[John Byrns]

I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².

Each input channel includes a microphone amplifier with the following
features:

Switchable 20 dB pad on input
Balanced transformer input
Switch selectable amplifier gain
Switchable low cut filter
Channel Fader
Pan Pot
Channel deselect switch

Each input channel contains 3 tubes/valves

Each output channel includes a Master Fader and uses 2 tubes/valves with
balanced transformer output

A stereo headphone amplifier with transformer output and gain control is
provided, using 4 tubes/valves

The mixer uses a total of 26 tubes/valves

The DC heater supply and the High Voltage supply are both regulated


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

John Byrns wrote:
I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².

Excellent. Care to post a schematic?

Cheers

Ian

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

..
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
John Byrns wrote:
I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².

Excellent. Care to post a schematic?

It might not be prudent for John to reveal his cards
at this early stage of the game..

There are others working on the same project.

Iain

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Iain Churches wrote:
.
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
John Byrns wrote:
I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².
Excellent. Care to post a schematic?

It might not be prudent for John to reveal his cards
at this early stage of the game..

There are others working on the same project.

Iain



Do I sense some competitive spirit around here??

Cheers

Ian

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
.
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
John Byrns wrote:
I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².
Excellent. Care to post a schematic?

It might not be prudent for John to reveal his cards
at this early stage of the game..

There are others working on the same project.

Iain

Do I sense some competitive spirit around here??

Yes of course. That's what makes it such fun:-)
You can be sure there are six or seven people soldering
up a prototype as we speak. I am one of them:-)

Iain

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
.
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
John Byrns wrote:
I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².
Excellent. Care to post a schematic?

It might not be prudent for John to reveal his cards
at this early stage of the game..

There are others working on the same project.

Iain
Do I sense some competitive spirit around here??

Yes of course. That's what makes it such fun:-)
You can be sure there are six or seven people soldering
up a prototype as we speak. I am one of them:-)

Iain



The one thing John did not mention in his spec was the mic pre gain (or
overall gain for that matter). What's yours?

I am surprised anyone is soldering up a prototype already. Good mixer
design is non-trivial, possibly even more so for an all tube design.


Cheers

Ian

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².

Excellent. Care to post a schematic?

There are a couple of problems with doing that right now. First my
scanner has been broken for some time and I either need to repair it, or
buy a new one. The repair should be simple if I can locate the required
material. The problem is that I left a stack of books piled on top of
the scanner for too long a time period, and this caused the thin double
sided tape that was used to attach the glass to loose its grip. To fix
it I would need to find some suitable thin double sided tape. I should
probably just bin it and buy a new one because it only interfaces with
my old computer anyway.

The second problem is that I took this design as a two-part problem, the
design of a microphone amplifier and the design of a mixer. I
concentrated on the design of the mixer section, only laying out a
concept for my own microphone amplifier design. From previous
discussions I had assumed that the idea was to paste in the schematic of
the end users favorite vintage tube microphone amplifier. I have had a
tube microphone amplifier module sitting on my desk next to my computer
for the last 8 years, so yesterday I decided to try interfacing that
with my mixer design. I immediately ran into a major problem using this
existing microphone amplifier design, and I realized that several other
existing microphone amplifier designs would also have similar problems.

As a result I am left without a suitable design for the microphone
amplifier section until I can complete my own design. I am left
agonizing over how to accomplish all my goals for the microphone
amplifier without having to make compromises that I would rather avoid.

I have also started thinking about packaging issues, which may lead to
some changes in the mixer section. I can't remember if the OP said
anything about his size and weight requirements?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

I concentrated on the design of the mixer section

Yes, that'll require a triode with AC coupled nfb from anode to grid to form
the virtual earth, the remainder being routine mix Rs, level controls etc.

That's hardly a DESIGN. It's a stock circuit.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

I concentrated on the design of the mixer section

Yes, that'll require a triode with AC coupled nfb from anode to grid to form
the virtual earth, the remainder being routine mix Rs, level controls etc.

There's also the buffers for the,the channel faders and pan pots, the
output amplifier, and a few other miscellaneous items.

That's hardly a DESIGN. It's a stock circuit.

Perhaps, isn't everything you design a stock circuit too, especially
with all those op-amps?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

I concentrated on the design of the mixer section

Yes, that'll require a triode with AC coupled nfb from anode to grid to form
the virtual earth, the remainder being routine mix Rs, level controls etc.

There's also the buffers for the,the channel faders and pan pots, the
output amplifier, and a few other miscellaneous items.

Are you claiming that you need to *design* a cathode follower for example ? Or
*design* a volume control ?

Incidentally, I have a buffer design that I reckon's the dog's doo-dahs and would
suit this down to the ground but it's not purist thermionics sadly. However its
transparency might just allow its use.


That's hardly a DESIGN. It's a stock circuit.

Perhaps, isn't everything you design a stock circuit too, especially
with all those op-amps?

Actually, the average mixer is mostly stock circuits. The skill is in assembling
them together to best and most efficient effect.

Then there are a few 'twiddly bits' where the designer's skill comes to the fore.
That's why there are differences.

Graham

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

I concentrated on the design of the mixer section

Yes, that'll require a triode with AC coupled nfb from anode to grid to form
the virtual earth, the remainder being routine mix Rs, level controls etc.

That's hardly a DESIGN. It's a stock circuit.

Graham


Hmmm, that assumes virtual earth mixing is the way to go for tubes. A
typical triode will have a stage gain of 20 maybe 30dB so the virtual
earth will not be that good (Rfb/30 maybe) and there's not really enough
gain to make up for mix losses. Also Rfb needs to be large enough not to
significantly load the anode, so we are talking 300K or so here which
means the mix resistors will be 100K for for 10dB gain make up.


If you want to stick with VE mixing then a tubed long tailed pair and
another triode will make a simple op amp like circuit where Rfb can be
much smaller and the open loop gain is much higher making a better VE.

Or simpler still just stick a CF on the end of the triode and feed its
cathode back to the grid via a lowish Rfb.

Cheers

Ian

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

I concentrated on the design of the mixer section

Yes, that'll require a triode with AC coupled nfb from anode to grid to form
the virtual earth, the remainder being routine mix Rs, level controls etc.

That's hardly a DESIGN. It's a stock circuit.


Hmmm, that assumes virtual earth mixing is the way to go for tubes. A
typical triode will have a stage gain of 20 maybe 30dB so the virtual
earth will not be that good (Rfb/30 maybe) and there's not really enough
gain to make up for mix losses.

Gain at the mix amp is invariably noisy. Placing 'gain in hand' would be best
after the fader and that's also best for low THD.


Also Rfb needs to be large enough not to
significantly load the anode, so we are talking 300K or so here which
means the mix resistors will be 100K for for 10dB gain make up.

Ahh... well my design with a buffered anode wouldn't have that restriction.


If you want to stick with VE mixing then a tubed long tailed pair and
another triode will make a simple op amp like circuit where Rfb can be
much smaller and the open loop gain is much higher making a better VE.

Or simpler still just stick a CF on the end of the triode and feed its
cathode back to the grid via a lowish Rfb.

That would be another way.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

I concentrated on the design of the mixer section

Yes, that'll require a triode with AC coupled nfb from anode to grid to form
the virtual earth, the remainder being routine mix Rs, level controls etc.

That's hardly a DESIGN. It's a stock circuit.

Graham


Hmmm, that assumes virtual earth mixing is the way to go for tubes. A
typical triode will have a stage gain of 20 maybe 30dB so the virtual
earth will not be that good (Rfb/30 maybe) and there's not really enough
gain to make up for mix losses. Also Rfb needs to be large enough not to
significantly load the anode, so we are talking 300K or so here which
means the mix resistors will be 100K for for 10dB gain make up.

I have at least for the moment dropped the idea of virtual earth mixing
from my design, however my original virtual earth design used a feedback
resistor around the tube providing the virtual earth function, equal in
value to the resistors used for each channels connection to the virtual
earth mix bus. Driving this relatively low value feedback resistor was
done by using the same buffer circuit, perhaps a CF, used in the channel
modules which have the same problem driving the mixing resistors. With
this scheme of equal value resistors the mixer circuit proper has a gain
of unity.

If you want to stick with VE mixing then a tubed long tailed pair and
another triode will make a simple op amp like circuit where Rfb can be
much smaller and the open loop gain is much higher making a better VE.

Or simpler still just stick a CF on the end of the triode and feed its
cathode back to the grid via a lowish Rfb.

That was essentially my original scheme, noting that the problem of
driving the feedback resistor is no worse than that of the individual
channels driving their mixing resistors.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

I have also started thinking about packaging issues

That's about the FIRST thing I considered. The actual circuitry is not really
very difficult although I'd like to add a couple of nice tweaks of my own
invention to provide low-output-Z buffering of the anodes, that'll serously
improve mix bus noise performance.

Graham

[Rudy]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
:
:
: John Byrns wrote:
:
: I have also started thinking about packaging issues
:
: That's about the FIRST thing I considered. The actual circuitry is not
really
: very difficult although I'd like to add a couple of nice tweaks of my own
: invention to provide low-output-Z buffering of the anodes, that'll
serously
: improve mix bus noise performance.
:
: Graham
:
Graham, that's amazing, you've been talking circuits & electronics
these past two weeks, surpassing your combined RAT history before
that ;-)
Don't tell us, it's like you're starting to fit in (niche's available
optionally.

Ok, if you say you've given packaging issues a thought,
what is your target heat load ? max weight ? size ?

Rudy

ps
did you have any luck getting EF804's, yet ?

[Eeyore]

Rudy wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
: John Byrns wrote:
:
: I have also started thinking about packaging issues
:
: That's about the FIRST thing I considered. The actual circuitry is not
: really very difficult although I'd like to add a couple of nice tweaks of
my own
: invention to provide low-output-Z buffering of the anodes, that'll
: serously: improve mix bus noise performance.
:
: Graham
:
Graham, that's amazing, you've been talking circuits & electronics
these past two weeks, surpassing your combined RAT history before
that ;-)
Don't tell us, it's like you're starting to fit in (niche's available
optionally.

My interest here has always been entirely genuine. However there are some with
such entrenched and unrealistic views concerning tubes/valves that 'arguments'
over how they actually *really * perform as opposed to mythical ideas about
them have tended to obscure that.

I have no illusion that the interesting colourations they can add are genuinely
musically useful. I do however have a real problem with those who believe that
this colouration is some kind of 'fidelity' though. It's NOT. It's an
'effect'. Using suitable 'effects' isn't a bad thing though.


Ok, if you say you've given packaging issues a thought,
what is your target heat load ? max weight ? size ?

I was considering construction and presentation issues primarily. I'm toying
with a 19" rack style idea (maybe 3 u) with plug-in cassettes.

The heat won't really be that bad. Each mic amp may need only a single dual
triode such as an ECC83 or ECC88 or perhaps a couple of pentodes like the EF86
or EF804. Weight will be minimal.

Graham

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².
Excellent. Care to post a schematic?

There are a couple of problems with doing that right now. First my
scanner has been broken for some time and I either need to repair it, or
buy a new one. The repair should be simple if I can locate the required
material. The problem is that I left a stack of books piled on top of
the scanner for too long a time period, and this caused the thin double
sided tape that was used to attach the glass to loose its grip. To fix
it I would need to find some suitable thin double sided tape. I should
probably just bin it and buy a new one because it only interfaces with
my old computer anyway.


Hope you get it fixed soon. I would love to see what you have come up
with. I notice your web page is mainly radio related - is that you main
tube interst?

The second problem is that I took this design as a two-part problem, the
design of a microphone amplifier and the design of a mixer. I
concentrated on the design of the mixer section, only laying out a
concept for my own microphone amplifier design. From previous
discussions I had assumed that the idea was to paste in the schematic of
the end users favorite vintage tube microphone amplifier. I have had a
tube microphone amplifier module sitting on my desk next to my computer
for the last 8 years, so yesterday I decided to try interfacing that
with my mixer design. I immediately ran into a major problem using this
existing microphone amplifier design, and I realized that several other
existing microphone amplifier designs would also have similar problems.


Welcome to the world of mixer design.

As a result I am left without a suitable design for the microphone
amplifier section until I can complete my own design. I am left
agonizing over how to accomplish all my goals for the microphone
amplifier without having to make compromises that I would rather avoid.


Welcome to the world of mixer design.

I have also started thinking about packaging issues, which may lead to
some changes in the mixer section. I can't remember if the OP said
anything about his size and weight requirements?


This is important not only from an aethestics point of view but also
from an electronic performance one too.

Good Luck

Ian

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
John Byrns wrote:

I have also started thinking about packaging issues, which may lead to
some changes in the mixer section. I can't remember if the OP said
anything about his size and weight requirements?


This is important not only from an aethestics point of view but also from
an electronic performance one too.



Wasn't it Graham who mentioned the possibility of a
3U 19 inch rack mounted construction with plug in,
modular channels? This might be a very good format.
The psu could then be in its own chassis.

A mixer does not necessarily have to have a horizontal
operational surface, particularly if rotary faders are chosen.


Iain

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
John Byrns wrote:

I have also started thinking about packaging issues, which may lead to
some changes in the mixer section. I can't remember if the OP said
anything about his size and weight requirements?


This is important not only from an aethestics point of view but also from
an electronic performance one too.



Wasn't it Graham who mentioned the possibility of a
3U 19 inch rack mounted construction with plug in,
modular channels? This might be a very good format.
The psu could then be in its own chassis.

A mixer does not necessarily have to have a horizontal
operational surface, particularly if rotary faders are chosen.



How are you going to get the channel faders to fit in this space or were
you thinking of rotary controls?

Cheers

Ian

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².
Excellent. Care to post a schematic?

There are a couple of problems with doing that right now. First my
scanner has been broken for some time and I either need to repair it, or
buy a new one. The repair should be simple if I can locate the required
material. The problem is that I left a stack of books piled on top of
the scanner for too long a time period, and this caused the thin double
sided tape that was used to attach the glass to loose its grip. To fix
it I would need to find some suitable thin double sided tape. I should
probably just bin it and buy a new one because it only interfaces with
my old computer anyway.

Hope you get it fixed soon.

It is more likely headed for the trash bin, to be replaced by a new one
thereby eliminating the hassle of getting out my old computer to run it.

I would love to see what you have come up
with. I notice your web page is mainly radio related - is that you main
tube interst?

Yes, early in my life I worked for a while in broadcasting, so I have a
fondness for radio related stuff.


Regards,

John Byrns





The second problem is that I took this design as a two-part problem, the
design of a microphone amplifier and the design of a mixer. I
concentrated on the design of the mixer section, only laying out a
concept for my own microphone amplifier design. From previous
discussions I had assumed that the idea was to paste in the schematic of
the end users favorite vintage tube microphone amplifier. I have had a
tube microphone amplifier module sitting on my desk next to my computer
for the last 8 years, so yesterday I decided to try interfacing that
with my mixer design. I immediately ran into a major problem using this
existing microphone amplifier design, and I realized that several other
existing microphone amplifier designs would also have similar problems.


Welcome to the world of mixer design.

As a result I am left without a suitable design for the microphone
amplifier section until I can complete my own design. I am left
agonizing over how to accomplish all my goals for the microphone
amplifier without having to make compromises that I would rather avoid.


Welcome to the world of mixer design.

I have also started thinking about packaging issues, which may lead to
some changes in the mixer section. I can't remember if the OP said
anything about his size and weight requirements?


This is important not only from an aethestics point of view but also
from an electronic performance one too.

Good Luck

Ian

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[robert casey]

It is more likely headed for the trash bin, to be replaced by a new one
thereby eliminating the hassle of getting out my old computer to run it.


Before such things get tossed, I usually take it apart to salvage any
usable parts, line cords, circuit boards bearing a few discrete parts
like caps, resistors, transistors (heresy in this NG), and the metric
screws and nuts (hard to come by in American hardware stores). This is
an old tradition in ham radio, the "junk box"... Other bits of it end
up in the recycling can, with the beer cans and plastic or glass bottles
and packaging.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².

Each input channel includes a microphone amplifier with the following
features:

Switchable 20 dB pad on input
Balanced transformer input
Switch selectable amplifier gain
Switchable low cut filter
Channel Fader
Pan Pot
Channel deselect switch

Each input channel contains 3 tubes/valves

Each output channel includes a Master Fader and uses 2 tubes/valves with
balanced transformer output

A stereo headphone amplifier with transformer output and gain control is
provided, using 4 tubes/valves

The mixer uses a total of 26 tubes/valves

The DC heater supply and the High Voltage supply are both regulated


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Excellent John.

How is the monitoring handled?
Do you have pre and post fade insert points? These
are vital if the user wants to patch in an aux equaliser.

Iain

[John Byrns]

In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

I have completed a preliminary design for a 6-in 2-out microphone mixer
similar to the one requested by ³Tynan².

Each input channel includes a microphone amplifier with the following
features:

Switchable 20 dB pad on input
Balanced transformer input
Switch selectable amplifier gain
Switchable low cut filter
Channel Fader
Pan Pot
Channel deselect switch

Each input channel contains 3 tubes/valves

Each output channel includes a Master Fader and uses 2 tubes/valves with
balanced transformer output

A stereo headphone amplifier with transformer output and gain control is
provided, using 4 tubes/valves

The mixer uses a total of 26 tubes/valves

The DC heater supply and the High Voltage supply are both regulated

Excellent John.

How is the monitoring handled?

I simply have a stereo headphone amplifier with an additional gain
control connected to the output of the line amplifier, I thought this
was all the OP wanted? If it was up to me I would include an additional
stereo monitor bus with provisions for connecting the output of any
input channel to monitor bus, as well as the ability to connect the
output of the mixer, this would add complexity though.

Do you have pre and post fade insert points? These
are vital if the user wants to patch in an aux equaliser.

There are no insert points at all in my mixer design, I didn't think the
OP wanted those sorts of complications?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote:

How is the monitoring handled?

I simply have a stereo headphone amplifier with an additional gain
control connected to the output of the line amplifier

And a SET stage here will mean the what the operator is monitoring IS NOT the
same signal as going to the recording equipment. As such it won't even be worth
the name as a 'monitor'.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote:

How is the monitoring handled?

I simply have a stereo headphone amplifier with an additional gain
control connected to the output of the line amplifier

And a SET stage here will mean the what the operator is monitoring IS NOT the
same signal as going to the recording equipment. As such it won't even be
worth
the name as a 'monitor'.

Both the line amplifier and the headphone amplifier are push pull
circuits. The microphone amplifiers are "SE", as 6 push pull microphone
amplifiers seemed a bit much for a portable mixer.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Both the line amplifier and the headphone amplifier are push pull
circuits.

What on earth for ? Do you LIKE crossover distortion ?

Graham

[Ian Iveson]

John wrote:

...
Both the line amplifier and the headphone amplifier are
push pull
circuits. The microphone amplifiers are "SE", as 6 push
pull microphone
amplifiers seemed a bit much for a portable mixer.
...

For what reasons do you perceive PP to be preferable in this
application?

In particular, why, after converting from balanced to SE,
you decided on PP for the output stages?

I have been dipping into the thread occasionally hoping to
find the bit where voicing is discussed. I wonder by what
process an agreement about desired quality of sound can be
reached remotely with a prospective end user who wants
"something special"

Anyway, I'm impressed with your simple approach, and the way
you have stuck to the brief without contracting Recalcitrant
Engineers' Syndrome. Perhaps your experience of designing
valve circuits has made you more wary of added complexity.

Ian (wondering in passing what a pad is...but don't worry,
I'll look it up)

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...


Excellent John.

How is the monitoring handled?

I simply have a stereo headphone amplifier with an additional gain
control connected to the output of the line amplifier, I thought this
was all the OP wanted?

I wonder if this will be sufficient, although an addition buss does
add to the complexity.

Do you have pre and post fade insert points? These
are vital if the user wants to patch in an aux equaliser.

There are no insert points at all in my mixer design, I didn't think the
OP wanted those sorts of complications?

I was just thinking ahead. He may not want them now, but
experience tells me that it will not be long before he wants
to patch some extermal EQ or processor (even a simple limiter)
into a single channel or across the output mix buss.

A simple mixer, if it is to be of any practical use, is not
actually terribly simple.

Iain

[Tynan AgviÐr]

"Iain Churches" wrote in news:hZijj.281635$sV4.19102
@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi:

I was just thinking ahead. He may not want them now, but
experience tells me that it will not be long before he wants
to patch some extermal EQ or processor (even a simple limiter)
into a single channel or across the output mix buss.

A simple mixer, if it is to be of any practical use, is not
actually terribly simple.

Iain



I never use these things, and dont ever see myself using them. Perhaps if I
were working in the studio realm in "secular" music, but I work with
acoustic based(Chamber Jazz, String/Woodwind quartets, Appalachian Folk,
Bluegrass, acapella vocal stuff, choral) music exclusively and my studio is
the concert venue. I like things to be as simple as humanly possible for
myriad reasons, the largest of which being that it always sounds better..

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
"Iain Churches" wrote in news:hZijj.281635$sV4.19102
@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi:

I was just thinking ahead. He may not want them now, but
experience tells me that it will not be long before he wants
to patch some extermal EQ or processor (even a simple limiter)
into a single channel or across the output mix buss.

A simple mixer, if it is to be of any practical use, is not
actually terribly simple.

I never use these things, and dont ever see myself using them. Perhaps if
I
were working in the studio realm in "secular" music, but I work with
acoustic based(Chamber Jazz, String/Woodwind quartets, Appalachian Folk,
Bluegrass, acapella vocal stuff, choral) music exclusively and my studio
is
the concert venue.


You have an interesting range of recording repertoi-)
Mine is restricted to only two of these, classical
(mainly baroque) ensembles and jazz. For the latter,
I would not even consider a console without
good EQ and a gentle compressor or two.

For Bluegrass, I think I would want the full Neve
and all the bells and whistles it can offer:-)

It may well be that something you consider
inessential now, will prove to be of vital importance
just a little way down the road. If you are going to
the time and expense of having a mixer custom
built, plan it very very carefully.

I like things to be as simple as humanly
possible for myriad reasons, the largest of
which being that it always sounds better..

That's why I suggested pre and post insert point.
You then have simple straight path when no
outboard units are connected.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
"Iain Churches" wrote in news:hZijj.281635$sV4.19102
@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi:

I was just thinking ahead. He may not want them now, but
experience tells me that it will not be long before he wants
to patch some extermal EQ or processor (even a simple limiter)
into a single channel or across the output mix buss.

A simple mixer, if it is to be of any practical use, is not
actually terribly simple.

I never use these things, and dont ever see myself using them. Perhaps if
I
were working in the studio realm in "secular" music, but I work with
acoustic based(Chamber Jazz, String/Woodwind quartets, Appalachian Folk,
Bluegrass, acapella vocal stuff, choral) music exclusively and my studio
is
the concert venue.


You have an interesting range of recording repertoire.
Mine is restricted to only two of these, classical
(mainly baroque) ensembles and jazz. For the latter,
I would not even consider a console without
good EQ and a gentle compressor or two.

For Bluegrass, I think I would want the full Neve
and all the bells and whistles it can offer:-)

It may well be that something you consider
inessential now, will prove to be of vital importance
just a little way down the road. If you are going to
the time and expense of having a mixer custom
built, plan it very very carefully.

I like things to be as simple as humanly
possible for myriad reasons, the largest of
which being that it always sounds better..

That's why I suggested pre and post insert point.
You then have simple straight path when no
outboard units are connected.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
"Iain Churches" wrote in news:hZijj.281635$sV4.19102
@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi:

I was just thinking ahead. He may not want them now, but
experience tells me that it will not be long before he wants
to patch some extermal EQ or processor (even a simple limiter)
into a single channel or across the output mix buss.

A simple mixer, if it is to be of any practical use, is not
actually terribly simple.

I never use these things, and dont ever see myself using them. Perhaps if
I
were working in the studio realm in "secular" music, but I work with
acoustic based(Chamber Jazz, String/Woodwind quartets, Appalachian Folk,
Bluegrass, acapella vocal stuff, choral) music exclusively and my studio
is
the concert venue.


You have an interesting range of recording repertoi-)
Mine is restricted to only two of these, classical
(mainly baroque) ensembles and jazz. For the latter,
I would not even consider a console without
good EQ and a gentle compressor or two.

For Bluegrass, I think I would want the full Neve
and all the bells and whistles it can offer:-)

It may well be that something you consider
inessential now, will prove to be of vital importance
just a little way down the road. If you are going to
the time and expense of having a mixer custom
built, plan it very very carefully.

I like things to be as simple as humanly
possible for myriad reasons, the largest of
which being that it always sounds better..

That's why I suggested pre and post insert point.
You then have simple straight path when no
outboard units are connected.

Iain