Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
  topic list  

Subject: FW: [motm] Mixer - WAS: EMS Vocoder...

From: "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <PaulBr@...>
Date: 2000-03-17

(Appologies if this messages comes across twice. I sent it earlier this
morning, but I haven't seen it show up in the list yet. And onelist is
typically very quick to post messages.)


> (Warning: This reply is made without reading all the new messages yet!
> Further, I am not yet coherent this morning! Observe caution!)
> It seems to me that this "internal" switching stuff is just asking for
> confusion. I mean, if I want two 3x1 mixers, that's what I want to plug
> into. If I unjack the out of the 2nd mixer for a moment, I surely won't
> be expecting the other 3 channels to suddenly route into the first mix.
> And if it subtle enough, I'll sure as hell end up with a well-scratched
> head. I'm a much bigger fan of the "external" switch idea. Try this on
> for size:
> You have 6 inputs, 2 outputs, and a switch. When the switch is in
> position "A", you have a 6x1 mixer, with the 2nd output being the same as
> the first. This might be useful for, say, sending to two destinations w/o
> using a multi. OK, that's not much of a bonus, exactly, but its better
> than having the 2nd output just mute. When the switch is in position "B",
> you have two seperate 3x1 mixers, completely independant. I don't know
> about the master control, but your idea would likely fit well. In
> essance, we're thinking of the same thing, the switch is just moved from
> being toggled by the presence of a jack to a mounte switch.
> You might argue that internal switching will lead to greater accidental
> discoveries, and that's a possible point. However, I am quite prone to
> flipping switches and rotating knobs, so personally I'd much rather flip a
> physical (sp?) switch than go crazy trying to figure out that strange
> "bleedover".
> --PBr
> -----Original Message-----
> From:J. Larry Hendry [SMTP:jlarryh@...]
> Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2000 5:43 AM
> Subject:[motm] Mixer - WAS: EMS Vocoder...
> The "other" mixer that was not discussed much was a 6 in 2 out mixer that
> could be configured 3 into 2 or 6 into 1. Recent experience with another
> brand of mixer has suggested to me that master volume is not a required
> feature for all mixer functions.
> So since you borough it up. How about this as flame bait to the mixer
> discussion started again? .....
> 6 in 2 out, 1 master control. When only one output is plugged in, you
> have
> 6 X 1 with master, when you jack into the 2nd output, you end up with a
> 3x1 with a master and a separate 3x1 without a master (the one you just
> jacked into being without master).