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). >