SM58 with 600 Ohm termination

[Ty Ford]

I finally got around to getting an SM58 here and making a mic cable with a
620 Ohm resistor across pins 2 and 3.

To download, go here: https://public.me.com/tyreeford

Look for SM58 Test.wav

To me it sounds like the bottom is rolled off a bit. I'm an inch away, so
just backing off a few more inches could have made the difference.

Please let me know what you think.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Mike Clayton]

Ty Ford wrote:
> I finally got around to getting an SM58 here and making a mic cable with a
> 620 Ohm resistor across pins 2 and 3.
>
> To download, go here: https://public.me.com/tyreeford
>
> Look for SM58 Test.wav
>
> To me it sounds like the bottom is rolled off a bit. I'm an inch away, so
> just backing off a few more inches could have made the difference.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford

Can't find it there Ty. Been right through the whole directory.

Mike

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:36:34 -0400, Mike Clayton wrote
(in article >):

>> Please let me know what you think.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>
> Can't find it there Ty. Been right through the whole directory.
>
> Mike

Sorry Mike,

I see it up there now.

Regards,

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Mike Clayton]

Ty Ford wrote:
>
> Sorry Mike,
>
> I see it up there now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty

I do to Ty! I'll have a listen later on today. Got orchestra rehearsal
this morning.

Mike

[Tony[_11_]]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:26:29 -0400, Ty Ford > wrote:

>I finally got around to getting an SM58 here and making a mic cable with a
>620 Ohm resistor across pins 2 and 3.
>
>To download, go here: https://public.me.com/tyreeford
>
>Look for SM58 Test.wav
>
>To me it sounds like the bottom is rolled off a bit. I'm an inch away, so
>just backing off a few more inches could have made the difference.
>
>Please let me know what you think.

My subjective appraisal wouldn't mean much. But yes, as the mic load drops down below say
1000 Ohms the mic's bottom resonant peak would be damped and loaded, leading to a more
tight, controlled and extended bass response with less "ring", and therefore subjectively
less bass (i.e. less bass, but better bass). There would also be some rolloff at the
extreme HF peak, due to mic inductance + cable capacitance (if it's a decent length); but
more subtle than the bass effect.

You can't easily correct underdamped resonances; IMHO a loaded-down dynamic mic (EQ'd if
necessary) sounds better. With a loud mic-eating singer, a low value mic load is a better
proposition than the otherwise necessary attenuator + bass cut option.

Cheers
Tony

>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford
>
>
>--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
>Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
>Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

> I finally got around to getting an SM58 here and making a mic cable
> with a 620 Ohm resistor across pins 2 and 3.

> To download, go here: https://public.me.com/tyreeford

> Look for SM58 Test.wav

> To me it sounds like the bottom is rolled off a bit. I'm an inch
> away, so just backing off a few more inches could have made the
> difference.

Bottom cleaner and s's made of s rather than of z.

> Please let me know what you think.

This should cause a boom in the sale of 1 kOhm resistors, oughta be enough
with the typical mic pre being around 2kOhm. 620 parallel with 2k5 or less
could be overdoing it. My recollection without checking is that the SM58 is
a 150 Ohm source, the general recommendation in the Sennheiser yearbook in
the old days was 5 to 10 times mic internal, ie. to load with 750 Ohm migth
be the sweet load as there are mechanical resonances to tame. Same guideline
works well with moving coil phono-cartridges.

> Regards,

Thanks for posting Ty!

> Ty Ford

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Anahata]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:57:58 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:
> This should cause a boom in the sale of 1 kOhm resistors, oughta be
> enough with the typical mic pre being around 2kOhm. 620 parallel with
> 2k5 or less could be overdoing it. My recollection without checking is
> that the SM58 is a 150 Ohm source, the general recommendation in the
> Sennheiser yearbook in the old days was 5 to 10 times mic internal, ie.
> to load with 750 Ohm migth be the sweet load as there are mechanical
> resonances to tame.

Perhaps he was applying the results of Paul Stamler's experiment (done
with an SM57 but it's the same capsule) which seemed to show best results
at about 500 Ohm loading. 620 in parallel with 2.5k is 497 which is close
enough.


--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[LAB]

As I said here some time ago I've soldered a 150 Ohm resistor directly
to the capsule terminals, before the transformer. Impedance there is lower,
then resistor have to be lower. Being before the transformer the resistor
has more control on the moving coil.

--
Gianluca

[geoff]

Peter Larsen wrote:
>
> This should cause a boom in the sale of 1 kOhm resistors, oughta be
> enough with the typical mic pre being around 2kOhm. 620 parallel with
> 2k5 or less could be overdoing it. My recollection without checking
> is that the SM58 is a 150 Ohm source, the general recommendation in
> the Sennheiser yearbook in the old days was 5 to 10 times mic
> internal, ie. to load with 750 Ohm migth be the sweet load as there
> are mechanical resonances to tame. Same guideline works well with
> moving coil phono-cartridges.

I use 750R

geoff

[LAB]

I said:
>> As I said here some time ago I've soldered a 150 Ohm resistor
directly to the capsule terminals, before the transformer.

Ooops... 27 Ohm directly to the capsule, before the transformer. Capsule
impedance is very low.
--
Gianluca

[PStamler]

On Jul 13, 12:57*am, "geoff" > wrote:
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>
> > This should cause a boom in the sale of 1 kOhm resistors, oughta be
> > enough with the typical mic pre being around 2kOhm. 620 parallel with
> > 2k5 or less could be overdoing it. My recollection without checking
> > is that the SM58 is a 150 Ohm source, the general recommendation in
> > the Sennheiser yearbook in the old days was 5 to 10 times mic
> > internal, ie. to load with 750 Ohm migth be the sweet load as there
> > are mechanical resonances to tame. Same guideline works well with
> > moving coil phono-cartridges.
>
> I use 750R

I like 681R.

Peace,
Paul

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

PStamler wrote:

> On Jul 13, 12:57 am, "geoff" > wrote:

>> I use 750R

> I like 681R.

What I have been wondering about ever since someone mentioned putting the
resistor inside the mic, ie. between capsule and transformer primary is
whether a mic on the secondary side, ie. between mic and preamp, also makes
the transformer behave better .... ???? ... is it at all an advantage to
have it there ... ??? ... back when I used gray MD421's I got new custom
made hindparts for them that fittet a XLRM as if it was a large tüchel and
thus allowed connection directly to the voicecoil, didn't harm their sound
no thing :) ... less between transducer and amplifier ... regardless of
direction of signal flow ... often is more.

> Peace,
> Paul

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/14/2011 2:31 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:

> What I have been wondering about ever since someone mentioned putting the
> resistor inside the mic, ie. between capsule and transformer primary is
> whether a mic on the secondary side, ie. between mic and preamp, also makes
> the transformer behave better .... ????

I was wondering about that myself, but everyone is entitled
to do his own experiments, and interpretaion of the results..

When I read about Paul's experiment it made sense to me
because putting the resistor on the output side of the
transformer loaded the transformer (presumably properly) and
that's probably where the nasty resonances come from.
Putting the resistor across the mic element damps the voice
coil, and you probably don't want to do that.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 7/14/2011 2:31 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>
> > What I have been wondering about ever since someone mentioned putting
> > the resistor inside the mic, ie. between capsule and transformer
> > primary is whether a mic on the secondary side, ie. between mic and
> > preamp, also makes the transformer behave better .... ????
>
> I was wondering about that myself, but everyone is entitled
> to do his own experiments, and interpretaion of the results..
>
> When I read about Paul's experiment it made sense to me
> because putting the resistor on the output side of the
> transformer loaded the transformer (presumably properly) and
> that's probably where the nasty resonances come from.
> Putting the resistor across the mic element damps the voice
> coil, and you probably don't want to do that.

I'm more inclined to think that *after* the transformer works best because
it is "seen" *through* the transformer by the mic element and damps its
cranky performance while also smoothing any misbehavior in the transformer
as well. Scott?

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Mark]

On Jul 14, 7:55*pm, Roy W. Rising >
wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
> > On 7/14/2011 2:31 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>
> > > What I have been wondering about ever since someone mentioned putting
> > > the resistor inside the mic, ie. between capsule and transformer
> > > primary is whether a mic on the secondary side, ie. between mic and
> > > preamp, also makes the transformer behave better .... ????
>
> > I was wondering about that myself, but everyone is entitled
> > to do his own experiments, and interpretaion of the results..
>
> > When I read about Paul's experiment it made sense to me
> > because putting the resistor on the output side of the
> > transformer loaded the transformer (presumably properly) and
> > that's probably where the nasty resonances come from.
> > Putting the resistor across the mic element damps the voice
> > coil, and you probably don't want to do that.
>
> I'm more inclined to think that *after* the transformer works best because
> it is "seen" *through* the transformer by the mic element and damps its
> cranky performance while also smoothing any misbehavior in the transformer
> as well. *Scott?
>
> --
> ~ Roy
> "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

assuming the transformer has 1/2 decent coupling between the pri and
sec then it would make little difference as long as the R value was
scaled accordingly.

Mark

[LAB]

>> assuming the transformer has 1/2 decent coupling between the pri
andsec then it would make little difference as long as the R value was
scaled accordingly.

That's right, but transformer is very small, wire is very thin then
winding resistance will not be very low. It will interfere in some manner.

--
Gianluca

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"LAB" > wrote:
> >> assuming the transformer has 1/2 decent coupling between the pri
> andsec then it would make little difference as long as the R value was
> scaled accordingly.
>
> That's right, but transformer is very small, wire is very thin then
> winding resistance will not be very low. It will interfere in some
> manner.

Microphone manufacturers and preamp makers choose transformers that are
essentially transparent at mic level. Their size is small because the
voltages do not require more. For a short time, there was a myth about HF
response. Then someone reminded us that RF transformers exist and AF is
puny by comparison. EV's Lou Burroughs said he eliminated the transformers
as of the RE (Research Engineering) series because preamp makers had
finally agreed on "2K or greater" as a non-loading standard for input
impedances. The elements themselves became 150 ohm generators. I doubt
that the transformers in Shure mics contribute significantly to their
sound.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/14/2011 9:40 PM, Mark wrote:

> assuming the transformer has 1/2 decent coupling between the pri and
> sec then it would make little difference as long as the R value was
> scaled accordingly.

Everything works better when all other things are equal. But
they aren't. That's why we do it the way it works best in
practice.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> PStamler wrote:
>
>> On Jul 13, 12:57 am, "geoff" > wrote:
>
>>> I use 750R
>
>> I like 681R.
>
> What I have been wondering about ever since someone mentioned putting the
> resistor inside the mic, ie. between capsule and transformer primary is
> whether a mic on the secondary side, ie. between mic and preamp, also
> makes the transformer behave better .... ???? ... is it at all an
> advantage to have it there ... ??? ... back when I used gray MD421's I got
> new custom made hindparts for them that fittet a XLRM as if it was a large
> tüchel and thus allowed connection directly to the voicecoil, didn't harm
> their sound no thing :) ... less between transducer and amplifier ...
> regardless of direction of signal flow ... often is more.

I don't know what the turns ratio of the SM58 transformer is, but I'm sure
it is there to transform impedances. Thus the effect of a given value
resistor might change quite a bit unless you change its value to suit which
side of the transformer it is on. Unless the transformer is loosely coupled,
whatever you do on one side is pretty well coupled to the other side.

[Anahata]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:44:40 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> Thus the effect of a given
> value resistor might change quite a bit unless you change its value to
> suit which side of the transformer it is on.

It certainly would, and in a precisely predictable way: the resistor
value should be multiplied by the impedance ratio, (which is also the
square of the turns ratio).

> Unless the transformer is
> loosely coupled, whatever you do on one side is pretty well coupled to
> the other side.

Yes. poor coupling is the only reason why it should make any difference
which side you put the resistor, once you've calculated the correct value.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Anahata wrote:

> Yes. poor coupling is the only reason why it should make any
> difference which side you put the resistor, once you've calculated
> the correct value.

My wonderings were more in the general direction of a hf resonance on the
secondary side.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/14/2011 2:31 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>
>> What I have been wondering about ever since someone mentioned putting the
>> resistor inside the mic, ie. between capsule and transformer primary is
>> whether a mic on the secondary side, ie. between mic and preamp, also
>> makes
>> the transformer behave better .... ????
>
> I was wondering about that myself, but everyone is entitled to do his
> own experiments, and interpretaion of the results..
>
> When I read about Paul's experiment it made sense to me because putting
> the resistor on the output side of the transformer loaded the
> transformer (presumably properly) and that's probably where the nasty
> resonances come from. Putting the resistor across the mic element damps
> the voice coil, and you probably don't want to do that.
>
>


The original impetus for this is "the SM57 is designed to drive
a transformer @ 600 ohms". So I'd load the secondary.

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
>For a short time, there was a myth about HF response.
>Then someone reminded us that RF transformers exist and AF is
> puny by comparison.

Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often designed
to cover 10+ octaves!
(not saying good AF transformers don't exist of course, just that your
argument is pointless)

Trevor.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Trevor" > wrote:
> "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
> ...
> >For a short time, there was a myth about HF response.
> >Then someone reminded us that RF transformers exist and AF is
> > puny by comparison.
>
> Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often
> designed to cover 10+ octaves!
> (not saying good AF transformers don't exist of course, just that your
> argument is pointless)
>
> Trevor.

Thanks, Trev. So I guess the bandwidth of a typical RF xfmr is less than
20 KHz. Right?

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>"Trevor" > wrote:
>> "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >For a short time, there was a myth about HF response.
>> >Then someone reminded us that RF transformers exist and AF is
>> > puny by comparison.
>>
>> Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often
>> designed to cover 10+ octaves!
>> (not saying good AF transformers don't exist of course, just that your
>> argument is pointless)
>>
>> Trevor.
>
>Thanks, Trev. So I guess the bandwidth of a typical RF xfmr is less than
>20 KHz. Right?

The ones in IF strips have less than that, hopefully.

But think of it in terms of octaves.

Also realize that making transformers at very very low frequencies is
a lot harder than making transformers at very very high ones.
--scott


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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:11:09 -0500, Anahata >
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:44:40 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>> Thus the effect of a given
>> value resistor might change quite a bit unless you change its value to
>> suit which side of the transformer it is on.
>
>It certainly would, and in a precisely predictable way: the resistor
>value should be multiplied by the impedance ratio, (which is also the
>square of the turns ratio).
>
>> Unless the transformer is
>> loosely coupled, whatever you do on one side is pretty well coupled to
>> the other side.
>
>Yes. poor coupling is the only reason why it should make any difference
>which side you put the resistor, once you've calculated the correct value.

The fact that a mic transformer is still reasonably flat up to 100kHz
or so means that the coupling is excellent. Even the slightest leakage
inductance would mean massive top end roll-off.

d

[Trevor]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
>> >For a short time, there was a myth about HF response.
>> >Then someone reminded us that RF transformers exist and AF is
>> > puny by comparison.
>>
>> Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often
>> designed to cover 10+ octaves!
>> (not saying good AF transformers don't exist of course, just that your
>> argument is pointless)
>>
>
> Thanks, Trev. So I guess the bandwidth of a typical RF xfmr is less than
> 20 KHz. Right?

Nope, it means you have no idea what bandwidth in octaves means, and why
it's important.

Trevor.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Trevor" > wrote:
> "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >For a short time, there was a myth about HF response.
> >> >Then someone reminded us that RF transformers exist and AF is
> >> > puny by comparison.
> >>
> >> Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often
> >> designed to cover 10+ octaves!
> >> (not saying good AF transformers don't exist of course, just that your
> >> argument is pointless)
> >>
> >
> > Thanks, Trev. So I guess the bandwidth of a typical RF xfmr is less
> > than 20 KHz. Right?
>
> Nope, it means you have no idea what bandwidth in octaves means, and why
> it's important.
>
> Trevor.

I'm sorry. No flame intended.

The simple fact is that AF transformer manufacturers have been making high
quality products for many decades. Those found in microphones from Shure
and EV certainly are not likely to contribute unwanted performance
artifacts. The capsule itself and it's surroundings are the main culprits.

I prefer to use mics that are as close to ideal as possible and then
introduce whatever damage I like through use of EQ and other kinds of
processing. An early (1969) example can be found on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSajFnkUxQY

The worst aspect of the sound is the orchestra leakage from an Altec A7
(yuck) into the Beyer M160 boom mic, which at times is eight feet away from
Tom. I think the mix holds up pretty well, in spite of the YouTube damage.
(I have a 1/4" mono master that sounds much better.)

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> The worst aspect of the sound is the orchestra leakage from an Altec
> A7 (yuck) into the Beyer M160 boom mic, which at times is eight feet
> away from Tom.

Ah, telephone sound explained, thanks.

> I think the mix holds up pretty well, in spite of the
> YouTube damage. (I have a 1/4" mono master that sounds much better.)

It holds up very well, thank you ver much. The "no overdub" Elvis version
that is listed in the context is musically a very strong contender, less
gravy and caramel sauce than it is usually served with goes well with his
voice. Took me some decades to learn to listen through it and actually hear
him.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
>> >> >For a short time, there was a myth about HF response.
>> >> >Then someone reminded us that RF transformers exist and AF is
>> >> > puny by comparison.
>> >>
>> >> Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often
>> >> designed to cover 10+ octaves!
>> >> (not saying good AF transformers don't exist of course, just that your
>> >> argument is pointless)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thanks, Trev. So I guess the bandwidth of a typical RF xfmr is less
>> > than 20 KHz. Right?
>>
>> Nope, it means you have no idea what bandwidth in octaves means, and why
>> it's important.
>>
>
> I'm sorry. No flame intended.

Sure seems like.

> The simple fact is that AF transformer manufacturers have been making
high
> quality products for many decades.

As I already said in my original reply! (still right there above) That does
not change the fact your original statement is pointless, and your ignorance
of the different requirements of AF and RF obvious.

Trevor.

[Mark]

>
> >> Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often
> >> designed to cover 10+ octaves!
>>
>
> Trevor.


i'm not sure (nor care) what point you are trying to make but you
might want to consider this...

1 MHz to 1 GHz for example would be about 10 octaves and there ARE
many RF xformers that can do that...

http://www.minicircuits.com/products/transformers_sm_c.shtml

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>
>I'm more inclined to think that *after* the transformer works best because
>it is "seen" *through* the transformer by the mic element and damps its
>cranky performance while also smoothing any misbehavior in the transformer
>as well. Scott?

I would tend to suspect that is true, but in the case of something like an
SM-58, the element ringing and overshoot is so much worse than that of the
transformer. On the other hand, the transformer inside those things is not
exactly high quality either.

But the REAL deal is that if you add the resistor external to the mike, you
can add it or remove it depending on what kind of console you're going into.
You add it internally, you get a mike that will sound dull going into a
transformer-input console.

And maybe once in a while you want the sound of an unterminated SM-57 with
that tizz and distortion in the presence band, maybe for snare. So you take
the termination adaptor off.

If you put it inside the mike you can't remove it easily in the field.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>I don't know what the turns ratio of the SM58 transformer is, but I'm sure
>it is there to transform impedances. Thus the effect of a given value
>resistor might change quite a bit unless you change its value to suit which
>side of the transformer it is on. Unless the transformer is loosely coupled,
>whatever you do on one side is pretty well coupled to the other side.

It's maybe a 1:3 step-up, so 1:9 impedance ratio. So putting a 100 ohm
resistor on the primary instead of a 600 ohm resistor on the secondary
would sound somewhere in the general ballpark, maybe a touch high.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Mark > wrote:
> >
> > >> Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often
> > >> designed to cover 10+ octaves!
> >>
> >
> > Trevor.
>
> i'm not sure (nor care) what point you are trying to make but you
> might want to consider this...
>
> 1 MHz to 1 GHz for example would be about 10 octaves and there ARE
> many RF xformers that can do that...
>
> http://www.minicircuits.com/products/transformers_sm_c.shtml
>
> Mark

Thanks for the clarification, Mark.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote:
> Roy W. Rising wrote:
>
> > The worst aspect of the sound is the orchestra leakage from an Altec
> > A7 (yuck) into the Beyer M160 boom mic, which at times is eight feet
> > away from Tom.
>
> Ah, telephone sound explained, thanks.
>
> > I think the mix holds up pretty well, in spite of the
> > YouTube damage. (I have a 1/4" mono master that sounds much better.)
>
> It holds up very well, thank you ver much. The "no overdub" Elvis version
> that is listed in the context is musically a very strong contender, less
> gravy and caramel sauce than it is usually served with goes well with his
> voice. Took me some decades to learn to listen through it and actually
> hear him.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thank you Peter. "Listening *through*" is a valuable knack. I like the
analogy of watching my neighbor's garage burn down through my kitchen
window. I'm not likely to notice how dirty the window might be.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Trevor]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> >> Which totally ignores the fact that RF transformers are not often
>> >> designed to cover 10+ octaves!
>
> i'm not sure (nor care) what point you are trying to make but you
> might want to consider this...
>
> 1 MHz to 1 GHz for example would be about 10 octaves and there ARE
> many RF xformers that can do that...
>
> http://www.minicircuits.com/products/transformers_sm_c.shtml



"Many" is a stretch, I'll bet there are FAR more audio transformers that can
do 10 octaves! And in what way are those RF transformers any better? Which
leads me to the only point I was actually making, WHAT is the purpose and
validity of the original claim (that you have snipped) in any case?

Trevor.