Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Do the Thiele-Small laws move design quality differences over to the drivers? | Tech | |||
Small room design/treatment | Pro Audio | |||
Small Mixer Issues | Pro Audio | |||
Your help on small system design please | Car Audio | |||
Best small mixer and/or mixer/amp/spkr combo? | Pro Audio |