Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Eeyore wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Combine that with humbucking pickups

And the sound will change.

Graham


When I changed my pickups it was from the old humbuckers to the new
ones, and the change of sound was one of the main reasons why I did it.
I get a much clearer punchier sound from the new ones.

d

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Eeyore wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:

"Don Pearce = Posturing ****** "

But if what you want is an EMI shield, you don't make an enormously
expensive steel box - any simple and cheap conductive mesh will do as
well.
** Take that up with Eeyore.

It was the recommendation of the EMC company who fitted it all. Blowed If I can
remember their name now, I recall they make 19" racking kit too.

According to them the thickness of the material is important and they use as
much as they consider is required.

Graham


when you are doing magnetic shielding, absolutely the thickness of the
metal is key, because you must have enough metal there that it will not
saturate. Is this studio by any chance built in the MRI suite of a
hospital? That is the only reason I can think of for this screening.

d

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Rather like those who see their favourite pop vocalist using an SM58
etc and assume it's the best mic ever made...

A mic I loathe with a vengeance.

Ah. We agree about something. ;-)

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

Or did you mean that your friends make rooms that are screened against
magnetically induced fields?..

Is 2mm mild steel over say 10 m3 going to do that ?

So you really think that there are magnetic fields around external to a
top rate studio that are going to produce that field level?.

A NMRI scanner isn't that well screened;)..

It's Don who claims they're magnetic. Yet they don't fall off with distance
appreciably.

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Don Pearce wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Guitarists who are serious and understand the
issues modify their guitars to screen all the electrics.

No. Most who own old originals won't let an engineer anywhere near them lest
it 'modify' the sound.


It's no problem. Every top guitarist has a tech who works on his guitars
- they need constant fettling if they are to stay playing well, and
adding screening to the cavities is just one of the tasks that is standard.

The guitar 'tech' if one can call him that that comes to mind would have no truck
with any such thing.

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Don Pearce wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Combine that with humbucking pickups

And the sound will change.

When I changed my pickups it was from the old humbuckers to the new
ones, and the change of sound was one of the main reasons why I did it.
I get a much clearer punchier sound from the new ones.

You're missing the point. AS ever it seems. If the owner wanted a "clearer
punchier sound" he wouldn't bought what he has now would he ?

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Don Pearce wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Don Pearce = Posturing ****** "

But if what you want is an EMI shield, you don't make an enormously
expensive steel box - any simple and cheap conductive mesh will do as
well.
** Take that up with Eeyore.

It was the recommendation of the EMC company who fitted it all. Blowed If I can
remember their name now, I recall they make 19" racking kit too.

According to them the thickness of the material is important and they use as
much as they consider is required.


when you are doing magnetic shielding, absolutely the thickness of the
metal is key, because you must have enough metal there that it will not
saturate. Is this studio by any chance built in the MRI suite of a
hospital? That is the only reason I can think of for this screening.

No. Approx here actually.
http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=...app=newmap.srf

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"tony sayer"


** Dear Tony,

you are a know nothing ****wit, fallaciously arguing from a position of
total ignorance.

Go drop dead.


..... Phil




** So you have ZERO idea about the gear musos use and how commonly it is
sensitive to RFI - cos you have no experience of it.

So you have no idea that full room RFI screening of sound recording
studios
has been standard practise since the 1960s.

So you have no idea that the RFI issues have got WORSE, not better, since
that time.


If you make the rule that mobiles shouldn't be in studios when people
have bought their own old gear in then you've no practical need to go to
all that bother and expense to screen them both 'agin magnetic fields
and RF ones .. DC to daylight. Modern wired in studio equipment using
balanced line working is very immune to this as is CAT 5 cabling..

You agree the laws of physics have not changed.

QED.



...... Phil

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"tony sayer"


** Dear Tony,

you are a know nothing ****wit, fallaciously arguing from a position of
total ignorance.

Go drop dead.


..... Phil



** RFI screening a recording studio does not cost millions - nothing like
it.

Compared to the elaborate sound-proofing, acoustic treatment and
installing
silent air-con - it is a puny additional cost.

Normally achieved by fitting copper mush ( ie coper fly wire) over all the
internal surfaces of the studio and control room. Joins are folded and
soldered together.


Means the studio can use any piece of gear they like and musos can drag
in any old pile of valve or antique transistor junk
without fear a passing taxi or police car transmitter will break in
during a session.

A very simple, common sense precaution.

Incomprehensible to folk who have no common sense.

****wits like Sayer, Plowman and Pearce - for example.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"tony sayer"


The ability to de-modulate strong RF signals is built into most items of
audio gear - the valves and transistors at the input do it. The RF
energy
enters the circuitry on the signals and sometimes the speaker cables.

Such connecting cables act as antennas and the RF signal goes straight in
on
the braided copper shields of 1/4 inch guitar and XLR leads.

Many classic guitar amps like Marshalls are very prone to this form of RF
injection.

Could you then explain the way this happens in detail if you wish and --
-especially- with valved equipment's?..


** So now you finally admit have no the slightest idea what makes audio gear
de-modulate RF signals ?

So naturally, you also believe it does not happen unless the gear is
somehow faulty.

So you ARE a know nothing ****wit, fallaciously arguing from a position
of total ignorance.

Go drop dead.



..... Phil