Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
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?was willinterested in better 55's, others in 1/2", etc. All are interesting. facthelp LF, which seems flat anyway... so no non FET version else?degradation of the low end. One guy was saying the cavity resonates at OK? NEC 1109-J34 or J36? Anything else? |
|
Bob Andres
Sounds great. You can plan on getting an order from me!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- 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 pricesSomeone washappen.interested in better 55's, others in 1/2", etc. All are interesting. butJust willorhelp LF, which seems flat anyway... so no non FET version innone. I am hearing people that have experimented with making the hole factatdegradation of the low end. One guy was saying the cavity resonates protectelse?extremely high SPL's, (over 120?) That's not a problem for me, anyone in aOK?the We9.7mm shall see.
|
|
Dick Campbell
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) |
|
Well you are a lucky man Dick,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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 --- In micbuilders@..., Dick Campbell <rhcamp@r...> wrote:
At 11:06 PM 12/8/03 -0500, you wrote:Sounds great. You can plan on getting an order from me!Me too! |
|
cornelius de Kam
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@...>_________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year six months @$9.95/month. Sign up now! |
|
The comb filter effect would kill anything that would sound liek music!!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
cornelius de Kam wrote: HI gang... |
|
Does comb filtering not take effect when the mic spacing is greater than 1
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
wavelength? If placed so that their centers are 5/8" apart frequencies that would cause concern would be = or > than 13560/.625=21,696 Hz. (I'm new to this so let me know if I'm wrong. This applies to speaker line arrays so I assume that it's also true for mic arrays.) -----Original Message-----
From: Keith Nelsen [mailto:keith@...] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8:56 PM To: micbuilders@... Subject: Re: [micbuilders] Re: WM-60/61 Final Input Please - cost The comb filter effect would kill anything that would sound liek music!! |
|
Bob Cain
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 directional pattern. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
Bryan &Susan Black
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 effects of the wider spaced 4 capsules in a square. ...but then again, I suppose if you made it more diamond shaped... hmmm... maybe... It could be a fun experiment looking at the resulting pickup patterns. Personally, Omnis don't excite me all that much, although I could go ahead and make a Theile sphere... I'll be anxiously awaiting a figure 8 with a decently flat frequency response that is not using proximity effect to gain said flat response! (Mid/Side micing is cool stuff!!!) :) Bryan At 11:44 PM 12/9/03 +0000, you wrote: ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! |
|
umashankar mantravadi
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 The comb filter effect would kill anything that would sound liek music!!_________________________________________________________________ Discover India. Celebrate her diversity. Come, fall in love! |
|
Dick Campbell
Mark,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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 ---- Original message ----
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:18:29 -0000cost To: micbuilders@...and I am not going to get my test gear until January (and then I have to figure outhow it works). So, I'm sending you the first batch and you can see what's wrongwith them (hopefully nothing).back and it turns out one of my good friends was a student of your years ago.<rhcamp@r...> wrote: gives you moreAt 11:06 PM 12/8/03 -0500, you wrote:Sounds great. You can plan on getting an order from me!Me too! probably forchoices on FET packaging behind the back plate. and post the results.100. I will then run my usual battery of acceptance tests -------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canonor Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to theUS & Canada. --------~->
|
|
This is true for audio that is sourced perpendicular to the diaphragm in the capsule. The problem is reflected
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
sound that enters from an off axes point. That sound would setup the comb effect due to the difference in time that the sound reached the individual capsule diaphragms. Klaus Wolter wrote: Does comb filtering not take effect when the mic spacing is greater than 1 |
|
Indrek Rebane
Keith Nelsen wrote:
This is true for audio that is sourced perpendicular to theThink 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 -- 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 |
|
Palazzo Enrico
Hi any one have a good schematic of M/S Stereo matrix circuit for improving my ECM909 Microphone?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan &Susan Black To: micbuilders@... Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [micbuilders] Re: WM-60/61 Final Input Please - cost 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 effects of the wider spaced 4 capsules in a square. ...but then again, I suppose if you made it more diamond shaped... hmmm... maybe... It could be a fun experiment looking at the resulting pickup patterns. Personally, Omnis don't excite me all that much, although I could go ahead and make a Theile sphere... I'll be anxiously awaiting a figure 8 with a decently flat frequency response that is not using proximity effect to gain said flat response! (Mid/Side micing is cool stuff!!!) :) Bryan At 11:44 PM 12/9/03 +0000, you wrote: > >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@... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (). Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 09/12/2003 |
|
It was probably some time ago, Jerry Forstater who is now a PE designing low
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
voltage building systems --- In micbuilders@..., Dick Campbell <rhcamp@r...> wrote:
|
|
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. However, I wonder why this
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
is a problem with an array but not a single element? Wouldn't the reflected, off axis, time delayed sound also create a combing effect with a single diaphragm? I would think that with a large array combing effects could be reduced if all the mic elements are not in the same acoustical node or antinode, thereby averaging things out over the area covered by the array. -----Original Message-----
From: Keith Nelsen [mailto:keith@...] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:10 PM To: micbuilders@... Subject: Re: [micbuilders] Re: WM-60/61 Final Input Please - cost 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 the difference in time that the sound reached the individual capsule diaphragms. Klaus Wolter wrote: Does comb filtering not take effect when the mic spacing is greater than 1that would cause concern would be = or > than 13560/.625=21,696 Hz. (I'm new to |
|
There is some combing effect in a large diaphragm mic, but it is very
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
small due to the fact that there is only one diaphragm. When sound pressure strikes the diaphragm, the entire diaphragm moves as one piece. This has the effect of canceling out the combing. With an array, each diaphragm can move independently. Each electrical output is then added together in the array. This is the point where the combing takes place. No matter how close together the capsules are mounted, there is still a time (phase) difference. It is this difference that creates the combing effect. Klaus Wolter wrote: Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. However, I wonder why this |
|
My final summary and input. If the desire is to win on a low cost
design over the wm60. The universal request is lower noise not cost on a capsule. Because the low noise caps currently on the market are so over priced and we can not get the actual capsule being designed around. editorial: The wm-60 is rated at >60db which is not near good enouth. Your ears can do ~100 db and there is no cheap cap that can perform there. If there was a cheap cap at 100db it would truely match the human hearing and no gain set on record would be needed. IMHO the drop in music CD sales is more related to the high-end market going to surround and exiting stereo than any other factor. To record surround we need to be recording in an array and mic costs become a real factor in this field. With site recording expectations moving toward 24/96 we can no longer be happy with the component capsules on the market. 2. With 24/96 being the expectation we need a capsule that will perform at that level. This has nothing to do with max spl because I do not expect a capsule to perform without failure at a level where the human ear will fail. If someone wants to record at 125 db they should do it with baffles and understand that without hearing protection that their ears will fail as well with time at that level. I hope a low noise cap can replace the wm 60 but feel that it can not be done without increasing the size beyond 9mm. Rich |
|
From: "Rich Peet" <richpeet@...>
editorial: The wm-60 is rated at >60db which is not near good enouth. Your ears can do ~100 db and there is no cheap cap that can perform there.Sound levels above 80 dBA produce hearing damage. And the damage is cumulative with more exposure. Some newer research seems to indicate that levels even lower than 80 dBA may produce permanent damage. The European Union's new sound initiative seems to indicate that they consider a safe urban level to be no more than 55dBA, but that may be for reasons other than hearing damage. It can be a shock if you look at the official numbers on maximum allowable exposure times (these from a CD of hearing tests and are from the Nova Scotia Department of Labor, but others are pretty much the same) 16 hours for 80 dBA sound 8 hours for 85 dBA sound 4 hours for 90 dBA sound 2 hours for 95 dBA sound 1 hour for 100 dBA sound 30 min for 105 dBA sound 15 min for 110 dBA sound 7.5 min for 115 dBA sound 0 min for above 115 dBA sound (there should be no exposure at this level or above) Remember, that's cumulative exposure. If someone is recording at 125 dBA and is not in pain from the noise, their hearing is already damaged and getting worse by the second. Their ability to discriminate the quality of their own recordings is also going away rapidly. Beethoven may have managed to have a music career while deaf, as a composer, but it will be extremely difficult to do the same as a recordist. Protect your ears! I'm not convinced that 24/96 has the importance being attributed to it. For the same reason as that for max sound level. The human ear does not hear such high frequencies, period. Even the listed 20hZ-20kHZ for human hearing is very misleading for anyone out of diapers. And the human brain averages what it hears, it certainly does not discriminate at a level of 1/96000th of a second. If you think that this sampling rate does matter, then you are talking a mic that has a good frequency response curve out to 48 kHz. I've not seen any clear info on the limits of the ability of human hearing to discriminate sound level differences. 16 bit sampling gives you 64,000 discrete sound levels, 24 bit raises this to 16 million. I believe that accurate discrimination of human hearing would be something like 1/4dBA increments or so at best. That's only a few thousand different sound levels. Anyone seen any tests to indicate that humans can discriminate finer than this on sound level? Or discriminate the combination, slight variations in sound level over extremely short time periods. And then you mix in folks who have been immersing themselves in loud concerts (or just living in our noisy modern environment). With huge hearing losses, particularly at the higher frequencies, are these folks likely to discriminate any of this? That we can build things does not mean that they are truly needed. I'd prefer a mic capsule that can give me very low noise and fidelity to one of high frequency response and extremely fast transient response (what's really necessary for 24/96). I'm expecting that as the transient response gets shorter that you will also see increased noise. I do believe that 24/96 will become established, simply because the numbers are bigger and people think bigger is better. Having meaning or practicality has nothing to do with it. If someone proposed 24000/96000 you would have people moving to it, or wishing to. I hope a low noise cap can replace the wm 60 but feel that it can not be done without increasing the size beyond 9mm.At least in nature recording quality stereo recording is not yet the norm. The norm is mono recording in nature recording, though that's changing. Before worrying about surround, worry about stereo. Real stereo, not artificially mixed pseudo stereo. Even for stereo you are already doubling your mic costs. And in quieter ambient situations the self noise of the mic will often be your limiting factor. So, low noise capsules at reasonable prices are important. In fact for my work I'm only interested in low noise capsules. How low noise are we talking? One of the best omni's for nature recording is the Sennheiser MKH-20. With a self noise of 10 dBA, s/n of 84 dBA. That's what a low noise capsule is like, forget 60 - 65 s/n design for 80 or better. I believe there is a little confusion between dynamic range and s/n in asking for 100dBA s/n. That would imply a mic self noise of -6dBA, well below the threshold of hearing for most folks. And one final criterion. The capsule should operate in damp environments. How damp? A Sennheiser MKH can operate fine with water condensing on it (I've done that). It can also operate in hot and cold environments too. Some of the most expensive mics in the world last seconds in outdoor environments, and are, therefore, useless. I don't know on capsule size. But it should be some indication that very low noise capsules do tend to be larger than 9mm. Walt wwknapp@... |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss