Specs for 1/8" Stereo Plug?
Len Moskowitz
Might someone point me to the mechanical specs for the common 1/8"
stereo mini-phone plug used on consumer gear (headphones etc.)? AES?
IEEE? IEC? HUD? SSA?
--
Len Moskowitz Stealth Microphones (tm), Cables, Interfaces
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey http://www.core-sound.com
mosk...@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Don Cooper
>
> Might someone point me to the mechanical specs for the common 1/8"
> stereo mini-phone plug used on consumer gear (headphones etc.)? AES?
> IEEE? IEC? HUD? SSA?
I'm thinking ASPCA. That or EIEIO. ;)
Don
Graham Hinton
>
> Might someone point me to the mechanical specs for the common 1/8"
> stereo mini-phone plug used on consumer gear (headphones etc.)? AES?
> IEEE? IEC? HUD? SSA?
If you do find one you'll then have the problem of finding a manufacturer
that conforms to it. They are all different and some manufacturer's plugs
do not fit correctly in others' sockets.
There is a large variation in the shape of the tip, especially with the far
east manufactured parts.
Adam Kendall
I'm checking out an Orban 674A, the stereo parametric EQ with graphic sliders.
I've never used Orban before, so I'm curious about the sound of the unit.
It's a bit dull on the high end, like it's losing the "air" of the sound,
and in general is forward sounding, like something's going on in the mids
to upper-mids. This is even with the EQ disengaged.
What do you experienced Orban users think? Is this an accurate
description of what an Orban EQ should sound like?
As a comparison, my Symetrix 552E, a stereo parametric, is almost
thoroughly uncolored. It makes everything that goes into it sound
"smaller", but the sonic qualities are preserved.
(All this as opposed to the Avalon 2055 I rented for a session... gear
lust will kill me...)
Thanks for any feedback.
Adam
Robert Orban
<Kendalldb-211...@dialup-209.246.90.132.newyork2.level3.net>,
Kend...@earthlink.net says...
The specified frequency response of the 674 is +/-0.25dB, 20-20,000Hz.
However, the unit has lowpass and highpass filters, and, if you have these
filters in-circuit, there will be some audible HF rolloff even if you set
the lowpass filter to 20kHz. (It will still be 3dB down at 20kHz.) So,
before you assume frequency response difficulties, make sure that you are
using the main/LP output, and that the LP filter is switched OUT.
The main signal path of the 674A is a bunch of TL072s, one for each band. You
may be hearing the effect of all of these opamps. But I wouldn't expect that
this would cause audible loss of HF response.
These units have not been manufactured for more than 10 years, and there is
also a possibility that some sort of fault has occurred in the circuitry. I
therefore suggest _measuring_ the frequency response to verify that it meets
factory specs. (In this day of "subjective" everything, what a concept!) You
can probably download the manual from ftp.orban.com (although the site seems to
be down right now as I write this, so I couldn't check for certain.)
Adam Kendall
I haven't been able to get through to the FTP site for a couple of days,
so it does appear down.
The "dull" sound is with all EQ/Filters disengaged, with the gain at what
I assume is unity. I am connected to the proper outputs.
This unit was apparently unused for a long time. The pots, sliders,
buttons (except power) all feel almost new, but something could have
failed internally from lack of use.
I'll get the thing checked out by a pro to see that it's working up to spec.
It's pretty cool to get a response from the unit's namesake...
Adam
In article <sv70g92...@news.supernews.com>, ror...@earthlinkxyxy.net
Techmeister
I have known and respected you for years, so I have always been shy of
telling you this, but the man is RIGHT ON on the way your eqs sound.
They have ALWAYS been a little dull and veiled compared to other units
of similar specs. They are always distinctly "ringy" as well in most
settings, more on that in a minute. It may be topology issues or time
signature, I never pursued it as I liked the sound of other eqs better
and favored them. Even REALLY cheesy units like the old Ashly COULD be
made to sound more open.
Nonetheless, I sold and continue to sell plenty of them and other Orban
pieces! I have two "Paragraphics" in inventory right now.
I think the way the group "The Cars" used them might explain part of
there popularity for Pop Music.
The Cars snare sound must be 50% Orban parametrics! They used, to my
recollection, your eqs 2-5 times on the snare alone along with enough
gates to control a bull run:
(always in semi-narrow ringy settings, I believe)
- tracking the drum live
- gated feed to a snare upside down over a speaker in the studio
- gated feed to a live chamber (compression city as well ??)
- gated feed to the playing room
- gated feed to a reverb or plate with w/o delays, etc...
I think there were others, but you get the idea. The sound on the record
is probably about 5-10% original, the rest is re-amped, gated, roomed,
reverbed and **** ORBANED **** beyond recognition.
But oh, what a snare sound. If nothing else gives a Cars record away in
the first ten seconds (maybe the cheesy factory Moog settings from
Greg's signature sound), it is that snare, baby.
Bob, I hope you forgive me for anything that sounds like an insult, that
is NOT what I mean. You made a unique series of boxes that just happen
to do (IMSHO) both way more and way less than you may have intended.
Thanks from all of us!
db
In article
<Kendalldb-211...@dialup-209.246.90.132.newyork2.level3.net>,
Kend...@earthlink.net (Adam Kendall) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm checking out an Orban 674A, the stereo parametric EQ with graphic
> sliders.
>
> I've never used Orban before, so I'm curious about the sound of the unit.
>
> It's a bit dull on the high end, like it's losing the "air" of the sound,
> and in general is forward sounding, like something's going on in the mids
> to upper-mids. This is even with the EQ disengaged.
>
> What do you experienced Orban users think? Is this an accurate
> description of what an Orban EQ should sound like?
>
> As a comparison, my Symetrix 552E, a stereo parametric, is almost
> thoroughly uncolored. It makes everything that goes into it sound
> "smaller", but the sonic qualities are preserved.
>
> (All this as opposed to the Avalon 2055 I rented for a session... gear
> lust will kill me...)
>
> Thanks for any feedback.
>
> Adam
--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.home.earthlink.net/~ob1db Boston, Mass Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590
Robert Orban
well understood that it is not a good idea to have unbiased tantalum caps in
the signal path. At the time, tantalums were very much more reliable than
electrolytics, so we chose them for that reason.
Further, the tantalums did not, strictly speaking, have to be there. The only
reason there were caps in the signal path _at all_ was to prevent small
"ticks" when the in/out switches were operated while the units were online.
Therefore, the very first thing I would do with these older designs (621, 622,
682, 674) is to bypass the caps (just short them out). Replacing the main-path
opamps with more modern, low-offset amplifiers should also sort out some of
the remaining issues with sonic clarity, as well as minimzing any noise that
might occur when the master in/out or band in/out switches are activated. (As
always, test with squarewaves to detect oscillation or marginal instability
when you do this.)
The 642 represented a much more sophisticated approach, and its design was
informed by the Marsh/Jung research about capacitor performance. The 642 is
100% servoed, using film caps in the servos--there are no electrolytics or
tantalums anywhere in the signal path.
The main-path opamps in the 642 are 5532s, operated in inverting mode with
relatively low impedance feedback (5K, I believe). This choice was not made
lightly; I spent considerable time doing input/output null tests with program
material before convincing myself that 5532s were plenty good enough in this
particular configuration (unity-gain inverting).
Regarding ringing, all my EQ designs were extensively tested with squarewaves
and "tuned" if necessary with small capacitors across the feedback resistors
of the main path amplifiers to reduce any ringing to negligible levels. These
eqs, in other words, are not marginally unstable with their stock amplifiers.
Regarding the ringing of the equalization itself: Since these are parametric
equalizers with minimum-phase filters, one can control the ringing by setting
the "Q." The 621, 622, and 642 all had a "Q" range that went below 0.3 (pole
"Q"). Below 0.5, the poles are simple and the response is equivalent to two
cascaded single-pole RC networks (one highpass and one lowpass). In other
words, if you don't want ringing, set the "Q" below 0.5.
The 672 and 674, because they had eight bands per channel instead of four, had
a higher minimum "Q," but it was still less than 0.5.
Since the filters are second-order minimum-phase, their "ringiness" is
uniquely related to their magnitude response, which is a classic bell-shaped
curve. There are no mysteries here--an equalizer is either minimum phase, or
it is not.
I should finally add that these EQs were NOT designed to add "magic fairy
dust" by introducing soft nonlinearities, like some of the "high-end"
equalizers being sold today. They were designed principally by standard
mathematical circuit design techiques, and the designs were carefully verified
by measurement. We spent much more time on issues like noise, nonlinear
distortion, squarewave response, correctly calibrating the frequencies and
EQ(db) scales on the front panel than we did on subjective tuning. I have no
problem with the idea of equalizers that DO add controlled amounts of
nonlinear distortion if their users understand that the equalizer can then
never be completely clean even if cleanliness is what is required in a certain
application. However, as a designer I prefer to partition this functionality,
and to add nonlinearity elsewhere while leaving the equalizer as linear as
possible.
In article <dbsales-1CC1CF...@news.supernews.com>,
dbs...@icnt.net says...
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I have known and respected you for years, so I have always been shy of
>telling you this, but the man is RIGHT ON on the way your eqs sound.
>
>They have ALWAYS been a little dull and veiled compared to other units
>of similar specs. They are always distinctly "ringy" as well in most
>settings, more on that in a minute. It may be topology issues or time
>signature, I never pursued it as I liked the sound of other eqs better
>and favored them. Even REALLY cheesy units like the old Ashly COULD be
>made to sound more open.
[Cars snare sound suff snipped]
D. Butler
I will NEVER bite my tongue around you again, I swear!
db
In article <svp87rh...@news.supernews.com>,
ror...@earthlinkxyxy.net (Robert Orban) wrote:
> All Orban EQ's (except for the 642) were designed in the 1970s before it
> was
> well understood that it is not a good idea to have unbiased tantalum caps
> in
> the signal path. At the time, tantalums were very much more reliable than
> electrolytics, so we chose them for that reason.
>
(snipped, see great post!)
--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com