Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

harp mic impedance

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:25:46 PM

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

what is the average impedance rating for harmonica mics?
i downloaded a couple of mic manuals but there was only written
"unbalanced high impedance"

thanks

More about : harp mic impedance

Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:25:47 PM

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

m0nty <sdfg@sdfg.com> wrote:
>what is the average impedance rating for harmonica mics?
>i downloaded a couple of mic manuals but there was only written
>"unbalanced high impedance"

Which sort would you like? Impedance at 1 KC, impedance at 5 KC,
maximum power transfer impedance or what? Remember the impedance is
all over the map with different frequencies on these.

If you are going for maximum distortion, it's best to run them
as unloaded as possible. As you increase the loading you will find
the top end rings less.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:25:47 PM

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

In article <_0sQd.35114$QG6.604393@twister2.libero.it> sdfg@sdfg.com writes:

> what is the average impedance rating for harmonica mics?
> i downloaded a couple of mic manuals but there was only written
> "unbalanced high impedance"

"high" - they're designed to be plugged into a guitar amplifier. They
probably don't want to see a load much lower than about 25K ohms. And
to go along with that, they probably put out 20 dB or so more level
than a dynamic mic on the same source.



--
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
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:00:03 PM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> m0nty <sdfg@sdfg.com> wrote:
>
>>what is the average impedance rating for harmonica mics?
>>i downloaded a couple of mic manuals but there was only written
>>"unbalanced high impedance"
>
>
> Which sort would you like? Impedance at 1 KC, impedance at 5 KC,
> maximum power transfer impedance or what? Remember the impedance is
> all over the map with different frequencies on these.
>
> If you are going for maximum distortion, it's best to run them
> as unloaded as possible. As you increase the loading you will find
> the top end rings less.
> --scott
>

thanks for the quick reply

i'd like to run a normal vocal mic into the instrument input of a guitar
amplifier; i know i have to use an impedance converter (transformer?),
but i don't know much more about it ...

what does 1 KC mean? 1 KHz?
I have an NT3 mic, and on the manual there's written 200 ohm output
impedance (without specifying frequency)
I was wondering what does high impedance output mean (e.g. 100 Kohm?
1000 Kohm?)

thanks again
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:00:04 PM

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

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:00:03 GMT, m0nty <sdfg@sdfg.com> wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> m0nty <sdfg@sdfg.com> wrote:
>>
>>>what is the average impedance rating for harmonica mics?
>>>i downloaded a couple of mic manuals but there was only written
>>>"unbalanced high impedance"
>>
>>
>> Which sort would you like? Impedance at 1 KC, impedance at 5 KC,
>> maximum power transfer impedance or what? Remember the impedance is
>> all over the map with different frequencies on these.
>>
>> If you are going for maximum distortion, it's best to run them
>> as unloaded as possible. As you increase the loading you will find
>> the top end rings less.
>> --scott
>>
>
>thanks for the quick reply
>
>i'd like to run a normal vocal mic into the instrument input of a guitar
>amplifier; i know i have to use an impedance converter (transformer?),
>but i don't know much more about it ...
>
>what does 1 KC mean? 1 KHz?
>I have an NT3 mic, and on the manual there's written 200 ohm output
>impedance (without specifying frequency)
>I was wondering what does high impedance output mean (e.g. 100 Kohm?
>1000 Kohm?)
>

Why don't you just buy a cheap mic for this purpose... most of the
original blues harp guys played those crummy Astatic crystal mics. I
think Shure markets one called "the Green Bullet". Older cheapo EV
mics will work too.

Al
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:00:04 PM

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

m0nty <sdfg@sdfg.com> wrote:
>
>i'd like to run a normal vocal mic into the instrument input of a guitar
>amplifier; i know i have to use an impedance converter (transformer?),
>but i don't know much more about it ...

Oh, try a 600 to 10K ohm step-up to begin with. You can't really get
good transformers with much higher ratios.

>what does 1 KC mean? 1 KHz?

Yes. Folks don't say cycles very much any more, though, but it's a habit.

>I have an NT3 mic, and on the manual there's written 200 ohm output
>impedance (without specifying frequency)
>I was wondering what does high impedance output mean (e.g. 100 Kohm?
>1000 Kohm?)

The NT3 is an active mike with electronics in it, so the impedance is pretty
much the same at any frequency. And the mike sounds pretty much the same
with any load impedance, as long as it's higher than 200 ohms. That is part
of the beauty of condenser mikes.

If you had a phantom supply, you could plug the output right into a guitar
amp. You wouldn't get much level, but the mike would be otherwise happy.

A typical guitar amp input is maybe 1000Kohm (1M ohm), but of course you
cannot make a step-up transformer with such a high impedance. The wire
would be too small!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:14:40 PM

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

"m0nty" <sdfg@sdfg.com> wrote in message
news:7xsQd.34358$lB4.923639@twister1.libero.it...

> thanks for the quick reply
>
> i'd like to run a normal vocal mic into the instrument input of a guitar
> amplifier; i know i have to use an impedance converter (transformer?),
> but i don't know much more about it ...
>
> what does 1 KC mean? 1 KHz?

Yes. Scott, like me, dates from a prehysteric era when standard units
actually described the thing being measured. "1 KC" is one kilocycle per
second (the "per second" is silent), renamed "kilohertz" in the 1960s.

> I have an NT3 mic, and on the manual there's written 200 ohm output
> impedance (without specifying frequency)

That mic will be about the same at most audio frequencies. However, it will
need a phantom power supply in addition to the transformer. Most of the
time, when people use standard mics for harmonica (as opposed to "designed
for harp" mics), they use dynamics like the Sennheiser 421 or a Shure SM57.

> I was wondering what does high impedance output mean (e.g. 100 Kohm?
> 1000 Kohm?)

Usually high-impedance microphones are on the order of 100k, with variations
at the edges of the spectrum.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:19:19 PM

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

Paul Stamler wrote:

> "m0nty" <sdfg@sdfg.com> wrote in message
> news:7xsQd.34358$lB4.923639@twister1.libero.it...
>
>
>>thanks for the quick reply
>>
>>i'd like to run a normal vocal mic into the instrument input of a guitar
>>amplifier; i know i have to use an impedance converter (transformer?),
>>but i don't know much more about it ...
>>
>>what does 1 KC mean? 1 KHz?
>
>
> Yes. Scott, like me, dates from a prehysteric era when standard units
> actually described the thing being measured. "1 KC" is one kilocycle per
> second (the "per second" is silent), renamed "kilohertz" in the 1960s.
>
>
>>I have an NT3 mic, and on the manual there's written 200 ohm output
>>impedance (without specifying frequency)
>
>
> That mic will be about the same at most audio frequencies. However, it will
> need a phantom power supply in addition to the transformer. Most of the
> time, when people use standard mics for harmonica (as opposed to "designed
> for harp" mics), they use dynamics like the Sennheiser 421 or a Shure SM57.
>
>
>>I was wondering what does high impedance output mean (e.g. 100 Kohm?
>>1000 Kohm?)
>
>
> Usually high-impedance microphones are on the order of 100k, with variations
> at the edges of the spectrum.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

thank you both
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 12:20:13 AM

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

Paul Stamler wrote:
> "m0nty" <sdfg@sdfg.com> wrote in message

>>what does 1 KC mean? 1 KHz?
>
>
> Yes. Scott, like me, dates from a prehysteric era when standard units
> actually described the thing being measured.

Hear, hear!

"1 KC" is one kilocycle per
> second (the "per second" is silent), renamed "kilohertz" in the 1960s.

Pure idiocy.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:42:17 AM

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

Mike, most harmonica mics are dynamic.

The Shure green bullet works very well plugged into any high impedance
input, such as those found on guitar amps.

It should be noted that the amplifier provides at least as much to
certain classic harmonica sounds as the microphone
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:04:41 AM

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

On 15 Feb 2005 22:42:17 -0800, "RickPV8945@aol.com"
<RickPV8945@aol.com> wrote:

>Mike, most harmonica mics are dynamic.
>
>The Shure green bullet works very well plugged into any high impedance
>input, such as those found on guitar amps.
>
>It should be noted that the amplifier provides at least as much to
>certain classic harmonica sounds as the microphone

Big Walter swiped a cheap mic from the taxi distpatcher he was working
for, took it to the gig, played it through a cheap tube amp with a
crummy speaker... and a sound was born.

Al
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:44:12 AM

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

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:cuul6c2s45@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> > Yes. Scott, like me, dates from a prehysteric era when standard units
> > actually described the thing being measured.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> "1 KC" is one kilocycle per
> > second (the "per second" is silent), renamed "kilohertz" in the 1960s.
>
> Pure idiocy.

The stated reason, as I recall, was that the metric Powers That Were decided
everything that wasn't a primary unit (meter, gram, second) should carry
someone's name. Why this should be, I've never seen a satisfactory answer,
except that it was consistent.

Potrzebie,
Paul
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:44:13 AM

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

Paul Stamler wrote:

> The stated reason, as I recall, was that the metric Powers That Were decided
> everything that wasn't a primary unit (meter, gram, second) should carry
> someone's name. Why this should be, I've never seen a satisfactory answer,
> except that it was consistent.

Right, but it always seemed to me that frequency was pretty
damned primary.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:40:01 AM

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

Paul Stamler wrote:


> Potrzebie


Isn't that the Escher-like three-pronged fork thing that only has two
prongs if you look at the other end? named that by Mad Magazine?
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 12:08:11 PM

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

Paul Stamler <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
>news:cuul6c2s45@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> > Yes. Scott, like me, dates from a prehysteric era when standard units
>> > actually described the thing being measured.
>>
>> Hear, hear!
>>
>> "1 KC" is one kilocycle per
>> > second (the "per second" is silent), renamed "kilohertz" in the 1960s.
>>
>> Pure idiocy.
>
>The stated reason, as I recall, was that the metric Powers That Were decided
>everything that wasn't a primary unit (meter, gram, second) should carry
>someone's name. Why this should be, I've never seen a satisfactory answer,
>except that it was consistent.

Yes, but the conductance units we used to call "Seimens" are now called "Mhos"
for some reason. ("Mho" is "Ohm" spelled backwards. Is that really carrying
someone's name? I suppose it could be.)
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:17:38 PM

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

On 16 Feb 2005 09:08:11 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Paul Stamler <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I've never seen a satisfactory answer,
>>except that it was consistent.

Who said "Consistency is the hobgoglin of little minds"?
Sounds almost but not quite like Oscar Wilde.

> ("Mho" is "Ohm" spelled backwards. Is that really carrying
>someone's name?

Mho, Larry, cheese. Mho, Larry, cheese.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 8:21:26 PM

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

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> writes:

> The stated reason, as I recall, was that the metric Powers That Were
> decided everything that wasn't a primary unit (meter, gram, second)
> should carry someone's name. Why this should be, I've never seen a
> satisfactory answer, except that it was consistent.

Because as part of that, the system was cleaned up to use only specified
standards...

CPS? Which second? The Hertz definition includes that.

It was still a (minor) pain in the arse though.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:26:00 PM

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

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> Yes, but the conductance units we used to call "Seimens" are now called "Mhos"
> for some reason. ("Mho" is "Ohm" spelled backwards. Is that really carrying
> someone's name? I suppose it could be.)

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematici...


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
aim: larsfarm@mac.com
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:26:01 PM

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

In article <1gs3cn7.v0rdh59niywqN%see.bottom.of.page@farm.se>,
Lars Farm <see.bottom.of.page@farm.se> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but the conductance units we used to call "Seimens" are now called "Mhos"
>> for some reason. ("Mho" is "Ohm" spelled backwards. Is that really carrying
>> someone's name? I suppose it could be.)
>
>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematici...

Yes, the Ohm is named after someone. But Mho? It's named after someone
in reverse. What good is that?

Siemens was actually named after someone.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:09:02 PM

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cuvk4b$gcj$1@panix2.panix.com...

> Yes, but the conductance units we used to call "Seimens" are now called
"Mhos"
> for some reason. ("Mho" is "Ohm" spelled backwards. Is that really
carrying
> someone's name? I suppose it could be.)

Scott, I think you have that backwards; they were always called "Mhos" when
I was growing up, but I just started seeing "Siemens" a few years ago. Since
the symbol for millisiemens is "mS", the potential for confusion with
millisecond ("ms") is obvious.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:09:03 PM

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

In article <iTMQd.224467$w62.202557@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:cuvk4b$gcj$1@panix2.panix.com...
>
> > Yes, but the conductance units we used to call "Seimens" are now called
> "Mhos"
> > for some reason. ("Mho" is "Ohm" spelled backwards. Is that really
> carrying
> > someone's name? I suppose it could be.)
>
> Scott, I think you have that backwards; they were always called "Mhos" when
> I was growing up, but I just started seeing "Siemens" a few years ago. Since
> the symbol for millisiemens is "mS", the potential for confusion with
> millisecond ("ms") is obvious.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

It's been more like 20 years. I had a paper returned for revision in 1981 for
using mS for milliseconds in a graph legend.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:09:04 PM

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

Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>In article <iTMQd.224467$w62.202557@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:cuvk4b$gcj$1@panix2.panix.com...
>>
>> > Yes, but the conductance units we used to call "Seimens" are now called
>> "Mhos"
>> > for some reason. ("Mho" is "Ohm" spelled backwards. Is that really
>> carrying
>> > someone's name? I suppose it could be.)
>>
>> Scott, I think you have that backwards; they were always called "Mhos" when
>> I was growing up, but I just started seeing "Siemens" a few years ago. Since
>> the symbol for millisiemens is "mS", the potential for confusion with
>> millisecond ("ms") is obvious.
>
>It's been more like 20 years. I had a paper returned for revision in 1981 for
>using mS for milliseconds in a graph legend.

I dunno, I remember Fluke meters in the seventies measuring in
nanosiemens. I don't remember seeing the mho until a good time
after that.

But I basically feel about this the same way I feel about Hertz/Cycles.
It doesn't really matter, just as long as everybody can agree on something.

That said, I work in a place where there are several facilities that
measure air pressure. They use inches of water, inches of mercury,
Torr, Pascals, PSI, pounds-per-square-foot, millibars and probably a
couple other units. In some cases there are people using digital
strain gauge sensors that read out in millimeters of mercury who are
calibrating them from manometers that read out in inches of water....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 10:13:02 PM

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

"S O'Neill" <nopsam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:LZednX_TeITM9I7fRVn-hA@omsoft.com...
> Paul Stamler wrote:
>
>
> > Potrzebie
>
>
> Isn't that the Escher-like three-pronged fork thing that only has two
> prongs if you look at the other end? named that by Mad Magazine?

Yes. But Mad also created the Potrzebie System of measurement, similar to
the metric system but based on a different fundamental unit. 1 potrzebie =
the thickness of Mad Magazine #26. IIRC, all the larger prefixes were in
Yiddish, so an extremely large measure might be a furshlugginerpotrzebie.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 9:55:13 AM

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cv0es9$mc3$1@panix2.panix.com...

> I dunno, I remember Fluke meters in the seventies measuring in
> nanosiemens. I don't remember seeing the mho until a good time
> after that.

The mho is in my 1956 RCA Tube Manual (cost $0.75). Also in my Third Edition
Radiotron Handbook (copyright 1940).

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 9:57:37 AM

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cv0ef7$gk6$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <1gs3cn7.v0rdh59niywqN%see.bottom.of.page@farm.se>,
> Lars Farm <see.bottom.of.page@farm.se> wrote:
> >Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, but the conductance units we used to call "Seimens" are now called
"Mhos"
> >> for some reason. ("Mho" is "Ohm" spelled backwards. Is that really
carrying
> >> someone's name? I suppose it could be.)
> >
> >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematici...
>
> Yes, the Ohm is named after someone. But Mho? It's named after someone
> in reverse. What good is that?

Well, it makes a certain kind of nutty sense.

Ohms = Volts / Amps
Mhos = Amps / Volts

Someone was being cute. Like when some astronomers found a galaxy that
looked exactly like ours, but was much smaller. They called it Snickers;
just like the Milky Way, but it's peanuts.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:13:01 AM

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

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:57:37 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>Well, it makes a certain kind of nutty sense.

Ouch.

I love to stay up late.
But seriously, what red-blooded grown man would call anything
"Seimens"? It's just icky.

Chris Hornbeck
"Don't feed the band until after you have a keeper vocal. Cut everything
at once and mix it live to stereo. Top, tail, send to mastering.
Order pizza." -ha
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:32:52 AM

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

Paul Stamler wrote:

> The mho is in my 1956 RCA Tube Manual (cost $0.75). Also in my Third Edition
> Radiotron Handbook (copyright 1940).

You try to keep current don't ya, Paul? <g>

You might want to hush up about those or Harvey will want them back.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:18:48 PM

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

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> But I basically feel about this the same way I feel about Hertz/Cycles.
> It doesn't really matter, just as long as everybody can agree on something.

I just wish we could agree on month/day/year or day/month/year thing.
In Canada, as usual, we are using both the American and European
systems.

When it comes to paperwork, I am a lot happier once we are past the
12th of every month.

Rob R.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 6:18:49 PM

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

Rob Reedijk wrote:
>
> I just wish we could agree on month/day/year or day/month/year thing.
> In Canada, as usual, we are using both the American and European
> systems.
>
> When it comes to paperwork, I am a lot happier once we are past the
> 12th of every month.

I just use computerese for everything: YYYYMMDD (and sometimes HHMM as well.)
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 1:51:41 AM

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

Rob Reedijk wrote:
> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

>>But I basically feel about this the same way I feel about Hertz/Cycles.
>>It doesn't really matter, just as long as everybody can agree on something.

> I just wish we could agree on month/day/year or day/month/year thing.
> In Canada, as usual, we are using both the American and European
> systems.

You could always use the ISO standard date format. In ISO format,
today is 2005-02-17.

Not that you can force everyone who fills out paperwork to put
the date in your own format, but if you want to point to something
to standardize on, ISO format is the best candidate.

By the way, there is also an ISO time format. Presently, it's
2005-02-17T22:50Z ("Z" means GMT a/k/a UTC). It's also
2005-02-17T16:50-06:00, which is easier for me to think about
since I'm in US/Central time zone.

- Logan
!