jakdedert wrote:

wrote:
I get the feeling that guys that don't like a 57 on snares and try all
sorts of things to get "other" sounds are very similar to guys that
build monster guitar rigs. They build up a rig with a non Fender or
Marshall amp. Add compression, add distortion, add reverb, add sonic
maximizers, etc, etc, etc.....
The end result? If it ends up good at all, it usually is a close
approximation of a Fender or Marshall when plugged in direct from the
guitar.

I know that there are different kinds of music and about a zillion ways
to mic and record a snare, but a 57 just matches a typical snare drum
sound that's found in most pop music that it's hard NOT to get a decent
sound with one.

It's just funny to me all the 57 bashing that goes on. Has this always
been the case, or is this something that's new.....new in the past 10
years or so I mean. We're guys in the industry bashing them in the 70s
or 80s?
later,
m

57's & 58's get bashed here constantly. Funny thing, though; U2's last
tour...they obviously could have used any mic in the world for
vocals...even mega-expensive studio jobs and just replaced them daily.

Guess what they chose?

I've heard it said they have different capsules inside. I can't imagine any
decent performer actually wanting such a POS.

Graham

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 8/3/05 6:37 PM, in article , "William
Sommerwerck" wrote:

Let's stop talking about parrot-brained whatevers. Parrots -- especially the
African gray -- are incredibly intelligent.

You;re right of course. I was so caught up in pleasant conversation I forgot
my manners. My apologies to avian folks everywhere. No slight intended.

I don't know, I am sitting here watching an umbrella cockatoo trying to eat
the cat. This is _not_ an intelligent thing to do.
--scott

I don't trust birds.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than unity
gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K look-alikes, such
as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.

Can we say that "preamplifier" has two meanings, one to microphone
manufacturers who don't care about anything beyond the output
connector, and the other to people who buy studio equipment and need
something to connect their microphones to?

Oh, and a third meaning just for Phil Allison to start arguments
about.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Now the champion ****wit champions parrot's brains !!

Summa-wank needs to go on the Letterman Show.

Yes, and you can be my stupid-pet trick. (Note the placement of the hyphen.)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

my2cents wrote:

Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than unity
gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K look-alikes, such
as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.


Are you sure? All of my B&K docs call them "Followers" rather than
preamplifiers, presumably because they have voltage follower circuits
inside.

I don't know about the clones.

Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."
--scott

Bleem is fershlugginer.

What about "capsule amplifiers"? Has ta be pronounced like Levon
Helm did in "The Right Stuff", tho - cap-sooool.

--
Les Cargill

On 8/3/05 7:47 PM, in article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:



The pre-amp has to supply a DC polarising voltage as well - internal
phantom power.

"Mike Rivers"
Caught you in another inaccuracy.


** **** off - parrot brain.


Phantom power is external.


** Except when it is internal - you ass.

So tell us Phil, how does phantom power (defined as equal-voltage-polarity
on both legs of a balanced line derived relative to that line's
shield-ground), Get supplied down the single leg of the polarising voltage
to the diaphragm inside the mic's head-end circuitry?



The preamp doesn't supply the polarizing voltage,


** It sure does - one of its main jobs.



** Which absolutely requires that it be an Active, Electronic,
Pre-Amplifying circuit.

Correct, except for the word "pre."


** **** off - parrot brain.

What's really neat here is to watch Phil's consistancy:
Eveybody's a dork, whether Phil's RIGHT on a point or whther Phil's
WRONG...
I gues it makes responses easier to formulate.

Then again wasn;t there the thought that Phil actually has a modified email
auto-response program spitting these epithets out while he's at the beach?

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

my2cents wrote:

Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than
unity gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K
look-alikes, such as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.

Are you sure? All of my B&K docs call them "Followers" rather than
preamplifiers, presumably because they have voltage follower circuits
inside.

I don't know about the clones.

Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."
--scott

It doesn't matter what you like. Words have meaning, especially when they
have been used exclusively in a specific context for nearly four decades.
If you are unaware of the terminology, then you are as ignorant as Bob Cain
and that's your problem. Nonetheless, you are certainly free to use
whatever incorrect/non-standard terminology you wish.

You are partially correct and I stand partially corrected. In their 1962
catalog Bruel & Kjaer do in fact refer to the tube-based 2615 as a cathode
follower. However, in their 1968 catalog they refer to the 2615 as a
cathode follower and to the 2619, which was the solid-state successor to
the 1615, as a microphone preamplifier. Since that time, all solid state
successors to the 2615 have been referred to as microphone preamplifiers,
not only by Bruel & Kjaer but by all of the manufacturers who make B&K
look-alike microphone capsules and accessories. If you want to verify
this, all you need to do is to take a look at any Bruel & Kjaer catalog
that was published in 1968 or later, and do a Google search for ACO
Pacific, Larson Davis and GRAS.

(Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1123107061k@trad:


In article
writes:

Bruel & Kjaer have always referred to their 2615/2619/2639/etc as
microphone preamplifiers, despite the fact that all have less than
unity gain. The same is true for the manufacturers of the B&K
look-alikes, such as ACO Pacific, Larson Davis, GRAS, etc.

Can we say that "preamplifier" has two meanings, one to microphone
manufacturers who don't care about anything beyond the output
connector, and the other to people who buy studio equipment and need
something to connect their microphones to?

Oh, and a third meaning just for Phil Allison to start arguments
about.

Ignorance is bliss and many of the sudio people such as yourself appear to
have both in abundance. The issue isn't about the meaning of the term
"premaplifier" nor is about whether manufacturer's do or don't care about
anything beyond the output connector. The issue is about the present
correct and traditionally-correct meaning of the term "microphone
preamplifier" which connects to a capacitive microphone capsule and has
less than unity gain.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."

I'd call it a buffer amplifier to reflect its real function
while discriminating it from what is usually meant by
pre-amplifier: a variable gain amplifier used prior to a
system input to bring a signal to the level expected by that
input. "Buffer" has plenty of precedent in engineering for
describing follower amplifiers.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The amp in a condenser mic does not amplify the capsule's power level --
it's a voltage amplifier. The capsule's capacitance is so small that it

is

essentially a hi-Z voltage source that must work into a high-impedance

load.

Other way around. Voltage gain on a KM84 is less than one (although a
lot of that has to do with the output transformer). Voltage gain on the
BLUE baby bottle is greater than one, though.

But it's the current gain that is so important.


Let's stop a moment. Are you telling me that a condenser capsule can produce
an output of, oh, 1mV for an 80dB SPL? I don't believe it. The capacitance
is so small, and the diaphragm moves so little, that dV = Q/dC isn't going
to be a very large number.

'Fraid that's a pretty low sensitivity. 14 dB below 1mV/Pa
which is already low for condensers.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

On 8/4/05 12:02 AM, in article , "Bob Cain"
wrote:



William Sommerwerck wrote:
The amp in a condenser mic does not amplify the capsule's power level --
it's a voltage amplifier. The capsule's capacitance is so small that it

is

essentially a hi-Z voltage source that must work into a high-impedance

load.

Other way around. Voltage gain on a KM84 is less than one (although a
lot of that has to do with the output transformer). Voltage gain on the
BLUE baby bottle is greater than one, though.

But it's the current gain that is so important.


Let's stop a moment. Are you telling me that a condenser capsule can produce
an output of, oh, 1mV for an 80dB SPL? I don't believe it. The capacitance
is so small, and the diaphragm moves so little, that dV = Q/dC isn't going
to be a very large number.

'Fraid that's a pretty low sensitivity. 14 dB below 1mV/Pa
which is already low for condensers.

Output of a 'condensor microphone'
Vs
Output at the capsule...

Let's all stay on target, else we'll be nothing more than administration
spinners.

"Bob Cain"
Bill Summa-wank

Are you telling me that a condenser capsule can produce
an output of, oh, 1mV for an 80dB SPL? I don't believe it. The
capacitance
is so small, and the diaphragm moves so little, that dV = Q/dC isn't
going
to be a very large number.

'Fraid that's a pretty low sensitivity. 14 dB below 1mV/Pa which is
already low for condensers.



** Bad at thinking, bad at math too.

A mic that delivers 1mV at 80dB SPL is 14 dB ABOVE one that delivers 1
mV/Pa.

The Josephson C42 is speced at 8 mV/Pa, so gives 1.6 mV at 80 dB SPL.

The capsule's output voltage is likely to be more again.




........... Phil

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Personally, I don't like _any_ of the words used. "Preamplifiers" is
confusing, "followers" is not always accurate, "impedance converters"
is accurate but incomplete, and "handles" is only correct for some
styles of design. I think we should call them "bleem."

I'd call it a buffer amplifier to reflect its real function
while discriminating it from what is usually meant by
pre-amplifier: a variable gain amplifier used prior to a
system input to bring a signal to the level expected by that
input. "Buffer" has plenty of precedent in engineering for
describing follower amplifiers.

Another term that has seen some use: "head amplifiers". Not as meaningful as
"buffer amplifier", but at least there's precedent for it.

Peace,
Paul

SSJVCmag wrote:

Let's stop a moment. Are you telling me that a condenser capsule can produce
an output of, oh, 1mV for an 80dB SPL? I don't believe it. The capacitance
is so small, and the diaphragm moves so little, that dV = Q/dC isn't going
to be a very large number.

'Fraid that's a pretty low sensitivity. 14 dB below 1mV/Pa
which is already low for condensers.


Output of a 'condensor microphone'
Vs
Output at the capsule...

The buffer has less than unity gain, approaching 1 as
transconductance of the device (tube/FET) increases, so that
the buffer output will be less than the capsule output.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Phil Allison wrote:
"Bob Cain"
Bill Summa-wank

Are you telling me that a condenser capsule can produce
an output of, oh, 1mV for an 80dB SPL? I don't believe it. The
capacitance
is so small, and the diaphragm moves so little, that dV = Q/dC isn't
going
to be a very large number.

'Fraid that's a pretty low sensitivity. 14 dB below 1mV/Pa which is
already low for condensers.




** Bad at thinking, bad at math too.

More like bad reading. ****ing cataracts suddenly under way
and filling in missing detail with the wrong **** when I
read. Haven't yet learned to take that into account.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

I am sitting here watching an umbrella cockatoo trying to eat
the cat.


Undoubtedly, you are also *listening* to the cockatoo trying to eat the
cat.

Kill the ****er and eat it. Just tell Chak you snapped.

Or just wait a few weeks and you really will.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

In article writes:

Let's stop a moment. Are you telling me that a condenser capsule can produce
an output of, oh, 1mV for an 80dB SPL? I don't believe it.

Actually, they can. Get out your electrometer and try it some time.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

I am sitting here watching an umbrella cockatoo trying to eat
the cat.

Undoubtedly, you are also *listening* to the cockatoo trying to eat the
cat.

Kill the ****er and eat it. Just tell Chak you snapped.

As the result of poor translation, I ate a parrot at Wo Fat's restaurant
in Honolulu back in the seventies. It was actually pretty good.

Or just wait a few weeks and you really will.

I have survived a remarkably long time already. The real problem is that
I can't play choral music any more... something about all of these invisible
people around him really seems to alarm the bird. Orchestral stuff and
solo vocals are fine.
--scott

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

my2cents wrote:

It doesn't matter what you like. Words have meaning, especially when they
have been used exclusively in a specific context for nearly four decades.
If you are unaware of the terminology, then you are as ignorant as Bob Cain
and that's your problem. Nonetheless, you are certainly free to use
whatever incorrect/non-standard terminology you wish.

The problem is, as I point out, that there is no real standard terminology.
Different manufacturers have used different words to mean the same thing.
This, I am sorry to say, is a very common failing in the audio industry.

You are partially correct and I stand partially corrected. In their 1962
catalog Bruel & Kjaer do in fact refer to the tube-based 2615 as a cathode
follower. However, in their 1968 catalog they refer to the 2615 as a
cathode follower and to the 2619, which was the solid-state successor to
the 1615, as a microphone preamplifier. Since that time, all solid state
successors to the 2615 have been referred to as microphone preamplifiers,
not only by Bruel & Kjaer but by all of the manufacturers who make B&K
look-alike microphone capsules and accessories. If you want to verify
this, all you need to do is to take a look at any Bruel & Kjaer catalog
that was published in 1968 or later, and do a Google search for ACO
Pacific, Larson Davis and GRAS.

I'll take your word for it, because again it does seem like a perfectly
reasonable use. The problem is that there have been a bunch of other
uses as well. (This is made worse in the case of some manufacturers by
translation problems).

Is Norsonics still making a Type I mike?
--scott

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

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Let's stop a moment. Are you telling me that a condenser capsule can produce
an output of, oh, 1mV for an 80dB SPL? I don't believe it. The capacitance
is so small, and the diaphragm moves so little, that dV = Q/dC isn't going
to be a very large number.

Yup. The capacitance change is still a few picofarads, and the polarization
voltage is pretty large. In fact, the output of the U87 capsule is a good
bit higher than that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

The buffer has less than unity gain

Since we've gone from a legitimate question (which I forgot already)
to playing games, you should play safe and not just say "gain." Say
"voltage gain" and then people can ask you about the current gain or
power gain.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

In their 1962
catalog Bruel & Kjaer do in fact refer to the tube-based 2615 as a cathode
follower. However, in their 1968 catalog they refer to the 2615 as a
cathode follower and to the 2619, which was the solid-state successor to
the 1615, as a microphone preamplifier. Since that time, all solid state
successors to the 2615 have been referred to as microphone preamplifiers,
not only by Bruel & Kjaer but by all of the manufacturers who make B&K
look-alike microphone capsules and accessories.

Don't you guys have anything better to do than look up stuff that
proves that Phil is correct?

I think my local Guitar Center carries some B&K mics. Today I'll go in
there and ask to look at some preamplifiers and see if they pull apart
a B&K and say "here's a really nice one."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Ignorance is bliss and many of the sudio people such as yourself appear to
have both in abundance.

Insult noted.

The issue isn't about the meaning of the term
"premaplifier" nor is about whether manufacturer's do or don't care about
anything beyond the output connector. The issue is about the present
correct and traditionally-correct meaning of the term "microphone
preamplifier" which connects to a capacitive microphone capsule and has
less than unity gain.

Traditions change. (I study folklore) Sometimes it's in a good way,
sometimes they promulgate inaccuracy and confusion. When you can ask
a group of people who actively use a certain related group of
technological products what they understand a "preamp" to be, I
believe the majority will point to the box that goes between a
microphone (the device) and a recorder or another amplifier.

If you were to lay out some of the colloquial "preamp" devices and
some condenser microphone bodies without capsules and ask which is the
"preamplifier" then they might get the idea that you're trying to
prove something.

I think that accepting common usage when it doesn't confuse those
using the term is fair. The term for this is "jargon." We use a lot of
it in audio. It isn't all technically correct, and it's possible to be
more technically accurate, but we aren't always that stuffy.





--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

my2cents wrote:

It doesn't matter what you like. Words have meaning, especially when
they have been used exclusively in a specific context for nearly four
decades. If you are unaware of the terminology, then you are as
ignorant as Bob Cain and that's your problem. Nonetheless, you are
certainly free to use whatever incorrect/non-standard terminology you
wish.

The problem is, as I point out, that there is no real standard
terminology. Different manufacturers have used different words to mean
the same thing. This, I am sorry to say, is a very common failing in
the audio industry.

You are partially correct and I stand partially corrected. In their
1962 catalog Bruel & Kjaer do in fact refer to the tube-based 2615 as
a cathode follower. However, in their 1968 catalog they refer to the
2615 as a cathode follower and to the 2619, which was the solid-state
successor to the 1615, as a microphone preamplifier. Since that time,
all solid state successors to the 2615 have been referred to as
microphone preamplifiers, not only by Bruel & Kjaer but by all of the
manufacturers who make B&K look-alike microphone capsules and
accessories. If you want to verify this, all you need to do is to
take a look at any Bruel & Kjaer catalog that was published in 1968 or
later, and do a Google search for ACO Pacific, Larson Davis and GRAS.

I'll take your word for it, because again it does seem like a
perfectly reasonable use. The problem is that there have been a bunch
of other uses as well. (This is made worse in the case of some
manufacturers by translation problems).

Is Norsonics still making a Type I mike?
--scott

That would seem to be the case, and they too refer to their NOR-1201 as a
"microphone preamplifier" which you can bet has just a slight bit less than
unity gain.
http://www.scantekinc.com/mics.htm

(Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1123157894k@trad:


snip.....snip

Traditions change. (I study folklore) Sometimes it's in a good way,
sometimes they promulgate inaccuracy and confusion. When you can ask
a group of people who actively use a certain related group of
technological products what they understand a "preamp" to be, I
believe the majority will point to the box that goes between a
microphone (the device) and a recorder or another amplifier.

I agree, and that would be my answer as well. But, the issue is not what
is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term "preamplifier," the
issue is what is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term
"microphone preamplifier." If you look into it, you will find that the
latter is associated exclusively with acoustic measurement technology,
whereas the former is associated exclusively with electronics.


If you were to lay out some of the colloquial "preamp" devices and
some condenser microphone bodies without capsules and ask which is the
"preamplifier" then they might get the idea that you're trying to
prove something.

I think that accepting common usage when it doesn't confuse those
using the term is fair. The term for this is "jargon." We use a lot of
it in audio. It isn't all technically correct, and it's possible to be
more technically accurate, but we aren't always that stuffy.

We are all fortunate that the aerospace scientists and engineers that
design those jumbo jets don't share your perspective.

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:


The buffer has less than unity gain


Since we've gone from a legitimate question (which I forgot already)
to playing games, you should play safe and not just say "gain." Say
"voltage gain" and then people can ask you about the current gain or
power gain.

:-)


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

wrote:

somebody better tell that to the guys that love API, Neve, 1176
compressors and just about every other piece of gear out there.

Since you *totally* trimmed my previous post i didn't see what you were
replying to initially !

Let me see now.....

Do compressors have a coloured frequency response ? Err... NO !


Oh, if you simply mean mics, don't all mics have a "sound"? I want the
characteristics of certain mics...sometimes. Sometimes I might reach
for the most un-coloured gear I've got. I think there's a place for
everything.
It's funny. I'll be the first to admit, a Royer 121 sounds more like
the amp in the room than a 57 when both used at the same time. More
often than not, I'll keep the 57 track b/c it sits better in the mix
and sounds like what I'm after. To me, that's the sound of rock and
roll. If I were recording jazz or classical, I doubt I'd use a 57 as
much.

Look, 57s and 58s stink IMHO. The worst of it is that so many ppl keep
buying the wretched things when so much better is available - and often
because ppl, who *should* know better keep telling them to !

I well recall some clown recommending to a club I work with that they
should have lots of 58s and 57s and have a 31 band graphic on all the desk
outs. Yeah - I thought - you'll need the graphics to iron out the response
of the effing *mics* !

For comparison - when I had my own PA 'rig' I had quite 'clean' mics and a
very accurate speaker system.

For some curious reason ? I found that rarely was *much* eq ever needed to
make things sound right. Then again. if you think about it maybe I was just
taking a simple, clever route to sonic accuracy ? I never ever used or even
*wanted* a graphic either. I had no shortage of pleased customers. In
comparison I find I'm always fighting a Shure mic.

Graham

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Phil, if you're going to jump down peoples' throats, at least get your
technical act together.

The amp in a condenser mic does not amplify the capsule's power level --
it's a voltage amplifier.

It *may* be a voltage amplifier. It may also be a voltage follower ( no voltage
amplification at all ). It certainly is a *current* amplifier !

All of these put together means that there is significant *power* gain in a
condenser mic pre. Time for school ?


The capsule's capacitance is so small that it is
essentially a hi-Z voltage source that must work into a high-impedance load.

Voltage gain is not properly measured in dB -- the dBs is, strictly
speaking, a power ratio.

No - no no ! That idiocy about dBs only being for power is a classic lie. Sure
Bell Labs didn't use dBs for voltages initially but I guess you've heard of dBv
- replaced by dBu and dBV ? What kind of dBs do you think your equipment is
specced in ? The pro-audio industry hardly ever uses dBm anymore. No need or
reason.

You might care to consider also that the best known example in the general
population of the use of dB is for acoustic levels which are *pressure* levels
and therefore also use the 20*log10 method too !

Graham

"my2cents"
(snip)

But, the issue is not what
is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term "preamplifier," the
issue is what is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term
"microphone preamplifier."


** Have you forgotten the actual phrase that so *outraged* the brainless
parrot ??

In relation to the Josephson C42 condenser mic, I posted this rhetorical
question to Scott Dorsey:


" Since when does the pre-amp in a condenser mic have a clipping level that
varies with an audio frequency ???? "



Please note:

1. It specifically refers to the electronics hidden *inside* a mic's handle
!!!

2. That electronics has several functions - polarising the capsule with a
suitable DC voltage, providing it with an ultra high impedance load,
generating a low impedance balanced output from the resulting signal and
deriving its own DC power from the same output wires.

So, as long as you read the whole post, no possible confusion exists with
other audio electronic items that might share the generic title "pre-amp" .


BTW

There has been no answer to my rhetorical question from Dorsey.

The Brainless Parrot created his blatant "red herring" to hide his
colleague's dumb error.




.......... Phil

In article writes:

But, the issue is not what
is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term "preamplifier," the
issue is what is the common/correct meaning and usage of the term
"microphone preamplifier."

This is where we diverge. I can correct people who say "phase" when
they mean "polarity inversion" all I want, but that won't make the
common (and incorrect) usage of the term "phase" to mean swapping pins
2 and 2 (going into the mic preamplifier g). Sometimes you just have
to accept the common meaning as being what's undertood, and when
you write your book about microphone construction and studio system
engineering, you can struggle about which of the two devices you'll
probably mention that you call the microphone preamplifier.

We are all fortunate that the aerospace scientists and engineers that
design those jumbo jets don't share your perspective.

Oh I dunno. I think we get plenty of space shuttle jargon on the news,
terms that we don't really know what they mean, but we know what the
pictures look like.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Phil, if you're going to jump down peoples' throats, at least get your
technical act together.

The amp in a condenser mic does not amplify the capsule's power level --
it's a voltage amplifier.

It *may* be a voltage amplifier. It may also be a voltage follower ( no
voltage
amplification at all ). It certainly is a *current* amplifier !

All of these put together means that there is significant *power* gain in
a
condenser mic pre. Time for school ?

No. Shall I wave my EE degree in your face?

To argue that the buffer stage in the mic amplifies the current output of
the capsule -- which, in a strict, narrow sense, it does do -- is to twist
the meaning of "current amplfication". The buffer is _designed_ as a
voltage-gain stage which has a low output impedance.


Voltage gain is not properly measured in dB -- the dBs is, strictly
speaking, a power ratio.

No - no no ! That idiocy about dBs only being for power is a classic lie.

It's not a lie. dB means power ration and absolutely nothing else. If you
want it to mean something else, you have to change the designation.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Phil, if you're going to jump down peoples' throats, at least get your
technical act together.

The amp in a condenser mic does not amplify the capsule's power level --
it's a voltage amplifier.

It *may* be a voltage amplifier. It may also be a voltage follower ( no
voltage
amplification at all ). It certainly is a *current* amplifier !

All of these put together means that there is significant *power* gain in
a
condenser mic pre. Time for school ?

No. Shall I wave my EE degree in your face?

One that must have been given away by the sound of it ! At least mine is
actually in Audio. One of the first courses ever to specialise in the area of
sound engineering.


To argue that the buffer stage in the mic amplifies the current output of
the capsule -- which, in a strict, narrow sense, it does do -- is to twist
the meaning of "current amplfication". The buffer is _designed_ as a
voltage-gain stage which has a low output impedance.

Which involves *current gain* !


Voltage gain is not properly measured in dB -- the dBs is, strictly
speaking, a power ratio.

No - no no ! That idiocy about dBs only being for power is a classic lie.

It's not a lie. dB means power ration and absolutely nothing else. If you
want it to mean something else, you have to change the designation.

You're a staggeringly stupid cretin.

The diabolical lie about dBs being power only has been overturned. dBs are
simple a ratiometric method of measure. Bell labs were idiotic to assert ( and
that's all it ever was - simply an assertion ) that you could only use dBs for
power ratios. They are mainly used for voltage and pressure ratios now. Or maybe
you've missed out on that ?

Do you still source and terminate everything in 600 ohms ? If you don't you'd
better retract what you just said.

Do you really know so little ? Are you really so badly informed? I'm staggered.

Graham

"Pooh Bear"


The diabolical lie about dBs being power only has been overturned.


** It is no lie and no amount of brainless posturing by Graham Stevenon has
overturned anything.


dBs are simple a ratiometric method of measure.


** With the provision that what is being quantified is a power level.


Bell labs were idiotic to assert ( and
that's all it ever was - simply an assertion ) that you could only use dBs
for
power ratios.


** That assertion is correct - a 3dB increase in level at a point is
always a doubling of power.


They are mainly used for voltage and pressure ratios now.


** To increase the voltage into a load by 3dB - you must double the power
into that load.

To increase the sound pressure created by a speaker at some point by 3dB -
the power input has to double.


Or maybe you've missed out on that ?


** "Parrot Brained ****wit" applies just as accurately to Graham Stevenon
as it does the Rivers cretin.






........... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Pooh Bear"


The diabolical lie about dBs being power only has been overturned.

** It is no lie and no amount of brainless posturing by Graham Stevenon has
overturned anything.

dBs are simple a ratiometric method of measure.

** With the provision that what is being quantified is a power level.

**********

SPL ( sound pressure level ) has *never* been measured as a power level !

dB(spl) is *always* a pressure derived measure. It can be nothing else.

Let's face it. Some suit at Bell Labs had a pole up his arse back in 1929/30 and
succeeded in making a clot of himself for history to laugh at.

I'm staggered that you could even remotely associate yourself with such an
oudated view. The fact is that the audio world has gone on to use voltage
derived measures to it's eternal credit.

So - go on - why don't you 'diss' the dBu since you apparently think that only
power dBs are valid ? You want the return of the dBm with all the confusion it
caused ?

Graham

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

The diabolical lie about dBs being power only has been overturned.

** It is no lie and no amount of brainless posturing by Graham Stevenon
has
overturned anything.

dBs are simple a ratiometric method of measure.

** With the provision that what is being quantified is a power level.

**********

SPL ( sound pressure level ) has *never* been measured as a power level !


** Sound pressure in air is strictly related to acoustic power flow at that
point.

Double the acoustic power flow and the SPL goes up by 3 dB.

So you never realised that sound contains energy and thereby has power ???



Let's face it.


** You are nothing but a ****ing nut case - Graham Stevenon.


I'm staggered that you could even remotely associate yourself with such an
oudated view.


** The laws of physics on this matter are not outdated.

I note that you snipped out the relevant points on this:

" To increase the voltage into a load by 3dB - you must double the power
into that load.

To increase the sound pressure created by a speaker at some point by 3dB -
the power input has to double. "



The fact is that the audio world has gone on to use voltage
derived measures to it's eternal credit.


** Power in a load is proportional to the applied voltage squared.

Similarly, power in a sound wave at any point is proportional to pressure
squared.

That is why there is an additional factor of 2 ( ie 20 times log) in the
calculation of dB ratios where voltage or pressure are the measured
parameters.

The one out of step and out of mind is ** YOU ** Graham Stevenon =
bachelor of BULL**** !!




............ Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

The diabolical lie about dBs being power only has been overturned.

** It is no lie and no amount of brainless posturing by Graham Stevenon
has
overturned anything.

dBs are simple a ratiometric method of measure.

** With the provision that what is being quantified is a power level.

**********

SPL ( sound pressure level ) has *never* been measured as a power level !

** Sound pressure in air is strictly related to acoustic power flow at that
point.

Double the acoustic power flow and the SPL goes up by 3 dB.

So you never realised that sound contains energy and thereby has power ???

*of course* I'm aware of that.

SPL is *SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL* however - not sound power level ! SPL increments
of 20dB are a x10 or x1/10 step in pressure.

Please re-adjust your attitude.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" ...

Please re-adjust your attitude.


I think it's time to consider the source as trolling and stop the feeding.

"Pooh Bear"
Phil Allison wrote:

The diabolical lie about dBs being power only has been overturned.

** It is no lie and no amount of brainless posturing by Graham
Stevenon
has overturned anything.

dBs are simple a ratiometric method of measure.

** With the provision that what is being quantified is a power level.

**********

SPL ( sound pressure level ) has *never* been measured as a power level
!

** Sound pressure in air is strictly related to acoustic power flow at
that
point.

Double the acoustic power flow and the SPL goes up by 3 dB.

So you never realised that sound contains energy and thereby has power
???

*of course* I'm aware of that.


** Time for you to believe it too.


SPL is *SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL* however - not sound power level ! SPL
increments
of 20dB are a x10 or x1/10 step in pressure.



** Which correspond to ** 100 times increase ** in sound power flow at
the point of measurement.

Which corresponds to *100 times increase* in the acoustic power radiated
by the same source.

So the term "dB" is being correctly used as a measure of relative power.



Please re-adjust your attitude.


** You have not and cannot answer any of my points.

You have no case and are making no sense whatever.

As per ****ing usual.


The heading is an insult to canaries.




.......... Phil

"David Morgan (MAMS)"


** This asinine "Morgon" cretin makes even dead canaries look like
geniuses.








.......... Phil

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

"Pooh Bear" ...

Please re-adjust your attitude.

I think it's time to consider the source as trolling and stop the feeding.

Actually, I kept out of this particular one until Will Sommerwreck made a
dumb**** assertion about dBs and how they can *ONLY* be used for power ratios
as per Bell Labs 'pole up the arse' blinkered 1930s thinking !!!!

PA as usual loves to climb aboard and simply make a merry nuisance of himself.

For heavens sake, the AES sorted out the whole idiocy of the dBm and its then
misuse / abuse due to the practical requirements of 'voltage matching' way
back in the 1970s ! I'm staggered that the issue should even remotely
re-appear.

If anyone today was presented with the same issues I'm sure they'd run a mile
( or more ).

Graham