Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
  topic list  

Subject: Re: [motm] Mixer

From: jwbarlow@...
Date: 2000-03-17

In a message dated 3/16/2000 5:30:19 PM, PaulBr@... writes:

>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
>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.
> I'm
>a much bigger fan of the "external" switch idea. Try this on for size:

This idea came about after a lengthy (heated) debate over the development of
a MOTM mixer about a year ago -- the main problems being price/utility. If,
for example, you build a three input/one output (with a master volume) it'll
be at least $90 (and one mixer is not nearly enough). If you think of a
stereo mixer as being two mono mixers with common inputs you can see how this
idea started.

I have to admit, I agree with Larry that the output pots are the least useful
items of a modular mixer, and when this debate was raging, I suggested the
most simple 1U mixer (3 inputs, 2 input attenuators -- one at unity gain, and
one output) maybe the cheapest MOTM module available. But the 2U 6X1/3X2
mixer would be extremely versatile, and I think a lot of us on this list
could use a versatile mixer right now since there isn't a MOTM mixer
available yet.

>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
>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.

Not a bad idea, but I seem to recall the output pots having friends in "high
places" if you know what I mean. For a 2U panel, there are currently 8 pots
and 8 jacks and not a place for a switch anywhere -- that's when the idea of
the normalizing jack came into play.

>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
>physical (sp?) switch than go crazy trying to figure out that strange

Bradley wanted a pot which retracted into the front panel when not in use. My
apropos suggestion, given the vocal advocates of one or another of the
features, was a much more cost effective way, a sample of Moe Howard saying
"wrong knob, numbskull!" when no plug was inserted. But then again, I know
Crow doesn't like samplers.

PS, PaulBr, let me know what you're thinking about as far as mults -- I've
got as many useful ideas about mults as I did about the mixer! I liked the 16
holes with two ganging switches for either a 4X4 mult or up to a 2X8 mult.