Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Capacitor/Condenser Microphones

A

Allan Herriman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sennheiser make RF-based microphones. The MKH range is what you want.

I used an MKH816-TU3 once. IIRC, it had an 8MHz oscillator and used a
12V phantom supply. The glossy brochure said that it had two
advantages over the more conventional high voltage bias:

1. No noise due to DC leakage in transducer.

2. Better linearity, which can be a problem with DC bias if the
change in voltage is a significant fraction of the bias voltage. This
normally isn't a problem with 48V bias, but might be a problem at high
SPL with a lower voltage bias.

Regards,
Allan
 
W

Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joerg said:
Hi Graham,

I use Mozilla because it doesn't freeze up on me. Although it is closely
related to Netscape it does not have a cancel feature. When I searched
the help routine for it, it also came up with a blank.

Under Message, the Delete message is grayed out. Have you tried that?
 
W

Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry Given said:
Sods Law: Oscillators dont, amplifiers do

I thought that was Barkhausen..

Anyway, that's been my experience, also.
 
A

Allan Herriman

Jan 1, 1970
0
I used an MKH816-TU3 once. IIRC, it had an 8MHz oscillator and used a
12V phantom supply. The glossy brochure said that it had two
advantages over the more conventional high voltage bias:

1. No noise due to DC leakage in transducer.

2. Better linearity, which can be a problem with DC bias if the
change in voltage is a significant fraction of the bias voltage. This
normally isn't a problem with 48V bias, but might be a problem at high
SPL with a lower voltage bias.

From http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf/lexicon.htm

"RF Condenser Microphone A very special way to convert the continuous
change of capacitance in a condenser microphone into a usable electric
signal. Here the microphone capsule is part of the frequency
controlling circuit of an RF oscillator. The change of capacitance
modulates the RF in its frequency and the output of the first stage is
an FM signal as you have in any radio. (RF is about 8 MHz, but it is
carefully shielded - no chance to listen to someone else's mics). The
second stage is just an FM demodulator. The big advantage is that the
capsule impedance is approx. 300 Ohms so there won't be any problems
using such a condenser mic in a very moist environment. The big
disadvantage is the large amount of electronics and the requirement to
shield the RF carefully. RF mics are built by Sennheiser (MKH
series)."


The schematic looks more like fixed frequency drive to me though.

Regards,
Allan
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
From http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf/lexicon.htm

"RF Condenser Microphone A very special way to convert the continuous
change of capacitance in a condenser microphone into a usable electric
signal. Here the microphone capsule is part of the frequency
controlling circuit of an RF oscillator. The change of capacitance
modulates the RF in its frequency and the output of the first stage is
an FM signal as you have in any radio. (RF is about 8 MHz, but it is
carefully shielded - no chance to listen to someone else's mics). The
second stage is just an FM demodulator. The big advantage is that the
capsule impedance is approx. 300 Ohms so there won't be any problems
using such a condenser mic in a very moist environment. The big
disadvantage is the large amount of electronics and the requirement to
shield the RF carefully. RF mics are built by Sennheiser (MKH
series)."


The schematic looks more like fixed frequency drive to me though.
Which schematic?

In the one at
http://www.waltzingbear.com/Schematics/Sennheiser/MKH-105.htm
it is a fixed-freq. osc., and the mic changes the center frequency
of the discriminator! :)

Cheers!
Rich
 
M

Mark Zenier

Jan 1, 1970
0
It happened to me just last week. A post of mine never showed
up on Supernews, but responses to it did. And the post showed
up on our NNTP server at the office and on the Google archive.

NNTP (Usenet newsgroups) is *not* a guaranteed messaging
protocol like SNMP (email). It is a best-effort, store-&-forward,
peer-to-peer mechanism and likely works better now with The
Internet as a transport infrastructure than it did back in the early
days of DARPAnet, etc.

Actually, Usenet didn't use the Internet for the first 5 years or so,
rather, the main transport was an ad hoc network of systems using UUCP
dial up telephone transport, and that persisted for another 5-7 years
after NNTP came into existence (around 1986), until real Internet access
became afordable and the traffic rose to the point when a modem couldn't
cope with it any longer. For quite a while, Usenet was transported as
batches thru a wide variety of networks, and even airfreighted magnetic
tape.

The ARPANET used mailing lists instead, some of them gatewayed
to the equivalent newsgroup. (Yea, it was ARPANET back then. Things
military were not tolerated as much as today).

Much of Netiquette that seems arbitrary now, (like limiting posting
size, not top posting, including enough of the message to create
context, and no commercial postings) came from that era, as necessities
to keep volume down, allow the thread to make sense (as it took two
or three days to get a reply back and sometimes things got lost) and
satisfy the restriction on non-comercial use that was imposed on groups
that were gatewayed to the ARPANET mail reflectors.

Mark Zenier [email protected] Washington State resident
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Watson A.Name,
Under Message, the Delete message is grayed out. Have you tried that?
I am using Mozilla 1.6 and there is no 'delete' field under the message
menu. No grayed out one either.

Regards, Joerg
 
W

Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joerg said:
Hi Watson A.Name,

I am using Mozilla 1.6 and there is no 'delete' field under the message
menu. No grayed out one either.

Regards, Joerg

Odd. Anyway, you should go to the newer version. IIRC they corrected a
vulnerability that was in earlier (1.6 or earlier) versions.
 
C

Chuck Harris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mark said:
Much of Netiquette that seems arbitrary now, (like limiting posting
size, not top posting, including enough of the message to create
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Top posting was the norm back then! This came about because the reader
programs like rn, trn, etc. spooled the text onto your screen (or printer)
from the top down. In order to get to the end of the message you had to page
through the whole message. It was considered rude to force a reader to wade
through all of the included text to get to the bottom where some rude boy
placed his note. (most were using 300 baud, or 1200 baud modems)

-Chuck Harris
 
J

John Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chuck said:
Top posting was the norm back then! This came about because the reader
programs like rn, trn, etc. spooled the text onto your screen (or printer)
from the top down. In order to get to the end of the message you had to
page
through the whole message. It was considered rude to force a reader to
wade
through all of the included text to get to the bottom where some rude boy
placed his note. (most were using 300 baud, or 1200 baud modems)

Not to be disagreeable, or anything, but what was the norm back then was
more editing of replies than top-posting.
 
G

Guy Macon

Jan 1, 1970
0
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Tim said:
And any newsreader I know of starts you at the top of the message,
both reading and writing.

That's to make it easy for us to trim the quoted material before
bottom posting our reply.

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor
happened to be is like shitting in your pants because
that's where your assholec happened to be."
- Philip Herlihy
Short blurbs like this here following a comment make sense, but
people who quote three, four, nine, 25KB of posts simply have
absolutely no justification (though they still flame the ****
out of 'ya if you call them on it, go figure).

That is worse than top posting. Which is like saying that
Curly Joe is the Intellectual Stooge.

Here are some references for those who are interested
in improving the quality of their posts to newsgroups:

--------------------------------------------------------

"When thou enter a city, abide by its customs."

Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html

How do I quote correctly in usenet?
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html

Common Mistakes in Usenet Postings and How to Avoid Them
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/mail-news-errors.html#quoting

Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

Why bottom-posting is better than top-posting
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

+What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/quote.html

Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes with this automated fix!
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

From (spit!) microsoft:

"When including text from a previous message in the thread,
trim it down to include only text pertinent to your response.
Your response should appear below the quoted information."
- http://www.jsiinc.com/newsgroup_document.htm

"Top posting classically or stereotypically involves no
trimming and of course no contextualizing.of prior posts;
contrasted with contextualized posts, which sequence
questions and responses in order and context, along
with trimming of unnecessary lines.

In this contrast, the top post is disorderly, messy,
and most notably egocentrical, because it leaves all
of the cleaning up and reorganization to the correspondent
context posters and because it inappropriately emphasizes
the importance of whatever the top poster has to say or
ask while mostly disregarding everything anyone else has
been said before. It also expects the next reader to try
to guess at what part of the previous posts the top poster
is referring.and makes it nearly impossible to
contextualize hir own responses." -Mike Easter
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chuck Harris said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Top posting was the norm back then! This came about because the reader
programs like rn, trn, etc. spooled the text onto your screen (or printer)
from the top down.

And any newsreader I know of starts you at the top of the message, both
reading and writing. Short blurbs like this here following a comment make
sense, but people who quote three, four, nine, 25KB of posts simply have
absolutely no justification (though they still flame the **** out of 'ya if
you call them on it, go figure).

Tim
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Here are some references for those who are interested
in improving the quality of their posts to newsgroups:

What do you care? You've plonked the whole fucking group, you
nimrod.

Sheesh!
Rich
 
G

Guy Macon

Jan 1, 1970
0
Airy said:
It is a bad habit of the bottom posters to quote so much that their
response is off the bottom of the screen.

I see that you have gfailed to read the webpages I referenced,
which address this very point in detail.
 
A

Airy R. Bean

Jan 1, 1970
0
Top-posting makes sense because you don't need to
move from the "next" button to the "page down" button
and back again to see what's there.

If you peruse ooo 2,000 NG posts every day, then you haven't
got time to pay much attention to every one, but a quick flip
through with the "next" button lets you skim through
for the ones that are relevant.

It is a bad habit of the bottom posters to quote so much that their
response is off the bottom of the screen.

Net Result - THE BOTTOM POSTER'S CONTRIBUTION IS IMMEDIATELY
IGNORED - it can't be seen and is skipped over.

Moral - if you want to be read by others, then top post!

Another reason not to be associated with the bottom-posters is because of
their insulting attitude.
 
A

Active8

Jan 1, 1970
0
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Funny... I know of at least onee that let's you set that option.
That's to make it easy for us to trim the quoted material before
bottom posting our reply.

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor
happened to be is like shitting in your pants because
that's where your assholec happened to be."
- Philip Herlihy
ROFL
<snip>
 
A

Active8

Jan 1, 1970
0
Airy R. Bean wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^ parents can be so evil
It still doesn't hurt my extremeties to drag that scroll bar down
looking for the response, and sometimes it works out really well -
like an ascii art with a well sorted out discussion thread quoted
below.
I see that you have gfailed

Aw, hell. One thing you don't want to do is gfail.
to read the webpages I referenced,
which address this very point in detail.

F*cka buncha usenet faqs. Once in a while I screw up and leave
useless quotes, but all this should be common sense and it shouldn't
be hard to teach green beans how to post without pitchin' a bitch
and makin' 'em feel like sh*t. Jackasses are another story, of
course.
 
Top