Testing for Radio-Frequency Common

Impedance Coupling (the "Pin 1 Problem") in

Microphones and Other Audio Equipment
Jim Brown
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Chicago, IL, 60640 USA
jim@[Link]

This paper was presented at the 115th AES Convention in New York, October 2003. You can search the
complete AES Electronic Library at [Link] This paper is available as Preprint 5897.

ABSTRACT
It has been shown that a primary cause of VHF and UHF interference to professional condenser microphones is
inadequate termination within the microphone of the shield of the microphone's output wiring, a fault commonly
known as the pin 1 problem. Tests using only audio frequency test signals generally fail to expose susceptibility
to radio frequency (RF) interference. Simple RF tests for pin 1 problems in microphones and other audio equip-
ment are described that correlate well with EMI observed in the field.

INTRODUCTION MHz. Current flowing on the cable shield (for exam-

Brown and Josephson recently studied the suscepti- ple, current resulting from the cable acting as a re-
bility of capacitor microphones to VHF and UHF ceiving antenna) produces a voltage drop across this
fields [1]. A variety of contemporary and vintage inductance. If pin 1 is also connected to circuit com-
microphones were tested, and the results were sum- mon, that voltage will be coupled into the audio path.
marized. They concluded that interfering signals en- The same sort of design error is also common in au-
tered the microphones by two principal mechanisms. dio input, signal processing, and power amplifying
Those mechanisms were 1) common impedance cou- equipment. Common impedance coupling can be
pling caused by improper termination of the cable avoided by connecting circuit common to the shield-
shield within the microphone, a fault that Neil Muncy ing enclosure, rather than to pin 1.
named "the pin 1 problem;" [2] and 2) inadequate A more thorough discussion of this issue, complete
differential mode bandpass filtering and/or decoup- with photographs of several examples of this defect
ling of the balanced signal pair. in microphones is included in [1]. That paper also
Common impedance coupling occurs when currents notes that the conductive path terminating the shield
from two circuits flow through an impedance that is acting as an antenna will radiate RF inside the
common to both circuits. [3] Good engineering prac- equipment, where other wiring, also acting as an an-
tice calls for the cable shield to have a very low im- tenna, will couple it to circuitry that can detect it or
pedance connection to the shielding of the micro- amplify it for detection by a subsequent stage. This
phone. In a typical microphone, pin 1 of the micro- mechanism is reduced by making the path very short.
phone's internal XL3 connector (the designated shield It is also reduced by making the connection to the
contact) is connected via a short wire to the connec- outside of the shielding enclosure, because skin effect
tor's retaining screw. A connection is also usually will confine shield current to the outside surface of
made from pin 1 to circuit common. the enclosure. [3]

At audio frequencies, both connections are electri- A simple test for pin 1 problems [4] at audio frequen-
cally short, and very little voltage drop occurs across cies uses a rectified low-voltage 50 or 60 Hz sine
the short wire connecting pin 1 to the microphone wave produced by a typical "wall-wart" mains power
shell. At radio frequencies, however, the same short stepdown transformer, current-limited to about 100
path between pin 1 and the mic enclosure can have an ma, to drive between pin 1 and the equipment shield.
inductive reactance on the order of 4 ohms at 100 This test is quite effective where the common imped-
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

ance is sufficiently large at audio frequencies. It is and the output of the DUT is monitored using head-
rarely able to expose common impedance coupling at phones or an oscilloscope. Audio equipment is most
radio frequencies caused by the small self induct- sensitive to a change in the strength (amplitude
ances noted above. modulation) of an RF signal. Thus, to make the RF
test most sensitive, an amplitude modulated (AM)
TESTING INPUT AND OUTPUT EQUIPMENT generator should be used. Most RF generators are
To diagnose pin 1 problems at radio frequencies, an capable of sine wave modulation at 1 kHz. Amplitude
RF generator is required. If the device under test modulation can also be simulated by switching the
(DUT) is an input circuit (for example, a microphone generator on and off, in which case the switching
preamplifier), the generator is simply connected be- transient will be heard as a click.
tween pin 1 and the shielding enclosure of the DUT,

Figure 1 - The test setup for an input circuit

The Hewlett Packard model 8657A used as a signal drive the impedance between pin 1 and the shielding
source is a synthesized generator rated for +13 dBm enclosure of the microphone, but the microphone
into 50 ohms between 1 MHz and 1 GHz. Its output must also be connected to a preamplifier so that inter-
is derated by 3 dB between 100 kHz and 1 MHz. It ference can be observed. Before using the preampli-
can be amplitude or frequency modulated by its own fier to test microphones, the immunity of the pream-
internal generator at 400 Hz or 1 kHz, or by an exter- plifier must be verified. The microphone test setup is
nal generator. When driving a near short circuit at 1 shown in Figure 2.
MHz, it is capable of an unmodulated output of about
The Real Time Analyzer function of an Audio Tool-
50 mA rms. With this load and 100% modulation,
box was used as an audio voltmeter preceded by the
the average RF output is about 25 ma. It has been
built-in one-third octave bandpass filter correspond-
shown that these currents are roughly 6 dB greater
ing to the 1 kHz modulation frequency of the RF
than those likely to be induced in exposed audio lines
generator. This permits accurate measurement of the
(that is, lines not enclosed by grounded metallic con-
demodulated interference at levels that are barely
duit) of comparable length at a distance of 1 mile
audible and very close to the noise floor.
from an omnidirectional 50 kW AM broadcast trans-
mitting antenna. [2] The isolation networks have several purposes. They
must 1) allow audio, including detected radio fre-
The generator, set for 98% amplitude modulation at 1
quency interference, to pass from the microphone to
kHz of an 800 mV carrier, was varied in frequency
the preamplifier and voltmeter (Audio Toolbox), and
over the range of 100 kHz to 1 GHz MHz in steps
allow the preamplifier to provide phantom power to
sufficiently small to note variations in susceptibility
the microphone; 2) prevent the cable shield from be-
with frequency. At each frequency, the level of the
ing loaded as an antenna by the generator, so they
detected 1 kHz signal, if any, was noted.
must block shield current; and 3) decouple the signal
conductors from the microphone so that any shield
TESTING MICROPHONES
current that does flow is not coupled to the signal pair
If the DUT is a microphone, the RF generator must as shield current induced noise. [5]

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
2
 Figure 2 - The microphone test setup
tor is passed through one of these very useful compo-
nents, its inductance is greatly increased over a broad
frequency range by the permeability of the ferrite,
which, depending on the compound and the fre-
quency, can range between about 20 and 10,000. The
permeability and the losses in the ferrite vary with
frequency. The approximate equivalent circuit of a
wire passed through a bead is series inductance and
resistance, both of which vary with frequency. Typi-
cal ferrites make the wire strongly inductive at the
lower portion of their useful frequency range but,
with increasing frequency, the inductive component
decreases in magnitude and the ferrite becomes in-
creasingly lossy. In effect, the bead causes the wire
passed through it to act as an RF choke at lower fre-
quencies, a resistor at higher frequencies, and a lossy
Figure 3 - Impedance of four beads of varying size (low Q) choke in the transition region. The responses
and shape using type 43 material. The upper curve is shown in Fig. 3 and 5 are typical of many beads.
for the largest of the group, which is the type C bead Within the spectrum where these beads have high
used in the isolators. permeability, magnetic flux is confined to the bead,
so physical symmetry has little effect on circuit per-
FERRITE BEADS formance. The resistivity of these materials varies
The chosen solution for the isolation networks was a widely. Some have very high resistivities, and can be
brute force filter using multiple NiZn ferrite beads on used with multiple turns of bare wire with no prob-
each conductor. Many variations of ferric compounds lem. Others have very low resistivity, requiring the
are used to make these beads, each optimized for use of insulated wire for multi-winding uses. The
different frequency ranges and uses. When a conduc- beads used here were Fair-Rite type 43 and type 44
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

materials, which have resistivities of 1x105 and 1x109 ferrite cores to form common mode chokes, with the
ohm cm respectively. It was determined experimen- hope of increasing the impedance and thus reducing
tally that the beads made of type 44 materials on bare current flow on the shield. Next, several generations
wires on adjacent conductors can be allowed to touch of isolators were tried, using varying numbers of sur-
without degrading circuit performance, while those plus beads of unknown origin on each conductor (be-
using type 43 materials cannot. The wound bead uses lieved to be #43 material). Results as shown in Figure
type 44 material. 6 for a typical mic were inconsistent, with many
peaks and nulls believed to be the result of inade-
quate isolation from the cable leading to the preamp,
but each time the isolation was increased the data got
cleaner. The early bead isolators were abandoned,
and a broad variety of bead samples were ordered
from a major manufacturer. Both common mode
chokes were retained in the final setup.
Figure 4 - The wound bead used in the isolators. Di-
mensions are mm

Figure 7 - Pin 1 susceptibility of mic TS-2-15 meas-

ured with the final test setup

Figure 5 - Impedance of the multi-turn bead used in

the isolators, identified as type G in Figure 2.

Figure 8 - Impedance of type C and G beads, indi-

vidually and in various combinations
The manufacturer's impedance vs. frequency data for
the most promising beads were transferred to a
Figure 6 - Pin 1 susceptibility of mic TS-2-15 meas- spreadsheet, labeled A through J, and plotted both
ured with early test setups individually and in various series combinations. Fig-
The isolation networks must be taken seriously if ure 8 shows the impedance of the chosen beads. The
good data are to be obtained over a broad range of first isolator constructed used one type C bead and
frequencies. The earliest work on this project was one type G bead on each conductor. The total imped-
done with no isolation networks at all. Next, the mic ance of each conductor is the third curve from the
cables leading to the preamp were wrapped around bottom of Figure 8.

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
4
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

Two bead types were selected from more than 50 that North America set up multiple transmitters, tempo-
were made available to the author as samples. Type rary antennas, and emergency power generators in
G (Fair-Rite 2944666631) is a multi-turn wound places like public parks, mountain tops, and farms as
bead, whose dimensions and impedance are shown in a test of their preparedness for emergencies.
Figures 4 and 5. The type C bead (Fair-Rite
At the site visited for this round of testing, transmit-
2643023801) is a 23-mm long cylinder of 5-mm out-
ters were in use at 1.8 MHz, 3.5 MHz, 7 MHz, 14
side diameter and 1.5-mm inside diameter made from
MHz, and 28 MHz. All operated at radiated power
type 43 material. When multiple beads are placed in
levels on the order of 100 watts using dipole antennas
series, their impedance is approximately equal to the
about 8 m above the ground. Microphones were set
sum of their individual impedances (ignoring stray
up on 2-m stands directly under the antennas, and the
reactances at UHF).
24-m long mic cables were run directly under the
The first isolator resulted in much cleaner data, but it antennas and approximately parallel to them to the
appeared that there was still room for improvement. battery powered preamplifier. The mic cables were
A second isolator was constructed using two type C held about 1.5 m off the ground by portable loud-
beads and one type G bead and placed in series with speaker stands. The presence or absence of interfer-
the first isolator. The top curve in Figure 8 is for the ence was observed on headphones connected to the
two isolators in series, while the curve below it is for mixers or other DUT. The mics and other equipment
the second isolator alone. were tested separately with both foil/drain and
braid/drain shielded cables.
Beads have almost no effect in the audio spectrum --
they introduce no losses at low frequencies and the Several conditions were common to all field tests.
inductance of the wire passed through them is usually The cables were wired per AES14 -- that is, the
too small to be significant. If the impedance of the shield was connected only to pin 1. The shielding
"brute force" double isolators shown in Figure 8 were enclosure of the input equipment was bonded to local
interpolated down in frequency at the same slope as ground. For the 720 kHz tests, this was a rod driven
the 1 MHz to 10 MHz decade, it could be expected to about 1 m into relatively moist earth (there had been
be on the order of 80 ohms at 100 kHz and 15 ohms recent rain). For the "Field Day" tests, it was the sys-
at 10 kHz. tem ground established for the transmitters. Providing
a ground establishes shield current that would be
FIELD TESTING roughly comparable to the installation of exposed
In addition to the laboratory testing, microphones and (that is, not in metallic conduit) wiring in a typical
other equipment were exposed to strong radio fre- church. While the resistive impedance to earth may
quency fields from nearby transmitters, so that labo- be higher than in a well grounded building, the induc-
ratory data could be correlated with practical condi- tive component in these tests is much less because the
tions of use. Two tests were arranged. First, all of the ground cable is only about 2 m in length. Micro-
microphones were set up in an open field about 600 phones were grounded only via the cable connecting
m from a 50 kW broadcast station transmitting on them to the preamp. When the DUT was input
720 kHz with single vertical antenna of 195 electrical equipment (mixers and the DAT machine), it was fed
degrees height. A second 50 kW transmitter on 780 by a dynamic microphone. For all tests, only a single
kHz was at 2 km distance with a comparable antenna. microphone and cable were connected to the input
These transmitters are the most powerful used in the equipment at one time.
United States for standard AM broadcasting (540- Field test results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 of
1700 kHz). The microphones were set up on stands the companion paper [6]. In the interest of brevity
and connected alternately by 40 m lengths of they are not repeated here. For these tests, the level of
foil/drain shielded cable and braid/drain shielded interference was evaluated by the author on a 12-step
cable to the Sound Devices preamp. The cables were subjective scale, ranging from inaudible to extremely
suspended approximately 1.5 m above the ground by severe. Those steps were then converted to whole
portable loudspeaker stands. Prior to testing the mi- numbers, with 0 being no interference and 11 being
crophones, the Sound Devices preamp was tested extremely severe. The three highest steps corre-
with a dynamic microphone and found to be free of sponded to interference that was so severe that it shut
interference. The Audio Toolbox was tested in the down a gain stage to the extent that the mic could not
same setup. It was found to be free of interference be heard and caused circuit instability. All of the
with the braid-shielded cable, but it received signifi- amateur radio transmitters used Morse code (the ra-
cant interference with the foil/drain cable. dio signal is switched on and off in temporal patterns
In the second series of field tests, the selection of that correspond to alphanumeric characters), so the
microphones and equipment was set up at an amateur transmission was equivalent to 100% modulation of
radio "Field Day" site. For this annual 24-hour long the signal with a relatively fast switching waveform.
event, groups of "ham" radio operators throughout For the most part, interference is heard as clicks, but

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
5
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

under some conditions, it will be accompanied by and 3.5 MHz. DS1 received extremely strong inter-
hum. Josephson has hypothesized that this hum may ference at 1.8 MHz and moderately strong with
be the ripple in the phantom supply due to the stage foil/drain cable and slight interference at 3.5 MHz
losing CMRR as a result of RF detection in the input with braid cable, but none at 3.5 MHz with foil/drain
devices. [1] Whitlock has observed that hum will be cable and none at 1.8 MHz with braid shielded cable.
added to detected RF by modulation of the RF cur- Its near twin, DS1-2-10, received strong interference
rent when it travels through the power supply. [7] He at 1.8 MHz and moderately strong interference at 3.5
has identified the cause as modulation of the RF im- MHz with foil/drain cable, but none at 1.8 MHz, and
pedance of that rectifier diodes by the ac signal. At very slight interference at 3.5 MHz with braid
the highest levels the interference is causing funda- shielded cable. The fact that interference is much
mental overload. It is most likely that the transition greater with the foil/drain shielded cables suggests
to instability occurs somewhere above where over- that the susceptibility at 1.8 MHz and 3.5 MHz is the
load begins. result of SCIN, but research reported in [6] suggests
otherwise. Instead, Fig 9 suggests that the micro-
As previously noted, the Sound Devices preamp re-
phone has a pin 1 problem at these frequencies. This
sponded with a high pitched squeal in the presence of
is one of the few instances of questionable correlation
the 3.5 MHz and 7 MHz transmitters, a common
of the data.
symptom of oscillation. The high frequency oscilla-
tion observed with a few microphones at 1.8 MHz
and 3.5 MHz sounds suspiciously like this squeal. It
is possible that the interference noted at 1.8 MHz for
microphones TL1-1-10 and TS3-1-10, and the inter-
ference noted at 3.5 MHz for TMO7 might be caused
by the preamplifier and not the microphones.

MICROPHONE RESULTS
A wide variety of microphones was tested, including
many of those tested by other means in the lab and in
the field for VHF/UHF susceptibility. [1] Designa-
tions established for that paper to describe and iden-
tify the microphones are used here. Two new micro-
phones were added to the group of test subjects. DS3-
2-25 is a small diaphragm cardioid similar in electri- Figure 9 - Pin 1 susceptibility for microphones from
cal design to DL3-1-10. DS1-2-10 is quite similar to manufacturer #1
DS1, but optimized for vocal use by reduced input
sensitivity and the addition of a windscreen. DS1-2-
10 was available for the VHF/UHF tests, but not
tested because it was believed then to be identical to
DS1. It was subsequently learned that DS1 has a
plastic XL shell that makes no contact with the mat-
ing connector shell, requiring a unique adapter to
include it in this research. Rather than construct an-
other adapter, it was decided to add the vocal mic to
the test. Some of the microphones tested for [1] were
not available for inclusion in the current work. Others
were omitted simply because there wasn't time to
include them.
With some microphones, no tone was detected at
some test frequencies, but switching transients were Figure 10 - Pin 1 susceptibility for microphones from
heard as the carrier was switched on and off. With manufacturer #2
mics having the best performance, neither detected 1
kHz modulation nor switching transients were heard Microphones from manufacturer #2 (Figure 10) per-
over much of the spectrum. formed quite differently. TL2-20 received no inter-
ference in any of the field tests reported on here, but
Microphones from manufacturer #1 performed simi- did have some susceptibility at VHF and UHF, as
larly in the field tests (Figure 9). All were free of reported in [1]. Figure 10 is consistent with this re-
interference from 720 kHz, 7 MHz, 14 MHz, and 28 sult. Parallel research [6] suggests that longer mic
MHz transmitters. TL1-1-10, TL1-2-10, DL1-1, and lines could have put it over its threshold for detection
DL1-2-10 received only mild interference at 1.8 MHz
AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
6
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

at 720 kHz. On the other hand, DS2-10 received cast transmitter, while DS4 received moderately
strong to very strong interference at 1.8 MHz, 3.5 strong interference at 720 kHz, strong interference at
MHz, 14 MHz, and 28 MHz, while TS2-15 received 1.8 MHz, and mild interference at 3.5 MHz, but none
strong to extremely strong interference from all the at 7, 14, or 28 MHz. Figure 12 does not show signifi-
transmitters except the 720 kHz broadcast station. cant pin 1 susceptibility. Parallel research reported in
another paper [6] explains why these mics received
The interference received by TS2-15 and the lack of
interference -- their susceptibility to voltage coupled
interference to TL2-20 are consistent with their pin 1
onto the signal pair in the lab tests correlates almost
susceptibility, as shown in Figure 10. The interfer-
perfectly with the field data.
ence received by DS2-10 at 14 and 28 MHz is consis-
tent with both its pin 1 susceptibility and susceptibil-
ity on the signal pair as measured in parallel research.
[6] But neither pin 1 nor signal pair susceptibility
explains the strong interference at 1.8 MHz and 3.5
MHz. Perhaps the cause is the combination of pin 1
and differential mode susceptibility.

Figure 12 - Pin 1 susceptibility for microphones from

manufacturer #4

Figure 11 - Pin 1 susceptibility for microphones from

manufacturer #3
Two relatively new microphones from manufacturer
#3 (Figure 11) measured and performed similarly.
The newest model, DS3-2-25, received moderate
interference from the 720 kHz and 1.8 MHz transmit-
ters, strong interference at 3.5 MHz, mild interfer-
ence at 7 MHz, very strong interference at 14 MHz,
and none at 28 MHz. Microphone DL3-1-15 received
moderate interference at 720 kHz and 1.8 MHz, Figure 13 - Pin 1 susceptibility for microphones from
strong interference at 3.5 MHz, none at 7 MHz, ex- manufacturer #5, 7, and 9
tremely strong interference at 14 MHz, and none at Microphone TMO5 was free of interference below 10
28 MHz. The data do not show significant pin 1 sus- MHz, but received moderately strong interference at
ceptibility below 30 MHz, and none below 10 MHz. 14 MHz and 28 MHz. Figure 13 and parallel research
An older model, TS3-1-10, received mild interfer- [6] suggest that susceptibility is probably due to a
ence below 10 MHz, but strong interference at 14 combination of a pin 1 problem with inadequate fil-
MHz and 28 MHz. Parallel research [6] explains tering of the signal pair. Microphones TMO7 and
why these mics received interference -- their suscep- DS9 encountered no interference in any of the field
tibility to voltage coupled onto the signal pair in the tests. This result is consistent with Figure 13.
lab tests correlates almost perfectly with the field Interface of a microphone or other equipment to the
data. In other words, they provide inadequate filtering outside world is only part of the susceptibility prob-
of the signal pair. lem. Once inside the enclosure, RF must be coupled
Both microphones DS4 and DL4-2-10 (Figure 12) to some piece of active circuitry where it is converted
received interference only with foil/drain cable, not to audio by detection (demodulation). Detection and
with braid cable. Microphone DL4-2-10 received coupling mechanisms are discussed at length in [1].
moderate interference only from the 720 kHz broad- The coupling path will have some complex response

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
7
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

based on a set of circuit parameters relating to circuit tor retaining screw, and via the black wire to the cir-
layouts and component stray reactances that are cuit board. An ohmmeter also reveals that there is at
unique to each product. Small changes inside a prod- least one other connection between the black wire
uct can significant affect immunity. Figure 14 shows and the enclosure. For the earlier research, the black
the difference in susceptibility between the omni and wire was removed from pin 1 and connected to the
cardioid pattern settings of two switchable pattern enclosure, as shown in Figure 17. A more serious
microphones. engineering effort (for example, choosing the opti-
mum point on the circuit board to connect to the en-
closure and where on the enclosure to connect it, and
improving the bond between pin 1 and the enclosure)
could undoubtedly make much greater improve-
ments. Whitlock has recommended making the cir-
cuit board connection to the shielding enclosure at a
point very close to the capsule. Other problems asso-
ciated with connector wiring in this microphone are
noted in [6].

Figure 14 - Difference in Pin 1 susceptibility between

omni and cardioid patterns of two switchable pattern
microphones

Figure 17 - New location for the black wire that was

connected to pin 1 in microphone DL1-2-10

EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS

Figure 15- Result of moving one wire on microphone

DL1-2-10

Figure 18 - Pin 1 susceptibility of the Sound Devices

Figure 16 - Pin 1 termination in DL1-2-10 as manu- Mix Pre used for microphone testing. Pin 1 of chan-
factured nel 1 was driven and delegated to channel 1 out,
channel 2 was delegated to channel 2 out, and both
Figure 15 shows how one microphone with a pin 1 channels were set for 39 dB gain
problem at VHF and UHF can be improved simply
by moving the wire connecting the circuit board to Susceptibility of the Sound Devices Mix Pre is
pin 1. As shown in Figure 16, pin 1 is connected to shown in Figure 18. When exposed to the transmit-
the shielded enclosure by the tiny wire to the connec- ters, the unit performed well. The only interference

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
8
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

noted was some audible squealing in response to the

3.5 MHz and 7 MHz transmitters. A few of the mi-
crophones tested responded with similar squealing at
1.8 MHz and 3.5 MHz, as did some of the input
equipment at some frequencies. [In the field tests, the
input equipment was tested only with dynamic mi-
crophones to insure that microphone susceptibility
would not cloud the result.]
In addition to the Sound Devices and Audio Toolbox
units used in the test setup, four small mixers, a port-
able DAT recorder, and a 2-channel compres-
sor/limiter were tested. All mixers were from the
same manufacturer, but were manufactured over a
period of about five years during which the manufac-
turer was struggling to solve serious problems with Figure 20 - Pin 1 susceptibility of 16-input mixer
susceptibility in this series of mixers, especially to from manufacturer #10. Only pin 1 of channel 1 is
AM broadcast stations around 1.5 MHz. The mixer driven for all tests.
shown in Figure 19 is from the problematic group.
The mixer shown in Figure 20, introduced about
three years ago, significantly reduced the number of
complaints. The mixers of Figures 21 and 22 were
introduced about a year later.
An examination of Figures 19-22 shows that manu-
facturer #10 has made significant progress in reduc-
ing its pin 1 problems. Figure 20 shows good per-
formance below 7 MHz, an improvement of about 30
dB over Figure 19. But things are much worse be-
tween 10 MHz and 150 MHz. The mixer shown in
Figure 20 received so much interference in down-
town Chicago from broadcast transmitters of only
moderately high power in this spectrum (TV channels
2 and 5 and FM broadcast) that it was unusable for Figure 21 - Pin 1 susceptibility of a newer 4-input
the VHF/UHF tests described by [1]. mixer from manufacturer #10. Only pin 1 of channel
Unfortunately pin 1 immunity alone is not sufficient 1 is driven for all tests.
to prevent interference, and all of these mixers re-
ceived serious interference in the field tests. Parallel
research shows why - all of the units have very poor
rejection of RF on the signal pair. [6]

Figure 22 - Pin 1 susceptibility of an 8-input mixer

from manufacturer #10
Figure 21 shows further improvement below about
110 MHz in the newer 4-channel mixer, but there is
Figure 19 - Pin 1 susceptibility of 4-input mixer from still considerable coupling into the circuit board
manufacturer #10. Only pin 1 of channel 1 was above about 200 MHz. Figure 22 seems to show a
driven for all tests. step backwards (or may be an earlier design). Here,

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
9
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

susceptibility begins rising at 20 MHz and ap-

proaches the levels of the first 4-channel mixer. One
piece of good news is that the unit has good pin 1
immunity in the AM broadcast band.

Figure 24 - Pin 1 susceptibility of a portable DAT

recorder from manufacturer #12. Pin 1 of channel
two is driven, gains of both channels are set for mic
level at 35 dB below their maximum. At this gain
setting, the input stage clips at -15 dBu and digital
Figure 23 - Pin 1 susceptibility of a two-channel clip (to tape) is reached at -19 dBu..
compressor/limiter from manufacturer #11. Pin 1 of
only one channel is driven, and gains are equal.
The 2-channel rack mount compressor/limiter shown
in Figure 23 has a classic pin 1 problem. The input
and outputs are via 1/4-inch connectors with plastic
shells that insulate them from the chassis. The cable
shield terminals (the sleeve of the connectors) go to
the circuit board. This line level product has so much
pin 1 susceptibility that the generator hit the thresh-
old of compression between 20 and 50 MHz -- just
right if you want to listen to citizens band radio in
your audio system! This product was recently discon-
tinued by its manufacturer.
This rack mount unit is powered by a "wall wart"
style stepdown transformer with a two-prong plug. Figure 25 - Pin 1 susceptibility of the same portable
Some might argue that the 2-prong power plug pre- DAT recorder for the driven channel expressed as
vents the flow of current on the shield since there is equivalent input noise. The flat-topping of the highest
no ground path. The author fails to see the logic in gain curve is the input stage clipping.
this argument -- the product is intended to be rack The portable DAT recorder shown in Figures 24 and
mounted (which requires that it be grounded), there 25 has acceptable pin 1 immunity below about 5
will be current flow through the unit to other wiring, MHz, but immunity degrades severely above 20
and there will almost certainly be capacitive coupling MHz. It performed very poorly in field tests, and
between the unit and the power system via the ca- parallel research [6] shows that the cause is poor dif-
pacitance of the power transformer. ferential mode low pass filtering on the signal pair.
Figure 24 illustrates a common characteristic of pin 1 At full input sensitivity it displayed very severe fun-
problems. Not only is the interference present in the damental overload with the foil/drain shielded cables
channel whose wiring carries the shield current, but it at all frequencies below 14 MHz, and very strong
is also very strongly present in other channels. interference at 14 and 28 MHz. Reducing its input
trim by 20 dB got it out of overload at some frequen-
cies, but the interference was still extremely strong.
Switching to the braid shielded cable helped some,
but at only two of the test frequencies was the unit
useable -- at 1.8 MHz with the braid/drain cable and
at 28 MHz with the foil/drain cable.

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
10
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION mic inputs and 4 line inputs with all the inputs at their
nominal gain setting except the driven channel
ACOUSTIC CONDITIONS (channel 1), which is set for minimum gain and
The acoustic conditions for the laboratory and field muted (that is, switched off of the buss). Here, the RF
tests were not ideal. The grassy field where the 720 driven into pin 1 of channel 1 is coupling into the
kHz tests were performed is less than 200 m from a circuit board and showing up at the output buss.
major freeway and a busy local road. Typical levels In the tests reported here, only one channel was
were measured at 53 dBA and RC47. A church could driven. Typical systems will have at least half as
be expected to be more than 10 dB quieter; a re- many microphones connected as there are input
cording studio at least 20 dB quieter. The Field Day channels. If the microphone cables are run exposed
site was much better, at 37 dBA and RC30 during (that is, not within grounded conduit), follow differ-
quieter hours when most of the measurements were ent paths, and are of approximately equal length, it is
done. likely that equal levels of RF will be induced in each.
The noise level in the author's laboratory was 47 To the extent that the induced signal is in phase at
dBA, RC 42. The background noise level in the 1 RF, it will add coherently. The lower the radio fre-
kHz one-third octave band was about 35.5 dBSPL. quency of the interfering signal, the more likely the
The limiting factor was the RF generator's fan (which induced signal is to be in phase at the mixer. Thus,
needed to be close to the microphone so that its out- the 8-input mixer could see the coherent addition of
put cable could be very short to minimize the effects RF currents from 4-8 microphones.
of standing waves). There are also computers and When signals sum coherently, they will add by 6 dB
support equipment. for each doubling of the number of signals of equal
Most detection below the point of fundamental over- strength. When they add non-coherently, they add by
load has a square law response. Thus a 20 dB in- 3 dB per doubling. Program audio received by multi-
crease in the acoustic noise floor could be viewed as ple microphones will be non-coherent. Thus the ratio
equivalent to a 10 dB reduction in sensitivity to the of received interference to program audio can in-
level of the RF signal, which in turn is equivalent to crease by as much as 3 dB for each doubling of the
being 3.16X more distant from the transmitter. In number of inputs receiving interference and detection
other words, taking the acoustic noise floor into ac- mechanisms.
count, the test conditions are equivalent to being in a The summing of RF paths to a common detection
recording studio 1.9 km from the 720 kHz transmit- point is probably responsible for most of the narrow-
ter, or in a church at a distance of 1 km. Much less band peaks and nulls in the curves at VHF and UHF.
adjustment is needed for the acoustic conditions at Some of these peaks and nulls can also be part of the
the Field Day site, which was quieter than many test setup. Because the short coaxial cable running
churches, but noisier than most recording studios. from the generator to the DUT is driving a mis-
matched load, there will be strong standing waves on
COHERENT SUMMING that transmission line, establishing peaks and nulls at
Coherent addition of the detected signal can also sig- various frequencies that may be shifted slightly up or
nificantly increase the severity of RF interference. down in frequency by the interaction of that trans-
Coherent addition occurs several ways. It can result mission line with its termination at the DUT. This
from the detection of the same signal at multiple effect can be minimized by placing a resistive attenu-
points in the equipment (for example, at multiple ator (pad) at the end of that line adjacent to the DUT.
inputs of a mixer or at more than one stage in a signal The pad terminates the line, reducing any standing
chain). Detected RF (that is, audio) that is detected at waves to a much lower value, but with the obvious
multiple points within the same product is usually in effect of reducing the current into pin 1. This option
phase. If detected at comparable points within a was not tried, since it was originally believed that it
product (for example, in the input stages of multiple was necessary to have the greatest practical level of
channels), it will also be in polarity. Detection can excitation to expose pin 1 problems.
occur at multiple points within a signal chain that are The higher level of excitation may not be necessary.
out of polarity with each other, resulting in partial In fact, the data suggest that, especially at VHF and
cancellation of the two detected signals. The relative UHF, the test setup may be more sensitive to pin 1
magnitudes of the two signals will generally not susceptibility than is required. Future refinements of
maintain the same relative level over a broad range of the test method suggest that an attenuator designed
frequencies, due to the frequency response between for a matched attenuation on the order of 6 dB could
stages. be used with good results. While the attenuation in
Addition can also occur at RF. The lower curve in the test would be significantly greater than the
Fig 26 shows pin 1 susceptibility in a mixer with 8 matched attenuation because the load (pin 1) ap-

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
11
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

proaches a short circuit, the peaks and nulls would be influence of the cable to the preamp on the measure-
greatly reduced in magnitude. ment. At least five of the microphones tested for this
research simply did not operate in our tests because
SHELL CONTACT ISSUES they failed to conduct phantom power through the
Several of the products tested made no contact with connector shells.
the shells of mating XL connectors or made erratic
contact. Among those making erratic contact were DETECTION
microphones DS4, DL4-2-10, DS1-2-10, the Sound For there to be an observable pin 1 problem, there
Devices preamplifier, and the DAT machine. To test must be a sufficiently strong source of interference,
these products, it was necessary to insert a small some means of detection, and some path between pin
piece of wire between the two connector shells to 1 and the means of detection at the frequency of the
force them to make contact. interference. The resulting interference can be re-
duced or eliminated by reducing the magnitude of
The poor contact in microphones DL4-2-10 and DS4
any one or a combination of these factors. For exam-
was due to spray paint having been applied to the
ple, it is possible to minimize detection by placing a
inside of the connector shell. Scraping the paint al-
suitable bypass capacitor across a semiconductor
lowed the shells to make contact. To be effective, the
junction that would otherwise detect the interference.
EMC connector described in [1] must make good
Detection can also be minimized by running cables in
shell contact with a mating shell that is bonded to the
grounded conduit in installations where interference
shielding enclosure.
is strong enough to induce significant currents. De-
The shell contact failure in the MixPre is particularly tection mechanisms are discussed at length in [1].
troubling. Both the connectors integral to the unit and
It was also noted in [1] that interference from FM
the mating connectors that failed to make contact are
signals is generally demodulated by slope detection --
from the same major manufacturer.
that is, the FM signal is converted to AM when the
All of the mix consoles from manufacturer #10 pur- gain (loss) within the signal path varies with fre-
posely made no contact with the connector shell. To quency. Some have questioned how the gain can
drive pin 1, it was necessary to connect the generator change enough to cause sufficient conversion in the
shield to a 1/4-inch connector whose shell was relatively narrow bandwidth of a broadcast FM signal
mounted to the chassis. to cause detection. An examination of any of the sus-
ceptibility data shows strong slopes of gain vs. fre-
The compressor/limiter from manufacturer #11 used quency. Even more pronounced slopes commonly
plastic body 1/4-inch connectors as inputs and out- result from the narrowband peaks and nulls caused by
puts, insulating the mating shield contact from the multipath (reflections) reception of signals.
enclosure. To drive the shield contact the generator
shield was returned to the chassis.
CABLE-RELATED DIFFERENCES
In field tests, the DAT machine received very strong In the field tests, significant susceptibility differences
interference from VHF television and FM broadcast between foil/drain cable and braid cable are strong
stations at a distance of one mile from 20 kW trans- indications of inadequate filtering of the signal pair,
mitters. The special EMC connector was tried with and negative indicators of pin 1 problems as the
this unit and was quite effective at reducing the inter- cause of the susceptibility. The two cables used for
ference -- if the shells were forced by hand pressure all of the field tests were run in close proximity to
to make contact. If the hand pressure was released, each other and were essentially the same length, so
the interference returned. the induced currents should be reasonably close to
Some users, including those in the European broad- equal and the current flowing into pin 1 should be
cast and EMC community, have urged the use of XL nearly the same for both cable types.
connectors that make a DC connection of the shield There are significant differences in SCIN perform-
to the shell of cable-mounted connectors, and some ance between the two cable types up to at least 4
choose to make a connection only to the shell (as MHz, and those differences correlated with field test
opposed to the designated shield contact, pin 1). Both results for most of the microphones and input equip-
practices are foolhardy. They are in conflict with IEC ment tested. SCIN performance is discussed in depth
and AES standards, which are specifically written to in [5] and [ 6].
prevent ground loops in the shields of audio wiring.
In addition, the products that fail to provide shell to After studying the results of these measurements, it
shell contact for mating connectors won't provide a appears that the test setup might be improved to fur-
termination for the shield that is the objective of these ther remove differential mode susceptibility from the
schemes. The microphone test circuit purposely used measurement at the highest frequencies by placing a
the shell contact for phantom power to minimize the capacitor across the signal pair at the microphone. It

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
12
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

is likely that the inherent imbalance of an XL connec- male XL connector attached without removing the
tor with respect to the coupling, both capacitive and connector. A greater number of turns could be wound
inductive, would couple signal unequally from pin 1 by removing the XL connector and replacing it. The
to the two signal contacts. This effect may be respon- 12-turn choke with the full-size microphone cable
sible for some of the susceptibility measured in the was easily wound on the 2.4 inch core without re-
UHF range. moving the connector.

PREVENTING SHIELD CURRENT FLOW CORRELATION WITH VHF/UHF TESTS

Interference coupled by pin 1 problems can generally To perform the correlation and understand the results
be eliminated by reducing or eliminating current flow of [1], it is important to understand the RF spectrum
on the shield. A sufficiently large RF choke in series in the test environment. Thus, as part of that research,
with the shield at the input of the victim electronics it was learned through spectrum analysis measure-
(that is, the device receiving the interference) will ments that the predominant energy in that area is
accomplish this result. At MF and HF frequencies from television channels 2 and 5 (54-82 MHz) and
this is readily accomplished by winding the signal from FM broadcast transmitters (88-108 MHz). The
cable around a toroidal or cylindrical ferrite core. At reason this is true is interesting. Television transmit-
the 720 kHz test site, current flow was eliminated by ting antennas must have a flat response over the en-
adding the 25 ft microphone cable wound around the tire bandwidth of their assigned channel (6 MHz in
ferrite core to form choke #1 (see Figure 2) in series North America) to maintain good video quality. For
with the input of the device under test. This signifi- television channels 2-6, that is, approximately 10% of
cantly reduced the strength of interference in most of the transmitting frequency. It is difficult to accom-
the equipment tested. The author's improvised solu- plish a sufficiently flat response over that high per-
tion to his first encounter with VHF-TV interference centage bandwidth if the antenna has appreciable
to condenser microphones (around 1980) was to wrap vertical directivity. The FM transmitters also use low
the microphone cable several turns around the steel gain antennas, but for a different reason. They are
microphone stand adjacent to the microphone. This concerned with good building penetration to reach
improvised choke was sufficient to reduce the inter- listeners in interior offices in downtown buildings,
ference below the level of audibility. and they also need to avoid multipath distortion. Di-
rectional antennas are subject to the same grating
Passing a conductor through a cylindrical ferrite core
lobes common to line arrays of loudspeakers, and
forms a single turn choke. The effect provided by
these lobes tend to increase multipath problems.
multiple ferrite cores along the same conductor is
approximately additive, and the inductance is essen- While stations operating on higher frequencies utilize
tially proportional to the length of the core. The in- much higher transmitter powers, their assigned chan-
ductance of a multi-turn toroidal coil is proportional nel is a much smaller percentage bandwidth, so they
to the square of the number of turns, so when practi- can utilize antennas with much greater directivity in
cal, a multi-turn coil is generally the easiest and most the vertical plane. Antennas for television channels 7-
cost effective solution. Where the cable diameter is 13 (174-216 MHz) typically use 4-6 elements, while
so great that it is not practical to wind it around a UHF stations (470-810 MHz) may use 12-16 ele-
toroidal core (for example, a multi-pair cable) it may ments in a vertical array. In Chicago, where these
be practical to sufficiently reduce current to the level tests were performed, all of these transmitting anten-
needed to eliminate the interference by passing the nas are at an elevation of 400-600 meters. As a result,
cable through multiple large toroidal cores of suffi- the main lobe of antennas transmitting television
cient diameter to fit over the entire multi-cable. channels 7-69 passes high over even the tallest build-
ings in their immediate vicinity. In fact, a receiving
Pin 1 problems on output wiring are also capable of
antenna doesn't appear within the main lobe of the
coupling RF interference into audio equipment. The
UHF antennas, which is typically only about 8 de-
author has successfully eliminated moderately strong
grees wide in the vertical plane, until the receiving
interference to consumer stereo equipment from his
antenna is 10-20 miles from the transmitter. At that
100 watt ham transmitter operating on 3.5 MHz, 7
distance inverse square law has reduced the field suf-
MHz, 10 MHz, 14 MHz, 21 MHz, and 28 MHz by
ficiently that detection is far less likely (although it
the simple expedient of wrapping each of the loud-
can occur with really problematic microphones and
speaker cables three turns around a 1.4-inch OD, 0.9
equipment).
inch ID toroidal ferrite core of #43 material. A sepa-
rate core was used for each cable. A comparison of the current work with the
VHF/UHF susceptibility tests reported in [1] shows a
The 1.4-inch core is likely to be quite effective for a
very strong correlation. For example, microphone
microphone input. It is possible to improvise such a
TL1-1-10 received very strong interference from
4-turn choke by passing a miniature mic cable (for
broadcast TV and FM stations, the handheld trans-
example, one pair of a typical multi-pair cable) with a
AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
13
BROWN TESTING FOR PIN 1 PROBLEMS AT RADIO FREQUENCIES

mitters, and the cell phone. Figure 9 is consistent voltage coupled to the signal pair. The cur-
with those results, showing very high susceptibility to rent work supports that assessment.
pin 1 current for this microphone beginning about 30
MHz with strong peaks around 90 MHz and 170 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
MHz and strong susceptibility to 1 GHz. Thanks are due to Ron Steinberg for his extensive
Microphones TMO7 and DS9 received mild 150 support with field testing and the loan of equipment;
MHz interference and strong cell phone interference, to Bill Stribling, Rick Renner, Hugh Daly, and Ken
all of which was eliminated when the experimental Reichel for loan of equipment for testing, to Bill
EMC connector was used to bypass the pin 1 prob- Whitlock for his thoughts about the conceptual basis
lem. Microphone TMO5 received strong cell phone of the work, and to Whitlock, David Josephson, John
interference and mild VHF-TV interference; the VHF Woodgate, and Bruce Olson for their reviews of the
TV interference was eliminated and the cell phone draft.
interference reduced to slight by the experimental
connector. The laboratory data for these microphones REFERENCES
shown in Figure 13 are consistent with that result. 1. J. Brown, and D. Josephson, Radio Frequency
Similar comparisons of the other microphones tested Susceptibility of Capacitor Microphones, AES Pre-
in both studies also show good correlation. print 5720, Amsterdam, March 2003.
2. N. Muncy, "Noise Susceptibility in Analog and
CONCLUSIONS
Digital Signal Processing Systems," J. Audio Eng.
1. Terminations for the shield that depend Soc., vol 43, No. 6, pp 435-453, 1995, June
solely upon contact between connector
shells are likely to fail in a large number of 3. H. Ott, Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic
products to which they must mate. Systems, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 1988.
2. Below 30 MHz, immunity failures (that is, 4. J. Windt, "An Easily Implemented Procedure for
interference from radio transmitters) are Identifying Potential Electromagnetic Compatibility
more likely to be the result of inadequate fil- Problems in New Equipment and Existing Systems:
tering on the signal pair than a pin 1 prob- The Hummer Test," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol 43, No.
lem. 6, pp 484-487, 1995, June
3. Pin 1 problems couple interference into 5. J. Brown, and B Whitlock, Common-Mode to Dif-
equipment in ways that bypass the channel ferential-Mode Conversion in Shielded Twisted-Pair
to which the cable receiving the interference Cables (Shield Current Induced Noise), AES Preprint
is connected. That is, interference entering 5747, Amsterdam, March 2003.
equipment on a cable connected to channel 1 6. J. Brown, A Novel Method of Testing for Suscepti-
may be heard even though channel 1 is bility of Audio Equipment to Interference from Me-
turned all the way down! This is clearly dium and High Frequency Radio Transmitters, Pre-
shown in Figures 18, 19, 20, and 23, where sented at the 115th Convention of the Audio Engi-
interference coupled to pin 1 of channel 1 neering Society, October 2003, NY
shows up on channel 2, even though input 1
is not routed to channel 2. It also was appar- 7. B. Whitlock, Personal communication with author,
ent in all of the small mixers. This can com- July 2003
plicate the diagnosis of how the interference
is entering the system.
4. Interference caused by pin 1 problems can
generally be eliminated by preventing cur-
rent flow on the shield at the frequency or
frequencies of the interference. This can of-
ten be accomplished by the use of an RF
choke improvised by winding multiple turns
of the cable around a suitable ferrite rod or
toroidal ferrite core.
5. In the VHF/UHF susceptibility tests re-
ported in [1], the authors blamed pin 1 prob-
lems within microphones for much of the in-
terference received, but also pointed out the
contribution of susceptibility to differential

AES 115TH CONVENTION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 2003 OCTOBER 10-13
14