XLR connectors may be too large.

[Tobiah]

Wouldn't the modern micro usb connecter suffice now?

I'm asking because I see computer interface manufactures
struggle with front panel real estate, etc.

If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
power, what would be the focus of your thinking?

Thanks,

Tobiah


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Tobiah" wrote in message ...

> Wouldn't the modern micro USB connecter suffice now?

That's scarier than blueberry pancakes.

The XLR is a professional connector designed to tolerate a lot of abuse. It
has a built-in strain relief, and is (sorta) easy to solder to effect repairs,
or make up your own cables.

Also note the large pins. These keep the resistance down, which is important
when working with low-Z mics.

The only thing "wrong" with the XLR is its size. And I'll take reliability
over size any day.

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote: "That's scarier than blueberry pancakes. "

Seriously? Blueberry are one of the most popular non-plain pancakes out there. LOL

Back on topic, how about min-XLR(Shure uses them on lav to body packs)?

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Tobiah" wrote in message ...
>
>> Wouldn't the modern micro USB connecter suffice now?
>
> That's scarier than blueberry pancakes.
>
> The XLR is a professional connector designed to tolerate a lot of abuse.
> It has a built-in strain relief, and is (sorta) easy to solder to effect
> repairs, or make up your own cables.
>
> Also note the large pins. These keep the resistance down, which is
> important when working with low-Z mics.
>
> The only thing "wrong" with the XLR is its size. And I'll take reliability
> over size any day.

Mini-XLR would work for me, or maybe a circular connector with threads or a
bayonet mechanism for better security. The current latches having a nasty
way of failing with the plug locked in place.

Sean

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/18/2014 8:21 PM, wrote:

> Back on topic, how about min-XLR(Shure uses them on lav to body packs)?

There's something really nice about a standard. Why does a device for
professional use need to be so small that you can't use standard
connectors on it? OK, I can see body pack devices using miniature
connectors, and the small XLR type connectors are nearly as good as the
full sized ones if you get a good brand.

When it comes to multiple line level inputs and outputs, there are a
couple of standard pinouts for DB=25 connectors, and they work pretty
well as long as you don't mate and un-mate them for too many cycles.
They're fine for installed gear, a little iffy for field setups.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 19/09/2014 11:27 a.m., Tobiah wrote:
> Wouldn't the modern micro usb connecter suffice now?
>
> I'm asking because I see computer interface manufactures
> struggle with front panel real estate, etc.
>
> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tobiah

May be news to you, but most microphones are not used 'occasionally' on
desks in front of computers, or similar environments.

The connector needs to be a mechanical (and electrical) interface to a
substantial cable, and a micro connector of any sort would just not be
up to it.

There are already TAF3 (etc) 'mini-XLRs" that are used in less arduous
conditions (as in wireless mic body packs), and even these prove a weak
link.

I think the trad XLR still has everything going for it.


geoff

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/18/2014 9:05 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 19/09/2014 11:27 a.m., Tobiah wrote:
>> Wouldn't the modern micro usb connecter suffice now?
>>
>> I'm asking because I see computer interface manufactures
>> struggle with front panel real estate, etc.
>>
>> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
>> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tobiah
>
> May be news to you, but most microphones are not used 'occasionally' on
> desks in front of computers, or similar environments.
>
> The connector needs to be a mechanical (and electrical) interface to a
> substantial cable, and a micro connector of any sort would just not be
> up to it.
>
> There are already TAF3 (etc) 'mini-XLRs" that are used in less arduous
> conditions (as in wireless mic body packs), and even these prove a weak
> link.
>
> I think the trad XLR still has everything going for it.
>
>
> geoff
>
>
+1
==
--

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

>>"That's scarier than blueberry pancakes. "

> Seriously?

That's what Count Floyd said.


> Back on topic, how about min-XLR (Shure uses them on lav to body packs)?

Sounds like a better idea than micro USB connectors.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ...

> Mini-XLR would work for me, or maybe a circular connector
> with threads or a bayonet mechanism for better security.

You should patent that. The only practical problem I see is keeping the
bayonet clean enough to avoid jamming. (This isn't a problem with camera
lenses because they're not abused in dirty environments.)

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:
> Wouldn't the modern micro usb connecter suffice now?
>
> I'm asking because I see computer interface manufactures
> struggle with front panel real estate, etc.
>
> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?
>

It would be hard to design a better connector than the XLR.

> Thanks,
>
> Tobiah
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>

Electronics have no business being in your pocket. They should be
large, consume reams of power and contain life-threatening voltages.

Or you could just put 8 XLRs in one RU like all the prosumer D/A/A/D
modules in the world.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:11:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Tobiah" wrote in message ...
>
>> Wouldn't the modern micro USB connecter suffice now?
>
>That's scarier than blueberry pancakes.
>
>The XLR is a professional connector designed to tolerate a lot of abuse. It
>has a built-in strain relief, and is (sorta) easy to solder to effect repairs,
>or make up your own cables.
>
>Also note the large pins. These keep the resistance down, which is important
>when working with low-Z mics.
>
>The only thing "wrong" with the XLR is its size. And I'll take reliability
>over size any day.

That being the case Lemo make beautiful XLR-like connectors that are
much smaller, but equally rugged.

http://www.lemo.com/en/standard-range/s-connector?domain=[term_node_tid_1]

for example

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?

No new design required, the mini-tuchel exists and it not prone to phantom
noise. Electrically It is vastly superior AND has an actual standard.

The XLR de facto standard is based on each individual manufacturers
interpretation of the original Cannon xlr with the rubber mounted connectors
that were MEANT to be forced sideways by the male plug to ensure contact.

The only thing the xlr can do better is loudspeaker signal.

> Tobiah

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ...

>> Mini-XLR would work for me, or maybe a circular connector
>> with threads or a bayonet mechanism for better security.

> You should patent that.

Prior art: mini tüchel. A bayonet version exists, it is crap, I have seen it
used on printing presses.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Sean Conolly]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>
>> "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ...
>
>>> Mini-XLR would work for me, or maybe a circular connector
>>> with threads or a bayonet mechanism for better security.
>
>> You should patent that.
>
> Prior art: mini tüchel. A bayonet version exists, it is crap, I have seen
> it used on printing presses.

There's lots of military connectors like that too, but most are bigger than
an XLR.

Sean

[geoff]

On 19/09/2014 1:02 p.m., Sean Conolly wrote:

>
> Mini-XLR would work for me, or maybe a circular connector with threads or a
> bayonet mechanism for better security. The current latches having a nasty
> way of failing with the plug locked in place.

Threads ? The word "crossed" springs to mind.

geoff

[geoff]

On 19/09/2014 1:03 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/18/2014 8:21 PM, wrote:
>
> > Back on topic, how about min-XLR(Shure uses them on lav to body packs)?
>
> There's something really nice about a standard. Why does a device for
> professional use need to be so small that you can't use standard
> connectors on it? OK, I can see body pack devices using miniature
> connectors, and the small XLR type connectors are nearly as good as the
> full sized ones if you get a good brand.

Like to see one with the weight of a mic cable hanging out of a socket.
How long do you think that would last ?

geoff

[Sean Conolly]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:11:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Tobiah" wrote in message ...
>>
>>> Wouldn't the modern micro USB connecter suffice now?
>>
>>That's scarier than blueberry pancakes.
>>
>>The XLR is a professional connector designed to tolerate a lot of abuse.
>>It
>>has a built-in strain relief, and is (sorta) easy to solder to effect
>>repairs,
>>or make up your own cables.
>>
>>Also note the large pins. These keep the resistance down, which is
>>important
>>when working with low-Z mics.
>>
>>The only thing "wrong" with the XLR is its size. And I'll take reliability
>>over size any day.
>
> That being the case Lemo make beautiful XLR-like connectors that are
> much smaller, but equally rugged.
>
> http://www.lemo.com/en/standard-range/s-connector?domain=[term_node_tid_1]

I'd love to see some in person, or maybe how much they cost, especially the
multipin ones.

Sean

[geoff]

On 19/09/2014 6:19 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
>> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
>> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?
>
> No new design required, the mini-tuchel exists and it not prone to phantom
> noise. Electrically It is vastly superior AND has an actual standard.

Is that what I have old some vintage AKGs and Sennheisers ? Anything
that requires screwing on/off for normal operation is a pain. And
certainly more fragile than an XLR.

> The XLR de facto standard is based on each individual manufacturers
> interpretation of the original Cannon xlr with the rubber mounted connectors
> that were MEANT to be forced sideways by the male plug to ensure contact.
>
> The only thing the xlr can do better is loudspeaker signal.

And does equally well for mic cables (apart from some inferior brands)
in real repeated everyday convenient quick use.

IMO.

geoff

[Sean Conolly]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> On 19/09/2014 6:19 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
>>> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
>>> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?
>>
>> No new design required, the mini-tuchel exists and it not prone to
>> phantom
>> noise. Electrically It is vastly superior AND has an actual standard.
>
> Is that what I have old some vintage AKGs and Sennheisers ? Anything that
> requires screwing on/off for normal operation is a pain. And certainly
> more fragile than an XLR.
>
>> The XLR de facto standard is based on each individual manufacturers
>> interpretation of the original Cannon xlr with the rubber mounted
>> connectors
>> that were MEANT to be forced sideways by the male plug to ensure contact.
>>
>> The only thing the xlr can do better is loudspeaker signal.
>
> And does equally well for mic cables (apart from some inferior brands) in
> real repeated everyday convenient quick use.

I have to say for, something so simple I'm impressed at how many cheapo
companies get it wrong - badly.

Sean

[John Williamson]

On 19/09/2014 02:34, Ron C wrote:
> On 9/18/2014 9:05 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 19/09/2014 11:27 a.m., Tobiah wrote:
>>> Wouldn't the modern micro usb connecter suffice now?
>>>
>>> I'm asking because I see computer interface manufactures
>>> struggle with front panel real estate, etc.
>>>
>>> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
>>> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Tobiah
>>
>> May be news to you, but most microphones are not used 'occasionally' on
>> desks in front of computers, or similar environments.
>>
>> The connector needs to be a mechanical (and electrical) interface to a
>> substantial cable, and a micro connector of any sort would just not be
>> up to it.
>>
>> There are already TAF3 (etc) 'mini-XLRs" that are used in less arduous
>> conditions (as in wireless mic body packs), and even these prove a weak
>> link.
>>
>> I think the trad XLR still has everything going for it.
>>
>>
>> geoff
>>
>>
> +1
> ==
> --
+1
Also, if people start using a different connector for some microphones
and microphone inputs, until the new standard, whatever it is, becomes
universal, we'll all have to start carrying adaptors round as well as
all the other stuff. They are not only liable to get lost, they are
another point of failure and weakness in the signal path.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Sean Conolly > wrote:
> Mini-XLR would work for me,

How would you get a standard twin screened cable into one of those?

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:
> > No new design required, the mini-tuchel exists and it not prone to
> > phantom noise. Electrically It is vastly superior AND has an actual
> > standard.

> Is that what I have old some vintage AKGs and Sennheisers ? Anything
> that requires screwing on/off for normal operation is a pain. And
> certainly more fragile than an XLR.

At one time, BBC TV used AKG 451 mics (and others) with Tuchel connectors.
And it was by far the most common mic in use by them at that time. Two
reasons for using Touchel. Smaller, so neater when 'in shot'. Less
handling noise than the then standard Cannon XLR, which given some wear
could 'rattle'.

--
*We never really grow*up, we only learn how to act in public.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Tobiah > wrote:

> Wouldn't the modern micro usb connecter suffice now?
>
> I'm asking because I see computer interface manufactures
> struggle with front panel real estate, etc.
>
> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?

I have standardised on DIN connectors on all my portable P.A. equipment
for mic and mic-level inputs.

They use less panel space than an XLR and less depth behind the panel.
In addition, the die-cast types are robust, available in locking and
non-locking versions and offer a full range of plugs and socket bodies
for panel or line fitting. They also do them in different pin numbers
and arrangements, which are useful if you sometimes need to add power to
signal connections but still want interchangeability (you don't actually
need to phantom the power if there are enough pins and wires to carry it
separately).

The obvious disadvantage of the small size is that the solder
connections are a bit more fiddly than XLRs. The other disadvantage is
incompatibility with the majority of commercial equipment, but that
would be solved if everyone changed over to them.


A couple of further advantages when working in the field:

1) If anyone is tempted to nick any of my kit, they will soon realise
they can't use it or sell it

2) If anyone is tempted to plug in anything that I haven't approved (by
providing them with an adaptor or interface box), they won't be able to
do it.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/19/2014 2:32 AM, geoff wrote:
>> the small XLR type connectors are nearly as good as the
>> full sized ones if you get a good brand.

> Like to see one with the weight of a mic cable hanging out of a socket.
> How long do you think that would last ?

A long time if you use the right size mic cable. I have the same worry
about mini headphone jacks, which are everywhere.

When I'm faced with using something with a connector that isn't very
robust, I make up an adapter with a short lead to a standard connector,
and I'm careful about putting things where the stress on the "lite"
connector will be minimal.

If you must use miniaturized gear, you need to consider the whole
system, which includes cables and connectors. Use what's appropriate and
you'll be OK.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/19/2014 5:29 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> Mini-XLR would work for me,
> How would you get a standard twin screened cable into one of those?

Why even try? Make an adapter or make or buy skinny mic cables.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

(I dunno who wrote)
>> That being the case Lemo make beautiful XLR-like connectors that are
>> >much smaller, but equally rugged.

On 9/19/2014 2:35 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:
> I'd love to see some in person, or maybe how much they cost, especially the
> multipin ones.

If you have to ask . . . . you know the rest.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/18/2014 9:05 PM, geoff wrote:

> May be news to you, but most microphones are not used 'occasionally' on
> desks in front of computers, or similar environments.

There are a lot of microphones that are in fixed installations, though
there's really no need for miniaturization in most of those cases.

> There are already TAF3 (etc) 'mini-XLRs" that are used in less arduous
> conditions (as in wireless mic body packs), and even these prove a weak
> link.

A body pack is a "less arduous" condition?


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 19/09/2014 11:01 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/19/2014 5:29 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> Mini-XLR would work for me,
>> How would you get a standard twin screened cable into one of those?
>
> Why even try? Make an adapter or make or buy skinny mic cables.
>


Mic cables are the dimensions they are for a reason.

geoff

[geoff]

On 19/09/2014 10:49 p.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

>
>
> A couple of further advantages when working in the field:
>
> 1) If anyone is tempted to nick any of my kit, they will soon realise
> they can't use it or sell it
>
> 2) If anyone is tempted to plug in anything that I haven't approved (by
> providing them with an adaptor or interface box), they won't be able to
> do it.


Any discerning thief wouldn't been seen dead with anything with DIN
connectors ! (I take it you mean the horrible 3 and 5 pin DIN
connectors that were common on hifi gear in the olden days ....), as

opposed to the more sophisticated DIN specified connectors.


geoff

[None]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> On 19/09/2014 11:27 a.m., Tobiah wrote:
>> Wouldn't the modern micro usb connecter suffice now?
>>
>> I'm asking because I see computer interface manufactures
>> struggle with front panel real estate, etc.
>>
>> If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
>> power, what would be the focus of your thinking?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tobiah
>
> May be news to you, but most microphones are not used
> 'occasionally' on desks in front of computers, or similar
> environments.
>
> The connector needs to be a mechanical (and electrical) interface to
> a substantial cable, and a micro connector of any sort would just
> not be up to it.
>
> There are already TAF3 (etc) 'mini-XLRs" that are used in less
> arduous conditions (as in wireless mic body packs), and even these
> prove a weak link.

Are these the ones Switchcraft calls "Tiny QG" connectors? If so, they
don't deserve to be called "mini XLR". They don't have much in common
with the XLR-type connectors, other than the fact that the shell makes
before the pins. I decline to label these things "mini-XLR". HAving
been forced to used them in a specialized audio system installation,
I'm familiar with them, and I would never spec them for any project.
They're way too flimsy, and they don't accept thick enough cables in
the strain relief, or thick enough conductors in the pins' solder
cups, for my needs.

>
> I think the trad XLR still has everything going for it.

Yup.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/19/2014 7:28 AM, geoff wrote:
>> Why even try? Make an adapter or make or buy skinny mic cables.

> Mic cables are the dimensions they are for a reason.

There are several reasons, and they're related. We want our mic cables
to be robust because they get stepped on, run over by hand trucks, rack
wheels, and fork lifts, get pulled, get wet, and they need to have
reasonably low capacitance if they're going to be run more than 25 feet
or so.

But

Things that are tiny and need need tiny connectors aren't designed for
being used in the same way as mic cables. They're special use devices,
and you can have special use mic cables to work with them. There's
miniature cable that will work fine as long as it isn't subject to the
physical abuse that we expect "standard" mic cables to deal with.

Miniaturization has its price.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 9/19/2014 5:29 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> >> Mini-XLR would work for me,
> > How would you get a standard twin screened cable into one of those?

> Why even try? Make an adapter or make or buy skinny mic cables.

Skinny mic cables wouldn't last 5 minutes with some of my work. Nor would
a Mini-XLR. And why would I want to use adaptors when not needed? Keep
connectors to a minimum is always the best bet.

Perhaps you've not noticed just how many others have 'adopted' the XLR for
uses nothing to do with audio. Things like mobility scooter chargers.
Because it is a well designed and very good value connector.

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:
> Any discerning thief wouldn't been seen dead with anything with DIN
> connectors ! (I take it you mean the horrible 3 and 5 pin DIN
> connectors that were common on hifi gear in the olden days ....), as

> opposed to the more sophisticated DIN specified connectors.

Possibly the worst thing about those domestic DINs was the plastic melting
at such a low temperature. Hardly ideal for a solder connector. And I
dunno what the pins were plated with, but it sure corroded easily even
indoors.

But 'Touchel' which shared the same basic pin spacing etc is a decent
enough connector. For some things.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Tobiah > wrote:
>Wouldn't the modern micro usb connecter suffice now?

It wouldn't last five minutes at an outdoor festival. The first time anyone
even stepped on it, it would be wrecked.

>I'm asking because I see computer interface manufactures
>struggle with front panel real estate, etc.
>
>If you were to design the microphone plug today with phantom
>power, what would be the focus of your thinking?

What I like about the XLR is that the pins don't bend easily and they have
a lot of surface area so contact issues aren't a real problem. Bad
connections very seldom turn out to be a dirty XLR. You can step on them
and run a golf cart over them without any problem, and when they get muddy
you can hose them down.

If I had to design a plug today, I'd probably drop the whole idea of phantom
power and I'd include an additional pin for powering. Then I would have
notches in the side of the connector which indicated the source impedance of
the microphone so if the preamp were adjustable it could set itself for the
mike automatically.

But the MOST important thing I would do is to make sure the male connector
shell is physically jumpered to pin 1 internally and that the female one
was not, so that when you plug a string of cables in together all of the
connector shells are grounded and the shield runs completely along the
cable. Proper use of this would eliminate Pin 1 issues and internal ground
loops as well.

But make it smaller? No. If people need a small mike connector, they can
use a LEMO, but if they do they'll have to deal with the added delicacy.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>Mini-XLR would work for me, or maybe a circular connector with threads or a
>bayonet mechanism for better security. The current latches having a nasty
>way of failing with the plug locked in place.

I find the mini-XLRs very flaky; they are not mechanically all that solid.
If I had to use a miniature connector, I would take the LEMO over the mini-XLR
any day.

And there's always the tuchel, which is really just a DIN with a ring to
secure it. Like all DINs, the pins get bent in the field.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Electronics have no business being in your pocket. They should be
>large, consume reams of power and contain life-threatening voltages.

If you're going to build something that can fit in your pocket, you need to
design it so that it can go through the washing machine without damage,
because sooner or later it will.

>Or you could just put 8 XLRs in one RU like all the prosumer D/A/A/D
>modules in the world.

There are standard DB-25 configurations for that too. They work well if you
use the proper machined pin plugs and sockets. They are somewhat delicate
for field work, but less so than Elcos.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
>> "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ...
>
>>> Mini-XLR would work for me, or maybe a circular connector
>>> with threads or a bayonet mechanism for better security.
>
>> You should patent that.
>
>Prior art: mini tüchel. A bayonet version exists, it is crap, I have seen it
>used on printing presses.


The bayonet one isn't a Tuchel, it's a "locking DIN" type. The Uher 4000
used 5-pin ones for microphone connectors and they were okay but the pins
were too small for rugged use. They DID have an extra pin for powering and
one for machine control, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
eb.com...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
>> ...
>>
>>> "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ...
>>
>>>> Mini-XLR would work for me, or maybe a circular connector
>>>> with threads or a bayonet mechanism for better security.
>>
>>> You should patent that.
>>
>> Prior art: mini tüchel. A bayonet version exists, it is crap, I have seen
>> it used on printing presses.
>
>There's lots of military connectors like that too, but most are bigger than
>an XLR.

You mean M-S connectors (or the civilian versions, the Amphenol Series 96).
I have seen those used for tube microphones before and they are quite
respectable.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 9/19/2014 2:32 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> the small XLR type connectors are nearly as good as the
>>> full sized ones if you get a good brand.
>
>> Like to see one with the weight of a mic cable hanging out of a socket.
>> How long do you think that would last ?
>
>A long time if you use the right size mic cable. I have the same worry
>about mini headphone jacks, which are everywhere.

Since Steve Lampen doesn't hang out here anymore, let me put in a good word
for Belden 1804A. It's tiny, light, reasonably strong, and has very good
noise rejection. It's a bit too heavy for a wireless mike, a bit too light
for a stage mike, and a good choice for things in-between.
--scott


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/19/2014 8:30 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Skinny mic cables wouldn't last 5 minutes with some of my work. Nor would
> a Mini-XLR.

And probably neither would a device that's so small that there isn't
room to mount an XLR connector on it when one is needed.

Don't use what isn't appropriate for the work and you won't have a problem.

> And why would I want to use adaptors when not needed? Keep
> connectors to a minimum is always the best bet.

I agree, so make up special cables. But then some people gripe about
that. Adapters are good for occasional use, like when I want to connect
the line input of my Zoom H2 which has a mini TRS jack to the outputs of
a console which has 1/4" or XLR connectors. And if I don't want to do
that, I can substitute my TASCAM DR-40, which has both XLR and 1/4"
inputs for the Zoom.

If you don't have the right stuff, get it.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

geoff > wrote:

> On 19/09/2014 10:49 p.m., Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A couple of further advantages when working in the field:
> >
> > 1) If anyone is tempted to nick any of my kit, they will soon realise
> > they can't use it or sell it
> >
> > 2) If anyone is tempted to plug in anything that I haven't approved (by
> > providing them with an adaptor or interface box), they won't be able to
> > do it.
>
>
> Any discerning thief wouldn't been seen dead with anything with DIN
> connectors ! (I take it you mean the horrible 3 and 5 pin DIN
> connectors that were common on hifi gear in the olden days ....), as
>
> opposed to the more sophisticated DIN specified connectors.

Good security principle: Make it look as though nobody would want it.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:

> In article >,
> geoff > wrote:
> > Any discerning thief wouldn't been seen dead with anything with DIN
> > connectors ! (I take it you mean the horrible 3 and 5 pin DIN
> > connectors that were common on hifi gear in the olden days ....), as
>
> > opposed to the more sophisticated DIN specified connectors.
>
> Possibly the worst thing about those domestic DINs was the plastic melting
> at such a low temperature. Hardly ideal for a solder connector.

The ones made by Hirschman don't show any tendency to melt, they use a
compound a bit like Bakelite but less brittle - in fact it can prove
quite difficult to melt-out and remove unwanted pins to make 'specials'.

> And I
> dunno what the pins were plated with, but it sure corroded easily even
> indoors.

I've never had much of a problem with the pins, but I wouldn't want to
rely on the shells for any sort of long-term contact, even though they
are fitted with earthing spring leafs.

> But 'Touchel' which shared the same basic pin spacing etc is a decent
> enough connector. For some things.

There is very little that is as robust as an XLR; but if you need to
keep the size and price down, my experience suggests that well-made DIN
connectors are the next best thing.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Electronics have no business being in your pocket. They should be
>> large, consume reams of power and contain life-threatening voltages.
>
> If you're going to build something that can fit in your pocket, you need to
> design it so that it can go through the washing machine without damage,
> because sooner or later it will.
>

Yep.

>> Or you could just put 8 XLRs in one RU like all the prosumer D/A/A/D
>> modules in the world.
>
> There are standard DB-25 configurations for that too. They work well if you
> use the proper machined pin plugs and sockets.

I'd rather ( for some reason ) not have to keep up with the harness.

IMO, you're just pushing the problem out to a patchbay. That could be
cool, it could be not-cool. Depends.

> They are somewhat delicate
> for field work, but less so than Elcos.
> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[PStamler]

Somebody mentioned that XLRs are festival-proof. They're also pretty much drunk-proof, an issue in the real world.

Peace,
Paul

[geoff]

On 20/09/2014 6:07 a.m., PStamler wrote:
> Somebody mentioned that XLRs are festival-proof. They're also pretty much drunk-proof, an issue in the real world.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>


.... and interface perfectly to the end of a hand-held mic.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler > wrote:
>Somebody mentioned that XLRs are festival-proof. They're also pretty much drunk-proof, an issue in the real world.

I am surprised that I have to point it out, but there is a very strong
connection between festivals and drunks.
--scott

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