reducing the number of required
tube types to
two.


Hmm, OK. Personally I prefer valves to be different,
otherwise I'm tempted to swap them about and likely to
forget where they've been.

I have been dipping into the thread occasionally hoping
to
find the bit where voicing is discussed. I wonder by what
process an agreement about desired quality of sound can
be
reached remotely with a prospective end user who wants
"something special"

Anyway, I'm impressed with your simple approach,


I have been worrying that my approach is overly complex,
there are much
simpler approaches, look at a few remote mixers from the
1950s for ideas.


I'd be interested to know exactly how you've arranged for
the pan pots and, if you have approximated to a virtual
earth
bus, how you've done that too. I appreciate that,
considering these are the crux of the biscuit, you may not
want to say, in the current phoney crypto-competitive
climate.

and the way
you have stuck to the brief without contracting
Recalcitrant
Engineers' Syndrome.


What pray tell is "Recalcitrant Engineers' Syndrome", I
have never heard
of that before?


Not sure I have either, come to think of it. I thought I was
continuing an idea elsewhere in this group but it was
rec.audio.uk, where someone posited an audio engineer
syndrome, and I argued that the problem is widespread
amongst all species of engineer. I hoped you might recognise
it just from those three words.

Some examples. The software engineer who hates spending all
his time on the GUI aspects of an application program
because he can't get inside the heads of what he regards as
stupid users who will abuse his beautiful algorithms because
if they need a GUI then they will only be capable of
producing trash. The pattern maker who insists on perfection
even though the customer doesn't care as long as the
castings are cheap. The mixer designer who believes it is
he, rather than the client, who should specify the product,
and who spends so much time trying to foist his own ideas of
perfection on the customer that the mixer never gets built.

In every case the engineer may be quite right, but fails to
see that right isn't the whole story. The world is full of
perfectly presented gobbledegook enabled by GUIs; roughly
fettled castings abound; landfills are crammed with
naively-specified products that turn out to be useless for
their intended purpose.

Nevertheless, the world progresses: a fact that the RES
victim cannot see.

Maybe the root of the syndrome is that engineering, with its
concentration on the physical and the absolute, is
attractive as a refuge for social inadequates and political
malcontents. The cause is the stricken engineers' inability
to appreciate any consideration that cannot be reduced to
engineering parameters. Social considerations such as
marketing and accounting become meaningless and stupid
obstacles.

I could go on, obviously, and on.


Perhaps your experience of designing
valve circuits has made you more wary of added
complexity.


A circuit should not be so simple it can't do the job
properly, nor
should it be more complex than is needed to do the job. A
lot of people
seem to pursue complexity for complexities sake.


Unlikely as a conscious strategy, would have thought. Much
equipment these days is capable of higher performance and
reliability than in the days when they were of simpler
construction. However, an engineer needing to make work for
himself, or to aspire to grandeur, would have a tendency to
overstate the need for complicated solutions that only he
can accomplish. The danger is that an RES sufferer has no
way of seeing where complexity is socially necessary, and so
put it somewhere else by mistake.

The world *is* complex. "KISS" is merely an appeal to
naivety.

Ian




  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

In article ,
"Ian Iveson" wrote:

John Byrns wrote

For what reasons do you perceive PP to be preferable in
this
application?

In particular, why, after converting from balanced to SE,
you decided on PP for the output stages?


Two main reasons. First to eliminate DC from the output
transformer so
that it can be smaller and have better performance.


OK, although the "and" could be misleading.

Second to achieve
the output power level I desired with a small tube that is
used at other
locations in the mixer, reducing the number of required
tube types to
two.


Hmm, OK. Personally I prefer valves to be different,
otherwise I'm tempted to swap them about and likely to
forget where they've been.


If you are talking about stereo equipment I would think it would be hard
to meet your requirement for all valves to be different. Why do you
need to remember where they have been anyway?

I have been dipping into the thread occasionally hoping
to
find the bit where voicing is discussed. I wonder by what
process an agreement about desired quality of sound can
be
reached remotely with a prospective end user who wants
"something special"

Anyway, I'm impressed with your simple approach,


I have been worrying that my approach is overly complex,
there are much
simpler approaches, look at a few remote mixers from the
1950s for ideas.


I have come to the conclusion that my original 26 tube mixer design was
too complicated, so I have a new second generation design using 15
tubes, eliminating 9 tubes from the original design.

I'd be interested to know exactly how you've arranged for
the pan pots


Too late, my second generation design has eliminated the pan pots,
replacing them with a Left-Center-Right switch for each channel as in
the transistor mixer Tynan gave as an example of the features he desires.

and, if you have approximated to a virtual earth
bus, how you've done that too.


Again you are too late, my original design used a virtual earth mixing
bus, but that is another feature that was eliminated from my original
design, it was actually eliminated in later revisions of the original
design, not to mention the new second generation design.

I appreciate that,
considering these are the crux of the biscuit, you may not
want to say, in the current phoney crypto-competitive
climate.


What do you mean by the "current phoney crypto-competitive climate"?
There is nothing particularly special about virtual earth mixing
circuits, and the same is true of pan pot circuits. The problem with
both these features is that they require additional gain or buffering,
meaning more active stages.

Perhaps your experience of designing
valve circuits has made you more wary of added
complexity.


A circuit should not be so simple it can't do the job
properly, nor
should it be more complex than is needed to do the job. A
lot of people
seem to pursue complexity for complexities sake.


Unlikely as a conscious strategy, would have thought. Much
equipment these days is capable of higher performance and
reliability than in the days when they were of simpler
construction.


Are you sure that the problem with those simpler unreliable equipments
wasn't that they were shoddily made, or that the components were used
too close to, or even beyond, their ratings?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



John Byrns wrote:

"Ian Iveson" wrote:

I'd be interested to know exactly how you've arranged for
the pan pots


Too late, my second generation design has eliminated the pan pots,
replacing them with a Left-Center-Right switch for each channel as in
the transistor mixer Tynan gave as an example of the features he desires.


That's not what he asked for though.

Graham

  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



John Byrns wrote:

"Ian Iveson" wrote:
John Byrns wrote

A lot of people seem to pursue complexity for complexities sake.


Some do for sure.


Unlikely as a conscious strategy, would have thought. Much
equipment these days is capable of higher performance and
reliability than in the days when they were of simpler
construction.


Are you sure that the problem with those simpler unreliable equipments
wasn't that they were shoddily made, or that the components were used
too close to, or even beyond, their ratings?


Older components were shockingly unreliable compared to modern ones.
Especially capacitors.

Graham

  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

"Ian Iveson" wrote:

I'd be interested to know exactly how you've arranged for
the pan pots


Too late, my second generation design has eliminated the pan pots,
replacing them with a Left-Center-Right switch for each channel as in
the transistor mixer Tynan gave as an example of the features he desires.


That's not what he asked for though.


Yes it is, he provided the Wendt X4 as an example of the features he
would like in a tube mixer, the Wendt X4 uses three position "pan
switches", not pan pots. Of course Tynan could always explicitly state
that what he wants is pan pots.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer


The world *is* complex. "KISS" is merely an appeal to
naivety.

Ian




Sir, I wouldnt call myself naive(this is the first time you have said
anything even remotely resembling an insult to me, well, the 2nd..but I
dont mind. You are helpful and respectful, so I will take my lumps.) I
just dont take them from assholes who arent helpful at all and seem to
exist *solely* to insult and drag others down.(you are not in that
category, Sir)

"KISS" is something I try to apply all aspects of my life. I had a team
leader in my first duty station(a now defunct Special Operations/QRF NATO
unit) in Mannheim, Germany that said that at least 20 or 30 times a day.
He was from Lexington, Kentucky, had a long slow southern draaawl, and
had a face that never showed an ounce of emotion. I first thought the guy
was just a simple country farmer or something(I grew up on a farm myself
and have great respect for all the manual laborers of the country). I
learned a lot about the military, various forms of combat, explosive
ordinance disposal(EOD), first aid, weapons maintenance, marksmanship,
and patrol operations from him, and many times laid cursing his blasted
name while eating mud and muckwater because he had me doing pushups for
"a reward for being a dumbass"(also many times I thanked him years later
for taking care of my young green pickle suit ass)...It was only after I
was 18 months deep in a Special Duty Assignment in Bad Aibling and after
reading that he had been killed in Afghanistan that I learned the scope
of his knowledge.. he had a PhD in Biology, and a Masters in History....I
bever would have guessed! at any rate, I know now that he was on to
something with that *keep it simple, stupid" phrase of his.


I have been working as a pro musician for a long time, since before I
could drink legally, and have been recording for a while too..I have, on
the recording side of things, worked with multi-tracking, with complex
workflow arrangements so that I could get everything "perfect", micd
everything amplifying signals with desks that looked more like the
controls of a spaceship than an audio instrument....but I often times
find that the simpler I can make something, the better the result will
be. This is based on my experience, and mine only. I think that my
disovery of simpler being better in *my* life is not a step backwards. it
is much more like transcending to a higher level of awareness and
intelligence.

(again these truths are mine and mine only..I am not suggesting *a thing*
about anyone else. everyone's path is different.)

I am also quite certain at this point of what features I do and do not
need on this mixer, and while I certainly appreciate the wealth of
experience and knowledge(quite awe-inspiring to me,,,I am enjoying
reading each post(save Mcarthys..)contained here, and wish that I were
half as smart with electronics theory/tubes/EE, etc as you all are..The
Good Lord just didnt set my life up that way.

I really have no desire for anything extra. at this point I am quite
confident in my assessment of my recording needs. I do not work as a pop
engineer, studio engineer, or even as most *classical* engineers work. I
work my own way..a way that has gotten me criticism from colleagues,
applause from clients, and a deep sense of enjoyment and aural
satisfaction from myself...even without the clients, I would be left with
results that *I* enjoy listening to..this being the reason why I got into
recording to begin with.

Thank you Sir(and all of you) for your continued help. I am looking
forward to learning much more from the group, and of course to having a
solid recording tool.










"Simplicity hinges as much on cutting nonessential features as on adding
helpful ones."

As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler;
solitude will not be solitude, poverty will not be poverty, nor weakness
weakness"

"Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe
to be beautiful".

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." ~Leonardo DaVinci






  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

John Byrns wrote in
:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

"Ian Iveson" wrote:

I'd be interested to know exactly how you've arranged for
the pan pots

Too late, my second generation design has eliminated the pan pots,
replacing them with a Left-Center-Right switch for each channel as
in the transistor mixer Tynan gave as an example of the features he
desires.


That's not what he asked for though.


Yes it is, he provided the Wendt X4 as an example of the features he
would like in a tube mixer, the Wendt X4 uses three position "pan
switches", not pan pots. Of course Tynan could always explicitly
state that what he wants is pan pots.


Regards,

John Byrns


Mr. Byrns, I stated the overall features of the wendt as ideas(ie want
gain, but not necessarily pots or faders, want metering, but not
necessarily the same type as on the wendt..implementation is not my area
of expertise, I trust your intellect(all of you)and your ability to
implement the features that I want in the smartest way..smart in these
matters, I aint!)


I promise to read the thread again and post an explicit list tommorow so
as to not keep confusing anyone. (I am sorry for being a dolt, it is my
first experience with this sort of thing..ill get better, I promise) yall
please dont be too hard on me, ise just a boy.

of course reccomendations on implementation of said features would be
great as it helps me learn.

  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
"Ian Iveson" wrote:

I'd be interested to know exactly how you've arranged for
the pan pots

Too late, my second generation design has eliminated the pan pots,
replacing them with a Left-Center-Right switch for each channel as in
the transistor mixer Tynan gave as an example of the features he desires.


That's not what he asked for though.


Yes it is, he provided the Wendt X4 as an example of the features he
would like in a tube mixer, the Wendt X4 uses three position "pan
switches", not pan pots. Of course Tynan could always explicitly state
that what he wants is pan pots.


I suggest you look at what he asked for originally rather than try
second-guessing him.

Graham

  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote in message
. 70...
is 80 dB enough for this?
Regards,

John Byrns

With the mics I am currently using, 80dB is good.My current mic pres
have
66, and that is *barely* enough.
OK. So that's me back to the drawing board:-)
Except that my mic pre is to be plugged into the
line input of a console so 60dB is more than sufficient.
Line in of a console - sorry can you explain what that is??

Most stand-alone tube mic preamps are designed to take the
place of the SS mic stage built into the console, some of which
have a separate XLR input for mic or line level, which often
starts at 0dBu or maybe -10 depending on the console.

Got it. It was your use of the term console in isolation that threw mw -
I had visions of some 1950s radiogramophone monstrosity, LOL.


LOL :-) Sorry Ian. Again we are divided by our common
language. In Europe we don't think of a console as a
radiogram. If I had used the term recording desk, mixer
or board it might have been clearer.


Er, I live in the UK! but maybe I am a tad older than you as I can still
remember those old radiograms.

But, surely if you live in the UK you did not know them as consoles?

Iain


  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



--
Iain
Aural perception is a skill that requires study and careful development over
along period of time. Few have it as a natural gift.
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

The Ampex mic amps are widely considered to be somewhat mediocre. There
never was any intention for them to be anything special, just to 'do
the

job'.
That'll explain your noise comment for sure. It ought to be simple to
'upgrade' an Ampex design to a lower noise level.


The Ampex 300 and 350 series were indeed a little on
the side of mediocre, to say the least, but there was
not a lot of competition at that time. In the UK
we had the venerable EMI TR90 and later the
BTR 2

But old Ampex machines have a certain mystique
about them. People sell the electronics on as a
mic amp and scrap the deck or break it for parts,
motor and headblock, which is rather sad.


Yes. Just shows how little most tube nuts actually
know or understand.


It's not, AFAIK, the tube nuts that buy them, but
musicians, born some 20 years after most series
350 tape machines were taken out of service!


The
reverence for old transformers is barking mad too.

Oh. I think I can understand that, Old Gardner and
Partridge transformers and chokes are good, and can
sometimes be had for less than a Hammond!

Iain



  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

"robert casey" wrote in message

OTOH, its my recollection that their use of filament
power was about the same as regular tubes. I do remember
that they used DC on the filaments.


Oh sorry, I meant to talk about directly heated filament
tubes (where the filament is the cathode), not the tubes
with indirectly heated cathodes.


It appears that indirectly heated cathodes are pretty much a prerequisite
for maximum linearity. The tubed equipment I worked on was designed in what
many around here would think is an odd way - it was designed for maximum
possible accuracy. Something about wanting to hit the aircraft or missile
that was attacking before it hit you! ;-)




  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Thompson-Bell Ian Thompson-Bell is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 493
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
"Tynan AgviŠr" wrote in message
. 70...
is 80 dB enough for this?
Regards,

John Byrns

With the mics I am currently using, 80dB is good.My current mic pres
have
66, and that is *barely* enough.
OK. So that's me back to the drawing board:-)
Except that my mic pre is to be plugged into the
line input of a console so 60dB is more than sufficient.
Line in of a console - sorry can you explain what that is??

Most stand-alone tube mic preamps are designed to take the
place of the SS mic stage built into the console, some of which
have a separate XLR input for mic or line level, which often
starts at 0dBu or maybe -10 depending on the console.

Got it. It was your use of the term console in isolation that threw mw -
I had visions of some 1950s radiogramophone monstrosity, LOL.

LOL :-) Sorry Ian. Again we are divided by our common
language. In Europe we don't think of a console as a
radiogram. If I had used the term recording desk, mixer
or board it might have been clearer.


Er, I live in the UK! but maybe I am a tad older than you as I can still
remember those old radiograms.

But, surely if you live in the UK you did not know them as consoles?

Iain



You would think so. Maybe the old brain is just getting a bit
tired/confused. ISTR when I was at Neve in the mid 70s we tended to
calli them mixers or mixing desks. The term console was rarely used and
even the Americans had not yet coined the term 'board'.

Cheers

Ian
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
"Ian Iveson" wrote:

I'd be interested to know exactly how you've arranged for
the pan pots

Too late, my second generation design has eliminated the pan pots,
replacing them with a Left-Center-Right switch for each channel as in
the transistor mixer Tynan gave as an example of the features he
desires.

That's not what he asked for though.


Yes it is, he provided the Wendt X4 as an example of the features he
would like in a tube mixer, the Wendt X4 uses three position "pan
switches", not pan pots. Of course Tynan could always explicitly state
that what he wants is pan pots.


I suggest you look at what he asked for originally rather than try
second-guessing him.


IIRC Tynan originally asked for pan pots, but he muddied the waters in
several succeeding posts which gave the appearance that he was
second-guessing himself.

It would help if Tynan gathered up all his thoughts on what his
requirements are and posted them on a web page as a sort of current
requirements brief.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



Iain Churches wrote:

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote

Er, I live in the UK! but maybe I am a tad older than you as I can still
remember those old radiograms.


But, surely if you live in the UK you did not know them as consoles?


I live in the UK to and I've NEVER heard the word console used in that context.
I presume it's more like US usage.

Graham

  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer


Tynan wrote:

The world *is* complex. "KISS" is merely an appeal to
naivety.


Sir, I wouldnt call myself naive(this is the first time
you have said
anything even remotely resembling an insult to me, well,
the 2nd..


I wasn't counting. Not everyone has the same sense of irony.

but I
dont mind. You are helpful and respectful, so I will take
my lumps.) I
just dont take them from assholes who arent helpful at all
and seem to
exist *solely* to insult and drag others down.(you are not
in that
category, Sir)

"KISS" is something I try to apply all aspects of my life.
I had a team
leader in my first duty station(a now defunct Special
Operations/QRF NATO
unit) in Mannheim, Germany that said that at least 20 or
30 times a day.
He was from Lexington, Kentucky, had a long slow southern
draaawl, and
had a face that never showed an ounce of emotion. I first
thought the guy
was just a simple country farmer or something(I grew up on
a farm myself
and have great respect for all the manual laborers of the
country). I
learned a lot about the military, various forms of combat,
explosive
ordinance disposal(EOD), first aid, weapons maintenance,
marksmanship,
and patrol operations from him, and many times laid
cursing his blasted
name while eating mud and muckwater because he had me
doing pushups for
"a reward for being a dumbass"(also many times I thanked
him years later
for taking care of my young green pickle suit ass)...It
was only after I
was 18 months deep in a Special Duty Assignment in Bad
Aibling and after
reading that he had been killed in Afghanistan that I
learned the scope
of his knowledge.. he had a PhD in Biology, and a Masters
in History....I
bever would have guessed! at any rate, I know now that he
was on to
something with that *keep it simple, stupid" phrase of
his.


Why did he think you were stupid? Did you like complicated
things then?

I have been working as a pro musician for a long time,
since before I
could drink legally, and have been recording for a while
too..I have, on
the recording side of things, worked with multi-tracking,
with complex
workflow arrangements so that I could get everything
"perfect", micd
everything amplifying signals with desks that looked more
like the
controls of a spaceship than an audio instrument....but I
often times
find that the simpler I can make something, the better the
result will
be. This is based on my experience, and mine only. I think
that my
disovery of simpler being better in *my* life is not a
step backwards. it
is much more like transcending to a higher level of
awareness and
intelligence.

(again these truths are mine and mine only..I am not
suggesting *a thing*
about anyone else. everyone's path is different.)


But what about the "Stupid" bit?

I am also quite certain at this point of what features I
do and do not
need on this mixer, and while I certainly appreciate the
wealth of
experience and knowledge(quite awe-inspiring to me,,,I am
enjoying
reading each post(save Mcarthys..)contained here, and wish
that I were
half as smart with electronics theory/tubes/EE, etc as you
all are..The
Good Lord just didnt set my life up that way.

I really have no desire for anything extra. at this point
I am quite
confident in my assessment of my recording needs. I do not
work as a pop
engineer, studio engineer, or even as most *classical*
engineers work. I
work my own way..a way that has gotten me criticism from
colleagues,
applause from clients, and a deep sense of enjoyment and
aural
satisfaction from myself...even without the clients, I
would be left with
results that *I* enjoy listening to..this being the reason
why I got into
recording to begin with.

Thank you Sir(and all of you) for your continued help. I
am looking
forward to learning much more from the group, and of
course to having a
solid recording tool.


Solid?!

KISS is open to interpretation, such that anyone can say,
whatever they've done, that it was the simplest option.

A modern BMW is a lot simpler to drive than a Model T Ford,
but it's a more complicated machine.

The simplest pan control to operate would be one with a
linear response with respect to the soundstage, moving
steadily from full left to full right at constant apparent
volume. Such would demand a quite complicated circuit. The
simplest circuit using a linear pot would result in quite a
complicated response from the pan control.

To apply KISS, you first must decide which aspect of the
subject you wish to keep simple. For that decision, you need
some other principle(s). It may appear that KISS is your
guide, but it is merely a cover, either for other ideals of
yours or for an unseen hand that some would call fate.

Democracy is horribly complicated, whereas slavery is
simple, and death is the simplest state of all.

No offence intended...I don't know anyone here, I just
attack their ideas and you can attack mine if you want:
everyone else does...but KISS is vacuous rhetoric.

Nobody makes anything more complicated than they think is
necessary for their objectives. Nobody complicates for
complication's sake.

If you want a simple circuit, fair enough. No reason to
appeal to exalted notions. And what's the "Stupid" all about
anyway? Who's stupid? Anyone who believes differently?

Anyway...do you want to pan or not? There appears to be some
confusion at the trough.

Ian



  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer



Ian Iveson wrote:

The simplest pan control to operate would be one with a
linear response with respect to the soundstage, moving
steadily from full left to full right at constant apparent
volume. Such would demand a quite complicated circuit.


Would it indeed ?

Graham



  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Why did he think you were stupid? Did you like complicated
things then?


It is an appeal to keep it simple for me, because *I* am stupid.




But what about the "Stupid" bit?


See above. I am stupid. Stump effing dumb. As such a like gear that is
simple to operate and intuitive. Devoid of features that I consider
unnecessary.


Solid?!


sold=reliable, dependable. *not* solid state. Country grammar, southern
slang. Army linguistics..

KISS is open to interpretation, such that anyone can say,
whatever they've done, that it was the simplest option.


fair enough. i shall be more blunt/obvious.



No offence intended...I don't know anyone here, I just
attack their ideas and you can attack mine if you want:
everyone else does...but KISS is vacuous rhetoric.


I dont attack(well, I try not to) unless someone is downright
disrespectful to me. To *attack* rather than *discuss in a respectful
manner* is not my MO, unnecessary.

If you want a simple circuit, fair enough. No reason to
appeal to exalted notions. And what's the "Stupid" all about
anyway? Who's stupid? Anyone who believes differently?


I'm stupid(in the scheme of things anyway) as I stated above. Hence my
appeal to keep it simple(free of bloat). If I thought you were stupid, I
for damn sure wouldnt be asking here for help with my mixer request..

Anyway...do you want to pan or not? There appears to be some
confusion at the trough.

Ian

Yes. I do want to have pan controls. Absolutely.

Tynan


  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Tynan AgviŠr Tynan AgviŠr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

John Byrns wrote in
:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
"Ian Iveson" wrote:

I'd be interested to know exactly how you've arranged for
the pan pots

Too late, my second generation design has eliminated the pan
pots, replacing them with a Left-Center-Right switch for each
channel as in the transistor mixer Tynan gave as an example of
the features he desires.

That's not what he asked for though.

Yes it is, he provided the Wendt X4 as an example of the features
he would like in a tube mixer, the Wendt X4 uses three position
"pan switches", not pan pots. Of course Tynan could always
explicitly state that what he wants is pan pots.


I suggest you look at what he asked for originally rather than try
second-guessing him.


IIRC Tynan originally asked for pan pots, but he muddied the waters in
several succeeding posts which gave the appearance that he was
second-guessing himself.

It would help if Tynan gathered up all his thoughts on what his
requirements are and posted them on a web page as a sort of current
requirements brief.


Regards,

John Byrns


I never second guessed my wanting pan controls. I simply stated that the
WENDT was posted for an overview of features(though a couple were
extra..like the ENG multiport cable), NOT as a model for how I wanted the
features implemented. the only thing I have been juggling really is
"inserts".. (the only second guessing I have done, and I wouldnt have done
that had folks not kept mentioning it)...


GAIN
PAN
BASS CUT
meters
headphone amp
phantom power on/off
80 dB of gain
PAD
I like the Lundahl LL1636 transformer with amorphous core.

as to rotary vs sliders..i prefer sliders, but can do without them if they
are considerably more difficult to implement, considerably more expensive,
or if they somehow do not give best sonic performance.



  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ian Thompson-Bell Ian Thompson-Bell is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 493
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

Tynan AgviŠr wrote:

GAIN
PAN
BASS CUT
meters
headphone amp
phantom power on/off
80 dB of gain
PAD
I like the Lundahl LL1636 transformer with amorphous core.


Just for clarification was it 6 or 8 inputs? it is so long since the
original post I have quite forgotten.

Also any thoughts on the frequency of the bass cut switch and the slope
of the cut?

as to rotary vs sliders..i prefer sliders, but can do without them if they
are considerably more difficult to implement, considerably more expensive,
or if they somehow do not give best sonic performance.


Sonic performance and implementation wise sliders are the same as
rotaries but they are considerably more expensive.

Cheers

Ian



  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ross Matheson Ross Matheson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

"Ian Iveson" mentioned, inter alia, in
lueyonder.co.uk:

Nobody makes anything more complicated than they think is
necessary for their objectives. Nobody complicates for
complication's sake.


I'd just like to riff on this ... my first thought was in the vein of

"Yeah, Right!" complicating reference: http://www.tui.co.nz

You neglect the folk out there who follow "The Art Of War", &etc. ... maybe?

Politics, perhaps, but disinformation (not in this particular case, but in the
general) and misinformation, complications for complication's effects, etc. -
even in the world of sound, let alone politics;- I say that is disingenuous!

Well, if the objective is to complicate unnecessarily, even spread confusion?

Then indeed, somebody does. Or may, or might do. "Ho, hum ... "
--
Disclaimer: I don't drink Tui, and I know Ian doesn't drink at all.
The reference is to their "Yeah, Right" [Competition] billboards.

[Why is it that the worst beers have the best TV advertisements, here?]
[I was astonished to hear correct me? of limited USA liqour adverts?]

Personally, I suspect the hardline Russians, and maybe Chinese;=})

(I do drink a certain Chinese beer though sometimes. And meet Russians!)

Communist Friends? http://jrnyquist.com/
--
RdM (just a riff, for the sake of it;- with neutral ironic humour? Hmm...)
  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Ross Matheson Ross Matheson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Design for a small tube/valve mixer

"Ian Iveson" mentioned, inter alia, in
lueyonder.co.uk:

Nobody makes anything more complicated than they think is
necessary for their objectives. Nobody complicates for
complication's sake.


I'd just like to riff on this ... again!

Here's a fun local historical music recording blog site I'm just now reading!

What's a good entry point here .... hmm, maybe this (any would & will do?)

http://www.igmusic.co.nz/twosnares.html

Explore, & enjoy!

i.e. bring joy to together

Just as a contrast, and for another historical perspective, anyway ...

Or should that be "hysterical" ?

I certainly don't think it's heretical!
--
RdM ;=}))
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do the Thiele-Small laws move design quality differences over to the drivers? Don Pearce Tech 3 October 10th 05 06:50 AM
Small room design/treatment miner49er Pro Audio 3 June 11th 05 02:20 AM
Small Mixer Issues David Abrahams Pro Audio 74 March 9th 05 04:47 PM
Your help on small system design please The Burwoods Car Audio 2 November 28th 04 03:09 AM
Best small mixer and/or mixer/amp/spkr combo? Jon Davis Pro Audio 2 November 18th 03 10:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"