Header Graphic
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! > Do I need an impedance converter?
Do I need an impedance converter?
Login  |  Register
Page: 1

Martin
1213 posts
Aug 07, 2017
4:11 PM
One of my set ups is like this:
SM57 (actually a cheap copy) -- Harp Octave -- Parametric EQ -- Delay pedal -- Small tube amp.

Then every now and then I hear about impedance converters. Here in Sweden they cost something like $60 (I used to own one but I´ve lost it) and there are several varieties and I don´t understand a thing about the whole notion. Not a thing.
Some people say, "Just forget about that crap, if it sounds good it sounds good" and so on. There´s always a new thing that needs to be bought.

But -- important but -- then I read that I could somehow miss out on roughly 50% of my amps capacity! Which I frankly find hard to believe: I can go all the way to 10, as of now. That´s a lot of sound, and it sounds rather good, but surrounded by two guitars as I am, you always need more ...

Counld anynoe be so helpful just to tell me, if this set up works, and it does, do I STILL need some sort of impedance converter?
Harpaholic
905 posts
Aug 07, 2017
5:02 PM
Yes you should have one assuming your tube amp has a HiZ input.

You are robbing yourself of a lot of volume and tone.

You can find one less than $60 even with shipping to Sweden. Someone here should be able to help with that. I have many Shure imp. matching xformr's, some new, some vintage.
If you were in the US I would send you one for the cost of shipping.

Last Edited by Harpaholic on Aug 07, 2017 5:07 PM
hvyj
3418 posts
Aug 07, 2017
6:31 PM
Yes, you need one. It is NOT optional. Is a transmission in an automobile optional just because the car is able to roll down hill without one?
SuperBee
4878 posts
Aug 07, 2017
8:41 PM
yes thats why you can turn up to 10, because you are not getting the full output from the mic. if you plug the mic into an IMT, you probably wont be able to turn the amp up full. you will get a different sound. maybe you'll like it more or less than you do now, maybe your amp will become troublesome.
you are not doing any damage without one, so it really is just about whether you are happy with the sound. i do think its likely you aren't getting the most from your effects though
Joe_L
2750 posts
Aug 08, 2017
2:43 AM
It is optional, but your tone and volume will suck.

----------
The Blues Photo Gallery
MindTheGap
2310 posts
Aug 08, 2017
3:54 AM
No you don't necessarily need one.

As SuperBee says, if you add one you may get some more volume out of your amp, and you'll almost certainly get more distortion, which is subjective as to whether that's good. But you may get lots of feedback and not be able to turn up beyond 3. That is why people buy that 'Mojo Pad' from Lone Wolf, which is an attenuator that reduces the mic signal. Or swap the preamp tube for a lower gain.

If you were using the SM57 as it was intended as a vocal mic, then using an IMT would be 'correct' in that the signal would be in the right kind of range for your guitar amp. But by cupping the mic, you are well out of its design spec - so there is no 'technically correct'. Even as a vocal mic, your amp aimed at guitar pickups not microphones. It works because everything's roughly in the right range, but it's not designed for that.

I often use an SM57 in the so-called incorrect Lo-Impedance mode into a guitar amp, because the cupped-harp signal is about right for some amps. It's bit weak for others - in which case I use SM57 + Volume Control + IMT to get it right. The VC is Greg Heumann's one. Then I can tune the mic output to be optimal for the amp.

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 08, 2017 4:11 AM
Andrew
1615 posts
Aug 08, 2017
7:29 AM
At this point it might be good for me and for the OP if someone could post a table of what things are high Z and what things are low.

I think I might have been told once that all amps are high Z in and low Z out, but I'm not sure. I have a genuine SM57 and an SM58 and a PG81, but I have no idea what their impedances are.

And what about instruments - are they high Z out (if amps are high Z in)?

How high is high?
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Aug 08, 2017 7:30 AM
Martin
1214 posts
Aug 08, 2017
7:31 AM
Interesting. And I thank you for the input.
Does this mean that if I forfeit the SM57 copy and use one of my bullet mics, then I´m "clear" so to speak? "Technically correct"?
Let me then immediately say that the bullet mics sound worse (more trebly) and weaker (less volume) than my current set up. Can´t even claim that they give more distortion.

I´m terribly reluctant to fork up $60 for something that I might not need -- esp. in view of the fact that I need more harmonicas!

I have a couple of upcoming gigs and will have to record myself, I realise. Can´t say that will provide objectivity, but a better base for judegment.
Andrew
1616 posts
Aug 08, 2017
7:40 AM
Incidentally, is something like this not what you want: -
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dual-Impedance-Microphone-Matching-Transformer-x/dp/B000KH7RQ8/ref=sr_1_1?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1502203178&sr=1-1&keywords=impedance+transformer

OK, "research" took me less time than I thought.
My Shure mics have impedances of 150 up to 600 ohms.
My bass practice amp has input Z of 470K
And I remember my Sennheiser HD650 phones were about 300 Ohms, which made them very quiet when driven by something that expected 8 ohms and therefore had an 8 ohm output.

So I infer that a low Z mic going into a high Z amp is the problem you've got. I've just ordered one of those inline transformers myself, btw.
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Aug 08, 2017 7:56 AM
MindTheGap
2311 posts
Aug 08, 2017
7:53 AM
Andrew, yes but Martin's not in the UK. But that one looks good value, with the rat's tail design less likely to physically damage the input jack. And a lo-hi switch so you can easily compare the two settings.

And Martin doesn't seem to have a problem - he likes the sound.

Martin - I expect your bullet mics will be 'hi-impedance' i.e. they'll have a transformer inside the shell. Or maybe they are the crystal type? So you can use one and please MBH that you are being technically correct, even if you don't like the sound so much.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Any chance you could borrow an IMT to try and see if the pudding is good?

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 08, 2017 8:00 AM
Andrew
1617 posts
Aug 08, 2017
8:00 AM
Sorry, you caught me editing my post.

Cheap SM57 copies are hideous - I got one by accident on ebay and complained and got a refund. There was a time when an SM57's RRP was about £100, and you could get a bargain if you were lucky. Now their RRP is about £80 and the "bargains" are not much cheaper than that, and there are so many millions of Chinese imitation SM57 karaoke mics out there, that even high street shops are getting them in stock by accident. And there is no saving over a genuine one! So my advice to any beginner such as myself is, go to the Shure website, search for their approved dealers and get a real one, and pay full price.
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Aug 08, 2017 8:02 AM
MindTheGap
2312 posts
Aug 08, 2017
8:03 AM
Andrew, true about SM57s imitations in general. But lots of us have found that the Pyle Pro mic, similar to a 57 but not sold as an imitation, is very good indeed. Particularly for harp, but in free-air too.

I should add that your list of impedances is correct, but the conclusions aren't. It's more subtle than that. For matching microphones to amplifier inputs, the aim is keep the microphone impedance low compared to the input impedance. So the IMT's output impedance is 50K ohms or something, and your amp's input impedance is 470K ohms - so that's good, there's a factor of ten between them.

For other situations e.g. matching amplifier output and speakers, different rules apply.

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 08, 2017 8:15 AM
Andrew
1618 posts
Aug 08, 2017
8:11 AM
"the conclusions aren't. It's more subtle than that."

Yes, I have realised that and am currently trying to work out what my problem is. As a voltage divider it should be high Z output to low Z input results in poor signal!

Tragically, I studied electrical engineering from 1978-1981, but I did a whole load of computing course-units which I hated and hardly any circuit design and now I've forgotten everything!
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Aug 08, 2017 8:13 AM
MindTheGap
2313 posts
Aug 08, 2017
8:12 AM
Ah, our posts are crossing. I'll stop writing!
Andrew
1619 posts
Aug 08, 2017
8:14 AM
No, I'm finished now. Go ahead.
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------
MindTheGap
2314 posts
Aug 08, 2017
8:21 AM
:)

I filled in a bit above! But yes, you are quite right with the voltage divider effect. Your 470K input is so much higher than either 500 or 50K ohms (lo and hi-Z mics) that it doesn't make any practical difference which you use. However, what IS different is that the IMT has a 1:10 transformer in it! So the 'Hi-Z' signal voltage is also 10x higher.

I think it's 10x. It's probably not well-defined and different ones might be different ratios.

The practical result (for martin and a dynamic microphone) is that it only matters if he's not getting the volume or distortion he would like.

Where this matters more is for harp players and their lovely crystal mics with >1M ohm outputs, but that's for another time...

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 08, 2017 8:30 AM
Andrew
1621 posts
Aug 08, 2017
8:44 AM
Interesting. I've quickly done some calculus.
If it's about maximising input power to the amp, then the impedances do have to match.
It's interesting because in the case of the preamp stage I'd have (wrongly?) intuited that voltage was more important than power.

----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------
Littoral
1514 posts
Aug 08, 2017
8:59 AM
"bullet mics sound worse"
It took me far too long to realize the significant difference between mics. Generalizing between mic designs and their relationship to specific gear is almost hopeless. No way to know unless you try it out. Copying exact gear can be an efficient strategy but then you leave out the most important variable of all -the one this thread steered into, the player.
I'm using a PA rig now that absolutely sparkles and it is similar to yours. Bulletini element (in a bullet shell), LW Octave, LW Delay, Exotic EP and an MXR Carbon Copy Delay. The Exotic EP may have been the most useful for targeting your concern here (Muddy). They're not too expensive and widely available. Look up threads on them here. Search is under Blues Formn on the list to the left. I had been using a 57 with this rig (IMP Cable, yes, 100% absolutely, yes) but the Bulletini gave me a better "curve" but would not address the "Muddy" issue for you. Awesome mic though. Since you use the Octave I will add that I almost never use the effect knob. I use the Octave as a pre-amp and the glorious ability it has for managing feedback. Curve is the word I like for tone because it's more of an EQ perspective than technique, which is what I ascribe to 99% of the source of tone.
Note: You said you're in high school. Many of the people you are corresponding with here have been at this for decades. Sounds like you accept the quest. Good. No substitution for it.
...realized later that I'd mixed up two threads here -still works though :)

Last Edited by Littoral on Aug 08, 2017 11:28 AM
Greg Heumann
3335 posts
Aug 08, 2017
9:10 AM
Some clarification: an impedance matching transformer performs TWO functions. One if the obvious impedance matching. This ensures the mic operates within its design range and delivers the frequency response and output it was designed to do.

The other is much more important and much less understood and that is the conversion from the mic's "balanced mode" output to "unbalanced" mode. A straight XLR to 1/4" cable does NEITHER, but it is the latter than causes so much signal to drop. It is literally only grabbing half of the mic's signal.



----------
***************************************************
/Greg

BlowsMeAway Productions
See my Customer Mics album on Facebook
Bluestate on iTunes
Martin
1215 posts
Aug 08, 2017
3:29 PM
Lots of interesting stuff here and I´ll try to digest all that I can understand.
My microphone is this:
https://www.thomann.de/se/the_tbone_mb75.htm

In a blind test, it couldn´t be distinguished from an SM57. That sold it to me -- but of course I had already bought it. Quite a lot of mic for not that much money.

@MindTheGap: My bullet mics are one Shure GB, from the late 80´s, and one ... Suprolux something. Cheapo -- but sounds just as good (or bad) as the GB. (A wee bit more trebly, but it has a volume pot!)
I´ve got a couple of Beyerdynamics and an Audix as well but my SM57 copy gives the most crunch with this set up.

As someone suggests above, I will make an effort to borrow an impedance converter ans see what it does. That it would, like Greg seems to imply and that I´ve seen others state, give me 50% more, sounds like downright science fiction to me. I was never much for sci-fi but of course, this must be tested.
The proof is very much in the pudding, as MTG says, and I´m, from the ignorant´s priveliged point of view, very sceptical -- but curious.

@Andrew: Thanks for the link. Better price than what I´ve encountered here. However, my cable starts with an XLR and ends with what here is called a "tele plug". (I never got the English word for that.) So if I should buy that gadget, I´d have to use an XLR-XLR cable?

@Littoral: Yeah, it´s tough to keep the technical treads apart at times but you got me curious about that EP thing. I´ll check.
The Harp Octave is my latest investment and I use it to beat feed-back. It works. Effects knob at 12 o´clock. If I turn it off things start to scream in a really bad way. I´d even go out on a limb and say, "technically incorrect" way.
garry
683 posts
Aug 08, 2017
4:38 PM
No science fiction about it. There are two wires, and without this you're only taking input from one of them.

----------
Andrew
1622 posts
Aug 08, 2017
5:02 PM
Yeah, when I say SM57 knock-offs are hideous, I'm overstating it, but there are problems -
a) they are £10 mics that sell for £70 to people who think they are getting a bargain on an £80 mic.
b) they have zero mechanical isolation - cup one for harp playing and all you will hear through the amp is the sound of your hands brushing up and down the barrel.
c) I don't know what their frequency range is. Perhaps you can Google that?
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Aug 08, 2017 5:03 PM
Littoral
1515 posts
Aug 08, 2017
6:10 PM
Martin, Octave effects at 12 noon, I can't imagine that. For me that would be, I'll call it, unpleasant. At twelve it's got to get in the way of you. IMHO
MindTheGap
2315 posts
Aug 09, 2017
2:02 AM
We can discuss wiring and impedances all day long, but at the end of that day, by hook or by crook, there's a signal going into the amp and either you like the sound or you don't.

The SM57 wasn't designed to be cupped, and I don't think the circuit of your small tube amp was originally designed to be overdriven. It's all a happy accident. IMO discussions of what's 'technically correct' in this circumstance go out of the window.

However take comfort in the fact that, whatever mode you run in, the output impedance of your mic is SO much lower than the input impedance of your Harp Octave that there is no chance of it 'robbing tone' from your mic. So that sense you are super-technically correct.

If you want more signal out of your mic, use an IMT! Some people want less signal from their mic and they buy a Mojo Pad or volume control. An XLR-1/4" cable may only give a fraction of the signal, but that may be what you want.

Andrew, I agree with about the cheapo mics. My main problem is that they aren't as physically robust as the real thing. From all the comparisons I think they've got the freq response copied well.

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 09, 2017 3:13 AM
MindTheGap
2316 posts
Aug 09, 2017
2:32 AM
Andrew

Re "If it's about maximising input power to the amp, then the impedances do have to match"

That's correct in general about matching power from a source to load, e.g. amp's output transformer to speakers. But that's not relevant to microphones. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_bridging

They used to impedance-match mics in the early days of electronics, I read, when amplification kit was expensive. But now transistors are cheap and we're more interested in fidelity. As Greg says, the main purpose of the IMT is to convert between balanced and unbalanced audio schemes. The resulting output impedances (e.g. 500 and 50k ohms) are typically much lower than the amp (or pedal) impedance. I think Martin's Harp Octave is 1Meg? Or is more, I can't remember. 10M maybe.

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 09, 2017 3:11 AM
SuperBee
4881 posts
Aug 09, 2017
6:27 AM
Im pretty certain the LW Octave pedal is 10Meg impedance.

Like Littoral I wouldn't usually put the effect level that high, seldom as high as 11, mainly I use it for a volume boost.
MindTheGap
2317 posts
Aug 09, 2017
7:55 AM
OK, 10Meg, even better. Lots more than 50k. They are designed to work with crystal mics so that makes sense.

SuperBee, I don't have a Harp Octave, but interesting you say it works as a volume boost. Maybe that's why Martin's setup is OK for him - he's using the HO to increase the rather weak mic signal? I have the Harp Break and I think that's unity gain on full volume (not certain about that). Other pedals I have do have > unity gain though.

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 09, 2017 7:59 AM
Martin
1216 posts
Aug 09, 2017
3:02 PM
Thank you for the common sense perspective, MindTheGap, (which is roughly what I, unassisted, can understand off the cuff)and thanks again to all for input.

My final query is just this, and apologies for being a bit thick here:
But if I start using my bullet mics (e.g. the GB), can I then expect a 50% volume increase, or something in that neigbourhood?

Because then I will try that this coming monday. Bullet mics will be brought to the rehearsal and boy -- it´ might get loud!
MindTheGap
2318 posts
Aug 09, 2017
11:47 PM
It's really impossible to say, there are so many factors - your pedals, the gain of your amp just for starters. But you mentioned up above that you found your bullet mics to sound weaker with your current set up? I'm surprised about that, but there it is. If it were a mic plugged directly into the amp, I'd expect you to hear the SM57 sounding pretty weak, and the bullet sounding strong. But then, you might have the volume control up to 10 for the SM57, and 3 for the bullet - and hear the SM57 as 'louder' because it's more oomphy (lots of bass).

This "50%" number is a bit bogus BTW, from a number of points of view. Too complicated to go into here, and I'd definitely get banned by the end of the discussion. But the end result is: use an IMT and the input signal is a lot stronger.

But...the other thing is that your amp can only give out so much volume, however much input signal you give it. So you may be maxed out already.

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 10, 2017 12:04 AM
MindTheGap
2319 posts
Aug 09, 2017
11:59 PM
Off at a tangent, but I've always wanted to try a parametric EQ pedal. That Blue Dadi software we tried a little while ago had parameter EQ as part of it's functions, and it was easy to introduce a 'vintage', characterful sound to an otherwise flat signal.

I note that they tend to boost the signal too, which probably adds to the complexity of your volume issues.

What pedal are you using?
Martin
1217 posts
Aug 10, 2017
8:36 AM
OK, I hear you. The bullet mics have generally been an underwhelming experience in my harmonica history (not least the GB, esp. in view of what it costs), so I won´t expect a halleluja moment.

My parametric EQ is a Boss. Could be some 15 yrs old by now. I was dissatisfied with my bass response and the general treblyness om my amplifier back then (a pretty impossible Traynor) and found it addressed those problems much better than my graphic.
Also, if you go ever so lightly on the gain button you can get just a teeny hint of distortion that I like for a clean into the PA sound.
Andrew
1627 posts
Aug 11, 2017
5:16 AM
By way of a summary, as much for my benefit as for anyone else's: -

The transformer arrived today and I have confirmed that when set to high impedance output, the signal is much louder through the amp. In other words, the thing works excellently and is excellent value for money.

But as someone said (apologies for not naming him), the result is due to the transformer stepping up voltage, not from impedance matching.

From what I can remember, an amplifier has two basic stages - first the preamp amplifies the voltage, then the power amp amplifies the current, once the required voltage has been achieved. The transformer gives the preamp a headstart in its voltage amplification function.

Hence my calculation that power transfer is maximum when impedances are matched was correct but irrelevant at the preamp stage.

The only impedance matching problems stem from high Z feeding into low Z (unless you are dealing with high power, in which case, beware at all times). This is possibly very rare, unless you have an RF amplifier feeding an antenna perhaps. The middle of a dipole is low Z, I think, but I don't know what the output impedance of an RF power amp will be. Certainly a balancing transformer will be necessary for maximum efficiency, either built into the amp or external.
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Aug 11, 2017 5:48 AM
MindTheGap
2321 posts
Aug 11, 2017
6:41 AM
Yes, although the term 'impedance matching' covers a lot of scenarios. In high frequency electronics, including RF but also computer cabling, where you need to start thinking of the signal as a wave, there's an issue of minimising reflections.

For us, there's the very real issue in tube amps where you need to have the correct speaker load on the output transformer, or damage can occur. That's a very different thing, but still 'impedance matching'.

Re the XLR-Jack issue, I'm not actually certain (although the IMT is definitely a step-up transformer). My thinking is that the mic capsule has two leads (as garry points out) with a signal V(t) between them. Tie one to ground and the other has V(t) on it - no signal lost. However, if the capsule has three leads, one being a centre-tap already tied to ground, then indeed you'd end up with 1/2V(t) on the signal bit of the jack. Actually in audio terms, in dB terms, 1/2 isn't as much as it sounds. It's not 'half as loud' for instance because it's all logarithmic. Either way the IMT transformer will boost that voltage by a lot more. I'll have to dissect a mic and see.

There's a interesting story about power transfer in the early days of electrical generation. I read it in Edison's biography so it may be myth but I repeat it as read. It was well known that to get max power from a battery, you needed the external load to equal the internal resistance, there's your 'impedance matching', like the calc you did above I expect. So early generator designers, of course, made their generators to have their internal winding resistance the same as whatever load they were serving (wealthy peoples' light bulbs probably). Edison wasn't a mathematician but common sense suggested this was wasteful, so he designed his generators to have as low internal resistance as possible, so get maximum power OUT to the paying customers. In reality, Edison employed lots of specialists and maybe they advised him correctly, but that spoils the story.

Now I can get banned. Let the process begin.

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 11, 2017 6:56 AM
Andrew
1628 posts
Aug 11, 2017
7:06 AM
Power transmission, though, is high-voltage because there is less loss that way.
i.e. 1000V at 1000A is a megawatt;
100,000V at 10 A is also a megawatt.
Pylons use 100,000V (or whatever) because transmission is more efficient that way.
This also implies high impedance (V/A basically).
I've seen the mathematical proof of this, but that was nearly 40 years ago, so I can't remember any details.
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------
MindTheGap
2322 posts
Aug 11, 2017
8:45 AM
Well, that's true, and I guess you could call it 'impedance matching' too. The issue there is about minimising heating losses from the current. Not in issue for Martin's microphone unless he's got a *very* long lead. In which case he should go for the lo-impedance balanced scheme - it's all about long leads.

BTW Edison used DC at that point, so he couldn't distribute power at high voltage. He had to take the current losses, had to build his power stations in town...and the rest is history: AC won. Poor Edison, he couldn't impedance match and he lost. That one anyway. There's a lesson in the tale.

Last Edited by MindTheGap on Aug 11, 2017 9:09 AM
Andrew
1629 posts
Aug 11, 2017
9:24 AM
"The issue there is about minimising heating losses from the current." That's the bit I'd forgotten! No, truer to say I just didn't think of it, and perhaps if my brain is shutting down that much I should just give up.
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Aug 11, 2017 12:01 PM
Littoral
1517 posts
Aug 12, 2017
5:38 AM
Interesting thought on the Harp Octave as possibly countering the minimal signal by working as a volume boost. If this helps, I use a Harp Octave and it certainly serves as a my settings, with IMP, are rarely higher than 9:00. PA situations it's closer to noon.
Martin
1218 posts
Aug 15, 2017
4:40 AM
Not to unnecessarily prolong this already extended tread, but yesterday I had another encounter with my amplifier, this time with a bullet mic.

The volume output, with the set up described in the OP, was slightly lower.

The sound was muddier. I.e. a bit more distortion, but less distinct.

Next time I´ll try other configurations and other amps, but this was rather hurried practice for a gig.

I think I´ll stick to my stick(!) mic.

(Meanwhile the local microphone guru, who I talked to the other day, has promised that he will build me a box of sorts, that he says will take care of all and sundry impedance matching problems I´ll ever encounter. I just bow in gratitude and hope it will be ready before I die.)
Andrew
1630 posts
Aug 15, 2017
7:13 AM
Well, Martin, ignoring everything I have said and everything everyone else has said and reading your OP carefully, I'd say you don't need an impedance converter. Your pedals are all active anyway, i.e. they amplify the sound at every stage, no?

If it is possible to miss out on 50% of your amp's capacity (which we all doubt, and which seems to be your only fear), it won't be as a result of this chain of pedals...unless one has a high impedance output and the next has a low impedance input. Why don't you try each pedal on its own and then try the whole chain minus A, then the whole chain minus B, and so on, to see if anything makes any difference?

If you can't be heard over your guitarists, buy a Marshall amp. If they have a Marshall amp each already, buy three of them. Or four - it makes for a neater stack.
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Aug 15, 2017 7:17 AM
Martin
1219 posts
Aug 15, 2017
5:32 PM
@Andrew: Sound advice, and I thank you for it.
The elimination of pedals -- or the systematic way of seeing their worth -- is a work in progress. But I´ve already come a bit on the way, and although I can´t in any way argue the technical points that´s been made here, I´m not at all convinced that -- given this set upp -- I do need extra appliances.
As I said, my SM57 copy into the Harp Octave, into the EQ into the delay and then amp sounds better than with the GB mic. Not "good", I admit (to hard/harsh) but passable, given that it´s a tiny 5 Watt amp.


Post a Message



(8192 Characters Left)


Modern Blues Harmonica supports

§The Jazz Foundation of America

and

§The Innocence Project

 

 

 

ADAM GUSSOW is an official endorser for HOHNER HARMONICAS