The point is these microphones are not available and the quality is not known. They may be just for talking with a bandwith similar to the telephones. Just a quick fix, so the kids plug them to USB and no other reaosn. To plug a few and have fun. Have you ever seen professional ones which are digital? Have you ever seen any big rock bad using them? Write this instead of garbage.
Yes. The issues have been documented. Yes, digital has improved (at least to some extend). Where are the microphones. Not the karaoke ones, the real ones.
Send a link. Send the names of rock bands who use them.
Yes. The issues have been documented. Yes, digital has improved (at least to some extend). Where are the microphones. Not the karaoke ones, the real ones.
Send a link. Send the names of rock bands who use them.
Ur kidding right?
Well Parts Express sells a mic for measurement that has the USB interface.
No one is going to make a professional mic with a USB out unless there is a NEED.
That means that it provides a BENEFIT.
Tell us the benefit, then we will all start to make them and get rich!
_-_-bear
PS. check B&H, Sweetwater, etc. to see if there are recording mics with USB out, I think I have seen them...
Well Parts Express sells a mic for measurement that has the USB interface.
No one is going to make a professional mic with a USB out unless there is a NEED.
That means that it provides a BENEFIT.
Tell us the benefit, then we will all start to make them and get rich!
_-_-bear
PS. check B&H, Sweetwater, etc. to see if there are recording mics with USB out, I think I have seen them...
Last edited:
As long as the device's name doesn't sound like Bell Canada To, everything else is OK.
The need is the benefit. Benefits have been outlined by Charles Babbage more than 30 years ago.
A good benefit is there will not be any noise after the microphone and the guitar. There would be noise between the microphone and the amplifier as well as in the amplifier with analogue microphones, even with built in preamplifiers being wireless or wirefull. The coaxial cable is not perfectly immuned to noise.
Also, there will not be anything analogue in a recording studio. In a concert, the digital to analogue conversion would take place at the very last stage. Less noise.
The common idea is to digitise as close to the source as possible to reduce the noise. Then one can process the numbers as they want and, when necessary, put a DAC and analogue electronics where impossible without this.
Simple example: recording voice to CD. Voice is input. CD is output. From after the digital microphone to the end product (the CD) one gets 0 noise (except the "noise" caused by the error of digitisation, this is the limited number of levels per sample: in case of 24 bit sound, one would get a recovery of the signal with a maximum error of 1 step of digitisation (1/(2^24))). Yes, there will be some noise in the analogue electronics inside the microphone. Hopefully, much less than otherwise. Yes, there will be noise at the ADC (sample and holders for example). Yes, there will be noise when mixing digital and analogue.
Possible, also, is to power the microphone by a battery. Thus, there will not be any power supply noise. Whoever wants to power the analogue and the digital electronics from separate batteries is very welcome.
Possible is to disconnect the microphone after the digitisation takes place from the digital equipment and any other equipment entirely by opto couplers. No noise comming from the rest of the equipment.
The microphone becomes a totally isolated device. The only possible noise is from the inside. No noise after digitisation.
Obviously, other noise, such as mechanical vibrations, strong electromagnetic interference, so strong the membrane gets moved from the outside, etcetera are there.
There is a great deal of a need IN CASE the digital microphone is made to put less noise into the system than the analogue. In studios and in concerts where there is gigawats of all kinda equipment, for example the lights of the stage.
As a gross generalisation, again: The idea of any analogue and digital equipment is to digitise as close to the sourse as possible to reduce noise. Another idea is to totally galvanically disconnect analogue from digital.
Also, there will not be anything analogue in a recording studio. In a concert, the digital to analogue conversion would take place at the very last stage. Less noise.
The common idea is to digitise as close to the source as possible to reduce the noise. Then one can process the numbers as they want and, when necessary, put a DAC and analogue electronics where impossible without this.
Simple example: recording voice to CD. Voice is input. CD is output. From after the digital microphone to the end product (the CD) one gets 0 noise (except the "noise" caused by the error of digitisation, this is the limited number of levels per sample: in case of 24 bit sound, one would get a recovery of the signal with a maximum error of 1 step of digitisation (1/(2^24))). Yes, there will be some noise in the analogue electronics inside the microphone. Hopefully, much less than otherwise. Yes, there will be noise at the ADC (sample and holders for example). Yes, there will be noise when mixing digital and analogue.
Possible, also, is to power the microphone by a battery. Thus, there will not be any power supply noise. Whoever wants to power the analogue and the digital electronics from separate batteries is very welcome.
Possible is to disconnect the microphone after the digitisation takes place from the digital equipment and any other equipment entirely by opto couplers. No noise comming from the rest of the equipment.
The microphone becomes a totally isolated device. The only possible noise is from the inside. No noise after digitisation.
Obviously, other noise, such as mechanical vibrations, strong electromagnetic interference, so strong the membrane gets moved from the outside, etcetera are there.
There is a great deal of a need IN CASE the digital microphone is made to put less noise into the system than the analogue. In studios and in concerts where there is gigawats of all kinda equipment, for example the lights of the stage.
As a gross generalisation, again: The idea of any analogue and digital equipment is to digitise as close to the sourse as possible to reduce noise. Another idea is to totally galvanically disconnect analogue from digital.
I don't want to become dirty but have a look at the Gibson (the link was posted up by Wavebourn). The dirty play would be to say this: "This is the first commercially available digital guitar with digitisation right after the source (the hum bucker). If there is no need and no benefit why has Gibson do this. Why for $4000?"
You may find an answer to this BUT you cannot find an answer to the quality of digitisation right after the source. This has just been done long ago.
The only thing you can answer in the same dirty fashion is: "Digital has been good for a long period. Why have they not done this?" I cannot answer this question. Digital microphone would have been better long ago. Perhaps someone else would be able to answer our question, so we don't start the Third Digital Versus Analogue War.
You may find an answer to this BUT you cannot find an answer to the quality of digitisation right after the source. This has just been done long ago.
The only thing you can answer in the same dirty fashion is: "Digital has been good for a long period. Why have they not done this?" I cannot answer this question. Digital microphone would have been better long ago. Perhaps someone else would be able to answer our question, so we don't start the Third Digital Versus Analogue War.
The A/D has to placed in the circuit AFTER you have a high-quality analog signal with enough output to drive the A/D. The signal-to-noise ratio required to do justice to live music is really a lot. I detest the terrible job digital signal processing does compared to what I can achieve tweeking my pickups and amps; the digital emulation is just a poor simulation.
If you LIKE digital processing or a really clean unprocessed sound, you can get away with just a few clean stages of pre-amp and an A/D. But even 'clean' sound is usually highly "processed"...believe it or not. That's why elecrtic guitar does not sound like acoustic guitar.
If you LIKE digital processing or a really clean unprocessed sound, you can get away with just a few clean stages of pre-amp and an A/D. But even 'clean' sound is usually highly "processed"...believe it or not. That's why elecrtic guitar does not sound like acoustic guitar.
The pre amplifier has to be there. This was said in the first post. In the last post was suggested to even have separate power supply (battery). In case there was a way to get rid of the pre amplifier I would have gotten rid of the pre amplifier too. As far as I know there isn't. In case anyone makes microphones to give huge enough signals, at least an analogue buffer would be nice and, I think, necessary. In case anyone makes a microphone with a huge signal and infinite current source output impedance or zero voltage source output impedance, then I would get rid even of the pre amplifier.
There is one way of noiseless analogue microphone: A Laser/LED microphone which does not convert the light into an electrical signal but, rather, send the light analogue signal over a fiber optics cable to equipment which does the conversion and processing. In case necessary, light filters can be designed in a similar way as the electrical/electronic ones.
There are some problems, though:
1. Fiber optic cables do attenuate light. These days, attenuation is very tiny, probably. The signal ain't very high either, probably.
2. Fiber optic connectors are "noisy". They distort the light.
3. The fiber optic cable media material may have impurities which cause "noise" and distortion.
4. There is a great deal of aging in opto electronic devices which would, hopefully, affect mainly the signal level.
5. The wavelength of the Laser Diode is heavily affected by the temperature of the junction. Systems have been designed to use this effect for wave length sweeping. The strength of the light may be affected by the temperature too, hopefully not strong enough. Temperature of the junction may be a problem when the media (fiber) and the photodetector rely on a given wavelength bandwith and when the sensitivity of this dependance is high and when there is an effect of the impurity of the media at given wavelength only which must be avoided. Hopefuly, none of this is the case. Temperature stabilisation of the junction is possible. Peltiers at the junction. Needs more power, though.
There may not be so many problems with LED microphones where they do not care what the wavelength is as long as they get some kinda light (usually in the infrared spectrum to avoid interference, same is advisable for lasers). However, the connecting problems remain the same. They are caused not so much by the outside light or an outside source of infrared light but by defraction of light at the connector.
There are some problems, though:
1. Fiber optic cables do attenuate light. These days, attenuation is very tiny, probably. The signal ain't very high either, probably.
2. Fiber optic connectors are "noisy". They distort the light.
3. The fiber optic cable media material may have impurities which cause "noise" and distortion.
4. There is a great deal of aging in opto electronic devices which would, hopefully, affect mainly the signal level.
5. The wavelength of the Laser Diode is heavily affected by the temperature of the junction. Systems have been designed to use this effect for wave length sweeping. The strength of the light may be affected by the temperature too, hopefully not strong enough. Temperature of the junction may be a problem when the media (fiber) and the photodetector rely on a given wavelength bandwith and when the sensitivity of this dependance is high and when there is an effect of the impurity of the media at given wavelength only which must be avoided. Hopefuly, none of this is the case. Temperature stabilisation of the junction is possible. Peltiers at the junction. Needs more power, though.
There may not be so many problems with LED microphones where they do not care what the wavelength is as long as they get some kinda light (usually in the infrared spectrum to avoid interference, same is advisable for lasers). However, the connecting problems remain the same. They are caused not so much by the outside light or an outside source of infrared light but by defraction of light at the connector.
I do NOT have a Beta. I can make a simple schematic in case you are interested.
The implementation is very standard. One possibility is:
Microphone (Aluminum or Copper) -> Battery Powered Pre Amplifier -> (Separate) Battery Powered ADC or DAS (Data Acquisition System) -> USB Interface
PIC control is possible but may not be desirable.
The whole system better be inside the microphone. Hence, best be done in a company. Possible is to be separate and just to avoid the long cable but there still be noise when in two pieces.
The implementation is very standard. One possibility is:
Microphone (Aluminum or Copper) -> Battery Powered Pre Amplifier -> (Separate) Battery Powered ADC or DAS (Data Acquisition System) -> USB Interface
PIC control is possible but may not be desirable.
The whole system better be inside the microphone. Hence, best be done in a company. Possible is to be separate and just to avoid the long cable but there still be noise when in two pieces.
Send me Beta.
The DSP ...distorto_leslieoeo_etc....argh.
It will be a pick and choose (D or A)for application for quite some time thank god
My guitar is 42 years old. It's not obsolete. You can't achieve that with a digital format.
I think if something like this was done in a 24bit 96Khz format would be so Awesome!!!
First Act Music Creator LE USB Guitar Cable and ... : Target
jer
First Act Music Creator LE USB Guitar Cable and ... : Target
jer
The electrical part of your guitar in 100% obsolete. However, the difference is not a great deal. You can achieve much better with digital provided there isn't digital noise (switching noise) which there always is.
Your guitar pick up so much noise (as well as any other guitar) so the solo cannot be heard or the audience thinks the noise is the solo, anyway you want, although there are differential hum buckers which reduce the noise tremendously. Digital cannot get rid of this noise (laser can).
Microphone picks up less noise than a guitar. The wire picks up a lot of noise. With microphone, as well as the guitar, the noise picked up by the wire and the rest of the equipment is not to be underestimated.
THERE IS NO ANY ELECTRICAL ADVANTAGE OF VINTAGE GUITARS. Anything they did before, they do MUCH BETTER now. Still the difference is not as huge as between the hollow guitar and the electric guitar but still there is.
There is ONLY ONE advantage in old instruments: instruments which are acoustic and made by tiny acoustic "concentrator" and do NOT have a neck bend (small neck, low tension) are said to tremendously improve the acoustic characteristics with ageing due to some property of the wood. I doubt the electric guitars are in this category BUT there may be something because, although not as significant as with the acoustic guitars, the wood plays important role in the level of sound. This is why your guitar sounds definitely better than the modernistic Yamaha's which do not have anything: just neck all the way through and air. Same electrical, lousy sound.
The most important instrument where everything is important because of the bad acoustics due to tiny size is the violin. THERE IS NOTHING WHICH STRADIVARIUS HAS DONE AND CANNOT BE DONE NOW except the aging of wood. The lacquer can be mass spectrometer analysed 100% and can be said even whether Stradivarius smoke a cigarette or a pipe and what the tobacco was, whether from Southern Italy or Northern while mixing up the lacquer.
A simple laser guided machine will cut a violin with a micrometer accuracy which neither Stradivarius nor even Paganini have ever imagined: much better than either of them.
The only thing the technology cannot do 100% although there is something there is aging of wood. Stradivarius and Amati found a very specific wood used simple water and temperature to process the wood and the combination thereof along with aging did the job.
I've heard of companies who purchase rosewood for guitars from Brazil and the Amazons, and, believe this or not, these guys explain the inexpensive labour they get there with the necessity for this wood to be dumped in the Amazon (specifically!) river full of crocodile **** as much as Louisiana because, see, ONLY the Amazon river can do the wood good. These guys believe Stradivarius and Amati did so for a specific reason. Yes, very true. The reason was very specific. They do NOT have rivers in Italy. Not as big anyways. Even in case they did, the Italians would steal their precious wood while no one would steal rosewood in the Amazon where such is in abundance.
But the discussion is not this way. I DO NOT KNOW WHY SUCH A DEVICE SUCH AS A DIGITAL MICROPHONE HAS NOT BEEN MANUFACTURED (not in normal manufacturing way). Digital microphones have advantages and disadvantages. They have to be available so one can choose. I, personally, believe the advantages of the digital microphones outweigh the disadvantages. Hardcore analoguers think the digital noise is higher than the electromagnetic noise in a studio. Yes, but I do NOT believe them.
There is only one way to find out: Digital microphones manufactured in huge amounts for all purposes: Skype chat, Karaoke, Home Made Recordings, Pub Singing, U2 Concert, U2 Studio Recording, etcetera. When in large amount and when desired by the industry, the companies will make higher quality and other companies will test and check the quality.
THEN AND ONLY THEN I WILL KNOW BUT I WILL NOT NEED TO TELL Y'ALL BECAUSE YOU WILL KNOW TOO.
Your guitar is not important. The important thing is: microphone wires pick a lot of electromagnetic interference regardless of how low the resistance on the two sides is. So does the analogue radio transmission (much less, though, because of the frequency range where the signal is modulated into and where there is tiny noise is believed to be true). Laser/LED do not and have less problems. Digital solves all this problems and there isn't any problem connected to these. However, there are other problems. THESE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN OVERCOME IN MANY OTHER CASES, AT LEAST TO A GREAT DEAL OF EXTEND.
EVEN IF DIGITAL IS EQUAL TO ANALOGUE IN NOISE, ALWAYS USE DIGITAL. Easier and better. No equipment needed. Just a PC. Power amplifier only in case you want to display music, not to recorded. ALSO: DIGITAL IS NORMAL ANALOGUE IS NOT. People count, they do not stare at sine (nor sign) signals when they purchase their beer.
DIGITAL IS BETTER IN ANY ASPECT YOU MAY THING OF EXCEPT IN ONE: introduces digital noise.
SOON NOTHING WILL BE ANALOGUE. MICROPHONES WILL BE ANALOGUE THE LEAST BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY MUCH SUCCEPTIVE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE IN THE WIRE. ANALOGUE TECHNOLOGY WAS USED IN THE CIVIL WAR. THIS IS WHAT OUR CHILDREN WILL MAKE MISTAKES WITH IN THEIR SCHOOLS. And they will be right. A mistake which is true. Children, when the teacher punishes you for this mistake, ask the teacher this question: "What took you so long?"
Some teachers would answer: "Some people believed the microphone picks up so much noise so the noise picked up in the wire was tiny as compared to the noise picked by the microphone mainly when there are relatively low resistors on the two ends." Answer: "So, how much did the removal of this relatively not so high noise cost?" "Nothing. A few cents." "So, why did you not get rid of it?" "Because I was to introduce digital noise." "But you had wire noise already! Better to have gotten rid of the wire noise regardless whether you pay with digital noise or not."
So, please, DO MAKE PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL MICROPHONES. Analogue microphones work but digital may work better.
Can I rephrase the question again: Is there any reason why digital microphones should not be manufactured? Is there any NEED not to be manufactured? Is there any BENEFIT not to be manufactured? Important: Need is necessary not only for manufacturing. Need is necessary for NOT manufacturing.
Your guitar works fine but digital works better.
Your whiskey is fine but old whiskey is better.
Chevy Impala is fine but Cadillac is better. (Was.)
Do NOT be offended by this post, though. Ask Keith Urban and Keith would tell you your 42 year old guitar is better. This will calm you down!
I have been talking for microphones so far. I now want to express a friendly opinion to you on guitars. The opinion aims to help you. DO NOT TRUST WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY, NOT EVEN WHAT I SAY. Other people say old guitars have some values. I say NO! They do NOT have any values nor any advantages. In case you are rich. Do always get the NEWERST. Change your guitar every year or 6 months. ONLY IF YOUR INCOME IS >= $10 000 000. Create a list of parameters. Go only scientific as much as you can. Disregard the ********. I enclose the list which I have when I purchase guitars. THIS LIST DIFFERS FROM YOURS. DO NOT USE THIS. MAKE YOUR OWN, THE WAY YOU WANT, NOT THE WAY I WANT:
1. Extremely low action. The string must nearly touch the neck. (Can be adjusted to some extent. Price: inaccurate tones over the length of the neck.)
2. Extremely low tension strings. (Extremely thin. 6 best. Not always available. 7 too. Difficult to find in the shops. 8 is the thickest to purchase.) Must bang on the neck. Must sound rather like a citar than a guitar. Price: difficult to perform quick pick with the right hand. More difficult for tremolo. However: left hand is more important than the right hand. (Strings can be purchased separately).
3. Straight chrome nickel NOT WOUND strings. (Not manufactured. Ask people around whether privateers don’t make them custom.)
4. Very rounded (wider) frets. Must be like drawn. Almost not existing. (Neck can be refretted but this cost a lot of money. Even done on your own, you have to still purchase the frets. They will charge you more than for the guitar.)
5. As short neck as possible. In case there is a guitar with less than 22 frets, get this. The lower the number the shorter the length of the strings the lower tension is required to achieve a given tone (frequency).
6. Consider the material of the frets.
7. Metal neck rod. Truss rod or whatever they call this ****.
8. Fully adjustable bridge. Full 3D adjustments. Long adjustment left and right along the length of the neck direction).
9. V6. 6 cylinder guitar. As many (minimum 3) hum buckers as possible. 6 is OK. They don’t make 6. 4 is the next down. Very expensive. 3 is lousy but better than 2. Option for all 3 together despite the noise (non differential). They don’t make it. Can wire this up. Or not use it. Stuck with 2 at a period because of the stupidity of the manufacturers.
10. Material of the guitar: AS HARD AS POSSIBLE AS MANY HARD PARTS AS POSSIBLE. Hardness: Mahogany, Rosewood/ Ebony ?, ebony/rosewood, oak, walnut, maple. Hard wood is expensive. At least, get the fingerboard to be made of hardwood. The next important is the neck. The rest is not important. Even pine would do. (Pine has an advantage too: very light). They don’t put softer than maple, though. Strong stainless steel and strong design of the machines. Have them lined Fender like. 3 on each side is OK too. Not a big deal. Fender lining is easier and better. I always forget which was which. (Not true.) Difficult to pin point the one one wants. (True.) Easier with a Fender like head.
So, assess the guitar pragmatically. Disregard the garbage they say of Gibson, Fender, Epiphone, John Smith Guitars, Dick Dickson Guitars. Assess parameters ONLY! And HOW THE PARAMETERS WERE DONE. No way to know. Can; trust the fuckin’ manufacturers. They would tell you they use 200 year old water aged mahogany from a trustworthy Central African colony of Britain. Disregard water aging. Can’t trust manufacturer. Use US/Canada manufacturer. They lie too the way can’t get them. **** ‘em ‘igh. So, a guitar made in the poorest African country may be better than a guitar made by a world famous reputable US manufacturer. Even almost for sure better because guitar is mainly materials, labour, inexpensive machines. Labour in Africa is better than in the US. Labourers in the US are *******. Machines are the same since they are elementary. Inexpensive, anyone can get them in Africa and start to manufacture. Manual van be just as good a machine in this case. CANNOT BE BETTER. Can’t be much worse either. Not SO important either. When the rest of the parameters are the same or similar, then look into this.
I am NOT lazy, I am sick and tired of typing. I have speech reconditioning but this is far from being possible to use. Nothing to do with accents. Just lousy. Yet. Self teaching algorithms are lousy. Yet. Good for simple commands in cars, though. Need to go for a drive to calm down. May see Nicole Kidman in town… while Keith Urban performs in Australia. J Well, Keith Urban is God. Big deal, so is the pope. The songs I write are better than Keith Urban’s anyway and Nicole doesn’t care of how good the performance is. J
Your guitar pick up so much noise (as well as any other guitar) so the solo cannot be heard or the audience thinks the noise is the solo, anyway you want, although there are differential hum buckers which reduce the noise tremendously. Digital cannot get rid of this noise (laser can).
Microphone picks up less noise than a guitar. The wire picks up a lot of noise. With microphone, as well as the guitar, the noise picked up by the wire and the rest of the equipment is not to be underestimated.
THERE IS NO ANY ELECTRICAL ADVANTAGE OF VINTAGE GUITARS. Anything they did before, they do MUCH BETTER now. Still the difference is not as huge as between the hollow guitar and the electric guitar but still there is.
There is ONLY ONE advantage in old instruments: instruments which are acoustic and made by tiny acoustic "concentrator" and do NOT have a neck bend (small neck, low tension) are said to tremendously improve the acoustic characteristics with ageing due to some property of the wood. I doubt the electric guitars are in this category BUT there may be something because, although not as significant as with the acoustic guitars, the wood plays important role in the level of sound. This is why your guitar sounds definitely better than the modernistic Yamaha's which do not have anything: just neck all the way through and air. Same electrical, lousy sound.
The most important instrument where everything is important because of the bad acoustics due to tiny size is the violin. THERE IS NOTHING WHICH STRADIVARIUS HAS DONE AND CANNOT BE DONE NOW except the aging of wood. The lacquer can be mass spectrometer analysed 100% and can be said even whether Stradivarius smoke a cigarette or a pipe and what the tobacco was, whether from Southern Italy or Northern while mixing up the lacquer.
A simple laser guided machine will cut a violin with a micrometer accuracy which neither Stradivarius nor even Paganini have ever imagined: much better than either of them.
The only thing the technology cannot do 100% although there is something there is aging of wood. Stradivarius and Amati found a very specific wood used simple water and temperature to process the wood and the combination thereof along with aging did the job.
I've heard of companies who purchase rosewood for guitars from Brazil and the Amazons, and, believe this or not, these guys explain the inexpensive labour they get there with the necessity for this wood to be dumped in the Amazon (specifically!) river full of crocodile **** as much as Louisiana because, see, ONLY the Amazon river can do the wood good. These guys believe Stradivarius and Amati did so for a specific reason. Yes, very true. The reason was very specific. They do NOT have rivers in Italy. Not as big anyways. Even in case they did, the Italians would steal their precious wood while no one would steal rosewood in the Amazon where such is in abundance.
But the discussion is not this way. I DO NOT KNOW WHY SUCH A DEVICE SUCH AS A DIGITAL MICROPHONE HAS NOT BEEN MANUFACTURED (not in normal manufacturing way). Digital microphones have advantages and disadvantages. They have to be available so one can choose. I, personally, believe the advantages of the digital microphones outweigh the disadvantages. Hardcore analoguers think the digital noise is higher than the electromagnetic noise in a studio. Yes, but I do NOT believe them.
There is only one way to find out: Digital microphones manufactured in huge amounts for all purposes: Skype chat, Karaoke, Home Made Recordings, Pub Singing, U2 Concert, U2 Studio Recording, etcetera. When in large amount and when desired by the industry, the companies will make higher quality and other companies will test and check the quality.
THEN AND ONLY THEN I WILL KNOW BUT I WILL NOT NEED TO TELL Y'ALL BECAUSE YOU WILL KNOW TOO.
Your guitar is not important. The important thing is: microphone wires pick a lot of electromagnetic interference regardless of how low the resistance on the two sides is. So does the analogue radio transmission (much less, though, because of the frequency range where the signal is modulated into and where there is tiny noise is believed to be true). Laser/LED do not and have less problems. Digital solves all this problems and there isn't any problem connected to these. However, there are other problems. THESE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN OVERCOME IN MANY OTHER CASES, AT LEAST TO A GREAT DEAL OF EXTEND.
EVEN IF DIGITAL IS EQUAL TO ANALOGUE IN NOISE, ALWAYS USE DIGITAL. Easier and better. No equipment needed. Just a PC. Power amplifier only in case you want to display music, not to recorded. ALSO: DIGITAL IS NORMAL ANALOGUE IS NOT. People count, they do not stare at sine (nor sign) signals when they purchase their beer.
DIGITAL IS BETTER IN ANY ASPECT YOU MAY THING OF EXCEPT IN ONE: introduces digital noise.
SOON NOTHING WILL BE ANALOGUE. MICROPHONES WILL BE ANALOGUE THE LEAST BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY MUCH SUCCEPTIVE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE IN THE WIRE. ANALOGUE TECHNOLOGY WAS USED IN THE CIVIL WAR. THIS IS WHAT OUR CHILDREN WILL MAKE MISTAKES WITH IN THEIR SCHOOLS. And they will be right. A mistake which is true. Children, when the teacher punishes you for this mistake, ask the teacher this question: "What took you so long?"
Some teachers would answer: "Some people believed the microphone picks up so much noise so the noise picked up in the wire was tiny as compared to the noise picked by the microphone mainly when there are relatively low resistors on the two ends." Answer: "So, how much did the removal of this relatively not so high noise cost?" "Nothing. A few cents." "So, why did you not get rid of it?" "Because I was to introduce digital noise." "But you had wire noise already! Better to have gotten rid of the wire noise regardless whether you pay with digital noise or not."
So, please, DO MAKE PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL MICROPHONES. Analogue microphones work but digital may work better.
Can I rephrase the question again: Is there any reason why digital microphones should not be manufactured? Is there any NEED not to be manufactured? Is there any BENEFIT not to be manufactured? Important: Need is necessary not only for manufacturing. Need is necessary for NOT manufacturing.
Your guitar works fine but digital works better.
Your whiskey is fine but old whiskey is better.
Chevy Impala is fine but Cadillac is better. (Was.)
Do NOT be offended by this post, though. Ask Keith Urban and Keith would tell you your 42 year old guitar is better. This will calm you down!
I have been talking for microphones so far. I now want to express a friendly opinion to you on guitars. The opinion aims to help you. DO NOT TRUST WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY, NOT EVEN WHAT I SAY. Other people say old guitars have some values. I say NO! They do NOT have any values nor any advantages. In case you are rich. Do always get the NEWERST. Change your guitar every year or 6 months. ONLY IF YOUR INCOME IS >= $10 000 000. Create a list of parameters. Go only scientific as much as you can. Disregard the ********. I enclose the list which I have when I purchase guitars. THIS LIST DIFFERS FROM YOURS. DO NOT USE THIS. MAKE YOUR OWN, THE WAY YOU WANT, NOT THE WAY I WANT:
1. Extremely low action. The string must nearly touch the neck. (Can be adjusted to some extent. Price: inaccurate tones over the length of the neck.)
2. Extremely low tension strings. (Extremely thin. 6 best. Not always available. 7 too. Difficult to find in the shops. 8 is the thickest to purchase.) Must bang on the neck. Must sound rather like a citar than a guitar. Price: difficult to perform quick pick with the right hand. More difficult for tremolo. However: left hand is more important than the right hand. (Strings can be purchased separately).
3. Straight chrome nickel NOT WOUND strings. (Not manufactured. Ask people around whether privateers don’t make them custom.)
4. Very rounded (wider) frets. Must be like drawn. Almost not existing. (Neck can be refretted but this cost a lot of money. Even done on your own, you have to still purchase the frets. They will charge you more than for the guitar.)
5. As short neck as possible. In case there is a guitar with less than 22 frets, get this. The lower the number the shorter the length of the strings the lower tension is required to achieve a given tone (frequency).
6. Consider the material of the frets.
7. Metal neck rod. Truss rod or whatever they call this ****.
8. Fully adjustable bridge. Full 3D adjustments. Long adjustment left and right along the length of the neck direction).
9. V6. 6 cylinder guitar. As many (minimum 3) hum buckers as possible. 6 is OK. They don’t make 6. 4 is the next down. Very expensive. 3 is lousy but better than 2. Option for all 3 together despite the noise (non differential). They don’t make it. Can wire this up. Or not use it. Stuck with 2 at a period because of the stupidity of the manufacturers.
10. Material of the guitar: AS HARD AS POSSIBLE AS MANY HARD PARTS AS POSSIBLE. Hardness: Mahogany, Rosewood/ Ebony ?, ebony/rosewood, oak, walnut, maple. Hard wood is expensive. At least, get the fingerboard to be made of hardwood. The next important is the neck. The rest is not important. Even pine would do. (Pine has an advantage too: very light). They don’t put softer than maple, though. Strong stainless steel and strong design of the machines. Have them lined Fender like. 3 on each side is OK too. Not a big deal. Fender lining is easier and better. I always forget which was which. (Not true.) Difficult to pin point the one one wants. (True.) Easier with a Fender like head.
So, assess the guitar pragmatically. Disregard the garbage they say of Gibson, Fender, Epiphone, John Smith Guitars, Dick Dickson Guitars. Assess parameters ONLY! And HOW THE PARAMETERS WERE DONE. No way to know. Can; trust the fuckin’ manufacturers. They would tell you they use 200 year old water aged mahogany from a trustworthy Central African colony of Britain. Disregard water aging. Can’t trust manufacturer. Use US/Canada manufacturer. They lie too the way can’t get them. **** ‘em ‘igh. So, a guitar made in the poorest African country may be better than a guitar made by a world famous reputable US manufacturer. Even almost for sure better because guitar is mainly materials, labour, inexpensive machines. Labour in Africa is better than in the US. Labourers in the US are *******. Machines are the same since they are elementary. Inexpensive, anyone can get them in Africa and start to manufacture. Manual van be just as good a machine in this case. CANNOT BE BETTER. Can’t be much worse either. Not SO important either. When the rest of the parameters are the same or similar, then look into this.
I am NOT lazy, I am sick and tired of typing. I have speech reconditioning but this is far from being possible to use. Nothing to do with accents. Just lousy. Yet. Self teaching algorithms are lousy. Yet. Good for simple commands in cars, though. Need to go for a drive to calm down. May see Nicole Kidman in town… while Keith Urban performs in Australia. J Well, Keith Urban is God. Big deal, so is the pope. The songs I write are better than Keith Urban’s anyway and Nicole doesn’t care of how good the performance is. J
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.