how to resistively load a 57?

[dufus]

can i just put a 1k resistor across pins 2 and 3? to my understanding
this degrades CMRR, since the differential signal is knocked down, but
not the common mode. how much would CMRR degrade in dB with a preamp
with a ~5k input Z?

Du

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> can i just put a 1k resistor across pins 2 and 3? to my understanding
> this degrades CMRR, since the differential signal is knocked down, but
> not the common mode. how much would CMRR degrade in dB with a preamp
> with a ~5k input Z?

It's early in the morning so I'm not sure if you're asking the right
question, or if this is the right answer, but off the top of my head,
I wouldn't expect any degradation in common mode rejection since
you're reducing the amplitude of each leg of the signal equally. You
might have a measurable reduction in signal-to-noise ratio since
you're reducing the output level of the microphone, and will need more
gain for the same preamp output level at a given SPL going into the
mic. Purists will add the noise generated by the resistor to your hit
budget.

However, I really don't see that hanging a 1K resistor across the
output of an SM57 is going to help things all that much, if at all.
Why don't you just try it, and see:

1) if it sounds better with the resistor in place and
2) if there's a noticable increase in noise.

Then make your decision as to whether it's a worthwhile modification.

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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> can i just put a 1k resistor across pins 2 and 3? to my understanding
> this degrades CMRR, since the differential signal is knocked down, but
> not the common mode. how much would CMRR degrade in dB with a preamp
> with a ~5k input Z?

It's early in the morning so I'm not sure if you're asking the right
question, or if this is the right answer, but off the top of my head,
I wouldn't expect any degradation in common mode rejection since
you're reducing the amplitude of each leg of the signal equally. You
might have a measurable reduction in signal-to-noise ratio since
you're reducing the output level of the microphone, and will need more
gain for the same preamp output level at a given SPL going into the
mic. Purists will add the noise generated by the resistor to your hit
budget.

However, I really don't see that hanging a 1K resistor across the
output of an SM57 is going to help things all that much, if at all.
Why don't you just try it, and see:

1) if it sounds better with the resistor in place and
2) if there's a noticable increase in noise.

Then make your decision as to whether it's a worthwhile modification.

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

[Arny Krueger]

dufus wrote:

> can i just put a 1k resistor across pins 2 and 3?

Absolutely. This is not that different from what happens when you add many
mic attenuators. The mic attenuators I've examined provide load impedances
in the 1 to 2.5 Kohm range. Attenuators that are connected across pins 2 &
3 are generally recommended because of their minimal effect on CMRR>

> to my understanding
> this degrades CMRR, since the differential signal is knocked down, but
> not the common mode.

The real question is not CMRR, its resistance to externally-generated noise.
Do you have reason to believe that common mode noise is currently a serious
problem with your system? Or, are just worrying about possibilities, as
opposed to realities?

> how much would CMRR degrade in dB with a preamp
> with a ~5k input Z?

Don't know, because this calculation would be based on the source impedance
of the SM-57, not the input impedance of the preamp.

An interesting related article can be found at
http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF

Most interesting is:

"Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and capacitance) on
frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of common cable. The upper
curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps while
the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic preamp. Note
the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".

This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source impedance
of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite small. Other sources
give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less - perhaps 75
ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB range of response at
20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all that
audibly significant.

<aside> The high frequency variation relates to a resonance between the
source inductance of the SM57 and a cable capacitance on the order of 0.035
uF. The resonance centers at about 45 KHz, from which the equivalent source
impedance of the SM57 can be calculated.

I would expect less than 1 dB variation due to adding a 1K ohm resistor.
This means that even in your pessimistic estimate, there would be a 1 dB
loss of CMRR which is almost always negligible, even in a high noise
environment.

[Arny Krueger]

dufus wrote:

> can i just put a 1k resistor across pins 2 and 3?

Absolutely. This is not that different from what happens when you add many
mic attenuators. The mic attenuators I've examined provide load impedances
in the 1 to 2.5 Kohm range. Attenuators that are connected across pins 2 &
3 are generally recommended because of their minimal effect on CMRR>

> to my understanding
> this degrades CMRR, since the differential signal is knocked down, but
> not the common mode.

The real question is not CMRR, its resistance to externally-generated noise.
Do you have reason to believe that common mode noise is currently a serious
problem with your system? Or, are just worrying about possibilities, as
opposed to realities?

> how much would CMRR degrade in dB with a preamp
> with a ~5k input Z?

Don't know, because this calculation would be based on the source impedance
of the SM-57, not the input impedance of the preamp.

An interesting related article can be found at
http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF

Most interesting is:

"Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and capacitance) on
frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of common cable. The upper
curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps while
the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic preamp. Note
the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".

This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source impedance
of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite small. Other sources
give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less - perhaps 75
ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB range of response at
20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all that
audibly significant.

<aside> The high frequency variation relates to a resonance between the
source inductance of the SM57 and a cable capacitance on the order of 0.035
uF. The resonance centers at about 45 KHz, from which the equivalent source
impedance of the SM57 can be calculated.

I would expect less than 1 dB variation due to adding a 1K ohm resistor.
This means that even in your pessimistic estimate, there would be a 1 dB
loss of CMRR which is almost always negligible, even in a high noise
environment.

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger" >

> An interesting related article can be found at
> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>
> Most interesting is:
>
> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and capacitance) on
> frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of common cable. The
upper
> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps while
> the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic preamp.
Note
> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".
>
> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
> summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
> impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source
impedance
> of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite small. Other
sources
> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less - perhaps 75
> ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB range of response
at
> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all that
> audibly significant.


** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less than 2dB
at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100 feet of cable
driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest frequency an SM57 actually
reproduces, the variation is less than 1 dB while at 10 kHz that variation
is less than 0.5 dB.

The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is a lot
greater than that !!



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

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger" >

> An interesting related article can be found at
> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>
> Most interesting is:
>
> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and capacitance) on
> frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of common cable. The
upper
> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps while
> the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic preamp.
Note
> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".
>
> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
> summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
> impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source
impedance
> of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite small. Other
sources
> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less - perhaps 75
> ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB range of response
at
> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all that
> audibly significant.


** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less than 2dB
at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100 feet of cable
driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest frequency an SM57 actually
reproduces, the variation is less than 1 dB while at 10 kHz that variation
is less than 0.5 dB.

The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is a lot
greater than that !!



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

[Arny Krueger]

Phil Allison wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> An interesting related article can be found at
>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF

>> Most interesting is:

>> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
>> capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
>> common cable. The upper
>> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
>> while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic
>> preamp. Note
>> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".

>> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
>> summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
>> impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source
>> impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite
>> small. Other sources
>> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
>> perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
>> range of response at
>> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
>> that audibly significant.

> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
> than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
> feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest frequency
> an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1 dB while at
> 10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.

> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
> a lot greater than that !!

This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
SM57s by various preamps and cables.

[Arny Krueger]

Phil Allison wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> An interesting related article can be found at
>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF

>> Most interesting is:

>> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
>> capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
>> common cable. The upper
>> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
>> while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic
>> preamp. Note
>> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".

>> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
>> summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
>> impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source
>> impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite
>> small. Other sources
>> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
>> perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
>> range of response at
>> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
>> that audibly significant.

> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
> than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
> feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest frequency
> an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1 dB while at
> 10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.

> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
> a lot greater than that !!

This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
SM57s by various preamps and cables.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Phil Allison wrote:
>
>>"Arny Krueger" >
>>
>>>An interesting related article can be found at
>>>http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>
>
>>>Most interesting is:
>
>
>>>"Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
>>>capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
>>>common cable. The upper
>>>curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
>>>while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic
>>>preamp. Note
>>>the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".
>
>
>>>This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
>>>summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
>>>impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source
>>>impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite
>>>small. Other sources
>>>give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
>>>perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
>>>range of response at
>>>20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
>>>that audibly significant.
>
>
>> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
>>than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
>>feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest frequency
>>an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1 dB while at
>>10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.
>
>
>> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
>>a lot greater than that !!
>
>
> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> SM57s by various preamps and cables.

It looks to me as though it's comparing the impact of different loading resistors across the inputs of a particular preamp on the output frequency response of SM57s. Many of the sonic diffrerence claims (and my own experience) show a marked difference between the sound of an SM-57 feeding a high impedance transformerless preamp when compared with that produced by one feeding a transformer-fronted preamp.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Phil Allison wrote:
>
>>"Arny Krueger" >
>>
>>>An interesting related article can be found at
>>>http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>
>
>>>Most interesting is:
>
>
>>>"Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
>>>capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
>>>common cable. The upper
>>>curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
>>>while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic
>>>preamp. Note
>>>the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".
>
>
>>>This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
>>>summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
>>>impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source
>>>impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite
>>>small. Other sources
>>>give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
>>>perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
>>>range of response at
>>>20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
>>>that audibly significant.
>
>
>> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
>>than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
>>feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest frequency
>>an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1 dB while at
>>10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.
>
>
>> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
>>a lot greater than that !!
>
>
> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> SM57s by various preamps and cables.

It looks to me as though it's comparing the impact of different loading resistors across the inputs of a particular preamp on the output frequency response of SM57s. Many of the sonic diffrerence claims (and my own experience) show a marked difference between the sound of an SM-57 feeding a high impedance transformerless preamp when compared with that produced by one feeding a transformer-fronted preamp.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> SM57s by various preamps and cables.

I didn't see the article you're talking about, but experience has
shown that there's a noticable difference in sound (not necessarily
limited to frequency response) depending on whether an SM57 is
connected to a preamp with an input transformer or without. It
probably has more to do with the transformer in the SM57 than anything
else.

A good illustration would be to plug an SM57 into a Groove Tube ViPRE
and twiddle the input impedance switch. That changes taps on a
transformer, and there may be a "transformerless" setting. But then
we'd get to arguing the benefits of "warm" vs. "transparent."


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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> SM57s by various preamps and cables.

I didn't see the article you're talking about, but experience has
shown that there's a noticable difference in sound (not necessarily
limited to frequency response) depending on whether an SM57 is
connected to a preamp with an input transformer or without. It
probably has more to do with the transformer in the SM57 than anything
else.

A good illustration would be to plug an SM57 into a Groove Tube ViPRE
and twiddle the input impedance switch. That changes taps on a
transformer, and there may be a "transformerless" setting. But then
we'd get to arguing the benefits of "warm" vs. "transparent."


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

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
Kurt Albershardt > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> > dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> > SM57s by various preamps and cables.
>
> It looks to me as though it's comparing the impact of different loading
> resistors across the inputs of a particular preamp on the output frequency
> response of SM57s. Many of the sonic diffrerence claims (and my own
> experience) show a marked difference between the sound of an SM-57 feeding a
> high impedance transformerless preamp when compared with that produced by one
> feeding a transformer-fronted preamp.

Bingo. The low end is one place that a transformer loaded preamp can't
be compared to a transformerless preamp. Basically, the input
transformer is not ideal, and since it has a finite number of turns in
its primary and a core of finite permeability, the input inductance may
not be high enough to present the same load at low frequencies as is
presented to the mike at 1KHz.

To a dynamic mike, this will directly influence the mechanics of the
transducer. This load impedance is reflected into the transducer and
will change the damping quite readily. Practically, I have found that
some transformer input preamps like the Groove Tubes VIPRE that use
transformer tap switching (and not high quality resistors) to control
the input impedance can offer a fairly complex input impedance that can
greatly color a 57. In my experience, this coloration is far from
subtle. We're talking 4-8dB of coloration here... hardly the stuff that
needs to be argued over with DBT.

One odd effect I have also noticed with the GT VIPRE is an added peak
around 4-8KHz with low load impedances and a Shure 57/545/547 type of
mike. I don't know why this happens, but it can sound pretty nice
sometimes, and godawful shrill when you don't want it. That's why the
impedance switch is there... right? ;-)

One final observation... I have noticed that you (Arny) seem to have a
bias that prefers not to hear differences between pieces of gear, even
though such differences might be reasonably well known to other
engineers and sometimes exploited on a regular basis by those same
folks. I'm curious as to how this bias helps you get along with
life...? I suppose in the ideal case it more accurately models how
things happen in your world, but I find it odd that it doesn't line up
with what happens in a lot of other folks' worlds who came to some
conclusion without having knowledge that others came to the same
conclusion.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
Kurt Albershardt > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> > dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> > SM57s by various preamps and cables.
>
> It looks to me as though it's comparing the impact of different loading
> resistors across the inputs of a particular preamp on the output frequency
> response of SM57s. Many of the sonic diffrerence claims (and my own
> experience) show a marked difference between the sound of an SM-57 feeding a
> high impedance transformerless preamp when compared with that produced by one
> feeding a transformer-fronted preamp.

Bingo. The low end is one place that a transformer loaded preamp can't
be compared to a transformerless preamp. Basically, the input
transformer is not ideal, and since it has a finite number of turns in
its primary and a core of finite permeability, the input inductance may
not be high enough to present the same load at low frequencies as is
presented to the mike at 1KHz.

To a dynamic mike, this will directly influence the mechanics of the
transducer. This load impedance is reflected into the transducer and
will change the damping quite readily. Practically, I have found that
some transformer input preamps like the Groove Tubes VIPRE that use
transformer tap switching (and not high quality resistors) to control
the input impedance can offer a fairly complex input impedance that can
greatly color a 57. In my experience, this coloration is far from
subtle. We're talking 4-8dB of coloration here... hardly the stuff that
needs to be argued over with DBT.

One odd effect I have also noticed with the GT VIPRE is an added peak
around 4-8KHz with low load impedances and a Shure 57/545/547 type of
mike. I don't know why this happens, but it can sound pretty nice
sometimes, and godawful shrill when you don't want it. That's why the
impedance switch is there... right? ;-)

One final observation... I have noticed that you (Arny) seem to have a
bias that prefers not to hear differences between pieces of gear, even
though such differences might be reasonably well known to other
engineers and sometimes exploited on a regular basis by those same
folks. I'm curious as to how this bias helps you get along with
life...? I suppose in the ideal case it more accurately models how
things happen in your world, but I find it odd that it doesn't line up
with what happens in a lot of other folks' worlds who came to some
conclusion without having knowledge that others came to the same
conclusion.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Arny Krueger]

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" >
>>>
>>>> An interesting related article can be found at
>>>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>
>>>> Most interesting is:

>>>> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
>>>> capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
>>>> common cable. The upper
>>>> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
>>>> while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input
>>>> mic preamp. Note
>>>> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".

>>>> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57.
>>>> To summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with
>>>> load impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the
>>>> source impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is
>>>> quite small. Other sources
>>>> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
>>>> perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
>>>> range of response at
>>>> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
>>>> that audibly significant.

>>> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
>>> than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
>>> feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest
>>> frequency an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1
>>> dB while at 10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.

>>> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
>>> a lot greater than that !!

>> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many
>> claims of dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in
>> the loading of SM57s by various preamps and cables.

> It looks to me as though it's comparing the impact of different
> loading resistors across the inputs of a particular preamp on the
> output frequency response of SM57s.

Right, and that's what I said, isn't it?

> Many of the sonic difference
> claims (and my own experience) show a marked difference between the
> sound of an SM-57 feeding a high impedance transformerless preamp
> when compared with that produced by one feeding a transformer-fronted
> preamp.

Sure, and the effects of transformer loading are not directly addressed
here. But what is addressed here relates to variations in resistive and
capacitive loading.

We've seen various claims about how preamps with various resistive input
impedances can make SM-57s sound dramatically different, right? It appears
that those claims have now been soaked with cold water by these careful,
real-world measurements. There are substantial measured changes in
performance, but they are all outside the audible range.

The bottom line is that these tests show that a SM-57 presents a relatively
low-impedance source to whatever loads it. They show that SM-57s tend to
perform in an audibly similar fashion with various combinations of
resistance and reactance.

Transformer-input preamps add two dimensions that these tests don't address
directly. First there is the response of the transformer itself. It
obviously acts like a bandpass filter of some kind. Secondly, transformers
can present inductive loads to microphones because the transformers
themselves can have inductance. This is shown as Lt in figure 5 for
example. The article seems to encourage us to ignore both of these, because
it does not mention any effects that are associated with them. It may be
that because of their quality, Jensen transformers have reduced the effects
of these parameters to the point where they can be safely ignored.

[Arny Krueger]

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" >
>>>
>>>> An interesting related article can be found at
>>>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>
>>>> Most interesting is:

>>>> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
>>>> capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
>>>> common cable. The upper
>>>> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
>>>> while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input
>>>> mic preamp. Note
>>>> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".

>>>> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57.
>>>> To summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with
>>>> load impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the
>>>> source impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is
>>>> quite small. Other sources
>>>> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
>>>> perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
>>>> range of response at
>>>> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
>>>> that audibly significant.

>>> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
>>> than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
>>> feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest
>>> frequency an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1
>>> dB while at 10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.

>>> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
>>> a lot greater than that !!

>> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many
>> claims of dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in
>> the loading of SM57s by various preamps and cables.

> It looks to me as though it's comparing the impact of different
> loading resistors across the inputs of a particular preamp on the
> output frequency response of SM57s.

Right, and that's what I said, isn't it?

> Many of the sonic difference
> claims (and my own experience) show a marked difference between the
> sound of an SM-57 feeding a high impedance transformerless preamp
> when compared with that produced by one feeding a transformer-fronted
> preamp.

Sure, and the effects of transformer loading are not directly addressed
here. But what is addressed here relates to variations in resistive and
capacitive loading.

We've seen various claims about how preamps with various resistive input
impedances can make SM-57s sound dramatically different, right? It appears
that those claims have now been soaked with cold water by these careful,
real-world measurements. There are substantial measured changes in
performance, but they are all outside the audible range.

The bottom line is that these tests show that a SM-57 presents a relatively
low-impedance source to whatever loads it. They show that SM-57s tend to
perform in an audibly similar fashion with various combinations of
resistance and reactance.

Transformer-input preamps add two dimensions that these tests don't address
directly. First there is the response of the transformer itself. It
obviously acts like a bandpass filter of some kind. Secondly, transformers
can present inductive loads to microphones because the transformers
themselves can have inductance. This is shown as Lt in figure 5 for
example. The article seems to encourage us to ignore both of these, because
it does not mention any effects that are associated with them. It may be
that because of their quality, Jensen transformers have reduced the effects
of these parameters to the point where they can be safely ignored.

[Arny Krueger]

Monte McGuire wrote:

> One final observation... I have noticed that you (Arny) seem to have a
> bias that prefers not to hear differences between pieces of gear, even
> though such differences might be reasonably well known to other
> engineers and sometimes exploited on a regular basis by those same
> folks.

Monte, I guess this means that you think that the principles of science and
audio engineering are up for a vote, a vote that involves only the people
you choose.

>I'm curious as to how this bias helps you get along with life...?

That bias is a figment of your imagination Monte, so the question falls back
on you. How do you find that making false claims about people based on
taking their discussions well outside of their intended domain, helps you
get along in life?

I've got no problem with disagreeing with people who are poorly-informed,
have tightly held beliefs based on weak or non-existent proof, and don't do
their homework.

> I suppose in the ideal case it more accurately models how
> things happen in your world, but I find it odd that it doesn't line up
> with what happens in a lot of other folks' worlds who came to some
> conclusion without having knowledge that others came to the same
> conclusion.

I think that you just don't get the truth and honesty thing, Monte. I made
comments that are based on well-documented, well-supported high frequency
differences, and you tried to falsify them with a bunch of unsupported,
undocumented assertions about low frequency differences. Then you
extrapolate from that weirdness to some other assertions that border on
personal attacks, relating to whether or not I like to hear differences.

For the record, I like to hear differences that are not figments of people's
imaginations, since so many of them are.

Monte I guess you need to be reminded hat I said:

"This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
SM57s by various preamps and cables."

Monte, I didn't say "all claims", I said "many claims". You obviously
extrapolated "many claims" to "all claims" and started waving your
defensiveness flag. Your bad, not mine.

Hey Monte, if this sort of thing helps you get through the day, fine. Just
don't expect me to suffer silently through this kind of poorly-reasoned and
poorly-supported abuse. When you've got some support for your claims that
are as thoroughly documented and complete as Bill Whitlock's paper,
http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
be sure to share it. I mean it!

[david]

I haven't been following whatever you and Monte have been kicking
around. However, after briefly peaking at the post below - ouch - I
wanted to comment.

Monte is a pro in this field with lots of happy clients. You Arny seem
more interested in debating stuff rather than recording and mixing
stuff.

If I am wrong about this, then get out there and smell the salt air.
Happy clients don't care in theory. Their do care
tremendously about the sound of their final product. Great sounding
final products don't fall off trucks or appear by happenstance. Nor may
I add does longtime success in this industry.

Also, I had to wince about your comment to him about truth and honesty.
I have only spoken with Monte in person once and found him as measured,
reasonable and pleasant as his years of posts both here and on the
dawmac list.

I guess what I'm really saying is I wanted to stand up for Monte. Even
while sitting down typing this.




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com





In article >, Arny Krueger
> wrote:

> Monte McGuire wrote:
>[i]
> > One final observation... I have noticed that you (Arny) seem to have a
> > bias that prefers not to hear differences between pieces of gear, even
> > though such differences might be reasonably well known to other
> > engineers and sometimes exploited on a regular basis by those same
> > folks.
>
> Monte, I guess this means that you think that the principles of science and
> audio engineering are up for a vote, a vote that involves only the people
> you choose.
>
> >I'm curious as to how this bias helps you get along with life...?
>
> That bias is a figment of your imagination Monte, so the question falls back
> on you. How do you find that making false claims about people based on
> taking their discussions well outside of their intended domain, helps you
> get along in life?
>
> I've got no problem with disagreeing with people who are poorly-informed,
> have tightly held beliefs based on weak or non-existent proof, and don't do
> their homework.
>
> > I suppose in the ideal case it more accurately models how
> > things happen in your world, but I find it odd that it doesn't line up
> > with what happens in a lot of other folks' worlds who came to some
> > conclusion without having knowledge that others came to the same
> > conclusion.
>
> I think that you just don't get the truth and honesty thing, Monte. I made
> comments that are based on well-documented, well-supported high frequency
> differences, and you tried to falsify them with a bunch of unsupported,
> undocumented assertions about low frequency differences. Then you
> extrapolate from that weirdness to some other assertions that border on
> personal attacks, relating to whether or not I like to hear differences.
>
> For the record, I like to hear differences that are not figments of people's
> imaginations, since so many of them are.
>
> Monte I guess you need to be reminded hat I said:
>
> "This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> SM57s by various preamps and cables."
>
> Monte, I didn't say "all claims", I said "many claims". You obviously
> extrapolated "many claims" to "all claims" and started waving your
> defensiveness flag. Your bad, not mine.
>
> Hey Monte, if this sort of thing helps you get through the day, fine. Just
> don't expect me to suffer silently through this kind of poorly-reasoned and
> poorly-supported abuse. When you've got some support for your claims that
> are as thoroughly documented and complete as Bill Whitlock's paper,
> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
> be sure to share it. I mean it!

[Arny Krueger]

david wrote:
> I haven't been following whatever you and Monte have been kicking
> around. However, after briefly peaking at the post below - ouch - I
> wanted to comment.

David, I'm sad to see that you think that Monte can't stand up for himself.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> SM57s by various preamps and cables.

This is a PSA.

If you hook a 57 to a Mackie 1202, and then hook it to a GRE MP2 and
can't hear a difference, please see your audiologist.
--
ha

[hank alrich]

david wrote:

> I guess what I'm really saying is I wanted to stand up for Monte. Even
> while sitting down typing this.

Monte is a professional recordist, mixer, and producer. He had the balls
to try simultaneous FOH, mons, and live recording all from one PT rig
before the hard and soft ware was up to it. Once the kit would float, he
did it, and the result is product. He makes daily decisons based on what
he gets from his ears, and by invoking actions based on those decision,
he makes his living. Enough said.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> david wrote:
> > I haven't been following whatever you and Monte have been kicking
> > around. However, after briefly peaking at the post below - ouch - I
> > wanted to comment.

> David, I'm sad to see that you think that Monte can't stand up for himself.

Surely you must have heavier **** to be sad about. I doubt Monte has all
that much time to **** with theory. He's making his living as an audio
pro, in the real field, in real time.

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

hank alrich wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many
>> claims of dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in
>> the loading of SM57s by various preamps and cables.
>
> This is a PSA.
>
> If you hook a 57 to a Mackie 1202, and then hook it to a GRE MP2 and
> can't hear a difference, please see your audiologist.

Well Hank you charming devil, if you think this discussion suggests that
there can't or shouldn't possibly be an audible difference in that
situation, then you need to learn the difference between a console and a
stand-alone mic preamp.

;-)

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> hank alrich wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many
> >> claims of dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in
> >> the loading of SM57s by various preamps and cables.
> >
> > This is a PSA.
> >
> > If you hook a 57 to a Mackie 1202, and then hook it to a GRE MP2 and
> > can't hear a difference, please see your audiologist.
>
> Well Hank you charming devil, if you think this discussion suggests that
> there can't or shouldn't possibly be an audible difference in that
> situation, then you need to learn the difference between a console and a
> stand-alone mic preamp.

Same difference tends to apply to a Sytek and a Great River. The SM57 really
seems to react differently to a resistive load than to a transformer.

Peace,
Paul

[Chris Rossi]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> Phil Allison wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" >
> >
> >> An interesting related article can be found at
> >> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>
> >> Most interesting is:
>
> >> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
> >> capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
> >> common cable. The upper
> >> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
> >> while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input mic
> >> preamp. Note
> >> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".
>
> >> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57. To
> >> summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with load
> >> impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the source
> >> impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is quite
> >> small. Other sources
> >> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
> >> perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
> >> range of response at
> >> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
> >> that audibly significant.
>
> > ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
> > than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
> > feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest frequency
> > an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1 dB while at
> > 10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.
>
> > The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
> > a lot greater than that !!
>
> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
> dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
> SM57s by various preamps and cables.
>
I was under the impression that the interesting loads for the SM-57
were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to his
RNP in part for this reason.

rossi

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many claims of
>> dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in the loading of
>> SM57s by various preamps and cables.
>
>This is a PSA.
>
>If you hook a 57 to a Mackie 1202, and then hook it to a GRE MP2 and
>can't hear a difference, please see your audiologist.

And, it's measurable. I've only done frequency response, not impulse
response, though. Anyone who gets a good set of impulse responses with
different loads should be able to get a nice JAES paper out of it.

Be aware that the GRE MP2 input is reactive, too!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

Chris Rossi wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Phil Allison wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" >
>>>
>>>> An interesting related article can be found at
>>>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>>
>>>> Most interesting is:
>>
>>>> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
>>>> capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
>>>> common cable. The upper
>>>> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
>>>> while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input
>>>> mic preamp. Note
>>>> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".
>>
>>>> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57.
>>>> To summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with
>>>> load impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the
>>>> source impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is
>>>> quite small. Other sources
>>>> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
>>>> perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
>>>> range of response at
>>>> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
>>>> that audibly significant.
>>
>>> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
>>> than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
>>> feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest
>>> frequency an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1
>>> dB while at 10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.
>>
>>> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
>>> a lot greater than that !!
>>
>> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many
>> claims of dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in
>> the loading of SM57s by various preamps and cables.

> I was under the impression that the interesting loads for the SM-57
> were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
> reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to his
> RNP in part for this reason.

Check figure 4 in the reference:
http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
for information about the effects of reactive loads on the SM-57.

Basically, with a load on the order of a relatively large 25,000pF there a
mere 2 dB increase at 15 KHz. A large 2,500 pF load gives just a 1.2 dB
increase at 20 KHz. Both peaks are fairly narrow and lightly damped, so
their effects in the main part of the audible range (<10 KHz) are less than
1.5 dB (25,000 pF) or less than 0.3 dB (2,500 pF).

Since the RNP and the GRE have been mentioned, perhaps people who have them
can see what's inside the box in this area. Compared to the mic's response
variations in the same frequency ranges, this is all chump change.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Well Hank you charming devil, if you think this discussion suggests that
> there can't or shouldn't possibly be an audible difference in that
> situation, then you need to learn the difference between a console and a
> stand-alone mic preamp.

Take the Mackie's pre out via the insert and get back to me or to your
audiologist. <g>

(I've had consoles: Sony, Altec, a custom one we built around API
components, Midas, Sphere, Soundcraft, Mackie, Allen & Heath. I've
driven a few dozen consoles that weren't mine.)

The point is that generalizing from spec sheets and theory doesn't
always hold up well in the practical world of real audio, where the
invoice meets the payment. While Jensen's calculations demonstrate the
likely variance in response for changes in resistive loading of a
microphone they certainly do not exclude the possibility that mic
response will be altered by interaction with various preamps, resistive
load being only a portion of the equation. When people discuss the
variations in mic response with different mic cables, they are generally
talking about the effects of capacitance.

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

hank alrich wrote:

> The point is that generalizing from spec sheets and theory doesn't
> always hold up well in the practical world of real audio, where the
> invoice meets the payment.

Well established theories are generally right, but our applications of them
are often more flawed. Is that the fault of the theory? Does pooh-poohing
theories that disagree with or challenge our long held-beliefs really help
anybody?

>While Jensen's calculations demonstrate the
> likely variance in response for changes in resistive loading of a
> microphone they certainly do not exclude the possibility that mic
> response will be altered by interaction with various preamps,
> resistive load being only a portion of the equation.

In this case, both resistive loading and capacitive loading were discussed
by Whitlock.

> When people
> discuss the variations in mic response with different mic cables,
> they are generally talking about the effects of capacitance.

The irony of all this is that while Figure 3 in the Whitlock paper covered
the effect of resistive loads on a SM57, the next figure, figure 4 covered
the effect of various cable lengths on a SM57. As I covered in detail in
another post, the capacitive load study had similar results to the resistive
load study. So Hank, you're arguing against a straw man.

I'm really disappointed in all the people who have made this same straw man
argument, when the full text of the paper was just one click away. It's not
a long paper, and it is written very practically. In fact, its not a
theoretical paper at all, but a paper of real-world practical results.
People seem to have time to attack the paper on bogus grounds, but they
don't have time to even glance at it for a moment or two.

[Chris Rossi]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> Chris Rossi wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> Phil Allison wrote:
> >>> "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>
> >>>> An interesting related article can be found at
> >>>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>
> >>>> Most interesting is:
>
> >>>> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
> >>>> capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet of
> >>>> common cable. The upper
> >>>> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic preamps
> >>>> while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a transformer input
> >>>> mic preamp. Note
> >>>> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient damping".
>
> >>>> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a SM57.
> >>>> To summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3 KHz with
> >>>> load impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms. IOW, the
> >>>> source impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range (<20 KHz) is
> >>>> quite small. Other sources
> >>>> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
> >>>> perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
> >>>> range of response at
> >>>> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is all
> >>>> that audibly significant.
>
> >>> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of less
> >>> than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end of 100
> >>> feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest
> >>> frequency an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than 1
> >>> dB while at 10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.
>
> >>> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57 is
> >>> a lot greater than that !!
> >>
> >> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many
> >> claims of dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations in
> >> the loading of SM57s by various preamps and cables.
>
> > I was under the impression that the interesting loads for the SM-57
> > were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
> > reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to his
> > RNP in part for this reason.
>
> Check figure 4 in the reference:
> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
> for information about the effects of reactive loads on the SM-57.
>
> Basically, with a load on the order of a relatively large 25,000pF there a
> mere 2 dB increase at 15 KHz. A large 2,500 pF load gives just a 1.2 dB
> increase at 20 KHz. Both peaks are fairly narrow and lightly damped, so
> their effects in the main part of the audible range (<10 KHz) are less than
> 1.5 dB (25,000 pF) or less than 0.3 dB (2,500 pF).
>
> Since the RNP and the GRE have been mentioned, perhaps people who have them
> can see what's inside the box in this area. Compared to the mic's response
> variations in the same frequency ranges, this is all chump change.
>
Is simply measuring frequency response a reliable way of
characterizing the sound of a mic?

rossi

[Arny Krueger]

Chris Rossi wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Chris Rossi wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> Phil Allison wrote:
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>>
>>>>>> An interesting related article can be found at
>>>>>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>>
>>>>>> Most interesting is:
>>
>>>>>> "Figure 3 shows the effect of preamp input resistance (and
>>>>>> capacitance) on frequency response of a Shure SM57 with 100 feet
>>>>>> of common cable. The upper
>>>>>> curves, 10 kS and 3 kS, are typical of transformer-less mic
>>>>>> preamps while the lower curve, 1.5 kS, is typical of a
>>>>>> transformer input mic preamp. Note
>>>>>> the ultra-sonic peaks in response caused by insufficient
>>>>>> damping".
>>
>>>>>> This chart gives some insight into the output impedance of a
>>>>>> SM57. To summarize, there is negligible change in response at 3
>>>>>> KHz with load impedances varying from 1,500 ohms to 10,000 ohms.
>>>>>> IOW, the source impedance of a SM57 in the normal audio range
>>>>>> (<20 KHz) is quite small. Other sources
>>>>>> give it as being 150 ohms or 310 ohms. It may be even less -
>>>>>> perhaps 75 ohms or less. The same charts show an approximate 5 dB
>>>>>> range of response at
>>>>>> 20 KHz but less than 1 dB variation at 10 KHz. None of this is
>>>>>> all that audibly significant.
>>
>>>>> ** Fig 3 in the Jensen article shows an overall variation of
>>>>> less than 2dB at 20kHz for the three load impedances at the end
>>>>> of 100 feet of cable driven by an SM57. At 15 kHz, or the highest
>>>>> frequency an SM57 actually reproduces, the variation is less than
>>>>> 1 dB while at 10 kHz that variation is less than 0.5 dB.
>>
>>>>> The HF response variation between different samples of the SM57
>>>>> is a lot greater than that !!
>>>>
>>>> This article seems to throw quite a bit of cold water on the many
>>>> claims of dramatic sonic differences due to real-world variations
>>>> in the loading of SM57s by various preamps and cables.
>>
>>> I was under the impression that the interesting loads for the SM-57
>>> were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
>>> reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to
>>> his RNP in part for this reason.
>>
>> Check figure 4 in the reference:
>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>> for information about the effects of reactive loads on the SM-57.
>>
>> Basically, with a load on the order of a relatively large 25,000pF
>> there a mere 2 dB increase at 15 KHz. A large 2,500 pF load gives
>> just a 1.2 dB increase at 20 KHz. Both peaks are fairly narrow and
>> lightly damped, so their effects in the main part of the audible
>> range (<10 KHz) are less than
>> 1.5 dB (25,000 pF) or less than 0.3 dB (2,500 pF).
>>
>> Since the RNP and the GRE have been mentioned, perhaps people who
>> have them can see what's inside the box in this area. Compared to
>> the mic's response variations in the same frequency ranges, this is
>> all chump change.
>>
> Is simply measuring frequency response a reliable way of
> characterizing the sound of a mic?

Depends. Consider the same mic connected to 2 different mic preamps first
one, then the other. Let's presume adequate overload and noise
characteristics for both preamps, and low distortion. IOW both preamps are
high quality pieces with very good performance. We find that there are no
important difference in the measured frequency response for the mic-preamp
combination when the mic is connected to either preamp. How different do you
expect them to sound?

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>The irony of all this is that while Figure 3 in the Whitlock paper covered
>the effect of resistive loads on a SM57, the next figure, figure 4 covered
>the effect of various cable lengths on a SM57. As I covered in detail in
>another post, the capacitive load study had similar results to the resistive
>load study. So Hank, you're arguing against a straw man.

The SM-57 wants an inductive load. This actually shouldn't be hard to do
with lumped sum inductors (which should be a lot cheaper than a transformer).
--scott


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

[JoVee]

in article ,

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>> The irony of all this is that while Figure 3 in the Whitlock paper covered
>> the effect of resistive loads on a SM57, the next figure, figure 4 covered
>> the effect of various cable lengths on a SM57. As I covered in detail in
>> another post, the capacitive load study had similar results to the resistive
>> load study. So Hank, you're arguing against a straw man.

Scott Dorsey at wrote on 6/14/04 10:41 AM:>
> The SM-57 wants an inductive load. This actually shouldn't be hard to do
> with lumped sum inductors (which should be a lot cheaper than a transformer).
> --scott
>

'wants and inductive load'... hmmm... how many transformers in a line want
more transformers after them? meaning: old question but... what's the take
on 57's with and without internal xfrmrs?
Not meant to be a leading question, now that I look at what I wrote and
think, since indeed a 57 by design/definition HAS a xfrmr in it... as does
most EVERY popular SHURE mic,
just that there are family members that DON'T... 57L, 545L, some of the
other cousins past and present (SM78), that come wired cartridge-to-pins...

and has anyone looked at the 57/preamp/sonics compare/contrast thing
including (oh the test variables...) identical 57's with and without?


--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

[Scott Dorsey]

JoVee > wrote:
>
>'wants and inductive load'... hmmm... how many transformers in a line want
>more transformers after them? meaning: old question but... what's the take
>on 57's with and without internal xfrmrs?

Taking the internal transformer out of the SM-57 turns it into a totally
different mike with a very different sound. This used to be a common thing
for drum miking back in the eighties.

>Not meant to be a leading question, now that I look at what I wrote and
>think, since indeed a 57 by design/definition HAS a xfrmr in it... as does
>most EVERY popular SHURE mic,
>just that there are family members that DON'T... 57L, 545L, some of the
>other cousins past and present (SM78), that come wired cartridge-to-pins...

I believe these also have different coil designs on the element, though.

> and has anyone looked at the 57/preamp/sonics compare/contrast thing
>including (oh the test variables...) identical 57's with and without?

57s sound more like than they sound different, even the newer Mexican ones.
--scott

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

[JoVee]

in article , Scott Dorsey at
wrote on 6/14/04 4:07 PM:

> JoVee > wrote:

>> and has anyone looked at the 57/preamp/sonics compare/contrast thing
>> including (oh the test variables...) identical 57's with and without?
>
> 57s sound more like than they sound different, even the newer Mexican ones.
> --scott

not quite what I meant to ask, was wondering about how a 57 sans-tran
interacts with various preamps (different loadings etc = different sounds)
vs a 57 avec.

did SHURE ever pot the trannies? some of my (bought-used) 57's have
xfrmr-in-caulk, most don't.

I sorta wish the most common mic failure (outside of obvious destruction)
wasn't internal wire-breaks... then I wouldn't have had to learn about all
this and could just relax...


--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

[Scott Dorsey]

JoVee > wrote:
>in article , Scott Dorsey at
>wrote on 6/14/04 4:07 PM:
>
>> JoVee > wrote:
>
>>> and has anyone looked at the 57/preamp/sonics compare/contrast thing
>>> including (oh the test variables...) identical 57's with and without?
>>
>> 57s sound more like than they sound different, even the newer Mexican ones.
>
>not quite what I meant to ask, was wondering about how a 57 sans-tran
>interacts with various preamps (different loadings etc = different sounds)
> vs a 57 avec.

Dunno, but it will be different, because the transformer is not a 1:1 device,
so the optimal load impedance will be different at the very minimum.

>did SHURE ever pot the trannies? some of my (bought-used) 57's have
>xfrmr-in-caulk, most don't.

The newer ones have some gunk to hold the transformer in place, but I have
not seen any that were properly potted. Potting is a good idea for larger
transformers because it reduces distortion from the windings shifting in
place under load. I don't know if it's much of a win on small ones other
than just mechanical stability.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JoVee]

in article , Scott Dorsey at
wrote on 6/15/04 9:37 AM:

> JoVee > wrote:

>> did SHURE ever pot the trannies? some of my (bought-used) 57's have
>> xfrmr-in-caulk, most don't.
>
> The newer ones have some gunk to hold the transformer in place, but I have
> not seen any that were properly potted.

ack... right.. potted is wind-sealed... i WAS talking about 'glued-down'



> Potting is a good idea for larger
> transformers because it reduces distortion from the windings shifting in
> place under load. I don't know if it's much of a win on small ones other
> than just mechanical stability.
> --scott

[Rob Reedijk]

Chris Rossi > wrote:
> were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
> reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to his
> RNP in part for this reason.

Sorry to change the subject here, but this may relate. As I understand
it, the RNP is a transformerless mic pre. According to a little
birdie who told me things, the blocking capacitors, necessary in
transformerless pres to protect the input from phantom power, cause a
certain amount of signal degradation, particularly in the top end.

However, this supposedly is not a factor when it comes to condensors
since when the phantom is switched on, the biasing to the capacitors
that results, somehow negates this problem.

Assuming any of this is true, has anyone ever tested with a dynamic
mic, plugged into a transformerless pre, whether or not the sound
improves (more clarity in the top end) by switching on the phantom
power!?

It may not matter with most dynamics, but what about some of the better
ones such as the 441 or RE20? And dare I say it...what about ribbon
mics, where switching on phantom is generally considered a no-no?

Rob R.

[Chris Rossi]

Rob Reedijk > wrote in message >...
> Chris Rossi > wrote:
> > were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
> > reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to his
> > RNP in part for this reason.
>
> Sorry to change the subject here, but this may relate. As I understand
> it, the RNP is a transformerless mic pre. According to a little
> birdie who told me things, the blocking capacitors, necessary in
> transformerless pres to protect the input from phantom power, cause a
> certain amount of signal degradation, particularly in the top end.
>
> However, this supposedly is not a factor when it comes to condensors
> since when the phantom is switched on, the biasing to the capacitors
> that results, somehow negates this problem.
>
> Assuming any of this is true, has anyone ever tested with a dynamic
> mic, plugged into a transformerless pre, whether or not the sound
> improves (more clarity in the top end) by switching on the phantom
> power!?
>
You will hopefully get some better technical answers, but for now I'll
just say that it's my understanding that any good designer is going to
make sure any electrolytics in his/her design are properly biased.
I've noted in other discussions a belief by some of the electronic
whizzes of today that the bad name given to capacitors is largely a
result of early poor design resulting from a lack of understanding of
how to properly bias the caps. In general, today, designers today
don't make those mistakes. Anyway, a mic pre that behaved in the
manner you describe would indicate to me a bad design. I do have an
RNP and don't recall having ever encountered a difference in sound
with phantom engaged or not on a dynamic mic. I'll give it a shot
this week, though, just for grins.

rossi

[Chris Rossi]

> >>> I was under the impression that the interesting loads for the SM-57
> >>> were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
> >>> reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to
> >>> his RNP in part for this reason.
> >>
> >> Check figure 4 in the reference:
> >> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
> >> for information about the effects of reactive loads on the SM-57.
> >>
> >> Basically, with a load on the order of a relatively large 25,000pF
> >> there a mere 2 dB increase at 15 KHz. A large 2,500 pF load gives
> >> just a 1.2 dB increase at 20 KHz. Both peaks are fairly narrow and
> >> lightly damped, so their effects in the main part of the audible
> >> range (<10 KHz) are less than
> >> 1.5 dB (25,000 pF) or less than 0.3 dB (2,500 pF).
> >>
> >> Since the RNP and the GRE have been mentioned, perhaps people who
> >> have them can see what's inside the box in this area. Compared to
> >> the mic's response variations in the same frequency ranges, this is
> >> all chump change.
> >>
> > Is simply measuring frequency response a reliable way of
> > characterizing the sound of a mic?
>
> Depends. Consider the same mic connected to 2 different mic preamps first
> one, then the other. Let's presume adequate overload and noise
> characteristics for both preamps, and low distortion. IOW both preamps are
> high quality pieces with very good performance. We find that there are no
> important difference in the measured frequency response for the mic-preamp
> combination when the mic is connected to either preamp. How different do you
> expect them to sound?
>
I can't claim to be an electronics expert. I do have a physical
sciences background, though. In general physicists and the like take
observable phenomena as their starting point. A theory that disagress
with observable phenomena needs to be updated. Again, I'm no expert.
I'm simply trying to reconcile the numerous field observations that
loading does impact sound of a SM-57 with the technical evidence you
bring forward that it shouldn't. In this case we have observations
made in controlled experiments that indicate there is a very small
difference in sound due to microphone loading, while overwhelming
antecdotal evidence from the field seems to suggest otherwise. The
fact that there is a discrepency leads me to believe there is room for
further studay. It occurs to me that there may be a number of
explanations for the discrepencies:

1) Observed sonic differences in the field are wrongly attributed to
loading, and there is some other variable affecting the sound.
(Experimental evidence could eliminate loading as a significant
variable, but would still leave the question open, "What is causing
the observed difference in sound?")

2) Resistive and capacitive loading (those cited in your papers) do
indeed have little impact on sound, however inductive loads do produce
greater coloration.

3) Frequency response is an inadequate characterization of the
microphone's sound.

I'm sure you can think of some others. In my mind, the discrepencies
between field and laboratory observations indicates that the
experimental evidence may be inadequately taking into account all the
variables that might impact field observation. It's the kind of thing
that should make you curious and ask yourself, "Why is that?" A quick
dismissal of field observations that aren't easily explained just
seems like bad science.

just my 2 cents,
rossi

[Rob Reedijk]

Chris Rossi > wrote:
> You will hopefully get some better technical answers, but for now I'll
> just say that it's my understanding that any good designer is going to
> make sure any electrolytics in his/her design are properly biased.
> I've noted in other discussions a belief by some of the electronic
> whizzes of today that the bad name given to capacitors is largely a
> result of early poor design resulting from a lack of understanding of
> how to properly bias the caps. In general, today, designers today
> don't make those mistakes. Anyway, a mic pre that behaved in the
> manner you describe would indicate to me a bad design. I do have an
> RNP and don't recall having ever encountered a difference in sound
> with phantom engaged or not on a dynamic mic. I'll give it a shot
> this week, though, just for grins.

Apparently Millennia Media offers the option of having additional inputs
to their mic pres that bypass the phantom circuitry. So it may appear
that one of the top designers of a transformerless mic pre admits that
at least there is a need for engineers to avoid the blocking capacitors.

Rob R.

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Rossi" > wrote in message
om

>>>>> I was under the impression that the interesting loads for the
>>>>> SM-57 were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ
>>>>> added some reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF
>>>>> rejection) to his RNP in part for this reason.

>>>> Check figure 4 in the reference:
>>>> http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2002MAR/2002MAR25_AMD_MSD_POW_AN.PDF
>>>> for information about the effects of reactive loads on the SM-57.

>>>> Basically, with a load on the order of a relatively large 25,000pF
>>>> there a mere 2 dB increase at 15 KHz. A large 2,500 pF load gives
>>>> just a 1.2 dB increase at 20 KHz. Both peaks are fairly narrow and
>>>> lightly damped, so their effects in the main part of the audible
>>>> range (<10 KHz) are less than
>>>> 1.5 dB (25,000 pF) or less than 0.3 dB (2,500 pF).

>>>> Since the RNP and the GRE have been mentioned, perhaps people who
>>>> have them can see what's inside the box in this area. Compared to
>>>> the mic's response variations in the same frequency ranges, this is
>>>> all chump change.

>>> Is simply measuring frequency response a reliable way of
>>> characterizing the sound of a mic?

>> Depends. Consider the same mic connected to 2 different mic preamps
>> first one, then the other. Let's presume adequate overload and noise
>> characteristics for both preamps, and low distortion. IOW both
>> preamps are high quality pieces with very good performance. We find
>> that there are no important difference in the measured frequency
>> response for the mic-preamp combination when the mic is connected to
>> either preamp. How different do you expect them to sound?

> I can't claim to be an electronics expert. I do have a physical
> sciences background, though. In general physicists and the like take
> observable phenomena as their starting point.

Are you suggesting that this sort of thinking isn't behind the observations
in question?

> A theory that disagrees
> with observable phenomena needs to be updated.

I think that's the basic approach I'm taking here.

>Again, I'm no expert.

Things might get interesting if we can not waste so much time pontificating
upon that which seems to be quite obvious.

> I'm simply trying to reconcile the numerous field observations that
> loading does impact sound of a SM-57 with the technical evidence you
> bring forward that it shouldn't.

Actually, we're in the realm of dueling observations. We seem to have one
set of observations that seems to disagree with another set of observations.

> In this case we have observations
> made in controlled experiments that indicate there is a very small
> difference in sound due to microphone loading, while overwhelming
> anecdotal evidence from the field seems to suggest otherwise.

You seem to have skipped over the long and rich history of fallacious
anecdotal evidence, as related to audio. Audio production is an especially
rich area for the generation of questionable anecdotes related to sound
quality, because it's almost impossible to complete most non-trivial tasks
in audio production, and have good reason to expect the identically same
recording as the outcome.

Then, there's a lot of ego-centric disrespect for placebo effects. It's the
old, I'm an expert, well-established science relating to expectation effects
doesn't apply to me because after all, I'm an expert.

> The fact that there is a discrepancy leads me to believe there is room
for
> further study. It occurs to me that there may be a number of
> explanations for the discrepancies:

> 1) Observed sonic differences in the field are wrongly attributed to
> loading, and there is some other variable affecting the sound.
> (Experimental evidence could eliminate loading as a significant
> variable, but would still leave the question open, "What is causing
> the observed difference in sound?")

That's a biggie, because there are a ton of possible sources of audible
differences during the recording and production process. It's often very
difficult to change just one thing. It is often difficult to make the
identical same recording twice.

> 2) Resistive and capacitive loading (those cited in your papers) do
> indeed have little impact on sound, however inductive loads do produce
> greater coloration.

Perhaps. However, in many cases you're replacing network component that is
A-Bj where A is relatively large compared to B, with a load that is A+Cj
where A is relatively large compared to C. IOW if one load causes a little
bump up, the other causes a little dip down, or vice-versa.

> 3) Frequency response is an inadequate characterization of the
> microphone's sound.

That's a truism because FR specs are taken in one direction, and the sound
of a mic comes from its FR in all directions. However, if the FR of a mic
with a single capsule changes due to loading in any particular direction
it's gonna change by a like amount in all directions. Your mileage could
vary for a mic that is composed of multiple capsules interconnected with
complex networks.

If mics are only weakly sensitive to FR changes due to relatively small
changes in loading, its likely that they are even more weakly affected in
terms of nonlinear distortion. But, it might bear some investigation.

> I'm sure you can think of some others.

Indeed I've pointed out a highly relevant and well-documented source of
strong perceptions of nonexistent audible changes that you've completely
ignored, namely placebo effects. If you don't like the word placebo, there
is always the word expectation.

> In my mind, the discrepancies
> between field and laboratory observations indicates that the
> experimental evidence may be inadequately taking into account all the
> variables that might impact field observation.

I think that you have shown a very inadequate amount of respect for the
psychological and social effects that are already well-known and widely
agreed-upon to often affect situations like this one.

> It's the kind of thing
> that should make you curious and ask yourself, "Why is that?" A quick
> dismissal of field observations that aren't easily explained just
> seems like bad science.

That's just it. You are rattling on about me dismissing things I haven't
dismissed. The strongest thing I said is that certain relevant
well-documented results seem to throw cold water on some anecdotal claims. I
believe those were pretty much my exact words. Now, if you want to interpret
that as being a complete dismissal, then I've got some questions about your
own psychological situation - namely why you are over-reacting to such a
mild statement.

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Reedijk > wrote:
>Chris Rossi > wrote:
>> were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
>> reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to his
>> RNP in part for this reason.
>
>Sorry to change the subject here, but this may relate. As I understand
>it, the RNP is a transformerless mic pre. According to a little
>birdie who told me things, the blocking capacitors, necessary in
>transformerless pres to protect the input from phantom power, cause a
>certain amount of signal degradation, particularly in the top end.
>
>However, this supposedly is not a factor when it comes to condensors
>since when the phantom is switched on, the biasing to the capacitors
>that results, somehow negates this problem.

This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
bias across them. The smart solution for this is to use film caps for
phantom blocking and not worry about it.

>Assuming any of this is true, has anyone ever tested with a dynamic
>mic, plugged into a transformerless pre, whether or not the sound
>improves (more clarity in the top end) by switching on the phantom
>power!?

The Mackie consoles are sure that way. But then, the Mackie consoles
also sound cleaner if you run the mix buss at -20 dB below reference,
mute unused channels, and use the inserts for line inputs. Major pain.

>It may not matter with most dynamics, but what about some of the better
>ones such as the 441 or RE20? And dare I say it...what about ribbon
>mics, where switching on phantom is generally considered a no-no?

That's when it's time to use good mike preamps with decent blocking caps.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Reedijk > wrote:
>Chris Rossi > wrote:
>> were reactive rather than resistive. I think Mark McQ added some
>> reactive load (a low pass filter on the input for RF rejection) to his
>> RNP in part for this reason.
>
>Sorry to change the subject here, but this may relate. As I understand
>it, the RNP is a transformerless mic pre. According to a little
>birdie who told me things, the blocking capacitors, necessary in
>transformerless pres to protect the input from phantom power, cause a
>certain amount of signal degradation, particularly in the top end.
>
>However, this supposedly is not a factor when it comes to condensors
>since when the phantom is switched on, the biasing to the capacitors
>that results, somehow negates this problem.

This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
bias across them. The smart solution for this is to use film caps for
phantom blocking and not worry about it.

>Assuming any of this is true, has anyone ever tested with a dynamic
>mic, plugged into a transformerless pre, whether or not the sound
>improves (more clarity in the top end) by switching on the phantom
>power!?

The Mackie consoles are sure that way. But then, the Mackie consoles
also sound cleaner if you run the mix buss at -20 dB below reference,
mute unused channels, and use the inserts for line inputs. Major pain.

>It may not matter with most dynamics, but what about some of the better
>ones such as the 441 or RE20? And dare I say it...what about ribbon
>mics, where switching on phantom is generally considered a no-no?

That's when it's time to use good mike preamps with decent blocking caps.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"

>
> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
> bias across them.


** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
people like you go around parroting them.



> The smart solution for this is to use film caps for
> phantom blocking and not worry about it.


** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.

Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"

>
> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
> bias across them.


** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
people like you go around parroting them.



> The smart solution for this is to use film caps for
> phantom blocking and not worry about it.


** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.

Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.




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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>
>>
>> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
>> bias across them.
>
>** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
>people like you go around parroting them.

You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias. You'll see
a difference. You'll see more with some caps and less with others and a hell
of a lot with Panasonic or Kemet tantalums.

For someone who keeps ragging on people to test things, you might want to do
the same.

>> The smart solution for this is to use film caps for
>> phantom blocking and not worry about it.
>
>** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.
>
> Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.

If you don't have an input transformer, you probably have a high enough
input Z to deal with something slightly smaller. If you have an input
transformer, you don't need any blocking caps anyway so it's a non-issue.
(As long as your resistors are matched well enough anyway.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>
>>
>> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
>> bias across them.
>
>** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
>people like you go around parroting them.

You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias. You'll see
a difference. You'll see more with some caps and less with others and a hell
of a lot with Panasonic or Kemet tantalums.

For someone who keeps ragging on people to test things, you might want to do
the same.

>> The smart solution for this is to use film caps for
>> phantom blocking and not worry about it.
>
>** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.
>
> Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.

If you don't have an input transformer, you probably have a high enough
input Z to deal with something slightly smaller. If you have an input
transformer, you don't need any blocking caps anyway so it's a non-issue.
(As long as your resistors are matched well enough anyway.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" <
> Phil Allison
> >
> >>
> >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
> >> bias across them.
> >
> >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
> >people like you go around parroting them.
>
> You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
> tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.


** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
results that back you up.


> You'll see a difference.


** Yawn - that is just pathetic bull****


> You'll see more with some caps and less with others and a hell
> of a lot with Panasonic or Kemet tantalums.


** Tantalums are another matter - plus they are not suitable for use in a
phantom power circuit anyhow.


>
> For someone who keeps ragging on people to test things, you might want to
do
> the same.


** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.

So I already KNOW you are wrong.


>
> >> The smart solution for this is to use film caps for
> >> phantom blocking and not worry about it.
> >
> >** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.
> >
> > Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.

>
> If you don't have an input transformer, you probably have a high enough
> input Z to deal with something slightly smaller.


** Yeah - like a nice $0.20 electro.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" <
> Phil Allison
> >
> >>
> >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
> >> bias across them.
> >
> >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
> >people like you go around parroting them.
>
> You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
> tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.


** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
results that back you up.


> You'll see a difference.


** Yawn - that is just pathetic bull****


> You'll see more with some caps and less with others and a hell
> of a lot with Panasonic or Kemet tantalums.


** Tantalums are another matter - plus they are not suitable for use in a
phantom power circuit anyhow.


>
> For someone who keeps ragging on people to test things, you might want to
do
> the same.


** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.

So I already KNOW you are wrong.


>
> >> The smart solution for this is to use film caps for
> >> phantom blocking and not worry about it.
> >
> >** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.
> >
> > Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.

>
> If you don't have an input transformer, you probably have a high enough
> input Z to deal with something slightly smaller.


** Yeah - like a nice $0.20 electro.




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

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" <
> > Phil Allison
> > >
> > >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
> > >> bias across them.
> > >
> > >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
> > >people like you go around parroting them.
> >
> > You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
> > tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.
>
> ** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
> results that back you up.

Whoa... put your pants back on and calm down. Scott's right in that
electrolytics need to be forward biased in the general case, but you're
right in this specific case because they can tolerate a reverse voltage
of around 5-10% without misbehaving too badly.

So, a 50 or 63V rated cap is basically OK to pass mike level signals,
even signals from high output mikes. That signal voltage reversed is
not a big deal, and it won't degrade the dielectric layer too badly.

> > You'll see a difference.
>
>
> ** Yawn - that is just pathetic bull****
>
>
> > You'll see more with some caps and less with others and a hell
> > of a lot with Panasonic or Kemet tantalums.
>
>
> ** Tantalums are another matter - plus they are not suitable for use in a
> phantom power circuit anyhow.

Why? As long as you don't reverse bias them, they work just fine. But,
back to the "how much reverse voltage can a cap take" argument, yes,
they only want a percent or two of reverse voltage before they give up
the smoke. Maybe that's why you think they're not suitable for phantom
coupling. Well, to be a complete schmuck and yet remain completely
accurate, they're completely suitable for P48 use, as long as they
remain forward biased. So there.


Back to editing...

Monte McGuire

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" <
> > Phil Allison
> > >
> > >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
> > >> bias across them.
> > >
> > >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
> > >people like you go around parroting them.
> >
> > You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
> > tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.
>
> ** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
> results that back you up.

Whoa... put your pants back on and calm down. Scott's right in that
electrolytics need to be forward biased in the general case, but you're
right in this specific case because they can tolerate a reverse voltage
of around 5-10% without misbehaving too badly.

So, a 50 or 63V rated cap is basically OK to pass mike level signals,
even signals from high output mikes. That signal voltage reversed is
not a big deal, and it won't degrade the dielectric layer too badly.

> > You'll see a difference.
>
>
> ** Yawn - that is just pathetic bull****
>
>
> > You'll see more with some caps and less with others and a hell
> > of a lot with Panasonic or Kemet tantalums.
>
>
> ** Tantalums are another matter - plus they are not suitable for use in a
> phantom power circuit anyhow.

Why? As long as you don't reverse bias them, they work just fine. But,
back to the "how much reverse voltage can a cap take" argument, yes,
they only want a percent or two of reverse voltage before they give up
the smoke. Maybe that's why you think they're not suitable for phantom
coupling. Well, to be a complete schmuck and yet remain completely
accurate, they're completely suitable for P48 use, as long as they
remain forward biased. So there.


Back to editing...

Monte McGuire

[Phil Allison]

"Monte McGuire"
> "Phil Allison" <
> > "Scott Dorsey" <

> > > >
> > > >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to
have DC
> > > >> bias across them.
> > > >
> > > >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility
because
> > > >people like you go around parroting them.
> > >
> > > You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1
KC
> > > tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.
> >
> > ** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
> > results that back you up.
>
> Whoa... put your pants back on and calm down.


** When Scott stops ordering me what to do and what to find like some
demented Nazi.


> Scott's right in that electrolytics need to be forward biased in the
general case,


** Nope - normal electros are very widley use with no bias for
coulpling audio.

It is better to use the bipolar sort though.


> but you're right in this specific case because they can tolerate a
reverse voltage
> of around 5-10% without misbehaving too badly.


** Used for audio signal coupling the voltage *across* the cap need never
reach the 5% level and then only be at the very lowest audio frequencies.



> > > You'll see more with some caps and less with others and a hell
> > > of a lot with Panasonic or Kemet tantalums.
> >
> >
> > ** Tantalums are another matter - plus they are not suitable for use
in a
> > phantom power circuit anyhow.
>
> Why? As long as you don't reverse bias them, they work just fine.


** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a sudden
self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts. Accidental shorts
from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom powered mic
inputs.

The highest readily available voltage in tantalums is only 35 volts so
four *expensive* caps are needed to do an inferior job compard to two $0.20
electros.

Also, when operating close to rated voltage tantalums are prone to
generating crackles - the last thing you want in a mic-pre-amp's input.



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

[Phil Allison]

"Monte McGuire"
> "Phil Allison" <
> > "Scott Dorsey" <

> > > >
> > > >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to
have DC
> > > >> bias across them.
> > > >
> > > >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility
because
> > > >people like you go around parroting them.
> > >
> > > You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1
KC
> > > tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.
> >
> > ** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
> > results that back you up.
>
> Whoa... put your pants back on and calm down.


** When Scott stops ordering me what to do and what to find like some
demented Nazi.


> Scott's right in that electrolytics need to be forward biased in the
general case,


** Nope - normal electros are very widley use with no bias for
coulpling audio.

It is better to use the bipolar sort though.


> but you're right in this specific case because they can tolerate a
reverse voltage
> of around 5-10% without misbehaving too badly.


** Used for audio signal coupling the voltage *across* the cap need never
reach the 5% level and then only be at the very lowest audio frequencies.



> > > You'll see more with some caps and less with others and a hell
> > > of a lot with Panasonic or Kemet tantalums.
> >
> >
> > ** Tantalums are another matter - plus they are not suitable for use
in a
> > phantom power circuit anyhow.
>
> Why? As long as you don't reverse bias them, they work just fine.


** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a sudden
self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts. Accidental shorts
from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom powered mic
inputs.

The highest readily available voltage in tantalums is only 35 volts so
four *expensive* caps are needed to do an inferior job compard to two $0.20
electros.

Also, when operating close to rated voltage tantalums are prone to
generating crackles - the last thing you want in a mic-pre-amp's input.



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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <
>> Phil Allison
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
>> >> bias across them.
>> >
>> >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
>> >people like you go around parroting them.
>>
>> You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
>> tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.
>
> ** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
>results that back you up.

I'll get you a citation next week when I am back in the studio. But I have
to say that if even Marshall Leach, the world's most skeptical audio guy, is
pointing out that electrolytics have crossover distortion issues, then there
is probably something to it.

>** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
>
> So I already KNOW you are wrong.

Yes, but do you do useful ones? Anybody can make measurements. Even Julian
Hirsch,
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <
>> Phil Allison
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have DC
>> >> bias across them.
>> >
>> >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
>> >people like you go around parroting them.
>>
>> You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
>> tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.
>
> ** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
>results that back you up.

I'll get you a citation next week when I am back in the studio. But I have
to say that if even Marshall Leach, the world's most skeptical audio guy, is
pointing out that electrolytics have crossover distortion issues, then there
is probably something to it.

>** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
>
> So I already KNOW you are wrong.

Yes, but do you do useful ones? Anybody can make measurements. Even Julian
Hirsch,
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
>** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a sudden
>self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts. Accidental shorts
>from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom powered mic
>inputs.

This is the case with dry slug types only, not with the wet slug ones. And
it is also the case for some of the newer solid electrolyte aluminum types,
like the Sanyos.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
>** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a sudden
>self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts. Accidental shorts
>from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom powered mic
>inputs.

This is the case with dry slug types only, not with the wet slug ones. And
it is also the case for some of the newer solid electrolyte aluminum types,
like the Sanyos.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.
>
> Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.

Only a fool would use a microphone at all. We're beyond that and have
moved to direct acoustic recording aroudnd here. Get with the times,
man!

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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.
>
> Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.

Only a fool would use a microphone at all. We're beyond that and have
moved to direct acoustic recording aroudnd here. Get with the times,
man!

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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ** Nope - normal electros are very widley use with no bias for
> coulpling audio.

This is twice that you've demonstrated your feeble understanding of
the term "bias" in this newsgroup.

What does the potential difference (across the electrolytic coupling
capacitor) betwen the collector of one stage and base of the following
stage do? It aplies "bias" voltage across the capacitor.

And what happens if you put the capacitor in backwards? You get more
distortion and less capacitance.

Here. I'll save you the trouble:

*** Abosolute bull****!



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ** Nope - normal electros are very widley use with no bias for
> coulpling audio.

This is twice that you've demonstrated your feeble understanding of
the term "bias" in this newsgroup.

What does the potential difference (across the electrolytic coupling
capacitor) betwen the collector of one stage and base of the following
stage do? It aplies "bias" voltage across the capacitor.

And what happens if you put the capacitor in backwards? You get more
distortion and less capacitance.

Here. I'll save you the trouble:

*** Abosolute bull****!



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

[Tony]

On 24 Jun 2004 13:38:12 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>In article > writes:
>
>> ** Nope - normal electros are very widley use with no bias for
>> coulpling audio.
>
>This is twice that you've demonstrated your feeble understanding of
>the term "bias" in this newsgroup.
>
>What does the potential difference (across the electrolytic coupling
>capacitor) betwen the collector of one stage and base of the following
>stage do? It aplies "bias" voltage across the capacitor.
>
>And what happens if you put the capacitor in backwards? You get more
>distortion and less capacitance.

Mike - Nobody disputes that there ARE applications where the ecap sees
a bias. But there are many others (coupling between opamps with split
supplies) where there really is no effective bias.

Phil - There are a lot of audio gear out there that sounds bad, so the
fact that it uses no bias across an ecap doesn't really prove that
it's a desirable practice.

In reality, using ecaps for coupling CAN cause subtle distortion to be
generated, particularly at the lowest frequencies, around the time
constant of the circuit. But this does vary a lot with the particular
ecap used. And yes, there are a lot of other potential artifacts as
well. But large value pp caps are unfortunately not so easy to come
by.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

[Tony]

On 24 Jun 2004 13:38:12 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>In article > writes:
>
>> ** Nope - normal electros are very widley use with no bias for
>> coulpling audio.
>
>This is twice that you've demonstrated your feeble understanding of
>the term "bias" in this newsgroup.
>
>What does the potential difference (across the electrolytic coupling
>capacitor) betwen the collector of one stage and base of the following
>stage do? It aplies "bias" voltage across the capacitor.
>
>And what happens if you put the capacitor in backwards? You get more
>distortion and less capacitance.

Mike - Nobody disputes that there ARE applications where the ecap sees
a bias. But there are many others (coupling between opamps with split
supplies) where there really is no effective bias.

Phil - There are a lot of audio gear out there that sounds bad, so the
fact that it uses no bias across an ecap doesn't really prove that
it's a desirable practice.

In reality, using ecaps for coupling CAN cause subtle distortion to be
generated, particularly at the lowest frequencies, around the time
constant of the circuit. But this does vary a lot with the particular
ecap used. And yes, there are a lot of other potential artifacts as
well. But large value pp caps are unfortunately not so easy to come
by.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers" <
Phil Allison:
>
> > ** Nope - normal electros are very widely used with no bias for
> > coupling audio.
>
> This is twice that you've demonstrated your feeble understanding of
> the term "bias" in this newsgroup.


** This must be ***twentieth** time you have REMOVED my words from their
original context and attempted to attach an ENTIRELY new meaning to them.

What a low, lying piece of unsent garbage Mike Rivers constantly proves
himself to be.


>
> What does the potential difference (across the electrolytic coupling
> capacitor) between the collector of one stage and base of the following
> stage do? It aplies "bias" voltage across the capacitor.


** That is true - but totally irrelevant to what I posted.

Electros are widely used with op-amp audio stages to remove small ( ie mV)
DC offsets from the next stage or a switch or a pot.



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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers" <
Phil Allison:
>
> > ** Nope - normal electros are very widely used with no bias for
> > coupling audio.
>
> This is twice that you've demonstrated your feeble understanding of
> the term "bias" in this newsgroup.


** This must be ***twentieth** time you have REMOVED my words from their
original context and attempted to attach an ENTIRELY new meaning to them.

What a low, lying piece of unsent garbage Mike Rivers constantly proves
himself to be.


>
> What does the potential difference (across the electrolytic coupling
> capacitor) between the collector of one stage and base of the following
> stage do? It aplies "bias" voltage across the capacitor.


** That is true - but totally irrelevant to what I posted.

Electros are widely used with op-amp audio stages to remove small ( ie mV)
DC offsets from the next stage or a switch or a pot.



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

[Phil Allison]

"Tony" <

>
> Mike - Nobody disputes that there ARE applications where the ecap sees
> a bias. But there are many others (coupling between opamps with split
> supplies) where there really is no effective bias.


** Correct.

>
> Phil - There are a lot of audio gear out there that sounds bad, so the
> fact that it uses no bias across an ecap doesn't really prove that
> it's a desirable practice.


** Laughably false logic.


>
> In reality, using ecaps for coupling CAN cause subtle distortion to be
> generated, particularly at the lowest frequencies, around the time
> constant of the circuit. But this does vary a lot with the particular
> ecap used. And yes, there are a lot of other potential artifacts as
> well. But large value pp caps are unfortunately not so easy to come
> by.


** Bipolar electros are the go where there is significant signal voltage
acrosss the cap.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Tony" <

>
> Mike - Nobody disputes that there ARE applications where the ecap sees
> a bias. But there are many others (coupling between opamps with split
> supplies) where there really is no effective bias.


** Correct.

>
> Phil - There are a lot of audio gear out there that sounds bad, so the
> fact that it uses no bias across an ecap doesn't really prove that
> it's a desirable practice.


** Laughably false logic.


>
> In reality, using ecaps for coupling CAN cause subtle distortion to be
> generated, particularly at the lowest frequencies, around the time
> constant of the circuit. But this does vary a lot with the particular
> ecap used. And yes, there are a lot of other potential artifacts as
> well. But large value pp caps are unfortunately not so easy to come
> by.


** Bipolar electros are the go where there is significant signal voltage
acrosss the cap.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" <
> Phil Allison <:

> >> >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have
DC
> >> >> bias across them.
> >> >
> >> >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
> >> >people like you go around parroting them.
> >>
> >> You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
> >> tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.
> >
> > ** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
> >results that back you up.
>
> I'll get you a citation next week when I am back in the studio.


** Please do - I need a good laugh at some capacitor loony's
pseudo-technical bull****.


> But I have to say that if even Marshall Leach, the world's most skeptical
audio guy, is
> pointing out that electrolytics have crossover distortion issues, then
there
> is probably something to it.


** Now that is getting *really* desperate - plus you do not "have to
say" any such damn stupid and pompous thing.




> >** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
> >
> > So I already KNOW you are wrong.
>
> Yes, but do you do useful ones?


** THD measurements on an electro is what **YOU** asked me to do !!!

So now you want to discredit them - after asking for them ???





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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" <
> Phil Allison <:

> >> >> This is true IF the capacitors are electrolytics. They need to have
DC
> >> >> bias across them.
> >> >
> >> >** That is just another audio myth that only gain credibility because
> >> >people like you go around parroting them.
> >>
> >> You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
> >> tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias.
> >
> > ** Since *YOU* made the absurd claim *YOU* need to post the test
> >results that back you up.
>
> I'll get you a citation next week when I am back in the studio.


** Please do - I need a good laugh at some capacitor loony's
pseudo-technical bull****.


> But I have to say that if even Marshall Leach, the world's most skeptical
audio guy, is
> pointing out that electrolytics have crossover distortion issues, then
there
> is probably something to it.


** Now that is getting *really* desperate - plus you do not "have to
say" any such damn stupid and pompous thing.




> >** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
> >
> > So I already KNOW you are wrong.
>
> Yes, but do you do useful ones?


** THD measurements on an electro is what **YOU** asked me to do !!!

So now you want to discredit them - after asking for them ???





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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

>
> > ** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.
> >
> > Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.
>
> Only a fool would use a microphone at all. We're beyond that and have
> moved to direct acoustic recording aroudnd here. Get with the times,
> man!
>


** I'm surprised that Mike has moved on from finger painting.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

>
> > ** 47 uF film caps are *very* expensive items - plus rather large.
> >
> > Only a fool would use them in a mic pre.
>
> Only a fool would use a microphone at all. We're beyond that and have
> moved to direct acoustic recording aroudnd here. Get with the times,
> man!
>


** I'm surprised that Mike has moved on from finger painting.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison <
> >
> >** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a
sudden
> >self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts. Accidental
shorts
> >from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom powered
mic
> >inputs.
>
> This is the case with dry slug types only, not with the wet slug ones.


** Kindly supply a reference to a supplier of the latter - with pulse
current specs.


And it is also the case for some of the newer solid electrolyte aluminum
types,
> like the Sanyos.


** Aluminium is not tantalum.

BTW The price for a 47 uF, 25 volt Sanyo SC ( ie solid aluminium) is
ridiculous.



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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison <
> >
> >** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a
sudden
> >self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts. Accidental
shorts
> >from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom powered
mic
> >inputs.
>
> This is the case with dry slug types only, not with the wet slug ones.


** Kindly supply a reference to a supplier of the latter - with pulse
current specs.


And it is also the case for some of the newer solid electrolyte aluminum
types,
> like the Sanyos.


** Aluminium is not tantalum.

BTW The price for a 47 uF, 25 volt Sanyo SC ( ie solid aluminium) is
ridiculous.



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Mike - Nobody disputes that there ARE applications where the ecap sees
> a bias. But there are many others (coupling between opamps with split
> supplies) where there really is no effective bias.

That's a good case for removing the capacitor entirely since the only
purpose it serves (other than to pass the signal from one stage to
another) is to remove that "bias" so that the DC condition of the
driven stage isn't affected by the DC condition of the driving stage.


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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Mike - Nobody disputes that there ARE applications where the ecap sees
> a bias. But there are many others (coupling between opamps with split
> supplies) where there really is no effective bias.

That's a good case for removing the capacitor entirely since the only
purpose it serves (other than to pass the signal from one stage to
another) is to remove that "bias" so that the DC condition of the
driven stage isn't affected by the DC condition of the driving stage.


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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

Tony Roe:

> > Mike - Nobody disputes that there ARE applications where the ecap sees
> > a bias. But there are many others (coupling between opamps with split
> supplies) where there really is no effective bias.
>
> That's a good case for removing the capacitor entirely since the only
> purpose it serves (other than to pass the signal from one stage to
> another) is to remove that "bias" so that the DC condition of the
> driven stage isn't affected by the DC condition of the driving stage.
>


** Yet more *stupid, putrid parrot droppings* from the NG's featherless,
squawking imbecile Mike Rivers - phhhheeeewwww !!!!!

This pathetic, compulsive anal retentive * know nothing* cannot resist
taking advantage of each and every chance of making an even bigger **ass**
of himself - that DOES seem to be the his one and only talent.

Mike does so **** DESPERATELY **** want to be a technical journalist so
he can misinform the public on a much wider scale - but, sad to say,
nobody will actually employ him to do that ????

I wonder why ?????

Not really.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

Tony Roe:

> > Mike - Nobody disputes that there ARE applications where the ecap sees
> > a bias. But there are many others (coupling between opamps with split
> supplies) where there really is no effective bias.
>
> That's a good case for removing the capacitor entirely since the only
> purpose it serves (other than to pass the signal from one stage to
> another) is to remove that "bias" so that the DC condition of the
> driven stage isn't affected by the DC condition of the driving stage.
>


** Yet more *stupid, putrid parrot droppings* from the NG's featherless,
squawking imbecile Mike Rivers - phhhheeeewwww !!!!!

This pathetic, compulsive anal retentive * know nothing* cannot resist
taking advantage of each and every chance of making an even bigger **ass**
of himself - that DOES seem to be the his one and only talent.

Mike does so **** DESPERATELY **** want to be a technical journalist so
he can misinform the public on a much wider scale - but, sad to say,
nobody will actually employ him to do that ????

I wonder why ?????

Not really.




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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
>> >** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
>> >
>> > So I already KNOW you are wrong.
>>
>> Yes, but do you do useful ones?
>
>
>** THD measurements on an electro is what **YOU** asked me to do !!!
>
> So now you want to discredit them - after asking for them ???

Phil, for someone who is complaining about people putting words in your mouth,
you're sure doing a lot of it to other folks.

Who are you? You seem to have a good grip on the basic physics of microphones
and electronics, but without any great knowledge of the literature or of
practical sonic stuff. As far as I can see, you haven't written any AES papers
or been cited anywhere. So what do you do and why are you here, and why are you
so rude?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
>> >** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
>> >
>> > So I already KNOW you are wrong.
>>
>> Yes, but do you do useful ones?
>
>
>** THD measurements on an electro is what **YOU** asked me to do !!!
>
> So now you want to discredit them - after asking for them ???

Phil, for someone who is complaining about people putting words in your mouth,
you're sure doing a lot of it to other folks.

Who are you? You seem to have a good grip on the basic physics of microphones
and electronics, but without any great knowledge of the literature or of
practical sonic stuff. As far as I can see, you haven't written any AES papers
or been cited anywhere. So what do you do and why are you here, and why are you
so rude?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>> Phil Allison <
>> >
>> >** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a
>sudden
>> >self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts. Accidental
>shorts
>> >from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom powered
>mic
>> >inputs.
>>
>> This is the case with dry slug types only, not with the wet slug ones.
>
>** Kindly supply a reference to a supplier of the latter - with pulse
>current specs.

Kemet makes 'em. Look for the mil-spec types. Because of the high cost, you
don't see them very often except in avionics and military gear any longer.
You do see them in a lot of 1970s audio gear, since dry slug types were very
unreliable back then (and because capacitively-coupled audio stages with low-Z
inputs were almost universal then too.)

> And it is also the case for some of the newer solid electrolyte aluminum
>types,
>> like the Sanyos.
>
> ** Aluminium is not tantalum.
>
> BTW The price for a 47 uF, 25 volt Sanyo SC ( ie solid aluminium) is
>ridiculous.

Maybe. The question is how long it lasts. On typical pro audio gear, you may
see a piece of equipment recapped three or four times over a 30-year lifespan.
The cost of the labour far exceeds the cost of the parts.

Right now, I don't think anybody has a grip on real longevity for the solid
aluminum stuff (which is in fact much closer to a dry slug tantalum in
technology than it is to a conventional electrolytic). It is going to be very
interesting to see.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey"
>> Phil Allison <
>> >
>> >** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a
>sudden
>> >self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts. Accidental
>shorts
>> >from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom powered
>mic
>> >inputs.
>>
>> This is the case with dry slug types only, not with the wet slug ones.
>
>** Kindly supply a reference to a supplier of the latter - with pulse
>current specs.

Kemet makes 'em. Look for the mil-spec types. Because of the high cost, you
don't see them very often except in avionics and military gear any longer.
You do see them in a lot of 1970s audio gear, since dry slug types were very
unreliable back then (and because capacitively-coupled audio stages with low-Z
inputs were almost universal then too.)

> And it is also the case for some of the newer solid electrolyte aluminum
>types,
>> like the Sanyos.
>
> ** Aluminium is not tantalum.
>
> BTW The price for a 47 uF, 25 volt Sanyo SC ( ie solid aluminium) is
>ridiculous.

Maybe. The question is how long it lasts. On typical pro audio gear, you may
see a piece of equipment recapped three or four times over a 30-year lifespan.
The cost of the labour far exceeds the cost of the parts.

Right now, I don't think anybody has a grip on real longevity for the solid
aluminum stuff (which is in fact much closer to a dry slug tantalum in
technology than it is to a conventional electrolytic). It is going to be very
interesting to see.
--scott

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

[S O'Neill]

> "Mike Rivers"

>> That's a good case for removing the capacitor entirely since the
>> only purpose it serves (other than to pass the signal from one
>> stage to another) is to remove that "bias" so that the DC condition
>> of the driven stage isn't affected by the DC condition of the
>> driving stage.


Phil Allison wrote:

[Yet more *stupid, putrid]

Mr. Rivers' has a good point, calmly stated as well, even in the
anticipation of your inevitable mindless attack.

Phil, you're a troll (big news there) and nothing else. You have no
interest here except to pretend credibility to keep people sucked in
until your attack. Sitting in front of your computer with some audio
cookbook, arguing with everyone until it goes beyond the scope. I'll
bet you hang out the police NGs with a copy of the vehicle code in your
lap doing the same thing there.

In all fairness to you, though, your penchant (you'll look it up) for
baiting everyone you encounter does qualify you for the title of Master
of that art.

Readers here can't tell sh*t from chocolate? Then who on Earth are
*you* writing for?

That's a rhetorical question, everyone but you already knows the answer.

[S O'Neill]

> "Mike Rivers"

>> That's a good case for removing the capacitor entirely since the
>> only purpose it serves (other than to pass the signal from one
>> stage to another) is to remove that "bias" so that the DC condition
>> of the driven stage isn't affected by the DC condition of the
>> driving stage.


Phil Allison wrote:

[Yet more *stupid, putrid]

Mr. Rivers' has a good point, calmly stated as well, even in the
anticipation of your inevitable mindless attack.

Phil, you're a troll (big news there) and nothing else. You have no
interest here except to pretend credibility to keep people sucked in
until your attack. Sitting in front of your computer with some audio
cookbook, arguing with everyone until it goes beyond the scope. I'll
bet you hang out the police NGs with a copy of the vehicle code in your
lap doing the same thing there.

In all fairness to you, though, your penchant (you'll look it up) for
baiting everyone you encounter does qualify you for the title of Master
of that art.

Readers here can't tell sh*t from chocolate? Then who on Earth are
*you* writing for?

That's a rhetorical question, everyone but you already knows the answer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Phil Allison > wrote:
>>
>>>> ** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
>>>>
>>>> So I already KNOW you are wrong.
>>>
>>> Yes, but do you do useful ones?
>>
>>
>> ** THD measurements on an electro is what **YOU** asked me to do
>> !!!
>>
>> So now you want to discredit them - after asking for them ???
>
> Phil, for someone who is complaining about people putting words in
> your mouth, you're sure doing a lot of it to other folks.
>
> Who are you? You seem to have a good grip on the basic physics of
> microphones and electronics, but without any great knowledge of the
> literature or of practical sonic stuff. As far as I can see, you
> haven't written any AES papers or been cited anywhere. So what do
> you do and why are you here, and why are you so rude?

Here's a hint:

http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Phil Allison > wrote:
>>
>>>> ** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
>>>>
>>>> So I already KNOW you are wrong.
>>>
>>> Yes, but do you do useful ones?
>>
>>
>> ** THD measurements on an electro is what **YOU** asked me to do
>> !!!
>>
>> So now you want to discredit them - after asking for them ???
>
> Phil, for someone who is complaining about people putting words in
> your mouth, you're sure doing a lot of it to other folks.
>
> Who are you? You seem to have a good grip on the basic physics of
> microphones and electronics, but without any great knowledge of the
> literature or of practical sonic stuff. As far as I can see, you
> haven't written any AES papers or been cited anywhere. So what do
> you do and why are you here, and why are you so rude?

Here's a hint:

http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm

So Phil's a hobbyist who knows how to read application notes.
Now that we know where he's coming from, maybe he'll go back there.

Love his distortion "specification"
"Distortion is low to unmeasurable because it is below the noise level at high gains."
Like the man say, he makes these measurements all the time.

I see that he had to get someone else to edit his description, too. I
guess that's because he's incapable of writing a full sentence
without spewing insults at his readers. That might be good for a
laught a time or two in a newsgroup, but it's bad for business.



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm

So Phil's a hobbyist who knows how to read application notes.
Now that we know where he's coming from, maybe he'll go back there.

Love his distortion "specification"
"Distortion is low to unmeasurable because it is below the noise level at high gains."
Like the man say, he makes these measurements all the time.

I see that he had to get someone else to edit his description, too. I
guess that's because he's incapable of writing a full sentence
without spewing insults at his readers. That might be good for a
laught a time or two in a newsgroup, but it's bad for business.



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

[Phil Allison]

> >"Scott Dorsey"
> >> Phil Allison <
> >> >
> >> >** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a
> >sudden self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts.
Accidental
> >shorts from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom
powered
> >mic inputs.
> >>
> >> This is the case with dry slug types only, not with the wet slug ones.
> >
> >** Kindly supply a reference to a supplier of the latter - with pulse
> >current specs.
>
> Kemet makes 'em. Look for the mil-spec types.


** US $30 each and still no pulse current specs !!!


> > ** Aluminium is not tantalum.
> >
> > BTW The price for a 47 uF, 25 volt Sanyo SC ( ie solid aluminium) is
> >ridiculous.
>
> Maybe. The question is how long it lasts.


** Not at all.


> On typical pro audio gear, you may see a piece of equipment recapped three
or four times over a 30-year lifespan.


** Not on the planet most people inhabit. Must be some idiot Yank idea to
re-cap everything - the guitar amp loonies are always on about it as some
sort of panacea.





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

[Phil Allison]

> >"Scott Dorsey"
> >> Phil Allison <
> >> >
> >> >** Tantalums are *very* prone to fail dead short if subjected to a
> >sudden self discharge or reverse polarity of even a few volts.
Accidental
> >shorts from pins 2 or 3 to ground will inevitably happen with phantom
powered
> >mic inputs.
> >>
> >> This is the case with dry slug types only, not with the wet slug ones.
> >
> >** Kindly supply a reference to a supplier of the latter - with pulse
> >current specs.
>
> Kemet makes 'em. Look for the mil-spec types.


** US $30 each and still no pulse current specs !!!


> > ** Aluminium is not tantalum.
> >
> > BTW The price for a 47 uF, 25 volt Sanyo SC ( ie solid aluminium) is
> >ridiculous.
>
> Maybe. The question is how long it lasts.


** Not at all.


> On typical pro audio gear, you may see a piece of equipment recapped three
or four times over a 30-year lifespan.


** Not on the planet most people inhabit. Must be some idiot Yank idea to
re-cap everything - the guitar amp loonies are always on about it as some
sort of panacea.





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

[Phil Allison]

"S O'Neill"
> > "Mike Rivers"
>
> >> That's a good case for removing the capacitor entirely since the
> >> only purpose it serves (other than to pass the signal from one
> >> stage to another) is to remove that "bias" so that the DC condition
> >> of the driven stage isn't affected by the DC condition of the
> >> driving stage.
>
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> [Yet more *stupid, putrid]
>
> Mr. Rivers' has a good point,


** What exactly was his point ???

Rivers post simply makes no sense at all - since he has no point at
all.

YOU must be an even bigger know nothing than he is.




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

[Phil Allison]

"S O'Neill"
> > "Mike Rivers"
>
> >> That's a good case for removing the capacitor entirely since the
> >> only purpose it serves (other than to pass the signal from one
> >> stage to another) is to remove that "bias" so that the DC condition
> >> of the driven stage isn't affected by the DC condition of the
> >> driving stage.
>
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> [Yet more *stupid, putrid]
>
> Mr. Rivers' has a good point,


** What exactly was his point ???

Rivers post simply makes no sense at all - since he has no point at
all.

YOU must be an even bigger know nothing than he is.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison :
> >
> >> >** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
> >> >
> >> > So I already KNOW you are wrong.
> >>
> >> Yes, but do you do useful ones?
> >
> >
> >** THD measurements on an electro is what **YOU** asked me to do !!!
> >
> > So now you want to discredit them - after asking for them ???
>
> Phil, for someone who is complaining about people putting words in your
mouth,
> you're sure doing a lot of it to other folks.


** The words are right there in this thread - the quote from you is:

" You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias. "


YOUR words !!! YOU posted them !!!



>
> Who are you?


** Someone a lot smarter than you it seems.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison :
> >
> >> >** I do THD tests on audio gear every day of my life.
> >> >
> >> > So I already KNOW you are wrong.
> >>
> >> Yes, but do you do useful ones?
> >
> >
> >** THD measurements on an electro is what **YOU** asked me to do !!!
> >
> > So now you want to discredit them - after asking for them ???
>
> Phil, for someone who is complaining about people putting words in your
mouth,
> you're sure doing a lot of it to other folks.


** The words are right there in this thread - the quote from you is:

" You don't believe it, take a standard aluminum electrolytic, put a 1 KC
tone through it, and measure distortion with and without bias. "


YOUR words !!! YOU posted them !!!



>
> Who are you?


** Someone a lot smarter than you it seems.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

>
> > http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm
>
> So Phil's a hobbyist who knows how to read application notes.


** Mike Rivers is just a mindless, stinking liar.


>
> Love his distortion "specification"
> "Distortion is low to unmeasurable because it is below the noise level at
high gains."
> Like the man say, he makes these measurements all the time.
>

** No contradiction there all.



> I see that he had to get someone else to edit his description, too.


** More of Mike Rivers idiot fabrications and damn lies.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

>
> > http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm
>
> So Phil's a hobbyist who knows how to read application notes.


** Mike Rivers is just a mindless, stinking liar.


>
> Love his distortion "specification"
> "Distortion is low to unmeasurable because it is below the noise level at
high gains."
> Like the man say, he makes these measurements all the time.
>

** No contradiction there all.



> I see that he had to get someone else to edit his description, too.


** More of Mike Rivers idiot fabrications and damn lies.




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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ** More of Mike Rivers idiot fabrications and damn lies.

It may be a conjecture, but not a fabrication. And it's only a lie if
I know the truth and stated something different. I don't yet know that
you can write intelligently without incorporating insults.



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ** More of Mike Rivers idiot fabrications and damn lies.

It may be a conjecture, but not a fabrication. And it's only a lie if
I know the truth and stated something different. I don't yet know that
you can write intelligently without incorporating insults.



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

[Arny Krueger]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message

> "Mike Rivers"
>
>>
>>> http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm
>>
>> So Phil's a hobbyist who knows how to read application notes.
>
>
> ** Mike Rivers is just a mindless, stinking liar.

Aw come on! Mike's a good guy, has a lot of practical experience, and has
helped a lot of people with good, solid, practical advice. While he's not a
total theoretical heavy, he's got a good grasp of the basics and more. I've
never seen one grain of evidence that he ever seriously said something he
didn't believe in. And that can't be said of anybody who is a liar.

[Arny Krueger]

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message

> "Mike Rivers"
>
>>
>>> http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm
>>
>> So Phil's a hobbyist who knows how to read application notes.
>
>
> ** Mike Rivers is just a mindless, stinking liar.

Aw come on! Mike's a good guy, has a lot of practical experience, and has
helped a lot of people with good, solid, practical advice. While he's not a
total theoretical heavy, he's got a good grasp of the basics and more. I've
never seen one grain of evidence that he ever seriously said something he
didn't believe in. And that can't be said of anybody who is a liar.

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison:

** Replacing the context the Mike River's parrot deliberately snipped
again:


> So Phil's a hobbyist who knows how to read application notes.

> > ** More of Mike Rivers idiot fabrications and damn lies.

>
> It may be a conjecture, but not a fabrication.


** It is malicious conjecture presented as fact about a person -
therefore it is fabricated and a lie.


> And it's only a lie if I know the truth and stated something different.


** A "lie " is a falsehood - see any dictionary.

Since you constantly present falsehoods as if they are facts - a liar
is what you are.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison:

** Replacing the context the Mike River's parrot deliberately snipped
again:


> So Phil's a hobbyist who knows how to read application notes.

> > ** More of Mike Rivers idiot fabrications and damn lies.

>
> It may be a conjecture, but not a fabrication.


** It is malicious conjecture presented as fact about a person -
therefore it is fabricated and a lie.


> And it's only a lie if I know the truth and stated something different.


** A "lie " is a falsehood - see any dictionary.

Since you constantly present falsehoods as if they are facts - a liar
is what you are.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger" com...

> Aw come on! Mike's a good guy, has a lot of practical experience, and has
> helped a lot of people with good, solid, practical advice. While he's not
a
> total theoretical heavy, he's got a good grasp of the basics and more.
I've
> never seen one grain of evidence that he ever seriously said something he
> didn't believe in. And that can't be said of anybody who is a liar.


** Arny - sometimes you are just plain wrong. This is one of them.

Mr Rivers' pathetic attempts to libel me gives me the **RIGHT** return the
favour.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger" com...

> Aw come on! Mike's a good guy, has a lot of practical experience, and has
> helped a lot of people with good, solid, practical advice. While he's not
a
> total theoretical heavy, he's got a good grasp of the basics and more.
I've
> never seen one grain of evidence that he ever seriously said something he
> didn't believe in. And that can't be said of anybody who is a liar.


** Arny - sometimes you are just plain wrong. This is one of them.

Mr Rivers' pathetic attempts to libel me gives me the **RIGHT** return the
favour.





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

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:
> ** Arny - sometimes you are just plain wrong. This is one of them.
>
> Mr Rivers' pathetic attempts to libel me gives me the **RIGHT** return the
> favour.

....I'll agree... your attempts at libel were much more successful than
Mike's. In fact, I don't think Mike really had that in mind at all, so
he failed quite significantly to cast libelous statements upon you.

Now, a question for you. What's your problem? Why are you bothering us
here? Do you really get that excited about capacitors?


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:
> ** Arny - sometimes you are just plain wrong. This is one of them.
>
> Mr Rivers' pathetic attempts to libel me gives me the **RIGHT** return the
> favour.

....I'll agree... your attempts at libel were much more successful than
Mike's. In fact, I don't think Mike really had that in mind at all, so
he failed quite significantly to cast libelous statements upon you.

Now, a question for you. What's your problem? Why are you bothering us
here? Do you really get that excited about capacitors?


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Phil Allison]

"Monte McGuire" <
> "Phil Allison"
> > ** Arny - sometimes you are just plain wrong. This is one of them.
> >
> > Mr Rivers' pathetic attempts to libel me gives me the **RIGHT** return
the
> > favour.
>
> ...I'll agree... your attempts at libel were much more successful than
> Mike's.


** So the obvious truth of them rang through.


> In fact, I don't think Mike really had that in mind at all,


** In fact, there is little sign that you think at all.


>
> Now, a question for you. What's your problem?


** More mindless libelling ....


> Why are you bothering us here?


** Do simple facts about audio "bother " you - Monte ?

The truth only frightens charlatans - are you another one ?


BTW NGs are public forums not clubs - and you do not speak for
anyone.




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

[Phil Allison]

"Monte McGuire" <
> "Phil Allison"
> > ** Arny - sometimes you are just plain wrong. This is one of them.
> >
> > Mr Rivers' pathetic attempts to libel me gives me the **RIGHT** return
the
> > favour.
>
> ...I'll agree... your attempts at libel were much more successful than
> Mike's.


** So the obvious truth of them rang through.


> In fact, I don't think Mike really had that in mind at all,


** In fact, there is little sign that you think at all.


>
> Now, a question for you. What's your problem?


** More mindless libelling ....


> Why are you bothering us here?


** Do simple facts about audio "bother " you - Monte ?

The truth only frightens charlatans - are you another one ?


BTW NGs are public forums not clubs - and you do not speak for
anyone.




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

[Harvey Gerst]

>"Phil Allison" > wrote:

>> "Monte McGuire" weote:
>> Why are you bothering us here?

>** Do simple facts about audio "bother " you - Monte ?
> The truth only frightens charlatans - are you another one ?
>BTW NGs are public forums not clubs - and you do not speak for anyone.
>............ Phil

Actually, I believe Monte IS speaking for everyone.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[Harvey Gerst]

>"Phil Allison" > wrote:

>> "Monte McGuire" weote:
>> Why are you bothering us here?

>** Do simple facts about audio "bother " you - Monte ?
> The truth only frightens charlatans - are you another one ?
>BTW NGs are public forums not clubs - and you do not speak for anyone.
>............ Phil

Actually, I believe Monte IS speaking for everyone.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[Ben Bradley]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 02:07:45 GMT, Monte McGuire
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Phil Allison" > wrote:

>> { nothing significant }

>...I'll agree... your attempts at libel were much more successful than
>Mike's. In fact, I don't think Mike really had that in mind at all, so
>he failed quite significantly to cast libelous statements upon you.
>
>Now, a question for you. What's your problem? Why are you bothering us
>here? Do you really get that excited about capacitors?

They must have finally given him back too much **** for his
trolling of the sci.electronics.* hierarchy where I recall seeing him
before, so he decided to come over here to play.
As for the capacitors, I can think of a few puns. He's very insular
to reasoning, yet he's a conduit for flames. He gets a charge out of
being a troll on Usenet, causing much reactance to his posts.

>Regards,
>
>Monte McGuire

[Ben Bradley]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 02:07:45 GMT, Monte McGuire
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Phil Allison" > wrote:

>> { nothing significant }

>...I'll agree... your attempts at libel were much more successful than
>Mike's. In fact, I don't think Mike really had that in mind at all, so
>he failed quite significantly to cast libelous statements upon you.
>
>Now, a question for you. What's your problem? Why are you bothering us
>here? Do you really get that excited about capacitors?

They must have finally given him back too much **** for his
trolling of the sci.electronics.* hierarchy where I recall seeing him
before, so he decided to come over here to play.
As for the capacitors, I can think of a few puns. He's very insular
to reasoning, yet he's a conduit for flames. He gets a charge out of
being a troll on Usenet, causing much reactance to his posts.

>Regards,
>
>Monte McGuire

[Phil Allison]

"Harvey Gerst"
> >"Phil Allison"

> >BTW NGs are public forums not clubs - and you do not speak for anyone.

>
> Actually, I believe Monte IS speaking for everyone.



** So every poster on this NG is a charlatan and frightened of simple
facts ??

So this is a club and not a public forum ??

You amaze me Harvey.





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

[Phil Allison]

"Harvey Gerst"
> >"Phil Allison"

> >BTW NGs are public forums not clubs - and you do not speak for anyone.

>
> Actually, I believe Monte IS speaking for everyone.



** So every poster on this NG is a charlatan and frightened of simple
facts ??

So this is a club and not a public forum ??

You amaze me Harvey.





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

[ScotFraser]

<< > Now, a question for you. What's your problem?


** More mindless libelling ....
>>

Actually, that question has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of libel.
Look it up in a dictionary.
Another question:
Why are you so ****ed off at everybody?


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< > Now, a question for you. What's your problem?


** More mindless libelling ....
>>

Actually, that question has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of libel.
Look it up in a dictionary.
Another question:
Why are you so ****ed off at everybody?


Scott Fraser

[Phil Allison]

"ScotFraser"

> << > Now, a question for you. What's your problem?
>
> ** More mindless libelling ....
>
>
> Actually, that question has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of
libel.
> Look it up in a dictionary.


Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Li´bel Pronunciation: li´bel
n. 1.
1. A brief writing of any kind, esp. a declaration, bill, certificate,
request, supplication, etc.
A libel of forsaking [divorcement].
- Wyclif (Matt. v. 31).
2. Any defamatory writing; a lampoon; a satire.
3. (Law) A malicious publication expressed either in print or in
writing, or by pictures, effigies, or other signs, tending to expose another
to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Such publication is indictable at
common law.
4. (Law) The crime of issuing a malicious defamatory publication.
5. (Civil Law & Courts of Admiralty) A written declaration or statement
by the plaintiff of his cause of action, and of the relief he seeks




> Another question:
> Why are you so ****ed off at everybody?


** See above - dickhead.




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

[Phil Allison]

"ScotFraser"

> << > Now, a question for you. What's your problem?
>
> ** More mindless libelling ....
>
>
> Actually, that question has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of
libel.
> Look it up in a dictionary.


Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Li´bel Pronunciation: li´bel
n. 1.
1. A brief writing of any kind, esp. a declaration, bill, certificate,
request, supplication, etc.
A libel of forsaking [divorcement].
- Wyclif (Matt. v. 31).
2. Any defamatory writing; a lampoon; a satire.
3. (Law) A malicious publication expressed either in print or in
writing, or by pictures, effigies, or other signs, tending to expose another
to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Such publication is indictable at
common law.
4. (Law) The crime of issuing a malicious defamatory publication.
5. (Civil Law & Courts of Admiralty) A written declaration or statement
by the plaintiff of his cause of action, and of the relief he seeks




> Another question:
> Why are you so ****ed off at everybody?


** See above - dickhead.




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