Restoring a Vintage Ribbon

Beautiful workmanship on a vintage product that deserves respect. I'd forgotten how much fun it is to watch a machinist do his magic.

Evolution 001

Once upon a time, there was a wonderful music college that specialized in training young people for the cut-throat relatively-high technology world of modern music. That school had a great name, considering its mission; MusicTech College. The school's mission was to help young musicians and musical technologists find their way into a "life of music." Since modern music is technological in function and design, "MusicTech" was a terrific brand for the school. So much so, in fact, that groups of graduates from the school were called "MusicTech Bands": a description that indicated to other musicians that these kids were a special breed of skilled, theoretically informed, technically adept musicians who were a head above the rest of the pack. I know, that's not saying much since obtaining a music degree isn't known for being a smart economic decision. 

Being a MusicTech College instructor was a thing to be proud of. The faculty was focused and mission-driven and we were led by a man, Michael McKern, who epitomized that mission and focus. The school's two founders, Jack McNally and Doug Smith, were somewhere in the background in those days, but were not academically involved and barely seemed to know what was going on in the facility they owned. That was particularly apparent when the school moved to St. Paul from Minneapolis and in the last days of construction the two owners were occasionally shepherded around the nearly finished building marveling at the accomplishment. I was on the studio construction crew, which worked 18-20 hours a day for a couple dozen days to get the building in shape for the spring 2002 semester and, before they appeared for one of those tours, I thought McKern owned the school.

In 2005 and after a couple years of wrangling with accrediting bullshit, politics, egomania, and academia, general foolishness, and the usual American mismanagement disconnect from rational business conspired to force the school to "re-brand" the school and the mission went with the brand. The liberal arts community feels threatened by anything connecting "tech" to education. Apparently, MIT, Georgia Tech, Cal Tech, and the host of America's best institutions that proudly label themselves with the dreaded word "tech" don't live up to the dubious standards of today's for-profit fluffball liberal arts and Cardboard Blue trade school accrediting organizations. I'm sure the fact that a half-conscious, completely incompetent liberal arts accrediting agency disrespects "tech" bothers those great institutions deeply.

Sometimes I remember those days, probably unrealistically and overly fondly, and I do a search on "Music Tech" and hope to see some remembrance of that school and its students and instructors. In early February, I got a bunch of hits on that word (brand?) that was incredibly encouraging: The SF MusicTech Summit.

"The SF MusicTech Summit brings together visionaries in the evolving music/business/technology ecosystem, along with the best and brightest developers, entrepreneurs, investors, service providers, journalists, musicians, and organizations who work with them at the convergence of culture and commerce. We meet to do business and discuss, in a proactive, conducive to deal-making environment."

Shades of the good old days.

Another hit produced Music-Tech.com, which is the personal business site of "Award Winning Mixing Engineer" Stephen Sherrard. Sherrard has put together a fairly interesting "Resources for the Recording Musician" blog/informational website and also seems to be an echo of the old Musictech College mission.

One of the copout justifications for the name change was that their was competition for the name from the British music magazine MusicTech Magazine. That made no sense in 2005, since the school had been operating under the MusicTech College name for more than a decade and MusicTech Magazine came into existence in March of 2003. Anthem Publishing, the owner of the magazine version of "Musictech" didn't do much with the magazine for a couple of years, but after the college relinquished the name the magazine seems to have really taken off. Good for them. (Oddly, one of the school's most talented ex-instructors, Rob Schlette, named his mastering business Anthem Mastering. My wife would call that something more spiritually coincidental than "odd.")

My favorite MusicTech reincarnation might be the Musictech Society.  "We are the society in Imperial College Union for Music Producers and DJs. We meet to make music, mix music and discuss music (and drink and things)." Like rap (the printer left off the "c"), the whole DJ thing loses me, but I like their attitude.

Epilogue: It took me more than a few years to remove all of the old MusicTech College links and logos from my school presentations. Even in recent years, I have uncovered hidden MT logos or reference in my stuff. I, clearly, did not want to let go of the idiotic dream that MSCM would come to its senses and return to the name that implied a mission (and that mission). Instead of replacing it with the new brand, I eventually decided to stamp my work with my Wirebender logo and wait to see if anyone would notice.

ARTICLE: Rounding Out the Sound

All Rights Reserved © 1999 Thomas W. Day

(Originally published in Recording Magazine, May 1999 Volume 12, Number 8, p112, in the "Fade Out" guest editorial column under the title "Rounding Out the Sound.")

In the early 80's, a lot of engineers and musicians fell in love with our brand new digital masters. In the compromised world of vinyl, you would have to pick "the lesser evil" out of a group of master disks sent back from the mastering lab. The records that were made from those masters were, yet another, big step away from our master tape. With digital masters and CDs we got to hear what we originally recorded. The panning, bass, and volume are all where we put them. We seem to be taking that huge step for granted, lately.

The 90's seemed to introduce a new era of doubt for recording engineers. The ABX-shy golden ears crowd and other audiophile terrorists ranted about the loss of all those "pure" varieties of vinyl distortion (frequency, phase, and harmonic). For some reason, we listened to them and started trying to find ways to "round out" the clear, noiseless recordings we could make with our snazzy new digital toys.

There are lots of ways to take the edge (read "top end") off of what you put on disk. The current trendy method seems to be to stick a tube preamp between the mike and the digital gear and go on with life as you normally live it. I have some problems with that theory.

First, where are you going with all those "warm" tube amp even-harmonics? The basic idea behind the hoodoo is that solid state amplifiers add "bad" odd-harmonics to whatever they amplify. Tube amps add "warm" even-harmonics. If you believe there's something inherently evil about the extremely low harmonic distortion generated in modern semiconductor circuits, complicating (distorting) the signal you sent them makes no sense at all. You've created something extremely complicated that has to be "rounded out" in the solid state signal chain. A more conservative and informed "rounding" approach to smooth recording involves a collection of tactics.

Digital recordings got their "harsh" reputation when recording engineers tried to apply their dubious overdriven "tape saturation" tactics to the new digital equipment, resulting in lots of square waves showing up on all kinds of instruments. The same thing happened in the transition years from analog tube equipment to transistorized gear. The first thing you can do to round-out your sound is to keep your levels a safe distance from your headroom. Clip indicators flashing all over the board is a bad thing and your tube preamp isn't going to fix any part of that. After each technology evolution, design engineers learned to build in enormous amounts of headroom to compensate for deaf people in the sound room. Just having all that space for error doesn't require using it.

If you aren't trashing the input amplifiers with overdriven signal, you may be providing them with a harsh signal due to your microphone selection. Microphones and monitors are signal sources that even the lowest caret golden ears can identify in an ABX test. Microphones do not sound alike. Sometimes, two mikes of the same make and model will be considerably different. One of the basic distinctions between good engineers and everybody else is that the good ones have spent a lot of time experimenting with microphones, microphone placement, and stereo microphone configuration (XY, M-S, 3:1, etc.).

Some famous old tube condenser mikes will round off the edges of anything you care to record. Some of the newer FET condensers can do the exact same job for a lot less money. Of course, stuffing a delicate, large capsule condenser mike into a bass drum will give you a harsh, overloaded signal that no tube circuitry can round out. Part of the time you need to spend experimenting with microphones should be spent learning which mikes work on certain instruments and where those mikes are absolutely useless.

Finally, and critically important, you have to do your recording in a decent room. The tracks that need the most rounding-out are the ones that had a microphone stuffed into the guts of every instrument in the mix. If you want a smooth, clean sound that has depth and warmth, you ought to do at least a little bit of the recording in a room that has those characteristics. A grand piano sounds terrific in a decent room, heard from a decent listening position, but it will sound like a poor sample if you cram your head against the sound board. When was the last time you listened to an acoustic guitar with your head stuffed into the sound hole? Pickups are useful in live applications, but on record they make great acoustic guitars sound like mediocre ones. There is supposed to be an advantage to being in the studio. That advantage doesn't get used nearly enough.

Your ears should be the best audio reproduction equipment you own. The best way to achieve a smooth, well rounded recording is listen carefully and critically to what you are putting on tape (or disk). Don't blindly follow someone else's rules. If you have carefully studied your craft, you will have learned that Goldman's Rule applies to art in general, "Nobody knows anything." Our audience will put up with almost any godawful recording technique to hear great songs and performances. I think our goal should be to get between them and their music as little as possible. There have been great records taped directly to 2-track tube decks and on 128-track digital rigs. Patching a tube preamp between a poorly selected microphone and your mixing and recording medium will not correct for abuse of technology or mediocre music.

REVIEW: Otari MTR-90 II

NOTE: Now, of course, we’re really into ancient history. When I wrote this, in 2003, there could have been some argument about which tape deck company would last the longest; Studer or Otari. It turned out to be a moot point. I bet Otari, but I was wrong only because one of the dumbest fucking hostile take-over companies in the history of dumb fucking companies, Harman International, bought Studer and pieced out the last production run of the 827 over almost a decade. Otari, on the other hand, simply tossed in the towel and vanished into audio history.

The Otari MTR-90 II multitrack deck is an industry workhorse.  From Disney Studios to Lucasfilm to hundreds of professional studios around the world, the MTR-90 II is one of the most common recording tools in the history of the art and business.  For years, Otari fought the reputation of "Japanese junk," until releasing this product.  Suddenly, the performance of Otari's multitrack 2" machine easily rivaled the best German hardware.  Since the Otari electronics had arguably surpassed Studer's performance several years earlier, this was a major crossroads in the world recording competition. 

The control circuitry, best demonstrated when you use the MTR-90's remote control.  The remote is incredibly powerful and flexible (outside of the incomprehensible and useless "Search Zero" functions), even compared to today's DAW and hard disk recording systems.  There are ten markers with associated one-button locate buttons.  A sixteen-key keypad allows full control of the tape and vari-pitch speed control is available from the remote. 

This unit was released for production in 1987 and remained an active product until 1991, when Otari ceased production on analog recorders (except for their two-track deck).  In the limited form the company currently exists, some service and parts are still available for the MTR-90.  There are a few support companies still making service parts and doing specialty repairs on this deck, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult for studio owners to justify and maintain their analog multitracks. 

Part of the reason for this difficulty is that an analog deck requires regular maintenance.  Unlike the use-it-and-toss-it digital equipment world, an analog deck can be expected to last for several decades.  However, that won't happen if regular maintenance isn't performed.  Head maintenance, transport maintenance, and general mechanical hygiene is necessary for optimal operation of any analog deck. 

The Otari is as easy to service and maintain as the expensive spread, Studer.  When it comes to calibration, it's possible to tweak the MTR-90 to tighter performance specifications than any but the absolute highest resolution digital systems.  The clean, natural sound of analog tape is well in evidence with this machine and it's a shame to consider its eventual demise. 

It's that kind of world, though.  Analog tape is expensive, hard to edit and handle, and tape machine maintenance is a discipline that is vanishing from the recording business.  Thirty years of equipment development created an ergonomic machine that is reliable, easy to use, and durable.  We'll never see the like again.

Technorati Tags: audio recording,analog,otari,mtr-90,mtr-90II

ARTICLE: What You Need to Know about Professional Audio Power Amplifiers

(Originally published in Musician Magazine, August 1991)

All Rights Reserved © 1991 Thomas W. Day

When I started this article, I had been an engineer with a pro power amp company for almost ten years. This article was originally a promotion piece. It was so promotional that the first chapter was published in first draft form in the company's newsletter. I'm not in the industry now. I don't have any compulsion to be kind to my employer or to the industry in general. I spend my days teaching docs and salespeople how to keep abused American hearts pumping. Nights, I dream of music and less stressful days. As the man said, "the hours are good, but the minutes are awful." But, before it all drifts away, I want to pass on what I learned about buying and using audio power amplifiers and professional sound equipment, in general.

Theory First: a perfect power amplifier would only make the original signal, louder. It wouldn't add noise or distortion. It wouldn't break. It would protect your loudspeakers from abuse. It would only cost pocket change. It wouldn't waste energy. Real power amplifiers are a long way from perfect. The real thing is expensive, complex, and too often the least reliable component in your sound system.

A big part of the reason power amps aren't perfect is that they have to work so hard. Power amps are easily the hardest working electronic component in the audio chain. Only electro-mechanical loudspeakers work harder. Anything that does work wears out. That's why marketing guys last longer than engineers. And engineers last longer than janitors. Stress from overwork causes a power amplifier's parts to fail more often than the less exercised parts of other types of audio equipment. Think of equalizers as the audio equivalent of a marketing manager. They ought to last forever; equalizers and marketing managers.

But even with the laws of physics beating on their heads, some power amplifiers do very little damage to your music, rarely ever break, and protect your loudspeakers from almost everything but bad music. If you follow a few rules, you can buy a power amp, use it for a big part of your career, and expect the finest sound quality possible with the reliability that keeps the Maytag guy unemployed. Stay with me, I'll tell you what to look for.

Accuracy is an important feature in a power amplifier. The most accurate power amps add the least '"distortion" to the amplified signal. Harmonic inaccuracy, frequency response inaccuracy, and noise are all forms of distortion. The bad news is that an accurate sound system may not sound good to you. We all tend to like hearing what we are used to hearing. You may be used to hearing a particular kind of distortion and lots of it. You may have a hearing defect that your system compensates for.

Accuracy and sound quality should tie together. It is hard to be objective about "sound quality" because many of the standards we use to measure sound quality are personal preferences. When you are designing a system, it is important that you train yourself to listen for what is accepted as an accurate sound. Listen to acoustic instruments for a reference, then listen to those same instruments amplified. You can always alter the sound with signal processing equipment, but start with as accurate a system as you can afford. And go downhill from there.

Reliability, to most sound companies, is much more important than accuracy. The most reliable power amplifiers are designed to minimize component failures (mechanical and electrical) and to survive extreme conditions. A technical discussion of a reliable design is beyond the scope of this article, but there are ways for a user to get a grip on product reliability. A reliable amp should have good references. If you don't have the technical ability to determine which amplifier has the cleanest output and is the most durable, get help.

Find a dealer who sells several brands. A dealer who has this kind of independence has little to gain by selling one brand over another. (This is assuming the dealer isn't more concerned with selling what he has on the floor than with your satisfaction and return business.) A dealer who is in for the long haul will be more likely to give you information that will bring you back for your next purchase. Beware of dealers who play used car games with you. If the salesperson doesn't know or care enough to carefully explain the reasons for his opinions, look elsewhere for advice.

If you have a professional sound company in your area, get the touring manager's opinion. This source probably has nothing to gain by recommending a poor product, unless you are likely to become competition. One drawback may be that a tour manager won't say anything good about anybody. Talking to a little sound company owner won't tell you much. That source won't have had much exposure to a variety of manufacturers and won't have used many pieces of the brands they have been using. What you want is a company that has a bare minimum of 50-75 power amplifiers in their working system and has been around for at least a decade. If you get to talk to someone like this, take names and numbers. You won't get a lot of time and the information you get will be valuable.

To get really unbiased advise, talk to a repair technician who specializes in professional audio equipment. These guys have nothing to gain from selling you a bad product. They know what breaks and what doesn't. And it won't hurt to get to know the people who can bring your system back to life in a crisis. A good technician is often more technically competent than the engineers who design the equipment. They see all of the faults of the products in the field, put the pieces together, and can give you the least biased reliability report of any source.

Although this article is being published in a pro audio equipment magazine, I can't recommend using magazine articles as valuable references. From my own past experience, I don't think magazine reviewers have an unbiased perspective or any other qualifications of an accurate source. I take everything I read with a block of salt.

LIFE ON THE SHELF (What to look for when you are buying an amplifier)

Once you get the advise, there are a few logical steps to follow in purchasing a power amplifier. A sound system is called a sound system for a reason; all of the components must be selected to work together as a system. In selecting the components to your system, you have to honestly evaluate how the system will be used. This isn't as easy as it seems. We all have "golden ears" and our systems "never clip." In reality, some systems never clip more often than others. If you expect your system to have a long life, you have to be honest about how it will be used.

First, figure out how much power you need. Contrary to some folk tales, you can buy too much power. It is possible to destroy speakers with too much clean power. I'm not contradicting the fact that distorted power will quickly destroy high and mid drivers, but 1000 watts into a 100 watt driver will do the job just as quickly. Buy a reasonable amount of overhead power for your system, run the system within the limits of available power,

An "honest" rule of thumb is "whatever power your guitarist's amp has, you need a minimum of ten times than power that in your sound system." A margin with headroom would be 100X the guitar amp's power. If you have two guitarists, double the calculation. It may sound ridiculous to have to buy 1000 watts of PA because the guitarist has a 100 Watt Marshall, but it isn't. If the systems have equal efficiency (a big, highly unlikely "if"), this will buy your system 6-16dB of practical headroom over the guitarist. That isn't huge, but it's far more than most rock bands ever approach.  Yes, I realize that my math appears to be overly conservative.  I'm comparing a (hopefully) clean 1,000 watt system to a very distorted 100 watts of guitar amp output.  The reason 100 watts of guitar power sounds so loud is that it's distorted and is often averaging a lot more than rated power. 

The dynamic requirements of a system also determines the amount of power a system needs. An concert orchestra system has considerably different requirements than a heavily compressed disco system. Those requirements determine the amount of excess power the system will need. In a wide dynamic range application, like a classical piano concert, the continuous system power will be considerably less than peak power. Normally, quite a bit less than one tenth of the peak. In this application, you may want the power rating of the amplifier to be considerably above the speaker power rating. Since the system will rarely be using the extra power for short duration, the speaker system is unlikely to be damaged. This is a trade off between the speaker safety margin and your budget. You have to make the call.

In a limited dynamic range rock and roll or disco system, the average power is often very close to the peak power of the system; probably about one third of peak power. If the music is heavily compressed or the system is run near or beyond clipping, the power amplifier and speaker power ratings should be very close to each other. To protect the speaker system components from overheating or excessive driver excursion, you may even limit the output of your power amplifiers to a value considerably lower than what the speaker system can handle.

To get the information you need to design your system, you will have to interpret manufacturer's specifications. When you are evaluating any product's specifications, remember this: designing an amplifier is a lot different than advertising one. Anyone can write a spec sheet. Nothing protects you from advertising lies, not the FCC, the FTC, or the FDA. You are on your own.

Here are just a few specifications to distrust.

1. Continuous Power. Most power amps can live up to their "continuous power" spec at 8W, but, as the load drops and the power climbs, "continuous" takes on new meaning. It means "continuous until the circuit protection trips." Could be five minutes, could be five seconds, could be five milliseconds. Technicians are used to making this test after bypassing the circuit protection; or not bothering with it at all on many amp brands.

2. Distortion. You will probably be disappointed to learn that this is a "fudge-able" specification. Very low distortion specs are often quoted at a single frequency or output level. If the distortion percentage isn't from 20Hz to 20kHz and from full output to at least 20dB below full output, it isn't saying anything significant. If distortion is quoted over those ranges, it could still be untrue.

3. Damping Factor. This specification is a marginally useful measurement of the amp's output impedance vs. the speaker impedance. Since a bigger damping factor is better, some manufacturers quote numbers that would require superconductors to achieve. If you figure 20 feet of 14 gauge wire will reduce a perfect damping factor to about 150, damping factors of much larger values are meaningless in the real world. Amplifier manufacturers often measure damping factor at frequencies that get the best numbers out of their designs, not where the figures would mean the most to your sound system.

4. Slew Rate. This is a 70's holdover. Some manufacturer's claim slew numbers that are faster than the individual components they use can produce. The whole can't be better than the parts. Slew is very hard to test on some of the more "sophisticated" designs, because the design won't pass a square wave without tripping the circuit protection.

5. Power Bandwidth. This is the last spec I'm going to whine about. Sometimes called "frequency response" at a specified power rating. You really have to watch this spec. Be wary of bandwidth response specs at very low power output, unspecified power output, and numbers that are a lot better than competitor's products for the same money. If it seems unreal, it probably is.

The disclaimer at the bottom of nearly every product's specification information tells the story best: "The manufacturer reserves the right to change the product specifications at any time." This means that the product does not have to do what the spec sheet says it will do. On top of that complication, the tests listed in the spec sheet are selected to idealize the product. They are usually "best case" tests; or pure fantasy. Since the specs are suspect, you will have to find another way to determine if the amplifier does what you want it to do.

You can make a basic, logical, inspection inspect of a power amplifier without a cart full of test equipment. Some simple points of inspection are:

1. An amplifier should have good manners. It should not make power-up or power-off thumps, pops, or explosions.

2. When you drive the amplifier hard, it should not sound drastically more distorted at the point of clipping (when the clip lights light). The amplifier should not shut off or make weird noises when it is clipping.

3. The amplifier should have faultless short circuit protection. You should be able to short circuit the output of the amp at full power without damage to the amp, or the speakers, after you remove the short.

4. The amplifier should have a decent sent of connection options.  I'd recommend Speak-Ons and barrier strip outputs and XLRs and barrier strip inputs.  Balanced inputs are a non-negotiable requirement for professional live sound systems. 

You may need the assistance of a technician to perform these tests safely. Most dealers have someone capable of running these kinds of tests and that person may even help you interpret the results of the results.

Obviously, you should listen to the amplifier, but listening tests can be deceiving. When you are evaluating the sound quality of a group of amplifiers, be certain that the test is honest. My rule is "ABX or it doesn't count." If you can't do a double blind test (one where no one knows which amp you are listening to), don't waste a lot of time with the test. I've sat in on too many listening tests where "golden ears" who could easily point out the faults in amps they could identify suddenly couldn't tell anything about the same amps when ABX was applied.

But before you start listening there are a few things to set up. Power amp manufacturers don't agree on how much "gain" an amplifier should produce. This is important in a listening test. Our ability to hear the upper and lower frequencies varies with volume. If you compare two identical amplifiers, the louder of the two will sound the best; bass will sound stronger and highs will sound brighter. Take the time to match the output gain of your test amplifiers before you try to make any listening tests. Use a test tone as an input signal so you can accurately measure the output signal of each amp. If you have a voltmeter, you can precisely calibrate the test amplifiers' gain by applying the same input to both amps and setting the amp gain controls for equal output voltage (measured on a power resistor, don't blow up your test speakers with test tones).

Make your listening comparison tests quickly. Most people have a very short aural memory. It is hard for most of us to hear the difference between two very different amplifiers, even when there is nearly instant switching. If you have to fiddle around with wiring between each test, you probably won't learn anything in your test.

Make your tests at a volume level that you expect to use the amplifier. A quiet listening test in a music store is not valid. You are interested in the characteristics of the amplifier when it is driven hard. You want to know what its dynamic ability sounds like. The ability of the amplifier to control large speaker drivers is not tested without serious driver movement.

Get the amplifier to a place where you can listen to it the way you are going to use it. This is important for lots of reasons, but the main one is that high volume causes fatigue. At high volume levels, you will only have a minute or two to listen and compare before a guitar amp starts to sound as accurate as an audiophile system.

Before you pull out your cash, beware of the "buck factor." We all want to believe our money is well spent. If you are about to spend a few thousand dollars on a new amplifier, you probably expect it to sound better. Positive thinking is a great personal tool, but it doesn't have any value in a fair product comparison. Remember that when a salesperson is harping about the great things that you should be hearing in your listening tests. If you don't hear the difference, it isn't there.

LIFE IN THE RACK (How to setup and use the amp.)

After you have purchased your amplifier, you have to use it. I'd like to tell you that you can simply plug a stack of amplifiers into the wall and go for it; but I can't. You have to know a few things about power, wiring, and troubleshooting.

There is no free lunch. You may have noticed that an amplifier with a 200 watt output rating will have an input power rating of 300-500 watts listed on the serial number label. (You may have to use Joule's Law to calculate the input power: P=VI or Power = Voltage times Current.) The extra wattage is not a spare tire waiting to carry on when the original watts get tired. This unaccounted-for-wattage is the price for using a less than perfect power supply and output circuit. You can find the missing watts in the heat you feel on the face plate, heatsinks, and chassis of your amplifier. Instead of converting all of the electrical energy to mechanical energy and loudspeaker motion, a lot of the power used in an amplifier produces thermal energy. This thermal energy can cause problems.

You will need to allow for moving this energy away from the amplifier. The amplifier designer probably tried to help you with this. If the amp is fan-cooled, make sure the air flow is unobstructed. Don't put obstacles in front of, or behind, the amplifier. If you can keep the amp cool, it will last a lot longer. The amp will stay alive longer if you protect it from dust and other "foreign materials." Most kinds of contamination act as a thermal insulator. The blanket of dust that builds up on the amplifier's components holds the heat to the components. The components get hotter when they are insulated, the same way blankets work on humans. Some not-so-bright designs route the hot air into closed places; like the sides or top of the amplifier. When the amp is sitting on your kitchen table, this might work. Rack cases, generally, don't open on the top or sides. If your amp vents in those directions, plan on doing some carpenter work to your rack.

This may seem like dumb advice, but I have to say it, "Don't put your beer cans on top of the amplifier!" For that matter, keep the beer away from any other electronic gear. I can't count high enough to figure out how much money I have charged to clean beer muck out of expensive electronic gear. Liquids and electrons don't mix. Friends don't let friends do stupid things.  And so on.

You will also need to make sure your amplifier gets enough to eat. The power output of your amplifier is dependent on the power input. The amplifier's power supply components are designed to provide optimum output with a good, "stiff" power line. If your local power company is prone to "brown outs" (low power line voltage), your amplifier is not going to be as powerful as the manufacturer designed it. If the supply voltage is especially low the amplifier may become unstable, the protection circuitry may not work correctly, or the amp may not work at all. Most power amplifier performance specifications are measured with a line voltage of 120VAC (in the United States). If the power line is 10% low, or 108VAC, an amplifier rated at 200 watts will probably only provide 162 watts. If the power line is 15% lower, or 102VAC, the 200 watt amplifier will only be good for 145 watts. From a bottom line perspective, you will probably pay at least $0.80 per watt for a professional power amplifier. On a 200 watt per channel stereo amplifier, the 15% low line will waste $100 of your investment. It is worth your time to make sure your amplifier is getting the power it is designed to use.

If your power source is good but your wiring to the amplifier is bad, you still lose. Your AC power wiring must be large enough to get the power from the power company to the amplifier. A 150-foot 16-gauge extension cord is not going to cut it for a multi-kilowatt concert system. If you don't have the technical knowledge to make the calculations for a serious power distribution ("distro") system, hire someone who can. This is serious business. A poorly designed power system is not just going to cause problems with your amplification system, it could burn the house down. Seriously. Undersized power-wiring can get hot enough to melt insulation and start fires. Improperly grounded power wiring can kill you.

Still more wires! The wiring at the output end of your amplifier is as critical as the power wiring. Very long or very small speaker cables waste power and impair the amplifier's ability to control the speakers. Wire resistance is determined by the diameter (or cross-sectional area) of the wire and the wire length. In other words, if the wire is very short it doesn't have to be large. On the other hand, if the wire diameter is large it still shouldn't be long. If your cables are long, you will introduce other types of problems to your system. As the cable lengths increase, the cable inductance and capacitance increase. Both of these effects reduce your system's performance. The cable capacitance acts as a frequency dependent current path across your wire, bypassing your speakers. This effect worsens as the frequency rises. The cable inductance acts as a frequency dependent load in series with the speakers, increasing the cable reactance and reducing the amount of signal available to the speakers.

"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that ain't right." Will Rogers was talking about politicians, but he could have been talking about damping factor. I have heard damping factor blamed for everything from speaker cone damage to Republicans in the White House. The loss of control produced by long or undersized speaker wires is often noticeable on large low frequency drivers where the amp's "damping factor" can be important. Damping factor is one indication of how well an amplifier will control your loudspeakers, but the effect of damping factor is often overrated. Poor damping factor can produce a bass response sometimes described as "flabby" or "loose." Practically, you will probably have to limit yourself to a system damping factor of 30 to 50 (including the impedance of the amplifier's output, but not including the wiring, and speaker connectors).

The speaker connectors can be as difficult to figure out as the rest of the wiring. Many amplifiers have a collection of output connectors for output connectors. You may find "5-way connectors," XLRs, barrier strips, and 1/4" phone connectors. The old guitar standard, 1/4" phones, is rated for max of 1 amp and is not useful for high power speakers. XLRs are no better. A brand new dual banana connector is a high current connector, but banana connectors fall out easily and wear out fast. The ideal speaker connector is large (to carry high currents), mechanically secure, and gas tight (to prevent corrosion). If you use the barrier strip's screw terminals or the terminal connector section of the "5- way," you will get all of the above advantages. Don't try to shove the bare wire under these terminals. Crimp a fork tongue connector to your wire ends and you will have a relatively removable wiring setup that will rarely require maintenance, unless you move the system a lot. The current power amp speaker connection standard is Neutrik's "Speak-On" connector. This is a high current, high impact, polarized connector. The old amp speaker connection standard is the "twist-lock" power cord connector, found at your local electrical equipment supplier but not found cheap. I'm still partial to these connectors at the speaker end of the cable, but old habits die hard.

Now that you have the amp hooked up and you are ready to use it, you will need to pay attention to the information the amp's indicators provide. Most pro power amplifiers have "clipping" indicators. Most pro users ignore this indicator and everybody else wonders why the "little red light is always flashing." The clipping indicator is telling you that your output signal is exceeding the amplifier's power supply voltage. Kind of an electronic, "You are too loud, Bozo." When the amp runs out of voltage, it can't get any louder without getting distorted.

Normally, most of the power content in music is concentrated in the low and mid frequencies. When an amplifier is clipping, it is producing lots of harmonics of the original signal. Those higher frequency harmonics get directed by passive crossover networks to the high frequency drivers. An overdriven power amplifier can produce much more power than the advertised power rating. In fact, an amplifier that is driven into heavy distortion can often produce nearly 1.5 times its rated maximum output power. A good dose of this clipped signal will quickly smoke your wimpy little tweeters.

Some amplifiers have indicators to let you know when an output signal is present. Some amps have VU meters. These indicators are troubleshooting tools. If you are not getting anything out of the amplifier, but the signal presence indicators say something should be coming out of the amp, you should suspect the speakers or output wiring.

Many modern amplifiers have circuitry to protect the amp from overheating. When an amplifier is overheating or tripping circuit breakers, it is being worked too hard. Believe this warning! You are going to have to reduce your system volume or remove some of the speaker load. If your ignore this symptom you may damage the amp.

If you are moving your equipment a lot, you may be shaking it to death. Vibration is the enemy of any equipment that has more than one part. If you can shock-mount your rack, do it. Otherwise, handle all of your equipment like you had to pay for it.

LIFE AND DEATH (Finding and fixing problems with the amp and your system)

Eventually, something in your system is going to die, or act weird and then die. The best way to troubleshoot anything is to eliminate unnecessary variables. Simplify the testing of your system by removing anything that isn't needed to produce a test signal. The most simple system I know of is a signal source (a CD player, cassette recorder, or signal generator), a power amplifier, and one speaker. If you connect the headphone output of a portable cassette or CD player to the input of a power amplifier, you will be able to control the volume of the system with the player's gain control. If the problem you are trying to locate is missing with this simplified system, add your other system components; one at a time.

Start with one speaker to completely eliminate a second set of speaker cables and speaker from confusing your troubleshooting. If the single speaker works in both channels, add the second speaker. Keep adding components until you locate the component that causes the problem. This technique will work for locating ground loop, distortion, and loss-of-signal problems.

Ground loops are among the most common problems you may have to troubleshoot. Ground loops can appear any time you change your system. Your first setup may be the quietest system in history; and you may never have it that good again. The large transformers in high powered amplifiers often produce a magnetic field that can induce ground currents in the chassis and wiring of other products mounted in the rack. The large 60Hz AC currents required by power amplifiers can cause ground currents to flow through input cable grounds and chassis grounds. These ground currents can produce "hum" (60, 120, or 180 Hz noise) in your signal output. You may find that moving an input cable a few inches will cause a major difference in the system noise.

Usually, ground currents can be eliminated by establishing a single ground path for all of the components in the system. Occasionally, the design of a particular product will require it to be isolated from the rest of the system. Preamplifiers and power amplifiers are examples of products that should be physically isolated from each other. High gain, preamplifier circuitry is particularly sensitive to the large magnetic fields produced by a power amplifier's power supply transformer. Leaving a single rack space between a preamp and a power amp is often enough isolation to eliminate this induced noise pickup.

The phase relationships between each of your system's electronic components is another major troubleshooting hassle. System phasing and connector polarity is made difficult by the lack of industry standardization for amplifier and connector polarity. The international standard for XLR-3 connectors is pin 2 "+" ("non-inverting", "hot", or "high"), pin 3 "-" ("inverting", "cold", or "low"), and pin 1 ground. The terms "inverting and non-inverting" describe the phase of the output signal compared to the phase of the input signal. A non-inverting input does not change the phase of the signal, inverting does.

Some American and English manufacturers build equipment with the phase of the input XLR wiring reversed (pin 3 "+" and pin 2 "-"). If your system uses a single power amplifier or all of your amps are the same brand, this is not a problem. If you are mixing amplifiers brands, you will have to watch for phase differences.

Phase problems can do more to your sound system than just make it sound funny. A sound system operator may drive the speakers hard enough to fry speaker coils because of the output cancellation caused by two speakers reproducing the same signal, but out-of-phase with each other. The reduced system sound pressure level (SPL) from the out-of-phase speakers is the clue for troubleshooting phase problems. An easy way to determine if two amplifiers are in-phase is to listen to the output of the amplifiers with the same input signal. Compare the system output with one amp and then with both amps. The system should be about 3 dB louder with both amplifiers operating. If it is slightly quieter, or "hollow" sounding, the amps may be out-of-phase. When a system gets large, this procedure is not very efficient. There is test equipment available for testing system and component phase. It isn't cheap, but if you have a lot of equipment to test it might be a good investment.

If your amp dies, the work you did in researching manufacturers will pay off. If you didn't do that work, you will be doing the paying. All manufacturers are not created equal. Some companies offer transferable warranties (if you bought the amp used), some don't. Amp warranties run from one to twenty years. Some amp companies haven't lasted long enough to cover their first year's products. Some companies fix everything that breaks for an indefinite period, no matter what the warranty. Others pretend that anything that broke was your fault. Some companies fix what's broke, no questions asked. Others never stop asking questions. Don't leave finding out how service is performed until you need service. Repairs can cost you the purchase price several times over in a very short product lifetime. This is where a company's reputation means the most to you.

If you find that a power amplifier is defective, you will have to find a technician. There are two sources of repair: the original manufacturer and a local facility. Generally, I would recommend you return the amp to the manufacturer. If the company has an in-house service department, that department's technicians will be intimately familiar with the company's products. That is all they ever work on and they see the product in quantity. The next best service location is the local authorized warranty station. Often, local service companies simply box the product up and ship it to the manufacturer for any serious repair. If they don't perform that service for free, call the manufacturer. If the product failed in warranty, you should be able to get the manufacturer to pay for shipping both ways. If the manufacturer won't do it for you, they may do it for your dealer.

There isn't anything that is user-repairable in a broken amplifier. I wouldn't even recommend replacing an internal fuse. Usually, the internal fuses protect the circuit board from major failures. If those fuses are gone, something major took them out. Do not replace these fuses with a fuse value greater than the original! If you insist on replacing these fuses, you might try a smaller value first. If it blows immediately, give up and take the amp to a repair shop.

If you spill anything liquid in the amp, turn it off and send it back to the manufacturer with a note explaining what happened. Tell the technician what you spilled into the amp. The printed circuit boards will have to be washed and some components may have to be replaced. If you leave this kind of contamination on the components they will quickly collect dust and they may be damaged by corrosion. Many liquids contain conductive chemicals that can cause your amplifier to do strange things to your speakers.

You may want to talk to your dealer about any major repair job. The place that sold the amp may service it. If you are a good customer, the dealer will probably handle getting the amp to a service facility or to the manufacturer. Dealers can often get the best repair deal from the manufacturer.

If you aren't near the place where you bought the amp, call the manufacturer. Most manufacturers have service centers somewhere near just about anywhere. The Service Department of most manufacturers' will rush a repair; if you ask for it, beg, cry, scream, or whatever works.

A typical major amplifier repair can run anywhere from $75 to $500, depending on how many components have to be replaced. The kinds of things that break in power amplifiers are sometimes expensive. The components that fail the most are the output transistors. These things do most of the work in the amplifier. They are the source of most of the amp's heat. They will cost you $15-25 each and there may be 20 or more output transistors in a large amplifier.

A lot of repairs are minor. Minor repairs usually cost $30 to $75. Many repair shops estimate the cost of repairs for a small service fee. Many manufacturers will do free estimates, plus the cost of shipping.

Make sure you are not paying for a repair when the amplifier is still under warranty! Pro amplifiers have really long warranties: three years is not unusual. If you don't take the amp to an authorized service facility, the manufacturer's warranty will probably not cover the repair. Call the manufacturer first, to verify the warranty service center status of your repair shop.

Someday, when the warranty is long gone, your amplifier will die and you will have to decide if it is worth reviving. This can be a tough call. The "watt per dollar" figure is always shrinking and yesterday's technology is pretty sad by today's standards. It doesn't take a pair of golden ears to hear the difference between a mid-1970s amplifier and today's technology. You will have to make a careful comparison of the repair cost for the old amp and the purchase price of a new amp. If the two values are close, the new amp with its warranty and improved technology may be the better buy.

The future for power amplifiers holds direct digital inputs and signal processing, low weight and high efficiency power supplies, computer control, greater reliability, and more steps toward sonic perfection. Amplifiers will always get more powerful and the watt-per-dollar ratio will probably keep growing. We may see an amplifier feedback loop that includes sensors on the loudspeaker and distortion will be radically lower. Loudspeakers may radically change and this could require totally new concepts in power amplification.

Your choice in amplifiers may be what defines the reliability and sound quality of your sound system. Or your amplifiers may limit the performance of your system. With a little research you can find a power amplifier that will handle any professional requirement. With a little care and common sense you can depend on your power amplifiers for years of service.

Technorati Tags: consumer information,professional audio,power amplifiers

ARTICLE: Where Are We Going?

[Another Wirebender-only article from 2004.]

Record companies would like, more than anything, to have this question answered: "Where the hell is the industry, our art, going?"  Mostly, record company execs want to know where the money part of the industry is going to be, the art can take care of itself.  Artists, too, would like to know where the money is and where it's going to be in a few years.  It's hard to make art if you can't find the finances necessary to buy the materials and equipment. 

Unlike many art forms, the materials and equipment necessary for the production of music are getting cheaper by the second.  Full-featured, professional digital recording equipment, capable of doing the recording job far better than analog equivalents of 20 years ago, costs a minor fraction of barely-featured, semi-pro gear from "back in the day."  Transparent microphones, multi-track digital workstations, effects processors, and acoustic treatment materials are easily found, with high quality and low cost.  While cutting vinyl used to be an expensive, slow, and tenuous process, burning CDs is something every grandmother can do on a cheap personal computer.  Basement studios have, sometimes, more tools than the most productive pro studios of twenty years ago.  Go back another decade, to the late 60s or early 1970s, and there is no contest between Abbey Road and a $10,000 investment in a modern basement studio.  The basement wins, hands down.  The Beatle's Abby Road would seem like a primitive garage in comparison. 

From that historical perspective, the music industry isn't hurting either.  Record companies posted an gross income of about $500 million during one of the boom years of R&R, 1968, and they complained of only grossing a reported $13 billion in 2003 (up from $9 billion in 2002).  Production costs are a fraction of past expenses and gross income is 25-times the boom years' earnings.  So, who's hurting in this art economy?

Artists, that's who.  Artists are experiencing a declining market, lowered expectations and diminished returns for time and talent invested.  The average contract allows an artist about 72¢ income per CD sold, before contract expenses are paid.  Most contracts require the artist to sell a half-million copies before the artist makes a nickel on sales.  The outlets for our art are vanishing and customer interest is also declining.  When the Who's bassist, John Entwhistle, died, several music critics commented that he might be the last R&R bass player to be recognizable by non-musicians.  At one time, believe it or not, bands mattered to their fans.  People cared about the music and the musicians who played it. 

These days, nobody but 12-year old girls care who's who in R&R bands.  And they quit caring when they turn 15.  Record companies have depersonalized music to the point that it's a simple, pointless commodity.  Nobody cares who is making the noise that serves as a background to our lives because nobody interesting is making that noise.  Boy bands, girl bands, American Idol stars, who cares?  It's all lifeless, pointless, irrelevant noise that serves to mask the drone of SUV tires as we travel from home to work and back.  That fact couldn't be better illustrated than it is by the band-to-band coverage of geezer rock stations.  Since today's pop music is so irrelevant, we're mostly listening to yesterday's music, which is no more relevant but at least it once had a reason to exist. 

All that said, there is nothing wrong with much of the music being produced today.  In fact, there is (statistically) as much good music being done today as there was in the boom years.  The difference is, FM radio is as ratty as AM was thirty years ago.  There is no practical outlet for good music to leak through the poor taste of the majority of radio station music programmers.  The record companies get the blame for this, since they own a good percentage of the distribution channels.  Blame who you want, as long as there is no alternative distribution channel, as FM once was, there is no way for great music to find a popular audience.

Try to imagine the 1970’s Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, Pink Floyd, or even the late-Beatles music finding a home on that period's AM radio stations.  Never happen.  Impossible.  Now, try to imagine anything equally original breaking through on today's FM stations.  Equally impossible.  Radio is dead and the corporate media monopolies will make sure it is never revived. 

The obvious channel for new music is the internet.  Until high-speed, wireless access is cost-effective, that channel is extremely limited.  Early in the life of the world-wide web, we had a collection of interesting, innovative net radio stations.  Slow access speeds and hard-wire-only access killed those stations almost as quickly as the record companies decided that distribution channel was too difficult to control.  Viciously innovative distribution systems like the old MP3.com format completely removed the old record companies from the distribution chain.  More than anything, the record industry clowns want control.  More than profit, more than industry growth, more than music, the execs want control.  When they don't have control, they don't have a clue where the business is taking them.  When they don't know where music is heading, they don't have a firm grip on their executive suites.  Where else would these losers rake in the big bucks if music didn't provide easy money?

Music could care less about music company executives.  Music creates itself.  Musicians play music because they have to, for the same reason that cows produce milk.  While rich and famous musicians have more complicate motivations, the really innovative creators of music that is relevant, powerful, and gripping don't have a moment of control over their muse.  Music is a vicious, powerful bitch that is perfectly happy to kill the instrument and the musician and the audience to get the sound into the air. 

That's the way of all creativity.  For example, medical science doesn't need the profit motive to innovate.  Drug company execs and their barrels of money aren't the source of new science.  Scientists are, and they are driven by a need to know and describe something new about the nature of their art.  Art doesn't know about profit and loss, art is simply something that is pounded into our nature and is driven to escape the confines of human skulls and fingers any way it can. 

I think the internet is likely to be the next escape route for innovative music, but low power radio stations has a lot of potential, too.  However the music finds its way into the air, it is out there waiting for a path.  We just have to be working and waiting for that to happen and it will.  It always does.

Technorati Tags: music industry,business,internet,music distribution

AUDIOPHILE

[Another piece of ancient fiction. First published in Stereophile in 1989, where it got a LOT of hate mail.]

All Rights Reserved © 1989 Thomas W. Day

A difficult and wonderfully expensive operation. The components were selected from the finest manufacturers in the world. Custom designed and hand assembled by the most talented engineers in the industry. An incredibly skilled European surgeon/audiologist performed the operation, using only Swiss-crafted, 24 carat, 60 mil gold-plated, phosphor-bronze surgical instruments.

A platinum stimulation-probe was gold welded to 24 carat Litz cable. The resin-encapsulated, "HP" designed, LSI circuitry and the gold subminature breakaway multi-connector were positioned on the skullcap with a selected hardwood suspension and cover panel. The operation took twenty-two hours, cost a workingman's lifetime earnings, and was the absolute latest in high-fidelity equipment.

Delmar DeVeau awoke with a loud buzzing demanding his attention. The noise was deafening, but it didn't mask the softer sounds of the hospital: the footsteps passing in the hall, shuffling cotton uniforms, voices in neighboring rooms, and the dissonant clanking of hospital paraphernalia.

Before he regained control of his senses the door clicked, swung open, and a vast white sheet, with a grinning bald head and butterfly ears at the flush- pink summit, burst into the room.

"How...Is...My...System? Are you feeling pain?" Delmar barely identified his surgeon, Dr. Danl Vorst, before the doctor had whipped out his otoscope, placed the heel of his hand on Delmar's left cheek, pushed his face away into the bed, and poked the scope into his ear. Delmar felt pain. Then, grabbing Delmar by the nose, the doctor turned his head back facing the door. Forcing Delmar's right eye into the bed, still gripping his nose, Vorst screwed the otoscope's tip into his left ear. All through this "examination" the doctor hovered about Delmar's head making nervous bird-like movements, happily bobbing his head from side to side, and keeping up a broken-English interrogation that exceeded Delmar's mental response time.

"I can see nothing in your ears. I didn't do anything to them." He removed the scope and tucked it into a pocket, but kept hold of Delmar's nose. "How do you feel? Ears buzzing? Of course they aren't, but brain is. Antibodies getting at my little poker, but they'll give up, soon. I think. We made a success, yes? Good operation, good fun. You have a nice head."

Thirty seconds after he entered the room, Vorst spun around and bubbled his way toward the door, "good-bye. I must be in city tonight. Speaking to your Audio Engineering Society. You are going to be famous, maybe. Me too, certainly." Delmar crawled across the bed and into space, levitating himself above the bone-white tile floor to keep the tension on his nose as low as possible. When the doctor absent-mindedly released his grip, Delmar scrambled, hands on the floor, knees on the bed, with the blood rushing to his head nearly forcing him to blackout. After surviving the trip back onto his mattress, he began to wonder at the doctor's comments. Was he the first? The first to have this equipment? The article he had read led him to believe the operation had been first performed successfully in England. Maybe he misunderstood.

Before a single syllable reached Delmar's lips, Vorst had flown from the room, into the hall, and out of his life. Delmar would have liked to ask how long the skull-thunder would last. He would have loved knowing how soon he could use his implant. He wanted Vorst to sign a copy of his book "The Ultimate Entertainment." And he desperately needed a bedpan. He gently massaged his nose and let his small, pudgy body fall back onto an industrial-strength pillow. He wondered if some surgical utensil might still be embedded in his brain.

On closer examination, he discovered the drums in his cranium couldn't be localized. Seeming to come from an unidentifiable source that surrounded him, the source of the thunder couldn't be located by using his ears' directional abilities. The more aware he became, the more the noise seemed to beat at him.

Soon, another medical character arrived. "Doctor Harsh, present. I seconded Dr. Vorst and will be here, for you, during your recovery. Anything I can do for you? Within reason, of course."

"Please, my head is pounding. No one told me it would be painful and I don't think it's letting up." The doctor gave him a disgusted eye-rolling and Delmar stopped whimpering. With a valiant effort, he pulled himself together. Passing a hand over his bandaged head and down across his face, in a drawn curtain motion, he eased the corners of his mouth upward, and pasted a brave look on his chin-less, dimpled, round visage.

After he was certain he wouldn't have to put up with more whining, Harsh tried to look a little sympathetic. "Sorry about that. Nothing for it, though, but wait it out. Some antibiotics might speed things up, I suppose. Tell you what, I'll give you some. Don't go 'way. I'll be right back." As he marched out the door and down the hall, Delmar heard him muttering something about "rich wimps."

"Do you suppose I could have a bedpan?" Delmar called out, hopefully. And he thought, "I am very lucky that nothing went wrong in surgery. Hate to have that spiteful space-case fooling around in my head."

The operation; Auditory Neurological By-pass. By-pass; that might explain how I can still hear, even while this din is thumping in my skull. External and internal signal sources must run in parallel. Simultaneously interpreted, processed, and deciphered. I can listen to my music and to a gentle stream.

A nurse arrived with a bedpan and frosted his posterior on its rim. He savored his first gentle stream/thundering brain experience. A little later, Harsh appeared with a hypo. In a few moments, Delmar's head stopped rattling and he slept.

The next day, Delmar was wheeled to a lab, where he was put through a series of experiments that verified the position and function of his implant. Sine, square, pulse, and complex waves were pumped into his head, through the little jack in his skull, until he felt like a radio station antenna. The buzzing had subsided and an agreeable silence, punctuated by the test tones, returned.

Three days after the operation, Delmar went home. After dumping his hospital stuff in the hall, he went straight to the study, closed the door, pulled the shades, positioned the acoustic panels covering the door and windows, cleaned his favorite stylus, positioned a disk on the turntable, strung the cable from his pre-amp to his listening chair, lowered the tone arm to the record, and scampered back to the chair. He carefully inserted the interface plug to his skull connector, leaned back, closed his eyes, and listened.

Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" oboe, clarinet, and French horn introduction appeared, surrounding him. Although the disk pops, clicks, and hiss detracted from the effect, Delmar felt like a musician. In the middle of a great orchestra, without the distraction of having to control an instrument. A wonderful and perfect experience.

He couldn't wait for his favorite movement and he leapt to his feet, rushed toward the turntable to skip ahead to the "Corte'ge du sage." The power of the orchestra would be incredible. He could hardly wait to hear the low- frequency response.

In his haste he forgot about the trailing cable and stepped on it, jerking the plug from his head. The music stopped and the pain began. The connector was quick release, just for this type of incident, but it still yanked at the healing scar tissue and mounting screws and bone. Delmar yelped and reached for the offending spot on his head. It was not bleeding, but hurt too much to immediately re-install the connector.

He spent the evening polishing, adjusting, and attempting to listen to his old equipment. The speakers, tall towers of rosewood and acoustic foam, sounded flat and lifeless after the brief experience with the implant. He barely heard their output as he oiled the wood. His equipment cabinet contained the finest apparatus available, at any price. The cheapest piece in his collection would equal the complete sound system investment for a normal music lover.

His taste in music was equally marvelous. He owned a collection of the finest recordings known to the modern world. A few technically imperfect oddities sprinkled his section of the hoard, but even those were esoteric items selected to impress discerning guests. His collection was cataloged, sorted, individually protected by eighth-inch Plexiglas sleeves, and treated by liquids and pastes designed by the finest alchemists in audio.

His ex-wife had not shared his highly tuned sensibilities and a few hundred "pop" records gathered dust at the far end of his record stacks. She left him for a Country & Western guitarist named Willy Joe. Willy Joe had recorded her collection of "music" on a few "music chips" and convinced her that she had no more use for vinyl "fizz-bees." As the lady exited, she voiced the hope that she would never see another obsolete vinyl object. Spitefully, she left Delmar with the records he had bought for her and the even more disgusting collection of "music" she purchased for herself. These oddities were ignored and un- alphabetized. Delmar often considered removing them from sight but they always reminded him of the pain of her loss and the humiliation he had suffered at not being able to convert his own wife into a "true believer." If he ever considered marriage again, Delmar vowed to closely examine the next woman for any sign of poor taste.

Delmar was among the last ten-thousand of the world's digital holdouts. "Music cannot be cut up into ones and zeros and pieced together like a patchwork quilt," he proudly lectured to the diminishing band of analog reproduction advocates, tube electronics enthusiasts, and "Voice of His Master" gramophone fanatics. Delmar was fond of "preaching to the choir." And it was a good thing, since they were the only listeners available; the rest of the world being solidly plugged into, and deafened by, the latest digital technology. Delmar endured the noise and limited lifetime of his vinyl records with confidence. Time would prove him right. No one Delmar respected could tolerate "digits." And what do musicians or recording engineers know about High Fidelity? No gold in those ears. Just listen to the rubbish they record these days! And the way they record it!

But Delmar was not a tightwad. He regularly trotted his wallet down to the local audiophile establishments and purchased the latest in pre-amplifiers, power amplifiers, precious-metal cabling, loudspeakers, and analog reproduction equipment. The latest fad in audiophile technology would always attract Delmar's dollars. He probably would have bought the latest in digital equipment if the "ones and zeros" argument didn't have such a fine ring to it. Delmar loved and treasured his equipment and the justifications that he supported his purchases with.

The following afternoon, he tried his implant again, carefully avoiding quick movements.

Every musical example played back flawlessly. Orchestras, chamber music, jazz, avant-garde. Reproduced as perfectly as the recording medium and original engineering could allow. He skipped from track to track, playing his favorite passages, testing the performance of his new toy under every possible condition. Highs...Lows...Midrange...Quiet... Deafening. Perfect performance. Just like a concert hall. Even better, because he could "listen" at any volume level and for as long as he liked without fatigue.

Who can I show this off to? It's perfect, except for the normally mediocre record engineering, of course. I can hear every detail, every nuance, every player's breath, every screw-up. Feel the room ambience. I'm there, with the musicians.

He called the only person who might appreciate his triumph, Lenoy Robin. A close friend, a fellow audiophile, a neighbor. Using the phone in his study, he raved about his new implant, promised an experience beyond wildest dreams, and told Lenoy to show himself in without ringing. Delmar would be in the study.

Lenoy rushed right over. He found Delmar, by the turntable, happily popping record after record, track after track, on the platter. Although the only sound in the room hissed from an air-conditioning duct, Delmar seemed to be enchanted by the mere sight of spinning disks.

Delmar saw Lenoy, out of the corner of his eye, at the same time Delmar found the 1812 Overture cannons. "Listen to this. Isn't it incredible?" Delmar waved his arms in mushrooming figures, making goofy explosion-like noises, and singing the climax.

"Incredible, it is. What in heaven's name are you doing?" As he spoke, Lenoy noticed the small cable trailing up Delmar's back, into his hair. "Headphones?" he asked.

Delmar stopped short, mid-wave, mid-explosion. Reality hit him like a Tchaikovsky cannon shell. Lenoy couldn't hear his implant. No one could hear it, but himself. A one hundred and some odd thousand dollar, spectacular beyond belief, perfect beyond compare, sound system that only he, Delmar, could enjoy.

What will I do with this mess in my head now?

He slumped into his favorite listening chair, which he had drawn close to the turntable to avoid accidents, and collapsed into despair.

"Do you need a doctor?" Lenoy asked.

"I had one," said Delmar. "You wouldn't believe what I've done." Delmar explained the operation, told the fantastic tale of the marvelous sound in his head, and demonstrated the plug in his skull. At least the selected hardwood could be seen and touched, if you were careful not to touch too vigorously. Lenoy was impressed with the hand-oiled hardwood and the gold connector, but Delmar couldn't share the sound quality with his friend.

After Lenoy left, Delmar tried listening to his old speaker system. Compared to his implant, the speakers sounded awful, but at least his friends could hear it.

He plugged himself back into the preamp and was again transported into the orchestra. Damned if I do. Damned if I don't.

For the first time since he had owned the record, he listened to the entire "Firebird." A wonderful recording. It was a pretty good tune, too. In a twenty hour session, he listened to every record in his collection.

He sat bleary-eyed in the rubble of his hoard and contemplated the results. Finally, after considering all the alternatives, Delmar placed an ad in the local newspaper, "Top-of-the-line component stereo system for sale. No reasonable offer refused. Owner has become hearing-impaired." Delmar's life as an audio equipment hobbyist was over.

Delmar bought a portable chip player and plugged it directly into his implant. He carries the player in a shirt pocket and fills his other pockets with chips. He is never without music and every step of his life is scored with a personal soundtrack. Delmar has become an enthusiastic freelance music critic and is learning to play the piano and bagpipes.

Doctor Danl Vorst delivered his speech to the American Audio Engineering Society describing the technical characteristics of his implant equipment. Initially, the AES was impressed and supportive of Dr. Vorst's achievement. After the results of Vorst's following operations were evaluated, the AES withdrew its endorsement. The Pacific Rim Industrial Council (PRIC), joined by nearly every audio equipment magazine, denounced the implant technology as dangerous and destabilizing to the world's economy. Doctor Vorst voluntarily suppressed the details of his technique and returned to research in Denmark. Doctor Vorst is attempting to locate the brain's sensor input for visual information. Donations from PRIC are funding his research.

Doctor Harsh disassociated himself from Doctor Vorst and opened a lucrative gynecological practice in Irvine, California. He is campaigning for an important state office with the support of the Southern California Republican political machine. Lenoy Robin bought Delmar's old high fidelity equipment and has spent the following years cleaning records and connectors. Lenoy may have found the perfect spot in his living room for the speakers. When everything is just right, Lenoy believes his equipment reproduces the dynamic sound of a large steel door being closed in a reverberant room. He will play this recording over and over for his friends until they agree with his analysis.

The End

ARTICLE: When are the Jones’s not worth keeping up with?

[Another unpublished good idea from 1999]

So, why should I care about cheap microphones?

Over the years I’ve owned about every price range of microphone, from $5 high impedance desk mikes to $1,500 tube condensers. When I was billing for studio time, I could justify a few high-end mikes. Now that my recording habit has settled into something more resembling a hobby, I buy what works and sell what doesn’t.

In visiting several small studios over the last year or two, I've noticed that owners seem to be investing a lot of money in their board, recording system (digital or analog), their effects rack, and their studio furniture. But, when they get around to buying microphones, those tools seem to be at the tail end of the studio budget and planning. At that point, the popular choice appears to be to buy one or two really trendy and expensive mikes and enough throw-aways to cover a drum kit.

Most recording engineers have a group of standard microphones they use because every other engineer claims to use those mikes in particular situations. "U87 on voice, 421 on the kick, a 57 on the snare, and a pair of 451's on drum kit overhead" . . . and so on. If you can get that same guy behind a couple of beers and in a conversation mood, you might get a look at and a chance to listen to some of their personal favorites. Often you'll find those favorites are low cost beauties that they stumbled into when they were getting into the business and still experimenting with equipment and instruments. (An activity that often stops when the passion becomes a profession and that profession has to pay the bills.)

The expensive gear is important as part of the process of selling studio time and in creating the studio’s image as the all-knowing source of everything technical and aural. Marketing is marketing and perception is everything in that strange world. But when it’s your money and your recording, you don’t have to be so manipulative or cost ineffective. The fact is that a lot of mikes will do the job and getting a professional sound it doesn’t take any where near as much money as some people (marketing types, for example) might want you to believe.

I’m a natural born skeptic. I can’t help think that the phrase “popular wisdom” is an oxymoron.

If you're doing your own music or working on projects where the cost of your equipment won't impress the clients, I think there is a better way to spend your money. Instead of blowing the budget on one or two expensive and trendy mikes, I recommend that you collect a dozen good, but cheap, microphones. For the purpose of this article, I'm going to define "cheap" as less than $250. Sometimes, a lot less than $250.

Fifteen years ago, I attended a recording engineering seminar at the University of Iowa. This seminar was put on by the university’s music department and the lecturer was a well known and respected engineer who was also the importer of an expensive German microphone manufacturer. The class was made up of, primarily, studio-owning recording engineers with a lot of recording experience.

At the end of the week-long course, the university’s house engineer and I recorded several pieces of music with some of my favorite cheap mikes, some of the university’s mikes, and some of the instructors’ high-budget pieces. We did a decent job of presenting the microphones with a fair collection of recording situations and holding the levels and positions reasonably consistent.

The next day, we did a listening test with the rest of the class. The results were not predictable. Fifteen years ago, mid-priced microphones sold for barely above $100. Expensive mikes were about the same price as they are today. Time after time, in our single blindfolded test, the cheap microphones were picked as the class favorites over the gold-plated models.

When the listening test was over, the lecturer asked to borrow some of my mikes for a few weeks and took them back to his office for further testing. I got the mikes back a month later, but never heard what they learned from those tests.

What do you get for your money?

Ever since my first experiment in microphone comparisons, I’ve had strong suspicions that the adage “you get what you pay for” doesn’t tell much of the story. In the competitive world of professional recording studios, perception is everything; another adage that isn’t particularly informative. At $75 an hour (and up, way up), musicians and producers want to see equipment that looks more expensive than the stuff they own. As any experimenting will tell you, though, looks expensive and sounds expensive are not closely related.

All this is not to say that the cheap spread and the “gold standards” are created equal. At the most expensive end of the scale, some of what you pay for is in the hardware. Building a product with the finest switches, connectors, wiring, machine work, and components used in the electronics (condenser amplification, for example) adds a lot to the unit's manufacturing cost. That cost will be reflected in the manufacturer's retail price. Sometimes all that precision and refinement results in a more reliable product. Some companies put a lot of effort into product consistency. B&K, for example, makes precision engineering tools that just happen to be microphones. But for the majority of users, a lot of that effort doesn’t provide a lot of bang for the buck. Like musical instruments, the inconsistencies in individual microphones can result in occasional gems among the rocks.

Too many users pay for image or possible resale value. They don’t know enough about the equipment to get the most out of it and they often grossly misuse their equipment. One thing that’s common among all fine instruments is that a little abuse will go a long way toward major damage. Using a large element condenser, for example, as a kick drum mike can be a terrific way to find out what happens when those micro-thin gold plates (charged with a couple hundred volts) make contact. I’ve seen it done and, since it wasn’t my money, it was pretty fun to watch.

Putting ears to the test

With all of this in mind, I asked Michael McKern of Minneapolis’ Music Tech if he’d be willing to put up some of the school’s high-end microphones against a collection of cheap stuff. Michael took the bait, readily. He’d been thinking about doing something similar and was looking for an excuse to do a test just like this. I became an excuse.

Michael promoted the “The Cheap Mike Shootout” at the school and the local AES chapter. We hoped for as many ears as possible, but only a few hard core students made it to the event. This isn’t unusual. In my experience, a blind test will send most of the self-proclaimed golden ears running for cover. Something about not knowing the answer in advance changes a lot of attitudes towards listening tests.

It must be close to impossible to do a truly scientific microphone test. Setting all things equal is incredibly difficult. There are a variety of test protocols that you can use to do your testing and we had to pick one for our experiments.

What we decided to do was to drive four microphones at a time with the same source material. For comparison, we had an acoustic guitar, an acoustic violin, a grand piano, and male and female vocalists. We placed the microphones in a tight pattern (see picture), far enough from the sound sources that proximity variations wouldn’t affect the microphones significantly. We included at least one expensive microphone in each batch of four mikes under test, as our “reference standard.” We matched the volumes of the instruments by placing a tone generator where the instrument/voice would be. With the tone source, we calibrated the output of each microphone with a meter (sometimes to within 0.05 dBV, thanks to Michael’s persistence with the faders). After swapping out the signal generator for the musician, we recorded a few minutes of each instrument.

The following is the equipment used in our test:
Monitors (far field): JBL4312 Monitors (near field): Yamaha NS-10 Console: TAC Magnum (used for playback only)	Mike Preamp: Focusrite #1 (red) Recording System: Sony JH-24 (analog) 24 track deck using Quantegy 456/2" tape

After recording all of the instruments and vocals, we played it all back. Comparing each of the four microphones on each performance, we voted as to which mike we thought sounded best on each performance. The actual microphone ID's were randomized during the listening tests. Michael was the only one of us who knew which channel we were listening to and he didn't know which mikes were where. It was a mild flavor of double blind testing.

We made no effort to compare microphones on similar performances. I’m not much of a believer in “aural memories.” The fairly quick comparisons we were able to make on each of our test microphones, sometimes, made it easy to determine which microphones had the best characteristics for that instrument or voice. Other times, it was incredibly difficult to make a decision.

Because of the distances we maintained from our sound sources, we were sometimes forced to choose the best out of four compromised sounds. None of the piano recordings were ideal, for example. In our effort to make sure that the four mikes got, essentially, the same source material, this seemed like a necessary sacrifice. However, some of the mikes produced such a dramatically inferior sound from the position we were in that something useful was pulled even from the least perfect experiments.

Michael’s experience is at the other end of the recording spectrum from mine. He’s done 20-plus years of high budget work with name artists and studios. Most of his work has been in the pop world (rock and blues and commercials). Most of my work has been on low budget acoustic recordings, most of it on instrumental jazz with very little post-production processing. The other listeners involved in the test had a variety of musical experience and tastes, but they all had young (undamaged by professional audio abuse) ears and their choices were more often similar to Michael’s or mine than they were different. I think we ended up with a very discriminating group. Even when I disagreed with them, I couldn’t fault the justifications for their choices.

As far as which microphones “won” most often or which microphones sounded “best” on which instruments, the results of our test are unimportant. What I believe is important is that we picked the low cost mikes as "best of group" as often, or more often, than we picked the expensive units. On some tests, there were clear “winners” and “losers.” Often, though, there were one or two mikes that were so close together than it was difficult to chose which sounded “best.” Just as often, those two mikes would be at the opposite ends of the cost spectrum.

Only for the purposes of giving you an idea of the range of microphones we used, here are the microphones we used in our test:
AKG 414 AKG C1000 Sennhauser 421 Teac M120 Audio Technica ATM813	Shure SM57 Electrovoice RE18 Electrovoice PL6 Audio Technica (unidentified model) Lavalier

It might appear that we abused on AKG as or our high-end references. High-end AKG units were what was available at the time. The two models we selected as "reference standards" are respected, quality units and have been used in thousands of excellent recordings. I’ve done this test with the other expensive German brand name and had the same results. Nothing about this test tells us that the times we preferred a $100 mike to a $1,000 mike proved that the low cost instrument was “better” than the expensive mike. It just means that the cheap mike was “different” than the expensive mike in a way that contributed to a musical sound that we liked better at that time on that instrument. Your mileage may vary.

This test was different in a lot of important ways from the kind of selection process that goes on in a studio. In the studio, you set up a mike, record a track or listen to a few minutes of real-time music, and decide to keep or change the mike. Then, you go through the same process, again. The performance is different. The position of the mike might be different. You have time invested in the change, which tends to make you want to stick with the result of that investment.

Or, you’re trying to prove how much better your favorite mike sounds and you find a way to do that by doctoring the comparison. You EQ to bring out whatever you think needs to be brought out. You add a little processing to the favorite to show how it “could sound” when it’s prepared properly. We intentionally worked at confusing such biases with our test design.

A side lesson that was learned from this four hour test was that “listening fatigue” is a real and vicious malady. I think re-listening to what we recorded over a series of days would change some of the results, but not necessarily the gist of the outcome. Some of the really close matchups might swing one way or the other, but that wouldn’t necessarily be to the advantage of the more expensive units in the test. Several of the most obvious “best mike” comparisons left out the expensive models entirely. However, by the end of the four hour marathon a lot of us were happy to have it over with, regardless of the results. That’s another thing to take into account when you’re trying to record the best possible sound; when you’re doing the final mixdown, stay fresh. Your ability to make quality judgements is inversely proportional to the time spent at the board.

How do you pick a good cheap microphone?

If you accept the premise that it’s possible to get a professional quality sound from a semi-pro priced microphone, the next step is to start looking for those hidden gems. The first thing to think about when you set out to buy a microphone (or a bunch of them) is "what do you want to do with a mike?" That probably sounds like a dumb question, but microphones have a lot of purposes and your application may be a lot different from mine. There are as many microphone personalities as there are model numbers.

For example, if you're doing a Techno record, you might be happy with just about anything that gets sound onto hard disk. I don't mean that as a knock on Tech. If you're going to process the voice or instrument into something completely different than the original acoustic sound, it doesn't make a lot of difference what it sounded like in the first place. Your microphone choices are practically unlimited.

On the other hand, if you are recording traditional instruments in a well designed acoustical environment, you will be very demanding about the accuracy of the microphones you use. You choices are more critical and limited.

While a lot of audio techies egotistically argue about the small nuances they believe they hear throughout the audio chain, just about anyone can pick out one mike from another. Like loudspeakers and other electro-mechanical devices, the "errors" in microphones are huge compared to the electronic chain.

You can look at this as a bad thing or a good thing. Since we go out of our way to buy equalization and distortion enhancing equipment, later in the signal path, I vote "good thing." In fact, I prefer to view those characteristics of microphones as pre-conditioning for the instrument, voice, or noise I'm recording.

Now, you only have to decide what kind of pre-conditioning you’re trying to buy.

Because, in a recording environment, we’re not worried about feedback we can pick from a lot wider variety of microphones than those used by live performers. Omnidirectional microphones, for instance, have almost no purpose in live music but they are often the perfect mike for recording situations. If you’re recording voice or acoustic instruments in a really terrific sounding room, you can often get an incredible sound with a well placed omni. For that purpose, I like the EV 635. Back when I first discovered this mike, they sold, new, for as little as $50. Now, it’s a popular TV mike and the price is higher, but it’s still a valuable tool for a reasonable price. My old Teac ME120’s have an omni capsule that does the same job with a little flatter frequency response. Adding omnis to your toolbox opens up a huge number of options for possible killer buys in great microphones.

Of course, omni’s are not ideal for situations where you need to get some isolation from other instruments. That’s exactly what omnis don’t do well. Cardioid and super-cardioid patterns are the hot setup for those kinds of situations. Point-and-shoot mikes, you might say. In real life, that heart-shaped polar pattern only exists for certain frequencies and that’s a big part of what makes up the characteristics of these microphones. Weirdly enough, with all the bad PR this mike gets, Shure’s SM-57 gets used in a lot of drum kits because of the consistent (meaning, “we know what to expect”) directional response the mike provides. That can’t be said for many of the high-priced, condenser standards. In my opinion, one of the silliest drum kit sounds I ever heard was produced with six microphones worth a total of about $11,000.

The other consideration you have to make is the microphone electronics. Dynamic microphones are often nearly indestructible (which is why Shure SM-57s end up in almost everyone’s collection). The down side to this durability is often a lack of sensitivity. The design of the element of a dynamic microphone can limit the mike’s ability to react accurately to high frequency, fast transient, or low amplitude sounds.

One attempt to modify the lack of sensitivity problem is the ribbon element. There are a few ribbon “studio standards” and their characteristics are worth experimenting with. They are not, however, particularly durable.

This is where condenser microphones come into our collections. Condensers are usually more sensitive and more fragile than dynamic microphones. They are often considerably more durable than ribbons. Condenser microphones need a power supply (either phantom or battery) and they have active electronics (this is where the tube vs. transistor argument begins and I go find a good cup of coffee). I’m particularly fond of condenser mikes because they specialize in doing what I like to do. It’s possible to find a reasonably priced condenser mike that can do a wide variety of jobs, either through removable capsules or switchable polarity patterns. At their best, condenser microphones can be very sensitive, accurate, and versatile.

With all the technical stuff behind us, the way to “find” a good cheap microphone is to follow your ears. Listen to it. Bring some favorite mikes along and your best headphones or near field monitors and do your own mini comparison testing. Bring a DAT or a good pro portable deck along to record your test. Don’t trust the headphones for isolation from the live sound. Don’t trust your aural memory for comparisons. If you are looking for an instrument mike, bring the instrument.

Where do you find good buys on cheap microphones?

The best place to find a rare deal on a great mike is at a great music or pro equipment store. I mean this. No sucking up intended. If you know a store that will let you go into a quiet room to do your testing or take the mike home for an evening, don’t worry about saving a few bucks on the price. These guys are your best friends. I will almost guarantee that, if you can spend the time to do quality comparison shopping, you’ll save major money with your choices.

If we’re talking going the cheap route, no one who knows me would expect me to pass up buying used. Sometimes, you can save incredible chunks of money by picking up a little known gem through the want ads or in a pawn shop. You may not find any monster bargains on Neumanns, AKGs, Telefunkens, B&Ks, or even Sennheisers, but you might escape with a killer deal on a Sony or some other lesser noticed manufacturer. Pawn shop guys must have a network that provides them with the highest possible price that a trendy mike might bring, on the best day in uptown NYC. It can be easier to get a good deal on new stuff than a beater that the dealer thinks is a collector’s item.

Most music stores don't seem to carry used mikes. I've heard at least one store owner say “used microphones are a lot like used harmonicas.” While there might be some kind of health issue involved, there are lots of ways to decontaminate materials and I think it's worth the effort[1]. However, this route has major drawbacks. You probably won’t get to do any kind of comparison testing until you get home. You won’t know if the unit even works, most likely. You might not get a guarantee that will last beyond the doors of the shop. So keep all that in mind and include possible repair costs in your offer.

For example, I paid $25 for a beater EV RE-18. It worked, but something was loose in the case. I sent it back to EV, paid another $40 for repairs and ended up with one of my favorite general purpose (live or recording) mikes for $65. The dealer wanted to tell me the mike was a $300 list price mike and ought to be worth at least $150 used, but I passed. He hung on to it for a couple of months and, finally, dumped it on me in a moment of weakness. It happens.

A few sterling examples

Without naming names and condemning the innocent, here is a short list of low-to-mid-priced microphones that I've found in a variety of studios:
Brand	Model
ElectroVoice	N/D57, N/D408A, N/D408B, 635, RE-20, RE-10, RE-16, RE-15, RE-18, RE-27N/D, PL6
Audio Technica	AT4050, AT4033, ATM15a, ATM10a, ATM31a, ATM813, ATM63
Sony	C-535P
Carvin	CM67, 68
Peavey	PVM380N
Crown	PZM, PCC-160, PCC-200
Realistic	Various PZMs (often modified for pro use)
Shure	SM-57/58, SM-33, SM-53, BETA 56, BETA 52, SM-7, SM-5B545
Beyer	M500, M160, M260. M88

This isn’t a recommendation list. It’s just a list of mikes I found on the equipment sheets of several well respected studios. There are a lot more models to choose from and nothing should keep you from making your own list.

For me, all this is one of the most interesting things about recording. Microphones are musical instruments. They’re fun to own, play with, and use. Microphone technique is a vanishing art, especially as we all go into our basements and bedrooms and leave professionally designed rooms. Learn how to pick 'em and use 'em and you will have a talent that will be reflected in your recordings.

---

[1] If you can safely disassemble the case without damaging the microphone, you can clean the windscreen with a mild dishwashing detergent and water. (The cleaner the water the better the cleaning job. Deioniozed water is best.) Use a toothbrush (your wife’s, not your own) on the metal parts of the grill. Don’t scrub the cloth or foam lining material, just soak them in the soapy water. Rinse thoroughly and let the mike air dry until completely dry. Replace the parts and you're done.

If you don’t feel comfortable doing all this, consider returning the microphone to the manufacturer for service. The cost should be minimal and you will get a performance test along with the cleaning.