Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Microphone attenuators

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 3:03:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The signal I get on certain close-miced drums is too hot for my mixer, which
doesn't have any built-in attenuation. Do I need to buy an attenuator from a
supplier or can I just build my own with resistors? If I need 10-20dB of
attenuation, what values should I use, and what about impedance issues? Is
there any significant difference in sound quality between using different
components (resistors, wires, solder etc), or just a difference in accuracy
of level reduction?

Thanks,

--
tj hertz

tjhertz at gmail dot com

More about : microphone attenuators

Anonymous
August 30, 2004 3:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <RgtYc.68786$b76.36023@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
TJ Hertz <tjhertz@gmail-HOLDTHESPAM.com> wrote:
>The signal I get on certain close-miced drums is too hot for my mixer, which
>doesn't have any built-in attenuation. Do I need to buy an attenuator from a
>supplier or can I just build my own with resistors? If I need 10-20dB of
>attenuation, what values should I use, and what about impedance issues? Is
>there any significant difference in sound quality between using different
>components (resistors, wires, solder etc), or just a difference in accuracy
>of level reduction?

Sure, you can build your own if you want, but the adjustable attenuators
from Shure aren't very expensive and are handy to have for all kinds of
things. I'd rather have the adjustable ones than fixed ones.

Making your own will cost almost as much because the barrel connectors
from Switchcraft are so expensive. But there was a recent thread here
in which Phil insisted everyone was wrong about attenuator resistor values,
where appropriate values were discussed in detail.
--=scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:00:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

So what is the impedence of the microphone? What does it like to see. 300
ohm 50k ohm? Single ended balanced?

Bob

"TJ Hertz" <tjhertz@gmail-HOLDTHESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:RgtYc.68786$b76.36023@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> The signal I get on certain close-miced drums is too hot for my mixer,
which
> doesn't have any built-in attenuation. Do I need to buy an attenuator from
a
> supplier or can I just build my own with resistors? If I need 10-20dB of
> attenuation, what values should I use, and what about impedance issues? Is
> there any significant difference in sound quality between using different
> components (resistors, wires, solder etc), or just a difference in
accuracy
> of level reduction?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> tj hertz
>
> tjhertz at gmail dot com
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:09:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"sycochkn" <sycochkn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_6uYc.2080$w%6.1991@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> So what is the impedence of the microphone? What does it like to see. 300
> ohm 50k ohm? Single ended balanced?
>

Would you use a different attenuator for every mic in your collection? The
mics in question are an SM57 and D112 or D6.

I understand basic electronics but I'm not really up to speed on impedences.

Thanks

--
tj hertz
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:09:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

TJ Hertz wrote:

>"sycochkn" <sycochkn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:_6uYc.2080$w%6.1991@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> So what is the impedence of the microphone? What does it like to see. 300
>> ohm 50k ohm? Single ended balanced?
>>
>
>Would you use a different attenuator for every mic in your collection?

Probably not.

> The
>mics in question are an SM57 and D112 or D6.

A single design will serve these quite nicely.

>I understand basic electronics but I'm not really up to speed on impedences.

For the purposes of a mic attenuator you can simply think of the impedances
as resistances. I found a page that describes a design approach at
http://www.isce.org.uk/engnotes/ENote3.pdf

I agree with Scott, though. You should buy the Shure A15AS. It's pre-
engineered, can be set to three different levels of attenuation, can
usually be purchased for less than it will cost you for the equivalent
parts, and will probably be more rugged and reliable than homebrew.

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mkesti@gv.net | - The Who, Bargain
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:33:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TJ Hertz" <tjhertz@gmail-HOLDTHESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:o euYc.69234$b76.8462@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "sycochkn" <sycochkn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:_6uYc.2080$w%6.1991@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > So what is the impedence of the microphone? What does it like to see.
300
> > ohm 50k ohm? Single ended balanced?
> >
>
> Would you use a different attenuator for every mic in your collection? The
> mics in question are an SM57 and D112 or D6.
>
> I understand basic electronics but I'm not really up to speed on
impedences.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> tj hertz
>
>

most modern mixer inputs are what you would consider to be high impedance,
therefore a high Z pad would seem to be the way to go to me :) 

but then most of the mixers i run across lately don't need the pad as the
input can be trimed enough to keep from clipping.

which unit are you working with?
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 11:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TJ Hertz" <tjhertz@gmail-HOLDTHESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:RgtYc.68786$b76.36023@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk

> The signal I get on certain close-miced drums is too hot for my
> mixer, which doesn't have any built-in attenuation.

This is a very old, and well-known situation.

>Do I need to buy
> an attenuator from a supplier or can I just build my own with
> resistors?

Yes, and yes.

You can make them or you can buy them. Audio Technica and Shure sell
variable attenuators, and Tapco sell fixed ones. They are all a little
different. I've used eveny one I mention in this article. IME the
commercial ones are all quality pieces. The ones you build are as good as
you build them.

Fixed attenuators run about $20 and variable ones run about $40. You can
build equivalent fixed attenuators for as little as $10 and less than a
half-hour's work.

>If I need 10-20dB of attenuation, what values should I
> use, and what about impedance issues?

You can look at commercial attenuators for guidance (below) we studied this
issue here a while back. Here are the parts values for 2 popular variable
attenuators from credible manufacturers:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RrKdnWnmIog5-JzcRVn-v...

"S O'Neill" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:cdq6a9$rjp$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu


Shure A15AS

15 dB: Rin=1053, Rout=186

20 dB: Rin=952, Rout=100

25 dB: Rin=916, Rout=58

measured with an ohmmeter across 2&3 of input or output and the other
end open. Series R (2-2 or 3-3) on each leg is about 430.


2--- 430 --------2
!
Rout
!
3--- 430 --------3

1----------------1

Arny Krueger wrote in

RrKdnWnmIog5-JzcRVn-vA%40comcast.com

Just for the record, the AT8202 attenuator uses 470 ohm series resistors,

2--- 470 --------2
!
Rout
!
3--- 470 --------3

1----------------1


....and shunt resistors as follows:

10 dB: Rin=1370, Rout=430

20 dB: Rin=1040, Rout=100

30 dB: Rin=970, Rout=30


> Is there any significant difference in sound quality between using
> different components
> (resistors, wires, solder etc), or just a difference in accuracy of
> level reduction?

Just use good quality parts - 1% or better carbon or (preferably) metal film
resistors, and a good quality male-female jack assembly to hold them.

I should add that none of these parts are precision attenuators - due to
differences in source and load impedances, the actual attenuation wanders
around from application to application. So, while they are highly effective
when used as intended, they aren't lab bench calibration standards.

Under duress I've built attenuators into Male-Male XLR gender menders from
Radio Shack, using 5% carbon film parts. Just about anything sounds better
than clipping! Add a female-female adaptor and you've got the desired
male-female pass-through thing going for you.

Usually, these parts are mounted in a male-female XLR adaptor, which is made
by Switchcraft. You can also easily gute polarity-inverter adapators made by
Hosa. While some of the Hosa cables are a bit flimsy, this part is solid.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 12:37:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <_6uYc.2080$w%6.1991@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> sycochkn@earthlink.net writes:

> So what is the impedence of the microphone? What does it like to see. 300
> ohm 50k ohm? Single ended balanced?

Depends on the microphone, but for a general purpose "won't harm
anything" pad, make it between 1.5K and 2.5K ohms. It's only critical
if you know exactly which mic it will be used with, and then only
makes a noticable difference with some mics.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:08:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey"
>
> But there was a recent thread here
> in which Phil insisted everyone was wrong about attenuator resistor
values,



** You are a stinking liar, Scott Dorsey.




.......... Phil
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 6:43:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TJ Hertz" <tjhertz@gmail-HOLDTHESPAM.com> wrote in message news:<RgtYc.68786$b76.36023@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> The signal I get on certain close-miced drums is too hot for my mixer, which
> doesn't have any built-in attenuation. Do I need to buy an attenuator from a
> supplier or can I just build my own with resistors? If I need 10-20dB of
> attenuation, what values should I use, and what about impedance issues? Is
> there any significant difference in sound quality between using different
> components (resistors, wires, solder etc), or just a difference in accuracy
> of level reduction?
>
> Thanks,

That pi network mentioned will work, and I would not worry much about
that Rout resistance. It would be good to know the mixer input
impedance, but for now let us assume it is very high.

You are building a 3 resistor divider, so it is simple, but there are
some important parameters to consider. Say you want to have 10dB
attenuation. You could do it with say a series pair of 453 Ohm
resistors (1%) and a 100 Ohms. But you could also do it with say a
pair of 4.53 KOhms and a single 1KOhm. Or how about 4.53 Ohms and a
single 1Ohm?

Clearly, one can get the desired attenuation by keeping the ratios
right, and that can be done with "values all over the place"…

That example of 4.53Ohm and 1Ohm will present a load that is less than
10 Ohm. Say you source tries to supply only 1V peak into the
attenuator – that is 100mA current. It simply will not be able to do
it, and you need to raise the resistor values high enough so that the
drive can deliver distortion free signal.

So why not raise it to say 45.3 KOhms and a single 10KOhm? The reason
is – in some cases, high impeadance can be problematic from noise
pickup standpoint. Very often a low driver impeadance will provide a
good "short" (AC ground) to such cable pickup noise, but that only
takes place on the driver side. The load side of the attenuator in
this example is too high (10 KOhms) and noise pickup can be serious.
Also, while may or may not not apply here, high resistor values are
generating higher self noise than low value resistors.

I would guess that an overall 1-2Kohm load is often a good compromise
(the sum of the 3 resistors = 1 to 2KOhms). It would be good to really
know the source can drive it cleanly. If not, raise the values to what
is needed.
I would also make sure to have the attenuator as close as possible to
the mixer side. That is where you are more noise susceptible (higher
impeadance).

Also, I would not go through all the trouble with 5% resistors. Go fro
some good resistors with nice tolerance; say 0.1%, for the pair of the
series resistors. The single load resistor tolerance is not important,
but the series resistors tolerance matters a hack of a lot for common
mode rejection!!! Remember that 1% mismatch is only -40dB, and even
0.1% mismatch is -60dB rejection…


Br
Dan Lavry
August 31, 2004 2:35:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The pre-engineered solutions are invariably dependable.

BUT FWIW, if you're inclined to experiment, and you have a male-female
adapter (either a Switchcraft Barrel connector or just another mic
lead), you might try just a single resistor across 2-3 (say a 1/4W
metal film resistor, 33 or 47 ohms). The resistor easily fits inside
the shell, and the solder type doesn't matter. This will not only
attenuate the signal, but it will also tame the mic's main bass
resonance, and any HF harshness. The lowest bass will still be there,
but any tubbiness or mud will be reduced, effectively adding another
mic to your arsenal (may be best with a little lift at extreme
frequencies, depending on the application).

On 29 Aug 2004 19:44:38 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <RgtYc.68786$b76.36023@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>TJ Hertz <tjhertz@gmail-HOLDTHESPAM.com> wrote:
>>The signal I get on certain close-miced drums is too hot for my mixer, which
>>doesn't have any built-in attenuation. Do I need to buy an attenuator from a
>>supplier or can I just build my own with resistors? If I need 10-20dB of
>>attenuation, what values should I use, and what about impedance issues? Is
>>there any significant difference in sound quality between using different
>>components (resistors, wires, solder etc), or just a difference in accuracy
>>of level reduction?
>
>Sure, you can build your own if you want, but the adjustable attenuators
>from Shure aren't very expensive and are handy to have for all kinds of
>things. I'd rather have the adjustable ones than fixed ones.
>
>Making your own will cost almost as much because the barrel connectors
>from Switchcraft are so expensive.


Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 3:31:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dan lavry"

>
> Also, I would not go through all the trouble with 5% resistors. Go fro
> some good resistors with nice tolerance; say 0.1%, for the pair of the
> series resistors. The single load resistor tolerance is not important,
> but the series resistors tolerance matters a hack of a lot for common
> mode rejection!!! Remember that 1% mismatch is only -40dB, and even
> 0.1% mismatch is -60dB rejection.
>

** Because the network has no connection to ground, resistor tolerance does
not impact CMRR as badly as it otherwise would. I did a few tests as
follows.


With values of 560, 470 and 100 ohms ( ie an error of 20% in the series
resistors) the CMRR was 50 dB.

With values of 493, 470 and 100 ohms ( ie an error of 5% in the series
resistors) the CMRR was 54 dB.

With values of 470, 470 and 100 ohms ( all 1% types chosen at random ) the
CMRR was 79 dB.

With the inputs shorted together the CMRR was 80 dB.




.............. Phil
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 3:31:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2pi2obFl917aU1@uni-berlin.de> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:

> ** Because the network has no connection to ground, resistor tolerance does
> not impact CMRR as badly as it otherwise would. I did a few tests as
> follows.
>
>
> With values of 560, 470 and 100 ohms ( ie an error of 20% in the series
> resistors) the CMRR was 50 dB.
>
> With values of 493, 470 and 100 ohms ( ie an error of 5% in the series
> resistors) the CMRR was 54 dB.
>
> With values of 470, 470 and 100 ohms ( all 1% types chosen at random ) the
> CMRR was 79 dB.
>
> With the inputs shorted together the CMRR was 80 dB.

I'm surprised that someone as dedicated to specifications and number
as you would find the difference between 50 dB CMRR (with 20%
imbalance) or 54 dB (with 5% imbalance) and 79 dB (with 1% imbalance)
to be a small impact. What is your criteria if not a loss of 25 dB or
more of CMRR?

I agree that there isn't a big difference between 79 dB and 80 dB. I
also will note that CMRR isn't important until you need it. (there are
lots of nice and quiet unbalanced connections) But with the empirical
evidence that you've offered, given the low cost of resistors with 1%
tolerance, there's no reason not to use them.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 8:22:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dan lavry" <danlavry@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:673b149b.0408311211.688a4b3@posting.google.com...

> My advice: just go for .1% at 25ppm/C or similar and pay a couple of
> bucks.

Or...

Digi-Key sells its 1% resistors in packets of five. Within a batch, my
experience is that the spread is less than 1%; if you buy two packets,
you're likely to get at least two pairs that match within 0.1%. If you have
a digital multimeter, the job of matching's easy. (And if you don't, you
probably ought to have one anyway. Radio Shack sells 'em at very reasonable
prices.)

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 1:12:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <C8cZc.539432$Gx4.140711@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> pstamlerhell@pobox.com writes:

> Digi-Key sells its 1% resistors in packets of five. Within a batch, my
> experience is that the spread is less than 1%; if you buy two packets,
> you're likely to get at least two pairs that match within 0.1%. If you have
> a digital multimeter, the job of matching's easy.

How do you think they make 0.1% resistors? <g>

What you aren't likely to find are two that are within 0.1% of the
marked value, because those get branded as 0.1% and sold for more
money because there are fewer of them than those within 1% of the
marked value. But for this application, the absolute value isn't
critical.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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
Anonymous
September 2, 2004 4:20:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers"
Paul Stramler
>
> > Digi-Key sells its 1% resistors in packets of five. Within a batch, my
> > experience is that the spread is less than 1%; if you buy two packets,
> > you're likely to get at least two pairs that match within 0.1%. If you
have
> > a digital multimeter, the job of matching's easy.
>
> How do you think they make 0.1% resistors? <g>
>


** Nothing a demented, incontinent, squawking Parrot would ever know -
that is for sure.



> What you aren't likely to find are two that are within 0.1% of the
> marked value, because those get branded as 0.1% and sold for more
> money


** Squawk ... squawk .... squawk ..... squawk ..........

The parrot has got a bad dose of avian diarrhoea !!!



> because there are fewer of them than those within 1% of the
> marked value. But for this application, the absolute value isn't
> critical.



** Oh my god - now the featherless abomination is parroting my words
!!




............. Phil
Anonymous
September 2, 2004 4:20:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2pm44tFm8dlbU1@uni-berlin.de> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:

> > But for this application, the absolute value isn't
> > critical.

> ** Oh my god - now the featherless abomination is parroting my words

A very lucid and creative interpretation, much more than a parrot
could do. At least people won't misinterpret what I wrote because I
said what's important up front, not hid it in a diversion. But then
you make reading this newsgroup such a challange.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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
Anonymous
September 2, 2004 4:24:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:<2pm44tFm8dlbU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Mike Rivers"
> Paul Stramler

> ** Nothing a demented, incontinent, squawking Parrot would ever know -
> that is for sure.
>
> ** Squawk ... squawk .... squawk ..... squawk ..........
>
> The parrot has got a bad dose of avian diarrhoea !!!
>
> ** Oh my god - now the featherless abomination is parroting my words
> ............ Phil

Phil, you win, I am out of here. I do not like your style. You
probably think it is cool or cute. It may be so for some, but the
internet has all sorts of people, from various cultures and walk of
life. I, for one, at nearly 60 years old, find your comments do not
fit my style. I'll say that much: all that hoopla with parrot and
diarrhhoa is very un inviting to have a dialog. It is a distruction,
making people less willing to have a dialog. Of course you are right,
I must be an old fart and a nurd for saying so.

Good luck
Dan Lavry
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 2:47:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Phil, you win, I am out of here. I do not like your style. You
>probably think it is cool or cute. It may be so for some, but the
>internet has all sorts of people, from various cultures and walk of
>life. I, for one, at nearly 60 years old, find your comments do not
>fit my style. I'll say that much: all that hoopla with parrot and
>diarrhhoa is very un inviting to have a dialog. It is a distruction,
>making people less willing to have a dialog. Of course you are right,
>I must be an old fart and a nurd for saying so.
>
>Good luck
>Dan Lavry
>
>

Well, I'm 64 and I don't care for it either.
Killfile coming up.


--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 6:11:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On or about Thu, 2 Sep 2004 00:20:11 +1000, Phil Allison allegedly wrote:

> ** Nothing a demented, incontinent, squawking Parrot would ever know -
> that is for sure.

> ** Squawk ... squawk .... squawk ..... squawk ..........
>
> The parrot has got a bad dose of avian diarrhoea !!!

> ** Oh my god - now the featherless abomination is parroting my words


I think you must've been hanging out too much with Rod Speed, Phil.



Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain)
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)
September 4, 2004 1:29:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My 0.1% resistors have much tighter specified tempcos than my 1%
resistors.

Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers lie
about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1% resistors with
bad tempcos?

On 1 Sep 2004 09:12:58 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <C8cZc.539432$Gx4.140711@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> pstamlerhell@pobox.com writes:
>
>> Digi-Key sells its 1% resistors in packets of five. Within a batch, my
>> experience is that the spread is less than 1%; if you buy two packets,
>> you're likely to get at least two pairs that match within 0.1%. If you have
>> a digital multimeter, the job of matching's easy.
>
>How do you think they make 0.1% resistors? <g>
>
>What you aren't likely to find are two that are within 0.1% of the
>marked value, because those get branded as 0.1% and sold for more
>money because there are fewer of them than those within 1% of the
>marked value. But for this application, the absolute value isn't
>critical.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 1:29:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <4evhj0178eubn1r8nke6q5kf4k3if840dg@4ax.com> tony_roe@tpg.com.au writes:

> Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
> always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
> value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers lie
> about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1% resistors with
> bad tempcos?

I have never been concerned with "tempcos" (I assume that's Australian
for temperature coefficient) for a device that will always be used at
room temperature.

Isn't the temperature coefficient primarily a function of the material
the resitor is made of? Unless (for example) there are no 0.1% metal
film resistors because the temperature coefficient can't support that
tolerance.

Educate me here, don't just challange my statement. And explain, don't
just point me to a web site. That way I'll be confident that you know
what you're saying.






--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 3:14:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au
>
> My 0.1% resistors have much tighter specified tempcos than my 1%
> resistors.


** Naturally - since they are made with different and better materials and
a different process.

The aging characteristics are an order of magnitude better as well.



> Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
> always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
> value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers lie
> about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1% resistors with
> bad tempcos?


** How you are enjoying sticking the boot into that Septic featherless,
squawking parrot ??





.............. Phil
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 3:30:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison wrote:

> ** THAT has to be the dumbest post of the year !!!!

I don't know, Phil. You have provided an awful lot of competition.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 5:05:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <C8cZc.539432$Gx4.140711@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> pstamlerhell@pobox.com writes:
>
> > Digi-Key sells its 1% resistors in packets of five. Within a batch, my
> > experience is that the spread is less than 1%; if you buy two packets,
> > you're likely to get at least two pairs that match within 0.1%. If you have
> > a digital multimeter, the job of matching's easy.
>
> How do you think they make 0.1% resistors? <g>
>
> What you aren't likely to find are two that are within 0.1% of the
> marked value, because those get branded as 0.1% and sold for more
> money because there are fewer of them than those within 1% of the
> marked value. But for this application, the absolute value isn't
> critical.

Actually my experience is different. Commercial 1% resistors measure *far* better than 1% in practice.

I suspect that 0.1% resistors are generally manufactured on a special line. They are a specilaised high
cost item. In any event, the demand for them is inadequate to exhaust those 1% types that would be 0.1%.


Graham
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 5:34:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> I suspect that 0.1% resistors are generally manufactured on a special line. They are a specilaised high
> cost item. In any event, the demand for them is inadequate to exhaust those 1% types that would be 0.1%.
>
>
> Graham

When I brought that issue about .1% being tighter tolerance for better
common mode rejection, I did mention the tempco which is temperature
coefficient, and I pointed at 25ppm .1% as a "reasonable" way to go.
Why? Because you can get those for a buck each, and given that one is
considering going through all the trouble of buliding a rig, this is a
worth while thing to do.

But since people are asking questions, I would answer some and add a
point or two:

First, it is about materials, of course it is, and that is one of the
major factors for the resistor manufacturers to figure the proper mic
of materials to meet some given specifications. That does include both
abolute value, and temperature drift, and by the way, the aging is
already included in the tolerance, at least for the resistors I use.

Let me point out that I my sugestion to invest the couple of bucks was
reasonable, and I even pointed out you could buy them at Mouser or
Digikey. Those outlets will deal in small quantities, while the big
part houses will mostly not.

I could have "gone crazy" to sugest some really expansive parts, such
as bulk metal foil, and I have seen those go for $60 each at small
quantity. What do you get? .01% tolerance with 1ppm/degree tempco! I
did not sugest that, because I am a parctical design engineer, not
just someone wasting your time.
But the internet always seem to encourage one more guy to say one more
thing. I wish it were not so...

There is also another way to go, which may be just a bit more costly,
perhapse a couple of bucks more, and makes a lot of sense:

The idea is to have good matching, so the initial tolerance is
importent. But when it comes to drift due to temperature or againg, an
alternet way to go is to use 2 resistors made out of the exact same
material and to be sure that they are at the same temperature and
humidity. Who do you do that? You buy a resistor network (2 or more
resistors on the same substrate). It often looks like an IC (dual in
line - 2 rows, 8 pins, 14 pins, 16 pins...) or some are a SIP (single
in line package). All the resistors are made on the same substarte.
Often you deposite some material (they call it film), and then isolate
the areas to yield the desired resistance. Now, thick film is the
cheaper process. Thin film is the one to look for, it comes in veriety
of specs but tends to be good on tolerance and temperature.

If one wants to go that route, the initial tolerance is importent, but
the better spec is initial matching (for this attenuator case we are
discussing). Also, it is not the TC (temperature coefficient) that is
key. The TCT (temperature coefficient tracking) is the key. Why?
Because you really are not that interested the exact value. You want
to be dran shure that the pair will have the same value, out of the
box, and at different temperature and aging.
So you want initialy good match, than the variation to be the same on
both parts (tracking).

I have not look and will not look for a specific part for this case,
but with 30 years analog design, I bet you get what you want for less
than $3 for the pair.

Those that understood my comments about initial matching and tracking
of materials on the same substrate can now understand how resistor
based DAC's are designed. It is the same thing - good initial matching
(often done with laser triming of the material), and than all the
resistors are made of the same material, and all in a very small
space, thus same temperature and other conditions...

BR
Dan Lavry
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:35:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1094259452k@trad
> In article <4evhj0178eubn1r8nke6q5kf4k3if840dg@4ax.com>
> tony_roe@tpg.com.au writes:
>
>> Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
>> always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
>> value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers lie
>> about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1% resistors with
>> bad tempcos?
>
> I have never been concerned with "tempcos" (I assume that's Australian
> for temperature coefficient) for a device that will always be used at
> room temperature.

Not to mention the fact that if the components of an attenuator are kept in
reasonbly close thermal contact with each other, their ratio, which sets the
attenuation, will remain the same, even if their values change with
temperature.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 10:38:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <673b149b.0409041234.1c3baad5@posting.google.com> danlavry@mindspring.com writes:

> First, it is about materials, of course it is, and that is one of the
> major factors for the resistor manufacturers to figure the proper mic
> of materials to meet some given specifications. That does include both
> abolute value, and temperature drift, and by the way, the aging is
> already included in the tolerance, at least for the resistors I use.

Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
noise? That is, if you want a low TC, might you have to accept a
resistor made of a material, or of a construction method that
generates more noise than one with a higher (but still acceptable) TC?

> Let me point out that I my sugestion to invest the couple of bucks was
> reasonable, and I even pointed out you could buy them at Mouser or
> Digikey. Those outlets will deal in small quantities, while the big
> part houses will mostly not.

I agree, as long as you're not compromising something more important.
Never having studied components to that level, I don't know if this is
a consideration, but I know enough to ask the question.

An array with resistors on a substrate would certainly be a good
approach to keep whatever you started out with tracking together.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 3:52:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> Is there any tradeoff between temperature coefficient and quiescent
> noise? That is, if you want a low TC, might you have to accept a
> resistor made of a material, or of a construction method that
> generates more noise than one with a higher (but still acceptable) TC?

None that I know of.

Excess noise ( over and above thermal ) is material related for sure but I'm unaware of any
tempco/noise correlation.

> An array with resistors on a substrate would certainly be a good
> approach to keep whatever you started out with tracking together.

Neve used this approach for the custom gain setting R packs that they have used for balanced
line ins.

Graham
September 5, 2004 7:49:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:35:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>news:znr1094259452k@trad
>> In article <4evhj0178eubn1r8nke6q5kf4k3if840dg@4ax.com>
>> tony_roe@tpg.com.au writes:
>>
>>> Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
>>> always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
>>> value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers lie
>>> about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1% resistors with
>>> bad tempcos?
>>
>> I have never been concerned with "tempcos" (I assume that's Australian
>> for temperature coefficient) for a device that will always be used at
>> room temperature.
>
>Not to mention the fact that if the components of an attenuator are kept in
>reasonbly close thermal contact with each other, their ratio, which sets the
>attenuation, will remain the same, even if their values change with
>temperature.

That's very true, and certainly for the mic attenuator and many other
applications, tempcos would not be an issue. But my comment was
directed at Mike's assertion that 0.1% resistors were simply selected
from 1% production, which I still don't believe to be true.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 7:49:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:49:31 +1000, Tony <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:35:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>>news:znr1094259452k@trad
>>> In article <4evhj0178eubn1r8nke6q5kf4k3if840dg@4ax.com>
>>> tony_roe@tpg.com.au writes:
>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
>>>> always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
>>>> value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers lie
>>>> about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1% resistors with
>>>> bad tempcos?
>>>
>>> I have never been concerned with "tempcos" (I assume that's Australian
>>> for temperature coefficient) for a device that will always be used at
>>> room temperature.
>>
>>Not to mention the fact that if the components of an attenuator are kept in
>>reasonbly close thermal contact with each other, their ratio, which sets the
>>attenuation, will remain the same, even if their values change with
>>temperature.
>
>That's very true, and certainly for the mic attenuator and many other
>applications, tempcos would not be an issue. But my comment was
>directed at Mike's assertion that 0.1% resistors were simply selected
>from 1% production, which I still don't believe to be true.
>
>Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

You are right - it certainly isn't true. If it were, all resistors
other than the very best would have a bimodal distribution - a hole in
the middle where the best ones had been removed. They don't.

Typically resistor tolerance describes the width of the three-sigma
level of distribution, and that distribution tends to be normal. In
other words, resistors are "made" to the appropriate tolerance.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 7:49:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:g2alj09jim5hvi65iaekerg6bh7df1jhf2@4ax.com
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:35:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>> news:znr1094259452k@trad
>>> In article <4evhj0178eubn1r8nke6q5kf4k3if840dg@4ax.com>
>>> tony_roe@tpg.com.au writes:
>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
>>>> always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
>>>> value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers
>>>> lie about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1%
>>>> resistors with bad tempcos?
>>>
>>> I have never been concerned with "tempcos" (I assume that's
>>> Australian for temperature coefficient) for a device that will
>>> always be used at room temperature.
>>
>> Not to mention the fact that if the components of an attenuator are
>> kept in reasonbly close thermal contact with each other, their
>> ratio, which sets the attenuation, will remain the same, even if
>> their values change with temperature.
>
> That's very true, and certainly for the mic attenuator and many other
> applications, tempcos would not be an issue. But my comment was
> directed at Mike's assertion that 0.1% resistors were simply selected
> from 1% production, which I still don't believe to be true.

I agree - AFAIK 0.1% resistors are cut from nicer *cloth*, figuratively
speaking.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 7:49:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:D rblj0do3q3h09ksvekuecbnjj2474kigi@4ax.com


> You are right - it certainly isn't true. If it were, all resistors
> other than the very best would have a bimodal distribution - a hole in
> the middle where the best ones had been removed. They don't.

> Typically resistor tolerance describes the width of the three-sigma
> level of distribution, and that distribution tends to be normal. In
> other words, resistors are "made" to the appropriate tolerance.

You've obviously never bought any parts from Digi-Key!

;-)
September 5, 2004 8:14:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 4 Sep 2004 07:11:59 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>In article <4evhj0178eubn1r8nke6q5kf4k3if840dg@4ax.com> tony_roe@tpg.com.au writes:
>
>> Are you suggesting that they select the tempcos as well? or that it
>> always just happens that if a resistor is very close to its design
>> value, it automatically has a tighter tempco? Or that the makers lie
>> about the specs? Or have you just managed to find 0.1% resistors with
>> bad tempcos?
>
>I have never been concerned with "tempcos" (I assume that's Australian
>for temperature coefficient) for a device that will always be used at
>room temperature.

Yes, it's short for temperature coefficient, but not just Australian,
and yes, if you are only ever going to use a device at room
temperature, and you can select devices at the same "room
temperature", you don't need to be concerned with tempco. If you've
never considered tempcos, I guess I can see how you might think that
makers might select the "good" ones and rate them at 0.1%. But when
you think about the other "stability" ratings, that's just
impractical.

One other subtle point- some metal film resistors might have
+/-25ppm/K, others might have +150ppm/K nominal tempco, which doesn't
necessarily make them "bad", in fact it can be quite good in a tuned
circuit with a cap whose tempco - -150ppm/K.

>Isn't the temperature coefficient primarily a function of the material
>the resitor is made of? Unless (for example) there are no 0.1% metal
>film resistors because the temperature coefficient can't support that
>tolerance.

The material, the recipe tolerances, the precision of its preparation,
the precision of the control of thermal profiles, the care taken in
trimming, the lead attachment method, any annealing processes used,
etc, etc. As in everything, you can always find ways to do essentially
the same thing a little faster and/or cheaper, but you often pay for
it in some other way. If you want to rate a resistor as 0.1% with
similarly tighter tolerances for tempco, long-term drift, stability
under load and other drifts, you don't get to take so many short cuts.

>Educate me here, don't just challange my statement. And explain, don't
>just point me to a web site. That way I'll be confident that you know
>what you're saying.

This IS only a public forum, in which no-one is really obliged to
always be an expert, or to not make mistakes, or even the occasional
major faux pas. We all just express our opinions. And occasionally
some of us may become a little too caught up in the debate. I'd like
to be able to expound the virtues of every resistor manufacturing
process used around the world, but I can't do that, or even suggest a
web site. But I CAN tell you that when ever I need to compare two
similar but different components, the data sheets usually have
everything I really need to know. Even the lowly resistor has quite a
story to tell; and don't get me started on capacitors...

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 1:18:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:<2q6t82Frn5qsU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "dan lavry"
> > "Phil Allison"
> > It depends on the circuit ahaed! Take a standard single opamp
> > differential amp, which is a pretty typical input circuit to a lot of
> > mixers.
> ** WRONG.

You are uninformed!

> > Say the input resistance to both + and - terminals is a
> > perfect 10KOhm.
> ** Never for a mic preamp.

So it is 6.8KOhm, the idea is the same. But we are talking mixers, not
micpre.

> The topic was an attenuator for a mic pre-amp.
> You are so wrong it is not funny.


Here is how the whole thread started:

"The signal I get on certain close-miced drums is too hot for my
mixer, which
doesn't have any built-in attenuation."

He said mixer! Not mic preamp. In any case you are an unimressive sort
and I will not lower myself to your gutter level. You really give a
new meaning to rudness. I have seen few that got to be as rude as you.
Your sort goes for attention, and often it backfires. You are not far
from getting to the point that more people will ask you to get lost.
Than all your real mean spirited behaviour will not get you the
attention you want so badly.

To all my friends: Sorry I have to leave that thread. Let me know when
you got rid of that guy.

BR
Dan Lavry
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 11:49:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <673b149b.0409080818.4d8b5a0e@posting.google.com>,
danlavry@mindspring.com (dan lavry) wrote:

> To all my friends: Sorry I have to leave that thread. Let me know when
> you got rid of that guy.

Dan,

Don't waste any effort with this clown / troll. If he responds in his
usual asinine manner, ignore it and deal with the rest of the thread, if
you still want to.

The only solution is to starve the troll. It'd be nice to have you
around here, so I hope you can just killfile the troll and not have to
leave the group.


Take care,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 2:57:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dan lavry"
> "Phil Allison"
> > > It depends on the circuit ahaed! Take a standard single opamp
> > > differential amp, which is a pretty typical input circuit to a lot of
> > > mixers.
> >
> > ** WRONG.
>
> You are uninformed!

** You are quite mad.


>
> > > Say the input resistance to both + and - terminals is a
> > > perfect 10KOhm.
> >
> > ** Never for a mic preamp.
>
> So it is 6.8KOhm, the idea is the same.


** Not 6.8 kohms either.

That value is used for the phantom DC feed only.


> But we are talking mixers, not
> micpre.

** WRONG.


> > The topic was an attenuator for a mic pre-amp.
> > You are so wrong it is not funny.
>
>
> Here is how the whole thread started:
>
> "The signal I get on certain close-miced drums is too hot for my
> mixer, which doesn't have any built-in attenuation."
>
> He said mixer! Not mic preamp.


** Funny how mixers have one on each mic input.


> In any case you are an unimressive sort
> and I will not lower myself to your gutter level. You really give a
> new meaning to rudness. I have seen few that got to be as rude as you.
> Your sort goes for attention, and often it backfires. You are not far
> from getting to the point that more people will ask you to get lost.
> Than all your real mean spirited behaviour will not get you the
> attention you want so badly.


** Maybe senile as well.


>
> To all my friends: Sorry I have to leave that thread. Let me know when
> you got rid of that guy.


** Cut and run....




............ Phil
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 7:36:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Monte McGuire <monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<monte.mcguire-6164AC.15492708092004@news.verizon.net>...
> In article <673b149b.0409080818.4d8b5a0e@posting.google.com>,
> danlavry@mindspring.com (dan lavry) wrote:
>
> > To all my friends: Sorry I have to leave that thread. Let me know when
> > you got rid of that guy.
>
> Dan,
>
> Don't waste any effort with this clown / troll. If he responds in his
> usual asinine manner, ignore it and deal with the rest of the thread, if
> you still want to.
>
> The only solution is to starve the troll. It'd be nice to have you
> around here, so I hope you can just killfile the troll and not have to
> leave the group.
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Monte McGuire
> monte.mcguire@verizon.net


Good idea. Can anyone tell me how to do an automatic kill file?

BR
Dan Lavry
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dan lavry" <danlavry@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:673b149b.0409101436.1f2a9df3@posting.google.com...

>
> Good idea. Can anyone tell me how to do an automatic kill file?
>

Sure - what newsreader to you use?

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 4:52:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dan lavry <danlavry@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Good idea. Can anyone tell me how to do an automatic kill file?

No, because it looks like you are using Google which has to be the world's
crudest Usenet interface. If you are using a PC, look into getting Agent.
If you are using a Mac, look into getting Newswatcher. If you are using a
unix box, check out tin. There are hundreds of other newsreaders out there,
these are just some of the more popular ones. All will have real killfiles.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 2:05:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <chu09k$sod$1@panix3.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> dan lavry <danlavry@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Good idea. Can anyone tell me how to do an automatic kill file?
>
> No, because it looks like you are using Google

Actually it looked to me like he was using Outlook Express. At least
that's what it said in the message header. I don't use that so I can't
tell him how to set it up, but I'm sure there must be a few hundred
readers here who do, and have.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:01:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dan lavry"

>
> Good idea. Can anyone tell me how to do an automatic kill file?
>


** Can anyone tell Dan what the difference is between a mic and line input
on a desk ?

He seems to have no idea and thinks they are the same.

He also thinks he is expert on technical matters he has had no dealings
with - a bad error.




............... Phil
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:01:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phil Allison <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>** Can anyone tell Dan what the difference is between a mic and line input
>on a desk ?
>
> He seems to have no idea and thinks they are the same.

On a Mackie, they are. That's no reason to insult Dan. It might be a
reason to insult Cal...
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 7:13:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison
> >
> >
> >** Can anyone tell Dan what the difference is between a mic and line
input
> >on a desk ?
> >
> > He seems to have no idea and thinks they are the same.
>
> On a Mackie, they are.


** They are what ?


> That's no reason to insult Dan.


** Dan insulted me - then it transpired he has not got the faintest idea
about mic inputs on typical desks.

Then he pathetically trys to pull rank out of embarrassment.

Then he gets all malicious and personal and uses the killfile.

The dude is a wanker.




............. Phil
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 7:17:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

If he's using outlook express, he just needs to highlight the message, then
go to the Message menu and click "Block Sender"

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

]
"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1094898663k@trad...
>
> In article <chu09k$sod$1@panix3.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:
>
> > dan lavry <danlavry@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >Good idea. Can anyone tell me how to do an automatic kill file?
> >
> > No, because it looks like you are using Google
>
> Actually it looked to me like he was using Outlook Express. At least
> that's what it said in the message header. I don't use that so I can't
> tell him how to set it up, but I'm sure there must be a few hundred
> readers here who do, and have.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> 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
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 5:24:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:chu0e3$st5$1@panix3.panix.com...
> Phil Allison <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> >** Can anyone tell Dan what the difference is between a mic and line
input
> >on a desk ?
> > He seems to have no idea and thinks they are the same.

> On a Mackie, they are.

On many mixers they are the same, except there are often a few stereo
line-only inputs as well.

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 3:03:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP"

>
> On many mixers they are the same, except there are often a few stereo
> line-only inputs as well.
>

** What a blatant lie.






............. Phil
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 10:41:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:2qffrpFumu35U1@uni-berlin.de
> "Scott Dorsey"
>> Phil Allison
>>>
>>>
>>> ** Can anyone tell Dan what the difference is between a mic and
>>> line input on a desk ?
>>>
>>> He seems to have no idea and thinks they are the same.

>> On a Mackie, they are.

> ** They are what ?

The same +/- an attenuator.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 10:48:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1094898663k@trad
> In article <chu09k$sod$1@panix3.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:
>
>> dan lavry <danlavry@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Good idea. Can anyone tell me how to do an automatic kill file?
>>
>> No, because it looks like you are using Google
>
> Actually it looked to me like he was using Outlook Express. At least
> that's what it said in the message header. I don't use that so I can't
> tell him how to set it up, but I'm sure there must be a few hundred
> readers here who do, and have.

He's been posting via google going back to over a year ago.
Anonymous
September 13, 2004 5:34:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:2qhljgFulmj9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > On many mixers they are the same, except there are often a few stereo
> > line-only inputs as well.

> ** What a blatant lie.

Haven't you looked at many mixers recently Phil.

You could start with Yamaha, Behringer, Mackie, Alto, Midas, Allen and
Heath, Soundcraft........

Come back and let us know where the lie is AFTERwards.

TonyP.
!