/audio general/
I jusr bought my first serious kit, an s-87 from microphone-parts
Really looking forward to it, and also getting interested in cheap pre amps and electret mics for more experimental recordings.
Pic related is a piezo contact mic preamp, ill probly give that a shot after the s-87
>>1002494
>photo of a screen displaying a scanned drawing
>not a photo of a screen displaying a photo of scanned drawing on a wooden table
so close
>>1002506
?Who are you quoting?
Anyways, got the kit today, will hopefully start it in a couple days time. Bump for the meantime
This is a direct order to keep me posted, because I have now developed an interest in this, which may develop into an investment.
Now go.
there are a couple options when putting this together. a mic is really the first EQ device that the signal experiences, just hardwired in the circuit. im still a bit buggered as to which i should choose, the blue and red line is recommended for my particular capsule.
Sup OP, I come from /out/!
I do a lot of /diy/ audio stuff but †bh not so much at the circuit/component level. I kinda just build and repurpose things. Here's one of the coolest things I own, a Leslie cab I chopped down from a dead transistor Hammond organ
>>1003601
My advice in this case is to pick the suggested option that has less attenuation. The reason I say this is if you're going to be using the mic for ambient sources at all (room mic, nature, etc) having a "dark" mic kills your sense of distance, space, and detail - and when you boost EQ in the high end to compensate you greatly increase the audible noise floor. It's easier to cut the high end in post if it's a bit peaky, which will reduce the noise floor and sound much better. This is my experience, I have a air of mics that sometimes need a 3dB boost in the high end and if it's a quiet recording the noise floor just kills it
>>1003668
Very cool, rigging up a leslie motor/funnel onto an existing combo amp/speaker is on my list of things to do!
Hello there /audio/
I have a vague understanding of electronics that I'm working on expanding and I'll be enrolling in EE later this year. I don't know shit about audio.
I'd like to build a whole soundsystem (e.g. Headphone amp, amp for speakers and of course the speakers) once I've reached a point at which I have an understanding of it.
I just have this vague idea in terms of aesthetics that is like some input on: How viable (in terms of not sounding like terrible shit) would you consider speakers and a subwoofer with a case made from translucent plastics.
I feel like it's be sick as fuck if i could look at the internals of my shit, but I'm not sure how viable it is.
Thanks.
Pic semi-related: Gutted a pair of shitty headphones and hooked the drivers up to my amp. Sounds atrocious.
>>1004516
Im not very knowledgable but i seem to think that in a cabinet the shape of the air volume inside is the most critical factor, and that cab material is much less important.
Still waiting on solder. I ordered some kester 44. Laid out the components though . Really just bumping the thread
DIY amplifiers, anyone?
Here's my TDA8944-based amplifier, delivers over 7watts per channel, but gets hella hot, because I'm driving 4 ohm speakers with it.
also I'm planning on either changing the IC to TDA8946 which is capable of 15watts per channel or just getting rid of it in favor of the Sony TA-F417R amplifier which I'm about to buy.
got the solder, started on the boards. not hard at all, just needs time. This kit has great instructions which helps a lot, and i had watched videos on how to do this as well.
>>1006118
Pretty sweet, id like to get into preamps at some point.
Nearly finished the s-87, well enough to use it in cardioid mode anyways. though im only an amateur sound person, it sounds amazing. Incredibly hot after only using cheap dynamic mics, heres a noise floor test with upright bass at -12db for reference:
clip.it/41wm2h0o
It also has an internal swith that can be made to turn on the rearfacing diaphram or pad -10db. I think i will do the pad since i plan on recording some things loud as fuck, kindof a shame to let the second diaphram just sit there. I think ill cover it somehow and hopefully it can survive if the other should die.
I have a pair of Pioneer S-P5200s from (I believe) 1992. Pic related, but with the speaker mesh on.
I believe one of the driver speakers (tweeter) is dead and I want to see if it's because of a broken internal connection inside the speaker.
How do I take the speaker mesh off? There are no screws, and attempting to pry it off with my bare hands doesn't work.
>>1006918
See if you can find a service manual for those things. They are probably considered "non-service" though. That means, if you ever had a warranty repair on them or something they would shitcan them and give you a replacement.
Most speakers are either serviced by removing the back panel or by removing the speakers from the front. In either case their should be screws you remove to do this. No screws = non-serviceable = you have to fuck up the cabinet to get to them. Honestly they do not look like high end speakers so its doubtful they were ever meant to be repaired. Just do they best you can and save up for a decent set.
>>1006918
>how do i remove the speaker mesh
uhh, just pull it out? its maybe got some hot melt in there to help it stay in or its just really old. either way, just tug hard.
just remove the woofer and look around inside.
Does anyone have any ideas on where to get good drivers for headphones? I'm thinking of possibly getting a broken vintage pair to put modern drivers in.
>>1006952
No screws on the back or the bottom. It seems to be 100% chipwood.
Trying to get my fingernail into a seam in the wood and prying it off didn't work, apparently it's really crumbly. That's to be expected I guess - It's 24 years old and in a really hot and humid region.
Like my ex-girlfriend.
RIP S-P5200? Perhaps there are some weird tricks I can try to revive a tweeter?
>>1006956
The mesh frame seems to be perfectly sealed flush with the speaker cabinet. I don't suspect there's any hotglue holding it in, judging what I can see in that pic any way.
>>1006963
In the process of doing the same. Lunashops is where a got my drivers
>>1007000
Just pry the mesh off. If the alternative is throwing them out anyways, go nuts. The front mesh is usually just pressure fit in there.
made a baffle today
>>1006412
OP are you sure that with one diaphram it's actually cardioid mode and not omni? it depends entirely on the design, but often mics with two diaphrams use the second one to make it cardioid, whereas single-diaphram mode is omni.
and it sounds lovley btw!
>>1007268
Cheers, actually i emailed matt at mic-parts today and he clarified that the 'rear'diaphram indeed plays a part in forming the cardioid pattern.
Heres an in process of the wind baffle
>>1007271
Hey I also posted in the /out/ /frg/ thread. What kinda foam is that? If you have any fur left you should make a muff with just fur and no foam to compare - it's possible the fur-only design could work better.
Foam has a compromising issue - it works well keeping moving air from hitting the diaphram BUT the wind blowing over the edge of open cell foam generates its own howling turbulence noise (like wind through the trees kinda thing). It's a compromise - thick foam stops wind but generates more "whurrrr". Fur doesn't really do that but fur muffles high frequencies more. Depending on the mic design and the type of foam, sometimes using foam WITH fur nets you no increased wind protection but does result in more loud turbulence. The windmuffs I've made actually tend to work better (overall wind protection minus noise turbulence) without the foam inside.
>>1007259
Sweet sassy malassy, that shag baffle.
>>1007277
started messing around with the mic on, i hear what you mean with the foam. It almost sounds like the foam vibrates and transfers that to the mic body. Ill play with mounting pointa and report if i find anything that works
>>1007347
yeah foam is pretty tricky. I don't know enough about the exact properties of various foams but some perform better than others (I have some cheap windscreens and some mid-tier windscreens and they look identical but the difference in terms of turbulence is huge). I've pretty much just settled on making fur-only muffs with craft fur and they work best of all (without buying a proper one - shit's stoopidly expensive). The fur attenuates the high frequencies a little more so my matching EQ has to be a little more drastic, which of course reduces the S/N ratio in the highs but generally it's worth it.
Pic is craft fur from Michael's that I use and a graph of the frequncy response of the foam vs. the fur muffs (foam is red, fur is green + blue)
Where can I read up on modifying microphones and stuff like that. I don't have nearly the budget for a microphone that OP has, but I am intrigued.
>>1008232
op here. This mic kit was 330 (372 shipped with a shock mount) usd and my first project in circuits really. From what ive gathered, you can (should?) view everything in the signal chain as an equalizer. Sure the mixer or digital workspace is explicitly an EQ, but really all hardware (including wires/cords) impart audio artefacts.
With a mic, there are 2 main variables that influence the EQ: the transducer and the circuit. Read up on transducer types first if unfamiliar to get a physical understanding of their strengths/limits, and id go as deep as you think necessary.
The other variable is how the circuit handles the raw signal from the transducer. I have very limited working knowledge of this. for example, that kit had 2 capacitors that i could select from a range of farad values that will adjust the high frequency rolloff. Just like a treble knob, but hardwired into the mics circuit board. if i wasnt happy with the first result, i could swap those out for a different value cap to change the profile.
So for instance, a cheap condensor mic may have a very bright sounding capsule. Could be as easy as swapping the capsule out for a darker sounding one. Or there may be a documented circuitry solution. It does seem most cheap condensors are very bright because they lack the circuit level EQ solution.
If you have a mic, id seaech for specific mods for it. That mic-parts website does have some mod kits for a lot of microphone, i think in the low hundreds of dollars range, i didnt really check them out though.
Around the web, I've read about people putting damar varnish onto paper cones to change the sound quality of the speaker.
Does this actually make as big of a difference as people say? Can it actually improve sound quality?
>>1008357
off the cuff i believe it. Dyanamic transducers (reverse wired speaker) are relatively low sensetivity. Making the paper more rigid and dense, while increasing mass (more sound forced required ti move cone, a decrease in sensetivity), seems like it would increase the frequency range and sensetivity much more (imagine dropping a coin on a taut parachute vs a similar sized steel plate). Obviously my physics isnt great
