>From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
>Reply-To: motm@onelist.com
>To: <motm@onelist.com>
>Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM Pre-amp
>Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:45:20 -0500
>
>From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
>
> > From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> > The ARP has too many parts! The Univibe has about half
> > of the ARPs. The MXR phaser has fewer still! :)
>
>But yet somehow that little MXR still sounds good. Whatever design, a
>good, err... no GREAT, phaser should be part of the MOTM plan. :) See
>what you got started again Thomas?? Now, back to pre-amps...
>
> > From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> > Mics are probably best handled by your little Mackie mixer :)
> > Because, you need to handle both XLR and dynamic, phantom
> > power, blah blah blah.
>
>Boo... Hiss... Come on Paul.... Can't we have just one mic input, say XLR,
>balanced, low impedance. That would cover most everything. Phantom power
>guys can handle their own power (or a spiffy phantom power jumper on the
>MOTM circuit board). Or, you could go 1/4" high impedance and force the
>mic guys to use a matching transformer. BUT, all good mics are balanced
>low-Z anyhow, so .... Of course, to keep the MOTM 1/4 input appearance, I
>guess any low-Z mic input should be a stereo jack and not a real XLR.
>
> > Also, there is a large *untapped* MOTM market for guitar players!!
>
>Yes, but life isn't fair and the guitar layers get all the great chicks.
>So..... How about 3 inputs (like the original). One optimized for guitar,
>one for line levels, and one with a user adjustable trim (or appropriate
>component change on the circuit board). Or a switch on the 3rd pre input
>for low level / high level inputs. Am I missing someting, or would not a
>guitar input and microphone input have roughly the same gain required, if a
>microphone matching transformer was used to come closer to the high
>impedance input of the guitar input (or the trimmable). I know the
>impedance of a guitar is higher than the high impedance side of a
>microphone transformer, but aren't they close enough? So channel three
>could have two inputs, one balanced low-z and one unbalanced high-z. (I
>know, I am thinking mixers again).
>
>And then there is that distortion issue.... Separate module? Or maybe the
>triple preamp could be two flavors:
>
># 1 - dual input with the distortion Paul suggested. (this is the guitar
>MOTM interface) one of the inputs for guitar and the other ???
>
># 2 - triple input, no distrotion, two line levels and one mic level (synth
>MOTM interface).
>
>See, then we would have to buy them both.
>
>I've rambled long enough. I love this list and hearing what others think
>is important for thier MOTM systems. I wish more of you quiet types would
>speak up. I see you out there lurking.
>
>And thanks again Paul for letting customers in on the design issues. I
>think that a lot of good ideas (and much controversy <grin>) have come from
>the open discussion. I am always happy to see the final product even if I
>know it is not "exactly" how I would have asked for it because it has the
>input of so many knowledgeable folks and Paul's good sense to separate the
>good ideas from the bad.
>
>Larry H
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ATTN ONELIST USERS: stay current on the latest activities,
>programs, & features at ONElist by joining our member newsletter at
><a href=" http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/onelist_announce ">Click</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------