Designing a product cannot be done by throwing parts on a bench and soldering them in random manner until it is capable of producing whatever it is supposed to produce; a design brief (as succinct as it were) has to be at the start of a design.
passiveThe example that comes to mind is the granular carbon mic as used in the telephone system , is it passive or active ?
The Bel is a unit of power. The decibel is 1/10th of a Bel. That said the logarithmic relationship is extremely convenient for dealing with large ratios.Why is it wrong to express transfomer voltage gain or loss in db ?
Just for chuckles I did a quick search for audio transformers specified in dB. Here is a bullet point from a Jensen MC step up transformer. (JT44k-DX, MC2-RR).Its obvious we cant get more power out than we put in and that bandwidth is sacrificed in the process .
Jensen said:
- Provides 20dB of gain for medium to high output cartridges
- Adds 20dB of low noise, low distortion gain to RIAA preamps
This is a pretty old topic for me (I've been discussing this since the 1980s).I may well be overly optimistic, but I hope that all contributing here are of a similar mind that designing electronics is not alchemy, and if you are making a measurement device component specification is extremely important. Of course, in my previous post I am not delving into design, I am simply (and I hope clearly!) describing that the end result is what matters in music production, and it is often the case that a device that has outstanding "specs" does not yield the most successful results.
Following the progress of projects here (which I believe is because of this) there seems to be much more interest in devices that introduce various distortions and ones that are primarily absent from it.
Maybe not much anymore. In the early days of Hi Fi, the Analogue Age in the mid 50s on out F response, power, distortion - both THD and IM, wow and flutter, separation were published for everything in the Allied Radio Catalogue. In the digital age the basic minimums are assumed. The only thing someone may get to choose now is the compression quality when dumping a CD into Itunes or downloading music.Specs' are not meaningful to the consumer / general public.
It seems similar to the Berning amp but not quite the same.As much as we are off topic now i find it interesting to see that a certain Lars Lundahl is in the Wiki text for magnetic amplifier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lundahl_MagAmp_schematic.png
i haven’t read the whole thread but I would look at the noise spectrum of the preamps under question. I could see 1/f noise masking some spacial cues that would be present in a pre with lower 1/f noise. I notice a lot of spacial cues in stereo reproduction are in the low mids.
Thank you!Look for Double Balanced mic preamplifier. Cohen was the inventor
About "soundstage"? Or about perceived depth from mono sources?There's a very good (as in concise) PowerPoint on this from THAT from a previous AES presentation if you Google it.
I don't understand saying there is no perception of depth in a single channel. That would mean a microphone would sound the same in a dead closet as it would in a concert hall. That isn't the case. Of course you can resolve timing differences that give a sense of space in mono. I thought the OP was asking about perceptible depth differences between two microphone preamps with the same input.Yes. But the real point was the perception of depth etc from a single channel preamp.
Im guessing his inquiry is related to whether it has anything to do with Lundahl transformersIt seems similar to the Berning amp but not quite the same.
stereo image from two mics...Mic positioning relative to the sound source...spaced stereo pair...ambient pair can be moved nearer of further away
I have recorded through almost every kind of notable preamp (tube, discrete opamp, neve style, onboard IC opamps). The main difference I have noticed is not the color of the tone (warm vs cold) or (dark vs bright). All of that tone stuff seems to be covered in these modern times with new IC style opamps and even plugin emulations of hardware. The real difference I hear is (2D vs 3D). That is what it seems the newer interfaces and plugins can't replicate. I was wondering what the exact culprit to that issue is?
...the discrete designs has depth with a 3D soundstage. Conversely, the IC opamp is like watching a 2 dimensional black and white cartoon. No depth, just flat.
So what is responsible for the depth and 3D soundstage? Is it the discrete form factor (2520), Or is it the transformers that are usually associated with the 2520 form factor?
Enter your email address to join: