Trevor wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
nvalid.invalid...
wrote:
[...]
So I'd appreciate any insights anyone may have on what is out there, and
who uses these 8 input devices and is there some trick that I'm missing
with respect to the monitoring? Because I find it hard to believe that
there are so many devices out there following the same (imo) flawed
formula.
If you only require a lot of inputs for one particular task and don't
need the flexibility of a comprehensive mixer, you might consider
sub-grouping the inputs with a few small cheap 4 into 1 mixers.
The drum mics could then be combined on the sub-mixer and fed into one
port of the main mixer. Likewise, the vocals could be grouped in a
similar way. This makes for much easier mixing in some circumstances;
each sub-group is balanced within itself and that internal balance is
preserved when you come to balance one group against another on the main
mixer. (Beware of unexpected solos or attempts at impromptu
announcements on one of the grouped mics, an independent mic should be
kept on hand for that eventuality.)
There are several practical ways to achieve this:
If all the mics in a sub-group are identical, you can use a passive
mixer (if you really want the cheapest, you can make one yourself for
the cost of a few pots and sockets mounted in a tin box). There is an
art to using a passive mixer, because changing one input level will
slightly affect all the others; but once learned, it becomes second
nature to make the necessary compensation without having to think too
hard about it. A simple passive mixer does not work with phantom power
and there is a penalty in the signal-to-noise ratio.
You can buy a small mic mixer and feed the whole lot into the main mixer
at a mic input level. This is easier to set up in a panic, because all
the main input signal levels and interconnecting cables are the same.
There is, again, a slight S/N ratio penalty, but not as much as with the
passive mixer.
You can buy a small mixer with line level output and feed this into the
main mixer at line level. This will give the best quality, but in the
fraught circumstances of a quick set-up, it is easy to get in a muddle
over which inputs are which levels. Swap inputs to the wrong channel
and you will either be left with silence or damaged eardrums.
Given that most larger mixers have a number of sub groups available for just
that purpose, without all the level matching and patching problems, the only
benefit of using cascaded smaller mixers IMO is if physical placement is an
issue. Or you already have them, and not a larger one that will do the job
properly.
That was the point I was hoping I'd made. If the O/P has 8 channels and
only occasionally needs more, a couple of cheap sub-mixers with limited
facilities can be brought into play when they are needed. The rest of
the time he won't have to cart around an oversized and more expensive
mixing desk with all the bells and whistles he doesn't need.
My first passive sub-mixer was a bread-baking tin from Woolworths with
four pots stuck through holes that I punched in it with the kitchen
scissors. More than 25 years after I made it, it was still being
pressed into service on the odd occasion when I ran out of channels.
That is hard to beat in terms of value for money.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk