Here's the tale of woe, in a nutshell:

* I needed an un-powered mixer to drive some SRM 350s for band
practices.

* I didn't care much about fancy effects, and anyway I already had an
old Quadraverb with which I can add some sweetness if I chose to. I
didn't expect to use enough reverb that the quality (or lack
thereof) of the Quadraverb would make any difference.

* I wanted good, clean sound at a low price.

I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
choice of one of the following options:

- Use the channel inserts for effects, meaning the Quadraverb can
work on just one mic... maybe 2 if you're not picky about signal
leakage across channels (but I am).

- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

- Feed the Quadraverb from the "Group 1-2" buss, in which case, to
turn off the mic completely you need to press both the channel's
big, lit "ST" button *and* its little unlit "Group 1-2" button, whose
state is hard to see.

So, here are my questions:

1. Is this an insane design choice for a general-purpose mixer, or
should I just get over my dissatisfaction?

2. If I decide to trade it in (the dealer very kindly agreed to a full
store credit), what should I get instead?

At the time of the purchase, I was very tempted by Mackie mixers like
the 1202 and 1604 VLZ for their high-quality mic preamps. I have a
shortage of good mic preamps for my very unambitious recording studio,
and thought they could do double-duty. But it was hard to justify the
Mackies' price (twice as much or more) on that basis. Now I've been
seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

For example, I could get the UB1222FX-PRO or UB1622FX-PRO Mixer for
the same price I paid for the Yamaha. Then I could get rid of the
Quadraverb, too. Would I be trading anything away?

BTW, I have no particular position or interest in the political/legal
debate about Behringer vs. Mackie

If you have any experience with these devices or other valuable
advice, I'd appreciate hearing it. Thanks in advance,

Dave

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

David Abrahams wrote:
I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
choice of one of the following options:

- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

Are you using the post fade aux send? (you would usually, for reverb)
If releasing the ST button doesnt kill the post-fader send, pulling the
channel fader certainly will.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

David Abrahams wrote:

Here's the tale of woe, in a nutshell:

* I needed an un-powered mixer to drive some SRM 350s for band
practices.

* I didn't care much about fancy effects, and anyway I already had an
old Quadraverb with which I can add some sweetness if I chose to. I
didn't expect to use enough reverb that the quality (or lack
thereof) of the Quadraverb would make any difference.

* I wanted good, clean sound at a low price.

I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
choice of one of the following options:

- Use the channel inserts for effects, meaning the Quadraverb can
work on just one mic... maybe 2 if you're not picky about signal
leakage across channels (but I am).

- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

- Feed the Quadraverb from the "Group 1-2" buss, in which case, to
turn off the mic completely you need to press both the channel's
big, lit "ST" button *and* its little unlit "Group 1-2" button, whose
state is hard to see.

Yamaha's web page says either of the AUX sends for a channel can
be post-fader. So, if your route effects through the AUX2 bus
into the Quadraverb, you could entirely shut off a mic by pulling
its fader down, because the fader will control the volume going
to the main stereo bus and the volume going to the AUX bus.
(I'm suggesting the AUX2 bus because the web page says the AUX1
bus is switchable between post- and pre-fader, and effects would
only need post-fader, so might as well reserve the flexibility
for some other purpose.)

Of course, if you do this, you would not be able to shut off the
signal without changing your fader setting (which is a nice thing
to be able to do to temporarily shut something off), but there
doesn't appear to be any way at all to do that on that mixer.

The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.

- Logan

anahata writes:

David Abrahams wrote:
I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
choice of one of the following options:
- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case,
to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

Are you using the post fade aux send? (you would usually, for reverb)
If releasing the ST button doesnt kill the post-fader send, pulling the
channel fader certainly will.

Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

.. Now I've been
seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

as others are addressing your other options
I doubt you will find anyone saying the behringers sound better
they sound very similar
but cost a whole lot less
George

David Abrahams wrote:
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

Er, no!
If that's the case it looks to me like a bad design decision by Yamaha.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

Logan Shaw writes:

David Abrahams wrote:

Here's the tale of woe, in a nutshell:

* I needed an un-powered mixer to drive some SRM 350s for band
practices.

* I didn't care much about fancy effects, and anyway I already had an
old Quadraverb with which I can add some sweetness if I chose to. I
didn't expect to use enough reverb that the quality (or lack
thereof) of the Quadraverb would make any difference.

* I wanted good, clean sound at a low price.

I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
choice of one of the following options:

- Use the channel inserts for effects, meaning the Quadraverb can
work on just one mic... maybe 2 if you're not picky about signal
leakage across channels (but I am).

- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

- Feed the Quadraverb from the "Group 1-2" buss, in which case, to
turn off the mic completely you need to press both the channel's
big, lit "ST" button *and* its little unlit "Group 1-2" button, whose
state is hard to see.

Yamaha's web page says either of the AUX sends for a channel can
be post-fader. So, if your route effects through the AUX2 bus
into the Quadraverb, you could entirely shut off a mic by pulling
its fader down, because the fader will control the volume going
to the main stereo bus and the volume going to the AUX bus.
(I'm suggesting the AUX2 bus because the web page says the AUX1
bus is switchable between post- and pre-fader, and effects would
only need post-fader, so might as well reserve the flexibility
for some other purpose.)

Of course, if you do this, you would not be able to shut off the
signal without changing your fader setting (which is a nice thing
to be able to do to temporarily shut something off), but there
doesn't appear to be any way at all to do that on that mixer.

Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.

The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.

Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
design. Is it useful the way it is?

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

David Abrahams wrote:
anahata writes:
David Abrahams wrote:

I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4.

- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

Are you using the post fade aux send? (you would usually, for reverb)
If releasing the ST button doesnt kill the post-fader send, pulling the
channel fader certainly will.

Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

The Yamaha web site doesn't give super clear information about what
does what, but it looks like each channel has a button to assign
that channel to the main stereo ("ST") bus and another button to
assign to the group stereo ("1-2") bus.

So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and everything
else straight to ST, you'd need that button so that vocal channels
don't go into ST (except indirectly via 1-2).

That is, unless pressing the 1-2 button for a channel automatically
turns off its output to the ST bus. But if that were the case, then
it would seem that the ST button has basically no purpose at all.

- Logan

George Gleason writes:

. Now I've been
seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

as others are addressing your other options
I doubt you will find anyone saying the behringers sound better
they sound very similar
but cost a whole lot less

Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important by
trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.


The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.


Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
design. Is it useful the way it is?


you ought ask Mackie
afaik they started two horrible trends
one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel
George

Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

-- yes

David Abrahams wrote:
George Gleason writes:


. Now I've been

seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

as others are addressing your other options
I doubt you will find anyone saying the behringers sound better
they sound very similar
but cost a whole lot less


Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important by
trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?


generally desks with built in fx
you lose the ability to modify the fx parameters
george

George Gleason writes:

Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.
The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.
Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
design. Is it useful the way it is?


you ought ask Mackie
afaik they started two horrible trends
one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel

So this is all Mackie's fault in the end, and Yamaha is
absolved... ;-)

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

George Gleason writes:

David Abrahams wrote:
George Gleason writes:

. Now I've been

seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

as others are addressing your other options
I doubt you will find anyone saying the behringers sound better
they sound very similar
but cost a whole lot less
Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important
by
trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?


generally desks with built in fx
you lose the ability to modify the fx parameters

Yeah, but as I said I don't care about the FX much anyway. I'd want
to turn them way down if they were used at all.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

but cost a whole lot less

Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important
by
trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?


generally desks with built in fx
you lose the ability to modify the fx parameters


Yeah, but as I said I don't care about the FX much anyway. I'd want
to turn them way down if they were used at all.


trying to remain brand neutral
as at the price point your shopping nothing is going to do everything
iif you want a desk that does what you want and so much more look at the
ddx3216 from behringer
at around 600$ it is the best value in desks under 1600$ as of today
george

Logan Shaw writes:

David Abrahams wrote:
anahata writes:

Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

The Yamaha web site doesn't give super clear information about what
does what, but it looks like each channel has a button to assign
that channel to the main stereo ("ST") bus and another button to
assign to the group stereo ("1-2") bus.

Yes. You can download the block diagram, which makes that pretty
clear.

So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and
everything else straight to ST,

Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.

Even if it could be useful in some cases, it seems likely that the
mixer would be *primarily* used for vocals. In that configuration,
the nice, big, lit ST switch becomes totally useless for the majority
of channels.

you'd need that button so that vocal
channels don't go into ST (except indirectly via 1-2).

That is, unless pressing the 1-2 button for a channel automatically
turns off its output to the ST bus. But if that were the case,

It ain't.

then it would seem that the ST button has basically no purpose at
all.

Okay, so we have one possible -- but not very convincing -- purpose.

Thanks for spending some of your valuable attention on this annoying
issue!

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

David Abrahams wrote:

Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

Sure, if you're using the auxes as monitor sends.

On big consoles the muting is usually configurable inside by moving
some jumpers around. I personally like it to mute the whole strip too.
But most small consoles don't do that.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

David Abrahams wrote:
Logan Shaw writes:

So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and
everything else straight to ST,

Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.

I could imagine using it even on small mixer. For example, you might
have an acoustic guitar with its internal pickup plus a condensor mic
in the front. You could put these two on different channels, use the
two faders to get the balance you want, and use the 1-2 bus to control
the overall volume of the guitar.

Granted, it's not a very likely scenario, but it's not TOTALLY pointless
to have the thing either. Still, I suspect that this feature was
included not because it's all that critically useful but because it's
become sort of a standard feature on mixers, so people expect it to
be there whether it's useful or not. It might have been a better
design if they'd nixed the 1-2 bus altogether, put in real channel
mute buttons, and added a third AUX bus.

- Logan

Logan Shaw wrote:

David Abrahams wrote:

Logan Shaw writes:


So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and
everything else straight to ST,


Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.


I could imagine using it even on small mixer. For example, you might
have an acoustic guitar with its internal pickup plus a condensor mic
in the front. You could put these two on different channels, use the
two faders to get the balance you want, and use the 1-2 bus to control
the overall volume of the guitar.

Granted, it's not a very likely scenario, but it's not TOTALLY pointless
to have the thing either. Still, I suspect that this feature was
included not because it's all that critically useful but because it's
become sort of a standard feature on mixers, so people expect it to
be there whether it's useful or not. It might have been a better
design if they'd nixed the 1-2 bus altogether, put in real channel
mute buttons, and added a third AUX bus.

A friend of mine recently bought a Yamaha that sounds like it might be
this model. The design works well in a studio application, which is
what he bought it for.

snip

I ended up buying a Yamaha MG12/4. I was very happy with what I had
until I decided to hook up the Quadraverb. It turns out you get a
choice of one of the following options:

- Use the channel inserts for effects, meaning the Quadraverb can
work on just one mic... maybe 2 if you're not picky about signal
leakage across channels (but I am).

- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

- Feed the Quadraverb from the "Group 1-2" buss, in which case, to
turn off the mic completely you need to press both the channel's
big, lit "ST" button *and* its little unlit "Group 1-2" button, whose
state is hard to see.

snip

Dave,
I am not a user of this mixer but I printed out the block diagram and have
the following to offer:

1. The ST switch is a switch to add/remove the signal from the ST bus.
2. The Group Switch set the signal to the group bus.
These are nothing more than bus assignment switches, not channel mute
switches.

I took a quick look at the Mackie 1604-VLZ Pro and I think it works the same
way. Post fader signals are sent to the Aux sends prior to bus assignment.
So, if you want to use the mackie and use the buss assignment switches in
the same way it looks as if you will be out of luck as well. You will
still have to use the fader to take the channel out.
Note that the preamp gain is still set prior to your fader so that you can
use the PFL (Solo/Rude Solo) functions of both mixers to audition the
channel prior to fade in.

That said, the Mackie does offer a mute switch that is prefader. This is
what you are looking for. While you might think you need it, you actually
may not. I generally wouldn't pop off the mute switch with the fader up and
signal present.... too obvious of an addition. If crap really goes wrong...
pulling the fader really isn't a bad solution.

Using the group buss may not get you what you are after... as there is no
separate fader for the amount of signal sent to the group bus from the ST
bus.

You could consider using the second set of ST outs(the 1/4" jacks) and run
the return to your stereo channel in/aux return. Then, when you disconnect
the channel from the ST bus you delete the effects signal as well. This
will only work if you want to add effects to the entire ST mix. This could
also be done with the group mix as a sub mix but, again, there is no
separate fader for the two busses. That is really why the aux send is the
best for the send to the FX. It gives you a separate control over each
signal sent to the aux mix.

The thing I really like about the mute/(on/off) functionality on a mixer is
that you can turn off the main mix between sets to keep those drunken "Mr.
Microphone" types from grabbing and singing. You mixer accomplishes this
well enough.

You just need to determine if the function you seek is really worth the
extra money. I will get shot for this.... but.... I like the Mackie setup
(I am under my desk now). My small Behringer mixer doesn't have the mute
switch and I don't really care all that much.

YMMV,
Sax

"David Abrahams" wrote in message
...
Logan Shaw writes:

David Abrahams wrote:
anahata writes:

Yes, it certainly will. But it seems wrong to have to change the
fader setting just to do that. What is the point of this ST button?
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

The Yamaha web site doesn't give super clear information about what
does what, but it looks like each channel has a button to assign
that channel to the main stereo ("ST") bus and another button to
assign to the group stereo ("1-2") bus.

Yes. You can download the block diagram, which makes that pretty
clear.


Most SR mixers you kill FOH by pulling the fader down .... Although the ST
button is poorly labelled (it should IMO not have 'ON' written on it as this
suggests it is a channel on switch) It is really only a Stereo output assign
switch NOT a channel on/off switch.

So if you were, say, running all vocal mics through 1-2 and
everything else straight to ST,

Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.

On a desk this size it probably is not much use however on larger Desks sub
groups can be very useful for grouping similar instruments (E.g Drums,
Vocals etc) together on a single fader which can then make mixing that much
easier .....

Even if it could be useful in some cases, it seems likely that the
mixer would be *primarily* used for vocals. In that configuration,
the nice, big, lit ST switch becomes totally useless for the majority
of channels.

you'd need that button so that vocal
channels don't go into ST (except indirectly via 1-2).

That is, unless pressing the 1-2 button for a channel automatically
turns off its output to the ST bus. But if that were the case,

It ain't.

then it would seem that the ST button has basically no purpose at
all.

Okay, so we have one possible -- but not very convincing -- purpose.

I think the logic is more along the lines of ' big desks have Subgroups why
not put them on little desks?' I tend to find a lot of the smaller Yamaha
Desks generally bizarre anyway such as at least one I can think of where PFL
does not switch to the level meter .....

snip


Now why would I want to do that? Just so I could control them all
with one group 1-2 slider? That's what the user manual suggests, but
it's hard to imagine how that could be extremely useful.

Snip

David,
Each mixer has some "logic" to it. (sometimes not, I suppose)
The idea behind the group bus is to give you a real sub mix bus. If you
look at the block diagram it allows you to make a fully independent mix and
output this to an amp or maybe FX. It also allows you to dump the sub mix
into the main mix (ST). It is switch assignable. You might want to, say,
mix all of your drum mike's together on the sub mix and send that to the
drummer's monitor. Or, use the mix (well balanced) and dump it into the
main mix with the use of the single group fader to control the "drum mix".
If you had to change 5 or 6 drum inputs simultaneously without upsetting the
fader to fader balance so that the main mix was what you wanted it would be
harder to do without the group (sub mix) bus.

That is just one way to think about it. I think your problem is that
you are trying to understand the mixer by looking through your application.
I would suggest that you understand the mixer first and then see how to
apply it to your application. It will be less frustrating.

-Sax

David Abrahams wrote:
George Gleason writes:

Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.
The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.
Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
design. Is it useful the way it is?


you ought ask Mackie
afaik they started two horrible trends
one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel

So this is all Mackie's fault in the end, and Yamaha is
absolved... ;-)

Different desks do different things. In this case, Yamaha is absolved--it
doesn't have a mute button--a useful feature if you want it. Your mistake
was in purchasing a mixer without one, and then using the assignment switch
'as' one.

That said, IMO Yamaha over the years has made some pretty unnecessarily
bizarre ergonomic 'big' mixer layouts: doing things like putting balance
controls at the top of the strip, input gain on the bottom...and otherwise
redesigning the almost the entire layout of the control surface. While all
of that might have worked well--had Yamaha been the first one to design a
mixer--they were totally upside down with respect to common practice.

They got better. With the PM 5k
http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/...s/PM5000E1.pdf series
they finally decided to go with the flow, putting most controls where
'everybody else' puts them...but those of us 'raised on' Soundcraft or
Midas, etc mixers always have to think twice when sitting down to a PM-(1 to
4)000 desk....

jak

jakdedert wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:

George Gleason writes:


Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.

The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.

Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
design. Is it useful the way it is?


you ought ask Mackie
afaik they started two horrible trends
one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel

So this is all Mackie's fault in the end, and Yamaha is
absolved... ;-)


Different desks do different things. In this case, Yamaha is absolved--it
doesn't have a mute button--a useful feature if you want it. Your mistake
was in purchasing a mixer without one, and then using the assignment switch
'as' one.

That said, IMO Yamaha over the years has made some pretty unnecessarily
bizarre ergonomic 'big' mixer layouts: doing things like putting balance
controls at the top of the strip, input gain on the bottom...and otherwise
redesigning the almost the entire layout of the control surface. While all
of that might have worked well--had Yamaha been the first one to design a
mixer--they were totally upside down with respect to common practice.


As I recall the PM1000 was one of the first production line SR consoles,
and at the time of the 2k there was a choice of Midas or Yamaha.
Some of those layouts were standard for other console manufacturers like
Neve at the time where the preamp and equaliser were in one module and
the routing was in another. They are not that bizarre, just unusual for
a n00b

Axle wrote:
jakdedert wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:

George Gleason writes:


Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because
it just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.

The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.

Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead?
It seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity
in the design. Is it useful the way it is?


you ought ask Mackie
afaik they started two horrible trends
one is mutes that don't mute the auxes
the other is somehow qualifying a 4 xlr input mixer as a 12 channel

So this is all Mackie's fault in the end, and Yamaha is
absolved... ;-)


Different desks do different things. In this case, Yamaha is
absolved--it doesn't have a mute button--a useful feature if you
want it. Your mistake was in purchasing a mixer without one, and
then using the assignment switch 'as' one.

That said, IMO Yamaha over the years has made some pretty
unnecessarily bizarre ergonomic 'big' mixer layouts: doing things
like putting balance controls at the top of the strip, input gain on
the bottom...and otherwise redesigning the almost the entire layout
of the control surface. While all of that might have worked
well--had Yamaha been the first one to design a mixer--they were
totally upside down with respect to common practice.


As I recall the PM1000 was one of the first production line SR
consoles, and at the time of the 2k there was a choice of Midas or
Yamaha.
Some of those layouts were standard for other console manufacturers
like Neve at the time where the preamp and equaliser were in one
module and the routing was in another. They are not that bizarre,
just unusual for a n00b

The 1k came out in '74, at which time I was a newbie, I suppose...OTOH, that
was over 30 years ago. Many in this biz (who themselves wouldn't qualify as
such) were yet to be born. I think I first mixed on one around '77, a year
before the introduction of the 2k...by which point Soundcraft (first live
console--Series 1--introduced in 1973) and several other manufacturers were
well established and had defined the layout of a channel strip pretty
definitively--with input gain at the top, balance and assignment directly
above or adjacent to the fader.

I suppose there's something to be said for the proposition that Yamaha
'might have' defined the original erg's, but evidence that they've been
doing it 'backwards' is that with the PM 5000, they pretty much bowed to
convention. Input gain is where it should (IMHO) be, and finally the
balance is directly above the fader.

I have a lot of respect for Yamaha as a company. They defined the
price-point for 'serious' live consoles in the mid-80's with the 3k.
Anything else with the features of that console, at that time were tens of
thousands more. The desks themselves have always done what they were
intended to do.

I suppose I mostly just grew up on Soundcraft equipment.

jak

"David Abrahams" wrote in message
...
If you have any experience with these devices or other valuable
advice, I'd appreciate hearing it.

If you want mute functionality, get a mixer with a mute button. The Mackie
mutes do mute any post-fader auxes, which would meet your stated need.
(Personally I agree with the other fellow who wished they also muted
pre-fade auxes; the Allen and Heath boards do that, and owning both I prefer
the A&H approach.)

Mute functionality is overrated in many circumstances, though. As someone
else said, you generally don't want to abruptly turn a channel on or off; it
sounds better to fade. "But," I hear you saying, "it's a hassle to try to
restore a bunch of faders to exactly where they were." Aha! You might be
doing something wrong. Try this: put your faders all at unity; now mix with
the trim knobs, until you've got the basic mix sounding good. Now, your
gain structure is better, your board sounds better, and as a side bonus it's
very easy to quickly fade and restore a channel.

On the topic of brands: I have worked with quite a few Mackie boards and
quite a few Behringer boards. Personally, I have found the Behringers to
suck by comparison: excessive channel-to-channel variation, a high rate of
failures in the field, and just plain muddy, murky, hard to control sound.
But of course you will also be able to find people who say the opposite.

What is the point of this ST button?
Can you conceive of a use for something that kills the signal to the
mains but *doesn't* kill the post-fader aux signal?

I have a theory on this....

I think Yamaha teases us by positioning, sizing, labeling the "ST"
button the way they do.
Normally:
1) The ST button would typically be the same small size as 1-2 button.
2) The ST button would also be right above or below the 1-2 button.
3) The ST button would called L-R instead of ST.

They just put a bigger LR button in a funny spot, with a funny name.

To me, the reason for the design is obvious. Understandably, many
beginners would not know how to use the sends. However, Yamaha wanted
to add the bus type features but were worried that people would not be
able to hear reasults coming from the main speakers right away if they
have these tiny send buttons. So they paint the word "ON" on the ST
button (1-2 send doesn say ON) so that the everyday person may be able
to hear some sounds without having to have knowledge how bus sends
work. I think its just a beginners interface. I would agree that it
seems like its a mute button, but the manual clearly says its not.

In less expensive boards, I noticed that group sends are the features
offered before a mute button. I haven't seen a board that has a mute
button
without group sends as well. But I have seen boards with group sends
that do not have mutes.

"David Abrahams" wrote in message
...
1. Is this an insane design choice for a general-purpose mixer, or
should I just get over my dissatisfaction?

It's a crap mixer.

2. If I decide to trade it in (the dealer very kindly agreed to a full
store credit), what should I get instead?

Behringer DDX3216.

At the time of the purchase, I was very tempted by Mackie mixers like
the 1202 and 1604 VLZ for their high-quality mic preamps. I have a
shortage of good mic preamps for my very unambitious recording studio,
and thought they could do double-duty. But it was hard to justify the
Mackies' price (twice as much or more) on that basis. Now I've been
seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

For example, I could get the UB1222FX-PRO or UB1622FX-PRO Mixer for
the same price I paid for the Yamaha. Then I could get rid of the
Quadraverb, too. Would I be trading anything away?

Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far less.

Phildo

"David Abrahams" wrote in message
...
Thanks. Any opinion on whether I'd be giving up anything important by
trading my Yamaha for, say, a UB1222FX-PRO?

You would be taking a step up IMO.

Phildo

How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?

"Phildo" wrote in message
...

"David Abrahams" wrote in message
...
1. Is this an insane design choice for a general-purpose mixer, or
should I just get over my dissatisfaction?

It's a crap mixer.

2. If I decide to trade it in (the dealer very kindly agreed to a full
store credit), what should I get instead?

Behringer DDX3216.

At the time of the purchase, I was very tempted by Mackie mixers like
the 1202 and 1604 VLZ for their high-quality mic preamps. I have a
shortage of good mic preamps for my very unambitious recording studio,
and thought they could do double-duty. But it was hard to justify the
Mackies' price (twice as much or more) on that basis. Now I've been
seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

For example, I could get the UB1222FX-PRO or UB1622FX-PRO Mixer for
the same price I paid for the Yamaha. Then I could get rid of the
Quadraverb, too. Would I be trading anything away?

Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far
less.

Phildo

"Brian Downey" wrote in message
m...
How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?

I've never seen or tried them but there have been some good things said
about them on here.

Phildo

Phildo wrote:

Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far less.

I have now installed several UB series Beri mixers. They are working
well. They are flimsier than my Mackie 1202 and I would not subject them
to the abuse the Mackie has taken. They also use a wallwart power supply
which is a pain in the ass for live, whereas the Mackie has a built-in
power supply. Doesn't make any difference in the install situations, but
is a convenience factor in portable live work.

I am quite happy with the Behringers for in the situations for which I
have spec'd them. That doesn't mean I feel I can spec them for
everything everywhere. YMMV & YNMJ

--
ha

Brian Downey wrote:

How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?

Those are damn good sounding boards. Read what's being said about them
over in r.a.m.p.s for live film sound work using the Firewire outputs in
conjunction with various recorders. Better preamps, much better EQ,
which can now be bypassed. Sonicly these are in a different class.

--
ha

Thanks for the info.

"Brian Downey" wrote in message
m...
How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?

"Phildo" wrote in message
...

"David Abrahams" wrote in message
...
1. Is this an insane design choice for a general-purpose mixer, or
should I just get over my dissatisfaction?

It's a crap mixer.

2. If I decide to trade it in (the dealer very kindly agreed to a full
store credit), what should I get instead?

Behringer DDX3216.

At the time of the purchase, I was very tempted by Mackie mixers like
the 1202 and 1604 VLZ for their high-quality mic preamps. I have a
shortage of good mic preamps for my very unambitious recording studio,
and thought they could do double-duty. But it was hard to justify the
Mackies' price (twice as much or more) on that basis. Now I've been
seeing comments in some newsgroups that the *very* cheap Behringer
mixers sound better than the Mackies anyway.

For example, I could get the UB1222FX-PRO or UB1622FX-PRO Mixer for
the same price I paid for the Yamaha. Then I could get rid of the
Quadraverb, too. Would I be trading anything away?

Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far
less.

Phildo

hank alrich wrote:
Phildo wrote:


Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far less.


the behringer sound about the same as the mackie
the behringers are much more rugged and reliable than the mackies
plus they cost much less
some small mackies do offer inserts that the behringers dont

On 2005-02-23 12:34:02 -0800, David Abrahams said:

- Feed the Quadraverb from one of the aux busses, in which case, to
turn off a mic completely you need to press the channel's big lit
"ST" button *and* turn down its aux send. If you forget turn down
the aux send you get pure reverb from that mic with no direct
signal.

This sounds like a prefader/preswitch aux send, which is generally used
only for stage monitors (aka foldback) use. The stage wedges get signal
whether you switch off the channel or not.

Have you tried a postfader aux send? This is the more usual way to do a
reverb send, so that, as you turn down the fader, the reverb send goes
down too.

--
- rick http://www.cfcl.com/~rick/
Rick Auricchio Acoustic Legacy Studios
....owner, engineer, solder jockey, caterer, janitor, session bassist.
Everyone has the right to be stupid; some just abuse the privilege.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:59:38 +0000, Brian Downey wrote:

How do the new Mackie Onyx series mixers (1210, 1620, 1640) compare?

The Onyx boards are an "almost there" concept board IMO. The improved EQ
is long overdue and some of the refinements are nice (rounded buttons for
mute/solo make make it easier to mute everything in a single finger
slide), however I haven't found enough of an improvement in the mic pres
to really flip over them. The built-in metering on each channel is a great
idea, but I would have loved to see them make it a longer gradation along
the fader or leave it as a single intensity-driven light (a la A&H). Also,
the faders themselves feel somewhat gritty to me when they slide. It was
nice that they finally moved the power cord to the back corner of the
1640, especially when the roto-pod is flipped up. The DI on the first two
channels are convenient, but fall in the "so what?" category for me. We
all probably already have a few extra DI boxes laying around and they
could have really outdone themselves by using that space to give the board
100mm faders.

The best improvement IMO are the two built-in dsub outs for all 16
channels on the 1620 and 1640.

- dsb


--
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural
deficiency in moral fibre, and that I an therefore excused from saving
Universes." -- Ford Prefect

George Gleason wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Phildo wrote:

Behringer analogue boards are better than the Mackie VLZs and cost far less.

the behringer sound about the same as the mackie
the behringers are much more rugged and reliable than the mackies
plus they cost much less
some small mackies do offer inserts that the behringers dont

I'm sorry, George, but in no way are any of the little UB's I've
installed as rugged as my 1202. They do sound fine for what I've spec'd
them, but they also aren't that well matched board to board. Again, this
is not a problem where I've put them. I like them very well for the
purpose.

--
ha

David Abrahams wrote:

Of course, if you do this, you would not be able to shut off the
signal without changing your fader setting (which is a nice thing
to be able to do to temporarily shut something off), but there
doesn't appear to be any way at all to do that on that mixer.

Yes, I left out the "pull the fader down to zero" bullet because it
just seemed so obvious that I shouldn't have to do that.

The best thing is to get a mixer with channel mutes, which stops
it from sending any signal to any bus (except the bus for PFL).
But, they can't put every feature in the world on a budget mixer.

Well sure. But why isn't the ST button a channel mute instead? It
seems like it would add roughly the same amount of complexity in the
design. Is it useful the way it is?

The way this operates seems pretty standard to me. The lack of a mute
button is bothersome though I agree. However, even on boards that have
a mute button, sometimes it only mutes the post fade signal. So they
will mute the "FX" sends or post fade auxes and the mix send, but
doesn't mute the pre fade sends for stage monitors. It's one of those
things though... do you really need it? Honestly, on a smaller board,
I can pull a fader down 10 times faster than I can hit a mute button.
Especially with fat fingers. LOL. Also, if you are mostly worried
about completely muting the system, pull down the master faders. Gotta
be faster than hitting a bunch of mute buttons. Just my opinion.

--
8k rules

"hank alrich" wrote:

[...] Sonicly these are in a different class.



Could be, but I *still* can't use a Mackie. Why on Earth did they fit
them with those ridiculous toy faders? Unfathomable. I just can't work
with minifaders.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)