开云体育

HI gang...
Several people have written that they would appreciate something about 1/2 in diam.
The old engineering thing in me asks, what would happen if you took 4 capsules and
wrapped them together (faced the same way) all wired in paralell and then into just
one FET as a follower... MMMMM I'm listening, so burn my ears off. Connie

From: "Bob Andres" <robert.andres@...>
Reply-To: micbuilders@...
To: <micbuilders@...>
Subject: Re: [micbuilders] Re: WM-60/61 Final Input Please - cost
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:06:56 -0500

Sounds great. You can plan on getting an order from me!

----- Original Message -----
From: "mstrong82" <mstrong@...>
To: <micbuilders@...>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:58 PM
Subject: [micbuilders] Re: WM-60/61 Final Input Please - cost

should be around digi small quan 61 prices

--- In micbuilders@..., Bob Andres <robert.andres@c...>
wrote:

This all sounds great. Any idea what these things will cost?



on 12/8/03 3:20 PM, mstrong82 at mstrong@j... wrote:

No, I haven't eliminated anything as far as directional or size.

Someone

was

interested in better 55's, others in 1/2", etc. All are

interesting.

I must focus on getting one thing at a time done, or nothing will

happen.

Just
made some 60 equals, but people are saying that 61 is much

preferred.

I think 3 pads, and the best FET that will fit.

I am hearing no FET and fooling with a 6mm RF mic won't help noise,

but

will

help LF, which seems flat anyway... so no non FET version

The remaining question I am aware of is the hole size, normal,

bigger
or

none. I am hearing people that have experimented with making the

hole

bigger, who have actually tested the results find no improvement and

in

fact

degradation of the low end. One guy was saying the cavity resonates

at

extremely high SPL's, (over 120?) That's not a problem for me,

anyone

else?

ALSO, part of the purpose of the hole and the metal around it is to

protect

the
membrane, which DOES need protection.

I WANT FINAL INPUT AND THOUGHTS, PLEASE

61 better starting point than 60?

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202

OK?

NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Bigger omni next, but first let's finish this one. I can fit a

2SK118
in a

9.7mm
and should be able to tweak 65 S/N out of it, without too much

sweat.
We

shall see.



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
micbuilders-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
micbuilders-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year six months @$9.95/month. Sign up now!

Well you are a lucky man Dick,

I just got my hands on the first stab at a WM-60, I have ten and I am not going to get
my test gear until January (and then I have to figure out how it works). So, I'm
sending you the first batch and you can see what's wrong with them (hopefully
nothing).

Coincidentally, you tested some PTT mics for me a few yaers back and it turns out one
of my good friends was a student of your years ago.

Mark

LOL... NO preorders don't help. I'll make some, seed a bunch to those who added
their input and if they get the seal of approval, then I'll stock some, THEN I will accept
paid orders, not before.

THEN we can move on to figuring out what the next item should be and making it.



--- In micbuilders@..., "umashankar mantravadi" <umashanks@h...>
wrote:

i would like to see it in two sizes one as small as possible, and the other
about 1/2 diameter.The small one as omni, and the larger one both omni and
cardioid.

i would like to see, instead of a the tiny hole on all panasonic capsules, a
diaphraghm fully open , protected by a wire mesh, if necessary.

No fet and fet (if very good are both ok. i think the small capsule must
have an fet. both should have three pads, so linkwitz are any other future
system can be implemented without cutting traces. if the pads are to be
joined, they can always be joined up at the other end of cable, if only one
uses two conductor plus shield capbling.

is that a very big wish list?

i will preorder if that will help. ( i live in india, but these days i can
use my credit card to buy abroad(.

umashankar

We are putting our heads together to make a replacement for the WM-61 that
is Linkwitz Mod ready, items to be nailed down are FET selection, hole size
vs
no hole, etc.

I would like everyone's final input on the design so we do don't have to do
it
over again.

It is being finalized over on micbuilders (the new group) If you have any
input
on this, please post it over there as we just about ready to make these and
anyone with input get's some to play with.

_________________________________________________________________
Contact brides & grooms FREE! Only on www.shaadi.com.
Register now!

I would like pc mount wires coming out of it so I can
build an array of a dozen quickly.

Arranged so they would plug right into a solderless or
solder breadboard where the IC's go (so 0.1 inch spacing
in line or a triangle arrangement that still fits, does that
make sense?)

Thanks!

At 11:06 PM 12/8/03 -0500, you wrote:

Sounds great. You can plan on getting an order from me!

Me too!

I prefer the WM60 style with the 5mm deep can. This also gives you more choices on FET packaging behind the back plate.

I will place an order once the final pricing is announced, probably for 100. I will then run my usual battery of acceptance tests and post the results.

Dick Campbell

Bang-Campbell Associates
3 Water Street PO Box 47
Woods Hole, MA 02543-0047
(T) 508-540-1309 (F) 508-540-8347
(C) 508-989-3771 (world wide)
(E) rhcamp@...
(W)

i would like to see it in two sizes one as small as possible, and the other about 1/2 diameter.The small one as omni, and the larger one both omni and cardioid.

i would like to see, instead of a the tiny hole on all panasonic capsules, a diaphraghm fully open , protected by a wire mesh, if necessary.

No fet and fet (if very good are both ok. i think the small capsule must have an fet. both should have three pads, so linkwitz are any other future system can be implemented without cutting traces. if the pads are to be joined, they can always be joined up at the other end of cable, if only one uses two conductor plus shield capbling.

is that a very big wish list?

i will preorder if that will help. ( i live in india, but these days i can use my credit card to buy abroad(.

umashankar

We are putting our heads together to make a replacement for the WM-61 that
is Linkwitz Mod ready, items to be nailed down are FET selection, hole size vs
no hole, etc.

I would like everyone's final input on the design so we do don't have to do it
over again.

It is being finalized over on micbuilders (the new group) If you have any input
on this, please post it over there as we just about ready to make these and
anyone with input get's some to play with.

_________________________________________________________________
Contact brides & grooms FREE! Only on www.shaadi.com. Register now!

Sounds great. You can plan on getting an order from me!

Hey thanks for helping, I need these too and my knowledge is pretty full of
holes, I just own the factory and spew out copies of commodity stuff, I don't
have an acoustics degree and I'm not a scientist, the hope is there are
enough smart folks here to fill in the holes if we put our heads together.

I just ordered a really cool test system, (listeninc.com) that even I ought to be
able to operate ;-) So, after the holidays maybe I can make serious
comparisons.

--- In micbuilders@..., Mike Feldman <mike_feldman@s...>
wrote:

mstrong82 wrote:

I WANT FINAL INPUT AND THOUGHTS, PLEASE

61 better starting point than 60?

Both are useful -- 60 for loud, 61 for less loud. 61s are potentially
more useful since they work into line-in for some range of loud.

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202

OK?

NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Yes. 3-pad with best FET practical.

Bigger omni next, but first let's finish this one. I can fit a 2SK118 in a

9.7mm

and should be able to tweak 65 S/N out of it, without too much sweat. We
shall see.

Again, I'd be happy with either 6mm or 9.7mm.

Thanks for working this.

-- Mike

I don't know, you tell me. I just make them.

Remember it has to fit a 5mm D PCB

--- In micbuilders@..., "macrohenry" <macrohenry@y...>
wrote:

--- In micbuilders@..., "mstrong82" <mstrong@j...> wrote:

I WANT FINAL INPUT AND THOUGHTS, PLEASE

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202

OK?

NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Must it be a FET? Wouldn't it be almost as simple and provide better S/N if

you substitute a fixed gain hi quality opamp? It would

provide lower output impedance that would help kill line noise. Then again,

would it limit flexibility?

Mac

should be around digi small quan 61 prices

--- In micbuilders@..., Bob Andres <robert.andres@c...>
wrote:

This all sounds great. Any idea what these things will cost?



on 12/8/03 3:20 PM, mstrong82 at mstrong@j... wrote:

No, I haven't eliminated anything as far as directional or size. Someone

was

interested in better 55's, others in 1/2", etc. All are interesting.

I must focus on getting one thing at a time done, or nothing will happen.
Just
made some 60 equals, but people are saying that 61 is much preferred.

I think 3 pads, and the best FET that will fit.

I am hearing no FET and fooling with a 6mm RF mic won't help noise, but

will

help LF, which seems flat anyway... so no non FET version

The remaining question I am aware of is the hole size, normal, bigger or
none. I am hearing people that have experimented with making the hole
bigger, who have actually tested the results find no improvement and in

fact

degradation of the low end. One guy was saying the cavity resonates at
extremely high SPL's, (over 120?) That's not a problem for me, anyone

else?

ALSO, part of the purpose of the hole and the metal around it is to protect
the
membrane, which DOES need protection.

I WANT FINAL INPUT AND THOUGHTS, PLEASE

61 better starting point than 60?

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202

OK?

NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Bigger omni next, but first let's finish this one. I can fit a 2SK118 in a
9.7mm
and should be able to tweak 65 S/N out of it, without too much sweat. We
shall see.



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
micbuilders-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

mstrong82 wrote:

I WANT FINAL INPUT AND THOUGHTS, PLEASE
61 better starting point than 60?

Both are useful -- 60 for loud, 61 for less loud. 61s are potentially
more useful since they work into line-in for some range of loud.

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202 OK? NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Yes. 3-pad with best FET practical.

Bigger omni next, but first let's finish this one. I can fit a 2SK118 in a 9.7mm and should be able to tweak 65 S/N out of it, without too much sweat. We shall see.

Again, I'd be happy with either 6mm or 9.7mm.

Thanks for working this.

-- Mike

--- In micbuilders@..., "mstrong82" <mstrong@j...> wrote:

I WANT FINAL INPUT AND THOUGHTS, PLEASE

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202 OK?
NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Must it be a FET? Wouldn't it be almost as simple and provide better S/N if you substitute a fixed gain hi quality opamp? It would
provide lower output impedance that would help kill line noise. Then again, would it limit flexibility?

Mac

mstrong82 wrote:

No, I haven't eliminated anything as far as directional or size. Someone was
interested in better 55's, others in 1/2", etc. All are interesting.

Cool.

I must focus on getting one thing at a time done, or nothing will happen. Just
made some 60 equals, but people are saying that 61 is much preferred.

Understood.

I think 3 pads, and the best FET that will fit.

Agreed.

I am hearing no FET and fooling with a 6mm RF mic won't help noise, but will
help LF, which seems flat anyway... so no non FET version

That's the theory but the definitive test comparing self
noise at atmospheric to self noise in a vacuum would really
help put the issue to bed if anyone has the time and
resources to perform it.

61 better starting point than 60?

I've never been sure what the diffrence was other than what
shows on the spec sheet.

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202 OK?
NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Can't help with that other than to prefer the one with the
absolute best noise spec under the anticipated conditions
(and with self biasing internal diodes.) I am not too
concerned about linearity or transconductance consistency
because I'd be using them in the source follower
configuration. Having said that, the highest
transconductance consistent with low noise is advantageous
in the source follower configuation because it determines
the amount of linearizing feedback provided by that
configuation. It partially determines the sensitivity in
common source configuation.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Thanks, you are doing great at balancing the feelings of the group
against what is a dream and what is too expensive. You are also
moving very fast which is both great and not something you have to
impose on yourself. This is similar to getting a church group to
agree on what to fix first and how pretty it should be.

On the fet, you probably have us beat on the size vs. noise
comparisons. The lowest noise spec is what I suspect would win.

On hole size. A small size that will give a flat response for me is
ideal. But, think about a mic capsule designed so that people could
play. We do have a valid split between users of high and low spl mics
and no one ever acknowledged this as a normal thing. Maybe a big
hole with a film overlay smaller hole option would indeed make this
product unique. On experimentation we can handle the overlays.

I agree that 3 tab, with internal fet is winning so far.

I have not seen anything on tension specs discussed here yet, but if
it is as I suspect, a trade off of low freq. response vs. wind
resistance, I will take a low freq response. Ideal for me is 10 cycle
to 13,000 but I may be alone here too.

I would work with either a 60 or 61 assumption as either would add to
my recording kit.

65 db sounds great.

Others?

Rich Peet
ps. mirrorlite film on a web search failed for me if you find links
sometime.




--- In micbuilders@..., "mstrong82" <mstrong@j...> wrote:

No, I haven't eliminated anything as far as directional or size.

Someone was

interested in better 55's, others in 1/2", etc. All are

interesting.

I must focus on getting one thing at a time done, or nothing will

happen. Just

made some 60 equals, but people are saying that 61 is much

preferred.

I think 3 pads, and the best FET that will fit.

I am hearing no FET and fooling with a 6mm RF mic won't help noise,

but will

help LF, which seems flat anyway... so no non FET version

The remaining question I am aware of is the hole size, normal,

bigger or

none. I am hearing people that have experimented with making the

hole

bigger, who have actually tested the results find no improvement

and in fact

degradation of the low end. One guy was saying the cavity

resonates at

extremely high SPL's, (over 120?) That's not a problem for me,

anyone else?

ALSO, part of the purpose of the hole and the metal around it is to

protect the

membrane, which DOES need protection.

I WANT FINAL INPUT AND THOUGHTS, PLEASE

61 better starting point than 60?

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202

OK?

NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Bigger omni next, but first let's finish this one. I can fit a

2SK118 in a 9.7mm

and should be able to tweak 65 S/N out of it, without too much

sweat. We

shall see.

This all sounds great. Any idea what these things will cost?



on 12/8/03 3:20 PM, mstrong82 at mstrong@... wrote:

No, I haven't eliminated anything as far as directional or size. Someone was
interested in better 55's, others in 1/2", etc. All are interesting.

I must focus on getting one thing at a time done, or nothing will happen. Just
made some 60 equals, but people are saying that 61 is much preferred.

I think 3 pads, and the best FET that will fit.

I am hearing no FET and fooling with a 6mm RF mic won't help noise, but will
help LF, which seems flat anyway... so no non FET version

The remaining question I am aware of is the hole size, normal, bigger or
none. I am hearing people that have experimented with making the hole
bigger, who have actually tested the results find no improvement and in fact
degradation of the low end. One guy was saying the cavity resonates at
extremely high SPL's, (over 120?) That's not a problem for me, anyone else?

ALSO, part of the purpose of the hole and the metal around it is to protect the
membrane, which DOES need protection.

I WANT FINAL INPUT AND THOUGHTS, PLEASE

61 better starting point than 60?

3 pad w/ best FET available? Any preferences on FET #? Sanyo 202 OK?
NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else?

Bigger omni next, but first let's finish this one. I can fit a 2SK118 in a 9.7mm
and should be able to tweak 65 S/N out of it, without too much sweat. We
shall see.

--- mstrong82 <mstrong@...> wrote:

12.7mm is 1/2". We can look at that. We can make anything makeable,

I think something that would be really great would be a capsule that
ran off of 48v, so it could easily be run off phantom power.

I know a lot of people on this list wouldn't have any problems putting
together a circuit to do that, but at least some of us would have
problems.

My thinking is that it would be great to have a handy source of
"utility" mics. Just wire it up to an XLR and plug it into the mixer.

Bob Rogers

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

--- Indrek Rebane <indrek@...> wrote:

Bob Rogers wrote:

Depending on your definition of "larger," you can cut the
fronts of entirely fairly easily. I suppose it would be
possible to drill a larger hole in some thin aluminum and glue
the part back on, but that might be tricky.

Actually as capsules are made of quite thin aluminum, you can
easily cut hole larger with sharp scalpel (which will not be so
sharp after performing this mod).

Indrek

Have you done that? There's not a lot of clearance between the face and
the diaphragm. I don't think I would have much luck doing that sort of
thing, because my hands aren't steady enough.

I'd also have a problem making the new hole a circle, I think. I have a
hard time just trying to draw a circle ;-) I wonder what effect a non
circular hole would have on the sound.

I suppose you would need to be really careful to avoid getting little
bits of metal between the face and the diaphragm too.

Bob


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

Bob Rogers wrote:

Depending on your definition of "larger," you can cut the fronts of entirely fairly easily. I suppose it would be possible to drill a larger hole in some thin aluminum and glue the part back on, but that might be tricky.

Actually as capsules are made of quite thin aluminum, you can
easily cut hole larger with sharp scalpel (which will not be so
sharp after performing this mod).

Indrek

--
Indrek Rebane | Borthwick-Pignon
Electronics Engineer | Tartu Science Park
Phone: (+372) 7 302 641 | Riia 185, 51014 Tartu
Fax: (+372) 7 383 041 | Estonia
indrek@... | www.bps.co.ee

--- dnemeth01 <dnemeth01@...> wrote:

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 you can make something with a larger diameter hole it would be
great.

Darren

Depending on your definition of "larger," you can cut the fronts of
entirely fairly easily. I suppose it would be possible to drill a
larger hole in some thin aluminum and glue the part back on, but that
might be tricky.

I've got pictures of the modded capsule, and an a/b type of
comparision. at www.2fiddles.com . I've made some recordings with the
modded capsule, and bass response is way down. I haven't actually done
anything with the recordings to see if they will be useful or not.

Bob


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard