Passive Toolbox

[CurtZHP]

Suck cut and Rock boost knobs, has to be a market

Since the whole thing is supposed to be passive, don't forget to add "The Phantom Knob." (Just an old scratchy pot with a nice shiny silver knob.)



PITA Client: "Nah, it's still not quite right. It neeeeeds something."
You: (reaching for The Knob...) "How's that?"
PITA Client: "Yeah! That's it! Perfect!!"

[wkrbee]

The half hour it takes to build a phase switch is well worth it-one less digital process to muck up the mix,Besides, what's a half hour compared to the hours we spend on this forum.

[eeldip]

yes.

flipping phase in digital will fuck it up more than flipping it in analog. if you like, don't believe in physics.

[Marc Alan Goodman]

yes.

flipping phase in digital will fuck it up more than flipping it in analog. if you like, don't believe in physics.

Okay, I was trying to stay out of this, but really can you explain to me what this has to do with physics in any way? Assuming that the signal is being recorded digitally anyway.

Lets look at the two options.

1) Analog: simply by switching the wires the positive becomes negative and vice versa. Hence polarity switch. Then the signal is turned into a series of samples.

2) Digital: The sound is turned into a series of samples. Then the computer inverts the sound file and it flips every sample from positive to negative and vice versa.

Hence: Exactly the same thing. The only way there would be a difference is if the computer missed a few samples or decided to randomly change the values instead of just inverting them or something of the sort. However that doesn't happen. If it did, even to just a few samples, things would sound TOTALLY screwed when you played it back. There would be huge glitches. There's no reason to assume a computer does that.

What does this have to do with physics exactly? What are you people talking about? It's more likely that the switch would be mis-wired or that there would be some sort of strange crosstalk (COMPLETELY unlikely btw) than that the computer would screw it up.

Anyway a phase reverse switch is a useful thing to have if you're working out of the box at all, or if you just don't feel like dealing with shit later. However since pretty much every mic pre has one I don't feel like I need to worry about it very often.

[eeldip]

agreed... thats what i was getting at.

i was saying that if you believe that the digital process of flipping polarity was going to "muck up the mix" you must also not believe in physics.

[Scodiddly]

agreed... thats what i was getting at.

i was saying that if you believe that the digital process of flipping polarity was going to "muck up the mix" you must also not believe in physics.

Unless you find yourself using a DAW where you have to use a plugin to do a polarity flip. And the plugin adds latency or something.

Or if you send the tracks out to be mixed by somebody else... and they don't know that you meant to fix the second guitar mic polarity in the mix, and so they just figure you for an idiot.

[eeldip]

Unless you find yourself using a DAW where you have to use a plugin to do a polarity flip. And the plugin adds latency or something.

for the most part, you don't have to worry about that. unless you are running protools -5000.

but yea, honestly, if you are in digital, i can't see an analog polarity switch helping. its a friggin button that you already have. why build something, add a patch cable or two, a switch. all sorts of shit that can break or whatnot, when you already have the friggin button just sitting there. just push the button and hit save. move the mic if you have to. end of story.

[Marc Alan Goodman]

yes.

flipping phase in digital will fuck it up more than flipping it in analog. if you like, don't believe in physics.

Okay, I just reread this post about 5 times and it still says digital IS worse than analog. I can't find the part where the sarcasm is implied. But I'm glad to hear I'm not completely nuts on the issue.

[leigh]

yes.

flipping phase in digital will fuck it up more than flipping it in analog. if you like, don't believe in physics.

Okay, I just reread this post about 5 times and it still says digital IS worse than analog. I can't find the part where the sarcasm is implied. But I'm glad to hear I'm not completely nuts on the issue.

I believe the crux of the confusion is eeldip's usage of "like".

Intended meaning was the collaquial use of "like" as in interjection, so the meaning would essentially be "If you don't believe in physics."

However, as written, it reads more like "If you prefer, then fine - don't believe in physics."

Grammar detective to the rescue...

Leigh

[Marc Alan Goodman]

Can we get you a badge, a gun, and an official post around here?

[eeldip]

i am impressed with my ability to grind this thread to a halt by using "like" in a sentence.

[Marc Alan Goodman]

'sokay, I think we said it all anyway.

[Peterson Goodwyn]

I just picked up an old ammo box from a flea market, and I think it would be cool to skip the rack case and build stuff in there. Before I start drilling... has anybody used one of these before? I don't know what kind of metal it is, so I'm a little worried about RFI.

[Marc Alan Goodman]

No matter what it is it shouldn't be a problem unless you're in an area with a TON of rfi.

Show us some pictures when you've got it drilled out! Sounds awesome.

[CurtZHP]

I just picked up an old ammo box from a flea market, and I think it would be cool to skip the rack case and build stuff in there. Before I start drilling... has anybody used one of these before? I don't know what kind of metal it is, so I'm a little worried about RFI.

I built an instrument preamp inside one. They're metal, so they should provide some shielding. I've not had a problem so far.

The preamp was solid state, so I used a 7.62mm sized box. I'd like to get my hands on a .50cal or bigger, so I can build a tube circuit in there.

They make great mic cases too.