|previous by date||index||next by date|
>It seems to me that this "internal" switching stuff is just asking forThis idea came about after a lengthy (heated) debate over the development of
>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
>expecting the other 3 channels to suddenly route into the first mix. And
>it subtle enough, I'll sure as hell end up with a well-scratched head.
>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 positionNot a bad idea, but I seem to recall the output pots having friends in "high
>"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
>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
>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 accidentalBradley wanted a pot which retracted into the front panel when not in use. My
>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
>physical (sp?) switch than go crazy trying to figure out that strange