In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I tend to like the best the world has to offer.

I too, and it certainly isn't the 4038:-)

Not surprising given it's a 40s design...
Are you so stupid you don't realise the context things are said in?

Are you seriously saying that it sounds better
to your ear than an u87 in critical applications
such as male vocal?

Are you seriously saying a U47 'sounds better' in critical applications
than any other? Since you put that forward as an alternative to the 4038.
Which of course it is since they both date from approximately the same
time.


The Coles has none
of the versatilíty of the Neumann either.
Try the Coles on a bass drum:-)))

I've never used a 'Coles' so can't comment.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

Yes. I have used an acoustic recording machine at Decca.
But by the 1930s the period you were talking about, when
you wrote "Carbon mics were used into the '30s." electrical
recording with ribon mics was well established.

I never said they were used exclusively by the '30s. But perhaps you throw
away all your equipment when new comes along? If so, why are you farting
around with all those ancient analogue tape recorders? Can't be for the
performance...


Broadcasting House opened in 1932. It seems that whilst carbon mics had been
standard studio provision at Savoy Place, they were not used at BH. This
would also line up with the early 1930s as being the time when moving-coil
loudspeakers began to become standard in domestic radios.

That would make the BBC's "carbon mic" era 1922-1932,. ie. principally the
1920s.

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

Yes. I have used an acoustic recording machine at Decca.
But by the 1930s the period you were talking about, when
you wrote "Carbon mics were used into the '30s." electrical
recording with ribon mics was well established.

I never said they were used exclusively by the '30s. But perhaps you
throw away all your equipment when new comes along? If so, why are
you farting around with all those ancient analogue tape recorders?
Can't be for the performance...


Broadcasting House opened in 1932. It seems that whilst carbon mics had
been standard studio provision at Savoy Place, they were not used at
BH. This would also line up with the early 1930s as being the time when
moving-coil loudspeakers began to become standard in domestic radios.

That would make the BBC's "carbon mic" era 1922-1932,. ie. principally
the 1920s.

You think they threw away all 'old' equipment with the move to BH?
Doesn't sound like the BBC I knew. Likely the preference would be for the
newer and better mics when they were available, but in heavy use times
older equipment is often pressed into service.

--
*If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of payments *

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

In message , Graham.
writes

On another occasion we were required to attend a training session where one
of the software developers showed us how to graft an RJ45 to a length of CAT5
Choosing to ignore the fact that the clamp missed the sheath on his
effort, I pointed
out that he had just crimped a normal plug to solid cored cable.

The guy had no idea.


I'm reminded of an IT course I went on years ago, during the thin
Ethernet explanation the instructor told the class of the extreme
importance of putting terminators on the ends of the coax cables so that
'the signals bounce off them and you get lots of nice reflections in the
cable'




--

bof at bof dot me dot uk

"bof" wrote in message

In message ,
Graham. writes

On another occasion we were required to attend a
training session where one of the software developers
showed us how to graft an RJ45 to a length of CAT5
Choosing to ignore the fact that the clamp missed the
sheath on his effort, I pointed
out that he had just crimped a normal plug to solid
cored cable. The guy had no idea.

Since CAT5 is normally solid core, why wouldn't it be appropriate to use a
solid core plug?

I'm reminded of an IT course I went on years ago, during
the thin Ethernet explanation the instructor told the
class of the extreme importance of putting terminators on
the ends of the coax cables so that 'the signals bounce
off them and you get lots of nice reflections in the
cable'

All true. Coax is usually shared among many stations, and a reflection
anywhere on it can mess it up for everybody.

This begs the question why we don't worry about reflections on unterminated
CAT5. The reason is that each CAT5 cable connects only 2 points, and if one
point is disconnected, theres no other device whose reception is adversely
affected by the reflections.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:05:22 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

I pointed out that he had just crimped a normal plug to solid
cored cable. The guy had no idea.

Since CAT5 is normally solid core, why wouldn't it be appropriate to use
a solid core plug?

Solid cored CAT5 is installation cable and would normally be
connected to the IDC punch down blocks on a wall plate socket one end
and the similar blocks in the patch bay.

Plugs go on patch cable which has stranded core for durabilty with
repeated flexing.

I'm reminded of an IT course I went on years ago, during the thin
Ethernet explanation the instructor told the class of the extreme
importance of putting terminators on the ends of the coax cables
so
that 'the signals bounce off them and you get lots of nice
reflections
in the cable'

All true. Coax is usually shared among many stations, and a reflection
anywhere on it can mess it up for everybody.

Yes, but the reflections come from *unterminated* cable ends not
terminated ones.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Arny Krueger
writes
This begs the question why we don't worry about reflections on unterminated
CAT5. The reason is that each CAT5 cable connects only 2 points, and if one
point is disconnected, theres no other device whose reception is adversely
affected by the reflections.

I don't think that's right. Both ends should be terminated, and the
terminators will probably maintain the default logic state of the cable
too (as thy do in SCSI, although the topology is different).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_twisted_pair

says that the cable's characteristic impedance is part of the 10-baseT
(or faster) spec. Frustratingly, it doesn't say what that impedance
should be, but, given that typical ribbon cable is around 110 Ohms I'd
expect it to be a bit lower.

[later] Found it! 100 Ohms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable#Characteristics

It's not bi-directional, but I don't think you could signal fast enough
if you had reflections. You'd need 100 Ohms at each end to make it work.

So the answer most probably is that it IS terminated properly.
--
SimonM

On 2011-03-07, SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
writes
This begs the question why we don't worry about reflections on unterminated
CAT5. The reason is that each CAT5 cable connects only 2 points, and if one
point is disconnected, theres no other device whose reception is adversely
affected by the reflections.

I don't think that's right. Both ends should be terminated, and the
terminators will probably maintain the default logic state of the cable
too (as thy do in SCSI, although the topology is different).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_twisted_pair

says that the cable's characteristic impedance is part of the 10-baseT
(or faster) spec. Frustratingly, it doesn't say what that impedance
should be, but, given that typical ribbon cable is around 110 Ohms I'd
expect it to be a bit lower.

[later] Found it! 100 Ohms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable#Characteristics

It's not bi-directional, but I don't think you could signal fast enough
if you had reflections. You'd need 100 Ohms at each end to make it work.

So the answer most probably is that it IS terminated properly.

You're missing the point...

--
David Taylor

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
...
In article , Arny Krueger
writes
This begs the question why we don't worry about reflections on
unterminated
CAT5. The reason is that each CAT5 cable connects only 2 points, and if
one
point is disconnected, theres no other device whose reception is adversely
affected by the reflections.

I don't think that's right.


Arny not right?

*Impossible* - just ask him!

;-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
...
In article , Arny Krueger
writes
This begs the question why we don't worry about reflections on
unterminated
CAT5. The reason is that each CAT5 cable connects only 2 points, and if
one
point is disconnected, theres no other device whose reception is
adversely
affected by the reflections.

I don't think that's right.


Arny not right?

*Impossible* - just ask him!


Actually in this instance Arny *is* right. "SpamTrapSeeSig" misunderstood
the point.

David.