Best Microphone for Upright Jazz Bass??

[Paul[_13_]]

I'd like 3 categories:

Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.

Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.

Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.

Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
of these...otherwise, I would record a track with
that, and mix it in with the mic track.

Thanks in advance for any advice....

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/1/2015 5:34 AM, Paul wrote:

> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.

Forget price ranges. How much can you afford? How good is the bass? Have
you ever recorded a bass before? What's the nature of the project? What
kind of music? Live or studio use? Would you consider renting a few
mics and experimenting, or is this a long term project that will never
end? Why so many questions? Because there is no single answer.

> Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
> bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
> of these...

But have YOU heard the sound of THIS pickup? Some of them are quite good
for certain applications.




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

[Nate Najar]

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 5:34:54 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote:
> I'd like 3 categories:
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.
>
> Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
> bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
> of these...otherwise, I would record a track with
> that, and mix it in with the mic track.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice....

under $200 I'd go with an omni electret condenser. Or an re15 if you can still find one that inexpensive. Or a used 421.

$200-$700 RE20 or md421.

over $700 there are lots of options and it depends more on the context than the budget. My preference is an RCA44 or a coles 4038.

I always take the pickup track. It can be useful to add a "point" on the note, especially during featured passages. It will never satisfy as the main sound though.

[hank alrich]

Paul > wrote:

> I'd like 3 categories:
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.

> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.

Nate's mic suggestions are apt, as are Mike's comments.

If I don't know the bass, the player, the room, and what I'm after for
the sound of the tracks, I could name mics all day, to no real benefit.
For some situations on the cheap, the Behringer omni would work fine.

> Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
> bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
> of these...otherwise, I would record a track with
> that, and mix it in with the mic track.

If it's the David Gage pickup, feed it to a Red-Eye and be amazed.

Even if it's not the DG, try that, if you haven't already.

> Thanks in advance for any advice....

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>I'd like 3 categories:
>
>Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.
>
>Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.
>
>Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.

It depends a lot on what the bass sounds like and how bad the room is, but
the EV N/D 468 is a definite sleeper and a good pick on a bass for cheap.
And of course you'll never go wrong with the RE-20 or the Sennheiser 441.

>Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
>bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
>of these...otherwise, I would record a track with
>that, and mix it in with the mic track.

It's going to have a clicky, thunky sound, and also it will have a bunch of
weird body resonances. You can attack the body resonances with a parametric
but it's still a very artificial sound. However, I am sure there is some
arrangement somewhere where it might be the right sound. Your chances of
finding any case where the pickup is useful for recording are very very
slim but someday it will happen.
--scott

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

[PStamler]

Here's a slightly off-center suggestion. You've probably seen bluegrass players wrap a mic in foam and stuff it into the bridge of the instrument. And it always sounds boomy and horrible thanks to the mic's proximity effect. Well, my colleague Boris Golynsky tried it with an *omni* mic, a Neumann KM 130, and the result sounded splendid. I've used an Oktava MK012 with the omni capsule and gotten similarly good results.

Maybe mix in a little of the pickup sound, but make sure it operates into a *very* high input impedance preamp. DI boxes don't cut it for piezo pickups.

On the high-priced end, a Neumann U 47 FET (they just reintroduced those) pointed at the shoulder of the instrument away from the player is a long-admired method.

Peace,
Paul

[Nate Najar]

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 2:13:33 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
> Here's a slightly off-center suggestion. You've probably seen bluegrass players wrap a mic in foam and stuff it into the bridge of the instrument. And it always sounds boomy and horrible thanks to the mic's proximity effect.. Well, my colleague Boris Golynsky tried it with an *omni* mic, a Neumann KM 130, and the result sounded splendid. I've used an Oktava MK012 with the omni capsule and gotten similarly good results.
>

That's what I do with the omni lav. hang it under the strings behind the bridge. It's terrific.



> Maybe mix in a little of the pickup sound, but make sure it operates into a *very* high input impedance preamp. DI boxes don't cut it for piezo pickups.

A countryman is good with most pickups, the Fire Eye Red Eye is superb, radial has one that is ok but most of there other aren't and you have to know which is which.


> On the high-priced end, a Neumann U 47 FET (they just reintroduced those) pointed at the shoulder of the instrument away from the player is a long-admired method.

this is really excellent but if there's a drummer nearby you had better situate the two musicians/instruments so the bass/drum blend in this mic is good for the mix. Because that mic will pick up cleveland. That's why I usually gravitate toward dynamics for bass....

>
> Peace,
> Paul

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/1/2015 3:46 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/1/2015 5:34 AM, Paul wrote:
>
>> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.
>> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.
>> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.
>
> Forget price ranges. How much can you afford? How good is the bass? Have
> you ever recorded a bass before? What's the nature of the project? What
> kind of music? Live or studio use? Would you consider renting a few
> mics and experimenting, or is this a long term project that will never
> end? Why so many questions? Because there is no single answer.
>

I could afford up to $1k or so, but obviously only want to spend
as much as will suffice for my case. The bass is an excellent
instrument, almost new condition, and a very good player. Acoustic
jazz piano trio, with drums and bass. Live recording in my home studio,
and will be a long term project, so would rather buy than rent.


>> Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
>> bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
>> of these...
>
> But have YOU heard the sound of THIS pickup? Some of them are quite good
> for certain applications.
>

I'll take a listen to it. I think Nate's advice is good, and it's
usually what I do with piezos on acoustic guitars. My point was that
piezos usually sound horrible by themselves, but if judiciously mixed
with a main mic, they can help.

Thanks for the input everyone. Unfortunately, it's mic shopping
time once again! Life could be worse....

:)

[Paul[_13_]]

On 5/1/2015 11:30 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 2:13:33 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
>> Here's a slightly off-center suggestion. You've probably seen bluegrass players wrap a mic in foam and stuff it into the bridge of the instrument. And it always sounds boomy and horrible thanks to the mic's proximity effect. Well, my colleague Boris Golynsky tried it with an *omni* mic, a Neumann KM 130, and the result sounded splendid. I've used an Oktava MK012 with the omni capsule and gotten similarly good results.
>>
>
> That's what I do with the omni lav. hang it under the strings behind the bridge. It's terrific.
>
>
>
>> Maybe mix in a little of the pickup sound, but make sure it operates into a *very* high input impedance preamp. DI boxes don't cut it for piezo pickups.
>
> A countryman is good with most pickups, the Fire Eye Red Eye is superb, radial has one that is ok but most of there other aren't and you have to know which is which.
>
>
>> On the high-priced end, a Neumann U 47 FET (they just reintroduced those) pointed at the shoulder of the instrument away from the player is a long-admired method.
>
> this is really excellent but if there's a drummer nearby you had better situate the two musicians/instruments so the bass/drum blend in this mic is good for the mix. Because that mic will pick up cleveland. That's why I usually gravitate toward dynamics for bass....
>


The Red Eye gets a very rare perfect 5 star user review:


http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Eye-Development-Red-Eye-Instrument-Preamp/dp/B0089EUZ4A

And greater than 1 million Ohms input impedance.

I'll look into it....

[hank alrich]

Paul > wrote:

> My point was that
> piezos usually sound horrible by themselves

The David Gage pickup does not sound horrible by itself into any DI I
with which I have heard it paired. It sounds _very good_ when paired
with a Red-Eye acoustic instrument preamp. When the Red-Eye is hooked to
a fine mic preamp the rig can sound much better than a halfway decent
mic on the same instrument.

http://www.fire-eye.com/

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> In article >, Paul > wrote:
> >I'd like 3 categories:
> >
> >Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.
> >
> >Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.
> >
> >Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.
>
> It depends a lot on what the bass sounds like and how bad the room is, but
> the EV N/D 468 is a definite sleeper and a good pick on a bass for cheap.
> And of course you'll never go wrong with the RE-20 or the Sennheiser 441.
>
> >Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
> >bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
> >of these...otherwise, I would record a track with
> >that, and mix it in with the mic track.
>
> It's going to have a clicky, thunky sound, and also it will have a bunch of
> weird body resonances. You can attack the body resonances with a parametric
> but it's still a very artificial sound. However, I am sure there is some
> arrangement somewhere where it might be the right sound. Your chances of
> finding any case where the pickup is useful for recording are very very
> slim but someday it will happen.
> --scott

None of that applies to the David Gage pickup, IME, unless all those
sonic properties are inherent in the instrument itself.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Paul > wrote:

> On 5/1/2015 11:30 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
> > On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 2:13:33 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
> >> Here's a slightly off-center suggestion. You've probably seen bluegrass
> >>players wrap a mic in foam and stuff it into the bridge of the
> >>instrument. And it always sounds boomy and horrible thanks to the mic's
> >>proximity effect. Well, my colleague Boris Golynsky tried it with an
> >>*omni* mic, a Neumann KM 130, and the result sounded splendid. I've used
> >>an Oktava MK012 with the omni capsule and gotten similarly good results.
> >>
> >
> > That's what I do with the omni lav. hang it under the strings behind
> >the bridge. It's terrific.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Maybe mix in a little of the pickup sound, but make sure it operates
> >into a *very* high input impedance preamp. DI boxes don't cut it for
> >piezo pickups.
> >
> > A countryman is good with most pickups, the Fire Eye Red Eye is superb,
> >radial has one that is ok but most of there other aren't and you have to
> >know which is which.
> >
> >
> >> On the high-priced end, a Neumann U 47 FET (they just reintroduced
> >> those) pointed at the shoulder of the instrument away from the player is
> >> a long-admired method.
> >
> > this is really excellent but if there's a drummer nearby you had better
> >situate the two musicians/instruments so the bass/drum blend in this mic
> >is good for the mix. Because that mic will pick up cleveland. That's
> >why I usually gravitate toward dynamics for bass....
> >
>
>
> The Red Eye gets a very rare perfect 5 star user review:
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Eye-Development-Red-Eye-Instrument-Preamp/dp/B0
> 089EUZ4A
>
> And greater than 1 million Ohms input impedance.
>
> I'll look into it....

And there is more to it than that. I have used many "DI"'s that offer
such input impedance. None of them give as natural a sound as does the
Red-Eye, which is less a "DI", and more what it is labeled, an acoustic
instrument preamp.

My previous favorite DI was my Evil Twin. No way to travel practically
with that, at my level of the game. Bought a Baggs PADI and figured I
was going to have to live and deal with it. First show in Austin in over
30 years with two instruments in hand and the PADI, the sound op notes
I'll have to swap instruments into the PADI, and asks if I would like to
try this little balck box with a big red button. Plugged the 1921 Gibson
A2 into that, and my jaw dropped. The PADI got sold at once.

I have received personal review messages from deeply experienced people
including a man who is staff and instructor at Omega, saying the
Dee-Eye, a barebones version of the device, is the finest bass DI he has
used in his forty years of professional recording. I doubt there is a DI
offered at any price in that period that he has not used.

It works on all kinds of things. I am recording Riley Osbourn and Floyd
Domino doing their Four Hands Boogie Wooie thing live, and we're running
each Yamaha P90 in stereo into a pair of Dee-Eyes. You need one hell of
a good room and monitor rig not to be fooled by the electronic pianos
into thinking you're hearing "real" pianos.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Nate Najar]

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 3:40:38 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> Paul > wrote:
>
> > On 5/1/2015 11:30 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 2:13:33 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
> > >> Here's a slightly off-center suggestion. You've probably seen bluegrass
> > >>players wrap a mic in foam and stuff it into the bridge of the
> > >>instrument. And it always sounds boomy and horrible thanks to the mic's
> > >>proximity effect. Well, my colleague Boris Golynsky tried it with an
> > >>*omni* mic, a Neumann KM 130, and the result sounded splendid. I've used
> > >>an Oktava MK012 with the omni capsule and gotten similarly good results.
> > >>
> > >
> > > That's what I do with the omni lav. hang it under the strings behind
> > >the bridge. It's terrific.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Maybe mix in a little of the pickup sound, but make sure it operates
> > >into a *very* high input impedance preamp. DI boxes don't cut it for
> > >piezo pickups.
> > >
> > > A countryman is good with most pickups, the Fire Eye Red Eye is superb,
> > >radial has one that is ok but most of there other aren't and you have to
> > >know which is which.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On the high-priced end, a Neumann U 47 FET (they just reintroduced
> > >> those) pointed at the shoulder of the instrument away from the player is
> > >> a long-admired method.
> > >
> > > this is really excellent but if there's a drummer nearby you had better
> > >situate the two musicians/instruments so the bass/drum blend in this mic
> > >is good for the mix. Because that mic will pick up cleveland. That's
> > >why I usually gravitate toward dynamics for bass....
> > >
> >
> >
> > The Red Eye gets a very rare perfect 5 star user review:
> >
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Eye-Development-Red-Eye-Instrument-Preamp/dp/B0
> > 089EUZ4A
> >
> > And greater than 1 million Ohms input impedance.
> >
> > I'll look into it....
>
> And there is more to it than that. I have used many "DI"'s that offer
> such input impedance. None of them give as natural a sound as does the
> Red-Eye, which is less a "DI", and more what it is labeled, an acoustic
> instrument preamp.
>
> My previous favorite DI was my Evil Twin. No way to travel practically
> with that, at my level of the game. Bought a Baggs PADI and figured I
> was going to have to live and deal with it. First show in Austin in over
> 30 years with two instruments in hand and the PADI, the sound op notes
> I'll have to swap instruments into the PADI, and asks if I would like to
> try this little balck box with a big red button. Plugged the 1921 Gibson
> A2 into that, and my jaw dropped. The PADI got sold at once.
>
> I have received personal review messages from deeply experienced people
> including a man who is staff and instructor at Omega, saying the
> Dee-Eye, a barebones version of the device, is the finest bass DI he has
> used in his forty years of professional recording. I doubt there is a DI
> offered at any price in that period that he has not used.
>
> It works on all kinds of things. I am recording Riley Osbourn and Floyd
> Domino doing their Four Hands Boogie Wooie thing live, and we're running
> each Yamaha P90 in stereo into a pair of Dee-Eyes. You need one hell of
> a good room and monitor rig not to be fooled by the electronic pianos
> into thinking you're hearing "real" pianos.
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

I use the redeye in the studio on rhodes often and it is incredible there too.....

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Paul wrote:
> I'd like 3 categories:
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.
>

Two approaches:

1) Something with top end like an AKG414 at about a foot or four away.
2) a small-element omni as if it were an acoustic guitar.
3) A nice dynamic... somewhere.

There are far too many degrees of freedom here. On URB, you
are miking how the room responds to it, bot the instrument.

> Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
> bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
> of these...otherwise, I would record a track with
> that, and mix it in with the mic track.
>

I've run across URB twice now, and always kept both the peizo and mic
tracks.

I don't do a good job on URB so you really should not listen to me.

> Thanks in advance for any advice....

--
Les Cargill

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
PStamler > wrote:
> Here's a slightly off-center suggestion. You've probably seen bluegrass
> players wrap a mic in foam and stuff it into the bridge of the
> instrument. And it always sounds boomy and horrible thanks to the mic's
> proximity effect. Well, my colleague Boris Golynsky tried it with an
> *omni* mic, a Neumann KM 130, and the result sounded splendid. I've used
> an Oktava MK012 with the omni capsule and gotten similarly good results.

In my earlier days in TV, an RCA BK6B was often the choice here as being a
lavalier mic had built in bass roll off, and a presence peak. This was
before the days of EQ on every channel.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

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

[[email protected]]

Question....
Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.

Why not make the pickups with something like an electret condenser
Which can nowadays be very good quality and easy
deal with electrically?


Mark

[PStamler]

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 6:48:32 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Question....
> Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
> which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
>
> Why not make the pickups with something like an electret condenser
> Which can nowadays be very good quality and easy
> deal with electrically?

If you made them using an electret condenser element they'd be microphones, and subject to the usual feedback problems pickups are intended to correct. Piezo elements are also cheap, and higher-output than condenser elements.

Most people using pickups use them with amps, which typically have the high input impedance the piezo wants to see, in situations where the demand is more for convenience than for quality.

Peace,
Paul

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

PStamler > wrote:

> On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 6:48:32 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > Question....
> > Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
> > which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
> >
> > Why not make the pickups with something like an electret condenser
> > Which can nowadays be very good quality and easy
> > deal with electrically?
>
> If you made them using an electret condenser element they'd be
> microphones, and subject to the usual feedback problems pickups are
> intended to correct. Piezo elements are also cheap, and higher-output than
> condenser elements.
>
> Most people using pickups use them with amps, which typically have the
> high input impedance the piezo wants to see, in situations where the

Piezos in some cases are also not what they used to be. This evening
Shaidri and I opened for Grant Peeples ande Gurf Morlix. Right after our
set a woman came up to look at my guitar on the stand and asked me what
kind of guitar it was. She returned to her table, said something to the
man with her, whom I overheard respond, "That's the best sounding guitar
I've ever heard".

K&K Pure pickup into a Red-Eye Twin. You can hear _the guitar_ through
that setup.

I have live recordings where the Red-Eye feeds the Great River MP2-MH,
while the guitar is also being mic'd with a Schoeps CMC6 w/MK4 cap, into
the other GR channel. The sounds are closer than anyone who hasn't heard
that would ever imagine.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> Question....
> Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
> which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
>
> Why not make the pickups with something like an electret condenser
> Which can nowadays be very good quality and easy
> deal with electrically?

http://www.c-ducer.com/

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Paul wrote:

> I'd like 3 categories:
>
> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic under $200.

Whatever is available, try an ADK SC1 if available, or an SM57. Both can be
used for the "in foam under bridge" ploy. OR EV or Sennheiser dynamic omni.

> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic between $200-700.

AT4040 if you have one, Shure KSM 141/137 if you haven't.

> Best Upright Jazz Bass mic over $700.

The haven't yet replied to my recent text provider job application, but
still, something DPA. 4006 for the "in foam under bridge" ploy. There is
probably zero or negative benefit of using a cardioid in that position.

> Also, the bassist has a piezoelectric pickup on the
> bridge. I have heard most people hate the sound
> of these...otherwise, I would record a track with
> that, and mix it in with the mic track.

As for whether you'd mix it in, you''ll know later. But record it. And it is
probably the best to use for stage monitors if any.

> Thanks in advance for any advice....

My first choice would be AT4040 if available.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

PStamler wrote:

> Here's a slightly off-center suggestion. You've probably seen
> bluegrass players wrap a mic in foam and stuff it into the bridge of
> the instrument. And it always sounds boomy and horrible thanks to the
> mic's proximity effect.

Most desks have a tone control for the bass range. It may be difficult as it
has perhaps never been used for it, but it is possible to turn it down.

> Well, my colleague Boris Golynsky tried it
> with an *omni* mic, a Neumann KM 130, and the result sounded
> splendid. I've used an Oktava MK012 with the omni capsule and gotten
> similarly good results.

All microphones are omnis in the bass range anyway. But you'd still get 6 dB
less spill/room tone energy into a cardioid, so it might be worth the EQ
trouble. There is no simple answer to this one.

> Paul

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Question....
>Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
>which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
>
>Why not make the pickups with something like an electret condenser
>Which can nowadays be very good quality and easy
> deal with electrically?

The electret condenser has even higher output impedance. It's in the
range of a gigohm or so. But they stick some active electronics inside
the capsule to bring it down.

You could do the same thing with a pickup... but then you'd need phantom
power for your pickup and couldn't plug it into a high-Z guitar amp input.

Now... as far as why guitar amps are high-Z, that is a historical aberration.
Les Paul tried to change it with a 600 ohm balanced pickup, but that did not
sell very well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

> > wrote:
>> Why not make the pickups with something like an electret condenser
>> Which can nowadays be very good quality and easy
>> deal with electrically?

On 5/3/2015 8:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The electret condenser has even higher output impedance. It's in the
> range of a gigohm or so. But they stick some active electronics inside
> the capsule to bring it down.
>
> You could do the same thing with a pickup... but then you'd need phantom
> power for your pickup and couldn't plug it into a high-Z guitar amp input.
>
> Now... as far as why guitar amps are high-Z, that is a historical aberration.
> Les Paul tried to change it with a 600 ohm balanced pickup, but that did not
> sell very well.

Chet Atkins was reported to have experimented with low impedance
pickups, but the Les Paul Recording model guitar that had an XLR output
(and the amplifier to match) actually had standard pickups with a
transformer to provide a balanced low impedance output. It helped get a
cleaner signal from the pickup to the amplifier, but it didn't help the
pickup any.



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

[Neil Gould]

wrote:
> Question....
> Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
> which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
>
Most of the time, piezo pickups are intended to be used with a dedicated hi
z preamp that includes EQ compensation. Today, one of the top piezo pickup
manufacturers is graphtech:

http://www.graphtech.com/

Some instruments that use piezos have the preamp built into them, and can
sound quite good. Still, there is a difference between the sound of
instrument pickups and mics, so which is better depends on the sound you're
after.

--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Neil Gould > wrote:

> wrote:
> > Question....
> > Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
> > which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
> >
> Most of the time, piezo pickups are intended to be used with a dedicated hi
> z preamp that includes EQ compensation.

I have yet to here a rig like that sound as natural as a K & K Pure into
a Red-Eye.

> Today, one of the top piezo pickup
> manufacturers is graphtech:
>
> http://www.graphtech.com/
>
> Some instruments that use piezos have the preamp built into them, and can
> sound quite good.
> Still, there is a difference between the sound of
> instrument pickups and mics,

We've reached the point where that is less than I would have thought it
could be.

> so which is better depends on the sound you're
> after.

In my case it's less about the sound I'm after and more about the
vagaries of using mics onstage in most live environments where I'm lucky
enough to play! ;-)

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[[email protected]]

Ok guys
Makes sense, the pickup is intended to feed a guitar amp, not a pa or console.

Thanks

Mark

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Question....
>> Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
>> which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
>>
>> Why not make the pickups with something like an electret condenser
>> Which can nowadays be very good quality and easy
>> deal with electrically?
>
> The electret condenser has even higher output impedance. It's in the
> range of a gigohm or so. But they stick some active electronics inside
> the capsule to bring it down.
>
> You could do the same thing with a pickup... but then you'd need phantom
> power for your pickup and couldn't plug it into a high-Z guitar amp input.
>

This generally involves a battery to power the preamp and a preamp
that's happy connected to a hi-Z input.

Alternately, you can use Hank's favorite topology with a longer cable
for the high-Z circuit from the pickups to a preamp/DI box.

> Now... as far as why guitar amps are high-Z, that is a historical aberration.

It made this one particular sound that people like. And then
the range of sounds expanded.

Look at what a 12AX7 does for you as an instrument input
connected to a magnetic pickup. Guitar amps are also a part of the
instrument. There's an entire suite of stomp boxes out there
designed to torture that 12AX7.

It's also possible to use active ( add an opamp) magnetic
pickups - EMG is a leader in this, and they're quite a bit
lower output Z. I use active EMG pickups on an electric
bass. It's a better sound than many passive pickups.

> Les Paul tried to change it with a 600 ohm balanced pickup, but that did not
> sell very well.

You don't need a 600 ohm pickup; you can use a DI box for nearly the
same thing. I know the Les Paul Recording has a transformer in it. I
don't know if that's how it gets the low-Z output or not, but if it is,
then the DI box is just built into the guitar.

It is not clear to me just how you'd build a mag. pickup that is low-Z
without a transformer or something to add current in an
active circuit.

Some (all?) Les Paul Recording guitars have hi-Z outputs as well.

The Les Paul Recording also had its own amp. But you could not easily
plug a Strat or Tele into that same amp - you'd have needed a DI box.

> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 4/05/2015 3:09 a.m., hank alrich wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Question....
>>> Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
>>> which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
>>>
>> Most of the time, piezo pickups are intended to be used with a dedicated hi
>> z preamp that includes EQ compensation.
>
> I have yet to here a rig like that sound as natural as a K & K Pure into
> a Red-Eye.

Here here !

;-)

geoff

[Neil Gould]

hank alrich wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Question....
>>> Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
>>> which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
>>>
>> Most of the time, piezo pickups are intended to be used with a
>> dedicated hi z preamp that includes EQ compensation.
>
> I have yet to here a rig like that sound as natural as a K & K Pure
> into a Red-Eye.
>
"Natural" is pretty subjective. Most recorded instruments don't sound
"natural" to me, regardless of the mics, preamps, or recording methods. It's
not that it's a bad thing... just audibly different, so to me the "natural"
sound is live vs. Memorex.

>> Some instruments that use piezos have the preamp built into them,
>> and can sound quite good.
>> Still, there is a difference between the sound of
>> instrument pickups and mics,
>
> We've reached the point where that is less than I would have thought
> it could be.
>
The ability for piezos to sound good isn't new. It's just a lot cheaper than
it used to be. I'm still satisfied with the sound of the Frap on my D28,
installed circa '71 or so. Instruments designed with piezos from the outset
can be excellent. My Gibson Chet Atkins nylon string is quite useful for
both live and recorded sessions.

>> so which is better depends on the sound you're
>> after.
>
> In my case it's less about the sound I'm after and more about the
> vagaries of using mics onstage in most live environments where I'm
> lucky enough to play! ;-)
>
No comparison! The piezos are a lot less of a pain than mics in many live
settings. ;-D

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

wrote:
> Ok guys
> Makes sense, the pickup is intended to feed a guitar amp, not a pa or
> console.
>
If the pickup has a dedicated preamp, the output is often quite compatible
with consoles, not just guitar amps.

--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> It's also possible to use active ( add an opamp) magnetic
> pickups - EMG is a leader in this, and they're quite a bit
> lower output Z. I use active EMG pickups on an electric
> bass. It's a better sound than many passive pickups.

I have a Japanese made Squire Jazz bass, circa 1980 edition, with EMG
Jazz Vintage pickups, and it sound very good, better than the truly
vintage Fender of the same configuration I owned long ago.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Neil Gould > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Neil Gould > wrote:
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>> Question....
> >>> Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
> >>> which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
> >>>
> >> Most of the time, piezo pickups are intended to be used with a
> >> dedicated hi z preamp that includes EQ compensation.
> >
> > I have yet to here a rig like that sound as natural as a K & K Pure
> > into a Red-Eye.
> >
> "Natural" is pretty subjective.

In my lexicon it means "sounds like the guitar sounds without
amplification". That's my goal.

> Most recorded instruments don't sound
> "natural" to me, regardless of the mics, preamps, or recording methods. It's
> not that it's a bad thing... just audibly different, so to me the "natural"
> sound is live vs. Memorex.

I think this often has to do with where the mics were positioned. We
don't ordinarily listen to acoustic guitars with our ear(s) three or
four inches from the instrument. But that's often where mics wind up.

> >> Some instruments that use piezos have the preamp built into them,
> >> and can sound quite good.
> >> Still, there is a difference between the sound of
> >> instrument pickups and mics,
> >
> > We've reached the point where that is less than I would have thought
> > it could be.
> >
> The ability for piezos to sound good isn't new. It's just a lot cheaper than
> it used to be. I'm still satisfied with the sound of the Frap on my D28,
> installed circa '71 or so. Instruments designed with piezos from the outset
> can be excellent. My Gibson Chet Atkins nylon string is quite useful for
> both live and recorded sessions.

THose are great instruments, both nylon and steel strung models, IME.

> >> so which is better depends on the sound you're
> >> after.
> >
> > In my case it's less about the sound I'm after and more about the
> > vagaries of using mics onstage in most live environments where I'm
> > lucky enough to play! ;-)
> >
> No comparison! The piezos are a lot less of a pain than mics in many live
> settings. ;-D

I rarely put the Schoeps anymore. But when I get to, it's delightful and
well worth the trouble.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil[_9_]]

On 5/3/2015 7:09 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Question....
>>>>> Why do they make these pickups using a piezo element
>>>>> which has special electrical requirements such as hi z.
>>>>>
>>>> Most of the time, piezo pickups are intended to be used with a
>>>> dedicated hi z preamp that includes EQ compensation.
>>>
>>> I have yet to here a rig like that sound as natural as a K & K Pure
>>> into a Red-Eye.
>>>
>> "Natural" is pretty subjective.
>
> In my lexicon it means "sounds like the guitar sounds without
> amplification". That's my goal.
>
Our lexicons are similar, but I have no expectations hearing something
that accomplishes that goal. And, it doesn't really matter anyway.

>> Most recorded instruments don't sound
>> "natural" to me, regardless of the mics, preamps, or recording methods. It's
>> not that it's a bad thing... just audibly different, so to me the "natural"
>> sound is live vs. Memorex.
>
> I think this often has to do with where the mics were positioned. We
> don't ordinarily listen to acoustic guitars with our ear(s) three or
> four inches from the instrument. But that's often where mics wind up.
>
That's one parameter, but there are others; mics will only capture a
portion of the sound of a live instrument, is unavoidable, etc. Again,
not that it's a bad thing... making the music enjoyable trumps all of
those issues.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 5/3/2015 7:41 PM, Neil wrote:
> That's one parameter, but there are others; mics will only capture a
> portion of the sound of a live instrument, is unavoidable, etc.
>
That should read "coloration is unavoidable"... ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Jack Wills]

On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 5:57:15 AM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >> Why not make the pickups with something like an electret condenser
> >> Which can nowadays be very good quality and easy
> >> deal with electrically?
>
> On 5/3/2015 8:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > The electret condenser has even higher output impedance. It's in the
> > range of a gigohm or so. But they stick some active electronics inside
> > the capsule to bring it down.
> >
> > You could do the same thing with a pickup... but then you'd need phantom
> > power for your pickup and couldn't plug it into a high-Z guitar amp input.
> >
> > Now... as far as why guitar amps are high-Z, that is a historical aberration.
> > Les Paul tried to change it with a 600 ohm balanced pickup, but that did not
> > sell very well.
>
> Chet Atkins was reported to have experimented with low impedance
> pickups, but the Les Paul Recording model guitar that had an XLR output
> (and the amplifier to match) actually had standard pickups with a
> transformer to provide a balanced low impedance output. It helped get a
> cleaner signal from the pickup to the amplifier, but it didn't help the
> pickup any.
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

I own a Les Paul Recording. The pickups,tone controls, etc. are all low impedance. (I measured) The output jack is 1/4 inch phone. There is an internal transformer controlled by a switch on the pickguard that will switch the transformer in or out. It is a stepup transformer at the output of the circuitry so the guitar can feed a high-Z input. If you use it this way the capacity to ground of the guitar cord loses a lot of high frequency. It's better to run the guitar in low impedance mode and then use a stepup transformer right at the amplifier input. A Shure A95U works well.

Sometimes Gibson shipped an A95U (with a Gibson nameplate on it) with the guitar. They also sometimes built special cables with the transformer inside the cable. (That pregnant snake look.)

You can find the schematics for the Les Paul Personal and the Les Paul Recording online. The pickups and circuitry are all unbalanced. I am not sure if the XLR output is really balanced.

Jack Wills

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/11/2015 4:57 AM, Jack Wills wrote:
> You can find the schematics for the Les Paul Personal and the Les
> Paul Recording online. The pickups and circuitry are all unbalanced.
> I am not sure if the XLR output is really balanced.

I've seen several different Les Paul Recording wiring diagrams, seems
like I find a different one every time I look for one. Today I couldn't
find one that showed an XLR output, but the XLR was the first thing I
noticed on the first Recording model that I saw - and really, the only
one I ever looked at pretty closely, but without test equipment at hand.

The bridge pickup has one side grounded, so its signal path is
unbalanced. The fingerboard pickup has both wires brought out to the
"phase" switch, so it could be wired balanced, but it gets unbalanced
once it gets combined with the fingerboard pickup.

I originally thought that the pickups were the standard Hi-Z design, and
that the internal transformer was a step-down and the XLR was wired
balanced from the transformer secondary. But on today's schematic
search, what I saw was as you described - a step-up transformer and no XLR.

If a low impedance pickup can be made to sound good (and there's no
reason why it couldn't), I'd think that a guitar that's wired balanced
all the way to an XLR or TRS output jack would be a good thing, but it
wouldn't work with a standard amplifier.


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

[Trevor]

On 11/05/2015 9:36 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/11/2015 4:57 AM, Jack Wills wrote:
>> You can find the schematics for the Les Paul Personal and the Les
>> Paul Recording online. The pickups and circuitry are all unbalanced.
>> I am not sure if the XLR output is really balanced.
>
> I've seen several different Les Paul Recording wiring diagrams, seems
> like I find a different one every time I look for one. Today I couldn't
> find one that showed an XLR output, but the XLR was the first thing I
> noticed on the first Recording model that I saw - and really, the only
> one I ever looked at pretty closely, but without test equipment at hand.
>
> The bridge pickup has one side grounded, so its signal path is
> unbalanced. The fingerboard pickup has both wires brought out to the
> "phase" switch, so it could be wired balanced, but it gets unbalanced
> once it gets combined with the fingerboard pickup.
>
> I originally thought that the pickups were the standard Hi-Z design, and
> that the internal transformer was a step-down and the XLR was wired
> balanced from the transformer secondary. But on today's schematic
> search, what I saw was as you described - a step-up transformer and no XLR.
>
> If a low impedance pickup can be made to sound good (and there's no
> reason why it couldn't), I'd think that a guitar that's wired balanced
> all the way to an XLR or TRS output jack would be a good thing, but it
> wouldn't work with a standard amplifier.
>
>
Actually unlike the common Hi Z output it *would* work with a "standard
amplifier"! Obviously you actually mean a guitar amplifier, (less common
than low Z amplifiers, so less "standard' IMO) but would only require a
transformer or electronic pre-amp buffer to work with the latter, just
as you use a DI to go the other way now.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

TROLL ALERT!

On 5/11/2015 8:03 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Actually unlike the common Hi Z output it *would* work with a "standard
> amplifier"! Obviously you actually mean a guitar amplifier, (less common
> than low Z amplifiers, so less "standard' IMO) but would only require a
> transformer or electronic pre-amp buffer to work with the latter, just
> as you use a DI to go the other way now.

What are you blathering about? Getting excited because, in a post all
about guitars, I used the term "standard amplifier" to mean the kind of
amplifier commonly used with electric guitars? Of course I was talking
about a standard instrument amplifier.

What's important is the gain structure of the system. Instrument
amplifiers all have roughly the same input sensitivity range, one that
makes them give the expected results with a typical pickup, which can
have a peak output level of a few volts. A low impedance pickup that
would work well for a guitar would have an output voltage of maybe a
couple of hundred millivolts when really slammed hard. Connecting this
to a common guitar amplifier would require more gain than the amplifier
can provide in order to give sufficient volume at the speaker.

Sure, you can put a step-up transformer at the amplifier input, and
because the amplifier's input impedance is high, the transformer will
work as expected. But it's something you have to do in order to use a
"low-Z" guitar with a common guitar amplifier. This is why Gibson
provided a high impedance - but more importantly, high voltage - output
from the Les Paul Recording models.

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

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> This is why Gibson
> provided a high impedance - but more importantly, high voltage -
> output from the Les Paul Recording models.
>
I didn't seem to matter. They all had a rather lackluster sound that totally
failed in the marketplace. The last time I saw Les Paul (about a year before
he passed) he wasn't playing one, either.

--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> If a low impedance pickup can be made to sound good (and there's no
> reason why it couldn't),

I have an Alembic from the early 1970's. Low impedance pickup with wide
bandwidth, comparable to a decent mic, and a huge range of available
tones, none of which directly mimic the standard fare.

It's this model:

http://tinyurl.com/my363et

> I'd think that a guitar that's wired balanced
> all the way to an XLR or TRS output jack would be a good thing, but it
> wouldn't work with a standard amplifier.

It offers a 5-pin XLRM that connects to an outboard power supply with
seperate 1/4" outputs that will drive standard amps very well, as well
as balanced low impednace outs for each pickup.

It also offers a 1/4" TRS output driven by an internal battery powered,
with breakout ends to feed seperate amp channels.

It's a lot of fun to play, but it is also large and bit unwieldy.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/11/2015 4:40 PM, hank alrich wrote:

> I have an Alembic from the early 1970's. Low impedance pickup with wide
> bandwidth, comparable to a decent mic, and a huge range of available
> tones, none of which directly mimic the standard fare.

> It's a lot of fun to play, but it is also large and bit unwieldy.

Alembic made very special instruments, not your usual off-the-shelf
music store gear. They weren't afraid to make something different if
they had a good idea and the right customer.



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

[Trevor]

On 11/05/2015 10:47 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> TROLL ALERT!

Well at least you admit what you are doing, I guess that's something.

>> Actually unlike the common Hi Z output it *would* work with a "standard
>> amplifier"! Obviously you actually mean a guitar amplifier, (less common
>> than low Z amplifiers, so less "standard' IMO) but would only require a
>> transformer or electronic pre-amp buffer to work with the latter, just
>> as you use a DI to go the other way now.
>
> What are you blathering about? Getting excited because, in a post all
> about guitars, I used the term "standard amplifier" to mean the kind of
> amplifier commonly used with electric guitars? Of course I was talking
> about a standard instrument amplifier.

Yep saying someone is "blathering" just because they don't agree is sort
of trolling I guess, but you may be a little hard on yourself. More like
typical internet discourtesy IMO.


> What's important is the gain structure of the system. Instrument
> amplifiers all have roughly the same input sensitivity range, one that
> makes them give the expected results with a typical pickup, which can
> have a peak output level of a few volts. A low impedance pickup that
> would work well for a guitar would have an output voltage of maybe a
> couple of hundred millivolts when really slammed hard. Connecting this
> to a common guitar amplifier would require more gain than the amplifier
> can provide in order to give sufficient volume at the speaker.

Which is why you'd need a transformer or pre-amp, just as I said already.


> Sure, you can put a step-up transformer at the amplifier input, and
> because the amplifier's input impedance is high, the transformer will
> work as expected. But it's something you have to do in order to use a
> "low-Z" guitar with a common guitar amplifier. This is why Gibson
> provided a high impedance - but more importantly, high voltage - output
> from the Les Paul Recording models.

So no more problem than using a DI with a high Z pickup into a normal PA
amp, just as I said.
So what are YOU blathering about?

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/12/2015 1:31 AM, Trevor wrote:
> So no more problem than using a DI with a high Z pickup into a normal PA
> amp, just as I said.
> So what are YOU blathering about?

When most people think about playing an electric guitar, they think
about plugging a cable into an instrument amplifier and getting on with
business. They aren't thinking about a DI into a PA system and then
wondering where their amp tone has gone.

There are plenty of special cases (including the Les Paul Recording
model guitar). When talking about the exceptions, though, that should be
clear to those in the peanut gallery who may not know about the
technical hoops that need to be jumped through in order to make it play
like a "normal" guitar.

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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 5/11/2015 4:40 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> If a low impedance pickup can be made to sound good (and there's no
>> reason why it couldn't),
>
> I have an Alembic from the early 1970's. Low impedance pickup with wide
> bandwidth, comparable to a decent mic, and a huge range of available
> tones, none of which directly mimic the standard fare.
>
> It's this model:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/my363et
>
I've played one of those... it's an intriguing guitar! Alembic was at
the forefront during the Grateful Dead's heyday, and many of their
innovations were worthy of notice.

--
best regards,

Neil

[david gourley[_2_]]

Neil > :

> On 5/11/2015 4:40 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>
>>> If a low impedance pickup can be made to sound good (and there's no
>>> reason why it couldn't),
>>
>> I have an Alembic from the early 1970's. Low impedance pickup with wide
>> bandwidth, comparable to a decent mic, and a huge range of available
>> tones, none of which directly mimic the standard fare.
>>
>> It's this model:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/my363et
>>
> I've played one of those... it's an intriguing guitar! Alembic was at
> the forefront during the Grateful Dead's heyday, and many of their
> innovations were worthy of notice.
>

The active hum cancelling is pretty neat, too.

A friend of mine has 2 of their bass models, and they're without a doubt
the quietest electric guitars I've ever heard.

david

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[JackA]

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 8:47:14 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> TROLL ALERT!
>
> On 5/11/2015 8:03 AM, Trevor wrote:
> > Actually unlike the common Hi Z output it *would* work with a "standard
> > amplifier"! Obviously you actually mean a guitar amplifier, (less common
> > than low Z amplifiers, so less "standard' IMO) but would only require a
> > transformer or electronic pre-amp buffer to work with the latter, just
> > as you use a DI to go the other way now.
>
> What are you blathering about? Getting excited because, in a post all
> about guitars, I used the term "standard amplifier" to mean the kind of
> amplifier commonly used with electric guitars? Of course I was talking
> about a standard instrument amplifier.
>
> What's important is the gain structure of the system. Instrument
> amplifiers all have roughly the same input sensitivity range, one that
> makes them give the expected results with a typical pickup, which can
> have a peak output level of a few volts. A low impedance pickup that
> would work well for a guitar would have an output voltage of maybe a
> couple of hundred millivolts when really slammed hard. Connecting this
> to a common guitar amplifier would require more gain than the amplifier
> can provide in order to give sufficient volume at the speaker.
>
> Sure, you can put a step-up transformer at the amplifier input, and
> because the amplifier's input impedance is high, the transformer will
> work as expected.

I don't refer to impedance matching transformers as step-up or step-down.
I can't take the output of a magnetic photo cartridge and expect it to power a 12" woofer with a step-up transformer.

As I may have mentioned before, the new "wave" with kids and ear-buds, the lower the impedance, the louder the sound.

And what's with your "TROLL ALERT!"?

If you are referring to Mr. Trevor, he is one of the few gentlemen here.

Jack

[Mike Rivers]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:15:33 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:

> I don't refer to impedance matching transformers as step-up or step-down.
> I can't take the output of a magnetic photo cartridge and expect it to power a 12" woofer with a step-up transformer.

Of course not, because a transformer doesn't change power, only voltage, and along with it, impedance. The transformer that's supplied with the Les Paul Recording guitar doesn't come close to bringing the source impedance of the pickups up to the input impedance of the guitar amplifier - and it doesn't have to. But it does what it needs to do and steps the VOLAGE out of the pickup up to the range that the amplifier is expecting. The days when it was important to match source and destination impedance are pretty much over. The laws of physics still apply, it's just that designs are different than what they used to be 50 years ago.

> As I may have mentioned before, the new "wave" with kids and ear-buds, the lower the impedance, the louder the sound.

Not necessarily. It depends on what's driving the headphones. I wrote an article about this somewhere recently, I think in Recording Magazine. Read and learn. Briefly, portable audio devices operate at lower and lower power supply voltage, so the headphone amplifier of a modern device can't put out the voltage that last generation's model does. In order to accommodate a lower voltage source, they lower the impedance of the headphones, which means that they draw more current and therefore can put out sufficient power to get up to the expected loudness. It's the law. Ohm's.

> And what's with your "TROLL ALERT!"?

I meant that my response might be construed as feeding a troll. I don't remember why now, but I've been accused of answering trolls and I thought that wantever it was that I responded to was bordering on that.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:47:30 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:15:33 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
>
> > I don't refer to impedance matching transformers as step-up or step-down.

[None]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> I meant that my response might be construed as feeding a troll. I
> don't remember why now, but I've been accused of answering trolls

You are feeding the troll. Jack Agnew entertains himself by destroying
newsgroups. You're helping him. In a different group, under a
different sockpuppet, he's been gloating about the destruction of the
group. You have his fish hook sticking in your gill, which encourages
him.

[hank alrich]

None > wrote:

> You are feeding the troll. Jack Agnew entertains himself by destroying
> newsgroups. You're helping him. In a different group, under a
> different sockpuppet, he's been gloating about the destruction of the
> group. You have his fish hook sticking in your gill, which encourages
> him.

This. Just stop. It matters not how informative one's post may be, or
that one is worried about the gallery. He is a professional punch bowl
****ter-inner. Stop drinking.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Trevor]

On 12/05/2015 10:15 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> When most people think about playing an electric guitar, they think
> about plugging a cable into an instrument amplifier and getting on with
> business. They aren't thinking about a DI into a PA system and then
> wondering where their amp tone has gone.

I know many electric guitarists these days that no longer have valve
amps and rely on a large number of pedals and effects boxes to give them
the tones they want instead.


> There are plenty of special cases (including the Les Paul Recording
> model guitar). When talking about the exceptions, though, that should be
> clear to those in the peanut gallery who may not know about the
> technical hoops that need to be jumped through in order to make it play
> like a "normal" guitar.

Of course the less than technically literate would think that as they
are so used to what is I agree far more common that they think anything
else is "technical hoops". I guess it is to them.
The real problem with which I will not argue is the historical legacy of
so much equipment owned by guitarists. They don't want to switch all
that equipment, and I'm certainly not arguing they should, only that if
things were reversed they wouldn't want to change either.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 14/05/2015 1:30 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>Oh, there is a hidden motive for this post.
>It actually demonstrates how to remove what is NOT
>commented on


Sadly I often get attacked for doing just that, when I think it is FAR
more courteous to eliminate as much of the unnecessary parts of the post
as possible so as to make reading quicker and easier. Unfortunately some
people can't remember what they wrote, and can't be bothered referring
back to their previous post to find out it has nothing to do with the
new comments being made. :-(

Trevor.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> When most people think about playing an electric guitar, they think
> about plugging a cable into an instrument amplifier and getting on
> with business. They aren't thinking about a DI into a PA system and
> then wondering where their amp tone has gone.
>
> There are plenty of special cases (including the Les Paul Recording
> model guitar). When talking about the exceptions, though, that should
> be clear to those in the peanut gallery who may not know about the
> technical hoops that need to be jumped through in order to make it
> play like a "normal" guitar.
>
Such special cases are not aimed at the novice guitarists. They're mainly
designs focussed on solving particular problems, such as low noise in
difficult environments or creating unique tonal qualities that can't be
achieved with "stock" instruments. In either case, the "hoops" have been
jumped through by the designers, and the use of such guitars are just the
requisite components that optimize the intended outcome. Trying to use them
in "normal" ways, such as plugging them into a stock guitar amp will often
compromise the results. That can account for the limited number of these
instruments in the marketplace.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/14/2015 1:47 AM, Trevor wrote:
> The real problem with which I will not argue is the historical legacy of
> so much equipment owned by guitarists. They don't want to switch all
> that equipment, and I'm certainly not arguing they should, only that if
> things were reversed they wouldn't want to change either.

Hey, I don't want to switch computers in order to get a new peripheral
(like an audio interface, for example) or switch interfaces when I'm
forced to get a new computer. But it seems that in cases, I must, if I
want to continue doing what I'm doing at least as well as how I've been
doing it. At least I understand the technical reasons behind
incompatibilities, though I may not be sympathetic to the business
reasons that caused them.

Guitarists, on the other hand, really shouldn't really need to know
about impedance or XLR connectors or operating levels in order to plug
in and play. System engineering isn't part of their job.



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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 5/14/2015 9:11 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/14/2015 1:47 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> The real problem with which I will not argue is the historical legacy of
>> so much equipment owned by guitarists. They don't want to switch all
>> that equipment, and I'm certainly not arguing they should, only that if
>> things were reversed they wouldn't want to change either.
>
> Hey, I don't want to switch computers in order to get a new peripheral
> (like an audio interface, for example) or switch interfaces when I'm
> forced to get a new computer. But it seems that in cases, I must, if I
> want to continue doing what I'm doing at least as well as how I've been
> doing it. At least I understand the technical reasons behind
> incompatibilities, though I may not be sympathetic to the business
> reasons that caused them.
>
> Guitarists, on the other hand, really shouldn't really need to know
> about impedance or XLR connectors or operating levels in order to plug
> in and play. System engineering isn't part of their job.
>
The guitarists that are attracted to the kind of instruments that
require that knowledge should put in the effort to gain that knowledge
in order to use their instruments. These are specialty guitars, atypical
of what one is likely to find in most music stores, so folks interested
in them have to go the extra mile just to try one out. It's not
unreasonable to expect them to go another extra mile to learn how to use
them.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>Guitarists, on the other hand, really shouldn't really need to know
>about impedance or XLR connectors or operating levels in order to plug
>in and play. System engineering isn't part of their job.

I don't know about that. Given the look of some guitarists' effects racks,
some of them spend more time system engineering than actually playing guitar.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 11:32:50 AM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 12-05-2015 22:15, JackA wrote:
> > On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 8:47:14 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > And what's with your "TROLL ALERT!"?
>
> > If you are referring to Mr. Trevor, he is one of the few gentlemen here..
>
> I have known Mr. Rivers on the usenet for many years. He is a certified
> usenet psychic and just foresaw that you would follow up.

I see, so I'm the "troll" Mike was warning about, as he has done before.

I think it it
> was a benevolent warning in good intent. Oh, there is a hidden motive
> for this post. It actually demonstrates how to remove what is NOT
> commented on, a concept that has hitherto eluded you.

Understood. Guess that one was supposed to be below the belt. Childish, Peter.


Now, rather than play King Of The Hill here, I'm looking for valid information.
See:
http://www.wreckingcrewfilm.com/afmcontracts/Sinatra,Frank_ThatsLife.pdf
Listen (edit):
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thatslife-a.mp3

Unless I misinterpreted something on that contract, the recording above does not feature Hal Blaine on drums. The song (above) is tagged "Alternate Version", not early Take or even a Take#. I have to assume it was reworked and rerecorded, but nothing on the internet is of value (recording dateS, etc..) to support that.

Any information on this recording is of value. Contacted Denny of the Wrecking Crew film, doubt I'll hear back.

Jack


>
> > Jack
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/14/2015 1:47 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> The real problem with which I will not argue is the historical legacy of
>> so much equipment owned by guitarists. They don't want to switch all
>> that equipment, and I'm certainly not arguing they should, only that if
>> things were reversed they wouldn't want to change either.
>
> Hey, I don't want to switch computers in order to get a new peripheral
> (like an audio interface, for example) or switch interfaces when I'm
> forced to get a new computer. But it seems that in cases, I must, if I
> want to continue doing what I'm doing at least as well as how I've been
> doing it. At least I understand the technical reasons behind
> incompatibilities, though I may not be sympathetic to the business
> reasons that caused them.
>
> Guitarists, on the other hand, really shouldn't really need to know
> about impedance or XLR connectors or operating levels in order to plug
> in and play. System engineering isn't part of their job.
>
>
>

It really is part of their job. Guitarists have a strange, codependent
relationship with technology.

It's a leqacy "problem" but it has SFA to do with switching
out gear - there's a smallish industry that builds things
like the Kemper profiling modeller ( which is $2,800 retail )
to emulate old busted electronics with dried out caps and out of spec
5% resistors.

Les Paul had his nerd hat on when he caused the Recording to be built.
Some people did direct recording - Chet Atkins being one of the
more prominent. His approach is more like that of steel
players - it's more the instrument and less the amp. Steel players
will buy things like Brad Sarno's Black Box purely to cause a
pleasing impedance match with the instrument, then plug into some
big ole linear monster ( with considerable, JBL K130 style
rolloff ) like a Peavey Session 400.

The rest of the world yawned. A Telecaster and a Deluxe Reverb? Now
you have people's attention. Les Paul and a Plexi? Yes. A 335 and
Lab L5? Yep. Now you are closer to the Recording, but it's still hi-Z.

Because it has That Sound. Find a video of Kenny Vaughn - that's
one of the That Sounds.

I'm pretty old now, and the first time I saw an XLR was on a Biamp
mixer in the late '70s. Most people (who were not actual pros to ehrre
run length and relaibility mattered ) still used mics that had 1/4"
termination. I saw XLR again in the '80s on Tapco mixers, then not again
until the '90s.

I can't actually explain the Alembic instruments
except to say that it probably had something to do
with Jerry Garcia. I know when I run onto a bass player
with an Alembic it's gonna be annoying.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> I can't actually explain the Alembic instruments
> except to say that it probably had something to do
> with Jerry Garcia. ,

In an interview shortly after he began playing an Alembic, in reponse to
a question about what was different about the guitar, he said that the
first thing he noticed was how sloppy his technique was. The bandwidth
of the system is such that there is no typical HF roll-off if the EQ's
(variable lo-pass filters in this case) aren't bringing that. He said it
spurred him to clean up that part of his act.

> I know when I run onto a bass player
> with an Alembic it's gonna be annoying.

Been there, heard that, but same with every bass in the wrong hands.
Often those costly tools wind up in the hands of dilettantes who pay
little attention to the job at hand.

If you learn how to use all those switches and those filters you can
mimic the standard fair to a scary degree. You can also bring an
acoustic guitar sound to the party. They are very capable axes, very
flexible. Like all complex tools, one faces a learning curve, and too
many pickers keep their flatline engaged.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(hank alrich) wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> I can't actually explain the Alembic instruments
>> except to say that it probably had something to do
>> with Jerry Garcia. ,
>
> In an interview shortly after he began playing an Alembic, in reponse to
> a question about what was different about the guitar, he said that the
> first thing he noticed was how sloppy his technique was.


Oh, I am sure that is true.

> The bandwidth
> of the system is such that there is no typical HF roll-off if the EQ's
> (variable lo-pass filters in this case) aren't bringing that. He said it
> spurred him to clean up that part of his act.
>

I bet so.

>> I know when I run onto a bass player
>> with an Alembic it's gonna be annoying.
>
> Been there, heard that, but same with every bass in the wrong hands.


Yeah, but so far, those are correlated.

> Often those costly tools wind up in the hands of dilettantes who pay
> little attention to the job at hand.
>

One guy would just sound better with a simpler instrument. He's
a fine bass player, but he feels obligated to explore all that upper
range bandwidth at random times.

> If you learn how to use all those switches and those filters you can
> mimic the standard fair to a scary degree. You can also bring an
> acoustic guitar sound to the party.

That's really cool in itself. This being said, there some Digitech thing
that will save you having to carry an acoustic for
that one song if you have a Tele. Doesn't sound good, but it's close
enough for bar work.

> They are very capable axes, very
> flexible. Like all complex tools, one faces a learning curve, and too
> many pickers keep their flatline engaged.
>

Results will vary.

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-05-2015 17:08, JackA wrote:

> Understood. Guess that one was supposed to be below the belt. Childish, Peter.

No, but here's one: you are a szironified twithead, uniquely the dumbest
poster we have ever had, so dumb that you aren't even capable of being
silly, a zabriskan fontema would appear a genius in comparison.

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen > wrote:

> No, but here's one: you are a szironified twithead, uniquely the dumbest
> poster we have ever had, so dumb that you aren't even capable of being
> silly, a zabriskan fontema would appear a genius in comparison.
>
> Peter Larsen

I have attempted to avoid responding to that wherein the troll ****s,
but that is just way too ****ing good not to holler "Bravo!"

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Trevor]

On 14/05/2015 11:11 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/14/2015 1:47 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> The real problem with which I will not argue is the historical legacy of
>> so much equipment owned by guitarists. They don't want to switch all
>> that equipment, and I'm certainly not arguing they should, only that if
>> things were reversed they wouldn't want to change either.
>
> Hey, I don't want to switch computers in order to get a new peripheral
> (like an audio interface, for example) or switch interfaces when I'm
> forced to get a new computer. But it seems that in cases, I must, if I
> want to continue doing what I'm doing at least as well as how I've been
> doing it. At least I understand the technical reasons behind
> incompatibilities, though I may not be sympathetic to the business
> reasons that caused them.

The reasons are often just to sell more accessories, for Apple that is
usually the case anyway. Sometimes you just can't hold on to old
technology forever though. But at least the non Apple world usually
keeps backwards compatibility a lot longer thankfully. A guitar amp for
example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs. Just as a
decent computer has a number of inputs and outputs, rather than a single
new interface with every new model.


> Guitarists, on the other hand, really shouldn't really need to know
> about impedance or XLR connectors or operating levels in order to plug
> in and play. System engineering isn't part of their job.

Rubbish, if you are too stupid to understand basic technology, you
simply ask someone who does. That's the way the world works whether you
like it or not.


Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 16/05/2015 13:23, Neil Gould wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
>>
>> [...] A guitar amp
>> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
>>
> Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to market
> such an amp?
>
One for the pickup, and one for a microphone clipped onto an acoustic?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 16/05/2015 10:23 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
>> [...] A guitar amp
>> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
>>
> Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to market
> such an amp?

I said they could, not that they should. High Z guitars are simply a
historical thing though, there is no good reason these days if you were
starting from scratch IMO. IF things were ever to change, having both
high and low Z inputs on an amp would make an easy transition. At the
moment it is simply chicken and egg. Guitars originally made for valve
amps, amps still made for current guitars.

Trevor.

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
>
> [...] A guitar amp
> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
>
Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to market
such an amp?
--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

Guy here at a music camp this weekend has a Red Eye preamp but says he
rarely uses it because it "eats" batteries. The blurb says the batteries
should last about 200 hours.

He doesn't work where there's phantom power so he hadn't depended on it.
I thought I had read that they made an AC powered version, but I could
have remembered something else.

--
"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

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>Guy here at a music camp this weekend has a Red Eye preamp but says he
>rarely uses it because it "eats" batteries. The blurb says the batteries
>should last about 200 hours.

Surmise: once he put the batteries in backwards. The protection diode did
its job, but now it is leaky and his power is all going to heating up the
damaged diode rather than running the preamp.

>He doesn't work where there's phantom power so he hadn't depended on it.
>I thought I had read that they made an AC powered version, but I could
>have remembered something else.

Got a meter with you?
--scott


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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 5/16/2015 7:27 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 16/05/2015 13:23, Neil Gould wrote:
>> Trevor wrote:
>>>
>>> [...] A guitar amp
>>> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
>>>
>> Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to
>> market
>> such an amp?
>>
> One for the pickup, and one for a microphone clipped onto an acoustic?
>
An interesting notion. Perhaps there is a market for such a thing, if
the mic channel has separate tone controls so that feedback isn't a
problem.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 5/16/2015 7:47 AM, Trevor wrote:
> On 16/05/2015 10:23 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>> Trevor wrote:
>>> [...] A guitar amp
>>> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
>>>
>> Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to
>> market
>> such an amp?
>
> I said they could, not that they should. High Z guitars are simply a
> historical thing though, there is no good reason these days if you were
> starting from scratch IMO. IF things were ever to change, having both
> high and low Z inputs on an amp would make an easy transition. At the
> moment it is simply chicken and egg. Guitars originally made for valve
> amps, amps still made for current guitars.
>
The vast majority of guitars are hi impedance for practical, not
historical reasons. Many of us guitarists want an interactive
responsiveness that you just don't get from "weak" pickups, and the
easiest way to get that is to have a lot of windings around the magnets.
Another way to get lo-Z would require active electronics in the guitar,
but if one chooses that path, might as well have line level output. Been
there, done that. I'm sure that there are modern ways to outdo a
Stradivarius violin, too, but the preference for playing one is largely
about tonality and responsiveness.

--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

John Williamson > wrote:

> On 16/05/2015 13:23, Neil Gould wrote:
> > Trevor wrote:
> >>
> >> [...] A guitar amp
> >> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
> >>
> > Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to market
> > such an amp?
> >
> One for the pickup, and one for a microphone clipped onto an acoustic?

Of which there are now plenty on the market.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Guy here at a music camp this weekend has a Red Eye preamp but says he
> rarely uses it because it "eats" batteries. The blurb says the batteries
> should last about 200 hours.

Alkaline batteries last me that long, lithiums even longer. I usually
work where there is phantom power. It wants real P48, not the 12 or 24
volts "phantom" available on most powered heads and such.

When working properly Red-Eyes disconnect the battery completely in the
presence of P48.

As a participant in the development process for models after the initial
unit, since December 2008, I have used several different versions. I
have had to change one battery in a Red-Eye. My Sonic Research stompbox
tuner goes through more batteries because I sometimes don't have time,
or it is overly inconvenient, to connect the 9 vdc wallwart supply.

Either something is wrong with his Red-Eye and he should contact the
company, or he isn't realizing that without phantom power, if his
instrument cord is connected to the input, power is being drawn.

Feel free to give him my email address if he has questions or needs
assistance.

> He doesn't work where there's phantom power so he hadn't depended on it.
> I thought I had read that they made an AC powered version, but I could
> have remembered something else.

They do not make such a unit. The Dee-Eye version offers no battery
power, P48 only, with no boost or EQ circuits. The other two models are
either 9 vdc or P48 powered.

http://www.fire-eye.com/

http://www.fire-eye.com/data-sheets/

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Neil > wrote:

> On 5/16/2015 7:27 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 16/05/2015 13:23, Neil Gould wrote:
> >> Trevor wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...] A guitar amp
> >>> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
> >>>
> >> Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to
> >> market
> >> such an amp?
> >>
> > One for the pickup, and one for a microphone clipped onto an acoustic?
> >
> An interesting notion. Perhaps there is a market for such a thing, if
> the mic channel has separate tone controls so that feedback isn't a
> problem.

There have been quite a few such amps on the market for quite a few
years.

http://www.swee****er.com/insync/acoustic-guitar-amp-buying-guide/

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Neil wrote:
> On 5/16/2015 7:27 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 16/05/2015 13:23, Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Trevor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...] A guitar amp
>>>> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
>>>>
>>> Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to
>>> market
>>> such an amp?
>>>
>> One for the pickup, and one for a microphone clipped onto an acoustic?
>>
> An interesting notion. Perhaps there is a market for such a thing, if
> the mic channel has separate tone controls so that feedback isn't a
> problem.
>

"Acoustic" ( not Acoustic Control or the current zombie company using
that name ) amps frequently have XLR inputs.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Neil wrote:
> > On 5/16/2015 7:27 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 16/05/2015 13:23, Neil Gould wrote:
> >>> Trevor wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> [...] A guitar amp
> >>>> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
> >>>>
> >>> Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason to
> >>> market
> >>> such an amp?
> >>>
> >> One for the pickup, and one for a microphone clipped onto an acoustic?
> >>
> > An interesting notion. Perhaps there is a market for such a thing, if
> > the mic channel has separate tone controls so that feedback isn't a
> > problem.
> >
>
> "Acoustic" ( not Acoustic Control or the current zombie company using
> that name ) amps frequently have XLR inputs.

http://www.fishman.com/products/filter/type:amplifiers

http://www.aer-amps.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=448&Itemid=100403&lang=en

http://www.rolandus.com/categories/amplifiers/acoustic_guitar_amplifiers/

http://www.traceelliot.com/acousticamps/

Tip of the iceberg, too.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil Gould]

hank alrich wrote:
> Neil > wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2015 7:27 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>>> On 16/05/2015 13:23, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> Trevor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...] A guitar amp
>>>>> for example could easily have both high and low impedance inputs.
>>>>>
>>>> Low impedance guitars are pretty rare, so what would be the reason
>>>> to market
>>>> such an amp?
>>>>
>>> One for the pickup, and one for a microphone clipped onto an
>>> acoustic?
>>>
>> An interesting notion. Perhaps there is a market for such a thing, if
>> the mic channel has separate tone controls so that feedback isn't a
>> problem.
>
> There have been quite a few such amps on the market for quite a few
> years.
>
> http://www.swee****er.com/insync/acoustic-guitar-amp-buying-guide/
>
Wow. How did I forget about the Fishman amps and other similar offerings???

Thanks for the reminder!

--
best regards,

Neil