Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:35 UTC

Thread

FW: [motm] Mixer - WAS: EMS Vocoder...

FW: [motm] Mixer - WAS: EMS Vocoder...

2000-03-16 by Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)

(Appologies if this messages comes across twice.  I sent it earlier this
morning, but I haven't seen it show up in the list yet.  And onelist is
typically very quick to post messages.)

--PBr
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> (Warning:  This reply is made without reading all the new messages yet!
> Further, I am not yet coherent this morning!  Observe caution!)
> 
> It seems to me that this "internal" switching stuff is just asking for
> confusion.  I mean, if I want two 3x1 mixers, that's what I want to plug
> into.  If I unjack the out of the 2nd mixer for a moment, I surely won't
> be expecting the other 3 channels to suddenly route into the first mix.
> And if it subtle enough, I'll sure as hell end up with a well-scratched
> head.  I'm a much bigger fan of the "external" switch idea.  Try this on
> for size:
> 
> You have 6 inputs, 2 outputs, and a switch.  When the switch is in
> position "A", you have a 6x1 mixer, with the 2nd output being the same as
> the first.  This might be useful for, say, sending to two destinations w/o
> using a multi.  OK, that's not much of a bonus, exactly, but its better
> than having the 2nd output just mute.  When the switch is in position "B",
> you have two seperate 3x1 mixers, completely independant.  I don't know
> about the master control, but your idea would likely fit well.  In
> essance, we're thinking of the same thing, the switch is just moved from
> being toggled by the presence of a jack to a mounte switch.
> 
> You might argue that internal switching will lead to greater accidental
> discoveries, and that's a possible point.  However, I am quite prone to
> flipping switches and rotating knobs, so personally I'd much rather flip a
> physical (sp?) switch than go crazy trying to figure out that strange
> "bleedover".
> 
> --PBr
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	J. Larry Hendry [SMTP:jlarryh@...]
> Sent:	Thursday, March 16, 2000 5:43 AM
> To:	motm@onelist.com
> Subject:	[motm] Mixer - WAS: EMS Vocoder...
> 
> The "other" mixer that was not discussed much was a 6 in 2 out mixer that
> could be configured 3 into 2 or 6 into 1.  Recent experience with another
> brand of mixer has suggested to me that master volume is not a required
> feature for all mixer functions.
> 
> So since you borough it up.  How about this as flame bait to the mixer
> discussion started again? .....
> 
> 6 in 2 out, 1 master control.  When only one output is plugged in, you
> have
> 6 X 1 with master,  when you jack into the 2nd output, you end up with a
> 3x1 with a master and a separate 3x1 without a master (the one you just
> jacked into being without master).
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.