Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Small Mixer Issues

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:34:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Here's the tale of woe, in a nutshell:

* I needed an un-powered mixer to drive some SRM 350s for band
practices.

* I didn't care much about fancy effects, and anyway I already had an
old Quadraverb with which I can add some sweetness if I chose to. I
didn't expect to use enough reverb that the quality (or lack
thereof) of the Quadraverb would make any difference.

* I wanted good, clean sound at a low price.

I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
choice of one of the following options:

- Use the channel inserts for effects, meaning the Quadraverb can
work on just one mic... maybe 2 if you're not picky about signal
leakage across channels (but I am).

- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

- Feed the Quadraverb from the "Group 1-2" buss, in which case, to
turn off the mic completely you need to press both the channel's
big, lit "ST" button *and* its little unlit "Group 1-2" button, whose
state is hard to see.

So, here are my questions:

1. Is this an insane design choice for a general-purpose mixer, or
should I just get over my dissatisfaction?

2. If I decide to trade it in (the dealer very kindly agreed to a full
store credit), what should I get instead?

At the time of the purchase, I was very tempted by Mackie mixers like
the 1202 and 1604 VLZ for their high-quality mic preamps. I have a
shortage of good mic preamps for my very unambitious recording studio,
and thought they could do double-duty. But it was hard to justify the
Mackies' price (twice as much or more) on that basis. Now I've been
seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

For example, I could get the UB1222FX-PRO or UB1622FX-PRO Mixer for
the same price I paid for the Yamaha. Then I could get rid of the
Quadraverb, too. Would I be trading anything away?

BTW, I have no particular position or interest in the political/legal
debate about Behringer vs. Mackie

If you have any experience with these devices or other valuable
advice, I'd appreciate hearing it. Thanks in advance,

Dave

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

More about : small mixer issues

Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:29:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

anahata <anahata@reply-to.address> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
>> until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
>> choice of one of the following options:
>> - Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case,
>> to
>> turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
>> "ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
>> the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
>> signal.
>
> Are you using the post fade aux send? (you would usually, for reverb)
> If releasing the ST button doesnt kill the post-fader send, pulling the
> channel fader certainly will.

Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:43:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> . Now I've been
>> seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
>> mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.
>
> as others are addressing your other options
> I doubt you will find anyone saying the behringers sound better
> they sound very similar
> but cost a whole lot less

Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important by
trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
Related resources
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:07:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
>> just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.
>>>The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
>>>it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
>>>But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.
>> Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
>> seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
>> design. Is it useful the way it is?
>>
>
> you ought ask Mackie
> afaik they started two horrible trends
> one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
> the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel

So this is all Mackie's fault in the end, and Yamaha is
absolved... ;-)

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:07:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>>. Now I've been
>>>
>>>>seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
>>>>mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.
>>>
>>>as others are addressing your other options
>>>I doubt you will find anyone saying the behringers sound better
>>>they sound very similar
>>>but cost a whole lot less
>> Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important
>> by
>> trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?
>>
>
> generally desks with built in fx
> you lose the ability to modify the fx parameters

Yeah, but as I said I don't care about the FX much anyway. I'd want
to turn them way down if they were used at all.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:16:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> anahata <anahata@reply-to.address> writes:

>> Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
>> fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
>> Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
>> mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?
>
> The Yamaha web site doesn't give super clear information about what
> does what, but it looks like each channel has a button to assign
> that channel to the main stereo ("ST") bus and another button to
> assign to the group stereo ("1-2") bus.

Yes. You can download the block diagram, which makes that pretty
clear.

> So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and
> everything else straight to ST,

Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.

Even if it could be useful in some cases, it seems likely that the
mixer would be *primarily* used for vocals. In that configuration,
the nice, big, lit ST switch becomes totally useless for the majority
of channels.

> you'd need that button so that vocal
> channels don't go into ST (except indirectly via 1-2).
>
> That is, unless pressing the 1-2 button for a channel automatically
> turns off its output to the ST bus. But if that were the case,

It ain't.

> then it would seem that the ST button has basically no purpose at
> all.

Okay, so we have one possible -- but not very convincing -- purpose.

Thanks for spending some of your valuable attention on this annoying
issue!

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:41:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
>fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
>Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
>mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

Sure, if you're using the auxes as monitor sends.

On big consoles the muting is usually configurable inside by moving
some jumpers around. I personally like it to mute the whole strip too.
But most small consoles don't do that.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:50:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

David Abrahams wrote:
> I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
> until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
> choice of one of the following options:
>
> - Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
> turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
> "ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
> the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
> signal.

Are you using the post fade aux send? (you would usually, for reverb)
If releasing the ST button doesnt kill the post-fader send, pulling the
channel fader certainly will.

--
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:34:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

.. Now I've been
> seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
> mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

as others are addressing your other options
I doubt you will find anyone saying the behringers sound better
they sound very similar
but cost a whole lot less
George
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:36:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

David Abrahams wrote:
> Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
> mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

Er, no!
If that's the case it looks to me like a bad design decision by Yamaha.

--
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:43:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

David Abrahams wrote:
> anahata <anahata@reply-to.address> writes:
>>David Abrahams wrote:

>>>I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4.

>>> - Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
>>> turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
>>> "ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
>>> the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
>>> signal.
>>
>>Are you using the post fade aux send? (you would usually, for reverb)
>>If releasing the ST button doesnt kill the post-fader send, pulling the
>>channel fader certainly will.

> Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
> fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
> Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
> mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

The Yamaha web site doesn't give super clear information about what
does what, but it looks like each channel has a button to assign
that channel to the main stereo ("ST") bus and another button to
assign to the group stereo ("1-2") bus.

So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and everything
else straight to ST, you'd need that button so that vocal channels
don't go into ST (except indirectly via 1-2).

That is, unless pressing the 1-2 button for a channel automatically
turns off its output to the ST bus. But if that were the case, then
it would seem that the ST button has basically no purpose at all.

- Logan
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:46:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

> Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
> just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.
>
>
>>The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
>>it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
>>But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.
>
>
> Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
> seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
> design. Is it useful the way it is?
>

you ought ask Mackie
afaik they started two horrible trends
one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel
George
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:47:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

> Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
> fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
> Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
> mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?
>
> -- yes
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:48:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

David Abrahams wrote:
> George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
>>. Now I've been
>>
>>>seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
>>>mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.
>>
>>as others are addressing your other options
>>I doubt you will find anyone saying the behringers sound better
>>they sound very similar
>>but cost a whole lot less
>
>
> Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important by
> trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?
>

generally desks with built in fx
you lose the ability to modify the fx parameters
george
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 1:15:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

>but cost a whole lot less
>>>
>>>Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important
>>>by
>>>trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?
>>>
>>
>>generally desks with built in fx
>>you lose the ability to modify the fx parameters
>
>
> Yeah, but as I said I don't care about the FX much anyway. I'd want
> to turn them way down if they were used at all.
>

trying to remain brand neutral
as at the price point your shopping nothing is going to do everything
iif you want a desk that does what you want and so much more look at the
ddx3216 from behringer
at around 600$ it is the best value in desks under 1600$ as of today
george
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 3:56:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

David Abrahams wrote:
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> writes:

>>So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and
>>everything else straight to ST,

> Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
> with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
> it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.

I could imagine using it even on small mixer. For example, you might
have an acoustic guitar with its internal pickup plus a condensor mic
in the front. You could put these two on different channels, use the
two faders to get the balance you want, and use the 1-2 bus to control
the overall volume of the guitar.

Granted, it's not a very likely scenario, but it's not TOTALLY pointless
to have the thing either. Still, I suspect that this feature was
included not because it's all that critically useful but because it's
become sort of a standard feature on mixers, so people expect it to
be there whether it's useful or not. It might have been a better
design if they'd nixed the 1-2 bus altogether, put in real channel
mute buttons, and added a third AUX bus.

- Logan
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 3:56:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Logan Shaw wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>>So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and
>>>everything else straight to ST,
>
>
>>Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
>>with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
>>it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.
>
>
> I could imagine using it even on small mixer. For example, you might
> have an acoustic guitar with its internal pickup plus a condensor mic
> in the front. You could put these two on different channels, use the
> two faders to get the balance you want, and use the 1-2 bus to control
> the overall volume of the guitar.
>
> Granted, it's not a very likely scenario, but it's not TOTALLY pointless
> to have the thing either. Still, I suspect that this feature was
> included not because it's all that critically useful but because it's
> become sort of a standard feature on mixers, so people expect it to
> be there whether it's useful or not. It might have been a better
> design if they'd nixed the 1-2 bus altogether, put in real channel
> mute buttons, and added a third AUX bus.

A friend of mine recently bought a Yamaha that sounds like it might be
this model. The design works well in a studio application, which is
what he bought it for.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 6:27:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

<snip>

>
> Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
> with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
> it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.

<Snip>

David,
Each mixer has some "logic" to it. (sometimes not, I suppose)
The idea behind the group bus is to give you a real sub mix bus. If you
look at the block diagram it allows you to make a fully independent mix and
output this to an amp or maybe FX. It also allows you to dump the sub mix
into the main mix (ST). It is switch assignable. You might want to, say,
mix all of your drum mike's together on the sub mix and send that to the
drummer's monitor. Or, use the mix (well balanced) and dump it into the
main mix with the use of the single group fader to control the "drum mix".
If you had to change 5 or 6 drum inputs simultaneously without upsetting the
fader to fader balance so that the main mix was what you wanted it would be
harder to do without the group (sub mix) bus.

That is just one way to think about it. I think your problem is that
you are trying to understand the mixer by looking through your application.
I would suggest that you understand the mixer first and then see how to
apply it to your application. It will be less frustrating.

-Sax
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:25:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:uhdk2udla.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> anahata <anahata@reply-to.address> writes:
>
>>> Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
>>> fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
>>> Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
>>> mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?
>>
>> The Yamaha web site doesn't give super clear information about what
>> does what, but it looks like each channel has a button to assign
>> that channel to the main stereo ("ST") bus and another button to
>> assign to the group stereo ("1-2") bus.
>
> Yes. You can download the block diagram, which makes that pretty
> clear.


Most SR mixers you kill FOH by pulling the fader down .... Although the ST
button is poorly labelled (it should IMO not have 'ON' written on it as this
suggests it is a channel on switch) It is really only a Stereo output assign
switch NOT a channel on/off switch.

>> So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and
>> everything else straight to ST,
>
> Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
> with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
> it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.

On a desk this size it probably is not much use however on larger Desks sub
groups can be very useful for grouping similar instruments (E.g Drums,
Vocals etc) together on a single fader which can then make mixing that much
easier .....

> Even if it could be useful in some cases, it seems likely that the
> mixer would be *primarily* used for vocals. In that configuration,
> the nice, big, lit ST switch becomes totally useless for the majority
> of channels.
>
>> you'd need that button so that vocal
>> channels don't go into ST (except indirectly via 1-2).
>>
>> That is, unless pressing the 1-2 button for a channel automatically
>> turns off its output to the ST bus. But if that were the case,
>
> It ain't.
>
>> then it would seem that the ST button has basically no purpose at
>> all.
>
> Okay, so we have one possible -- but not very convincing -- purpose.

I think the logic is more along the lines of ' big desks have Subgroups why
not put them on little desks?' I tend to find a lot of the smaller Yamaha
Desks generally bizarre anyway such as at least one I can think of where PFL
does not switch to the level meter .....
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 6:15:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

David Abrahams wrote:
> George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>> Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
>>> just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.
>>>> The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
>>>> it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
>>>> But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.
>>> Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
>>> seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
>>> design. Is it useful the way it is?
>>>
>>
>> you ought ask Mackie
>> afaik they started two horrible trends
>> one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
>> the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel
>
> So this is all Mackie's fault in the end, and Yamaha is
> absolved... ;-)

Different desks do different things. In this case, Yamaha is absolved--it
doesn't have a mute button--a useful feature if you want it. Your mistake
was in purchasing a mixer without one, and then using the assignment switch
'as' one.

That said, IMO Yamaha over the years has made some pretty unnecessarily
bizarre ergonomic 'big' mixer layouts: doing things like putting balance
controls at the top of the strip, input gain on the bottom...and otherwise
redesigning the almost the entire layout of the control surface. While all
of that might have worked well--had Yamaha been the first one to design a
mixer--they were totally upside down with respect to common practice.

They got better. With the PM 5k
http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/pa/english/mixers/P... series
they finally decided to go with the flow, putting most controls where
'everybody else' puts them...but those of us 'raised on' Soundcraft or
Midas, etc mixers always have to think twice when sitting down to a PM-(1 to
4)000 desk....

jak
February 25, 2005 2:16:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

jakdedert wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>>Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
>>>>just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.
>>>>
>>>>>The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
>>>>>it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
>>>>>But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.
>>>>
>>>>Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
>>>>seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
>>>>design. Is it useful the way it is?
>>>>
>>>
>>>you ought ask Mackie
>>>afaik they started two horrible trends
>>>one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
>>>the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel
>>
>>So this is all Mackie's fault in the end, and Yamaha is
>>absolved... ;-)
>
>
> Different desks do different things. In this case, Yamaha is absolved--it
> doesn't have a mute button--a useful feature if you want it. Your mistake
> was in purchasing a mixer without one, and then using the assignment switch
> 'as' one.
>
> That said, IMO Yamaha over the years has made some pretty unnecessarily
> bizarre ergonomic 'big' mixer layouts: doing things like putting balance
> controls at the top of the strip, input gain on the bottom...and otherwise
> redesigning the almost the entire layout of the control surface. While all
> of that might have worked well--had Yamaha been the first one to design a
> mixer--they were totally upside down with respect to common practice.
>

As I recall the PM1000 was one of the first production line SR consoles,
and at the time of the 2k there was a choice of Midas or Yamaha.
Some of those layouts were standard for other console manufacturers like
Neve at the time where the preamp and equaliser were in one module and
the routing was in another. They are not that bizarre, just unusual for
a n00b
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 2:16:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Axle wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>> George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because
>>>>> it just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
>>>>>> it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
>>>>>> But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead?
>>>>> It seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity
>>>>> in the design. Is it useful the way it is?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you ought ask Mackie
>>>> afaik they started two horrible trends
>>>> one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
>>>> the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel
>>>
>>> So this is all Mackie's fault in the end, and Yamaha is
>>> absolved... ;-)
>>
>>
>> Different desks do different things. In this case, Yamaha is
>> absolved--it doesn't have a mute button--a useful feature if you
>> want it. Your mistake was in purchasing a mixer without one, and
>> then using the assignment switch 'as' one.
>>
>> That said, IMO Yamaha over the years has made some pretty
>> unnecessarily bizarre ergonomic 'big' mixer layouts: doing things
>> like putting balance controls at the top of the strip, input gain on
>> the bottom...and otherwise redesigning the almost the entire layout
>> of the control surface. While all of that might have worked
>> well--had Yamaha been the first one to design a mixer--they were
>> totally upside down with respect to common practice.
>>
>
> As I recall the PM1000 was one of the first production line SR
> consoles, and at the time of the 2k there was a choice of Midas or
> Yamaha.
> Some of those layouts were standard for other console manufacturers
> like Neve at the time where the preamp and equaliser were in one
> module and the routing was in another. They are not that bizarre,
> just unusual for a n00b

The 1k came out in '74, at which time I was a newbie, I suppose...OTOH, that
was over 30 years ago. Many in this biz (who themselves wouldn't qualify as
such) were yet to be born. I think I first mixed on one around '77, a year
before the introduction of the 2k...by which point Soundcraft (first live
console--Series 1--introduced in 1973) and several other manufacturers were
well established and had defined the layout of a channel strip pretty
definitively--with input gain at the top, balance and assignment directly
above or adjacent to the fader.

I suppose there's something to be said for the proposition that Yamaha
'might have' defined the original erg's, but evidence that they've been
doing it 'backwards' is that with the PM 5000, they pretty much bowed to
convention. Input gain is where it should (IMHO) be, and finally the
balance is directly above the fader.

I have a lot of respect for Yamaha as a company. They defined the
price-point for 'serious' live consoles in the mid-80's with the 3k.
Anything else with the features of that console, at that time were tens of
thousands more. The desks themselves have always done what they were
intended to do.

I suppose I mostly just grew up on Soundcraft equipment.

jak
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:30:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

> What is the point of this ST button?
> Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
> mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

I have a theory on this....

I think Yamaha teases us by positioning, sizing, labeling the "ST"
button the way they do.
Normally:
1) The ST button would typically be the same small size as 1-2 button.
2) The ST button would also be right above or below the 1-2 button.
3) The ST button would called L-R instead of ST.

They just put a bigger LR button in a funny spot, with a funny name.

To me, the reason for the design is obvious. Understandably, many
beginners would not know how to use the sends. However, Yamaha wanted
to add the bus type features but were worried that people would not be
able to hear reasults coming from the main speakers right away if they
have these tiny send buttons. So they paint the word "ON" on the ST
button (1-2 send doesn say ON) so that the everyday person may be able
to hear some sounds without having to have knowledge how bus sends
work. I think its just a beginners interface. I would agree that it
seems like its a mute button, but the manual clearly says its not.

In less expensive boards, I noticed that group sends are the features
offered before a mute button. I haven't seen a board that has a mute
button
without group sends as well. But I have seen boards with group sends
that do not have mutes.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 5:34:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:uacpvuf3b.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
> Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important by
> trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?

You would be taking a step up IMO.

Phildo
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 8:38:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

On 2005-02-23 12:34:02 -0800, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> said:

> - Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
> turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
> "ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
> the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
> signal.

This sounds like a prefader/preswitch aux send, which is generally used
only for stage monitors (aka foldback) use. The stage wedges get signal
whether you switch off the channel or not.

Have you tried a postfader aux send? This is the more usual way to do a
reverb send, so that, as you turn down the fader, the reverb send goes
down too.

--
- rick http://www.cfcl.com/~rick/
Rick Auricchio Acoustic Legacy Studios rick@cfcl.com
....owner, engineer, solder jockey, caterer, janitor, session bassist.
Everyone has the right to be stupid; some just abuse the privilege.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 9:09:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"Brian Downey" <brian.downey@stratcomm.com> wrote in message
news:D prUd.9904$Pz7.9047@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?
>
I've never seen or tried them but there have been some good things said
about them on here.

Phildo
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 12:21:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:59:38 +0000, Brian Downey wrote:

> How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?

The Onyx boards are an "almost there" concept board IMO. The improved EQ
is long overdue and some of the refinements are nice (rounded buttons for
mute/solo make make it easier to mute everything in a single finger
slide), however I haven't found enough of an improvement in the mic pres
to really flip over them. The built-in metering on each channel is a great
idea, but I would have loved to see them make it a longer gradation along
the fader or leave it as a single intensity-driven light (a la A&H). Also,
the faders themselves feel somewhat gritty to me when they slide. It was
nice that they finally moved the power cord to the back corner of the
1640, especially when the roto-pod is flipped up. The DI on the first two
channels are convenient, but fall in the "so what?" category for me. We
all probably already have a few extra DI boxes laying around and they
could have really outdone themselves by using that space to give the board
100mm faders.

The best improvement IMO are the two built-in dsub outs for all 16
channels on the 1620 and 1640.

- dsb


--
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural
deficiency in moral fibre, and that I an therefore excused from saving
Universes." -- Ford Prefect
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:26:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Phildo <Phil@phildo.net> wrote:

> Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far less.

I have now installed several UB series Beri mixers. They are working
well. They are flimsier than my Mackie 1202 and I would not subject them
to the abuse the Mackie has taken. They also use a wallwart power supply
which is a pain in the ass for live, whereas the Mackie has a built-in
power supply. Doesn't make any difference in the install situations, but
is a convenience factor in portable live work.

I am quite happy with the Behringers for in the situations for which I
have spec'd them. That doesn't mean I feel I can spec them for
everything everywhere. YMMV & YNMJ

--
ha
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:26:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Brian Downey wrote:

> How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?

Those are damn good sounding boards. Read what's being said about them
over in r.a.m.p.s for live film sound work using the Firewire outputs in
conjunction with various recorders. Better preamps, much better EQ,
which can now be bypassed. Sonicly these are in a different class.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 4:15:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> Phildo <Phil@phildo.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far less.
>
>
the behringer sound about the same as the mackie
the behringers are much more rugged and reliable than the mackies
plus they cost much less
some small mackies do offer inserts that the behringers dont
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:17:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Phildo wrote:

> >>Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far less.

> the behringer sound about the same as the mackie
> the behringers are much more rugged and reliable than the mackies
> plus they cost much less
> some small mackies do offer inserts that the behringers dont

I'm sorry, George, but in no way are any of the little UB's I've
installed as rugged as my 1202. They do sound fine for what I've spec'd
them, but they also aren't that well matched board to board. Again, this
is not a problem where I've put them. I like them very well for the
purpose.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 8:11:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
> [...] Sonicly these are in a different class.



Could be, but I *still* can't use a Mackie. Why on Earth did they fit
them with those ridiculous toy faders? Unfathomable. I just can't work
with minifaders.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 8:54:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote:

> > [...] Sonicly these are in a different class.

> Could be, but I *still* can't use a Mackie. Why on Earth did they fit
> them with those ridiculous toy faders? Unfathomable. I just can't work
> with minifaders.

I intensely dislike those, too. Oh, well. Good thing it didn't scare
Tonebarge off the play. <g>

And mind you, my appraoching venerable 1202 has rotary pots, like Dorsey
appreciates, but with knobs too small to match his real preference.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 1:51:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>
>>hank alrich wrote:
>>
>>>Phildo wrote:
>
>
>>>>Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far less.
>
>
>> the behringer sound about the same as the mackie
>>the behringers are much more rugged and reliable than the mackies
>>plus they cost much less
>>some small mackies do offer inserts that the behringers dont
>
>
> I'm sorry, George, but in no way are any of the little UB's I've
> installed as rugged as my 1202. They do sound fine for what I've spec'd
> them, but they also aren't that well matched board to board. Again, this
> is not a problem where I've put them. I like them very well for the
> purpose.
>
> --
> ha

I guess you got the lucky mackie
my experiance with mackie is just horrible
where as my experiance with behringer has been mostly positive
I credit the external power supply for the reliability of the behringers
and the internal power supply as the weak point to the mackies
g
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 1:51:56 PM

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

In article <fJCUd.297661$w62.243759@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> g.p.gleason@att.net writes:

> I credit the external power supply for the reliability of the behringers
> and the internal power supply as the weak point to the mackies

There are a few good reasons for an external power supply. Getting the
heat and power transformer's magnetic field out of the mixer box are
two. Having an easy way to replace the most likely to fail section of
the mixer is another. Getting a product to market quicker by using a
safety-approved power supply is another. Lower cost is yet another.

Still, external power supplies seem to be universally disliked. Often
it's inconvenient to find a place to put the power supply - either the
leads are too short for it to go on the floor, or if they're long
enough to put the power supply anywhere, you have a bulk of leads to
deal with. Wall warts (plug-in transformer) often take up two outlet
spaces. They do fail, and they're rarely repairable. Some are easy to
replace, others require the genuine article if only for an oddball
connector. And few use locking connectors for the power supplies.

Mackie too the position early on that they weren't going to have
people dislike their mixers because the power supply was outboard.
There are enough other things to complain about (and to like). <g>

My take on the Onyx preamps is that the VLZ/Pro preamps weren't
brokent and Mackie didn't break them with the Onyx. The circuit is a
little different, but basically it sounds like any other uncolored
transformerless solid state mic preamp. The Onyx EQ is different from
previous Mackie EQ stages. The bypass is of course nice, and the bell
curves are wider which means it's harder to make something sound bad
by boosting too much. Overall, this is a good thing, I think. The
"calibration" isn't very good - the 2 kHz mark is more like 1.25 kHz -
but other than as a reference ON YOUR MIXER you shouldn't really
depend on these numbers. Just don't tell people, based on the knob
settings on your Onyx, that the "correct" EQ on a vocal is a boost at
around 6 kHz (because that's not what you're doing).

But the Onyx is a pretty big mixer, all of them. Improved as it is,
for what I use it for, I'm not ready to trade my 1402 VLZ Pro for an
Onyx that has either too many or too few mic inputs.



--
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
February 28, 2005 3:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:26:48 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Brian Downey wrote:
>
>> How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?
>
>Those are damn good sounding boards. Read what's being said about them
>over in r.a.m.p.s for live film sound work using the Firewire outputs in
>conjunction with various recorders. Better preamps, much better EQ,
>which can now be bypassed. Sonicly these are in a different class.

How about the summing for mixing down? Is it improved over the older
Mackies?

Al
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 5:52:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason wrote:

> I guess you got the lucky mackie
> my experiance with mackie is just horrible
> where as my experiance with behringer has been mostly positive
> I credit the external power supply for the reliability of the behringers
> and the internal power supply as the weak point to the mackies

I do understand you got a bad run of 1402's; but folks all around me
have been running those for _years_ without incident. Note that I am not
communicating negative experiencwe with the little Behringer mixers; I
don't often _have_ negative experiences with audio gear, and to a
certain extent I attribute that to getting the right tool at the right
price for the right job.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:05:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>
>>I guess you got the lucky mackie
>>my experiance with mackie is just horrible
>>where as my experiance with behringer has been mostly positive
>>I credit the external power supply for the reliability of the behringers
>>and the internal power supply as the weak point to the mackies
>
>
> I do understand you got a bad run of 1402's; but folks all around me
> have been running those for _years_ without incident. Note that I am not
> communicating negative experiencwe with the little Behringer mixers; I
> don't often _have_ negative experiences with audio gear, and to a
> certain extent I attribute that to getting the right tool at the right
> price for the right job.
>
> --
> ha

i do not believe it was a bad run
I , in my heart, belive it is a bad unreliable design.
the behringer simply have not failed, the nmackies did
I have owned enough of each for my experiance to be as valid as yours
I do not judge a product on one fail, as anything and everything fails
but for 6 units to all fail due to the same cause is simply a piss poor
product, IMO

George
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:05:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason <g.p.gleason@att.net> wrote:
>
>i do not believe it was a bad run
>I , in my heart, belive it is a bad unreliable design.
>the behringer simply have not failed, the nmackies did
>I have owned enough of each for my experiance to be as valid as yours
>I do not judge a product on one fail, as anything and everything fails
>but for 6 units to all fail due to the same cause is simply a piss poor
>product, IMO

No, that's a design error.

When six units fail from different causes, THAT is a piss poor product,
because that indicates there is more than one failure mode involved.

Mackie screwed up bigtime. I think they did a pretty good job of handling
the matter after they realized what had happened. If you don't, that's
your business but for the most part I was impressed at how they dealt with
things.

Everybody screws up sometimes. Some folks deal with it well, others don't.

That said, I have also heard very good things about Behringer's support
as well, though I haven't dealt with them.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:44:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason wrote:

> I , in my heart, belive it is a bad unreliable design.

Then I must resort to magic to explain the same units in other hands
working for years?

--
ha
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"Gene Sweeny" <goo1ween@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109565296.196709.288410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The way this operates seems pretty standard to me. The lack of a mute
> button is bothersome though I agree. However, even on boards that have
> a mute button, sometimes it only mutes the post fade signal. So they
> will mute the "FX" sends or post fade auxes and the mix send, but
> doesn't mute the pre fade sends for stage monitors. It's one of those
> things though... do you really need it? Honestly, on a smaller board,
> I can pull a fader down 10 times faster than I can hit a mute button.

A great plan batman but with two minor flaws.

First of all pulling down that fader still won't mute the prefade auxes.
Secondly and most importantly, pulling down that fader still won't mute the
prefade auxes. Now I know point one is technically the same as point two but
it was such an important point I thought it worth mentioning twice.

> Especially with fat fingers. LOL. Also, if you are mostly worried
> about completely muting the system, pull down the master faders. Gotta
> be faster than hitting a bunch of mute buttons. Just my opinion.

Hmmm, there's two major flaws with that plan as well.................. ;-)

Phildo
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:30:16 PM

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

In article <idv621p8rbpb2p0q08977jdjqt76mfjs1b@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> How about the summing for mixing down? Is it improved over the older
> Mackies?

I don't see much difference, but then I always set the channel levels
conservatively so I never had a problem with the summing bus
overloading. One of the misunderstandings (and it's no different on
the new Onyx series) is that 0 VU isn't +4 dBu (or -10 dBV) but rather
0 dBu. So people who set up their system by rote will run the output
4 dB hotter than it's supposed to run, and there will appear to be
less headroom than with a mixer that runs at a more conventional
operating level.

But I know that isn't going to convince anyone who already thinks
there's something wrong with the mixer. They can buy A&H or Behringer
instead.


--
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
February 28, 2005 9:32:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> George Gleason <g.p.gleason@att.net> wrote:
>
>>i do not believe it was a bad run
>>I , in my heart, belive it is a bad unreliable design.
>>the behringer simply have not failed, the nmackies did
>>I have owned enough of each for my experiance to be as valid as yours
>>I do not judge a product on one fail, as anything and everything fails
>>but for 6 units to all fail due to the same cause is simply a piss poor
>>product, IMO
>
>
> No, that's a design error.
>
> When six units fail from different causes, THAT is a piss poor product,
> because that indicates there is more than one failure mode involved.
>
> Mackie screwed up bigtime. I think they did a pretty good job of handling
> the matter after they realized what had happened. If you don't, that's
> your business but for the most part I was impressed at how they dealt with
> things.
>
> Everybody screws up sometimes. Some folks deal with it well, others don't.
>
> That said, I have also heard very good things about Behringer's support
> as well, though I haven't dealt with them.
> --scott
>

Scott what was the fix mackie did to eliminate the internal power supply
from cooking the filter caps?
I am not aware of one
not that it matters anymore because of the cost/utility ratios are way
tilted in behringers favor for the (live sound) jobs I do
The mackies cost 3x more so they need to go out 3x as often or5 rent for
3x as much to earn me the same return
George
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:32:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason <g.p.gleason@att.net> wrote:
>
>Scott what was the fix mackie did to eliminate the internal power supply
>from cooking the filter caps?
>I am not aware of one

They went to using different caps. To some extent that was a matter of
using a batch of caps that just weren't rated for the application. They
do at least learn from their mistakes which is more than I can say for
some other folks out there. Or they did, anyway. Since they have moved
a lot of production offshore, some of this may be changing soon.

>not that it matters anymore because of the cost/utility ratios are way
>tilted in behringers favor for the (live sound) jobs I do
>The mackies cost 3x more so they need to go out 3x as often or5 rent for
>3x as much to earn me the same return

Well, that's fine. Use the Behringer stuff, then. Frankly I'm not all
that impressed with either Mackie or Behringer gear from what I have
seen of both, but if it does the job and you get honest support, that's
fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:34:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>
>>I , in my heart, belive it is a bad unreliable design.
>
>
> Then I must resort to magic to explain the same units in other hands
> working for years?
>
> --
> ha

diffrent applications, I would bet in light duty indoor (AIR CONDITIONED
ROOMs)applications the mackies would not have failed
but they are not up to the rigors of live sound, outdoors, sun,
wind,dust,even rain
the behringers in the same applications have held up
G
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:53:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> George Gleason <g.p.gleason@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Scott what was the fix mackie did to eliminate the internal power supply
>
>>from cooking the filter caps?
>
>>I am not aware of one
>
>
> They went to using different caps. To some extent that was a matter of
> using a batch of caps that just weren't rated for the application. They
> do at least learn from their mistakes which is more than I can say for
> some other folks out there. Or they did, anyway. Since they have moved
> a lot of production offshore, some of this may be changing soon.
>
>
>>not that it matters anymore because of the cost/utility ratios are way
>>tilted in behringers favor for the (live sound) jobs I do
>>The mackies cost 3x more so they need to go out 3x as often or5 rent for
>>3x as much to earn me the same return
>
>
> Well, that's fine. Use the Behringer stuff, then. Frankly I'm not all
> that impressed with either Mackie or Behringer gear from what I have
> seen of both, but if it does the job and you get honest support, that's
> fine.
> --scott

the mackie was the low cost desk when I bought mine, behringer was not
on the scene yet


these are "bic" mixers I really don't expect more than 3 or 4 shows off
something like a 502
It has earned 2x its cost in one show
It is written off the minute I open the box

the mackies just cost too much to use in these applications
one just can not spend a pile of money to set a mic and cd mixer out for
a motorcycle race
I am giving them 16$ mics(cad 22a) as well
George
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:35:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

George Gleason wrote:

> I would bet in light duty indoor (AIR CONDITIONED
> ROOMs)applications the mackies would not have failed
> but they are not up to the rigors of live sound, outdoors, sun,
> wind,dust,even rain

You've just listed all the duty my Mackie 1202 has pulled and continues
to pull. Year after year.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:25:17 AM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> But I know that isn't going to convince anyone who already thinks
> there's something wrong with the mixer.

It's not necessarily a case of something being "wrong" with the mixer
per se, I just don't wanna deal with subtracting four dB from the meter
reading to figure out where I'm really at... waitaminnit, I mean *add*
four dB... or is it... jeekers, wtf can't they just set the freakin'
meter to the same scale as the rest of the world?!

Yeah, okay, there *IS* something "wrong" with it! <g>

Baby faders are stupid too.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:46:16 AM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <idv621p8rbpb2p0q08977jdjqt76mfjs1b@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>
>>How about the summing for mixing down? Is it improved over the older
>>Mackies?
>
>
> I don't see much difference, but then I always set the channel levels
> conservatively so I never had a problem with the summing bus
> overloading. One of the misunderstandings (and it's no different on
> the new Onyx series) is that 0 VU isn't +4 dBu (or -10 dBV) but rather
> 0 dBu. So people who set up their system by rote will run the output
> 4 dB hotter than it's supposed to run, and there will appear to be
> less headroom than with a mixer that runs at a more conventional
> operating level.
>
> But I know that isn't going to convince anyone who already thinks
> there's something wrong with the mixer. They can buy A&H or Behringer
> instead.
>
>
or Yamaha, soundcraft,ev,midas,harrison,peavy,samick,or any other desk
ever made
of course it is silly to fault mackie for making something completely
contrary to industry norms
hell I could even exchange the brake and accelerator pedals on a car if
I designed it
anyone who complained ought just learn MY freaking way of doing things!
g
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 7:31:25 AM

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

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

> It's not necessarily a case of something being "wrong" with the mixer
> per se, I just don't wanna deal with subtracting four dB from the meter
> reading to figure out where I'm really at... waitaminnit, I mean *add*
> four dB... or is it... jeekers, wtf can't they just set the freakin'
> meter to the same scale as the rest of the world?!

> Yeah, okay, there *IS* something "wrong" with it! <g>

It's pretty damned funny, isn't? They actually knew their market, and
knew that the "0 VU = +4 dB" action would be outlandishly confusing
(mainly because they hadn't yet discovered Mike Rivers to write their
manual), so they aligned those numbers in a completely confusing way for
those who know what's s'posed to be there. You were never their market>

> Baby faders are stupid too.

Agreed, but people want cheep. (I alreddy had the "e" and dint want 2
spring 4 an "a".)

--
ha
!