开云体育

Hi, mstrong. I record church music, choral works and loud pipe organ. My WM55 XY mic is useful because it's diminuative enough not to intrude on the service. It also produces a strong stereo image. So

Regarding connections on the capsule, i think 3-connections is the best way to go. Ground, source, and drain. In this case it's easy to use either linkwitz-mod, or any other powering method.

mstrong82 wrote: Sorry, I missed this in my last response regarding directional capsules. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein

mstrong82 wrote: The sole reason for bigger is to reduce self noise. If noise can be lowered to be in line with the larger capsules another way that would be great but theory seems to indicate

ktpbeng wrote: True, my mistake, now that I re-verified it, phantom power is usually supplied over both: HOT and COLD terminals. Trust but verify. Indrek -- Indrek Rebane | Borthwick-Pignon

You guys want to use 1/2" or bigger. I want to use 6mm and 9.7 is huge in my application, but if it were that much better I would consider it. I'll help you get bigger parts to play with. We all want

It's called mirrorlite, i have links at the office and will find them for you.

Comments interspersed: snippage all over the place... My apologies, I did not follow this thread from the beginning... it may not all be on this list! :) Someone wrote: This is NOT correct in a normal

From: "Rich Peet" <richpeet@...> I do nature recording, and would agree in general. However, I'd like to experiment with RF mics with diaphragms larger than 1/2" as well. And various boundary

only about the last point: the sony ecm 907 and others like it have more than an inch of wire from the capsule to the fet; the nakamichi cm 300 i have sitting in front of me has a one and half inch

Andrew Burgess wrote: Right. Either approach begins to degrade high frequency performance due to coincidence considerations. I'm not sure which is easier to manage. Bob -- "Things should be described

Or adding more diaphragms. Two mics, twice the signal, noise goes up by 1.4.

mstrong82 wrote: Ah, but therein lies the rub. From looking at noise specs for various size mics, from the experiments of one of our members, and according to:

When making larger microphones, I wonder how east it would be to roll your own? I took a little electret mic apart a few years back but don't recall exactly what was inside. I do recall that it was

mstrong82 wrote: As Jerry Avins in comp.dsp is so fond of saying, "Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you have." To that end I have worked out testing and characterization

mstrong82 wrote: Yes, I understand that the larger you make it, the more specialized the market becomes. It's just that my interest has moved beyond tiny but noisy omni's toward much quieter first

mstrong82 wrote: That's just what I thought. :-) No, it is changing the configuration of the internal FET to source follower from the as-shipped common source mode. This involves cutting a trace on

I am uploading some photos of designs i currently use. Upload in progress as I have to find some of the photos. I will get to my electrical designs with time as this is a work in progress. 1. Clear

you can hear the gain up to work with. I One problem, IMHO, with the panasonics is the size of the hole in the front. It is too small and can reverberate under extremely loud sound pressure levels. If

I guess I am the SPAM safeguard right now. Shortly, the group will be switched to a "restricted membership". Groups of this type get little or no spam. I will review e-mail addresses of new members