开云体育

It was probably some time ago, Jerry Forstater who is now a PE designing low voltage building systems

Mike Feldman wrote: Mike, I don't have the equations in front of me but, IIRC, the resonant frequency is a convex function of port diameter. i.e. there is a diameter at which it is minimum and going

I write from a US perspective. Don't know other countries problems as we have enough local to keep me busy. PZM is still a reg. trademark of Crown. Therefore, you should use a different word such as

Hi any one have a good schematic of M/S Stereo matrix circuit for improving my ECM909 Microphone? http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/micbuilders/lst

dnemeth01 wrote: Larger hole == higher resonance; smaller hole == lower resonance frequency. Diffraction effects might have more influence on HF performance -- dunno. -- Mike

Keith Nelsen wrote: Think PZM (Pressure Zone Microphone) which eliminates sound from other axis. Works great. But if I recall correctly, making of PZM microphones has some patent issues. Indrek --

dnemeth01 wrote: Someone here, I think perhaps it was Seigfried back when he was a contributer, calculated the resonance of the Helmholtz resonater that the cavity and hole comprise and found it to be

mstrong82 wrote: Yummy. The only thing I can think of is that putting it on the back could give less shielding but I have no idea how signifigant that is. That has no (little) effect on self noise. It

This is true for audio that is sourced perpendicular to the diaphragm in the capsule. The problem is reflected sound that enters from an off axes point. That sound would setup the comb effect due to

mstrong82 wrote: Common source vs. common drain amplifier. Actually, careful biasing with 2 resistors might be even more beneficial. Indrek -- Indrek Rebane | Borthwick-Pignon Electronics Engineer |

mstrong82 wrote: Company called InterFET (www.interfet.com) is one I have really good experience with. Could check out what they have to offer. Indrek -- Indrek Rebane | Borthwick-Pignon Electronics

Bob Rogers wrote: Only on dead microphones, have had no need to do such modification in past. Indrek -- Indrek Rebane | Borthwick-Pignon Electronics Engineer | Tartu Science Park Phone: (+372) 7 302

Mark, When I saw "mstrong__" in the email address I know who it was! Glad to see you're still in the audio business. What is the student's name? Dick

no it doesnot. every large diaphragh mic shows the effect, and anyway it does not happen if you are normal to the array and a reasonable distance. umashankar

Everyone has good points 3 pad with FET sounds popular I'm also finding out that with FET's when I go to a 9.7mm capsule there is = room to use an FET tthat gets me 65 insttead of tthe typical 58 from

Dunno about this for sure, but I'd try 3 in a triangle setup instead of 4... it seems that the diaphragms would fit closer together and therefore have less of the comb filtering and/or directivity

Klaus Wolter wrote: Yes, it does apply to larger diaphragm mics as well as arrays which is why their patterns get lumpy at higher frequencies. The trade off is noise performance for regularity of the

Does comb filtering not take effect when the mic spacing is greater than 1 wavelength? If placed so that their centers are 5/8" apart frequencies that would cause concern would be = or > than

The comb filter effect would kill anything that would sound liek music!! cornelius de Kam wrote:

I have been following the thread on the 60/61 replacement. Here is my 2 cents worth. * Should have flat output like the 61 (20 to 20k ±3 db or better would be good) * Should be the 6 mm size for