RMMGA postings on preamps for acoustic guitars (1997-1999)

105 Messages in 56 Threads:

Direct Box for Acoustic Guitar? [4]

From: MHB850 <mhb850@aol...>
Subject: Re: Direct Box for Acoustic Guitar?
Date: 11 Feb 1997 03:51:28 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

hi robb ,
The best direct box I've ever heard on acs gtr or acoustic bass or
electric bass is called "Evil Twin"It is a tube direct.The bottom end
is really incredible.Call the man who builds them.

    Bruce-415-584-6767
good luck-michael brauer


From: Eclair Eng <eclaireng@aol...>
Subject: Re: Direct Box for Acoustic Guitar?
Date: 11 Feb 1997 14:51:29 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Michael Brauer said:
>The best direct box I've ever heard on acs gtr or acoustic
>bass or electric bass is called "Evil Twin"It is a tube
>direct.The bottom end is really incredible.Call the man
>who builds them.

Thanks very much for the kind words, Michael.

My _correct_ phone # for those who are interested is: 413-584-6767

Bruce Seifried / Eclair Engineering / <eclaireng@aol...>


From: Eeyore911t <eeyore911t@aol...>
Subject: Re: Direct Box for Acoustic Guitar?
Date: 12 Feb 1997 04:05:13 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

The best DI box for acoustic guitar, bass or electric bass is the Hyperjam
discrete DI. It is clear & natural (without the color of tubes or a
transformer) and you can hear the harmonics of the music too. If you like
the sound of the guitar, this is the one.
Contact them at <hyperjam@earthlink...>.

Chris Stone
From <beltran@primenet...> Wed Feb 12 22:14:39 1997
From: <beltran@primenet...>
To: Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>>
Subject: Re: Direct Box advice
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Content-Length: 563
X-Lines: 23
Status: RO

Tom:

I appreciated your praise of the Para Acoustic DI,
having just bought one. I didn't know anything
about it except that it worked for my application.
I guess from your post that it was a wise choice in
the long run. I paid about $170 for it at a place
that I would not expect much discount (but good
service) from.

Tony

-----------

Hi Tony-

Glad to hear from another user. I think it's an amazing little box
for its size and price; nothing else combines near that amount of
functionality at that price point.

Peace,
-Tom Loredo


From: MindCluter <mindcluter@aol...>
Subject: Re: Direct Box for Acoustic Guitar?
Date: 20 Feb 1997 14:48:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Just bought the HyperJAM danII discrete DI because of the posts raving
about it. Well they were wrong. It is better than they said. Much Better.
I would describe it as transparent but with a push...a little more life to
the music without coloration.
Chris, you were right.

When I play, I feel as if I am sailing and I love to sail and I love to
play.
I am now a believer.

Reggie
---------------------------
From Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>>
Organization Cornell University
Date Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:53:32 -0500
Newsgroups rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
Message-ID <<32E3CD3C.15FB7483@spacenet...>>
References 1

Hi Rob-

My favorite small preamp/EQ box (for a single pickup) is the
LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI. It's a stomp-box sized unit
very sturdily made that combines a high impedance buffer,
a gain stage, 5 bands of EQ (3 fixed frequency, 2 semiparametric
for notching or boosting), an effects loop, invert switch,
and both balanced and unbalanced outputs (ie, direct box).
It is powered by a 9v battery, but can also be phantom powered
(it will shut off the battery automatically if you have phantom
power). Sounds great. Lists for $198; I'd guess it sells
for around $150.

To get chorus, etc., you'd have to go for something larger and
more expensive, like the Korg G2. I personally would prefer
a good preamp feeding a separate effects unit. That's how
I do it myself (custom preamp, Alesis Q2 and Lexicon LXP-1
for effects). Used LXP-1s go for around $225, and will give
you much better reverb than any footpedal unit I've heard of.
One of the advantages of separate units like this is you can
build up incrementally---just get the preamp now, get the
effects later. Also, each block will probably be higher quality
than they would be in a combined unit. Finally, if you outgrow
part of it, you only need to replace that part. E.g., if you
eventually need a two-input preamp like the Rane AP13 or
Pendulum, you can still use your effects unit with it.

Good luck!
-Tom Loredo

----------------------
Re: Active DIs ????

From Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>>
Organization Cornell University
Date Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:18:07 -0500
Newsgroups rec.audio.pro
Message-ID <<32E3D2FF.59E2B600@spacenet...>>
References 1

Jim-

Part of the reason the Countryman is standard for acoustic
guitar piezos is that it has an unusually high input
impedance. If your guitarist is using a onboard preamp
(ie, onboard his guitar, often attached internally to the
endpin), this isn't a big issue. But if it's a plain
piezo signal, your best off going for a DI designed with
very hi input Z.

My favorite of the newer offerings is the LR Baggs Para Acoustic
DI, designed just for this application. It's stomp-box
sized, but combines the functions of a hi-Z preamp, EQ,
and DI. It has a gain stage and 5 bands of EQ (3 fixed freq.,
2 semi-parametric). It can be phantom powered or run off
a 9v battery (which shuts off automatically if you plug it
into phantom power). It sounds very good. List is $198,
but street price is probably closer to $150. Probably not
the wisest investment if you want a generic DI, but if you
want something particularly suited to piezo pickups, I think
it's great.

Peace,
-Tom Loredo
---------------------
Re: Passac acoustic guitar preamp

From Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>>
Organization Cornell University
Date Sun, 09 Feb 1997 22:40:35 -0500
Newsgroups rec.audio.pro
Message-ID <<32FE98B3.ABD322C@spacenet...>>
References 1

Hi WP-

Before I say more, let me emphasize that I have never myself
seen or heard a Passac in use.

With that disclaimer....

On the acoustic guitarists' newsgroup, rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic,
I've seen only negative remarks about the Passac, including some
posts of folks so unhappy that they sent them back. The only
positive remarks I've heard are those of Paul Stamler in his
recent acoustic guitar amplification series in Recording.
Everything I've read of Paul's has had good advice in it, and
I have sought his opinion myself on a few occassions. I don't
know how to explain this discrepancy; I'm only reporting it.
I should note that the article was on recording, and Paul
only offered brief observations on live sound issues.

You should also be aware the the Passac is fairly old technology.
Now, hi impedance buffering and EQ isn't exactly rocket science,
so it's entirely possible that it's still a good device. But
in the last couple years newer devices by other manufacturers,
especially LR Baggs and Fishman, have appeared and are in much
greater use by touring guitarists than the Passac. (I make a point
of observing this stuff, at concerts and in magazine and online
reports, because I maintain an acoustic guitar web site with a
special section on acoustic amplification.)

In my opinion, the best device of this ilk currently available is
the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI. In a sturdy metal case the size
of a stomp box, you get a quality discrete FET hi impedance
buffer and gain stage, 5 bands of EQ tailored for piezo pickups
(two of them with adjustable frequency), balanced (XLR) and
unbalanced outputs, an invert switch, and an effects loop. It
runs off a 9v battery, or will automatically switch to phantom
power if you plug the XLR out into a phantom powered board.

Plus it sounds good!

List price is $198; street price is probably closer to $150.
Baggs is one of the leading pickup and preamp manufacturers
for touring professionals (sharing that distinction with Fishman);
you should be able to buy or order their gear from any good guitar
store or from the usual mailorder houses.

If after that you still want the Passac info, drop me a line
and I'll dig up my Passac literature at home.

Good luck!
-Tom Loredo
-----------------------
10 Mar 97

Hi cdgrant3 et al.-

I think the "Best buy" in small outboard preamp boxes
for acoustic guitar pickups is the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI.
List is $198; street price is probably around $150 or so.
In a stomp-box-sized sturdy metal box, the P.A.D.I. combines
a good high impedance preamp, gain stage, 5 bands of EQ
(three fixed frequency, 2 semi-parametric with variable frequency),
an effects loop, and both balanced (XLR) and unbalanced (1/4" phone
jack) outputs.

It runs off a 9v battery, but if you plug the XLR into a mixer
with phantom power, it automatically senses if the phantom power
is present and will shut off the battery and run off the board.
It also has a clever indicator for the 9v battery that starts
flashing when the battery is starting to get weak, but before
it quits. Finally, there is a pushbutton that will invert the
signal (sometimes an aid in dealing with feedback, and can affect
tone when combining the sound of two or more transducers).

And it sounds very good!

A very impressive little box.

Peace,
-Tom Loredo
---------------------------

Fishman Pro-EQ & Taylor
From: David M Feldberg <rafael67@ix...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Pro-EQ & Taylor
Date: 11 Mar 1997 07:06:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <<33247705.59E2B600@spacenet...>> Tom Loredo
<<loredo@spacenet...>> writes:
>
>Hi cdgrant3 et al.-
>
>I think the "Best buy" in small outboard preamp boxes
>for acoustic guitar pickups is the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI.

>
>A very impressive little box.
>
>Peace,
>-Tom Loredo

I second that opinion...I've used the Baggs and the Fishman and there's
no comparison between them, the Baggs is a much better unit.

-------------------
Subject:

             Re: Feedback from dual source pickups?
        Date: 
             Fri, 14 Mar 1997 11:02:08 +0000
       From: 
             martin_bob@htc.honeywell.com (Bob Martin)
Organization:
             Honeywell HTC
  Newsgroups: 
             rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
  References: 
             1 , 2

I have a Baggs Dual Source installed in my Taylor GAMC. Unlike the Duet
model which has two outputs, there is only a single output coming from the
amplifier board installed inside the guitar on the Dual Source. On the
controller plate attached to the soundhole are little knobs for overall
volume and balancing or mixing in the desired percentage of mic signal
into the piezo signal. In any event, should I crank up the amount of mic
and face the amplifier (speaker) - yes, I'll get feedback. Typically I
incorporate around 25% mic signal and I don't experience any problems.
The internal mic really does add a lot to round out the sound and a notch
filter that is found on most acoustic guitar amps or on something like the
Baggs Para-Acoustic pre-amp could be used to knock down a troublesome
frequency. My words of wisdom are to go with what you think will sound
best in your 812C. In the stuff I do and the places I play, feedback has
not been a problem. I think it is easier to deal with feedback problems
than an overall sound you aren't satisfied with. Good luck.

Regards

Bob
From <alschrec@ghg...> Wed Mar 26 22:52:26 1997
From: <alschrec@ghg...> (Andrew L. Schreckenghost)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>>
Subject: Re: Shawn Colvin's pickup?
References: <<19970323031100.WAA27338@ladder01...>> <<859123719.5956@dejanews...>> <<3336F0C2.446B9B3D@spacenet...>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1323
X-Lines: 34

Hello Tom. Have you heard the Sunrise tube interface? Awfully pricey
but intriguing. I got some information on the Joe Mills microphone as
follows (we discussed this a million years ago)...

Best,

Andy Schreckenghost
-----------------

Hi Andy-

Thanks a lot for the Mills info, I appreciate it. I hadn't heard
the details (or the price).

I haven't played thru the Sunrise tube myself, though I've heard
artists that use it (Shawn Colvin, etc.). I don't know if it colors
the sound or not. If it's just a very good, flat preamp, I consider
the price ridiculous and based on tube hype. Although top quality
studio tube mic preamps are comparable in cost, they have to handle
signals of a much lower level (where noise is more of a consideration)
and of higher quality (the $1000 - $5000 mics typically used with
studio tube mic preamps are far more accurate than the $175 Sunrise
pickup). There's no reason a good, flat, hi-Z preamp that costs
a lot less (probably solid state) shouldn't work with the Sunrise.

If on the other hand the pre is actually an EQ, there's a little more
to the story. Perhaps they have some very special EQ circuitry
designed specifically to complement the phase and frequency response
of the pickup. But I doubt it (I think it's advertised just as a flat preamp),
and in any case it's hard to imagine a circuit topology that should
cost that much.

But as I said, I haven't heard it, though frankly I'm not impressed
with Colvin's live sound. It's a good sound, but not an incredibly
natural sound; and of course she combines the pickup with an external
mic signal.

Probably fairly worthless ramblings, but you asked!

Thanks again for the Mills info!

Peace,
-Tom Loredo

Pluggin In Dilemma
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Pluggin In Dilemma
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:54:09 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi-

I have never really enjoyed the sound from a Blender setup except
this past weekend when I did sound for Cosy Sheridan. Her guitar
just worked well with it, though it didn't sound that good until I
did some fairly major EQ with an LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI. She
remarked at how much she enjoyed the sound afterward, and the credit
belongs to the Para Acoustic DI box in my opinion, not to the
Blender.

I think the Pocket Blender is even worse than the Blender, and have
never liked a tone I've heard from it, though it could be I was
unlucky and just heard poorly installed or badly adjusted setups.

I have a Blender myself (it's not what I use), and on taking it
apart must say it's a ripoff at $300+. Remember, you can buy
a Mackie 1202vlz for about this price! I give the Fishman folks
a lot of credit for coming up with the idea 8 or 9 years ago,
but in that time they could have come up with some improvements.
The power supply is lousy, pots are cheap, the PC board is separated
from the case only with a piece of paper, polarized electrolytic
filter caps are in the signal path,
and the op amps are merely okay (there are lots better now).
Over those years they have made remarkable improvements in their
pickups, and the Matrix pickups are very good. It's time they
built a Blender system to match the quality of their pickups.

I also don't believe the two bands of EQ offered on the Blender
are enough; I have yet to hear a Blender setup that didn't need
a cut in the 1-2kHz region, and possibly some other EQ adjustments.

Take apart the Baggs Para Acoustic DI, and you see lots of
marks of quality---good component selection, etc.. Unfortunately
it's only for a single piezo setup. If Baggs put two of these
in a box, with one dedicated to a mic, it would blow the Blender
away, and very seriously compete with the AP-13.

The Rane AP-13 (this is one device, by the way, not two---Rane
is the company, the AP-13 is the model) is the sounder purchase
(vs. the Blender) in my opinion. Not all that much more $$
than the Blender, but
much more flexibility and in several respects better made
(the schematic is available for viewing at www.rane.com). I've
heard some really good live sounds from the Rane, though I've
recently learned that at least one of them (Tom Prasada-Rao's)
was with a modified AP-13. The only thing obvioulsy "wrong" with
it is the input stage for the piezo (which uses a configuration
known for distorting hi impedance signals). In practice it seems
to work okay, perhaps because the distortion of this topology
is worst at high frequencies where one would probably be relying
on the mic signal.

Peace,
-Tom Loredo
From <jreynlds@wic...> Tue May 6 01:48:38 1997
From: <jreynlds@wic...> (Reynolds, Jeff)
Reply-To: <jreynlds@wic...>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Any Fishman Blender Alternatives?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3063
X-Lines: 68
Status: RO

Tom,

Saw your post about the guts of the "blender" and was curious if you had
any suggestions for better units to do the same thing - blend a piezo &
mic for acoustic instuments? I play an old Kay plywood upright bass with
an Underwood bridge piezo & have been considering a blender or bass
blender (also by Fishman) but haven't tried out any. (I live in the
boonies of western Colorado, far from music stores).
Any favorite ways to get a natural sound onstage for a setup like mine?

Thanks
--
Jeff Reynolds "Time flies whether you're having fun or not...
Hotchkiss, CO you might as well be having fun!"
USA
<jreynlds@wic...> (Have Bass Fiddle, Will Travel!)

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

Hi Jeff-

After those remarks and my previous distaste for most Blender setups,
this past weekend I heard Lucy Kaplansky playing a Martin dreadnaught
thru a blender and it sounded very good! She said in her opinion pickup
installation is very critical, and she thought it was important to
look hard for someone who really knows what they are doing.

The Blender isn't awful; it's just awful for 350 bucks! It's worth
perhaps $100 or $150 in my opinion.

As a soundman I've been able to coax good sounds out of the Blender
by piping it thru an LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI, which offers 5 bands
of EQ that can fix things up substantially. However, this adds about
$150 to your cost, and is a bit inconvenient. If Baggs put two of
these things in a box and arranged them to work like the Blender,
they'd blow the Blender away. But they haven't done it yet.

The most impressive, reasonably affordable "off the shelf" blender-like
object I know of is the Rane AP-13. I've heard some very impressive
sounds with it (though I've recently learned that at least one of them,
Tom Prasada-Rao's, was substantially modified). It's what I would go
with if I had to buy something like this today. Not too much more
than a blender, but a lot more capability and higher quality parts
and design.

However, all this may be moot for you. I really have no clue about
what the problems are with bass amplification. Certainly the EQ
problems are in different places, so boxes like the guitar Blender,
Para DI, and AP-13 (which all have EQ in relatively fixed frequencies)
are probably not appropriate. The only thing completely flexible
that comes to mind is the Pendulum stuff, but it will set you back
about $1000.

Do you have any friends who are good with electronics? If so, Rane
provides the full schematics and PCB stuffing guide for the AP-13
at their web site, and it would be a relatively simple matter to
shift the frequencies of the graphic EQ in that box around. You
might even try emailing Rane (there may be an email address at
www.rane.com) to see if they have any suggestions along these lines.

Wish I could offer more simple advice, but I'm really out of my league
dealing with the bass.

If you find something you're happy with, do let me know.

Good luck!
-Tom Loredo

Pendulum Pre Amps
From: Kenny Smilovitch <kls@total...>
Subject: Re: Pendulum Pre Amps
Date: 5 Sep 97 16:34:59 GMT
Organization: Entrepreneurs Advisory Program

I own a pendulum preamp and am very pleased with the results I get when
playing live. I currently use the system with a sunrise and mini-mic but
have also used it with under saddle pickups and soundboard transducers with
excellent results. The key to the pendulum is the parametric eq which is
relatively simple to use and allows you to isolate unpleasant midrange, or
troublesome feedback frequencies and dial them out without losing the rest
of your sound. The unit can be used with either xlr or 1/4 inch cables and
is extremely quiet. I have never had a situation where I couldn't use the
system (finding an available power outlet can sometimes be a challenge).
The unit is also quit large (single rack space) which isn't as simple as
throwing a fishman in your guitar case. However this is well worth the
effort for trouble free sound. I have used this system for a few years and
always get complements on my sound. The pendulum is also quite expensive,
so this is another factor to consider. If anyone has any questions about
the unit I would be happy to respond.

PS. If anyone knows of a light nylon carrying case for single rack units I
would be interested in learning about it.

Anyone used the SansAmp Acoustic DI box? [4]
From: Rahoolio <bcooper@ets-ltd...>
Subject: Re: Anyone used the SansAmp Acoustic DI box?
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:37:33 -0500

Yup.

Awesome.

I play both an Alavrez Yairi DY-38 and an Ernie Ball Earthwood acoustic bass
guitar around the DC area in small, acoustic club gigs and open mics with a
couple of folks. Last night I picked up an ADI and played out with my
Earthwood. I'd always hated the thin, brittle sound coming out of the piezo
pickup and never thought I would be able to capture the full sound of the
instrument. This box changed my mind.

The controls are straightforward, not overly techy unless you want to go
there, and the "Tube/Microphone Emulation circuitry" is a godsend. It adds
a great deal of warmth to the tone and does sound like I'm micing the bass.
Sounded like hype in the store, but it works. It can be phantom powered,
it's got three-position active eq (+/- 12dB) with sweepable mid, you can
lift the ground, it's got a -20dB pad and you can even de-activate the
system so that it works like a basic DI box. Another neat feature is that
it has enough ins and outs so that you can use it as an effects loop (if you
send your signal to the board via XLR). I'd buy this thing just to keep in
my sound reinforcement bag o' tricks, its that cool. It even makes me
wonder if I'll ever bring my bass amp to gigs anymore.

I've not yet tried it with my Yairi or my MusicMan electric bass, but I
expect the same excellent results. If you're looking for a DI or (like me)
want an acoustic guitar pickup without a preamp in the body, this is
definitely the ticket. If you're interested, check out the attached web
site.

begin 666 SansAmp Acoustic DI.url
M6TEN=&5R;F5T4VAO<G1C=71=#0I54DP]:'1T<#HO+W=W=RYT96-H,C%N>6,N
38V]M+T%$24)I9RYH=&T-"@``````
`
end


From: Serafin E. Garcia, Jr. <garcia@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Anyone used the SansAmp Acoustic DI box?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 06:27:52 -0800
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services

Also, any comparisons to the Zoom 504 Acoustic and the Rockson Acoustic
Pedal? Are these equivalent at all? Would the SansAmp work well as a
pre-amp/EQ substitute (or, is that exactly what it is)?

I see that the SansAmp is $180 at Musician's Friend (the others
mentioned above are both $110).

Serafin


From: Robert McArthur <rmca@tenet...>
Subject: Re: Anyone used the SansAmp Acoustic DI box?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:26:00 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Tom Loredo wrote: I'm just wondering if its

> tube/mic circuitry does something you'd miss in another box like
> a Baggs Para Acoustic DI,

Oh most definately--No comparison. You just won't believe you are
playing through a piezo. Superior to a mini-mic blended with a piezo
(IMHO).

> and what one must pay to have it.

$225 list/ $179 Mus. Friend

> Robert (see review below)


From: Rick Royston <roystons@swbell...>
Subject: Re: Anyone used the SansAmp Acoustic DI box?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:46:17 -0600
Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Richardson, TX

I've had the SansAmp Acoustic DI about a week now. First impression was
it made a huge difference in the sound. The harsh high end I was
getting with the Fishman Matrix was really tamed. The sound is MUCH
warmer without being too low end heavy. The mids really seemed to be
strong. The tone control seems to be very sensitive and the notch
filter seems to have quite a wide effect (meaning it affects alot of
frequencies on either side of the selected frequency).

Like I said I've only had it a week and I'm still trying to dial it in
but with everything set flat it made a huge improvement. Definitely
worth a listen.

Rick

Carl Christensen wrote:
>
> I use the SansAmp electric guitar preamps for home jammin' and see
> that they have an acoustic DI now. I have an un-pickup'd Martin
> 000-28EC that I need to amplify now that I am in a band situation.
> Right now I just mic it with a Shure SM-57 but that's not too great.
> I'd be interested in seeing what people think about the SansAmp. I'll
> probably look to get an acoustic guitar mic as I'm not so sure I want
> to do the piezo route this time.
>
> --
> Carl Christensen
> Philadelphia, PA USA
> E-mail: <carl@navpoint...> Web: http://www.navpoint.com/~carl

Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI- [5]
From: Robert McArthur <rmca@tenet...>
Subject: Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI-
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:00:52 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

I hope this version will be more complete and have less errors:

The Sans Amp company (sans is French for without) --actually Tech 21 of
NYC-- makes several products which emulated tube amplifiers. With some
of these you can dial in the sound of a Marshall, a Fender tweed etc.
Recently they came out with a Bass DI that warms up the bass by making
it sound like it is played through a tube amp. Now they have turned to
what must be the most daunting task of all, the amplification of the
acoustic Guitar. With their introduction of the new Sans Amp Acoustic
DI they seemed to have admirably risen to the occasion. This DI is a
"Direct Inject" box which allows the player to plug into the box and
have volume control and tone shaping capabilities right at his/her
feet. A line out can either run to a guitar amp (1/4") or a PA (XLR) or
both. Such a box is very useful especially if you have a guitar without
onboard tone and volume controls. Even if you are using a guitar amp
you need your controls at your fingertips, far from the feedback zone of
the amplifier. If you are going straight into a house system you also
need to the ability to convey your line level (loud, 1/4" jack) guitar
output to match the PA input (quieter, XLR jack). A direct box does
this. There are several on the market, dual source for accommodating a
second mic or pickup (Fishman Blenders, Rane AP-13, Boss Acoustic DI,
Pendulum) and single source for a lone piezo (the type in probably 95%
of acoustic guitars). These latter include the highly regarded Fishman
Dual Parametric EQ (This months Guitar Player --I believe--has a shoot
out article between the Fishman Dual Para DI and the Sans Amp Acoustic
DI) and the Baggs Paraacoustic DI. All of these attempt (and largely
accomplish) to provide a transparent (unprocessed) sounding output that
allows the player to toy with the bass and treble (some to very fine
degree) and in the dual source cases the balance between the piezo and
the second source.
The Sans Amp provides all of this: 1/4" in put (actually 2, one to run
the guitar through the preamp circuitry, and one to bypass the circuitry
and merely connect with the XLR output), an active bass and treble
(allowing 12db boost or cut) and an active mid control linked to a
graphic eq dial.
To operate this you turn the dial to any frequency between 170 hz and
300 hz. This sets the range of the mid control. Then you can boost or
cut this frequency in a 12 hz band. Great for notching out feedback or
boosting a particular frequency to fatten up the tone. The variety of
tones one can shape with this boost feature is amazing. This brings up
what is unique and perhaps controversial about the Sans Amp unit: it's
unique sound shaping capabilities.

    There will be 2 schools of thought on whether a "natural" sound is
the desired sound w/ acoustic amplification. Prior to the Sans Amp I
had always considered myself a purest. Why did I agonize
over guitars for a year before finding my personal favorite/life time
companion/grail only to mess with the amplified tone? I am especially
amused by Trace Elliot's "shape" switch that kicks in a preset EQ for,
as their literature puts it, "a highly desirable acoustic sound." It
sounds, like a jangling high pitch jagged piezo doing its thing brashly
and proudly. So I went the other route -- dual source.
What I found (and I may add that there are several real "pros" on this
group with infinitely more experience and expertise in this matter than
myself) is that how I adjusted EQ, mix, and minimic placement I was
still underwhelmed. By cutting 90% of the bass on the mic and 90% of
the treble on the piezo I got very airy, natural sound, granted. But
there were 2 insurmountable irritations. One, the mic fed back moderate
volumes unless I decreased it's presence to about 1/2 of the piezo's.
This left a bit of the objectionable piezo brittleness (others say
quackiness--but rather than a duck, I hear breaking glass). Two, and
this is the heart of my longwinded tale, I can to suspect that "natural"
was not necessarily what I personally was stumbling around trying to
find. What I actually wanted was "smoothness." What's the difference?
Well, at unamplified volumes when all is natural, things are by nature
smooth (lets hope so, if the guitar and technique are acceptable). But
what happens when you start amplifying that smooth sound? Imaging
beautiful woman (or man if your orientation or gender differs from
mine). At a viewing distance of about 5 feet, nude, she is quite
stunning. This is your unamplified guitar. Now hold a magnifying glass
up to her. Let's say you focus on the edge of her lips. The small,
lipsticked line will now look like a jagged cliff, smeared sloppily with
red paint. Those sleek thighs will look spiked and barbed with hairs
shooting up like cut tree stumps in a deforested section of Oregon. You
get the point. Amplification becomes the magnifying glass.
What I discovered is that I couldn't stand the sound of my fingertips
rasping on the strings through the mini-mic. The sound was natural but
the focus was artificial. Also, at higher volumes my trebles strings
didn't sound nearly as smooth nd balanced as they did at un amplified
volumes. It all sounded natural in that the tone of the instrument was
not altered but distorted in it's emphasis. I was disappointed. Enter
the Sans Amp Acoustic DI.
    Why do recording artists insist on tube mics that cost 3000 or
more. They sound not only natural but warm and smooth. It makes a
difference. (I am speaking as a listener). The Sans Amp has a circuit
that attempts to reshape the piezo input signal to emulated (match) the
output curve (oscilloscope reading) of a great tube mic. Moreover the
piezo circuit is also routed through the DI in the same manner it would
be through a Fishman or Bagggs DI. So you end up near the end of the
chain with two signals, a shaped, processed tube mic emulation signal,
and a piezo signal warmed up considerably by the conventional
circuitry. These two signals can be blended via the "blend" knob to
meld in any degree what so ever from all tube mic to all piezo. It does
not allow you to blend bass from one and treble from the other as in a
true dual source, but since there is no feedback and since the tube mic
sound benefits lows and highs, no need. I seem to get the most natural
sound at about 65% tube and 35% piezo but I like to vary it from piece
to piece to give
a slightly different timbre ea. time. So yes this processed sound.
Processed sound that through circuitry gets rid of all that
objectionable piezo jangliness and makes the trebles sound sweet and
syrupy if you want, or just plain natural if you want. There are no
little unwanted peaks in the sound, either with strumming or finger
picking, or flat picking. This brings up a natural quality of tube
mics--natural compression. This unit is a compression unit as well, but
in the most subtle and natural way because the compression is a part of
the tube mic emulation effect.
    I have done extensive side by side ear comparisons with this and
other famed units and I prefer this. It sounds best through my
highlander amped guitar. That's because the highlander is an incredible
pickup that, unlike the Fishman and Baggs, sounds great on its own.
Martin Simpson
does use an external mic with his highlander, but he certainly gets a
great sound on his live CD with only the highlander. My other guitar
with a Fishman still benefited from the Sans Amp tube mic emulation but
it really brings out how very flat the Fishman is. It is not nearly so
sensitive and the notes don't jump out the same way. When the Sans Amp
meets the highlander you have what to my ears is the holy grail of
amplification found. Highlander IP-1's run bout $125 through Shoreline
Acoustic or Stewart and Stevenson and the Sans Amp is $179 from
Muscian's Friend. That's about as cheap as it's ever gonna get for
great sound.
    One caveat (buyer beware) -- I think purists who really do want
natural; sound will not like this unit because it smoothes out the
natural flaws. Remember the magnifying glass on our beauty?
The Sans amp tends to give the 6 foot perspective and not allow the mag.
glass to register. And subliminally at least I think you hear this as a
"processed sound."

Robert McArthur


From: Robert McArthur <rmca@tenet...>
Subject: Re: Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI-
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:05:35 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

--------------B8D9DC1EFCCC3A6BDA32224A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> To operate this you turn the dial to any frequency between 170 hz and
> 300 hz. This sets the range of the mid control.

Ooops. Thats 170-3000 hz--quite significant error. SorryRobert

--------------B8D9DC1EFCCC3A6BDA32224A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To operate this you turn the dial to any frequency between 170 hz and
300 hz.  This sets the range of the mid control. 

Ooops. Thats 170-3000 hz--quite  significant error.  SorryRobert --------------B8D9DC1EFCCC3A6BDA32224A--

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI-
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:26:58 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy Robert-

Interesting review.

Robert McArthur wrote:
>
> > To operate this you turn the dial to any frequency between 170 hz and
> > 300 hz. This sets the range of the mid control.
>
> Ooops. Thats 170-3000 hz--quite significant error. SorryRobert

Please also tell me that the 12 Hz bandwidth you mentioned was also
incorrect! Maybe at the low end of the range, but....

Tube emulation circuitry works by intentionally distorting the signal
in a way that introduces harmonics that are more pleasing to the ear
than those introduced by standard (bipolar junction) transistors.
This distortion will produce an nonlinear output/input ratio for
steady inputs that resembles that of a compressor. However, it does
not have the temporal properties of real compression when handling
dynamically varying inputs, so it's a bit of a misnomer to call the
resulting effect compression. Whether it is pleasing to the ear is
another matter, however!

I personally would have thought that adding distortion is exactly
what one would want to avoid in this application. However, the
Core preamp that comes with the B-band is designed with a FET input
biased class-A in a way that mimics tube behavior when it's driven
hard. The EMF folks claim their users actually preferred the tone
when the FET was biased to add a bit of 2nd harmonic distortion. So
perhaps this is a good thing to many ears.

I'd love to try the SansAmp myself; in the meantime, thanks to Robert
for posting a review.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI-
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:28:27 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Robert McArthur wrote:
>
> Please also tell me that the 12 Hz bandwidth you mentioned was also
> incorrect! Maybe at the low end of the range, but....Errors- Midrange sweep
> is 170hz to 2000 hz / tone cut boost is + or - 12db. Apologies.

Ah, now I get it. Thanks.

> The unit advertises that it eliminates unnatural harmonics that occur with
> piezos. I phoned Tech 21 and the head guy there said that they created this
> box to match the ocsilloscope reading of a $3000
> tube mic. The net effect it the sound of a guitar miced through a tube mic
> with it's natural compression.

Oh man, I'd love for Tech 21 to post this kind of nonsense to rec.audio.pro!
I'm not denying the box may sound great, but this is either incredible
marketing hype or some engineer's attempt at humor. Regardless of what it
is, I'd sure like to hear this thing. But I have to confess I'm getting more
and more fed up with pro audio advertising, especially with regard to
acoustic guitar amplification. Manufacturers advertise their pickups or
preamps will finally faithfully duplicate your acoustic sound, when anyone
with healthy ears can clearly hear this isn't true. Others make claims for
their preamps or outboard gear that are simply not possible, at least for a
box of limited size, complexity and cost. Why can't they just say---we tried
lots of things, and we think what we've come up with sounds pretty good!

There's this fellow in Texas who is making inexpensive 1/3 rack size
stereo compressors, and selling them out of his home for $175. He calls
the device the RNC---Really Nice Compressor. No hyped ads or fancy
product names or mumbo-jumbo explanations of technology. And they're
selling like hotcakes and have been the subject of numerous threads in
rec.audio.pro, always getting a positive review. Plain old fashioned
honesty really can pay off.

Anyway, this is not to disparage Robert one bit. It sounds like he's
making his judgements the correct way---with his ears, not from
reading marketing hype. Thanks again for the review, Robert.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Josh Karnes <karnes@usa...>
Subject: Re: Review: Sans AMP Acoustic DI-
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:39:54 -0600
Organization: LIM

> > The unit advertises that it eliminates unnatural harmonics that occur with
> > piezos. I phoned Tech 21 and the head guy there said that they created this
> > box to match the ocsilloscope reading of a $3000
> > tube mic. The net effect it the sound of a guitar miced through a tube mic
> > with it's natural compression.
>
> Oh man, I'd love for Tech 21 to post this kind of nonsense to rec.audio.pro!
> I'm not denying the box may sound great, but this is either incredible
> marketing hype or some engineer's attempt at humor.

well-said.

let me assure you the device you would want to use anyway is not an
oscilloscope, but a spectrum analyzer. even then it would be very difficult to
even obtain a good baseline reading. then you have ALL SORTS of dynamic issues
with a microphone, particularly a tube mic, such as how it responds to a
particular stimuli under certain set conditions which would be virtually
impossible to even model. and this is just talking frequency response, without
regard for phase response, doppler distortion, etc., a myriad of other problem
areas.

this is not to mention the fact that a piezoelectric element which is
mechanically stressed by some part of a guitar in order to create a signal is
not at all subject to the full spectra of guitar sounds that you would get from
ANY microphone in front of the instrument, even a 50-cent electret condenser
element you rip out of an answering machine. the piezo element is only
responding to the mechanical vibrations of the part it is attached to, at that
particular point. sure, in a guitar all the parts are attached together by some
firm means, so that means that it is likely that some vibrations from all over
the instrument will be transmit, however that's not getting the "whole story"
into the pickup. the best you could hope for would be a soundboard-mounted
piezo (on the top of the guitar somewhere) since the top is a the primary
resonant part of a guitar, but a bridge saddle transducer is in a whole
different operating category, almost completely isolated from the vibrations of
the top in comparison to the dramatic stress they are subject to from the
strings (what this means is, you hear the strings through the amp, not the top).

SO! in all i would say that to try to make a "tube mic" sound from a piezo
element and a little battery operated box of solid-state circuitry is indeed
laughable, particularly if the designer thinks he has done it.

i'll second tom's assertion, choose with your ears and ignore the hype. i've
heard the old sansamp and thought it was an impressive device, but you did not
catch me selling my '69 princeton reverb and switching over, although i would
not mind having a sans amp for certain occasions. i might even try their
acoustic thingy and see what it can do.

later-

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

                                                              josh_karnes:
         shileen's husband, jordan and hannah's daddy, guitarist, drummer,
     composer, songwriter, audiophile, computer geek, mechanic, carpenter,
                             wannabe gourmet chef, keeper of the faith <><
Want opinions on fighting feedback
From: John Griffin <jgriffin@spectranet...>
Subject: Re: Want opinions on fighting feedback
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 15:10:55 -0500
Organization: Still Point

In article <6d87k7$k91$<1@news...>>, "Bob Longmire"
<<seesigfile@foobar...>> wrote:

>Michael Zakrisson wrote in message <01bd406b$8a4b2220$<LocalHost@micha...>>...
>>I have a EMG piezo thinline under the saddle on my full size acoustic.
>>Using this, I have problems with feedback when playing through PA. Do you
>>have any suggestions. I´ve seen several artists with "plastic covers" over
>>the soundhole. Anything else??
>>
>>Michael Zakrisson
>
>If the PA has a graphic equalizer with enough channels you may
>have an option. Try to find out the note which the feedback
>makes. On a few of mine it's between G# and Bb. Then you can
>reduce the eq for that frequency.

There is a very inexpensive route you can go. Buy a Zoom 504 acoustic
guitar effects pedal. It has a built in feedback killer - but it also has
some really nice effects built in as well.

The feedback circuit works like this: In automatic mode, you attach a
foot-switch pedal to a jack on the back. When feedback begins, you stamp
on the footswitch to turn off the feedback killer, then quickly stomp
again which switches it back on. The circuit goes immediately into the
search mode and hunts for the frequency of the feedback and locks on to it
- then acts as an equalizer and turns down the frequency range in which
the feedback occurs. Thus in just a couple of seconds, your feedback is
squashed! It works really well with most feedback problems.

The only problem I have found is that it has a limit to the range at which
it can do this. It doesn't seem to be able to catch the really
high-pitched squeal that soundhole mics can generate in a small room with
amps that have tweeters that can go really high. My Audio-Technica ATM15a
mic and Peavey 112 Ecoustic amp both have really high-frequency abilities
and when I play in a small room in my house with hard surfaces - ouch! The
squeal can almost go beyond the upper ranges of hearing. The Zoom pedal
doesn't seem to be able to catch it.

John G.
4 Mar 98
b&dYetter wrote:
>
> Hi jae,
> A direct box splits a high impedence signal into two outputs, one
> direct (for an amp.), and one low impedence, for the input to a PA or
> recording mixer. It has no adjustment for EQ.
> A pre-amp for acoustic guitar allows some EQ contouring, but has no
> low impedence capability.
> Take care,
> Steve Y.

Well, sometimes... 8-)

The trouble is that there isn't any "official" DIN or ISO spec
somewhere saying what these terms should mean, so some manufacturers
use them somewhat interchangeably. Also, some devices combine some
or all of the functions of both--so what do you call them?

A direct box (or DI, for "Direct Injection") is a device allowing
you to feed some signal not intended to interface directly with a
recording or PA mixer directly into such a mixer. They usually
do two things: provide a high impedance load to the source and
a low impedance source for the mixer (impedance conversion), and
provide a balanced (3-wire) output from a single-ended (2-wire)
input. They usually also attenuate the signal down to the low levels
typical of a microphone output. Not all DIs split the signal. Most that
do actually don't really "split" it, but just ride the signal to the
speakers. A "splitter" is a different kind of box altogether, used mostly
for doing recording of live shows (allowing the signal sources
to feed both the PA mixer and the recording mixer).

A preamp is a less well-defined beast. Basically, it's something between
a source and an amplifier (preamp = before the amp). Since all kinds
of things could be done here, all kinds of devices take this name.
The simplest I've seen is a "passive preamp" that does little more
than provide switching between alternate sources for the amp, and
some attenuation. However, the two things common to most preamps are
gain---they amplify the input signal---and *impedance conversion*
(which one can view as power gain). This is in contrast to DIs,
which as I said above often attenuate the input signal, lowering it down
to microphone level. Many preamps also provide some EQ control, at
varying levels of sophistication. Some also provide a balanced
output (thus essentially performing the task of a DI). Some also
provide power to the input device via some sort of phantom power
scheme.

All common acoustic guitar transducers (except for external mics)
require either a preamp or DI, but some manufacturers include them
with their transducers. For example, piezo pickups require a very
high impedance load; if you plug them straight into a mixer they
will sound horrible. But many come with onboard preamps (any that
require a battery have one) that provides impedance conversion and
usually some gain (but no EQ and no balanced output). Internal mic
elements typically don't require impedance conversion, but do require
a power source, and either gain or conversion to a balanced topology,
so they need a specialized preamp of some kind, too (which inevitably
provides impedance conversion as well).

So... if you are using anything other than an external mic, you need
a preamp and/or DI. If you are using a single pickup that has its
own preamp, you may not need anything else (depends on how happy you
are with the tone, how far you are running the signal, etc.). If
not, you need a preamp of some kind, and it's probably in your
interest to invest in one that provides balanced outputs so you
never need a DI. If you already have a preamp that does not
provide balanced output (like those that come with pickups, or
external units like the Fishman Pro EQ), you may need a DI if you
a running a long (>15 or 20') cable to the mixer (balanced wiring is
much more immune to many types of noise pickup than single-ended
wiring).

If you don't have a preamp, it is possible to buy a DI to use
directly with your pickup, but you have to be careful. Though all
DIs have hi impedance inputs and low impedance outputs, "hi" can
be quite different from one DI to another. Passive DIs (don't
require any battery or power source) use a transformer, and their
"hi" impedance input is typically only 5-100 kOhms, well below
the several MOhm range a piezo pickup requires. You must use
an active DI if there is no preamp between your pickup and the
DI. The Countryman Type 85 DI is probably the one with the best
reputation for use with piezo pickups; cost is about $165. For
only a little more you can get the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI,
which is really a preamp+EQ+DI, and is thus the more sensible investment
if you intend to use the device only for acoustic guitar amplification.

Well, we can go on and on about this, but perhaps this is already
more than what you need to know...?

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Difference btwn preamp and Direct box? [3]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Difference btwn preamp and Direct box?
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 15:07:38 -0500

Hi Jae et al.-

jae il "Joker" Ko wrote:
> If i got
> this right, a DI merely changes a 1/4 line signal into a more feasible lower
> impedence XLR for use to plug into a mixer. So in essence if the mixer has
> 1/4 inputs all i need is a preamp and don't really need a DI. Also, doesn't
> the preamp provide enough signal output to combat signal degredation through
> long cable lines?

Maybe a word about balanced lines is in order. On a normal unbalanced
cable, the shield is "ground" (the reference from which voltages are
measured), and the inner conductor is the signal. Any noise that
somehow couples to the signal appears at the mixer and is amplified
along with the signal. There is no universal rule that tells you how
long you can run. In a room or venue that is very quiet (electrically),
you can probably run a line level signal over many tens of meters of
good quality cable without running into problems (though eventually
loading from the cable itself will cause problems). If you are always
playing in the same place, just experiment and see if you have noise
problems using unbalanced cable. If not, don't worry about a DI.

In a balanced cable, there is a ground connection, but also two
signal connections. One carries the normal signal (similar to the
one in an unbalanced cable), the other caries the same signal inverted
(multiplied by -1). At the mixer, these two signals are subtracted
from each other. In the absence of any noise, the mixer thus
sees (signal - (-signal)) = 2*signal, twice the signal level. If
noise gets picked up, many types of noise (e.g. AC hum) will be picked
up equally by both signal cables. The mixer subtracts them and
sees (signal+noise - (-signal+noise)) = 2*signal... the noise is
gone!! Now in practice the inversion and subtraction aren't perfect,
and some noise sources don't couple equally, but usually the noise
reduction is very substantial. That's the advantage of the balanced
topology. If you find yourself playing in different places, it's
a pretty safe bet that somewhere along the line you'll be in an
electrically noisy room (flourescent lights in particular can be
troublesome), so for a touring musician it's best to use short
unbalanced cables and a DI. If you are touring to venues that have
their own PA, they often will have a DI, but it still may be a good
investment. If you already have an active preamp, you can get a
passive DI for probably around $35 or so (certainly on the used market).

> Also, concerning these pieces of equipment, tubes rule right?

Oh man, do I really want to get into this? 8-) You know, the bottom
line here really is to use your ears. Try what you have access to, and
use what sounds best to you.

That said, I'll go on a bit and perhaps get myself into some hot water....
I have a tube preamp for my electric guitar, and in fact I built tube
preamps for my guitars back in my teens. (And yes, the transistor had
been invented then!) But I do not believe it is a general rule that
"tubes rule." It certainly is a general marketing rule in the last
couple years, though. 8-)

The main thing that's different about tubes (in terms of how they
affect tone) is that they distort differently than normal (bipolar)
transistors (some FETs -- field effect transistors -- distort similar
to tubes). Thus if distortion is something you are after, there will
be noticable differences between tube and transistor equipment (though
simulations of tube distortion are getting better with time).

If you want accuracy, then the tube vs. transistor issue is much more
subtle. As you may know, tube mics and tube mic preamps and compressors
are quite popular in high-end pro studios. But if you talk to the
folks on rec.audio.pro about this, you'll discover that these devices
are very different from the cheap imitations like the ART Tube MP.
The latter skimp on things that make "real" tube preamps expensive
(like hefty power supplies and quality input transformers) and intentionally
distort the sound a bit. You may like what you hear, but these devices
should properly be considered effects and not preamps. In fact, many
of the tube gurus on rec.audio.pro think the high quality tube mic
preamp "sound" has more to do with the use of high quality (= expensive!)
input and output transformers than with the tube technology itself.
That is, a properly used tube is a very quiet and accurate amplifier;
any "coloring" arises from other elements of the circuit or intentional
filtering.

One other factor to consider is that one sometimes unintentionally
causes distortion, simply by playing extra loud or hard. If you are
using a transistor preamp, the distortion products can sound quite
harsh. With tubes or FETs, they are usually considered more musical.
So one might prefer tube or FET circuits for this kind of "safety valve"
aspect as well.

Personally, the goal I strive for with my acoustic guitar equipment
is accuracy. Because FETs make far superior hi impedance input stages
than bipolar transistors, every transistor/IC acoustic guitar preamp
I know of has a FET input stage (including my own designs). This gives
you that tube-like "safety valve" distortion, at least at the input
stage. After that, I don't see any intrinsic benefit in tube or
transistor/IC stages---if either is built with good quality, it should
sound transparent. It is much more expensive to build quality, transparent
tube equipment, so transistor/IC equipment is the obvious economical
choice.

But again, the bottom line is your ears. If you like the distorted
sound the ART Tube MP provides for you, go for it! As for the Demeter,
I haven't used it. But I think the rec.audio.pro folks would put it
in a different class from the ART (which is rather reviled as a real
tube mic preamp). But for this reason it may actually appeal less
to you---if what you like about the ART is actually the distortion,
you'll probably get less of it with a better quality unit like the
Demeter.

For what it's worth, the most affordable high quality "real"
tube mic preamp the rec.audio.pro folks recommend is (believe it or
not) the Peavy unit (around $650, I think). I don't have any experience
with it myself.

Finally, regarding ART vs. Para Acoustic DI---these boxes have such
different capabilities that perhaps you need to rethink your choices.
The PADI has extensive EQ capability; the ART has none at all that
I can recall. If you find yourself never needing or wanting EQ, you
probably shouldn't be looking at the PADI (though EQ may occassionally
come in handy to control feedback in a feedback-prone venue). You really
need to think about what you need in terms of function here, and then
consider tone.

Hope this helps!

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Difference btwn preamp and Direct box?
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 15:23:42 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Hi Choo Liang-

<chooliang@mailhost...> wrote:

> I just installed a Martin Thinline Gold Plus pickup (with a built-in preamp)
> into my classical guitar, and I running it into a BBE Acoustic Preamp 386.
> Practically, I don't neet another DI Box, unless I am running a long cable to
> the house mixer, right?

Right.

> Or is this setup logical in the first place? What if I
> want to add some effects? Where should the effects box be in the chain?

As in many things audio, you can't break anything, so try the different
options and use whatever you like best. Some people develop a unique
tone by doing things the "wrong" way. That said, I'd probably start with
the effects after the BBE (presuming it doesn't have balanced outs that
you are using). I have never used one myself; if it has an effects
loop, that of course would be the most natural location for the effects.

FWIW, the only pro player I've ever seen with the BBE is Cliff Eberhardt.
He liked it, but has since moved to a dual-source setup and a Rane AP13,
which he likes much better. Kind of comparing apples and oranges, though
(single vs. dual source). Cliff's live sound, by the way, is killer.
It's based around a lovely guitar built for him by Peter Granata, a
NJ luthier who sometimes posts here in RMMGA. A real nice guy.

> I am thinking of replacing the BBE with a Baggs Para DI or the Sansamp
> Acoustic DI. Would there be a great difference?

Can't help you here, as I haven't used the BBE or Sansamp myself. Based
on what I know, the Sansamp seems more competitive with the Baggs, in that
both have fairly sophisticated EQ (as I recall the BBE has only bass and
treble or something like that, with the enhancer). The Sansamp is
designed to distort a bit, like an overdriven tube amp, if you want it
to. At least one report here loved that effect, but I haven't heard
it myself yet. I'm intrigued, but a bit skeptical.

> I hope I could try out all these DIs to hear them and decide for myself, but
> unfortunately, some of these great equipment are not available in this part of
> the world.

I'm with you here! I'm a bit off the beaten track myself. One thing
to keep in mind is that some mailorder houses have a no-questions-asked
return policy, just for folks like us who have no way to try things out.
You may only get credit (rather than a full refund) though. I haven't
yet relied on this myself.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Difference btwn preamp and Direct box?
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 15:07:38 -0500

Hi Jae et al.-

jae il "Joker" Ko wrote:
> If i got
> this right, a DI merely changes a 1/4 line signal into a more feasible lower
> impedence XLR for use to plug into a mixer. So in essence if the mixer has
> 1/4 inputs all i need is a preamp and don't really need a DI. Also, doesn't
> the preamp provide enough signal output to combat signal degredation through
> long cable lines?

Maybe a word about balanced lines is in order. On a normal unbalanced
cable, the shield is "ground" (the reference from which voltages are
measured), and the inner conductor is the signal. Any noise that
somehow couples to the signal appears at the mixer and is amplified
along with the signal. There is no universal rule that tells you how
long you can run. In a room or venue that is very quiet (electrically),
you can probably run a line level signal over many tens of meters of
good quality cable without running into problems (though eventually
loading from the cable itself will cause problems). If you are always
playing in the same place, just experiment and see if you have noise
problems using unbalanced cable. If not, don't worry about a DI.

In a balanced cable, there is a ground connection, but also two
signal connections. One carries the normal signal (similar to the
one in an unbalanced cable), the other caries the same signal inverted
(multiplied by -1). At the mixer, these two signals are subtracted
from each other. In the absence of any noise, the mixer thus
sees (signal - (-signal)) = 2*signal, twice the signal level. If
noise gets picked up, many types of noise (e.g. AC hum) will be picked
up equally by both signal cables. The mixer subtracts them and
sees (signal+noise - (-signal+noise)) = 2*signal... the noise is
gone!! Now in practice the inversion and subtraction aren't perfect,
and some noise sources don't couple equally, but usually the noise
reduction is very substantial. That's the advantage of the balanced
topology. If you find yourself playing in different places, it's
a pretty safe bet that somewhere along the line you'll be in an
electrically noisy room (flourescent lights in particular can be
troublesome), so for a touring musician it's best to use short
unbalanced cables and a DI. If you are touring to venues that have
their own PA, they often will have a DI, but it still may be a good
investment. If you already have an active preamp, you can get a
passive DI for probably around $35 or so (certainly on the used market).

Does the McIntyre pickup need a preamp? [2]
From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Does the McIntyre pickup need a preamp?
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 14:01:49 -0700
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900)

In article <<34FF0B4F.D7C6AA1F@spacenet...>>, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

> Hi Carlo-
>
> I have no McIntyre experience. Hopefully Larry Pattis will chime
> in here; he's used them a lot. You might try contacting him directly
> if he doesn't contribute to this thread. Even better, contact McIntyre
> himself and find out his recommendations.
>
> Since the Mc is an unbuffered piezo pickup, I strongly suspect it will
> benefit significantly from a hi impedance preamp. An electric guitar
> pedal equalizer does not quite qualify as a hi impedance preamp here.
> Most of these do have significantly higher input impedances than a
> standard mixer (100k to 1 M Ohm), but this is still not as high as
> is typical for piezo applications (10 MOhm). If you happen to have
> one, you can't hurt anything by trying it out, and it will probably
> be a step better than going direct to a mixer. But you'll almost
> certainly benefit by getting a "real" acoustic preamp or EQ unit.
>
> Peace,
> Tom Loredo

Tom is correct, as usual.

I can't tell you about the relative impedences (impedencii?), but plugged
in to a quality pre-amp provides a much better sound than by going directly
into a mixing board with the McIntyre sbt. Same would be true for the
Fishman sbt. IMHO.

Larry Pattis

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but not in
practice.

The top header is to reduce spam. You can really find me at
<lpattis"at"xmission"dot"com>.


From: MosesTey <mosestey@aol...>
Subject: Re: Does the McIntyre pickup need a preamp?
Date: 6 Mar 1998 05:00:03 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Yes, the McIntyre will benefit from a pre-amp. Carl McIntyre has one designed
just for the McIntyre that you can purchase.

Blessings,
Moses

Advice on Acoustic guitar setup for gigs
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Advice on Acoustic guitar setup for gigs
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:56:35 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

Kurt wrote:

> My favorite bargain for Preamps is the DOD bi-fet preamp. List is around
> $80us and you might even get someone to let it go for as low as 50 american
> smackers.

I had one of these for a while, and though it's not great and I sold it,
Kurt is right that it's the cheapest hi-Z buffer you're likely to find
(I haven't seen them lately; are they still being made?). One tip:
If you trace the schematic, you discover that it's a two-stage unit,
with the 1st stage providing buffering and the 2nd very basic (one knob)
tone control. When the unit is "off," the 1st stage is actually still
working. Well, it turns out that the LED that indicates it's "on" is
actually drawing significantly more current than the preamp itself!
So if you don't need the tone control, just leave it "off." You will
still get all the benefits of a moderate quality hi-Z buffer, and your
battery will last longer.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Boss AD5
From: Nick Naffin <takenote@interlog...>
Subject: Re: Boss AD5
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:22:33 -0700
Organization: Take Note! Promotion

Dennis Smith wrote:

> Harold Vann wrote:
> >
> > Is there anyone out there using the Boss-AD5 acoustic processor? What's
> > the going rate for it and how do you use it.
> >
>
> I've seen it going for around 350.00. I hear it's a wonderful thing.
> It's got your chorus, direct box, verb, treb. bass. mid, a microphone
> simulator, feedback control, plus other bells and whistles. Wonderful,
> if you need all that stuff. For me just give me a chorus and verb and
> I'm set.

    Hi there.
    I've been using the AD5 for about a year now, and I think it's a good
unit.
Using it live, the preamp section packs quite a punch, and the eq is more
than adaequate. I find the verb quite nice, too, although maybe a little too
trebly; but then I just use very little of that for a quick one and add the
RV3 for the hall reverb, something I find works better than the AD5's mic
simulator, which essentially puts a very short verb before the actual
reverb. The 'body' function essentially is some fancy eq shaping, but can
come in handy when you're doing a quick sketch on a Tascam or Fostex.
    The chorus is quite tasty [if you need all that stuff ...  ;-)  ] I like
the idea that it has inputs for both piezo and magnetic pick-ups; and the
built-in DI makes good sense and has worked well for me at festivals [at
least it gives me the illusion of not being totally at the mercy of the
soundperson; especially at folk festivals, where 'no reverb' sometimes seems
policy ].
    All in all, I can recommend it - although, one observation I've made is
that you have to use the eq very carefully, and do a thorough soundcheck
whenever you use it, because it seems to actually have the tendency to make
the guitar sound more "pick-upy".
    For a little further description check the 'sound and equipment' page at
my website @
          http://www.interlog.com/~takenote/nicknaffin.htm
    Hope this helps.
    Nick

--
*********************************************
Take Note! Promotion Phone: (416) 781-4393
Toronto, ON e-mail: <takenote@interlog...>
CANADA http://www.interlog.com/~takenote
*********************************************
Representing musicians who excel in craft and performance,
and make a professional and heartfelt contribution to a
living, growing Canadian acoustic music scene.

D.I.boxes and preamps (Was: What does "D.I. box" mean?)
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: D.I.boxes and preamps (Was: What does "D.I. box" mean?)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:08:48 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi Carlo-

1. A "simple" DI box is enough, provided that you include active DIs
in your "simple" category. A $30 transformer-based DI will not have
high enough impedance for the McIntyre. The standard active DI is
the Countryman Type 85, which will set you back over $150 (new). It
has no tone controls, but offers the other standard DI functions
(unbalanced 1/4" send, ground lift). More affordable is the DOD
active direct box. I haven't used it and can't comment on the price
or quality, but I suspect it would be fine and more affordable than
the Type 85. These offer no tone or gain adjustment (except perhaps
a -20dB pad switch or something like that).

A simple low-budget solution is the DOD BiFET preamp pedal. This is
a pedal that sells for about $45 that takes a 1/4" unbalanced input
(hi or low Z) and gives you a low-Z unbalanced 1/4" output. It has
a single gain control and a single "tone" control. Actually, it
provides hi-Z buffering even when the pedal is "off"---hitting the
pedal just cuts in the gain/tone stage. So if you have enough gain
and tone control at the board, leave it off and your battery will last
longer (the LED that is the "on" indicator takes as much or more current as
the chips inside!). This was my own first acoustic preamp years ago.
I'm not sure DOD still makes them, though.

To be ready to battle hum, you might invest in the BiFET, and the $12
impedance matching transformer from Radio Shack. If you get hum with
the BiFET, try using a short cable to the BiFET, and a short cable to
the transformer, and then a mic cable (XLRs) to the mixer. You've basically
built an active DI with these two components and a cable between them.

By the way, the ground lift switch that Bob alluded to is unlikely to
help you with hum. Such a switch is important when the source is
AC powered, and hum is being picked up via a ground loop thru the AC
ground line. For battery powered gear, the ground lift switch probably
won't do anything.

2. Bob is right-on here, though the DOD BiFET preamp pedal is a
counterexample to his "low Z output is nearly always balanced" claim,
as are the Fishman ProEQ and the original Baggs EQ pedal (not the
Para Acoustic DI). In fact, most small acoustic guitar preamp/EQ
gear until recently had unbalanced low Z outputs, with the notable
exception of the Blender and Pocket Blender. The Baggs ParaAcoustic DI
and Sansamp Acoustic DI seem to signal the start of a trend to produce
more road-worthy configurations.

3. Read Bob's response. I'll copy an old post on balanced connections
below that may help your understanding here. If you ever happen to play
in a venue with a flourescent light or a neon sign near where you're
playing, you can get amazing hum problems from unbalanced lines even if
they are as short as 15' (and especially if you are using an electromagnetic
pickup or dynamic mic). But in most rooms a 15' to 20' unbalanced run
should not be a problem. I don't know of any good live mics that have an
unbalanced output, as Bob hinted at. Even the budget ones have XLR outs.

And if an overhead flourescent light or a neon sign are causing your
problems, ask the venue if you can just turn them off!

4. Repeating what Bob said: Public Address.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

------- old post ----------
jae il "Joker" Ko wrote:
> If i got
> this right, a DI merely changes a 1/4 line signal into a more feasible lower
> impedence XLR for use to plug into a mixer. So in essence if the mixer has
> 1/4 inputs all i need is a preamp and don't really need a DI. Also, doesn't
> the preamp provide enough signal output to combat signal degredation through
> long cable lines?

Maybe a word about balanced lines is in order. On a normal unbalanced
cable, the shield is "ground" (the reference from which voltages are
measured), and the inner conductor is the signal. Any noise that
somehow couples to the signal appears at the mixer and is amplified
along with the signal. There is no universal rule that tells you how
long you can run. In a room or venue that is very quiet (electrically),
you can probably run a line level signal over many tens of meters of
good quality cable without running into problems (though eventually
loading from the cable itself will cause problems). If you are always
playing in the same place, just experiment and see if you have noise
problems using unbalanced cable. If not, don't worry about a DI.

In a balanced cable, there is a ground connection, but also two
signal connections. One carries the normal signal (similar to the
one in an unbalanced cable), the other caries the same signal inverted
(multiplied by -1). At the mixer, these two signals are subtracted
from each other. In the absence of any noise, the mixer thus
sees (signal - (-signal)) = 2*signal, twice the signal level. If
noise gets picked up, many types of noise (e.g. AC hum) will be picked
up equally by both signal cables. The mixer subtracts them and
sees (signal+noise - (-signal+noise)) = 2*signal... the noise is
gone!! Now in practice the inversion and subtraction aren't perfect,
and some noise sources don't couple equally, but usually the noise
reduction is very substantial. That's the advantage of the balanced
topology. If you find yourself playing in different places, it's
a pretty safe bet that somewhere along the line you'll be in an
electrically noisy room (flourescent lights in particular can be
troublesome), so for a touring musician it's best to use short
unbalanced cables and a DI. If you are touring to venues that have
their own PA, they often will have a DI, but it still may be a good
investment. If you already have an active preamp, you can get a
passive DI for probably around $35 or so (certainly on the used market).

B-Band dual source review [2]
From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: B-Band dual source review
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 16:41:33 -0600
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0852)

In article <<354500f4.183055307@newsstand...>>,
<des24@cornell...> wrote:

> I'm getting a B-Band dual source installed in about a month in my
> Martin D-1. I was wondering what you guys thought were the best
> things to plug the stereo signal into. I noticed that Larry was using
> a Fishman pocket blender. If anyone can give info on any blenders
> that may be available, including price and brief run-through of
> features, I would greatly appreciate it. My only wish is a separate
> EQ for each channel (just 2- or 3-frequency EQ is fine). Thanks for
> any and all help that you can give!
>
> Dan
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Daniel E. Smith http://www.dreamscape.com/esmith/dansm/

Dan,

Folks will have a variety of opinions (what else is new) about this type of
gear. Off the shelf stuff includes the Fishman Blender & Pocket Blender,
the Rane AP-13, and the Pendulum gear, usually the SPS-1 is referred to.

I definitely don't have time to go into all the ins & outs of these three
fine pieces of gear. I have owned all three of them, and prefer to use the
most simple & compact unit for any playing out, the Pocket Blender.

Quickly; The Pendulum SPS-1 is over a Grand ($$$$), and is crystal clear
with two three band parametric eqs. Doubles as a studio pre-amp, which can
be a major plus if you need a studio pre-amp! Overkill, IMO, for live
concert applications, although many folks swear by'em. Lots of good I/O's
on the back.

AP-13 has 2 seven band graphic eqs. Lots of I/O flexibility (more than the
Pendulum) on the back panel, and is considered "lower" quality than the
Pendulum...in terms of components & price! Gets a great sound live, no
fooling around with parametric eqs in an emergency, and is a single rack
space (like the SPS-1). Around $550.

The Blender mounts on a mic stand, reasonable I/O's for most live
applications and gets a good sound, HOWEVER, the *Pocket Blender* version
has better components, an additional high filter on the mic side, and is
generally as good as anyone will ever need for live performance. Both
Blernder & P.B. have low & high eq knobs for each channel, and phase
reversal buttons. With these simple controls I have had no problems
getting great live sound, of course I have good stuff in my guitars, as
well. I get, IMO, actually a better, more acoustic sound out of the PB
than either of the more expensive units above. Runs very quiet, as well.
PB systems are in the $450-475 neighborhood if I remember correctly.

Larry Pattis


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: B-Band dual source review
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:47:29 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

Funny how opinions differ....

I have a Pendulum HZ-10 (their older mono unit) and a Fishman Blender
(the full one, not the pocket one), and Rane loaned me the AP-13 for
about two months to review and demo.

The Pendulum is definitely the most capable and best-crafted unit,
as Larry said. However, the Rane is also remarkably well made for
a commercial unit. The basic components are almost the same quality
as the Pendulum. I prefer parametric EQ (Pendulum) to Graphic (Rane),
but as Larry said, in a rush (or if you don't have a great ear for
EQ) the graphic is easier to use, though it offers less "surgical
precision." The Pendulum you have to buy direct, and it's about $1k.
The Rane $550 price Larry mentioned is actually the list price
(well, $569, I think), and you should be able to get it for quite
a bit below that.

I must say that as impressed as I was with the Rane before the loan
(based on great live sounds that Cliff Eberhardt and Tom Prasada-Rao
got with it), I only got more impressed once I had one to play with
and take apart to examine in detail. It also has extensive i/o for
effects and auxiliary inputs, and in an amplification workshop I gave
I used it as the centerpiece, routing 4 transducers through it thanks
to the extra inputs. Worth every penny they ask for it.

In comparison with these devices, the Blender is not quite junk, but pretty
close (given its high price). Cheap parts, cheap construction, uninspired
design. The basic tone (all EQ set flat) is comparable to that
of the Rane and Pendulum, but it's a lot noisier. The EQ capability
is poor---just bass and treble. Just adding a midrange control
at the right place would have made it much more suitable for
acoustic guitar sound scultping. Considering that this box costs about
as much as a Mackie 1202vlz, but has less capability than two of
the Mackie's 8 channel strips, it's astonishing to me that it sells as
well as it does. But the truth is, no one has come out with anything
that fits the bill the way the Fishman does, in terms of providing
basic capability in a small package. Despite its many disappointments,
it's what I currently use in my "portable" live setup, though I
bought mine used for $150 (about it's actual value, in my opinion),
and modified it to take a 3rd input.

It was news to me to learn from Larry's post that the Pocket Blender
actually uses better components and a better circuit. I've never
tried one myself. The one player I know who compared the full and
pocket versions preferred the full one. I do know that I have never heard
anyone get a good sound through one, but that could be for reasons other than
the quality of the preamp (ie, the choice and installation of transducers).
You can get one for a bit less than the $450+ number Larry
quoted; Stewart MacDonald sells them for something like $380.
It is very clear, both from Larry's posts but especially from the sound
of his CD *Random Chance*, that Larry is a stickler for good tone.
So I presume that with good pickups the Pocket Blender works fine.

That said, if you are going to spend this kind of money, I'd strongly
suggest you consider saving up 25% more and go with the Rane if you don't
mind carrying a full rack space unit, or with a Mackie 1202vlz if
your pickup/mic has onboard preamp/phantom power (as the dual
source B-band does). In the latter case, you'll also get 2 other
mono channels and 4 stereo channels to build a small PA system
around, and the two channels you use for the transducers will have
midrange controls. The one thing the Blenders provide here that
you may miss is "phase" or "invert" switches. I'd personally rather
have the midrange control. Both would be nice, though!

I believe EMF will have a Blender-like-object coming out in the
next few months. From what little I know of it, it should compete
very well with the Blender line. It's about time!

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Transducers, mics, & pre-amps
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Transducers, mics, & pre-amps
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 17:11:14 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Larry Pattis wrote:
>

> Or you can build your own pre-amp like Tom Loredo and
> combine three signals...but I thought I would limit this discussion to
> available equipment.

Though I have a pretty complicated custom unit for 3 transducers,
lately, for reasons of convenience, I've been using a modified
Fishman Blender (full, not pocket). Turns out it's pretty trivial
to convert the 1/4" mic output jack on the back to a 3rd input
channel (if I recall correctly, it required removing 1 resistor
on the rear board, and adding it to the main board with a jumper
to the jack). Thus if you have a 3rd transducer that already has
a preamp providing buffering and volume control (like a B-band
with the New Frontier preamp, or any standard pickup with a
Baggs Para Acoustic DI or Fishman Pro EQ), you can plug it in
the Blender as a third source. So it's actually not so hard to
run a 3-source system.

The quality of the B-band reduces the need for it, however.

Peace,
Tom

Adding Electronics to Taylor
From: MikeyJake <mikeyjake@aol...>
Subject: Re: Adding Electronics to Taylor
Date: 17 May 1998 22:39:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>
>Oh I agree. I was just speaking about the Matrix by itself. I was under
>the impression that the blender system can be added to the matrix. I
>contacted Fishman about that very thing. I have two matrixs in both of
>my guitars and thinking about up grading to the blender deal, by adding
>the Crown condensors and getting 1 pocket blender for the both of them.
>How do you like the Blender? Is it as good as using a pick up and an
>external mike and mixing it through the PA? The pick ups by themselves
>sound great, now I think I'll look into the next phase and buy the
>pocket thing.

I don't think you'll be able to beat 1 or 2 external mikes with a pickup system
(because guitars are designed to sound best in front of (not inside) the
soundhole), but the Blender is the closest thing I've ever heard to external
mikes.

I bought a Taylor 710CE with the Blender built in, and it sounds phenomenal.
The piezo sounds OK (like all other piezos I've heard), but when you mix in the
internal mike there is a world of difference. It adds the low end "boom" and
overtones that real acoustic guitar sound has. My 710 was the first amplified
guitar I ever heard (through one of those Fishman amps) that could actually be
mistaken for a non-amped acoustic... I had a friend play outside the soundbooth
while I was inside with the amp, and it really did come close to the natural
sound.

I do believe that the blender can be added to the Matrix - thats what the
outboard system is for, and they give you a set of controls that clips in the
soundhole...

mgj

The Only True Wisdom is Knowing that You Know Nothing

Straussman Audio's matchman pick-up
From: Patrick <ptrkmc@pacifier...>
Subject: Re: Straussman Audio's matchman pick-up
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:02:35 -0700

<DNestlerode@pc...> wrote in message
<6kkfl8$4o5$<1@nnrp1...>>...
> Does anyone know if Straussman Audio still exists, and how I can get a
>hold of them? And while we're at it: any impressions of the Matchman
pick-up?

Mark Straussman is a local engineer here in Vancouver Washington who worked
for a hi-tech company like Hewllet-Packard or Intel or someone like that.
Actually, I'm not sure if he still lives here, but the last I heard he had
abandoned his preamp system. I think there are still music stores in the
area that have a stock of the preamp. I can give some names and numbers if
you want them.

Just a note on the preamp: There is a guitarist in the area named John
Standefer (sp?) who is pretty incredible player. He was complaining to Mark
Straussman about the shortcomings of various p/u and preamp designs. Thus
the Straussman p/u concept. I had one of the preamps in a Guild a few years
ago. It sounded great, but I couldn't hear the difference between that
particular preamp and any other popular one built at the time.

Patrick

Can u change the pick up in a Takamine?
From: Bradley Price <bprice@imagina...>
Subject: Re: Can u change the pick up in a Takamine?
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 07:25:53 -0700
Organization: The World's Usenet -- http://www.Supernews.com

WIth many built-in preamps, they don't have sufficiently low output
impedence to drive typical high-Z input on a board, and get tinny. Never
use one (Takamine, EMG, Fishman) to drive a load of less than 100K ohms
(most boards are 20K or less).

I've used a Tak as a stage guitar (Martin HD-28 for recording, etc.) with
great results using a Trace Elliot acoustic cube and / or LR Baggs
Para-Acoustic DI / EQ.

Watch out for a "fat" sounding acoustic pickup - my experience there has
been that they sound great at home and turn into mud when trying to cut it
on stage! Things have to change to work in the mix.

Opinions:Baggs DI vs. SansAmp DI [3]
From: David J. MacKenzie <djm@catapult...>
Subject: Re: Opinions:Baggs DI vs. SansAmp DI
Date: 20 Jul 1998 17:13:23 -0400
Organization: UUNET Technologies

Charles Alexander <<caal@bphvax...>> writes:

> I was wondering if anyone here has tried both the Baggs Para Acoustic DI
> and the Tech 21 Sans Amp Acoustic DI ? What are your thoughts ? How do
> they sound to you and how easy are they to use ?

Yes, I own them both. The Baggs is better if your guitar's pickup
sounds good (I use it with a Dual Source); the Sans Amp might be
better if the pickup sounds lousy and needs a band-aid. My Sans Amp
actually seems to have died after a couple of months of light use, so
beware. I pulled it out of the box at a gig last Saturday and (even
with a fresh battery) could hardly get any output from it. I haven't
opened it up yet to check for cracked solder joints or whatever.


From: <rocky_jones@my-dejanews...>
Subject: Re: Opinions:Baggs DI vs. SansAmp DI
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 06:13:38 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion

  caal@bphvax.biophysics.rochester.edu wrote:
> Hello
>
> I was wondering if anyone here has tried both the Baggs Para Acoustic DI
> and the Tech 21 Sans Amp Acoustic DI ? What are your thoughts ? How do
> they sound to you and how easy are they to use ?
>
> I'm thinking of purchasing one of these units and am leaning towards the
> SansAmp. I'm also curious to know which mail-order outfit might offer
> the best price. Thanks very much in advance.
>
> Charles Alexander

Hi Charles,

I've tried both side-by-side. The Tech21 Acoustic DI sounded good as an EQ
until I began dialing in the "tube mic emulation (don't recall the name of
the knob)", at which point the tone became increasingly mediocre, IMO. I
considered keeping it for its EQ purposes but felt I could do better for the
$$$, since the majority of the cost seems to be centered around its mic
emulation. The Baggs DI's tone was good-to-great - excellent flexibility,
and intuitive in use. Considering the price of the Tech21 unit, the Baggs was
a better value, as well. The only drawback to the Baggs unit is the control
buttons/knobs: difficult to glance at quickly to assess settings. Besides the
last criticism (which can be remedied with an application of nail polish to
small knob indentations), the Baggs unit is the better DI/EQ, IMO.

Hope this helps, and best regards.

Blessings in Christ,
Rocky Jones

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum


From: George Reiswig <george_reiswig@ccm...>
Subject: Re: Opinions:Baggs DI vs. SansAmp DI
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:14:49 -0700
Organization: Intel Corp.

I think I posted something about my experience several months ago when I
first compared them. I purchased both, and ended up sending back the
SansAmp. The Baggs was clearer sounding, more versatile. There was some
additional control on the SansAmp that attracted my attention in the ad, but
it was disappointing. For less money, the Baggs sounds better.

GR

Charles Alexander wrote:

> Hello
>
> I was wondering if anyone here has tried both the Baggs Para Acoustic DI
> and the Tech 21 Sans Amp Acoustic DI ? What are your thoughts ? How do
> they sound to you and how easy are they to use ?
>
> I'm thinking of purchasing one of these units and am leaning towards the
> SansAmp. I'm also curious to know which mail-order outfit might offer
> the best price. Thanks very much in advance.
>
> Charles Alexander

--
George S. Reiswig
From: <guitar.guide@miningco...> (Joe Mazza)
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic,alt.guitar,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.marketplace
Subject: Re: WTB: L.R. Baggs Para-Acoustic D.I.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:36:56 -0400
Organization: Guitar Guide, The Mining Co.
Lines: 50

In article <<35D9DD78.70FC90A8@spacenet...>>, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

> Howdy-
>
> Joe Mazza wrote:
> >
> > In article <<35d10e77.79486782@news...>>,
> > <70X7rocky_jones@hotmail...> (Rocky Jones) wrote:
>
> > Hi there-
> >
> > Have you tried the Sans Amp Acoustic DI? It's basically the same unit,
> > but it sounds tons better than the LR Baggs one. I bought both and AB'd
> > them and the difference was amazing! Check it out instead!
>
> I have not tried the Sans Amp box, but these are not "basically the
> same unit" and there is far from a consensus among those who tried
> both that the SA one "sounds tons better than the LR Baggs one." In
> fact, the last two posts on RMMGA comparing these two boxes expressed
> exactly the opposite opinion.
>
> Try it, you may like it, you may not.
>
> Peace,
> Tom Loredo

Like I said, I bought both and checked each one out for 2 weeks straight.
They are basically the same unit (as far as features go, I wasn't trying
to imply they use the same circuitry) with the exception that the LR Baggs
has one more EQ control, and the SAns Amp has the "blend" control (which
adds their emulation circuitry to the sound).

I demoed the boxes with an old Martin D-18, about as nice of a steel
string as you could find- and to my ears and others, the Sans Amp had a
lot more presence, and bass response, and left the LR Baggs sounding sort
of wimpy. The tone controls on the Sans Amp are also much more
expressive- the LR Baggs had to be cranked to hear much difference, while
a slight adjustment in the Sans Amp EQ controls yeilded very noticeable
results. I'm not speaking of any consensus of opinion, only my own
testing of both units, with a great axe through multiple sound
systems... (which I consider a pretty good test!)

Joe

--
Joe Mazza
Guitar Guide, The Mining Co.
http://guitar.miningco.com
I mine the Net so you don't have to!

WTB: L.R. Baggs Para-Acoustic D.I. [2]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astrosun...>
Subject: Re: WTB: L.R. Baggs Para-Acoustic D.I.
Date: 19 Aug 1998 19:43:43 GMT
Organization: Cornell University

Hi Joe, et al.-

Joe, thanks for that informative followup; it's much more useful to
have a description of what exactly you liked and didn't like about
the two units than to have a categorical statement like "A is
tons better than B." I've archived your post with others to send
to those who ask me about these boxes.

For the record, the two previous posts I mentioned are copied
below.

> Like I said, I bought both and checked each one out for 2 weeks straight.
> They are basically the same unit (as far as features go, I wasn't trying
> to imply they use the same circuitry) with the exception that the LR Baggs
> has one more EQ control, and the SAns Amp has the "blend" control (which
> adds their emulation circuitry to the sound).

Not quite. The Baggs has five bands of EQ, two of them semiparametric
(7 knobs). The SansAmp has three bands of EQ, one of them
semiparametric (4 knobs). One of the Baggs bands is a notch designed
especially for dealing with low-end resonances and feedback problems;
the SansAmp has only wide-band EQ. The Baggs has a higher input
impedance (more than twice as high as the SansAmp; this is not very
important if your pickup has its own preamp, however). The Baggs adds
an invert switch that is sometimes useful for controling low-end
feedback, and is often useful when you are combining the pickup sound
with a signal from another transducer. Both have effects loops, but
the Baggs also has a direct out that taps the preamp stage (before EQ);
it's potentially useful for recording (where you might prefer an
outboard EQ), and in a live setting, for connecting to a tuner. The
Baggs has separate indicators for phantom power presence and battery
power; the battery lamp flashes when your battery is going low, giving
you a few hours advance warning before the box quits. Finally, the
Baggs has an internal control that lets you optimize the first stage
gain for your pickup. The range of control offered by all of the Baggs
controls has always been more than sufficient for me, not only with my
guitar, but also using it as a soundman for many others.

The knobs on the Baggs are lousy; you cannot read their position
in dim lighting. A bit of nail polish helps, as noted below. The
SansAmp has much nicer knobs.

The main virtue of the SansAmp is that it has a single "Blend" knob that
"mixes the amount of SansAmp circuitry with the direct instrument
signal." Thus if you like the timbre that comes from adding tube-like
distortion to your signal, the SansAmp may be the winner for you
(and despite that dirty word, "distortion," there are psychoacoustic
reasons why you might prefer a bit of this type of distortion).
If not, the Baggs offers significantly more capability in my opinion.
It's actually amazing what they squeezed into the Para Acoustic DI
at that price.

The web pages for these boxes are:

   http://www.tech21nyc.com/ADI.htm  ---  SansAmp
   http://www.lrbaggs.com/prod13.htm ---  Baggs
Peace,
Tom Loredo

-------------------------
From: <rocky_jones@my-dejanews...>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
Subject: Re: Opinions:Baggs DI vs. SansAmp DI
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 06:13:38 GMT

  caal@bphvax.biophysics.rochester.edu wrote:
> Hello
>
> I was wondering if anyone here has tried both the Baggs Para Acoustic DI
> and the Tech 21 Sans Amp Acoustic DI ? What are your thoughts ? How do
> they sound to you and how easy are they to use ?
>
> I'm thinking of purchasing one of these units and am leaning towards the
> SansAmp. I'm also curious to know which mail-order outfit might offer
> the best price. Thanks very much in advance.
>
> Charles Alexander

Hi Charles,

I've tried both side-by-side. The Tech21 Acoustic DI sounded good as an EQ
until I began dialing in the "tube mic emulation (don't recall the name of
the knob)", at which point the tone became increasingly mediocre, IMO. I
considered keeping it for its EQ purposes but felt I could do better for the
$$$, since the majority of the cost seems to be centered around its mic
emulation. The Baggs DI's tone was good-to-great - excellent flexibility,
and intuitive in use. Considering the price of the Tech21 unit, the Baggs was
a better value, as well. The only drawback to the Baggs unit is the control
buttons/knobs: difficult to glance at quickly to assess settings. Besides the
last criticism (which can be remedied with an application of nail polish to
small knob indentations), the Baggs unit is the better DI/EQ, IMO.

Hope this helps, and best regards.

Blessings in Christ,
Rocky Jones

--------------------------
From: George Reiswig <<george_reiswig@ccm...>>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
Subject: Re: Opinions:Baggs DI vs. SansAmp DI
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:14:49 -0700

I think I posted something about my experience several months ago when I
first compared them. I purchased both, and ended up sending back the
SansAmp. The Baggs was clearer sounding, more versatile. There was some
additional control on the SansAmp that attracted my attention in the ad, but
it was disappointing. For less money, the Baggs sounds better.

GR


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: WTB: L.R. Baggs Para-Acoustic D.I.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:53:11 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

George C. Kaschner wrote:

> But, Tom, once you get past all that, aren't they basically the same???

Yes! 8-)

To be fair, they are both intended to accomplish the same thing---make
a single transducer signal sound better, and convert its unbalanced
signal topology to balanced. But the approaches are different, reflecting
the different backgrounds of the companies. Until now, Tech21 has worked
exclusively with electric instruments (guitar, bass), providing a
critically-acclaimed method for duplicating the sound of an overdriven
tube power stage driving a mic'ed electric guitar speaker. Their
Acoustic DI reflects this in that it provides some of this distortion/mic
ambience capability. Baggs has been in the acoustic amplification
industry for well over a decade, building pickups and preamps all that
time. The choices made in their Para Acoustic DI (esp. the number and
locations of the EQ bands) reflect long and intimate experience with
the difficulties of using piezo pickups.

That said, I'm intrigued about the SansAmp and would very much like
to hear it (I emphasize again that I have not used one myself!). But
from a "philosophical" standpoint, I prefer the idea of trying to
fix whatever is wrong with my transducer's tone (via carefully used
EQ) to the idea of trying to mask its problems by adding harmonic content
that isn't already there. But as I said, there is a big market for
"exciters" and other devices that add harmonics; some engineers love 'em
and some hate 'em. It's a matter of personal taste whether you like
what they do or not. This is evident in the diverse opinions (Joe is
at least the 2nd person to rave about the SansAmp here, by the way)
of the acoustic SansAmp.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Pre-Amps(Re: WTB: L.R. Baggs Para-Acoustic D.I.) [2]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Pre-Amps(Re: WTB: L.R. Baggs Para-Acoustic D.I.)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:40:35 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi folks-

John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter wrote:
>
> Tom Loredo wrote:
>
> > given their limited capabilities and less-than-amazing quality. But
> > there is presently no competition (the EMF/B-band folks will provide
> > some in a few months, but nothing is available now).
>
> Can you elaborate on this a bit more? I'm excited to try out their
> pickup, if it's as good as everyone says. If they can produce a blender
> of that same quality, I may just hold off on the Fishman for awhile.

EMF has a dual-source mixer in the works; it was pretty far along last
time I checked with them, but they had stopped working on it for a while
so they could do higher priority things (pickups for other instruments,
and the B-band PR version that replaces existing piezos in existing setups).
We discussed features, but I don't know what they settled on.

I'm working on something like this myself, to be offered in kit form,
and have been disussing some of the features with some pro players.
But I don't expect to have anything available before the New Year. The
EMF box will probably be more suitable for the masses than a kit in
any case.

After writing the earlier post, I remembered there is yet another
option: The Roland/Boss AD5. This is their acoustic preamp pedal,
which includes 4-band EQ, reverb, chorus, and anti-feedback
capability. It has two inputs, which are designed for a piezo
and a magnetic pickup (ie. no phantom power). However, if you use
the B-band dual source in its standard setup, where the mic is
powered by the internal battery, then the mic output should be
fine for the magnetic input on the AD5 (I emphasize I haven't
tried this!). I don't know what kind of inputs it takes (ie, whether
it requires two cables or the standard stereo cable), but this
might just suit you. As I recall, the price is about the price
of a Blender. It got a very good review in *Acoustic Guitar* last
year, but I have yet to hear one in action myself. If you do try
it, let us know how it works in this application. The one drawback
is that as far as I can tell you cannot separately EQ the two
inputs. This could be a serious problem given the likelihood of
boominess from the Mills mic. But if you can bring your guitar into
a store that has the AD5, it's probably worth a try.

Roland's AD5 page doesn't say much, but here it is:

http://www.rolandus.com/PRODUCTS/MI/BS_SP.HTM#AD-5

On their web site I also note they have a new footpedal called
the AD-3 that provides tone shaping and feedback control for
acoustics. But it doesn't seem to have dual source capability.
When are all these acoustic pedal folks going to catch on???

> Just out of curiousity, Tom: if you cover a lot of Phil Keaggy's
> repertoire, then you may have some the same needs for picking up guitar
> body percussion that I do (although I guess I can't think of any of his
> tunes that use anything nonstandard techniques beyond slap harmonics).
> What do you use?

I use a B-band dual source setup and a Sunrise pickup all going through
a Rane AP13. The B-band signal is going through their New Frontier
preamp (gain plus low and hi EQ) which is modified to remotely power
the B-band. The mic and Sunrise are going into the AP-13, and the
New Frontier output is going into one of the AP13 extra inputs (an
effects return, I believe) which I modified to have higher gain (just
changed one resistor). So I have three sources. But the Sunrise is
pretty low in the mix, and is only used for bass and fundamentals.
It thickens up the bass a bit (without worry of low-end feedback) and
also accentuates slapped harmonics slightly. But I'd be pretty happy
just with the B-band and mic (especially if I switched to the Mills mic,
but I seem to have hurt mine).

More to the point, Phil himself uses a much simpler setup: A Baggs
LB6 undersaddle pickup and their internal mic, with their Dual Source
or Duet in-guitar control (depends on the guitar). This goes to
a DBX compressor and a JamMan. One of his Langejans guitars has
an RMC pickup instead, but I don't know if he regularly tours with
that. For a while he used the Korg acoustic pedal (in their ToneWorks
series; I forget the number), and then stopped using it, but the new
Keaggy Club newsletter pictures his stage setup and it's there again,
if I recall correctly.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Pre-Amps(Re: WTB: L.R. Baggs Para-Acoustic D.I.)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:40:40 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

John-

John Z wrote:

> In any case, I am currently looking for some type of eq for my
> B-Band/Core installation. I'm leaning towards the L.R. Baggs Para
> Acoustic DI.
>
> Do you have any thoughts or recommendations?

Depends if it's just the B-band, or their dual-source version. For
just the B-band, the Baggs PADI is great. Though it sounds like
you may be a knob-twiddler (like me!), in which case if you already
have a graphic or (better) multi-band parametric EQ lying around,
it should work fine (the Core is a preamp and takes care of impedance
matching duties, so that aspect of the Baggs DI is not necessary
in this case).

If you have the dual-source B-band, you need something capable of
mixing and EQing the two sources. The bottom end of the spectrum of
possibilities is the Pocket Blender, then comes the Blender, Rane AP13,
and Pendulum (in order of price). The AP13 is the best bang for the
buck, in my opinion.

For an onboard dual source solution, there is the Fishman onboard version
of the Blender, and Tony Rairden tells me Baggs is just releasing
a version of their onboard dual source preamp that can handle any piezo
pickup or mic combination. The B-band is not a mic, but their PR module
(Piezo Replacement) should allow it to be used with any existing onboard
preamps.

Anyway, these are just guesses; it's hard to recommend anything without
knowing what exactly you have, what kind of complexity you're willing
to live with, and what you want to spend.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Do I need a Direct Box? [2]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Do I need a Direct Box?
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:49:51 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy folks-

Greg, what you should do is double-check with the soundman about this.
There are various very practical reasons he might be suggesting this.
He may use a snake from the board to the stage, with only balanced inputs
available on the stage. He may know that the flourescent or neon lights
in that venue induce noticable hum in even short runs of an unbalanced
line. You cannot judge what will happen in his venue by what happens
in your home or in a store or other venue in terms of hum pickup with
long cable runs.

That said, a soundman who requires balanced inputs should have a few
DIs of his own around; that's really his job. But in real life it
doesn't always work out that way, so it's always a good idea for a
pro performer to at least carry around a Radio Shack impedance matching
transformer (a cylindrical connector with a 1/4" input on one side,
XLR male output on the other, and a little transformer inside). This
will only set you back $15 or less, and if you don't want to spend the
money on a "real" direct box, it's cheap insurance. Just don't run too
hot of a signal into it; if you have a level control, don't set it to
maximum, let the soundman use gain at the mixer to bring the level up
(cheap transformers tend to distort with strong signals). Someone on
rec.audio.pro did some measurements of this "DI" and found it actually
performs suprisingly well, given its low cost. In a music store you
should be able to find similar gadgets made by Audio-Technica and other
companies, in the $15 to $20 ballpark. Although I have a spare DI or
two that I bring to soundman gigs, I always bring a few of these as
well; they've come in handy when I've had to mix for a lot of artists.

> > I have a fairly standard piezo pickup with a preamp built into the
> > instrument. I have plugged directly into PA systems all my life, never had a
> > problem. So I thought, I'd try a direct box. I went to my local dealer,
> > hooked my guitar into the low-z input of his showroom PA, with and without a
> > direct box.
> >
> > I cannot hear any difference worth noting. I perceive a very slight change
> > in frequency balance, but nothing that couldn't easily be compensated through
> > a bit of EQ tweaking.

The "ideal" DI is not supposed to affect your tone at all! There's no
such thing, of course, but the function of a DI is not to change your
tone (see below). However, there are now "acoustic DIs" available
(the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI being a particularly good one) that
are not just DIs, but combine the DI function with EQ and gain
and possibly other functions. If you have the money to invest in
an active DI, you should check these out. They provide EQ capability
better tailored to shaping acoustic tones than is on any standard mixer,
and you may be quite pleased with how one of these will improve your
tone. They will set you back about $150, though. If you are using
a single-transducer setup (i.e., not a dual source pickup+mic setup),
this is money very well spent. I've never heard a piezo setup that
wasn't improved by one (with the possible exception of Martin Simpson's
stage tone!).

Later in the thread someone else wrote:
> What's happening as I understand it is the DI box reduces the pickup signal
> (volts) to microphone (line) level (millivolts), which is where the board and
> other devices are designed to work optimally. Without one you're courting
> distortion and generally having to work against the board's electronics.

This is simply not true. Any good board has adjustable gain right at the
front end, and will handle a line-level signal just as well as a mic-level
signal. Better, in fact; the added noise will be less for a line-level
input with any well-designed gain stage. And even the budget mixers on
the market today can handle the hottest pickup output without coming
near to clipping.

DIs typically reduce the level, not because the lower level is better, but
because
the reduction in level is an innevitable byproduct of passive impedance
conversion---
if you use a transformer to reduce the impedance, you necessarily reduce
the signal level. Most active DIs reduce the level simply because that's
what DIs are expected to do (due to the original exclusive use of transformers),
and some of the better ones let you choose whether the output is line level
or padded down 20dB or so. The home-brew DI project in Recording magazine
a couple months ago actually has gain, and puts out a higher level
signal than what comes in. The function of a DI is impedance conversion,
conversion to balanced topology, and (for passive ones) isolation. What
happens to the signal level is secondary to these primary functions.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Do I need a Direct Box?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:00:28 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy again!

Two elaborations on my own previous comments. (!)

> The "ideal" DI is not supposed to affect your tone at all! There's no
> such thing, of course, but the function of a DI is not to change your
> tone (see below).

That said, if you have a passive pickup, you will hear a very
different tone if you plug into a mixer vs. if you plug in via
an active DI. The reason is that the mixer is affecting your
tone by not properly loading the pickup. So in this case you
will hear a very different tone with vs. without the DI, but
it's the mixer input that is affecting the tone.

> The function of a DI is impedance conversion,
> conversion to balanced topology, and (for passive ones) isolation.

The parenthetical remark should have been "for passive ones and
active ones that use transformers." By isolation I mean protection
from ground loops; this can only be done well with transformers.
It probably doesn't affect readers here much, because it's only
a serious issue when you are using the DI to connect AC powered
gear (like a guitar amp's preamp output) to your mixer. A quality
active DI that also has a transformer output is a fairly expensive
beast.

I hope the original post didn't confuse anyone on these points!

Peace,
Tom

New Takamine AD-1 Preamp System?
From: <dave@lone-wolf...>
Subject: New Takamine AD-1 Preamp System?
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:30:40 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion

Hello group,
I think I'm most amazed at stumbling over this in my winter Musician's Friend,
rather than seeing or hearing about it in stores, or God forbid, on Takamine's
2-year-old-content website. This actually seems to be a rather inspired
development for them and one would think they'd herald it to the marketplace
with a bit more fanfair.

To whit, the new AD-1 DSP preamp system, currently being sold onboard three of
their most popular (and best sounding unplugged) cutaway models (sold in
Musician's Friend anyway):

--FD-400SC, 12-string, SSpruce top, RW b&s, list $1809.45
--FD-360SC, 6-string, SSpruce top, RW b&s, list $1499.50
--CD-132SC, Classical 6, SCedar top, RW b&s, list $1399.45

The "D" designation replaces the "P" (Parametric Accuracoustic) designation.

Features of the system: --Fully digital, programmable --Selectable two-tone
reverb ("dark" or "bright"?) --10 factory presets/10 user programmed presets
(don't know if these are FX, or just EQ/verb combos). --EQ featuring bass,
treble slides plus the Accuracoustic's Mid Freq and Freq level, plus a
"feedback absorber" (notch filter?) --Built-in chromatic tuner with mute
switch and LED (now this is cool) --Alphanumeric lit display --Powered by 2
AA batteries (what, no AC adaptor?)

I assume it also has the old bypass switch in order to run a clean flat signal
from the bridge transducer.

Has anyone found these in the stores yet? Played one? If so, please let me
know. Also interested in any other comments y'all may have about this new
unit. I mean, on the surface it appears pretty cool, like having a Zoom
onboard your guitar. I'm still puzzled over the relative silence of it's
introduction though.

If I find one, I'll play it and report back (GAS attack coming on).

Cheers,
Dave

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

McIntyre pick-ups
From: <chrisc@blueridge...>
Subject: Re: McIntyre pick-ups
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 23:25:59 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion

I use McIntyre pickups internally installed by Carl McIntyre himself, run
into an Ernie Ball volume control pedal, into a Boss AD5 Acoustic Guitar
processor, then using XLR cables into the sound system. It works great as the
Boss Acoustic Guitar processor also has very good reverb, very good
chorusing, feedback elimator, four channel EQ, and a mic/body simulation. It
takes a piezo or magnetic pickup, or both, and runs the sound out in XLR or
guitar cables into either the PA or an amp (I use the house PA). You can get
optional Boss pedals to control the reverb or chorusing on/off. I often also
use a microphone offset on the soundhole to supplement the sound. I think the
combination gives a very natural acoustic guitar sound, controllable by
backing away from the mic and by the use of the volume control pedal.
Incidentally McIntyre pickups come in two versions for guitar, one works
better with dreadnoughts and jumbos, one better with OOO's and smaller bodied
guitars. (The Blue series is for the smaller bodied guitars, the black or
white series for the bigger guitars).

On the other hand the Baggs should work great through the PA, but you might
want to add a volume control pedal. You also might want to beg the use of a
mic from the church PA system.

Pax,

<Chrisc@blueridge...>

In article <726qf4$40d$<1@nnrp1...>>,

  rdgwood@ptd.net wrote:
> I have (2) Taylors. One with a Fishman pick-up and another with a McIntyre
> stick-on pick-up. The McIntyre is extremely natural sounding with-out any
> fuss, no mic, no anything. I am actually thinking of taking the Fishman out
> and using a McIntyre in both guitars. Any reason not to do this? My need for
> amplification is only occasional when I play at church. For solo pieces the
> McIntyre just plugged into my amp will probably suffice because I don't need
> to blast the volume. When I play for congregational singing though I need
> more volume or more presence. I am wondering what I would need to plug this
> type pick-up directly into the PA and still have control over my sound and
> balance. I bought an LR Baggs basic EQ/PreAmp which adds a nice boost and
> allows me to control the balance quite a bit but I haven't tried plugging it
> into the PA. As you can probably tell I spend my time playing not sound
> engineering. Looking for advice.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Subject:

              LR Baggs para acoustic DI insert loop
        Date: 
              Sat, 14 Nov 1998 17:59:15 +0100
        From: 
              "Dirk Offringa" <dirk.offringa@pacwan.fr>
 Organization: 
              PacWan
  Newsgroups: 
              rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic

Hi

I'm having trouble with the insert loop on my LR Baggs para acoustic DI.
It doesn't seem to interrupt the signal path completely, I suppose it is an
electronic interruption instead of a mechanical interruption on the input
jack.
If I plug in my insert cable without anything inserted (both ends free),
there is no interruption at all; if I insert my tuner which has a bypass
function (sound is interrupted when in tuner mode), half of the sound gets
through; when I use my Morley volume pedal I can't obtain complete silence.
I had the unit changed but the problem is still there. I e-mailed to the
company 3 months ago, but I didn't receive a reply.
Is there anybody here who experienced the same phenomenon, and are there
workarounds??

Thanks a lot

Dirk (France)

LR Baggs para acoustic DI insert loop [2]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs para acoustic DI insert loop
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:46:49 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Dirk-

That is the way they work. Their literature is a bit confusing about
it. The web site says it's a "series" effects loop, which would work
the way you think it should work---interrupting the signal flow.
The pamphlet that comes with it indicates it's more like a parallel
loop---they tell that to add an effect, you should set the mix on
the effects box to "max" and adjust the amount of the effect via
the input and output levels on the effect. This would indicate that
it is a parallel loop that mixes together the return with the internal
signal. However, I find this not to be quite true, either---when I
try it with a Lexicon LXP-1 reverb, for example, with the mix at max
I get only the reverb, with no dry signal. I suspect that the
low impedance output of the reverb is excessively loading the
unaffected signal in the Baggs DI.

The only reason I can think of as to why they did it this way is
so that you could use the "send" as a tuner input without affecting
your signal (or possibly as a monitor send, though without EQ).

The one positive side of this is something I suggested to them when
they first loaned me a unit to demo at the NEFA conference a while
ago: You can ignore the "send" and use only the "return" to mix
in a signal from a second source. I haven't persued this myself
(except to verify that it does actually work); the EQ controls affect
the whole mix, so you aren't able to separately EQ the two sources.

The only workarounds I can think of would require some minor modifications
inside the box, but I might be overlooking something.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Adrian Legg <Commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs para acoustic DI insert loop
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:58:19 +0000
Organization: *

Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

> You can ignore the "send" and use only the "return" to mix
> in a signal from a second source. I haven't persued this myself
> (except to verify that it does actually work);

Oh I love those sneaky little dodges...
What's the impedance at that point, Tom ?

--

 The address is spurious - spam clogs the mailbox when I'm away.
Contact info: http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm

Multi-Fx for an Acoustic
From: BrettGV <brettgv@aol...>
Subject: Re: Multi-Fx for an Acoustic
Date: 18 Nov 1998 09:17:03 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I also reccommend the BOSS AD-5. The effects loop is valuable in that it will
allow you to add any bunch of stomp boxes you want. It also allows you to
blend a piezo signal with a magnetic soundhole pickup as well. It's pretty
small, and if you have a piezo system without a volume control (I'm not into
having a large preamp unit cut into the side of my guitar), all you need is a
volume pedal going into the effects loop, and you're set.

Brett

>My Vagabond has a Martin Thinline Gold active pickup - I think its a Fishman
>in disguise. Loads of output, but could take some EQ and compression. I'd
>also like to play with a bit of reverb, delay, chorus ...
>
>I'd rather have one small box that does the lot than have a rack full or a
>sprawl of stomp boxes.
>
>Does anybody have any experience of Zoom 504, DOD AcousTec and Ibanez PT-?
>multi-Fx units that they'd like to share.
>
>How about the non-acoustic things like Korgs Pandoras (I and II) or AX1G? Can
>they be persuaded to sound good with acoustics?
>
>--
>Mark Bluemel - UK-based Unix/Oracle Consultant
>Guitar/Bass/Calling www.meltingpot.demon.co.uk/skim
>

Anyone ever use the Microvox?
From: Bob Mills <decision@tigger...>
Subject: Re: Anyone ever use the Microvox?
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 98 18:58:35 GMT
Organization: Verio Northeast

In Article <<36680070.326888530@news...>>, <jdyer@fte...> (jd) wrote:
> Has anyone ever used the Microvox system, specifically the
>Duo? (http://www.microvox.demon.co.uk/duopage.htm).
>If so, any thoughts'd be appreciated. I'm curious how the
>microphone sounds.
>thanks.

Hi Jamie,

Yes, I use the single MicroVox on all my instruments. Have done so for 8
years with my band instruments (tenor banjo, mandolin, etc), and also the
last 2 years performing live with my Taylor 812c.

The important thing about the mics in the MicroVox system is that they are
omni, which sounds way better but is more feedback prone. In my band
experience, this was not a problem in acoustic bands, except in one venue.

However, with the guitar, I've taken to putting the element inside, which
actually sounds pretty good compared to outside (having the omni outside
would pick up bleed from the monitors, which compromised the sound). This
has also cut the feedback situation, but it might still be a problem with a
larger guitar.

mills
mailto:<decision@tigger...>
- new music from generations of tradition -
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bobmills

Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost)
From: DSohn72781 <dsohn72781@aol...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost)
Date: 10 Dec 1998 06:28:14 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>Yes. One fellow here reported that Baggs sold him a version of
>their duet or dual-source without the Ribbon transducer so he could
>use it with a Sunrise; I think he said the gain had to be adjusted, but
>I could be confused on this point (they have to make a gain change to
>accomodate the LB6 vs. Ribbon pickup, and I may be confusing this with
>the Sunrise issue). So this may be a commercial option, though
>not a publicly advertised one (though a peek at their web site does
>reveal a "compatibility with other pickups" bullet).

You're talking about me here, Tom

I really think that after using this "customized" system I'd found the Holy
Grail of guitar amplification (for me, at least). Since my research was over a
year ago, and I'm not very "electrically inclined," I can't remember the exact
gain structure figures of the Duet RT and the Duet LB6, but I do remember that
they are radically different to accomodate the 2 different pickups. All I
remember is that, coincidentally or not, the Duet RT had a gain structure
(these are gain structures for the pickup, btw, not the mic) similiar to those
optimized for magnetic pickups. My idea was to integrate the Sunrise with an
internal microphone, all with onboard mixing. I researched high and low, far
and wide, and the only option I could come up with after speaking many times
with Bo at LRBaggs and Jim at Sunrise was to combine the Sunrise with the Duet
RT. This had never been done before, mind you, but I was willing to do it (Bo
said that Hedges was the closest player to use a similiar configuration, but
Baggs custom-made his rig). To make an already long story longer, the sound is
phenomenal. Phil Keaggy sound checked with my guitar, and raved about it, as
did Wes King. Del Langejans did the installation (rather easily, if I'm not
mistaken) and the guitar's amplified sound is, IMO, God's gift to acoustic
amplification. The Sunrise is fat, clear and meaty, and Baggs mic adds an
acoustic, airy dimension to the sound, which picks up all the bangin' I do on
my axe. At my gigs, I just integrate a Boss GE-7 for a little more EQ, and I'm
set! I always get compliments on my sound. If anyone wants more details,
feel free to email me. I've got a CD out with one instrumental piece (a
predominantly vocal album) that highlights this set-up.

ed

ps. hey guys, can we end this thread? I can't believe I've read this far, let
alone understand what you guys are talking about. I have a feeling other
guitarists want to see this thread die, too. I could be wrong, though...=)

Sans Amp vs. Boss Acoustic DI
From: Nick Naffin <takenote@interlog...>
Subject: Re: Sans Amp vs. Boss Acoustic DI
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:56:31 -0500
Organization: Interlog Internet Services

KEYOFSEA wrote:
>
> Wondering if anyone has compared the new Boss AD3 acoustic pedal to the Sans
> Amp Acoustic DI. The Boss seems to have a couple extra features like chorus
> and feedback eliminator, but I'm wondering if it's noisy compared to the Sans
> Amp. My Takimine needs a little "umph" through the P.A. system, so I'm
> considering one of these pedals. Thanks.

	Haven't tried the AD3, but have been using an AD5 for a while now. No
noise to speak of through the PA (but a pal of mine has one that can hum
a little if put too close to a power bar on the same circuit as the
board); but watch the output levels! They can be hot as hell.

	The Boss pedals seem a little more suited for use as your personal
little mixer on stage (i.e. clubs etc.); the SansAmp is great as a
plug-in-and-go device if there's a dedicated soundguy (bigger venues,
festival stages etc). Then again, you can use the Boss there too (I do,
anyway); just set it pretty flat and use chorus and mic simulator if you
like, or bypass it and use it as a stereo DI.

	NN  
--
**************************************************************

NICK NAFFIN
acoustic guitarist

toronto, canada

http://www.interlog.com/~takenote/nicknaffin.htm
current cd: 'music from the sacred grounds'/northern breeze
contact: <takenote@interlog...>

*************************************************************

Opinions on DI Boxes? [4]
From: David J. MacKenzie <djm@catapult...>
Subject: Re: Opinions on DI Boxes?
Date: 26 Jan 1999 13:27:14 -0500
Organization: UUNET Technologies

<dave@lone-wolf...> writes:

> Since we're on this subject, I just read a review of the Tech 21 Sansamp DI
> box for acoustics. Very attractive looking unit. Anybody have an reference
> for this guy? --dave

Mike broke after about 2 months of light use. Not a confidence
builder. The "tube mic emulation" seems to be basically a treble cut.
Whoopeee.


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Opinions on DI Boxes?
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:58:59 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Hank-

BSS is considered one of the best DI makers out there, though they
don't cater specifically to the needs of an acoustic. Same with
Countryman.

I personally think very highly of the Baggs Para Acoustic DI. It's
designed specifically for acoustic guitar use, and actually offers
considerable functionality beyond being merely a DI. It has a
preamp with adjustable gain, 5 bands of EQ (two with adjustable
frequency) placed in the right places to deal with common trouble
areas with the acoustic guitar, an effects loop (can be used as
a tuner output), an invert switch (useful esp. when combining more
than one transducer, as you are), and can operate either off a
9V battery or 48V phantom power. It has both 1/4" and XLR (mic)
outputs. It got an excellent review in Mix magazine a year or
so ago; I think the review is on the Baggs web site. Though
not at the audio quality level of a rack mount unit, it's
quite a lot of bang for the buck at about $150 or so. As I
recall, the BSS is at least that much, but doesn't offer anything
beyond basic DI capability. If that's all you need, it probably
makes sense to spend the money just on that, getting the best
quality possible for the $$. But if the other functions of the
Baggs appeal to you, give it a try.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Lar <rhonea@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Opinions on DI Boxes?
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:44:22 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

I just picked up one of the Baggs Para D.I's and am very impressed
with it. I am using it with a Macke 1202VLZ mixer. And for an added
bonus it sounds great with my Les Paul direct. I use the Les Paul for
jazz so the clean sound is perfect.

Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

>Hank-
>
>BSS is considered one of the best DI makers out there, though they
>don't cater specifically to the needs of an acoustic. Same with
>Countryman.
>
>I personally think very highly of the Baggs Para Acoustic DI. It's
>designed specifically for acoustic guitar use, and actually offers
>considerable functionality beyond being merely a DI. It has a
>preamp with adjustable gain, 5 bands of EQ (two with adjustable
>frequency) placed in the right places to deal with common trouble
>areas with the acoustic guitar, an effects loop (can be used as
>a tuner output), an invert switch (useful esp. when combining more
>than one transducer, as you are), and can operate either off a
>9V battery or 48V phantom power. It has both 1/4" and XLR (mic)
>outputs. It got an excellent review in Mix magazine a year or
>so ago; I think the review is on the Baggs web site. Though
>not at the audio quality level of a rack mount unit, it's
>quite a lot of bang for the buck at about $150 or so. As I
>recall, the BSS is at least that much, but doesn't offer anything
>beyond basic DI capability. If that's all you need, it probably
>makes sense to spend the money just on that, getting the best
>quality possible for the $$. But if the other functions of the
>Baggs appeal to you, give it a try.
>
>Peace,
>Tom Loredo


From: Brandon Alinger <alinger@erols...>
Subject: Re: Opinions on DI Boxes?
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:53:27 GMT
Organization: @Home Network

Thanks Tom, Jack, Sef, Dave, David, Dick and Adrian for your comments:

I called my dealer buddy and asked him to order a Fishman Dual
Parametric D.I.to try out. It sounds like the Baggs may be worth a
listen as well.

Although the BSS sounds like a quality unit, it sounds like the boxes
with eq capability clearly have more to offer, particularly for my
application. Prices quoted to me from one store were: $139 for the BSS
and $140 for the Fishman Dual Parametric. Not bad. It sounds like the
Baggs is in the same range.

thanks again,

Hank

Lar wrote:
>
> I just picked up one of the Baggs Para D.I's and am very impressed
> with it. I am using it with a Macke 1202VLZ mixer. And for an added
> bonus it sounds great with my Les Paul direct. I use the Les Paul for
> jazz so the clean sound is perfect.
>
> Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:
>
> >Hank-
> >
> >BSS is considered one of the best DI makers out there, though they
> >don't cater specifically to the needs of an acoustic. Same with
> >Countryman.
> >
> >I personally think very highly of the Baggs Para Acoustic DI. It's
> >designed specifically for acoustic guitar use, and actually offers
> >considerable functionality beyond being merely a DI. It has a
> >preamp with adjustable gain, 5 bands of EQ (two with adjustable
> >frequency) placed in the right places to deal with common trouble
> >areas with the acoustic guitar, an effects loop (can be used as
> >a tuner output), an invert switch (useful esp. when combining more
> >than one transducer, as you are), and can operate either off a
> >9V battery or 48V phantom power. It has both 1/4" and XLR (mic)
> >outputs. It got an excellent review in Mix magazine a year or
> >so ago; I think the review is on the Baggs web site. Though
> >not at the audio quality level of a rack mount unit, it's
> >quite a lot of bang for the buck at about $150 or so. As I
> >recall, the BSS is at least that much, but doesn't offer anything
> >beyond basic DI capability. If that's all you need, it probably
> >makes sense to spend the money just on that, getting the best
> >quality possible for the $$. But if the other functions of the
> >Baggs appeal to you, give it a try.
> >
> >Peace,
> >Tom Loredo

WTB LR BAGGS Para Acoustic DI
From: Lar <rhonea@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: WTB LR BAGGS Para Acoustic DI
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:44:14 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

I just picked up an L.R. Baggs Para Acoustic DI and am very impressed.
I tried the Sans Amp too and it just isn't as versatile as the Baggs,
IMHO..

"George Reiswig" <<george.reiswig@intel...>> wrote:

>Gotta agree with Tom here...I did a direct comparison between the two, and
>liked the Baggs a lot better. Better tone control, quieter, more natural
>sounding. The "tube emulation" circuit in the SansAmp seemed to just dull
>the highs. That might be advantageous if you have a piezo pickup or
>something, but hurt the sound of my B-Band.
>
>GR
>
>Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote in article
><<369BB6E3.BDB8FA85@spacenet...>>...
>> Robert McA wrote:
>> >
>> > No, but you'd be much happier with a Sans Amp Acoustic DI--
>> > Robert
>> >
>> > CCM 5 wrote:
>> >
>> > > Anyone out there have one for sale?
>>
>> Considering how different these boxes are, this seems a rather
>> extravagant and groundless claim.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Tom Loredo
>>

Barcus Berry Pickup Problem [2]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Barcus Berry Pickup Problem
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:04:59 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Adrian Legg wrote:
>
> Weege <<weege@cinci...>> wrote:
>
> > I've got an old 12 string with a Barcus Berry pickup. (I think they called
> > it a "Hot Dot"). It's embedded directly in the bridge.
> > Anyway, it came with a little red box, sort of a pre-amp I believe, that I
> > have since lost.
> > Is there anything I can use to substitute the preamp, or can I get or build
> > one.
>
> Pretty much anything with a 2 meg ohm to 10 meg ohm input impedance. The
> signal from a Hot Dot is so small you won't have to worry too much about
> overloading a pre-amp input. You should be able to find bi-fet op amp
> buffer amp circuits based around the TL071 or a contemporary equivalent
> from simple to fancy at a good electronic hobbyist store. In the UK it
> would be Maplin - I don't know where you are or what your local stores
> are like - Yellow Pages ?

Even simpler, smaller and cheaper would be a textbook JFET source follower
(if you have a source of enough gain later in the signal chain) or
common-source amplifier stage (if you could use some gain right at the
preamp). Just copy the circuit out of a standard text like *Art of
Electronics* or *Practical Electronic Circuits*. This is basically the
first stage you'll find in the B-Band Core, LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI,
Fishman Blender, Pendulum SmartCord, etc.. Nothing fancy in any of these boxes.

Radio Shack here in the US has carried the TL082 (a dual BiFET op amp
quite similar to the TL071); I don't know if they still do. DOD used
to sell a nice little footpedal for about $45 called a BiFET that was
basically a TL072 with one half acting as the buffer Adrian described
and the other as a gain/tone/output stage. A reasonable bare-bones
acoustic pre if you can still find one. One reason to prefer the
discrete JFET route is that JFETs have a nonlinear input capacitance
that causes distortion when used with high impedance sources. The
capacitance is quite small for some popular discrete audio JFETs, but
more problematic for the JFETs used in BiFET op amp input stages.
There are ways to reduce these effects....

> Fwiw, I use a Fishman Pro EQ as a general purpose piezo pre-amp, but you
> may be better off long-term with a parametric eq,(I'd recommend the
> Fishman one) which will allow you to reduce top/cavity resonances to a
> tolerable level.

I would recommend the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI, if you could use the
added capability of a balanced output (that is, it combines DI and gain/EQ
functions). It also has more bands than the Fishman (5, with two of them
sweepable) but costs only about $30 more. A better value in my opinion.

> Also, I've used a Pendulum Audio battery powered Smart
> Cord with low level transducers like the Fishman bending (note _bending_
> not blending) transducer and with the old rectangular Barcus Berry bugs.
> It's too sensitive for hotter pick-ups, but should be fine with a Hot
> Dot.

The SmartCord is cute! But it's not cheap---almost the price of the ProEQ
as I recall, and all you get is a gain control (well, also Pendulum quality,
which is nothing to snort at).

Adrian, what is the "bending transducer" you are referring to? Just
a soundboard transducer? (SBT?)

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Barcus Berry Pickup Problem
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:08:56 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Adrian Legg wrote:
>
> Incidentally, the Fishman Para. has balanced output.

Yes, the Dual Parametric DI does, but not the ProEQ, as far as I
understand. I thought the former was significantly more expensive
than the latter. It does look like a nice box.

> I can't remember
> why I didn't go for the Baggs - probably something to do with input
> sensitivity.

Something one might not catch about the Baggs Para Acoustic DI without
reading the brochure is that it has an internal gain control that you
are supposed to "set and forget" (the volume control on the front panel
is really just an attenuator for the output stage, not a gain control).
It comes set from the factory for use with the LB6 pickup, which is
a hot pickup that requires only a few dB of gain. But by adjusting
the trimmer you can get something like 14dB or more, which should be
adequate for most any piezo I'm aware of.

Pt wrote:
> I left the
> distortion off (tubescreamer 808) and it worked great. Most effect pedals
> have pre-amps in them.

True of some units, but not all. Those with the coveted "hard bypass"
(ie, just a switch) don't have anything in the path when they are off.

It is true of the DOD BiFET pedal I mentioned earlier, and I
would actually use it off. The first stage (hi-Z buffer) is always
in the path. Turning it on only added the tone control stage, and turned
on the LED. The LED used more current than any of the audio electronics,
and since I didn't care for the tone control, leaving it off made the
batteries last a lot longer!

By the way, I made a mistake earlier; the BiFET pedal uses the TL062,
not the TL072 (the former is the low-power version of the latter, which
trades some audio performance for lower battery consumption).

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Advice: DI for acoustic [7]
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Advice: DI for acoustic
Date: 11 Mar 1999 04:31:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Good day group. Usually I stay pretty quiet and just read, but this time I
need help. I have a Taylor 810 w/ Fishman saddle xducer. I'm looking for a
DI/Preamp/EQ to use on stage when I don't have a decent amp available. One
friend recomended the BBE DI100/Sonic "Maximizer"(?!?), so I'd like an opinion
on that. I've read about several others, but there's nothing like hearing from
experience in my book. Thanks for any help in advance.

Michael
Michael
<mkarlo@aol...>


From: Hojo2X <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Advice: DI for acoustic
Date: 11 Mar 1999 05:07:39 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I can't comment on the >BBE DI100/Sonic "Maximizer"

and second your parenthetical: >(?!?), as I've never heard of it, either.

I have a Baggs Para-D.I. unit that serves as both a preamp and a direct input,
and everything I've run through it so far has sounded terrific. (I'm a
multi-instrumentalist, and all my stage instruments have Baggs pickups on them,
including my banjo and all my mountain dulcimers.) Other friends who have
other brands of pickups, including one buddy who has an EMG on his Lowden
guitar and a Fishman mandolin pickup on his mandolin, use the same Baggs
Para-D.I. unit, and have been very pleased with it.

Wade Hampton Miller


From: CE Polits <CePlo@earthnet...>
Subject: Re: Advice: DI for acoustic
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:56:26 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

I will second the opinion of the LR Baggs Para DI. I use one in my
studio for both acoustic (Fishman Rare Earth) and also for my electric
guitars. Sounds great on both!!

<hojo2x@aol...> (Hojo2X) wrote:

>I can't comment on the >BBE DI100/Sonic "Maximizer"
>
>and second your parenthetical: >(?!?), as I've never heard of it, either.
>
>I have a Baggs Para-D.I. unit that serves as both a preamp and a direct input,
>and everything I've run through it so far has sounded terrific. (I'm a
>multi-instrumentalist, and all my stage instruments have Baggs pickups on them,
>including my banjo and all my mountain dulcimers.) Other friends who have
>other brands of pickups, including one buddy who has an EMG on his Lowden
>guitar and a Fishman mandolin pickup on his mandolin, use the same Baggs
>Para-D.I. unit, and have been very pleased with it.
>
>
>Wade Hampton Miller
>


From: Geoxter <geoxter@aol...>
Subject: Re: Advice: DI for acoustic
Date: 11 Mar 1999 21:09:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

     i  just  bought a baggs para.di....  it's a very cool unit w/ plenty of 
easy to use controls. i live about a mile from his workshop/whse. so i had the
chance to visit and talk to some of the techs there..very nice group of people
who took the time to explain things to me... i don't think that you'll be
disappointed with it...mho..george v.


From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Advice: DI for acoustic
Date: 12 Mar 1999 04:53:54 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Hey, thanks so much guys. I checked it out on the Website and it has
everything I'm looking for, including real EQ unlike the BBE offering. Any
suggestions as to the best price source?

I think I'll do a seperate posting to ask "whatz a Sonic Maximizer?". Just
curious.
Michael
<mkarlo@aol...>


From: Elan Ryder <elan_ryder@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Advice: DI for acoustic
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:15:21 GMT
Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net

I prefer the Sans Amp Acoustic DI. It works as a converntional DI with
notch filter but has a blendable mic emulation that -- regardless of
how true it is to a mics sound (this was a hot item of contention among
several RmmGA experts who had admittedly never heard or used the unit so
I won't make the mistake of claiming that it actually does emulate a
tube mic in tone) -- warms up the tone and removes any piezo or
electrified artificiality. All this sound inimitably
great IF one sets the output
volume of the DI at about the same level as the board or amp its going
into. If there is a huge mismatch, distortion may occur.
Elan

MKarlo wrote:
>
> Good day group. Usually I stay pretty quiet and just read, but this time I
> need help. I have a Taylor 810 w/ Fishman saddle xducer. I'm looking for a
> DI/Preamp/EQ to use on stage when I don't have a decent amp available. One
> friend recomended the BBE DI100/Sonic "Maximizer"(?!?), so I'd like an opinion
> on that. I've read about several others, but there's nothing like hearing from
> experience in my book. Thanks for any help in advance.
>
> Michael
> Michael
> <mkarlo@aol...>


From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Advice: DI for acoustic
Date: 13 Mar 1999 05:53:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Hey guys. I picked up the Baggs Para DI today. Great tool! I used it in
rehearsa tonite and it gave me great control. Thanks a million for the input.
It even warms up my little Crate acoustic that I use for practice.
Michael
<mkarlo@aol...>

Di I really need an active pickup?
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Di I really need an active pickup?
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:59:57 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

JD BLACKWELL wrote:
>
> While I use an outboard preamp with my McIntyre p/u, I find that it works
> very well plugged straight into the board or an amp. This isnt always true
> of cheaper pickups.

The need for an onboard pre has nothing to do with the cheapness or
quality of the pickup, but with details of its design and technology.
A cheap pickup of mediocre quality, like the cheapest of soundhole
pickups, may need no preamp; a very good pickup like the B-band may
absolutely need one right at the pickup.

In the case of piezos, the type of piezo material and its geometry
(size especially) determine its electrical impedance, and this is
what determines whether a preamp near the pickup is needed or not.
Piezos have an intrinsically high output impedance that is a strong
function of frequency. Cables have a capacitive impedance that is also
a function of frequency. Mixer preamps have relatively low input
impedances (relative to the impedance of a piezo pickup). Think of a high
impedance signal source as producing an intrinsically "fragile" signal
that is easily degraded by cables or low impedance loads. The
main purpose of onboard preamps is not amplification, per se, but rather
buffering---changing the impedance of the signal from high to low to
make it less "fragile." The problem is that the frequency dependence
of the pickup's impedance makes it fragile in a bad way---it's not
just that the whole signal gets affected, but that some frequencies
are affected more than others. Thus when a pickup is loaded by a low
impedance, its whole tone changes. The buffering eliminates this
problem. For the best tone, these pickups need the buffering that
only a high impedance DI or preamp can provide somewhere in the
signal chain before you get to the mixer's own preamp. The loading
of the cable itself can also affect the tone, which is why over the
years the preamp has moved closer and closer to the pickup (partly
in response to the growing desire to reduce the cable's effect, and
partly because the newer technologies have higher impedances).

The extreme case is the B-band. As high as a piezo pickup's impedance
is (typically on the order of a million ohms), the B-band's impedance
is higher by probably a factor of a hundred. So even 1 foot of good
quality cable will strongly affect the signal (I've tried it!). The
preamp has to be right there. For the most recent piezos offered
by Baggs (Ribbon), Highlander, and Fishman (Matrix), the manufacturers have
made the judgement that the preamp is also best located as close to the
pickup as possible (this is the philosophy behind the Pendulum preamp
and its SmartCord, by the way), so that is how they are available. I
don't think anyone would call these pickups "cheap"---in either sense
of the word!

In addition, by amplifying the signal as well as buffering it,
preamps reduce the effects of noise and hum picked up on the way to
your mixer. But this is a separate issue from buffering.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Ignoramus needs pre-amp help
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Ignoramus needs pre-amp help
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 15:01:33 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

The other posts not withstanding, the main function of preamps in
acoustic guitar amplification is to provide buffering, not gain.
There are many pickups that provide plenty enough signal to get
loud with a mixer or amp, but sound horrible if you don't use a
preamp with them. The reason is that most unbuffered acoustic guitar
transducers (typically piezoelectric) have very high impedances that
vary strongly with frequency. Using them into a standard mixer
or electric guitar input screws up the tone. An acoustic guitar
preamp provides a very high input impedance to the pickup, swamping
the variations in the pickup's own impedance. It also provides
an output signal with a low impedance that will be unaffected by
cables or loading from a mixer or amp input.

Put more crudely, irrespective of the amplitude of the signals,
most acoustic pickups put out an electrically "fragile" signal.
The main function of a preamp is to convert it to a more robust
signal that will not be adversely affected by cables or loading
from the mixer or amp input stages.

To be sure, many preamps also provide gain (differing amounts depending
on the pickup, but in most cases only a few dB to 10 dB). But
most mixers have more than enough gain available on their trim
control to handle a pickup's signal. It's the buffering that's
important.

Do you need a preamp? You might already have one! If your pickup
requires that you use a battery in the guitar, it is one of the
many pickups with an onboard preamp. If the amp you bought is an
acoustic guitar amp, it's input stage should be tailor-made for
unbuffered pickups. Only if you are using an unbuffered (no battery!)
pickup with an electric guitar/bass guitar/keyboard amp will you
likely benefit from getting an acoustic guitar preamp. (If you
are using a soundhole pickup rather than a piezo pickup, most of
those sound fine without a preamp, too.)

Many acoustic guitar preamps offer a lot more besides buffering and
gain. A great bargain is the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI, which
adds 5 bands of EQ (tailored for acoustic guitarists) as well as
a balanced output, tuner output, effects loop, and invert switch
to the mix for only about $150. Fishman's ProEQ has fewer bells
and whistles for about the same price, but you may find it simpler
to use for that reason. And there are other options. But we need
more info from you to know what would suit your needs.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Fishman PRO EQ..what is the phase switch for?
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Fishman PRO EQ..what is the phase switch for?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:24:48 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

Two uses for phase control: (1) helping with low frequency feedback;
(2) adjusting tone in two- (or more) transducer setups.

One thing phase control does NOT do is (3) affect the amplified tone
of a single source. I know Fishman may claim this in their
instructions, and I know Harvey Reid claims this in the Blender
video, but it is simply incorrect.

Elaboration:

(1) Consider Bob's speaker explanation of phase---determining
whether a speaker is pushing or pulling at a given moment. If
you are getting feedback at low frequencies, switching the phase
may make the speaker's input into your transducer oppose (rather
than match) the input from the guitar itself, thus reducing the
possibility of feedback. The reason this is only useful at low
frequencies is that the wavelength of a soundwave at 1kHz (the
fundamental frequency of the highest note on the fretboard,
roughly) is about a foot, and it gets shorter for higher frequencies.
Thus if you rely on a phase switch to help with feedback at those
frequencies, simply moving your guitar a few inches will reverse
the effect. Not to mention the fact that the guitar itself is
of order the size of the wave at these frequencies. So you can
rely on phase to help with feedback only at low frequencies, and
only if you don't move very much on stage.

(2) When you have more than one transducer, the signals from the
two of them will have different content and will interfere constructively
and destructively with each other in a complicated way. Changing the
phase of a subset of the transducers will alter the interference pattern,
changing the final tone. But if you change the phase of all the
transducers at the same time, the amplified tone will be unaffected
(though perhaps low frequency feedback will be reduced!).

(3) Regarding claims that changing the phase from a single transducer
changes the amplified tone: It is well-documented that the human
ear is not sensitive to phase inversion. So why would Reid claim
in his video that he hears a different tone when he changes the
phase setting when using a single transducer? Well, he's sitting
right next to the guitar---he's hearing both the PA and the acoustic
sound. So he is in a sense in a "two transducer" setup, hearing
the interference between the amplified sound and the acoustic
sound. So I'm sure he's telling the truth when he says he hears
a change in tone. Unfortunately, the audience, far away from the
guitar, will hear only the amplified signal, whose tone is unaffected
by phase. And it's what the audience will hear that is what should
be concerning us.

In some circuits (I believe the Blenders are in this category), changing
the phase introduces or removes a bit of extra circuitry. Changing
the circuitry can always potentially affect the tone due to circuit
imperfections (added distortion, altered frequency response due to
coupling capacitors, etc.). But a phase
inversion circuit, if designed with any thought, should have an
absolutely negligible effect on the tone. I am familiar with the
Blender design, and consider it unlikely that there are any significant
effects of this type associated with the phase change. However,
phase change circuitry can also slightly alter the amplitude of
the signal---one setting will put out the signal at 100% volume,
and the inverted setting at, say, -105%. The ear's perception of tone is
closely tied to its perception of loudness (that's what's behind the
"loudness" control on many stereos), so it is also conceivable that
Reid (or others) are hearing a slightly changed level that is affecting
their perception of the tone. But if one adjusts levels so that they
are the same before and after a phase inversion, the perceived tone
of the amplified signal should not change. Bottom line: Do not consider
the phase control to be a tone shaping control in single-transducer
setups.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

LR Baggs RT+Para Acoustic DI or Dual Source [3]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs RT+Para Acoustic DI or Dual Source
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 17:11:29 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

> Somebody will correct me if I screw this up.

Seems to me you got it pretty much right!

> Yes, you can connect the output of the little preamp (which is inside
> the guitar) that comes with the Dual Source to the input of an
> offboard preamp/eq/impedance matcher (i.e. the baggs Para Acoustic).

I see no problem with this. The two main advantages would be the
added tone control and the DI function (conversion to balanced output).

> The output of the Dual Source is relatively high impedance (so not
> compatible with a low impedance mic input) and unbalanced.

It is not compatible with a balanced mic input, but it is still what
one would call "low impedance"---compared the the high impedance
of a bare pickup. The problem with using it to drive a mic input
is the topology (single-ended vs. balanced), not the impedance.
Also, it may be a little hot for some mic inputs.

> You might have to be careful how much gain you put out of the Dual
> Source onboard preamp to keep from putting too hot of an input into
> the DI, but maybe not.

Not obvious to me, either, but the DI has a trimmer pot inside that
you can use to set the gain of the 1st stage. It comes at a fairly
low setting, appropriate for the LB6 pickup. You'd have to increase
it for the RT, for example. You might have to decrease it for the
output of an active system that has some gain in it already, like
the Dual Source. It's easy to adjust; instructions come with the unit.

As Chuck emphasized, the "Baggs" brand name on the Para Acoustic DI
does not wed you to Baggs technology elsewhere in the chain. It's
an excellent little box and would nicely complement any good pickup,
active or not, if you need buffering, gain, EQ, or DI capability.
I use one with my B-band (mostly for gain, with a touch of EQ, so
it can properly drive a return on an AP-13).

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs RT+Para Acoustic DI or Dual Source
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 15:55:39 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Mike-

<mikecloud@my-deja...> wrote:
>
>
> I've posed this question before, but never really received an answer.
> I normally run my B-Band, and an external condenser mic (via a
> transformer), through a Pocket Blender and then to my Trace Acoustic
> amp (really my "PA" since it receives my vocal mic signal as well).
> I've always been disappointed with the level of the signal I get from
> the Blender's 1/4" out--it's much weaker than going directly from the B-
> Band into the Trace. And yes, the battery in Blender is good. And no,
> there's nothing wrong with the Trace.
>
> Also, does one need to adjust the DI's internal gain trim to make the
> DI compatible with the B-Band (and Core '99) output?

I agree with George's guess that something's amiss---the Blender output
should be plenty hot. It's not obvious that it's broken, though---you
didn't mention anything about adjusting the gain/trim controls. Just
like the Baggs DI, the Blender has trim controls to adjust the gain
early in the signal path as appropriate for different transducers and
guitars, only in the case of the Blender the trims are accessible from
the front panel (the little knobs that you need a small screwdriver or
tip of a pick to adjust). Have you tried playing with these? If the
output is low when the trim on the pickup channel is up all the way
and that channel's volume is up all the way and the master level is up
all the way, then most likely something is wrong.

As for adjusting the DI's gain trim, it probably works fine out of
the box, but also can probably be optimized by tweaking. If you don't
hear any distortion when you play hard, and otherwise are happy with
it, you needn't touch it. But if you hear audible noise (hiss), you
might be able to improve the S/N (signal to noise ratio) by increasing
the gain with the trim control (all this holds with the Blender, too;
a trim is a trim is a trim). With the cover off so you can adjust
the trim, bring it up until you start hearing distortion when you play
hard, then bring it down a bit. This gives you the best S/N without
distortion.

Hope that helps!

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: <mikecloud@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs RT+Para Acoustic DI or Dual Source
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:11:18 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

George, Harold and Tom:

Boy do I feel stupid--though perhaps a bit wiser having received your
advice! I had the gain trim on the transducer channel at its minimum
setting. When I purchased the Blender I was running a Mills mic in the
mic channel, and a Fishman Rare Earth in the transducer channel. The
Rare Earth had a very, very hot signal relative to the Mills, so I set
the transducer channel gain trim at minimum. When I changed to the B-
Band and external condenser I didn't change the trims accordingly. I
could get enough volume from the Blender with this setting, but I
couldn't understand why I'd have to use the "passive pick-up" input on
the Trace to do so! Problem solved, and thank you all for the advice!

Oh well, I suppose I would have been even more foolish if I had been
using the wrong connection as an out as someone suggested. The Blender
has a 1/4" (mono, not TRS) out which I use to go into the "active pick-
up" input (now that the gain trim is properly adjusted) of the Trace.
It also has an XLR out (DI) which I only use on the rare occasions when
I'm playing through a PA.

Anyway, thanks again.

Mike

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Rane Ap 13 Preamp [5]
From: JD BLACKWELL <oneeyedjack@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Rane Ap 13 Preamp
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:17:37 -0700
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services

I consider it the best. Much less expensive than a Pendulum too. Very quiet,
very reliable

JD

Todd Paul <<2tp@bellsouth...>> wrote in message
<<377CFB08.684C2E6@bellsouth...>>...
>I am looking for a good rack mounted preamp and I was wonder if anyone
>out there had any experience with the Rane AP 13.
>
>tp


From: Hmemerson <hmemerson@aol...>
Subject: Re: Rane Ap 13 Preamp
Date: 02 Jul 1999 18:38:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>
>I am looking for a good rack mounted preamp and I was wonder if anyone
>out there had any experience with the Rane AP 13.
>

Hi Todd,
I've been using a "split system" for almost 7 years now and I started out with
the Rane AP13. As far as a rack system goes, it does fit the bill and works
pretty well.
Having sold them in a retail music store, though, I will tell you that I had
several units go bad. The units were only used by me for demonstrating and were
not abused in the least. Rane always fixed them, but it did put a seed of doubt
after the third one developed a bad mic channel.
I even turned Cliff Eberhardt onto the Rane, because he didn't want to go for
the Pendulum. He swore that it sounded every bit as good as the Pendulums and
he was touring with 2 or 3 other performers who were using the Pends.

Eventually, I tried the Fishman Pocket Blender and I could not believe the
improvement in sound quality in a split second. With the Rane, I had to fuss
with 7 bands of EQ for each channel, and then I would switch guitars. Too much
to mess with for me. The Pocket Blender gets a great sound quickly with no
muss, no fuss. The Acoustic Blender, however, does not have the same circuitry
and does not come close to the P-Blender.

Just for your information, I use a sound board pick-up and the Fishman Crown
mic. I don't use bridge pick-ups.
Hope this helps.
Howard Emerson


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Rane Ap 13 Preamp
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 15:36:31 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Todd-

It's always a good idea when first posting to a newsgroup to use
DejaNews (http://www.deja.com/) to look for the info you want. This
preamp has been often discussed here in the past. This form will
let you do a quick search:

http://www.museweb.com/ag/rmmga_deja.html

In my opinion, the AP-13 is the best bang for the buck in dual source
preamps, offering far better capability and quality than the Fishman
Blender (for example) at not too much more cost. It's not quite the
quality of a Pendulum stereo preamp, but it will cost you about half
the price and it's probably easier for most folks to use. If you want
something simple, go with the Blender series (or wait for the upcoming
EMF Entity later this summer). If you want lots of tone shaping
capability and lots of routing capability, the AP-13 is very much
worth the extra bucks. Don't forget to budget for a rack case to
carry it in.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Rane Ap 13 Preamp
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 18:37:32 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hmemerson wrote:
>
> Having sold them in a retail music store, though, I will tell you that I had
> several units go bad. The units were only used by me for demonstrating and were
> not abused in the least.

I'd be curious to know what the problem was. I've seen the same problem
on two (my own, and one used by Tom Prasada-Rao): the input connector
developed an intermittent contact problem. I can't recall whether
a simple cleaning with DeOxit fixed it on mine, or whether I had to run a
soldering iron over the input jack pins. Either way, a simple fix,
and mine has worked fine for years since (I bought it used).

> Eventually, I tried the Fishman Pocket Blender and I could not believe the
> improvement in sound quality in a split second.

Interesting. I also own a Fishman Blender (not the Pocket one), and
have just the opposite experience. If you open the two boxes and look
at the circuitry, you also see a very noticable decrease in quality
both of components and design in the Blender.

As a soundman, I have worked the board for artists that have all types
of gear. I've never heard an artist with either of the Blender products
get a sound as good as those who have an AP-13. There could be a bit
of a selection effect here, though: Those with an AP-13 are usually
the folks who have been around longer and are serious about their sound
and spend lots of time tweaking it. So perhaps if one of these folks
tweaked a P-Blender, they'd get a better sound than the majority of
P-Blender users who seem to me to not care too much about the technology.
Which is fine---if you don't want to deal with the complexity of about
a dozen knobs, the Blender series is definitely to be preferred.

> With the Rane, I had to fuss
> with 7 bands of EQ for each channel, and then I would switch guitars. Too much
> to mess with for me.

If you are using it with more than one guitar, and they each need
quite different EQ settings, then yes, this will be headache, agreed!
Rane used to sell the MAP (a digitally programmable AP-13, basically)
to handle this, but it's no longer available (and was expensive).

> The Acoustic Blender, however, does not have the same circuitry
> and does not come close to the P-Blender.

Can someone spell out the differences between the two? Those who I
know and whose ears I trust who have compared them prefer the
Blender over the P-Blender, but I only have a couple data points.
Has anyone actually opened their P-Blender to see the quality
of components, or looked at the circuitry to see if it was different
in any substantial way from the Blender's? Given the price and
size, it's hard to see how it could be a substantial improvement....

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Rane Ap 13 Preamp
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 17:27:22 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/

Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

<<snip>>

> Can someone spell out the differences between the two? Those who I
> know and whose ears I trust who have compared them prefer the
> Blender over the P-Blender, but I only have a couple data points.
> Has anyone actually opened their P-Blender to see the quality
> of components, or looked at the circuitry to see if it was different
> in any substantial way from the Blender's? Given the price and
> size, it's hard to see how it could be a substantial improvement....
>
> Peace,
> Tom Loredo

Tom,

For me it's the exact opposite, the P-Blender beats the Blender all up and
down the block. It (PB) supposedly has "better" electronics (this coming
from Fishman), and being the newer of the two products, it might be true.

While I have not opened my PB up (wouldn't do any good, anyway!), it really
is an improved sound to my ears. I have owned the AP-13 and the SPS-1
Pendulum units, and feel that the PB gives me the best AND easist sound. I
owned the Pendulum and AP-13 before the B-band gear became a part of my
life, so who knows what I might prefer now. I was disappointed in the
Pendulum because it was SO accurate, that the piezo pick-ups I was using at
the time just sounded bad to my ears, no matter what I did with the three
bands of parametric eq, and there was only so much mic that you could mix
in before feedback became a problem. I had problems with the AP-13 in
regards to signal separation. I experienced a lot of bleed over between
channels (this on more than one unit).

Tom, have you run your B-band with your Sunrise yet? I think this would be
a great combination for folks that like the magnetic pick-up as part of
their gear, especially since the B-band has such great treble response.

Larry Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
"Music Without Borders"

info request: undersoundboard pickups
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: info request: undersoundboard pickups
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 19:46:21 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

<hedberg@my-deja...> wrote:
>

> Judging from the responses in this thread, I am the only user of the
> Seymour Duncan SA-2 Perfect Timbre.

No, Preston Reed also uses one (at least as of the time of his
instructional video). He uses it with the SA-1 soundhole
pickup, and does get a nice Hedges-like sound.

So there are two of you! 8-)

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Need info on Rane MAP33 and/or AP13
From: Larry Pattis <abuse@127...>
Subject: Re: Need info on Rane MAP33 and/or AP13
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:58:48 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/

In article <7opj7p$hkj$<1@nnrp1...>>, Patricio Murphy
<<smurphy9007@my-deja...>> wrote:

> Hello,
> I'm considering buying a Rane MAP33 to use onstage with my three guitars
> (two steel, one nylon). I'll appreciate any info about it (reliability
> on the road, sound quality, well, anything!) would be really welcome!
> Please forward any reply to my email below, since I don't have constant
> access to Internet.
> Thank you very much,
> --
> Patricio Murphy
> Buenos Aires - Argentina
> <murphy@cvtci...>

The MAP33 product was discontinued by Rane a number of years ago....for
several reasons. One reason was that the marketplace simply was not (and
possibly still IS not) capable of supporting the manufacture of such a
sophisticated & expensive unit. So as a mass produced piece of gear, it
was not a success. Second, and probably more important to someone that is
in your shoes, there were very many reliability issues with the MAP 33.
Very many! As a past retailer for Rane, and a performer able to choose
which piece of gear I liked the best, it simply was never an option for me
to use a MAP33...and I got them wholesale. Chris Proctor was one of the
more "visible" users of the MAP33, as he had different settings for two or
three different guitars on-stage, but eventually he went back (to my
knowledge) to using two AP-13s in his rack space.

I also did considerable experimentation with the AP-13, a MUCH more
reliable unit for a solo guitar set-up than the MAP33. Indeed, I also used
both the original Pendulum and the newer SPS-1 Pendulum, and found that I
was able to get the best sound (for me, and for my ears) from a simple
Fishman Pocket Blender. And that "best sound for me" with the PB was back
in the "old" days with a piezo (Matrix) element and internal Mic, and also
for my current use of B-band equipment with internal Mic.

Larry "I guess I 'endorse' the Fishman Pocket Blender because I use it
on-stage, but they don't pay me a red cent to do so. Neither does B-band.
Elixir gives me strings (BFD), and wait until you hear about their new
compilation CD project...." Pattis

Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com

Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
"Music Without Borders"

Question for Pocket Blender users
From: <joe_barbieri@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Question for Pocket Blender users
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:59:32 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

In article <<37B1814A.A7067656@rpsolutions...>>,

  Ernie Zimmerman <ernie.zimmerman@rpsolutions.com> wrote:
> I have a question for all you Pocket Blender users. Can the balanced
and
> unbalanced outputs be used simultaneously? I could not figure it out
by
> looking at the info on the Fishman web site. What I want to do is to
> send the balanced signal to the main mixer and the unbalanced to an
> Acoustasonic Jr. for my monitor. Will this work?
> - Ernie
>
>

Ernie,
The balanced and unbalanced outputs from the back panel on the Pocket
Blender can be used simultaneously. The scenario you described is a
common one that will work as noted.

Best regards,
Joe Barbieri
Fishman Tech Support

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

LR Baggs Double Barrel?
From: <scottmaxwell@wwdb...>
Subject: Re: LR Baggs Double Barrel?
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:59:38 -0600
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

I'm having a guitar built right now and the double barrel would cost
$182 installed. Here's the comments from the Luthier,Kevin Ryan, about
the double barrel....

Baggs Double Barrel
If the client needs an on-board preamp, then I recommend the Baggs Double
Barrel. The Double Barrel is the ribbon transducer, an internal
microphone,
preamp and 9-volt battery.
This system has the advantage of having the microphone on-board but the
endjack is stereo. That is, the transducer and the microphone signals are
separate coming out of the guitar. You must use a stereo cord and plug
into
a stereo input or use a "Y" cord (I can supply a top quality "Y" cord).
The
"Y" cord is a stereo jack that plugs into the endjack of the guitar and
then
the cord splits into two cords, one plug having the ribbon signal and the
other plug carrying the microphone signal. These two are then plugged into
two separate channels of an amp and the signals can be fully blended and
sculpted. This gives the player the luxury of the two signals; the best of
the transducers and the great low-end of the microphone. The battery
mounts
on the back of the guitar and the preamp is part of the endjack so it is a
very clean and unobtrusive system. Of all the pick-ups that have the
transducer and the mic, this is the least compromising to the sound of the
guitar I think. The compromise with this pick-up is that the player does
not
have signal control right on the guitar. But the control can be right next
to the guitar (the Rane or Pendulum) or mounted on a mic stand (the
ParaAcoustic DI Box).

Hope that helps!

"<ladyunicorn@my-deja...>" wrote:
>
> Message from the Deja.com forum:
> rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
> Your subscription is set to individual email delivery
> >
> The Baggs website lists it at 199.00. I have seen it as low as
> 149.00...but then you have to add on the installation cost. If you do
> it yourself, it voids the warranty.
>
> Lisa
>
> In article <<37BBBD30.C2C7B92C@aimnet...>>,
> gz <<godzero@aimnet...>> wrote:
> > Hojo2x wrote:
> > >
> > > Lisa -
> > >
> > > I haven't tried the Baggs Double Barrel unit yet, but have their L6
> or RT
> > > system pickups on just about everything I own, so I can vouch for
> the overall
> > > quality of their products.
> > >
> > > The Double Barrel would be ideal for those situations where you
> don't have a
> > > stage mic to give you that "air" sound. I always work a vocal and
> an
> > > instrument mic as well as plugging in, but this would be a simpler
> solution.
> >
> > How much is the Double Barrel?
> >
> > > I don't see where you could go wrong, frankly.
> >
> > You obviously haven't heard me play!!!
> >
> > _gz
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Deja.com: Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> http://www.deja.com/
> * To modify or remove your subscription, go to
> http://www.deja.com/edit_sub.xp?group=rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
> * Read this thread at
> http://www.deja.com/thread/%3C7ph89p%24v4%241%40nnrp1.deja.com%3E

 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars [8]
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:15:44 -0700
Organization: secret mountain

jtougas <<jtougas@ix...>> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:37:29 -0500, "John B" <<john@terog...>> wrote:
>
> >I have an ip-1x in my national delphi which has the preamp box external to
> >the instrument.
> >
> >Pardon my ignorance but why a d.i. box?
> >
> >I run mine into a powered mixer and get a plenty "hot" signal.
> >
> >John B.
>
> There's a distinct possibility you're sending the wrong amount of
> signal to the mixer. A direct box is used to bring the pickup level
> which is High-Z down to mic level, which is Low-Z (or is it the other
> way around?)
>
> If I remember right, the IP-1 uses a piezo pickup, right? Piezo's put
> out even more than a magnetic pickup, meaning even more signal.

DI boxes convert high impedance unbalanced signals to low impedance
balanced signals, in essence turning an unbalanced line into a balanced
mic signal. In the case of an internal premaplifier, one is no longer
dealing with the output of the pickup itself, but with the output of the
preamplifier. If the run to an unbalanced line input on a mixer isn't
too long, and if there isn't a lot of RF or EMF interference nearby, say
from stage lighting dimmers or power transformers, such a feed will work
nicely.

However, if it's a long run to the mixer, say from stage to FOH, or if
there's a lot of interference about, converting to a balanced line will
help eliminate noise.

If one is dealing with the output of the pickup, absent any
preamplification, then a DI box serves to load the pickup more properly
than would a console line input, better preserving the accuracy of the
pickup's response. And since the level and impedance of the pickup's
output leave it vulnerable to degradation just from a length of guitar
cord, converting it via a DI closer to the instrument also help avoid
that.

You won't overdrive a console's line input with the output of either a
piezo or electromagnetic pickup. But you may compromise the performance
of the pickup.

--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:40:39 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

John Zyla's advice is on the money. There's been lots on this topic
in past posts, so you might want to check DejaNews (always a good
idea when asking a question likely to be a FAQ).

> A direct box is used to bring the pickup level
> which is High-Z down to mic level, which is Low-Z (or is it the other
> way around?)

Well, kind of! Technically, a direct box's main purpose is to
(1) change the topology of a signal from unbalanced (2 wires) to
balanced (3 wires), which improves noise rejection; and (2) to
buffer, that is, to provide a high impedance ("high Z") load
to the source, and a low-Z output to the mixer. Impedance
has nothing directly to do with "level," but since the balanced
inputs on mixers are typically mic inputs, most DIs reduce
the level of the signal by 10 - 20dB to prevent distortion
of the mic preamp stage.

Passive DIs have input impedances of perhaps 10-50 kohm. This is
"high" compared to the impedance into the mixer's balanced inputs
(typically 1k ohm or less), but rather low if you are loading
a bare piezo pickup (which needs a few Mohm). Active DIs typically
have input impedances of a few Mohm, and thus are the only type
suitable for use with a bare piezo pickup.

The Highlander is not a bare piezo, however; it has an onboard preamp
that does the buffering already. Its output is perfectly suitable
for the line input of any good mixer (the 1/4" input, not the
3-pin XLR mic input). It provides plenty enough output to drive
the mixer fine even with a longish cable run. However, in many
live situations, its not the strength of the source that limits you,
but the noise your cable picks up along the way (from flourescent
lights, dimmers, etc.). If this will be a problem for you, then
it is best to use a DI (a passive one is fine in this case) as
close to the guitar as possible, and run a balanced XLR cable to
the mixer's mic inputs. The cable will actually be carrying a weaker
signal (ironically), but because it is a balanced signal, there is
noise canceling in the mixer that can often get rid of the noise
picked up on the cable run.

If you are playing out a lot, in a variety of venues, you probably
should seriously look into getting a DI---you'll probably run into
a noise problem at some point! If you always play in the same few
places, just give it a try with a straight cable; if you don't
have problems with hum or other hash in your signal, don't bother
with the expense of the DI.

In addition to the DI functions already mentioned, there are some
acoustic guitar "DI" boxes now available that offer additional
functions beyond buffering and topology conversion, such as EQ
(tone controls), tuner outputs, effects loops, additional gain.
It's really up to your own tastes whether these things are needed.
If you are working with your own mixer, many of these functions
may be duplicated in the channel strip already via the mixer's
EQ and insert jacks. That said, a particular good acoustic
guitar DI is the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI. It has EQ specifically
tailored to the problem areas of piezo pickups; a nice box for
about $150.

Standard DIs, and the Baggs DI just mentioned (as well as the
Sansamp DI) are designed for a single signal. The IP2 puts
out a pickup and mic signal on a stereo jack. You can use
a "Y" cord and just send these to two channels of your mixer.
But the mic signal is likely to be pretty weak, and thus could
present noise problems. To deal with this, you need some gain
near the guitar, not a DI. This is why there are special
acoustic guitar preamps for dual-source setups like this.
They provide a combination of functions of buffering, gain,
EQ, mixing, and topology conversion. The cheapest current one
is the Fishman Pocket Blender. Its overpriced, but does the
job with a minimal of fuss. The EMF Entity is due out soon
and should be similar. Higher in price, quality, and functionality
are the Rane AP13 and Pendulum stereo preamp (about $500 and $1000).
Again, if you are gigging in a variety of places and relying
on someone else's gear, you really should be carrying around
at least a Pocket Blender with you. If you are always using
your own mixer, you can try the Y cord route and see if it
works to your satisfaction; you don't "need" a DI or dual-source
preamp in this case.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:26:38 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Andrew Kerr wrote:
>
> Here's a question that's sort of in the same vein. Are the 1/4"/ XLR
> converters that you can get for about $20 as good as a "real" DI box?
> I don't mean the fancy boxes with EQ and stuff.

Andrew-

I personally feel that any performer who plays out and does not have
a "real" DI or preamp with DI capability (like a Blender) has no
excuse not to carry one of these around. They take up little space
in the gig bag and are cheap (you can even buy one at Radio Shack),
and can be a life saver if you end up playing in some venue with
limited resources that doesn't have a DI.

That said, you get your money's worth, and these devices are not
as good as a "real" passive DI (though they may be comparable to
the low-end passive DIs). Passive DIs and these converters use
transformers to do the impedance conversion and to create a balanced
signal. Transformers are notorious for affecting the tone of signals.
They can alter frequency response, and they also innevitably distort
as signals get louder and the ferromagnetic core saturates (cannot
get more magnetic in response to increasing input signal). Cheap
transformers, such as those used in converters, may not have good
frequency response, and will distort at lower signal levels. Good
transformers (the benchmark being those made by Jensen; see
http://www.jensentransformers.com/) can easily cost $40 or $50 just
for the bare transformer, hence the higher cost of a good passive DI.

It may be worth emphasizing that converters and passive DIs are only
a help if your piezo pickup already has a preamp (i.e., you have to
put a batter in the guitar). If not, you need an active DI; either
a passive DI or a converter will screw up the tone of your signal.

So I guess my recommended "bottom line" is that if you don't have
the money to spend on a good DI, you should carry around one of the
converters. In some situations they certainly work adequately.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: DMadden596 <dmadden596@aol...>
Subject: Re: DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars
Date: 22 Aug 1999 23:03:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Hi all,

I have just read through this thread, and for the most part, I have no idea
what you are talking about, and for the first time, I really do want to
understand it. Is there a source somewhere that explains this, a "for
dummies" kind of resource? It is for me as if you are speaking a foreign
language and I am tired of being frustrated with not knowing. In the meantime,
here is a question - I have a Baggs under-the- saddle pickup and I am currently
trying to record a song for the rmmga CD. I have a Baggs Para-acoustic DI -
should I be using it for recording? I am micing the guitar as well as plugging
it in, going through a Mackie mixer into a Clarion 4 track.

I know someone who is selling a Rane AP13 and I have been told that it would be
a good thing to have. Can someone explain what it does?

Thankyou for your help with any of these questions.

Donna


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:58:50 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi Donna-

I don't know of a "for dummies" resourc on DIs/preamps (there's a slot
for this in my online amplification guide, but I haven't yet filled
it!) If you can be more specific with what you're confused about, maybe
some of us can help out. Part of the problem is that many folks (unfortunately
including some manufacturers) use terms like DI or preamp almost
interchangably, making it hard for newcomers to know what the
heck is going on. I'll paste some old posts below that might help
a bit, but do ask away.

As for your specific questions:

> I have a Baggs Para-acoustic DI -
> should I be using it for recording? I am micing the guitar as well as plugging
> it in, going through a Mackie mixer into a Clarion 4 track.

It used to be that the standard advice was: Use external mics only; pickups
sound lousy and are a necessary evil that you should rely on only for
live performance. This is still a good starting point, but pickup
quality has improved so much that you should keep an open mind. If
you have a spare track, record the pickup signal, and see if you
like having it in the mix. But definitely rely primarily on the mics.

My two favorite acoustic players, Phil Keaggy and Martin Simpson, have
both gotten awesome acoustic tones on CD. They rely mostly on good
external mics, but both of them also sometimes add in a bit of a pickup
signal. I believe this is also true of Jaques Stotzem (at least it's
true of his track on the Fishman Blender demo CD---ironic that the
best sounding track on that CD actually relied on significant use
of a non-Blender signal!).

> I know someone who is selling a Rane AP13 and I have been told that it would be
> a good thing to have. Can someone explain what it does?

The AP13 combines the functions of buffering (changing impedance), gain
(changing level), EQ (changing tone), mixing (combining two or more
signals into one), and conversion to balanced output. Although you
can certainly use it as a good single-source preamp with your Baggs
signal, it's kind of overkill for that. It's really intended for
dual-source setups, where you have two transducers in the guitar
(typically undersaddle + internal mic). Its mixing capabilities also
allow for extensive effects routing, inclusion of an auxiliary 3rd
input, and stereo capability (where you can put either of the two
sources anywhere from left to right in the stereo field). It sounds
to me like overkill for your setup. The Para Acoustic DI sounds like
just the right thing.

Hope this helps a bit!

Peace,
Tom

---------- Old Post -----------------
4 Mar 98
b&dYetter wrote:
>
> Hi jae,
> A direct box splits a high impedence signal into two outputs, one
> direct (for an amp.), and one low impedence, for the input to a PA or
> recording mixer. It has no adjustment for EQ.
> A pre-amp for acoustic guitar allows some EQ contouring, but has no
> low impedence capability.
> Take care,
> Steve Y.

Well, sometimes... 8-)

The trouble is that there isn't any "official" DIN or ISO spec
somewhere saying what these terms should mean, so some manufacturers
use them somewhat interchangeably. Also, some devices combine some
or all of the functions of both--so what do you call them?

A direct box (or DI, for "Direct Injection") is a device allowing
you to feed some signal not intended to interface directly with a
recording or PA mixer directly into such a mixer. They usually
do two things: provide a high impedance load to the source and
a low impedance source for the mixer (impedance conversion), and
provide a balanced (3-wire) output from a single-ended (2-wire)
input. They usually also attenuate the signal down to the low levels
typical of a microphone output. Not all DIs split the signal. Most that
do actually don't really "split" it, but just ride the signal to the
speakers. A "splitter" is a different kind of box altogether, used mostly
for doing recording of live shows (allowing the signal sources
to feed both the PA mixer and the recording mixer).

A preamp is a less well-defined beast. Basically, it's something between
a source and an amplifier (preamp = before the amp). Since all kinds
of things could be done here, all kinds of devices take this name.
The simplest I've seen is a "passive preamp" that does little more
than provide switching between alternate sources for the amp, and
some attenuation. However, the two things common to most preamps are
gain---they amplify the input signal---and *impedance conversion*
(which one can view as power gain). This is in contrast to DIs,
which as I said above often attenuate the input signal, lowering it down
to microphone level. Many preamps also provide some EQ control, at
varying levels of sophistication. Some also provide a balanced
output (thus essentially performing the task of a DI). Some also
provide power to the input device via some sort of phantom power
scheme.

All common acoustic guitar transducers (except for external mics)
require either a preamp or DI, but some manufacturers include them
with their transducers. For example, piezo pickups require a very
high impedance load; if you plug them straight into a mixer they
will sound horrible. But many come with onboard preamps (any that
require a battery have one) that provides impedance conversion and
usually some gain (but no EQ and no balanced output). Internal mic
elements typically don't require impedance conversion, but do require
a power source, and either gain or conversion to a balanced topology,
so they need a specialized preamp of some kind, too (which inevitably
provides impedance conversion as well).

So... if you are using anything other than an external mic, you need
a preamp and/or DI. If you are using a single pickup that has its
own preamp, you may not need anything else (depends on how happy you
are with the tone, how far you are running the signal, etc.). If
not, you need a preamp of some kind, and it's probably in your
interest to invest in one that provides balanced outputs so you
never need a DI. If you already have a preamp that does not
provide balanced output (like those that come with pickups, or
external units like the Fishman Pro EQ), you may need a DI if you
a running a long (>15 or 20') cable to the mixer (balanced wiring is
much more immune to many types of noise pickup than single-ended
wiring).

If you don't have a preamp, it is possible to buy a DI to use
directly with your pickup, but you have to be careful. Though all
DIs have hi impedance inputs and low impedance outputs, "hi" can
be quite different from one DI to another. Passive DIs (don't
require any battery or power source) use a transformer, and their
"hi" impedance input is typically only 5-100 kOhms, well below
the several MOhm range a piezo pickup requires. You must use
an active DI if there is no preamp between your pickup and the
DI. The Countryman Type 85 DI is probably the one with the best
reputation for use with piezo pickups; cost is about $165. For
only a little more you can get the LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI,
which is really a preamp+EQ+DI, and is thus the more sensible investment
if you intend to use the device only for acoustic guitar amplification.

Well, we can go on and on about this, but perhaps this is already
more than what you need to know...?

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Adrian Legg <Commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:23:59 +0000
Organization: *

SEFSTRAT <<sefstrat@aol...>> wrote:

> IMHO, the Countryman is THE best direct box going.
>

I think the protection the extruded casing offers the sockets is the
thing that sold it to a lot of house engineers.
Personally, I think it's a bit brittle sounding, but that's getting
finicky in most gigs.
I'd want a BSS or a Canford for recording if I had my druthers - most
times I'm lucky if I get a decent cup of tea.
In reality, anything with a 10 megOhm input impedance will take a naked
piezo fine.

--
Contact info: www.adrianlegg.com
or http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm


From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:16:49 -0700
Organization: secret mountain

Adrian Legg <<Commercial-free@speech...>> wrote:

> SEFSTRAT <<sefstrat@aol...>> wrote:
>
>
> > IMHO, the Countryman is THE best direct box going.
> >
>
> I think the protection the extruded casing offers the sockets is the
> thing that sold it to a lot of house engineers.
> Personally, I think it's a bit brittle sounding, but that's getting
> finicky in most gigs.

I share that opinion about the Countryman's sound, but readily admit
that it is solidly built, a reliable piece of kit in a professional
setting.

> I'd want a BSS or a Canford for recording if I had my druthers - most
> times I'm lucky if I get a decent cup of tea.
> In reality, anything with a 10 megOhm input impedance will take a naked
> piezo fine.

Agreed, though I do like the sound of naked piezos right into my passive
Jensen transformer-based DIs, which have a substantially lower input
impedance.

--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: DI Boxes and Acoustic Guitars
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:16:18 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Adrian Legg wrote:
>
> For a long while I was getting away with a high output piezo bridge into
> a Boss compressor(off most of the time) and then into a 2 megOhm
> parametric without too much bass loss...

I can't speak for the Boss compressor, but many stomp boxes have a
high impedance first stage that is always in the signal chain
(though "high" may not be as high as several MOhm). In fact, years
ago my very first preamp was the DOD BiFET pedal. I noticed that
my guitar sounded fine with it off, but horrible if I plugged
it right into the mixer. Taking the BiFET apart and tracing the
schematic, I found what I just described---a buffer stage was always
"on". Since the LED that indicated the pedal was on took more current
than the TL062 chip in there (!), from that point on I simply always
used the pedal "off", getting the buffering but with a much longer
battery life!

Peace,
Tom Loredo

First Use of Para Acoustic DI
From: DADGAD Tune <gsprigg@aol...>
Subject: First Use of Para Acoustic DI
Date: 23 Aug 1999 03:32:57 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

For whatever it is worth ..... I recently used a LR Baggs Para Acoustic DI
for first time. Ran a Martin D-35 with a Baggs RT system and a Taylor LKSM-6
with a Fishman Matrix Natural through it into a house PA. Used an Alesis
Nanoverb for subtle effects from the DI effects loop.

The sound was excellent. The Para Acoustic DI preamp section must be much
better than my Peavey Ecoustic 112 preamp section. Ironically , running the
set up above into the power amp input of the Peavey produces excellent sound
quality also, far better than the just satisfactory sound throught the Peavey
preamp.

The Fishman (which was not my favorite acoustic amplification source) sounded
more natural than ever. The Baggs RT in the D-35 sounded better than it ever
had before, and almost acceptable as an acoustic sound. I was about to replace
it with a Miniflex, McIntrye or a B-Band, but will probably keep it now. I
get similar excellent results with Miniflex mics through the DI also.

Before I got the Para Acoustic DI, I plugged my instruments into the Peavey
acoustic amp and took the DI output into a house PA. Essential used the Peavey
as a preamp and A-B instrument selector. The Para Acoustic DI is much easier
to carry around (45 pounds less), and for the slight extra inconvenience to
plug and unplug when I use multiple guitars, it is a much better option.

Great investment! Glad I didn't just buy a passive DI.

Larry

McIntyre Pickup Question [4]
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: McIntyre Pickup Question
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:31:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix NewsReader Service

Hi Gang,

Anybody out there know the impedence of a McIntyre pickup. I'm really
having to crank the gain to get any volume out of it and I suspect a matching
problem between the pickup and the mixer. Your assistance is most
appreciated.

Steve Hawkins


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: McIntyre Pickup Question
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:57:47 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Steve-

The impedance of piezo pickups is usually a strong function of frequency.
You don't want to "match" the impedance of the pickup with the load; you
want the impedance of the load to be much larger than the pickup's
largest impedance so that the effects of the frequency-dependent impedance
are swamped. Also, the larger the load's impedance, the less "voltage
divider" effect you will have, reducing signal losses. Impedance matching
is the correct criterion for maximum power transfer, but not for the most
accurate signal transfer. For the latter case you typically want as
high a load impedance as possible (the noise level being the tradeoff).

I don't know the Mc's impedance; it's a little tricky to measure this
kind of thing. A ballpark piezo impedance is anywhere from 100k to 1M ohm
or so. A typical line input in a mixer has a 5k to 20k impedance, and will
both reduce the effective signal level, and let you hear every bump
and wiggle in the piezo's impedance-vs-frequency curve.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: JD BLACKWELL <oneeyedjack@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: McIntyre Pickup Question
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:47:53 -0700
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services

Hi Steve,

Being intimately familiar with the very McIntyre of which you speak, I can
tell you that its unadorned output is pretty good considering it doesn't
have an onboard pre-amp. I've gone straight into the board with it and
gotten commendable results but it really shines when I ran it through my
AP-13. The EQ was very flat for a piezo. Hope you're loving the "baby". Its
replacement seems to be in limbo with an unexpectedly long delivery date of
6-8 months. May go to a competitor who can deliver in 45 days.

Cheers
JD

Steve Hawkins wrote in message ...
>Hi Gang,
>
>Anybody out there know the impedence of a McIntyre pickup. I'm really
>having to crank the gain to get any volume out of it and I suspect a
matching
>problem between the pickup and the mixer. Your assistance is most
>appreciated.
>
>Steve Hawkins


From: <gordon4043@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: McIntyre Pickup Question
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:13:00 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Are you using a preamp? I found that using a preamp/eg that Carl
McIntyre sells made a huge difference for me. The preamp he sells is
made by LR Baggs specifically for the McIntyre pick-up.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Takamine's new DSP pre-amp
From: <pgkuchar@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Takamine's new DSP pre-amp
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:20:39 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Far more important than any of that...the battery life for these things
is EXTREMELY short..a matter of hours. You'll be replacing the
batteries after every gig. I suggest you take a pass until they
improve the energy efficiency of the electronics...neat idea, but
fatally flawed.

Maybe they'll offer a version with a wall cord attachment.

In article <<19990915164123.01760.00000390@ng-ft1...>>,

  sefstrat@aol.comnospam (SEFSTRAT) wrote:
> >If any of you have heard what the new DSP pre-amp sounds
> >like, do you agree with Takamine that it is a great
> >improvement, or do you think the old-style pre-amps
> >were better?
> >
> >Thanks in advance.
> >
> >Paul Beaubien
>
> I tried one recently. I thought it sounded inferior to the older
preamps.
> IMHO, the basic tone wasn;t as good and the thing was a PAIN to
operate...also,
> the effects were not as good as most outboard effects you'd use,
anyway.
>
> Personally, I wasn't a fan of the new preamp. Cool idea, but I think
the
> execution needs work.
>
> Steve
> SEFSTRAT
>
> webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Mic/Pickup Combo With No Batteries
From: Bob Gollihur <bob@DELETEgollihur...>
Subject: Re: Mic/Pickup Combo With No Batteries
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:52:10 -0400
Organization: ETI Network Service Provider

DReke <<dreke@bright...>> wrote in message
news:%pzF3.40$<VA2.1534@cletus...>...
> Is there any microphone & under-saddle pickup combo that can be installed
> without batteries being installed in the guitar? For example, could I
> install a B-Band mic/pickup combo without the pre-amp and run it into a
> Fishman Pocket Blender? Are there any other brands or products that could
do
> the same thing?

The new K&K Sound Trinity System for Acoustic Guitar. New design
inside-guitar under the saddle transducer system plus an internal condenser
mic. The tiny two channel preamp is external. $229 complete with preamp.

http://www.gollihur.com/kkbass/pu3.html

Disclaimer: I sell 'em.
--
Bob
eclectic bass - http://www.gollihur.com/bass.html
UPRIGHT BASS LINKS - http://www.gollihur.com/kkbass/basslink.html
(remove DELETE from email address to reply)

Blender for Highlander and Joe Mills....and more!
From: DReke <dreke@bright...>
Subject: Re: Blender for Highlander and Joe Mills....and more!
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:51:25 -0400
Organization: bright.net Ohio

Larry,

If I use a pocket blender, which provides phantom power (I think?), with a
B-Band pickup/mic combo, do I still have to have to use the Core Pre Amp and
internal battery?

Have you heard if that's going to be the case with the Entity?

Also K & K Sounds makes a much less expensive blender with phantom power.
Their URL is http://www.kksound.com/welcome.html. I don't know if it's good
enough for pros like Larry, but it might work for us rank amateurs.

Thanks,
Dan Reke

Larry Pattis wrote in message ...
>In article <<37F9AC45.12F95770@stud...>>, Asbjørn Karstensen
><<asbjorok@stud...>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> Which blender would be suitable for a Higlander IP-2 and a Joe Mills
>> internal mike? Anyone got other pickup suggestions?
>>
>> Asbjørn from Norway.
>
>
>I have always recommended the Fishman Pocket Blender as a dual channel
>pre-amp for two-source pick-up installations...and I have tried everything
>on the market...extensively.
>
>As for "other pick-up suggestions," well, I not the only one around here
>that prefers the B-band from EMF Acoustics in Finland. Others here will
>recommend other manufacturers undersaddle gear, although I will not. My
>opinion.
>
>Also, while the folks at EMF have been talking about their own version of a
>two channel external pre-amp, it looks like they are finally (!) getting
>around to making this project happen. There were some other surprise
>projects that they have been working on, but they are supposedly going into
>"pre-production" (a small number of test units manufactured) on this now.
>
>I'll keep y'all posted.
>
>Larry Pattis
>
>Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com
>
>Liberal Palette Records
>http://liberalpalette.com
>"Music Without Borders"

found guitar plug volume control
From: Carlos Alden <calden@iea...>
Subject: found guitar plug volume control
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:20:36 -0700
Organization: Verio

Hey folks:

A while back I asked if anyone had heard of a guitar plug with a built-in
volume control. Found it in the new AG magazine. It is made by Guyatone
and is called the EDM-1 Speed Cable (maybe it makes you play faster, too)
and is a slider volume control built in to the plug. This is intended for
instruments with a pickup but no onboard volume control. Lists for
$69.95. I may well purchase one. If so I will let people know how it
functions.

Carlos

--
Check out my web sites!

THE CELTIC NOTS: http://celticnots.com/
THE NEW CRITERION BANJO ORCHESTRA: www.arias.net/~ncbo

Taylor electronics - to get or not to get?
From: Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublemanNOtrSPAM@rocketmail...>
Subject: Re: Taylor electronics - to get or not to get?
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:45:12 -0800
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here

In article <<19991103150910.27219.00000516@ng-fb1...>>,
<unsung96@aol...> (Unsung96) wrote:
> << Howdy-
> The other issue to consider is: How likely is it that I'll be
> happy with the existing electronics for as long as I'll own this
> guitar? As your ear "grows," what is adequate for you now may
> not be in the future. Also, technology improves. If you use
> onboard electronics that require holes in the side of the guitar,
> you are locking yourself into a specific format that may not
> evolve with your ear and tastes and technology. Relying on
> outboard electronics (or noninvasive onboard electronics, like
> the Baggs Dual Source) leaves more options open for the future.
> Peace,
> Tom Loredo
> >>
> Agreed ........but I have to say I just played a Larrivee with
> ugly plastic
> Fishman square in the side of it and that particular guitar
> sounded better to
> me than the others sans pu I tried. Really screwed my day up.

As an owner of a 714CE with onboard electronics, I really do like the
convenience of having a blend control, EQ, volume, and notch filter
right there within easy reach. There's no external box to knock over or
worry about - I just plug in and go. That said, I think the Fishman
Prefix Onboard Blend sounds good - not awesome, but good. I hope they
continue to offer upgrades to this system because there are some really
good sounding pickup systems coming out these days. Knowing what I know
now and if there'd been a choice available at the time (and there
wasn't), I'd opt for not having the onboard controls. At the time I was
searching for my instrument I really wanted everything onboard 'cause I
didn't want the hassle of external preamps, direct boxes, blenders,
etc. I've since ammended that opinion. Yet and still, I haven't seen a
714C (no onboard electronics), although Taylor may manufacture them. I
love the bodystyle and shape, hence I've considered asking my tech how
difficult it would be to remove the onboard blender stuff and
effectively (neatly - cosmetically, structurally and sonically
efficient) patch the hole in the instrument, especially if down the
road there isn't an upgrade or retro-fit made available. I keep hoping
the guys at EMF Acoustics would come out with a retrofit B-band setup.

peace,

jb

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

I've had it with my Passac [2]
From: precentor <precentr@NEVERSPAMdycon...>
Subject: I've had it with my Passac
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:51:16 -0500
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com

I need some advise.

For years, I've used Passac preamps (model EC-100) for my Fishman Gold
equipped Guild and I've loved the sound I get. Just the right amount of
resonance and only in the harshest situations did I have to consider
feedback. I bought one of these little jewels in the mid-80's and had to
replace it 4 years ago. In the interim, Passac (of Australia) had gone
bankrupt and was bought by an American company (or so said my mildly
questionable sources).

Passac is one of those far too frequent companies that makes a wonderful
operating system out of inferior elements, in this case, the plastic bodied
jacks. Its next to impossible to find direct replacements and, as the case
is ground and the input jack is also the power switch, I can only upgrade by
drastically re-engineering the entire preamp. I still have my original,
which I've done the retrofit on and still use as a back-up. But now my
newer unit has gone the same way.

Add this to the fact that the only way I can go wireless (infrequently , but
needed) is to strap the preamp and the wireless to either myself or my
strap; both instances feeling like Batman doing gymnastics wearing a utility
belt that _has_ to weight at least 40-50 lbs.

I've looked at the Fishman Matrix Natural preamp because 1) it will work
well with the existing pickup, 2) no need to cut wood, not on _my baby, and
3) I like the sound of it on Taylors. BUT, no on-board volume control. Not
necessary, but sure would be helpful.

So, any suggestions for on-board preamps the fit the above needs _and_ give
a volume control w/o surgery?

I _gotta_ do this one.
Dan Montgomery
N. Charleston, SC; USA

"Come to think of it, there already are a million monkeys on a million
keyboards. And Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"

   -Blair Houghton
__________________________________________


From: Adrian Legg <Commercial-free@speech...>
Subject: Re: I've had it with my Passac
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:00:19 +0000
Organization: *

precentor <<precentr@NEVERSPAMdycon...>> wrote:

>
> Passac is one of those far too frequent companies that makes a wonderful
> operating system out of inferior elements, in this case, the plastic bodied
> jacks. Its next to impossible to find direct replacements and, as the case
> is ground and the input jack is also the power switch, I can only upgrade by
> drastically re-engineering the entire preamp.

Quite often the dodgy plastic jacks were Switchcraft copies. All my Boss
sockets have gone, and I've replaced them with various elderly parts
I've had lying around. Most times a simple stereo jack will do the power
switching along the plug barrel from ring to ground. Personally, I've
never been to thrilled about using a dry ground joint via the socket
mounting and usually add a soldered ground wire where it doesn't already
exist just to make sure.

 My favourite beef with Boss was the pathetic quality of the Taiwanese
sockets - two months absolute max. life every time for me. From what
little I remember of the Passac, I don't beleive anything terribly
complicated was going on...?

++snip++

> Add this to the fact that the only way I can go wireless (infrequently , but
> needed) is to strap the preamp and the wireless to either myself or my
> strap; both instances feeling like Batman doing gymnastics wearing a utility
> belt that _has_ to weight at least 40-50 lbs.

Uh-oh - maybe it's time to dump the trampoline eh ?

:-)

--
Contact info: www.adrianlegg.com
or http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm

Idea Re: On-Board Volume Control
From: Ken Ironside <kironsid@mweb...>
Subject: Re: Idea Re: On-Board Volume Control
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:42:21 +0200

I have a Shadow (made in Germany) pre amp that is a small box (about 7 cm
long, 3 cm deep, 4 cm wide) with a jack plug at right angles and a jack
socket. It has volume and tone (don't know what the tone circuit is -
probably treble cut) controls and is active - uses a 9v battery, It is "L"
shaped. Small pic attached.

This was about 1992 vintage - don't know if this is still available.

Regards, Ken

Carey Driscoll <<carey@funtv...>> wrote in message
news:<3832D16F.5DFA@funtv...>...
> First,
> Carlos Alden wrote:
> > Guyatone manufactures a cord, 1/4" plugs, with a slider volume control >
as part of the plug, for folks such as we. Available at Elderly.
>
> And then,
> David Kilpatrick wrote:
> > Don't know about this [meaning my original idea], but somewhere I have >
seen a small L-shaped device which plugs into the jack socket and > provides
(non-active) volume and tone controls in-line. You just plug > it in, then
plug your lead into this in turn. With an active preamp in > the jack socket
it would work. Can't find where I saw this. DK
>
> Thanks, guys -- I forgot all about the chord with the volume control,
> but I'd REALLY like to check out that device David mentioned. If anyone
> knows a source, please backchannel me.
>
> One more in a continuing series of things I've learned from this great
> group:-)
> --
> ~Carey Driscoll~
> (619) 267-7501
> DRISCOLL ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES
> http://de.services.tripod.com

So I Chose the Fishman Rare Earth Blend
From: Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublemanNOtrSPAM@rocketmail...>
Subject: Re: So I Chose the Fishman Rare Earth Blend
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:35:10 -0800
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here

I just finished doing a sound check for tonite's gig. I was a bit
skeptical about the Fishman Rare Earth Blend set-up; I wasn't getting
the sound I wanted. After getting the internal mic aimed for optimal
sound I was happier, but still not pleased. I was running directly into
an SWR California Blonde w/Blonde on Blonde powered ext. cabinet. After
fooling with my rig for over an hour, I ran my signal through an LR
Baggs ParaAcoustic DI, then through "the Blondes" - Bingo! The set-up
really rocks; I'm quite pleased with the sound. That ParaAcoustic DI is
amazing - mostly the controls were set flat. I think I tweaked the
notch filter a tad to kill feedback, and goosed the sweepable mids a
hair, and added just a touch of treble. If you look at the controls the
are almost at zero. Whatever, I got the sound I wanted. I'd completly
forgotten that I'd used the ParaAcoustic DI yesterday at church. I'd
used it because I hadn't had a chance to aim the internal mic
optimally, and wanted to use the EQ in the ParaAcoustic DI to
compensate until I did get it aimed. I made a couple of adjustments and
played the mass, thinking I'd adjust the mic properly today. In the
final analysis, the Rare Earth Blend is capable of delivering the
goods. I think Mr. Legg was correct - it offers less feedback, probably
because of the soundhole pickup. The high-E is a bit hot, but no worse
than I've experienced with some ribbon transducers I've tried. All in
all the Rare Earth Blend sounds great. I'm getting alot of bottom end
without "booming" bass, and getting the sound of the wood, the sound of
the inside of the instrument without that nasal "honk" sound.
Surprisingly, the highs are quite nice as well. After fiddling witht he
blend control and getting it to where I liked the sound - it's pretty
close to where Fishman put the detent. Maybe they knew what they were
doing? Anywho (sic) the Taylor 410K sounds great with this pickup. Now
that I've the sound I want, I'm antsy to play...

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

B-band informal poll/vote [3]
From: Michael S. McCollum <eadric@visi...>
Subject: Re: B-band informal poll/vote
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:04:33 GMT
Organization: House Suo Marte

JD BLACKWELL wrote:

> Saw Robb Eagle at Guitar Emporium. No better, no worse than anything else.
> Doesn't carry them. Says the difference in pickups is more dependent on what
> you run it through downstream. Sells Rane, Pendulum. Currently raving about
> a pre-amp from Raven Labs

JD, can you offer any more info on the Raven? I'm currently in the
market for a preamp.

            Thanks,
            Mike

From: JD BLACKWELL <oneeyedjack@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: B-band informal poll/vote
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:20:37 -0800
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services

I was in a bit of a hurry so I didn't get to check it out myself. Robb says
its compact, quiet, and a lot less expensive than a Rane AP-13 (of which I
am a very satisfied user). Robb's taste in gear and guitars is pretty good,
so I'd say its worth looking into.
JD

Michael S. McCollum wrote in message <<3847B1AF.D8796C5E@visi...>>...
>JD BLACKWELL wrote:
>
>> Saw Robb Eagle at Guitar Emporium. No better, no worse than anything
else.
>> Doesn't carry them. Says the difference in pickups is more dependent on
what
>> you run it through downstream. Sells Rane, Pendulum. Currently raving
about
>> a pre-amp from Raven Labs
>
>JD, can you offer any more info on the Raven? I'm currently in the
>market for a preamp.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike


From: Peter MacDonald <pjmacd1@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: B-band informal poll/vote
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:50:16 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.

On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:04:33 GMT, "Michael S. McCollum"
<<eadric@visi...>> wrote:

>JD, can you offer any more info on the Raven? I'm currently in the
>market for a preamp.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike

Info available at www.raven-labs.com. I have the MDB-1 unit and
really like it.

No affiliation except as a customer...

Peter

B-Band - Counterpoint
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: B-Band - Counterpoint
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 00:06:00 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd

Following my experiment with Shadow piezo bugs they're going back to the
dealer (arranged when I bought them). Despite the sound quality which is
OK, the volume is just not there and over-amping produces hiss. Today I
got a Trace Acoustic TAP-1 preamp (going cheap from a UK store) which
has a signal LED on the input/gain and will cope with pickups up to 4
megohms. It's a great little preamp for splitting the guitar sound
between XLR and instrument jack channels simultaneously, with a separate
volume control for the instrument channel, and it has the Trace Acoustic
EQ profile built in and available on a footswitch - also a sweepable
notch on a footswitch, plus the usual Hi and Lo trim. No presence or mid
sweep EQ, but for $80 new who can complain? Anyway, this preamp proved
conclusively that even with onboard preamp as well, the Shadow bugs were
never going to cut through.

So I am considering B-Band, but I'm put off by the installation; my
existing preamp would sit in the guitar doing nothing, or I have to fill
holes. Just out of curiosity, I checked up the Highlander website,
because my Lowden saddle pickup (removed) is a 1992 EMG model physically
identical to the Highlander coaxial design. This has really made me
think. Lowden just dropped it in a regular saddle slot. No attempt to
route a 1.6mm circular slot in the bottom to accept the coax snugly and
let the saddle seat lower. This looks like an extremely tricky bit of
work to do. But, if I did it I could restore the original pickup to its
matched preamp, and maybe the acoustic sound would not be destroyed in
the way it was with the saddle riding high on a 2mm braided wire.

I also see that EMG now have a rigid piezo pickup for split saddle
guitars like mine. Maybe that is the solution - as their current preamp
looks very like the unbranded one in the Lowden. All the discussion of
B-Band has made me want to try one out (I like to know abut things first
hand!) but I'll have to wait until some future date when I get a
different guitar.

David Kilpatrick

B-Band Question; and more questions on blenders, etc.
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: B-Band Question; and more questions on blenders, etc.
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:32:17 -0800
Organization: secret mountain

Adrian Legg <<Commercial-free@speech...>> wrote:

> Larry Pattis <<abuse@127...>> wrote:
>
>
> > See above in regards to actual use of the Mackie with the Crown mini-mic.
> > Can't be done without stepping down the voltage somehow.
>
> Canford Audio over here makes a few in-line xlr converters that drop
> 24-48 volt phantom to suit various low voltage bias mikes that would
> otherwise hook up to a transmitter pack. They also make a bodge version
> for unterminated mikes so they too can be connected straight to phantom
> powered xlr.

Looking at Crown's data sheets I see the GLM series models are optimized
for use with wireless transmitters and so designed, as Larry states, to
work with the voltages commonly available from battery powered
transmitter packs. As such they alkso have unbalanced outputs.

Which leads me to think I'd prefer to work with a Countryman or a
different Crown model with balanced output that worked with P48 and
thereby appreciate improved headroom and signal-to-noise ratios. Crown
has several models, albeit more expensive, that do so.

I'm digging at all of this as one of these days Lance McCollum will call
and say delivery time approaches and I'll have to decide whether or not
I can stand the sound of a mic inside of a guitar. <g> So far I've
eliminated under-saddle stuff, and might wind up sticking with an
external mic, admitting the shortcomings of that approach.

> I assume someone in the US is offering similiar kit ?

I don't know as I've not needed to mitigate that problem.

--

                 hank alrich  *  secret__mountain
    audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement         
  "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
PADI for magnetic PUs????
From: they call me frenchy <NOSPAM@nospam...>
Subject: Re: PADI for magnetic PUs????
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:58:56 GMT
Organization: Zeta Cauliflower

Tom Loredo,

Thanks again for all of your input.
You have opened my eyes and mind to several separate issues.

I will probably not start a thread regarding stereo PA, however,
because coincidently there was one in alt.audio.pro.live-sound just a
day or so ago. There were mixed answers (very common). Some in favor
of stereo. Some not. I think it comes down to how you do it and how
good you can control it. There was a consensus, though, that if you
superimpose several "cool sounding" stereo spacious effects, the end
result won't be "cool sounding" any more.

I will approach all of my stereo endeavors with caution, being sure to
listen in the field to ensure my desired effect is really working.

respectfully,
frenchy


This web page is a resource of AG and was prepared by AG webslave Tom Loredo.
File created: Fri Jul 5 15:21:43 EDT 2002