Quality consumer-level mixer needed

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi all!

Is there such a thing in the market as a consumer-level (-10dbV) small
on-stage mixer which doesn't sound consumer-like (i.e. which has
similar quality as the pro +4dbU mixers such as a Mackie 1012, etc).

I know that most DJ mixers work in this fashion but, is any of them
suited for live music, PA applications?

Thanks to all the experienced sound guys out there!

Jose

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <4e3a11d3.0410240651.bd20510@posting.google.com> josestrat@vodafone.es writes:

> Is there such a thing in the market as a consumer-level (-10dbV) small
> on-stage mixer which doesn't sound consumer-like

What does "consumer-like" sound like?

> (i.e. which has
> similar quality as the pro +4dbU mixers such as a Mackie 1012, etc).

Oh. Why not use a mixer that you consider "pro" and just keep the
master fader down low? That's the easiest way to get both plenty of
headroom and the levels you need. Or if you really want to make the
mixer work, you can put a simple pad on the output.

Mixers like this have sufficient gain to accommodate a nominal -10 dBV
input signal, so inputs are no problem.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

cefiro <josestrat@vodafone.es> wrote:
>
>Is there such a thing in the market as a consumer-level (-10dbV) small
>on-stage mixer which doesn't sound consumer-like (i.e. which has
>similar quality as the pro +4dbU mixers such as a Mackie 1012, etc).

The Mackies work just fine with -10 dbV inputs and outputs....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <clib4h$tdc$1@ls219.htnet.hr> predrag.trpkovNOSPAM@ri.htnet.hr writes:

> The guy probably wants something cheaper because Mackies aren't that
> affordable where he lives. They are not quite dirt-cheap in Europe, you
> know. Unlike the products of another company with questionable bussiness
> ethics...

If you want something cheaper than a Mackie, you're going to have to
pay for it either more reliable research than you can do in a
newsgroup, in shorter service life, or something that just isn't quite
right for the application.

This stuff costs money, some more than others, but there's no free
lunch unless you have the experience to be a good scrounge. That comes
from being a scrounge or from working with the right stuff for a while
until you learn what you can live without.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <4e3a11d3.0410250813.4384e446@posting.google.com> josestrat@vodafone.es writes:

>
> my intention is to set up a new rig where all units are
> -10dbV mainly for weight, power-consumption and level-matching reasons
> (this would be my 'travelling-rig'! :-))

Commendable, but those are not good reasons to run the system at
-10 dBV. While some +4 gear uses input and/or output transformers
(weight), many today don't. Since there's so little current involved,
there's no significant saving by running at -10 dBV vs. +4 dBu. Level
matching is always nice.

> In this case, in my opinion, it makes no sense trying to accomodate a
> hot and heavy Mackie1012 to all the other low-level gadgets (reverb,
> compression, eq, CD,...) it would be a waste of power, a loss of the
> quality that mixer is capable of (signal/noise ratio!) and a source of
> backache and excess-luggage charges!

I'm not sure what a Mackie 1012 is (or is that a mistake) but I hardly
consider it heavy.

> I think low-level doesn't necessarily mean low-quality, there are
> plenty of -10dbV sound processors and stuff out there that work great
> for live purposes, etc, it depends on the application and usage. I
> just have never seen a -10dbV mixer

That's because the market is for +4 devices now and that's what the
manufacturers make becuase they can do it cheaply. There were a lot of
mixers using the -10 dBV operating level in the early TASCAM/Fostex
days, the beginning of the home project studio. But today, everybody
wants "professional" equipment and they know that "-10 = semi-pro" so
there just isn't a lot of it made today. I'll tell you that my TASCAM
Model 5 mixer had less capability than a Mackie 1604 VLZ Pro, cost
more when it was new, and was many times the weight and size. But it
was -10 all the way.

I think you don't fully understand the significance of operating
levels and you shouldn't consider this to be a criteria for choosing
the mixer, the heart of your system. But do what makes you feel good.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2u80hqF283382U2@uni-berlin.de> kurt@nv.net writes:

> They call them +4 devices, but precious few have even 20 dB of headroom over
> that nominal figure.
>
> 0 is probably a better reference level for most of us these days.

Not a problem when you have 6 dB or less dynamic range. No need to
have peaks at +24 dBu. CD mastering will take care of that for you.
<g>

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

cefiro wrote:

> mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> > Oh. Why not use a mixer that you consider "pro" and just keep the
> > master fader down low? That's the easiest way to get both plenty of
> > headroom and the levels you need. Or if you really want to make the
> > mixer work, you can put a simple pad on the output.
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing at the moment as I am plugging my
> main Mackie mixer into an ALESIS DEQ224 digital eq., which is a -10dbV
> unit. However, my intention is to set up a new rig where all units are
> -10dbV mainly for weight, power-consumption and level-matching reasons
> (this would be my 'travelling-rig'! :-))
> In this case, in my opinion, it makes no sense trying to accomodate a
> hot and heavy Mackie1012 to all the other low-level gadgets (reverb,
> compression, eq, CD,...) it would be a waste of power, a loss of the
> quality that mixer is capable of (signal/noise ratio!) and a source of
> backache and excess-luggage charges!
> I think low-level doesn't necessarily mean low-quality, there are
> plenty of -10dbV sound processors and stuff out there that work great
> for live purposes, etc, it depends on the application and usage. I
> just have never seen a -10dbV mixer and that's why I'm asking you
> guys. Thank you very much for your help.

Your obsession with -10dBV working is entirely wrong.

Its *doesn't* save weight - power consumption or whatever.

-10dBV working was 'invented' about 30 years ago when much circuitry was
still discrete transistor type and there was a cost saving compared to
'proper' +4dBu operation.

That situation no longer exists. Almost everything is now IC based and
works fine on the higher voltage supplies that are required for decent
headroom with +4dBu working.

Also -10dBV operation is more sensitive to issues like ground loops etc.

Change to +4dBu.It's better and more 'pro'. You'll get fewer level
matching problems in the end. No serious amplifer has -10dBV inputs for
example.


Graham

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hollywood_steve wrote:

> Am I the only one who found it hilarious that someone wanted to
> downgrade from the elitist "pro" mackie to something more suitable for
> the common man???

Like going from a Yugo to a wheelbarrow?

--
ha