Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
So when will you start your "Never explained techniques from A.T." by A.T.?
i have to get my phd first. and then go buy some kimonos before i can properly teach.
quote:
The kittens are on the way, fitted perfectly in a standard envelope...
By the way, do you already got an udu, or tried making one?
woo hoo! do i have to keep them humidified?
i don't have an udu yet. i've been playing cajon and djembe. it seems there's many different shapes and styles, i'm going to have to do some research first. are the bigger ones louder?
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to at_leo_87)
quote:
i don't have an udu yet. i've been playing cajon and djembe. it seems there's many different shapes and styles, i'm going to have to do some research first. are the bigger ones louder?
Happy searchin! There's a lot of variety, bigger doesn't always mean louder or more bass. The ceramic ones certainly benifit by baking them 3 or 4 times.
After the soundport restoration from last week I decided to continue my hobby-bob-wannabee-luthier saga today with reshaping the head before I will add some new tuners. Here's how I got so far...I would like to make some decoration but dont have the tools for it yet. Maybe some clamps to get the guitar fixed would help also.
The flames would make it a hell of a beach guitar aint it? Nah, I thought it would be nice, but its way over the top.
What tools could you use to make some gravings ontop of the head?
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to at_leo_87)
quote:
wow, nice work. what tools did you use? did you put a finish on it? it looks well done!
Anthony, I just used the same circular saw to saw the big part out of it, and than some filing and sanding. It should have been a little bit more offset, but thats stll possible with reshaping it. To fnish it I'used reddish violin oil and seems to match the color pretty nice. Maybe have to do that a few times and than finish it of with a laquer.
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to at_leo_87)
On the soundport issue:
It would make sense to design an easily-removable microphone or pickup (maybe something like the Miniflex 2mic) with a built-in wireless transmitter -- such that the whole thing would fit through and mount inside a soundport.
When I play a gig with dancers in front of a large audience I HAVE to use amplification, and I'm tired of having to (a) crouch immobile over a microphone (b) be tethered by a 1/4" cable to an amp or (c) be tethered to the guitar by a wireless belt-pack.
But those are the choices.
A soundport-mounted wireless mic would solve all those problems. Plus it would be easy to remove to change batteries. Why hasn't anybody built one?
It would certainly sell well. Make somebody a bundle.
_____________________________
"Flamenco is so emotionally direct that a trained classical musician would require many years of highly disciplined formal study to fail to understand it."
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to a_arnold)
quote:
It would make sense to design an easily-removable microphone or pickup (maybe something like the Miniflex 2mic) with a built-in wireless transmitter -- such that the whole thing would fit through and mount inside a soundport.
Hey..you stealin' my idea Tony? (page 1)
Ideally you want 2 transmitter modules on different channels if you are using FM for frequency diversity to help avoid dropout. There would be plenty room for the electronics + batteries and the antenna would also be inside the guitar...so it would look pretty neat IMO.
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to Ron.M)
quote:
Hey..you stealin' my idea Tony? (page 1)
Hey Ron -- great minds think alike, I guess. Sorry, I must have missed that.
A few months ago I tried taking apart an audiotechnica lapel mic system -- even in the plastic case the belt pack would fit inside a soundhole. I was thinking I could build a soundhole-mounted clamp that would hold the beltpack, but it interfered with the sound of the guitar too much. Sounded terrible when not amplified (it covered too much of the soundhole). Plus the controls and battery access were still a problem. I would have had to unmount it to turn it off and on. Everything was mounted directly to an integrated circuit.
I called a bunch of people who make lapel mics and in-guitar mics, and suggested that they might have a market if they could make a system like the Miniflex 2mic model 1 or 2 (reviewed at acousticguitar.com/newgear) and add transmitter electronics, (and maybe a AAA battery access tube through the endpin?) all controlled by a Fisher-style dial inside the soundhole. I'm not sure they actually have anybody who has influence over product development, so I doubt anybody even passed on the suggestion.
The miniflex system is built for guitars, and so is good at eliminating feedback and has the advantage of a mounting tool that reaches through an endpin hole up to the soundhole to make mounting easy and does no damage to the guitar. Quick and easy. But no transmitter.
So now I'm thinking the soundport is a better location because you wouldn't even have to drill an endpin hole, but the audiotechnica beltpack is too big to fit the usual soundport (if there is a "usual" soundport after this thread). And anyway, audiotechnica is really a public speaking lapel mic system -- which is what the Paco Pena cuadro uses, also the Noche Flamenca group -- but it leaves you tethered to the guitar and has a feedback problem at high volume.
The miniflex system has the 2 mics mechanically (not electronically) out of phase to cut down feedback. I think the gooseneck wires are different lengths.
I haven't tried very hard to get anyone interested, but I'd say there would be a huge audience for an endpin-mounted system like the miniflex but with added transmitter and a soundhole side clip with an on-off-volume control wheel (invisible, inside the soundhole but reachable by a finger).
The market would be basically every acoustic guitar player on the planet.
The market for a soundport-mounted system would be much smaller, bcz fewer people have soundports. Although mounting and demounting would be a snap.
I wonder how miniflex would react to a petition signed by a lot of guitarists from places like the foro?
_____________________________
"Flamenco is so emotionally direct that a trained classical musician would require many years of highly disciplined formal study to fail to understand it."
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to a_arnold)
Hi Tony,
I'd guess that an "endpin" based radio/mic system would be pretty difficult to develop due to size. The "soundhole" idea is much more of a possibility. Battery time is important, so something like a single AAA cell or something would be totally out of the question for any kind of practical use IMO. You would be looking at something like Lithium cells (again IMO)
I would be tempted to strip down a normal radio/mic (no bodypack, but stand alone) which is already the same kind of diameter etc.
Forget the mic part...just look at the electronics and battery housing.
You should be able to interface your Miniflex mic system to it with minimum hassle.
I'd also forget any on board controls for the moment and keep all that stuff at the receiver end myself for size/weight considerations.
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to Ron.M)
Hey, Ron;
quote:
I'd guess that an "endpin" based radio/mic system would be pretty difficult to develop due to size. The "soundhole" idea is much more of a possibility.
The miniflex system doesn't insert thru the endpin. A dowel with a special jig on the end slides through the endpin, and the system is attached to the dowel/jig at the soundhole, then pulled back to the endpin, where a nut holds it on. I was thinking the endpin could be designed as a tube to receive a stack of AAA batteries.
quote:
Battery time is important, so something like a single AAA cell or something would be totally out of the question for any kind of practical use IMO. You would be looking at something like Lithium cells (again IMO)
Yeah. The ones I've seen use a 9v or two AA batteries. I don't know if 3 AAA's is enough.
quote:
I would be tempted to strip down a normal radio/mic (no bodypack, but stand alone) which is already the same kind of diameter etc.
Forget the mic part...just look at the electronics and battery housing.
You should be able to interface your Miniflex mic system to it with minimum hassle.
I'd also forget any on board controls for the moment and keep all that stuff at the receiver end myself for size/weight considerations.
That's kind of what I tried with the audiotechnics lapel mic. It is smaller than a cigarette pack and would fit through a soundhole if the strings were removed. Certainly a volume or tone control could be sacrificed. But it still has to be turned on and off somehow, and batteries changed. Neither would be easy without (a) doing surgery on the integrated circuit board. or (b) removing it from the soundhole.
It would all be SO easy if someone would build a system that inserted through a soundport!
_____________________________
"Flamenco is so emotionally direct that a trained classical musician would require many years of highly disciplined formal study to fail to understand it."
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to a_arnold)
Hi Tony,
I was having a look at some wireless mics on the net and it seems that to comply with regulations on the "licence free" UHF band, you are limited to 10mW (handheld) and 50mW (belt pack)..... I wonder why the difference..why not ALL 50mW?
So the power consumption would not be a big issue in comparison with the radio mics working in the "licenced bands" which have considerably higher power output.
Also it seems manufacturers have opted for "space diversity" (2 antennae or 2 receivers in the same box), rather than transmitting on dual or multiple frequencies.
However, if you were building from scratch, 1.5V is very low for the amateur to build with...even 3V is low, but a bit more practical.
There are RF FM low-power transmitter OEM module manufacturers around, but the prices I've seen are around £60 each for small-quantity orders.
Also a medium quality small "gooseneck" mic is around £60.
I had been thinking of a "cork" affair which fits in the soundport with an adjustable"bendy" mic attached to the bottom of the cork and the body of the cork containing the electronics, with batteries insertable from the top along with an on/off/channel select switch and LED.
So this would not be cheap to manufacture on a small scale!
And then you need a diversity receiver at around £150...
Also you would have to make it adaptable for different diameter soundports.
I think it's the sort of thing I would make if I wanted one myself...but to go into small scale production and make a profit you would have to give it a lot of thought IMO, or have some sort of financial backing for set up costs if you were going to make a commercially good-looking item.
I could probably make a cheap and nasty one made from components which would not comply with regulations for about £20....but that's another story!
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to Ron.M)
Ron:
quote:
I was having a look at some wireless mics on the net and it seems that to comply with regulations on the "licence free" UHF band, you are limited to 10mW (handheld) and 50mW (belt pack)..... I wonder why the difference..why not ALL 50mW?
No idea. Possibly political pressure from beltpack manufacturers at the time the law was passed? Or possibly the CIA uses beltpacks when talking into their sleeves.
quote:
So the power consumption would not be a big issue in comparison with the radio mics working in the "licenced bands" which have considerably higher power output.
Yeah. the 2 AA batteries in my uhf beltpack last for many months of moderate use.
quote:
Also it seems manufacturers have opted for "space diversity" (2 antennae or 2 receivers in the same box), rather than transmitting on dual or multiple frequencies.
So what would be the advantage of transmitting on multiple freqs? Just being able to switch freqs? Many receivers scan for signal in the appropriate wavelengths and then lock in so you can use several transmitters with the same receiver. Or is there an advantage in sound quality?
quote:
However, if you were building from scratch, 1.5V is very low for the amateur to build with...even 3V is low, but a bit more practical.
There are RF FM low-power transmitter OEM module manufacturers around, but the prices I've seen are around £60 each for small-quantity orders.
Also a medium quality small "gooseneck" mic is around £60.
I had been thinking of a "cork" affair which fits in the soundport with an adjustable"bendy" mic attached to the bottom of the cork and the body of the cork containing the electronics, with batteries insertable from the top along with an on/off/channel select switch and LED.
I was thinking a rubber gasket on the outside and screw-tightened L brackets on the inside, but essentially the same concept. Either would be ideal. I wonder if anyone like Heathkit or Radioshack makes an IC kit transmitter that would fit through a soundport.
quote:
So this would not be cheap to manufacture on a small scale!
And then you need a diversity receiver at around £150...
Also you would have to make it adaptable for different diameter soundports.
I think it's the sort of thing I would make if I wanted one myself...but to go into small scale production and make a profit you would have to give it a lot of thought IMO, or have some sort of financial backing for set up costs if you were going to make a commercially good-looking item.
I could probably make a cheap and nasty one made from components which would not comply with regulations for about £20....but that's another story!
I tried one of those Chinese "cheap and nasty" lapel mics w/ transmitter/receiver. About US$10 on ebay. Useless. The feedback was an overwhelming problem and even when there was no feedback the sound was terrible. Didn't sound anything like a guitar, even tweaking at the amp end. I'll send it to you free if you pay the postage. But I don't recommend you bother. However, it was the smallest and cheapest of all. The board on the audiotechnica lapel mic actually has quite a bit on it.
Cheers, Tony
_____________________________
"Flamenco is so emotionally direct that a trained classical musician would require many years of highly disciplined formal study to fail to understand it."
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to a_arnold)
quote:
So what would be the advantage of transmitting on multiple freqs?
Tony, it's just that things get more reliable the more paths you have..a bit like the internet.
VHF & UHF FM can suffer from "dead spots" etc which may only affect one frequency, but not the other. You can observe this effect by moving your ordinary FM radio around while tuned to a medium strength station.
Similarly having two antennae separated and feeding two receivers means the signal is being picked up at two different locations.
There is a monitoring circuit inside the receiver looking at the signal strength from each one and switching the main link back and forth imperceptibly between the "best" one, or the "best" channel (for frequency diversity.)
Frequency diversity is probably frowned upon by the Licensing Authorites, as the radio spectrum is already way overcrowded...hence they will only permit one frequency and at very low power.
These "cheap and cheerful" $10 circuits usually operate on the ordinary FM broadcast band and are not stable frequency-wise so tend to "drift" off-tune as they are just simple oscillators and not synthesized and stable as in the pro and semi-pro wireless mics. Also the modulation techniques are simple and highly non-linear and only really suitable for speech and not High Fidelity apps.
One way I was thinking about was using Infra-red, with a little omnidirectional transmitter dome just projecting above the soundport. The receivers could be mounted on tall mic stands around the stage (like Triffids )
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to Ron.M)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron.M Frequency diversity is probably frowned upon by the Licensing Authorites, as the radio spectrum is already way overcrowded...hence they will only permit one frequency and at very low power.
Since last year it is forbidden to use a certain type of phone in Germany, because it sends on a frequency level which only corporates are allowed to use now. It is very outdated anyways, only 100s of people own such a phone. Still a bit shocking that you can forbid people such important things like using certain types of phones or light bulbs (see the recent EU restrictions), but you cant make companies produce in a nature-efficient way, if they dont care to spend money on it. They cant even control their atomic plants to a certain degree, but the states are making restrictions for people on which light bulbs (not) to use
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to a_arnold)
quote:
I had been thinking of a "cork" affair which fits in the soundport with an adjustable"bendy" mic attached to the bottom of the cork
Ron, It sounds like the best solution might be for someone like Miniflex (or more likely, Audiotechnica or someone else who makes lapel mics) to put together a kit that can be assembled -- like the old Heathkits. The IC board should be small enough to fit through most soundports, and the mounting surface/bracket should be shaped to the curvature of a guitar bout, but oversized so the buyer can reshape it to fit a specific guitar. Maybe aluminum or plastic with a rubber gasket and L brackets to clamp it in place . . . ?
_____________________________
"Flamenco is so emotionally direct that a trained classical musician would require many years of highly disciplined formal study to fail to understand it."
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to a_arnold)
Tony,
I still don't see the need for any clamps or anything fancy?
I was thinking along the lines of a tapered cylinder, say about 100mm long with 30mm dia bottom and 45mm top.
The outer wall would be wrapped in rubber and the thing would just jam fit into the soundport. The user could pad it up with another wrap of rubber etc to suit larger diameters.
So my idea is the thing is not "fitted", but you just plug it in when you are going to use it.
The flexi-gooseneck mic thing was just so you could twiddle around with the mic direction inside the guitar for best sound...and anyway, folk like when they have a bit of personal control over things.
If you are doing this commercially, part of the hassle would be to have the radio module approved by the FCC in the States or the relevant authorities in other countries. This involves sending the module to them for spectral analysis etc etc and costs money to get an approval certificate.
One of the advantages of using an integrated wireless module (like a big chip), is that the module itself would already be approved. (Don't quote me on this though...we all know what government departments can be like! )
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to Ron.M)
quote:
So my idea is the thing is not "fitted", but you just plug it in when you are going to use it.
Like a big cork. I understand. I was thinking that people with a small port will be left with a bunch of cork protruding, and people with a differently-shaped port will have trouble keeping it stable. Some people's "port" is the rectangular hole left when their EQ control is removed. Even a small shift would move the gooseneck mic out of position. But I agree -- clamps will require a screwdriver to remove, which is a hassle.
quote:
part of the hassle would be to have the radio module approved by the FCC
Yeah -- that's why I would rather persuade someone who already has an approved wireless mic system to make a kit. Which means the end product has to look professional enough to satisfy them. . .
What about using the poll function on the foro to do market research? we could gather "votes" on the demand for such a thing and forward results to a lapel mic manufacturer so they will see that it may be a moneymaker. . .
Cheers, Tony
_____________________________
"Flamenco is so emotionally direct that a trained classical musician would require many years of highly disciplined formal study to fail to understand it."
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
quote:
Is this the oldest thread in the history of the foro. And is it the one with most hits/replys?
Almost 10 month and more than 15000 hits is a lot.
Oh, I dunno. I seem to remember quite a lot of posts being devoted to Juan Martin and guitarristamadrid.
And to me, those threads got pretty old.
_____________________________
"Flamenco is so emotionally direct that a trained classical musician would require many years of highly disciplined formal study to fail to understand it."
RE: soundportparty in my patio (in reply to at_leo_87)
One other advantage of the soundport to me is (only recently), that its much easier to tune by ear.
A few months ago I started learning tuning the guitar by ear which was desribed in a book by Gerald Klickstein.
The first thing I noticed is that the guitar sounds much better than tuning with a machine. The second thing is that it is easier to hear the "beats" with a soundport in the guitar. I should mention that I am living near a noisy highway, which probably as noisy as a tablao.
So now my F.N. definitaly also gets its upgrade.
So far I have no negative side-effects noticed of the soundport. A friend of mine, who plays an western guitar, was kindly enough the let me drill a hole in his guitar, and he's pretty happy with it also.
Printable Version
) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread