Har! Round Three of the Mixer Wars erupts again! I posted both panel
designs to start a discussion, in part because some of the newer list
members are complaining about all the off topic posts, and we haven't
had a design brawl in awhile. So if you're a list old-timer and are
tired of all this, blame me.
Be aware - adding a second switch ups the module cost $5 - $10. Still
want it?
Moe
Dave's Hot Rod MOTM Shop
http://www.users.qwest.net/~daveb2 --- In motm@y..., "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@i...> wrote:
> I have to disagree with the prevailing opinion here. The jack
switching is
> more efficient in that you do not need an external switch and you
leave the
> panel space open for other things. What is it that the external
switch gets
> you? Nothing I can see.
>
> with only one output connected, it is a 6 to 1 mixer. With both
jacked, it
> is a 3 to 1 mixer times 2. What could be any more simple than
that. I have
> a DIY mixer built like that except it is either 4 to 1 or 2 to 1
times 2
> with dedicated bias and LEDs on each 1/2. when you plug in the
second
> output, it splits the mixer, that simple. I also added 2 LEDs that
indicate
> whether the mixer is in 4 to 1 or 2 to 1 x 2 mode. However, I have
found
> that the LEDs are just not needed.
>
> So, I think Paul's concept of a switching jack is still best, but I
think
> the "switch jack" should be the second output not the first.
Think about
> it -- one output plug and it is 6 to 1 -- two output plugs and it
> automatically splits off 3 of the inputs to the second output.
Highly
> intuitive.
> Larry H
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Hylander <david@h...>
> To: <motm@y...>
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 1:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Mixer design as of now
>
>
> I like the dedicated mode switch on mixer2.
>
> dave