Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Where to find mic splitter transformers?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 9:43:56 PM

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

I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a transformer is
most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these mics are going to
split into, a Jensen would be wasted).

Any ideas? Cheapest source for Jensen?

TIA
Edwin
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 12:11:24 AM

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

"Edwin Hurwitz" wrote ...
> I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
> other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
> won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a transformer is
> most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these mics are going to
> split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>
> Any ideas? Cheapest source for Jensen?

Dunno that you can buy them anywhere else but direct?

Other transformer manufacturers that may offer mic splitter
products...

http://www.cinemag.biz/index.html
http://www.lundahl.se/
http://www.sescom.com/
http://www.sowter.co.uk/
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 12:24:09 AM

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

Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
>other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
>won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a transformer is
>most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these mics are going to
>split into, a Jensen would be wasted).

You want high-Z to low-Z, or do you want dual secondaries for multiple
isos?

>Any ideas? Cheapest source for Jensen?

Jensen will sell direct as cheaply as anyone. Lundahl makes some good
transformers although I don't think their high ratio stuff is as clean
as the Jensens. Same goes for Lundahls.

If you can do low ratios, Tamura actually makes some workable stuff,
but now you're talking a different splitter configuration.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related resources
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 5:30:07 AM

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

In article,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> > I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
> >other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
> >won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a transformer is
> >most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these mics are going to
> >split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>
> You want high-Z to low-Z, or do you want dual secondaries for multiple
> isos?
>

Low Z to low Z, I would imagine. Anything going into it would be a mic
or an instrument with a DI. I want to be able to send it to my mic pres
without affecting or being affected by the PA for live recording.

> >Any ideas? Cheapest source for Jensen?
>
> Jensen will sell direct as cheaply as anyone. Lundahl makes some good
> transformers although I don't think their high ratio stuff is as clean
> as the Jensens. Same goes for Lundahls.
>
> If you can do low ratios, Tamura actually makes some workable stuff,
> but now you're talking a different splitter configuration.
> --scott

As far as I can figure, it would be a 1:1 ratio, but I am no expert on
transformers.

Thanks for your reply!

All the best,
Edwin
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 11:22:17 AM

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

If you want Jensen, get them direct. For the big 24-48 ch jobs, I use
Rapco, Whirlwind or Horizon. They will all furnish a complete wired
box or panel as well. There are hundreds of thousands of them in use,
because they cost almost a tenth of Jensen or other high end product.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 12:11:55 PM

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

In article <edwin-945BAC.02300730112004@corp.supernews.com>,
Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>In article <coglk9$3pr$1@panix2.panix.com>,
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>> > I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
>> >other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
>> >won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a transformer is
>> >most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these mics are going to
>> >split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>>
>> You want high-Z to low-Z, or do you want dual secondaries for multiple
>> isos?
>
>Low Z to low Z, I would imagine. Anything going into it would be a mic
>or an instrument with a DI. I want to be able to send it to my mic pres
>without affecting or being affected by the PA for live recording.

Okay, if you want to do this, you know first of all that you're going to
take a sonic hit on the iso outputs, and secondly you're going to be paying
a lot more for transformers than you do with dual secondaries. On the
other hand, it makes phantom power management a lot easier.

I should add that if at all possible you want to use the direct outputs for
the recording rig and the isos for the PA, for that reason. If you are
not running the PA, though, this can cause social problems.

>> >Any ideas? Cheapest source for Jensen?
>>
>> Jensen will sell direct as cheaply as anyone. Lundahl makes some good
>> transformers although I don't think their high ratio stuff is as clean
>> as the Jensens. Same goes for Lundahls.
>>
>> If you can do low ratios, Tamura actually makes some workable stuff,
>> but now you're talking a different splitter configuration.
>
>As far as I can figure, it would be a 1:1 ratio, but I am no expert on
>transformers.

No, you want a very high ratio if you are using a bridging splitter, because
you don't want the second output to load down the microphone. This tends
to make the transformers very expensive. Take a look at the numbers on
the transformers Jensen recommends for bridging splitters.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 1:09:08 PM

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

Scott, do these transformers (the two-secondary DXF) meet your
criterion? They're about half the cost of Jensens)

http://www.rapco.com/catalog/default.asp?FILE=techinfo1...

----------------

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article,
> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>
>>In article,
>> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>>>
>>>>I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
>>>>other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
>>>>won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a transformer is
>>>>most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these mics are going to
>>>>split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>>>
>>>You want high-Z to low-Z, or do you want dual secondaries for multiple
>>>isos?
>>
>>Low Z to low Z, I would imagine. Anything going into it would be a mic
>>or an instrument with a DI. I want to be able to send it to my mic pres
>>without affecting or being affected by the PA for live recording.
>
>
> Okay, if you want to do this, you know first of all that you're going to
> take a sonic hit on the iso outputs, and secondly you're going to be paying
> a lot more for transformers than you do with dual secondaries. On the
> other hand, it makes phantom power management a lot easier.
>
> I should add that if at all possible you want to use the direct outputs for
> the recording rig and the isos for the PA, for that reason. If you are
> not running the PA, though, this can cause social problems.
>
>
>>>>Any ideas? Cheapest source for Jensen?
>>>
>>>Jensen will sell direct as cheaply as anyone. Lundahl makes some good
>>>transformers although I don't think their high ratio stuff is as clean
>>>as the Jensens. Same goes for Lundahls.
>>>
>>>If you can do low ratios, Tamura actually makes some workable stuff,
>>>but now you're talking a different splitter configuration.
>>
>>As far as I can figure, it would be a 1:1 ratio, but I am no expert on
>>transformers.
>
>
> No, you want a very high ratio if you are using a bridging splitter, because
> you don't want the second output to load down the microphone. This tends
> to make the transformers very expensive. Take a look at the numbers on
> the transformers Jensen recommends for bridging splitters.
> --scott
>
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 1:28:41 PM

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

Don Richardson <donr39ca@netscape.net> wrote:
>Scott, do these transformers (the two-secondary DXF) meet your
>criterion? They're about half the cost of Jensens)
>
>http://www.rapco.com/catalog/default.asp?FILE=techinfo1...


Look at the ratio. The DXF is a 1:1:1 type transformer. So if you use
it, you get two isolated splits, but you have to deal with external phantom
power.

If you want to bridge, you have to use the DBT in order not to change the
impedance the mike sees too much. This means you have to deal with that
24 dB drop in the process and you will find also that the top end response
isn't what you might like. But, you don't have to deal with external
phantom power.

All of the Rapcos are very overpriced for what they are... I suspect they
are rebadged Japanese transformers. But if you keep levels down and
don't expect wonderful low end extension you will probably be fine with them.

The 1:1:1 types are much easier to make than the high ratio ones, and should
be cheaper.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 1:44:43 PM

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

"Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message
news:edwin-7E13D2.18435429112004@corp.supernews.com
> I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
> other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers
> that won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a
> transformer is most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these
> mics are going to split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>
> Any ideas?

If money is really a consideration, just drive the second mixer from the
direct outs or inserts of the first.
November 30, 2004 1:44:44 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<L7udnZg2ecT1CDHcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>...
> "Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message
> news:edwin-7E13D2.18435429112004@corp.supernews.com
> > I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
> > other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers
> > that won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a
> > transformer is most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these
> > mics are going to split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> If money is really a consideration, just drive the second mixer from the
> direct outs or inserts of the first.

Question for the group....

What would be the problem of building a mic splitter using an ordinary
one primary one secondary 1:1 low Z mic transformer. The mic would be
connected directly to mixer #1 and the transfoermer primary bridged
across the mic signal and the secondary feeds mixer #2. The
transformer provides complete gound loop isolation between the two
mixers so there can be no ground loops.

The mic is doubly loaded because it sees two mixer loads in parallel,
but a mic splitter transfomer does that anyway. So what is the
advantage of a true three winding mic splitter transformer compared to
using an ordinary two winding mic transformer. The main issue of
ground loops is completly resolved in either case.

Mark
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 1:44:44 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<L7udnZg2ecT1CDHcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>...
> "Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message
> news:edwin-7E13D2.18435429112004@corp.supernews.com
> > I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
> > other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers
> > that won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a
> > transformer is most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these
> > mics are going to split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> If money is really a consideration, just drive the second mixer from the
> direct outs or inserts of the first.

I've had good luck on many remotes NOT transformering either side of a
hard split, but making sure that all AC powering for all audio gear
was on the same leg of the service.
When we had a problem, we'd transformer split just the offending
channel. I know I've been lucky, but this has worked quite well on
many many occasions. There have been
times where common power wasn't possible, and then the full xformer
split is warranted.
And there will be "social problems" over who gets the un-transformered
side of it.

Philip Perkins
are
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 2:39:34 PM

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

In article <edwin-945BAC.02300730112004@corp.supernews.com> edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com writes:

> I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
> other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
> won't be super expensive

About 20 years ago I looked into making such a splitter and was
considering the Whirlwind transformers. They were less than half the
cost of Jensens and sounded OK in splitters that I'd rented.

I decided that I didn't need a splitter often enough to invest in one,
so I continued renting when I needed it. I was fortunate enough to
have a reliable rental source so there was always a decent splitter
available for $25. You might think about that, though I expect that
rental prices have gone up since then, but possibly not very much,
particularly if you can find an older, established company that's had
their splitter for years and years and it's thorougly paid for.



--
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
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 2:46:58 PM

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

In article <znr1101824279k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>I decided that I didn't need a splitter often enough to invest in one,
>so I continued renting when I needed it. I was fortunate enough to
>have a reliable rental source so there was always a decent splitter
>available for $25. You might think about that, though I expect that
>rental prices have gone up since then, but possibly not very much,
>particularly if you can find an older, established company that's had
>their splitter for years and years and it's thorougly paid for.

Where is this? Not National, I hope. Even though National Events is
gone, their splitters still keep showing up on gigs, and they still
don't work on half the channels. If somebody has decent splitters for
rental in the DC area, I'd love to know.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 4:10:15 PM

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

Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>What would be the problem of building a mic splitter using an ordinary
>one primary one secondary 1:1 low Z mic transformer. The mic would be
>connected directly to mixer #1 and the transfoermer primary bridged
>across the mic signal and the secondary feeds mixer #2. The
>transformer provides complete gound loop isolation between the two
>mixers so there can be no ground loops.
>
>The mic is doubly loaded because it sees two mixer loads in parallel,

This is the problem.

>but a mic splitter transfomer does that anyway.

No, it doesn't. That is the function of using the mike splitter transformer,
so that the mike sees the proper load. (You also get isolation, but that
is a free bonus.)

> So what is the
>advantage of a true three winding mic splitter transformer compared to
>using an ordinary two winding mic transformer. The main issue of
>ground loops is completly resolved in either case.

The three-winding transformer allows the mike to see the correct load. The
signal is dropped 6 dB on each of the outputs, and the output impedance of
the input is the same as EACH of the outputs, not half of each output.

The alternative is to use the bridging transformer, which is actually more
common. This uses a high ratio transformer so you have a high output direct
output, and a lower output isolated output. The transformer primary does
put a little additional load on the mike, but because it's a high-Z input,
it doesn't put a significant load on it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 7:29:07 PM

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

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:44:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message
>news:edwin-7E13D2.18435429112004@corp.supernews.com
>> I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
>> other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers
>> that won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a
>> transformer is most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these
>> mics are going to split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
>If money is really a consideration, just drive the second mixer from the
>direct outs or inserts of the first.
>
And if you really need isolation between the rigs, buy a bunch of 1:1
line-level transformers to isolate the second mixer.

Because we're on RAP, can I assume that the split is for recording?

I've had acceptable (to my clients) results by connecting the direct
outputs from an A&H GL-2200 to the inputs of an Alesis HD24. The
levels match up nicely. Bonus: you get a 24-channel meter bridge.

If you need to run it more than a few meters, or the recorder is on a
different electrical circuit (like a UPS, which I STRONGLY recommend),
you may want those 1:1 isolating transformers.

Mike T.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 7:29:08 PM

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

"Mike T." <miket@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:p g7pq09qio9e5ini28rlu6jcbd0j52ujdc@4ax.com
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:44:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Edwin Hurwitz" wrote in message
>> news:edwin-7E13D2.18435429112004@corp.supernews.com
>>> I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
>>> other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers
>>> that won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a
>>> transformer is most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these
>>> mics are going to split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>>>
>>> Any ideas?

>> If money is really a consideration, just drive the second mixer from
>> the direct outs or inserts of the first.

> And if you really need isolation between the rigs, buy a bunch of 1:1
> line-level transformers to isolate the second mixer.

I might as well add the caveat, which is that splitting sources from direct
outs or insert points puts the guy who controls the trims on the first
console in the driver's seat.

> Because we're on RAP, can I assume that the split is for recording?

The other application would be a separate monitor mix.

> I've had acceptable (to my clients) results by connecting the direct
> outputs from an A&H GL-2200 to the inputs of an Alesis HD24. The
> levels match up nicely. Bonus: you get a 24-channel meter bridge.

I've been tapping the inserts of a Mackie SR32 for a Delta 1010 and a Delta
66 for almost 2 years. Money IS an issue here since it isn't my money.

> If you need to run it more than a few meters, or the recorder is on a
> different electrical circuit (like a UPS, which I STRONGLY recommend),
> you may want those 1:1 isolating transformers.

True, but balanced line level I/O can be surprisingly robust. Of course a
really bad ground potential difference could get messy.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:52:50 AM

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

Edwin Hurwitz wrote:

> I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
>other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
>won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a transformer is
>most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these mics are going to
>split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>
>Any ideas? Cheapest source for Jensen?
>
>TIA
>Edwin
Go with the Jensens direct from jensen. They work and sound great.
Wire them like they tell you to on their web site and you can't go
wrong. They can give you a direct and one or two isloated out-puts

There are cheap splitters and there are good splitters, but here are
no good cheap splitters. Whirlwind makes splitters with Lundahls,
Jensens or their own split transformers. When you get up into the 48
to 56 pair set ups, cheap becomes relative. Go with Jensen's.

I have been on the direct side and iso side of a lot of active and
passive (transformer) splitters, and I'll take the Jensens every time.
They work. Yah, I know, actives are suppose to sound "Better" and
drive long lines with better response, but this High Tech is a big
Head Ache when there are power, gain and pantom problems. Or "Oh I
forgot that feed, I'll just send that from my end back down pair 19,
ops there's an active splitter there, sorry that won't work."
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:11:06 AM

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

Don Worsham wrote:
> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>
>
>>I want to build a snake with mic splitters built in. I have all the
>>other parts, but I am trying to find a source for the transformers that
>>won't be super expensive (I know, in order to be good, a transformer is
>>most likely expensive, but with the PAs that these mics are going to
>>split into, a Jensen would be wasted).
>>
>>Any ideas? Cheapest source for Jensen?
>>
>>TIA
>>Edwin
>
> Go with the Jensens direct from jensen. They work and sound great.
> Wire them like they tell you to on their web site and you can't go
> wrong. They can give you a direct and one or two isloated out-puts
>
> There are cheap splitters and there are good splitters, but here are
> no good cheap splitters. Whirlwind makes splitters with Lundahls,
> Jensens or their own split transformers. When you get up into the 48
> to 56 pair set ups, cheap becomes relative. Go with Jensen's.
>
> I have been on the direct side and iso side of a lot of active and
> passive (transformer) splitters, and I'll take the Jensens every time.
> They work. Yah, I know, actives are suppose to sound "Better" and
> drive long lines with better response, but this High Tech is a big
> Head Ache when there are power, gain and pantom problems. Or "Oh I
> forgot that feed, I'll just send that from my end back down pair 19,
> ops there's an active splitter there, sorry that won't work."

For the price of a good Jensen two way split 250 foot main/50 foot split
on mults you can get into a fiber optic which is several times better
than the best copper/transformer product
George
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:21:26 AM

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

In article <coi862$krd$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> Even though National Events is
> gone, their splitters still keep showing up on gigs, and they still
> don't work on half the channels. If somebody has decent splitters for
> rental in the DC area, I'd love to know.

I used to get them from RCI. Are they still around? (either the
company or the splitters?)

--
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
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:21:27 AM

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

In article <3677d4b3.0411301042.69c8d37e@posting.google.com> spamiser@yahoo.com writes:

> I've had good luck on many remotes NOT transformering either side of a
> hard split, but making sure that all AC powering for all audio gear
> was on the same leg of the service.

I've done that too, but only in places where I know it works. You've
been lucky. Transformers are also good for keeping RF interference
from getting to the mic input.

--
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
December 1, 2004 8:07:52 PM

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

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<coid27$6tj$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >What would be the problem of building a mic splitter using an ordinary
> >one primary one secondary 1:1 low Z mic transformer. The mic would be
> >connected directly to mixer #1 and the transfoermer primary bridged
> >across the mic signal and the secondary feeds mixer #2. The
> >transformer provides complete gound loop isolation between the two
> >mixers so there can be no ground loops.
> >
> >The mic is doubly loaded because it sees two mixer loads in parallel,
>
> This is the problem.
>
> >but a mic splitter transfomer does that anyway.
>
> No, it doesn't. That is the function of using the mike splitter transformer,
> so that the mike sees the proper load. (You also get isolation, but that
> is a free bonus.)
>
> > So what is the
> >advantage of a true three winding mic splitter transformer compared to
> >using an ordinary two winding mic transformer. The main issue of
> >ground loops is completly resolved in either case.
>
> The three-winding transformer allows the mike to see the correct load. The
> signal is dropped 6 dB on each of the outputs, and the output impedance of
> the input is the same as EACH of the outputs, not half of each output.
>
> The alternative is to use the bridging transformer, which is actually more
> common. This uses a high ratio transformer so you have a high output direct
> output, and a lower output isolated output. The transformer primary does
> put a little additional load on the mike, but because it's a high-Z input,
> it doesn't put a significant load on it.
> --scott

Scott,

OK then the three winding mic splitter xformer must be 2:1:1.

I guess the 6 dB loss is not a serious issue for loud perfromances.

I would have thought that loading a mic with 1/2 the Z would not be a
big deal since there is no real standarization on rated mic load Z and
preamp input Z anyway. Or is there?

And I didn't een consider the phantom power question. The 1:1
bridging xformer would need a DC blocking cap but then you could use
mixer #1 to supply the phantom power and not have to futz with an
external phantom power source.

I would think tapping in to an existing setup this way would create
the least amount of social problems.


Mark
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:17:59 PM

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

Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>OK then the three winding mic splitter xformer must be 2:1:1.

There are twice as many winds on the primary as on the two secondaries,
yes. But Whirlwind (and some others) calls this a 1:1:1.

>I guess the 6 dB loss is not a serious issue for loud perfromances.

It's not really an issue for even soft performances. Gain is cheap and
easy to get.

>I would have thought that loading a mic with 1/2 the Z would not be a
>big deal since there is no real standarization on rated mic load Z and
>preamp input Z anyway. Or is there?

This gets to be a religious issue.... there isn't really any standardization
but there are some known-good combinations. You know an SM-57 into a Mackie
will sound bad, and into a John Hardy it'll sound great. Putting a
dual-iso splitter will not change that.

Putting a bridging splitter on there might actually make the SM-57 on the
Mackie sound better... but it'll sound different, and the idea with the
splitter is that it's not supposed to change the sound so when the recording
guys come in and stick something in front of the PA console, the PA sound
is altered as little as possible.

>And I didn't een consider the phantom power question. The 1:1
>bridging xformer would need a DC blocking cap but then you could use
>mixer #1 to supply the phantom power and not have to futz with an
>external phantom power source.

No DC blocking cap needed, since the two sides of the transformer are
both at the same potential and there is no path to ground. So no
current flows and the phantom power does not affect the bridging
transformer.

>I would think tapping in to an existing setup this way would create
>the least amount of social problems.

You're still changing the way the PA sounds (since the mikes are seeing
twice the load), and you will have an iso that sounds a little different
than the direct outs so you still have that to fight over.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
December 2, 2004 1:49:43 PM

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

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<colqg7$4r9$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >And I didn't een consider the phantom power question. The 1:1
> >bridging xformer would need a DC blocking cap but then you could use
> >mixer #1 to supply the phantom power and not have to futz with an
> >external phantom power source.
>
> No DC blocking cap needed, since the two sides of the transformer are
> both at the same potential and there is no path to ground. So no
> current flows and the phantom power does not affect the bridging
> transformer.
>


OK, right, the phantom DC is between the 2 audio leads together to ground. My bad.

Thanks

Mark
!