"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
ink.net
"David Satz" wrote in message
om...
.
The pads on most condenser microphones reduce the signals at the very
worst place possible--at the input to the microphone's own
electronics.

I have Cad 100's from 5 years ago, I'll have to look into if they do
that, I 'm sure they do knowing my luck HA.

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf the schematic is on page
4.

I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to the
input, but not exactly at the input.

Furthermore, I see some advantage to attenuating at the input to the mic
electronics, if clipping in those electronics is the concern.

The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can have
vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the moment where
the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
ink.net
"David Satz" wrote in message
om...
.
The pads on most condenser microphones reduce the signals at the very
worst place possible--at the input to the microphone's own
electronics.

I have Cad 100's from 5 years ago, I'll have to look into if they do
that, I 'm sure they do knowing my luck HA.

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf the schematic is on
page
4.


I look at the schematic after what David wrote but I'm not in the ball game
when it's come to understanding it.

I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to the
input, but not exactly at the input.

The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can have
vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the moment where
the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

Best to have both ? I see pads on our others microphones AT 4040. . I never
really undestand when to use to or why?

Thank you
ed

--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
ink.net
"David Satz" wrote in message
om...
.
The pads on most condenser microphones reduce the signals at the very
worst place possible--at the input to the microphone's own
electronics.

I have Cad 100's from 5 years ago, I'll have to look into if they do
that, I 'm sure they do knowing my luck HA.

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf the schematic is on
page
4.


I look at the schematic after what David wrote but I'm not in the ball game
when it's come to understanding it.

I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to the
input, but not exactly at the input.

The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can have
vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the moment where
the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

Best to have both ? I see pads on our others microphones AT 4040. . I never
really undestand when to use to or why?

Thank you
ed

Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf
the schematic is on page 4.

Thanks for posting the link. The CAD schematic doesn't seem to show
the actual front end of the microphone circuit at all. It shows the
pad switch as a feedback control later on in the circuit. Weird.


I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to the
input, but not exactly at the input.

Furthermore, I see some advantage to attenuating at the input to the
mic electronics, if clipping in those electronics is the concern.

I agree--in most types of condenser microphone, the capsule can handle
far higher sound pressure levels without audible distortion than the
electronics of the microphone can. When the SPL exceeds the amplifier's
capabilities, a pad at the input of the amplifier is the right choice.

But that isn't the usual situation, and it's certainly not the case that
the original poster has. He's trying to feed the signal from a condenser
microphone into an input that was designed for a dynamic microphone, and
he's getting input overload.

That overload _could_ be avoided by using an attenuator between the
capsule and the microphone's electronics, and the original poster
proposed to do that. OK, it's useful as a test--it shows whether lower
signal levels going into the recorder can solve the problem or not. But
when input overload in the _preamp_ is the problem and the mike itself
isn't anywhere near being overloaded by its capsule, then that's not a
good choice, as compared with a resistive pad in-line at the preamp input.


The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can
have vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the
moment where the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

And we agree completely about that, as we probably ultimately do about
all the other points as well. This message isn't meant as an argument
with you, but just as a way to spell out a thought process for how to
decide what to do in this general type of situation.

My suggestions would be [a] know the maximum SPL that each of your mikes
can handle, and only use their built-in pads when there's a likelihood
of exceeding that range; [b] bring in-line resistive pads (15 - 25 dB)
to all location recordings, and use them at the first threat of overload;
[c] if using the resistive pad doesn't help you, then maybe the microphone
really is being overloaded, in which case using its built-in attenuator
may make sense; [d] if your microphone seems unable to handle its rated
maximum SPL without clipping, check your phantom power supply (or better
yet, do that beforehand ...).

[d] is quite possibly an issue in this case, too. CAD Equiteks require
8 (!) mA per microphone--an amount of current which falls just within
the IEC standard, and which relatively few phantom power supplies in my
experience can offer. I mean, Schoeps mikes take only half that much
current, and even they run into problems with phantom supplies at times.

P.S.: The original poster lives in my neighborhood, as it turns out;
we're currently exchanging phone messages and trying to speak and/or
meet in person.

Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf
the schematic is on page 4.

Thanks for posting the link. The CAD schematic doesn't seem to show
the actual front end of the microphone circuit at all. It shows the
pad switch as a feedback control later on in the circuit. Weird.


I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to the
input, but not exactly at the input.

Furthermore, I see some advantage to attenuating at the input to the
mic electronics, if clipping in those electronics is the concern.

I agree--in most types of condenser microphone, the capsule can handle
far higher sound pressure levels without audible distortion than the
electronics of the microphone can. When the SPL exceeds the amplifier's
capabilities, a pad at the input of the amplifier is the right choice.

But that isn't the usual situation, and it's certainly not the case that
the original poster has. He's trying to feed the signal from a condenser
microphone into an input that was designed for a dynamic microphone, and
he's getting input overload.

That overload _could_ be avoided by using an attenuator between the
capsule and the microphone's electronics, and the original poster
proposed to do that. OK, it's useful as a test--it shows whether lower
signal levels going into the recorder can solve the problem or not. But
when input overload in the _preamp_ is the problem and the mike itself
isn't anywhere near being overloaded by its capsule, then that's not a
good choice, as compared with a resistive pad in-line at the preamp input.


The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can
have vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the
moment where the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

And we agree completely about that, as we probably ultimately do about
all the other points as well. This message isn't meant as an argument
with you, but just as a way to spell out a thought process for how to
decide what to do in this general type of situation.

My suggestions would be [a] know the maximum SPL that each of your mikes
can handle, and only use their built-in pads when there's a likelihood
of exceeding that range; [b] bring in-line resistive pads (15 - 25 dB)
to all location recordings, and use them at the first threat of overload;
[c] if using the resistive pad doesn't help you, then maybe the microphone
really is being overloaded, in which case using its built-in attenuator
may make sense; [d] if your microphone seems unable to handle its rated
maximum SPL without clipping, check your phantom power supply (or better
yet, do that beforehand ...).

[d] is quite possibly an issue in this case, too. CAD Equiteks require
8 (!) mA per microphone--an amount of current which falls just within
the IEC standard, and which relatively few phantom power supplies in my
experience can offer. I mean, Schoeps mikes take only half that much
current, and even they run into problems with phantom supplies at times.

P.S.: The original poster lives in my neighborhood, as it turns out;
we're currently exchanging phone messages and trying to speak and/or
meet in person.

"David Satz" wrote in message
om
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf
the schematic is on page 4.

Thanks for posting the link. The CAD schematic doesn't seem to show
the actual front end of the microphone circuit at all. It shows the
pad switch as a feedback control later on in the circuit. Weird.

I don't find it weird at all. Instead of reducing the input to microphone's
electronics, they reduced its gain.

I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to
the input, but not exactly at the input.

Furthermore, I see some advantage to attenuating at the input to the
mic electronics, if clipping in those electronics is the concern.

I agree--in most types of condenser microphone, the capsule can handle
far higher sound pressure levels without audible distortion than the
electronics of the microphone can. When the SPL exceeds the
amplifier's capabilities, a pad at the input of the amplifier is the
right choice.

But that isn't the usual situation, and it's certainly not the case
that the original poster has. He's trying to feed the signal from a
condenser microphone into an input that was designed for a dynamic
microphone, and he's getting input overload.

The external attenuator could work, as could the CAD 100 approach.

The CAD100 approach minimizes distortion inside the microphone's circuits by
reducing the output voltage.

That overload _could_ be avoided by using an attenuator between the
capsule and the microphone's electronics, and the original poster
proposed to do that. OK, it's useful as a test--it shows whether
lower signal levels going into the recorder can solve the problem or
not.

Adding an attenuator between the capsule and the microphone's electronics
shows whether lower signal levels going into the microphones' electroncis
can solve the problem or not.

Since this reduces the output of the microphone's electronics, it also as
you say, shows whether
lower signal levels going into the recorder can solve the problem or not.

But when input overload in the _preamp_ is the problem and the
mike itself isn't anywhere near being overloaded by its capsule, then
that's not a good choice, as compared with a resistive pad in-line at
the preamp input.

I think you've got things reversed.

The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can
have vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the
moment where the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

And we agree completely about that, as we probably ultimately do about
all the other points as well. This message isn't meant as an argument
with you, but just as a way to spell out a thought process for how to
decide what to do in this general type of situation.

My suggestions would be [a] know the maximum SPL that each of your
mikes can handle, and only use their built-in pads when there's a
likelihood of exceeding that range; [b] bring in-line resistive pads
(15 - 25 dB) to all location recordings, and use them at the first
threat of overload; [c] if using the resistive pad doesn't help you,
then maybe the microphone really is being overloaded, in which case
using its built-in attenuator may make sense; [d] if your microphone
seems unable to handle its rated maximum SPL without clipping, check
your phantom power supply (or better yet, do that beforehand ...).

Agreed.

[d] is quite possibly an issue in this case, too. CAD Equiteks
require 8 (!) mA per microphone--an amount of current which falls
just within the IEC standard, and which relatively few phantom power
supplies in my experience can offer. I mean, Schoeps mikes take only
half that much current, and even they run into problems with phantom
supplies at times.

P.S.: The original poster lives in my neighborhood, as it turns out;
we're currently exchanging phone messages and trying to speak and/or
meet in person.

"David Satz" wrote in message
om
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf
the schematic is on page 4.

Thanks for posting the link. The CAD schematic doesn't seem to show
the actual front end of the microphone circuit at all. It shows the
pad switch as a feedback control later on in the circuit. Weird.

I don't find it weird at all. Instead of reducing the input to microphone's
electronics, they reduced its gain.

I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to
the input, but not exactly at the input.

Furthermore, I see some advantage to attenuating at the input to the
mic electronics, if clipping in those electronics is the concern.

I agree--in most types of condenser microphone, the capsule can handle
far higher sound pressure levels without audible distortion than the
electronics of the microphone can. When the SPL exceeds the
amplifier's capabilities, a pad at the input of the amplifier is the
right choice.

But that isn't the usual situation, and it's certainly not the case
that the original poster has. He's trying to feed the signal from a
condenser microphone into an input that was designed for a dynamic
microphone, and he's getting input overload.

The external attenuator could work, as could the CAD 100 approach.

The CAD100 approach minimizes distortion inside the microphone's circuits by
reducing the output voltage.

That overload _could_ be avoided by using an attenuator between the
capsule and the microphone's electronics, and the original poster
proposed to do that. OK, it's useful as a test--it shows whether
lower signal levels going into the recorder can solve the problem or
not.

Adding an attenuator between the capsule and the microphone's electronics
shows whether lower signal levels going into the microphones' electroncis
can solve the problem or not.

Since this reduces the output of the microphone's electronics, it also as
you say, shows whether
lower signal levels going into the recorder can solve the problem or not.

But when input overload in the _preamp_ is the problem and the
mike itself isn't anywhere near being overloaded by its capsule, then
that's not a good choice, as compared with a resistive pad in-line at
the preamp input.

I think you've got things reversed.

The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can
have vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the
moment where the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

And we agree completely about that, as we probably ultimately do about
all the other points as well. This message isn't meant as an argument
with you, but just as a way to spell out a thought process for how to
decide what to do in this general type of situation.

My suggestions would be [a] know the maximum SPL that each of your
mikes can handle, and only use their built-in pads when there's a
likelihood of exceeding that range; [b] bring in-line resistive pads
(15 - 25 dB) to all location recordings, and use them at the first
threat of overload; [c] if using the resistive pad doesn't help you,
then maybe the microphone really is being overloaded, in which case
using its built-in attenuator may make sense; [d] if your microphone
seems unable to handle its rated maximum SPL without clipping, check
your phantom power supply (or better yet, do that beforehand ...).

Agreed.

[d] is quite possibly an issue in this case, too. CAD Equiteks
require 8 (!) mA per microphone--an amount of current which falls
just within the IEC standard, and which relatively few phantom power
supplies in my experience can offer. I mean, Schoeps mikes take only
half that much current, and even they run into problems with phantom
supplies at times.

P.S.: The original poster lives in my neighborhood, as it turns out;
we're currently exchanging phone messages and trying to speak and/or
meet in person.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"David Satz" wrote in message
. com
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf
the schematic is on page 4.

Thanks for posting the link. The CAD schematic doesn't seem to show
the actual front end of the microphone circuit at all. It shows the
pad switch as a feedback control later on in the circuit. Weird.

I don't find it weird at all. Instead of reducing the input to microphone's
electronics, they reduced its gain.

Doing this invariably changes the sound of the thing, since you are making
alterations to the feedback loop. But more importantly, the front end is
still just as subject to overload as it always was. On the other hand, the
pads that DO go in front of the front end are things like shunt capacitors,
which have far worse sonic effects.
--scott

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
"David Satz" wrote in message
. com
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf
the schematic is on page 4.

Thanks for posting the link. The CAD schematic doesn't seem to show
the actual front end of the microphone circuit at all. It shows the
pad switch as a feedback control later on in the circuit. Weird.

I don't find it weird at all. Instead of reducing the input to microphone's
electronics, they reduced its gain.

Doing this invariably changes the sound of the thing, since you are making
alterations to the feedback loop. But more importantly, the front end is
still just as subject to overload as it always was. On the other hand, the
pads that DO go in front of the front end are things like shunt capacitors,
which have far worse sonic effects.
--scott

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

"David Satz" wrote in message
om...
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf
the schematic is on page 4.

Thanks for posting the link. The CAD schematic doesn't seem to show
the actual front end of the microphone circuit at all. It shows the
pad switch as a feedback control later on in the circuit. Weird.


I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to the
input, but not exactly at the input.

Furthermore, I see some advantage to attenuating at the input to the
mic electronics, if clipping in those electronics is the concern.

I agree--in most types of condenser microphone, the capsule can handle
far higher sound pressure levels without audible distortion than the
electronics of the microphone can. When the SPL exceeds the amplifier's
capabilities, a pad at the input of the amplifier is the right choice.

But that isn't the usual situation, and it's certainly not the case that
the original poster has. He's trying to feed the signal from a condenser
microphone into an input that was designed for a dynamic microphone, and
he's getting input overload.

Is there dynamic microphones that that would work ? crazy question right. .
I record in the house about 16 inches from the guitar and voice. It's
noise here in this house. I know the Cad and At 4040 sound okay for us.


That overload _could_ be avoided by using an attenuator between the
capsule and the microphone's electronics, and the original poster
proposed to do that. OK, it's useful as a test--it shows whether lower
signal levels going into the recorder can solve the problem or not. But
when input overload in the _preamp_ is the problem and the mike itself
isn't anywhere near being overloaded by its capsule, then that's not a
good choice, as compared with a resistive pad in-line at the preamp input.


The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can
have vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the
moment where the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

I try taking the pad -20db of the Cad . not a pretty sound. Maybe I making
a mistake,there always that littel fact.

And we agree completely about that, as we probably ultimately do about
all the other points as well. This message isn't meant as an argument
with you, but just as a way to spell out a thought process for how to
decide what to do in this general type of situation.

My suggestions would be [a] know the maximum SPL that each of your mikes
can handle, and only use their built-in pads when there's a likelihood
of exceeding that range; [b] bring in-line resistive pads (15 - 25 dB)
to all location recordings, and use them at the first threat of overload;
[c] if using the resistive pad doesn't help you, then maybe the microphone
really is being overloaded, in which case using its built-in attenuator
may make sense; [d] if your microphone seems unable to handle its rated
maximum SPL without clipping, check your phantom power supply (or better
yet, do that beforehand ...).

[d] is quite possibly an issue in this case, too. CAD Equiteks require
8 (!) mA per microphone--an amount of current which falls just within
the IEC standard, and which relatively few phantom power supplies in my
experience can offer. I mean, Schoeps mikes take only half that much
current, and even they run into problems with phantom supplies at times.

I need to take this in . . I undersatnd part of it.

Thank you
Ed

"David Satz" wrote in message
om...
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.cadmics.com/pdf_files/e100_manual.pdf
the schematic is on page 4.

Thanks for posting the link. The CAD schematic doesn't seem to show
the actual front end of the microphone circuit at all. It shows the
pad switch as a feedback control later on in the circuit. Weird.


I'll leave it to David to support his claim... The pad is close to the
input, but not exactly at the input.

Furthermore, I see some advantage to attenuating at the input to the
mic electronics, if clipping in those electronics is the concern.

I agree--in most types of condenser microphone, the capsule can handle
far higher sound pressure levels without audible distortion than the
electronics of the microphone can. When the SPL exceeds the amplifier's
capabilities, a pad at the input of the amplifier is the right choice.

But that isn't the usual situation, and it's certainly not the case that
the original poster has. He's trying to feed the signal from a condenser
microphone into an input that was designed for a dynamic microphone, and
he's getting input overload.

Is there dynamic microphones that that would work ? crazy question right. .
I record in the house about 16 inches from the guitar and voice. It's
noise here in this house. I know the Cad and At 4040 sound okay for us.


That overload _could_ be avoided by using an attenuator between the
capsule and the microphone's electronics, and the original poster
proposed to do that. OK, it's useful as a test--it shows whether lower
signal levels going into the recorder can solve the problem or not. But
when input overload in the _preamp_ is the problem and the mike itself
isn't anywhere near being overloaded by its capsule, then that's not a
good choice, as compared with a resistive pad in-line at the preamp input.


The point is made however, that using internal and external pads can
have vastly different results when you don't know for sure at the
moment where the clipping is coming from (i.e., the real world).

I try taking the pad -20db of the Cad . not a pretty sound. Maybe I making
a mistake,there always that littel fact.

And we agree completely about that, as we probably ultimately do about
all the other points as well. This message isn't meant as an argument
with you, but just as a way to spell out a thought process for how to
decide what to do in this general type of situation.

My suggestions would be [a] know the maximum SPL that each of your mikes
can handle, and only use their built-in pads when there's a likelihood
of exceeding that range; [b] bring in-line resistive pads (15 - 25 dB)
to all location recordings, and use them at the first threat of overload;
[c] if using the resistive pad doesn't help you, then maybe the microphone
really is being overloaded, in which case using its built-in attenuator
may make sense; [d] if your microphone seems unable to handle its rated
maximum SPL without clipping, check your phantom power supply (or better
yet, do that beforehand ...).

[d] is quite possibly an issue in this case, too. CAD Equiteks require
8 (!) mA per microphone--an amount of current which falls just within
the IEC standard, and which relatively few phantom power supplies in my
experience can offer. I mean, Schoeps mikes take only half that much
current, and even they run into problems with phantom supplies at times.

I need to take this in . . I undersatnd part of it.

Thank you
Ed