--On 25 July 2016 18:20 +0200 David Pickett wrote:
> Yes; but in my experience this is more predictable than how or when
> Murphy will strike!
However, Murphy can strike whatever system you are using, so choosing
one rather than another is no guarantee...
Paul
--
Paul Hodges
At 11:40 25-07-16, Richard Lee wrote:
>> Most days I would agree with you: but there is always Murphy's Law to
>contend with, and the specific case of this states that a PP3-powered
>recording device will fail only when a unique event is to be recorded.
>
>Ha! In my limited experience, Murphy is
> Most days I would agree with you: but there is always Murphy's Law to
contend with, and the specific case of this states that a PP3-powered
recording device will fail only when a unique event is to be recorded.
Ha! In my limited experience, Murphy is MUCH more likely to strike at
rechargeabl
Excellent points - thank you.
Chris Woolf
On 24-Jul-16 12:54, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Chris wrote:
But does that mean that the impedance converters of the capsules are
running on the 9V supply?
If so, does the max SPL suffer, as it does on most micro
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Chris wrote:
> But does that mean that the impedance converters of the capsules are
> running on the 9V supply?
>
> If so, does the max SPL suffer, as it does on most microphones
> running off reduced supplies? On P48 I'm guessing the Class A stages
> run
Useful comments, Richard. Thank you.
But does that mean that the impedance converters of the capsules are
running on the 9V supply?
If so, does the max SPL suffer, as it does on most microphones running
off reduced supplies? On P48 I'm guessing the Class A stages run from
~30V rails.
Chris
and for anything really impportgant, have a backup recording system (or
2) running in parallel!
It's the "belt, braces and piece of string" scenario.
Every Blessing
Tony
On 23/07/2016 21:58, David Pickett wrote:
At 07:31 24-07-16, Richard Lee wrote:
>
>For an important recording, use a new
At 07:31 24-07-16, Richard Lee wrote:
>
>For an important recording, use a new ALKALINE PP3. Probably 10 hrs life
>
>http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/522.pdf
Most days I would agree with you: but there is always Murphy's Law to
contend with, and the specific case of this states that a PP3-powered
> The Tetramic spec declares 3.5mA x 4 capsules (=15mA) @48V - that's
720mW
> But to power through the PPac it's 9-12V @<10mA - that's 90- 120mW - a
big difference.
The P48V current consumption is pessimistic. Powering directly bypasses
the regulation required for P48V.
You also avoid noisy
On 23-Jul-16 14:29, David Pickett wrote:
Core Sound says: "When 48 Volt phantom power is not available, PPAc
can also be powered by an external battery pack or AC power supply
("wall wart") via a DC power connector (1.7mm) on the PPAc
transmitter. It requires 9 to 12 Volts DC at 10 mA mini
At 04:12 23-07-16, Halasz, Andrew wrote:
>Is anyone using an external battery pack to power the TetraMic via the
>DC connector on the PPAc transmitter? This is referenced on the Core
>Sound website. Is there any thing available that suits this purpose?
>
>Running phantom power on my portable rec
You could, presumably, tackle this from two directions.
You could use one of the many 9 /12V Li+ powerpacks sold for running
video camera accessories (see Amazon etc) which should be able to
provide you with 50 hours or so of phantom running on the PPac.
Or, if you hate DC coaxial connectors
Is anyone using an external battery pack to power the TetraMic via the DC
connector on the PPAc transmitter? This is referenced on the Core Sound
website. Is there any thing available that suits this purpose?
Running phantom power on my portable recorder to the four mics goes through
batterie
13 matches
Mail list logo
