[Phildo]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...
you can not increase the s/n by adding noise.

So why are you advocating running all channels at their clip point?

He isn't. Please learn to read English.

Phildo

[Phildo]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
and what did I say
tur it up until it blinks then turn it back so it wont
this is how its done when a clip light is your only meter

Which is why that is not the best metering option!

But according to Arny 95% of mixing desks only have that if any metering at
all.

Phildo

[Phildo]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

wrote in message
...
we have to establish what exactly you uderstand

At least we already know what you understand, nothing :-)

OK, I now understand that Mr T actually stands for Mr Troll.

Into the killfile with you ****wit.

George, I suggest you do the same. He isn't worthy of your time.

Phildo

[Arny Krueger]

"Phildo" wrote in message

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...
The real world of audio often uses mixers with proper
metering. I can't say I've ever seen a real studio mixer without a
metering bridge!

Strange, Arny claims that 95% of desks don't have
metering. Go figure.

Typical of Phildo's confusion with simple facts.

T talks about "real studio mixer", of which only a tiny percentage of all
mixers are.

Phildo refers my comments, which was based on a percentage of all mixers,
professional grade and not, including those jillions of very small mixers
that one sees all over the place.

The only conflct is in Phildo's mind!

[Phildo]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Phildo" wrote in message
...
How many times do you have to have the reasons for Behringer's
decision
explained to you before it penetrates your thick skull?

I know what their policy is,

Sure doesn't look that way from what you are posting. You keep saying
that
it is all a lie

Bull****! All I said was the excuses for that policy are just pathetic
spin.

No, they are valid reasons.

Prove they are NOT, or simply accept they simply do what they want, and
can
get away with.

You are the one making the claims that they are not being honest. YOU prove
it.

I did years ago!

Male Bovine Excrement.

and not believing what you are told so one can only assume
you can't get your head round the concept.

That's the trouble when you ASSume something.

Well you have given us plenty of evidence that is the case. We only have
your words to go on and all they tell us is that YOU are the ass here.

I DO NOT have to agree with it just because you
do.

So? You may not like it but it is not your decision to make.

Did someone say it was?

Yes, you did.

Phildo

[Phildo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Actually, George is effectively advocating running channels at well above
their clip point.

Yet again you show your complete lack of live sound experience and talk
crap.

If you study the clipping indicators on low and mid-priced equipment, they
respond to instantaneous overages, and don't have pulse-stretching circuits
that enhance the visibility of clipping. If you measure distortion and
examine the clipping indicator at the same time, there will be relatively
large amounts of distortion before the clip light glows even faintly.

********.

There is a semi-reasonable way to use clipping indicator to set levels,
which is to use a calibrated gain control to bring the levels up to the
point where clipping is indicated, and then back off the gain a certain
number of dB into a presumably safe area. Exactly what back-off to use
depends on how the equipment's clipping indicator works, which can be
determined from experience, careful listening, and measuring.

Which is EXACTLY what George said.

George and Phildo like to rant and rave very disapprovingly about my use
of multichannel recordings of live recordings to evaluate system
performance.

Stop twisting things Arnold. You stated that you use it to try to fix
feedback ready for the next week's service by which time a lot of things
that caused the feedback will have changed. As usual you were talking crap.

Phildo

[Ron(UK)]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Phildo" wrote in message

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...
The real world of audio often uses mixers with proper
metering. I can't say I've ever seen a real studio mixer without a
metering bridge!
Strange, Arny claims that 95% of desks don't have
metering. Go figure.

Typical of Phildo's confusion with simple facts.

T talks about "real studio mixer", of which only a tiny percentage of all
mixers are.

Phildo refers my comments, which was based on a percentage of all mixers,
professional grade and not, including those jillions of very small mixers
that one sees all over the place.

The only conflct is in Phildo's mind!


This argument is getting sillier by the day

[Arny Krueger]

"Ron(UK)" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Phildo" wrote in message

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...
The real world of audio often uses mixers with proper
metering. I can't say I've ever seen a real studio
mixer without a metering bridge!
Strange, Arny claims that 95% of desks don't have
metering. Go figure.

Typical of Phildo's confusion with simple facts.

T talks about "real studio mixer", of which only a tiny
percentage of all mixers are.

Phildo refers my comments, which was based on a
percentage of all mixers, professional grade and not, including those
jillions of very small mixers that one
sees all over the place. The only conflct is in Phildo's mind!


This argument is getting sillier by the day

Agreed, but Phildo keeps bringing it up.

[Mickey]

On 2007-09-30, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
You will notice that every neighborhood used to have a corner TV repair
shop, and now they are almost completely gone? Consumer electronics is
so cheap that it is not cost-effective to repair.

There's no reason it should be. I see nothing on the Behringer site
that suggets it is intended to be thrown away after say 3 years.

This is the basic lifetime expected of TV sets and VCRs. This is considered
to be about the average life of a consumer electronics product.

I don't know where you have been buying TVs, but their lifetime is 20 years
and more, routinely demonstrated in real life. VCRs maybe less because of
dust/cleanliness issues, but they certainly last more than three years.

Since people regularly want to upgrade to get new features, it's not
considered important to extend the lifetime greatly beyond that point.

This is the way cheap consumer electronics are. If you don't like it,
don't buy it.

I like it. It makes sense for me, except for things that I am going to
be relying on on a daily basis. Even then it might make sense if I can
afford to inventory a hot spare.

The percentage of DOAs for electronic gear keeps dropping along with
the price. Go figure.

--
Mickey

Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous

[Mike Marlow]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Agreed, but Phildo keeps bringing it up.


'Cause he did it first mommy. Ya know what Arny - the difference is that
Phildo makes no pretenses about what kind of asshole he is. The two of you
are a comedy in motion in this group but you seem to lack the awareness of
your contribution.

--

-Mike-

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Agreed, but Phildo keeps bringing it up.


'Cause he did it first mommy. Ya know what Arny - the
difference is that Phildo makes no pretenses about what
kind of asshole he is. The two of you are a comedy in
motion in this group but you seem to lack the awareness
of your contribution.

I'd like to see how you'd be about it if Phildo harassed you the same way.

[Eeyore]

Phildo wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote

you can not increase the s/n by adding noise.

So why are you advocating running all channels at their clip point?

He isn't.

Indeed. We shouldn't misrepresent what George said. George is merely advocating
operating all the channels at 'near' to their clip point. It IS as stupid as Mr
T suggests though.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Phildo" wrote
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote

The real world of audio often uses mixers with proper
metering. I can't say I've ever seen a real studio mixer without a
metering bridge!

Strange, Arny claims that 95% of desks don't have
metering. Go figure.

Typical of Phildo's confusion with simple facts.

T talks about "real studio mixer", of which only a tiny percentage of all
mixers are.

Phildo refers my comments, which was based on a percentage of all mixers,
professional grade and not, including those jillions of very small mixers
that one sees all over the place.

The only conflct is in Phildo's mind!

Phildo's grasp on reality is tenuous.

I just discovered that the majority of Behringer's Xenyx and Eurorack range
don't have PFL. Maybe Phildo will stop claiming Behringer kit is professional
now ? I doubt it though.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Ron(UK)" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Phildo refers my comments, which was based on a percentage of all mixers,
professional grade and not, including those jillions of very small mixers
that one sees all over the place.

The only conflct is in Phildo's mind!


This argument is getting sillier by the day

Check out how few Behringer mixers have PFL. It startled me.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Marc Amsterdam wrote:

"Ron(UK)" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Phildo refers my comments, which was based on a percentage of all mixers,
professional grade and not, including those jillions of very small mixers
that one sees all over the place.

The only conflct is in Phildo's mind!


This argument is getting sillier by the day

This is not an argument...

Indeed. Arny is CORRECT that many mixers don't have PFL. Just check out the
Behringer offerings since Phildo's so keen on the brand.

Graham

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

sam wrote:

Mr.T wrote:

[to George, but Sam commented]

Regardless, are you suggesting input attenuation should NOT be used?

Not in a serious PA system with more than one amplifier per crossover
band, or with a speaker processor with limiters set for a fixed amp
gain.

It should absolutely positively most verily be used. In an ideal world the
poweramp should clip 2 dB later than the preceding stage, in the real world
its rated sensitivity should be changed so that it takes 5 volts rms on the
input to get rated RMS power on the output. If not for any other reason,
then for these two: doing that drastically reduces the risk of bad things
with mains power supply coming and going taking out a lot of loudspeakers
and it decreases electronics noise.

There are plenty of better places in the signal path to adjust
the output level.

Yees. But no other place offers those benefits.

Maybe if all you have is a tiny mixer, one amp and a pair of speakers
on stands.

It is a lot more costly to damage a million dollar rig.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Mr.T wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

With two clipped samples on the recorded music I also submit that I
got the record level right.

If they are relatively short duration, sure.

TWO samples, out of 44100 pr second, at 0 dB FS. Surely that it short enough
and surely the gain setting was on the mark. 50-some samples of applause -
out of 44100 per second - at 0 dB FS, surely that is totally irrelevant.

Did you use any metering to set the levels initially, or just a clip
led though?

I used the MR8HD's metering and clip LED and recorded the full pre concert
rehearsal. The MR8HD's clip LED guarantees that clipping has happened when
gets visibly red. Compared to my DAT the level metering is "not impressively
useful". It does however has adjustable fall back for the level metering and
it is set to slowest possible decay. If the upper segment, I reckon it is 3
dB wide, stays up, then it is possibly clipped.

During the pre concert practice I gradually increased input gain until the
display looked reasonable. Just before the concert I decided that I had been
to cautious, and that they were not going to play louder than at the
rehearsal and increased the gain a couple of dB with the aim of not having
to increase it in post.

You do have the benefit of knowing the sensitivities of your
microphones though. Try it with a rock group and let us know how you
get on!

My grand nephew is a member of a blues band, so perhaps ... but I don't
currently have the recording infrastructure for such a venture, I would need
to have someone who wants to pay. Rock groups are in fact just a noisier
form of chamber music, and they are also as predictable, the just peak 40 dB
louder at the microphones.

Now we are talking about it I kinda miss the physical experience and the
quite different intensity. With an 8 track or better, I might want to try,
trying to mix 12 channels to two track .... nah, been there, done that, it
never got good enough and eventually I sold most of the mic cables and mic
stands I had collected, but kept (this is the short version) most of the
mics. We are talking 20+ years ago.

I was looking at an 8 track, but the price I could offer after looking
closer on its technology was not to the owners liking ...

What makes the MR8HD and this chamber music recording relevant in the
context of this debate is that its only credible clip indicator is the
channel overload LED, adn it is not reliably detected until a clip duration
that corresponds with some 3+ dB's of clipping and it was still possible to
get it _exactly_ on target. It is not a costly audio implement, is is in the
price and quality range of the budget mixers that are the original focus of
this and adjusting gain on it is as easy or as difficult as on those. The
difference - that it is about a recording - only means that the actual
outcome is documented, the process is the same.

Thank you for your comments, some of the time we see things differently but
learning to see the other view on things is (also) what usenet is about.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

sam wrote:

Mr.T wrote:

[to George, but Sam commented]

Regardless, are you suggesting input attenuation should NOT be used?

Not in a serious PA system with more than one amplifier per crossover
band, or with a speaker processor with limiters set for a fixed amp
gain.

It should absolutely positively most verily be used. In an ideal world the
poweramp should clip 2 dB later than the preceding stage, in the real world
its rated sensitivity should be changed so that it takes 5 volts rms on the
input to get rated RMS power on the output.

What a bizarre idea. Are you not aware that most pro amps come with internal
compressor/limiters as standard now ? You simply can't readily 'hard clip' them.
Plus most crossovers or system controllers have additional limiting available.

Graham

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:


[attenuating previous stages instead of attenuating poweramp sensitivity]

It should absolutely positively most verily be used. In an ideal
world the poweramp should clip 2 dB later than the preceding stage,
in the real world its rated sensitivity should be changed so that it
takes 5 volts rms on the input to get rated RMS power on the output.

What a bizarre idea. Are you not aware that most pro amps come with
internal compressor/limiters as standard now?

It was not at the forefront of my mind in the late evening instant of
typing, thank you for reminding me, but note also the point made below,
which WAS at the forefront of my mind. Seems like a healthy strategy to me
that no clipping stage should be able to thereby clip the next stage.
Another version of that same strategy is that the smallest bandwidth should
be in the first stage and the largest in the last stage.

You simply can't readily 'hard clip' them.

Noise concern not voided by that.

Plus most crossovers or system controllers
have additional limiting available.

I can recall one model that comes with the unofficial recommendation of
"keep it on an UPS or it _will_ take your drivers out in case of a mains
problem".

Back when Studio Sound still existed someone in it mentioned the concern
that large systems with stray limiters all over constitute multiband
processors. Further back my PA experience was that the cleanest sound was
obtained by doing NO dynamics processing, all the boxes that can do that fog
up the sound.

All ... well, not all, but at least some of it ... you need for high quality
sound is as much headroom in the poweramps as you want me to have when
recording. Not all people operating PA rigs seem aware how well they can
sound if you let them, my minimalism is solidly rooted in my experience with
PA rigs. doing less and having enough of it is a strong strategy.

Graham


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

You simply can't readily 'hard clip' them [modern pro amps].

Noise concern not voided by that.

What 'noise concern' are you talking about ?

Graham

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

You simply can't readily 'hard clip' them [modern pro amps].

Noise concern not voided by that.

What 'noise concern' are you talking about ?

130 less 85

Graham


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

You simply can't readily 'hard clip' them [modern pro amps].

Noise concern not voided by that.

What 'noise concern' are you talking about ?

130 less 85

Makes 45. What do you mean ?

Graham

"Phildo" wrote in message
...

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

wrote in message
...
we have to establish what exactly you uderstand

At least we already know what you understand, nothing :-)

OK, I now understand that Mr T actually stands for Mr Troll.

Into the killfile with you ****wit.

George, I suggest you do the same. He isn't worthy of your time.

Phildo

already did this morning
he is as clueless as arnii
I bet he's austrailian as well
thoiugh I have no way to know that except he posts like another ****
ignorant aussie that pops up here once in a while
george

"Ron(UK)" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Phildo" wrote in message

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...
The real world of audio often uses mixers with proper
metering. I can't say I've ever seen a real studio mixer without a
metering bridge!
Strange, Arny claims that 95% of desks don't have
metering. Go figure.

Typical of Phildo's confusion with simple facts.

T talks about "real studio mixer", of which only a tiny percentage of all
mixers are.

Phildo refers my comments, which was based on a percentage of all mixers,
professional grade and not, including those jillions of very small
mixers that one sees all over the place.

I am in confrence rooms, av house, churches, sound companies,schools every
****ing day
they must hide these"jillions"(is that even a word arnii?) of mixers without
pre fade level from me
as from 30 years of selling to and working in pro live sound I have come
across less than a handfull of mixers at any quality level that did not have
pre fade level indication
George

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

sam wrote:

Mr.T wrote:

[to George, but Sam commented]

Regardless, are you suggesting input attenuation should NOT be used?

Not in a serious PA system with more than one amplifier per crossover
band, or with a speaker processor with limiters set for a fixed amp
gain.

It should absolutely positively most verily be used. In an ideal world the
poweramp should clip 2 dB later than the preceding stage, in the real world
its rated sensitivity should be changed so that it takes 5 volts rms on the
input to get rated RMS power on the output. If not for any other reason,
then for these two: doing that drastically reduces the risk of bad things
with mains power supply coming and going taking out a lot of loudspeakers
and it decreases electronics noise.

So, you think that a mix should peak at +16dBu (5V rms) at the amplifier input ?
If there's an electronic crossover in circuit, that might well correspond to a
full-range +19-20dBu mix.

There's a whole host of things that are plain wrong with that idea, not least of
which is how close to clipping you'll be operating the entire mixer.

You once used to say sensible things Peter, what's gone wrong with you ?

Graham

[Mike Marlow]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Agreed, but Phildo keeps bringing it up.


'Cause he did it first mommy. Ya know what Arny - the
difference is that Phildo makes no pretenses about what
kind of asshole he is. The two of you are a comedy in
motion in this group but you seem to lack the awareness
of your contribution.

I'd like to see how you'd be about it if Phildo harassed you the same way.


I'm not new to usenet Arnie. You two either need to get a room together, or
learn to just let some of this stuff go. It is after all, just a usenet
newsgroup.

--

-Mike-

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Agreed, but Phildo keeps bringing it up.


'Cause he did it first mommy. Ya know what Arny - the
difference is that Phildo makes no pretenses about what
kind of asshole he is. The two of you are a comedy in
motion in this group but you seem to lack the awareness
of your contribution.

I'd like to see how you'd be about it if Phildo harassed
you the same way.

I'm not new to usenet Arnie.

Thanks for not answering the simple question I asked, Mike.

[Eeyore]

Marc Amsterdam wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Marc Amsterdam wrote:
"Ron(UK)" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Phildo refers my comments, which was based on a percentage of all mixers,
professional grade and not, including those jillions of very small mixers
that one sees all over the place.

The only conflct is in Phildo's mind!


This argument is getting sillier by the day

This is not an argument...

Indeed. Arny is CORRECT that many mixers don't have PFL. Just check out the
Behringer offerings since Phildo's so keen on the brand.

we still dont have an argument..

If you mean that Phildo and Arny 'argue' for the hell of it regardless of any
rational reason, I can't really disagree with that.

Graham

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
where do youfind 16 or 32 channel mixers without proper metering?

How many times do I need to quote the Yamaha EMX5000 before you comprehend?
I'm sure there are many others, but I don't have experience with them all.


then why doyou post 30 times in a row about something you neither
understand
or care about?

I'll let others decide who understands what they are talking about.
Your ignorance is plain to see for anybody that can use Google.


please refrence a professional tool that some one like me would actually
use
the emx is junior high av deparment crap

Oh well, just the usual debating trick of arguing from a general postion to
a specific one when challenged.
Funny now you find the need to rule out everything beneath your contempt.
And funny that Behringer manage to provide metering.
At least you now admit you are wrong in some cases.

and is there even a 16 ch emx?

Yes. Pity you prefer to argue from a postion of ignarance rather than
actually look.

MrT..

[Mr.T]

"Phildo" wrote in message
...
But according to Arny 95% of mixing desks only have that if any metering
at
all.

I can't imagine how you might define "95% of mixing desks" for that to be
remotely true.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
with all respect , we discuss LIVE sound not studio sound here

Maybe you check ALL the newsgroups in the header again!

I really don't give a rats ass what group you crawled out of "I" am
posting
in aapls studio zombies are not what we do

Newgroup control freak wannabe noted.
The rest of us accept there are other users.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
And why does a lake cost $5000 and a behringer Cost $200/300 dollars?

$5000 is way OTT for a crossover though. But of course it's not just a
crossover it's a DSP
CONTROLLER which is an entirely different animal.

But the Beheringer DCX 2496 is also a DSP controller.

and your point is?

Too much for your comprehension obviously :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
So you don't understand the difference between
"metering" (as you originally
stated) and a simple clip "indicator" then.

No but they are metering

Thanks for proving my point, you don't know.

your point being what?
a clip light is a very rudimetairy meter

No, it's not a *meter* at all. Aren't you ashamed to keep publishing
your
ignorance?
Ignorance is *not* always bliss you know.

it isa meter. a very basic meter
but still a meter

"Proof by constant assertion" is NOT actual proof.


arn't you ashamed to be so wrong in such a public forum

You're looking in the mirror again George.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Check out how few Behringer mixers have PFL. It startled me.

What do you mean? All the FOH type desks of theirs I have used, have PFL and
metering.
Are you suggesting the mini 802 etc. need PFL as well? They have to cut
something to keep the size and cost down I think.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
I just discovered that the majority of Behringer's Xenyx and Eurorack
range
don't have PFL.

Maybe you should check out their range actually designed for FOH mixing
then!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Mickey" wrote in message
...
I don't know where you have been buying TVs, but their lifetime is 20
years
and more, routinely demonstrated in real life.

WAS 20 years maybe, past tense.
If any Chinese TV made today is still going in 20 years it will be a
miracle.

The percentage of DOAs for electronic gear keeps dropping along with
the price. Go figure.

The less human involvement in the assembly, the less chance of human error.

MrT.

[sam]

Peter Larsen wrote:
sam wrote:

Mr.T wrote:

[to George, but Sam commented]

Regardless, are you suggesting input attenuation should NOT be used?

Not in a serious PA system with more than one amplifier per crossover
band, or with a speaker processor with limiters set for a fixed amp
gain.

It should absolutely positively most verily be used. In an ideal world the
poweramp should clip 2 dB later than the preceding stage, in the real world
its rated sensitivity should be changed so that it takes 5 volts rms on the
input to get rated RMS power on the output. If not for any other reason,
then for these two: doing that drastically reduces the risk of bad things
with mains power supply coming and going taking out a lot of loudspeakers
and it decreases electronics noise.

There are plenty of better places in the signal path to adjust
the output level.

Yees. But no other place offers those benefits.

Maybe if all you have is a tiny mixer, one amp and a pair of speakers
on stands.

It is a lot more costly to damage a million dollar rig.


All million dollar rigs run with the power amps flat out.
The speaker processors driving them are adjusted so that the power amps
never clip.
The processor settings for the speakers are designed for fixed voltage
gain amplifiers with the attenuators turned up
Otherwise it is possible for the amplifiers to be turned up more than
the limiter levels set in the speaker processor are calibrated for.
The speaker processor, power amplifier and speaker operate as a fixed
system and the level of the mix is adjusted at the input to the system.
A correctly designed system is protected against power "coming and
going". The power amps contain muting protection and so do the upstream
components. If the level is adjusted before the speaker processor, then
any noise generated before that point is also adjusted so the signal to
noise ratio remains the same at that point.
Without any input at that point the signal to noise ratio is the spec of
the amplifier and processor. In the case of a million dollar system the
noise spec of a Lake or XTA or dbx or BSS crossover is adequate and so
is the noise spec of the power amplifiers. Far better than than any of
the sources connected into the console.

"Marc Amsterdam" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 19:59:45 -0400, wrote:


"Phildo" wrote in message
...

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

wrote in message
...
we have to establish what exactly you uderstand

At least we already know what you understand, nothing :-)

OK, I now understand that Mr T actually stands for Mr Troll.

Into the killfile with you ****wit.

George, I suggest you do the same. He isn't worthy of your time.

Phildo

already did this morning
he is as clueless as arnii
I bet he's austrailian as well

220.239.136.166 traces to Melbourne......


LOL
why am I not surprised?
george

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:

So, you think that a mix should peak at +16dBu (5V rms) at the
amplifier input?

I am not aware of any major change of pro line levels since the days of the
VU meter, so yes, I expect that signals will peak at least 10 dB above +4
dBU
level + 2 dB for comfort. VU meters can generally be relied on to under-read
by 10 to 15 dB, peak meters to under-read by 6 to 10 dB. Consequently an
actual signal peak level at +16 dB is what one should expect. Systems today
generally have 6 dB above that.

If there's an electronic crossover in circuit, that
might well correspond to a full-range +19-20dBu mix.

Why would replacing one setup - mixer to amp - with another - mixer to amp
to x-over - alter the mixer output level? - I don't see how moving the
cables from one setup to the other will cause the gain controls on the mixer
channels to move. You are quite right that an active cross-over will alter
the available headroom after the cross-over and that inserting one will
allow either a higher amplifier input sensitivity or the use of gain in the
x-over, no contest. The suggested power amp sensitivity does not change by
that, simply because it is based on the properties of an opamp driven line
output, whatever preceding box it may be fitted to.

What I say is that an amp sensitivity at +16 dBU allows the optimum use of
the actual dynamic range of preceding stages, whatever they are, while still
keeping _unused_ headroom available in them. Most stuff can go to +20 dBU or
beyond, so please explain what the issue is in taking it 6 dB below that in
the peaks.

There's a whole host of things that are plain wrong with that idea,
not least of which is how close to clipping you'll be operating the
entire mixer.

I refer to actual peak levels, and you seem to have read me as meaning
nominal operationg level. Also I frankly do not see an issue in running
things close to clipping, this because - as previously said - it is my
experience that things opamp sound cleaner to me if run that way. Again, I
do no advocate running things into clipping. There are specific cases where
doing it is simple wisdom because it can be an excellent zero attack zero
release limiter, but that is entering the realm of artistic choices rather
than technical choices.

You once used to say sensible things Peter, what's gone wrong with
you?

All that matters in terms of overload is maximum peak level. What is it "not
sensible" about that? - what I say is that you have to align peak levels to
optimize available dynamic range, nothing more, nothing less.

Graham

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

sam wrote:

All million dollar rigs run with the power amps flat out.
The speaker processors driving them are adjusted so that the power
amps never clip.
The processor settings for the speakers are designed for fixed voltage
gain amplifiers with the attenuators turned up
Otherwise it is possible for the amplifiers to be turned up more than
the limiter levels set in the speaker processor are calibrated for.

Initially you make sense, but the point that it is otherwise possible to
turn the amps up is flawed. I did not suggest using the amps adjustable
attenuators, I might get such amps if they were the best buy and if i were
to spec a rig today, but I most certainly would remove them from them
electrically and replace them with fixed attentuation or - if that was
impossible to do in a mechanically reliable way - used fix attenuation in
front of them. Serious systems do not have a lot of knobs that can be - nor
indeed need be - turned and tweaked.

The speaker processor, power amplifier and speaker operate as a fixed
system and the level of the mix is adjusted at the input to the
system. A correctly designed system is protected against power
"coming and going". The power amps contain muting protection and so
do the upstream components. If the level is adjusted before the
speaker processor, then any noise generated before that point is also
adjusted so the signal to noise ratio remains the same at that point.
Without any input at that point the signal to noise ratio is the spec
of the amplifier and processor. In the case of a million dollar
system the noise spec of a Lake or XTA or dbx or BSS crossover is
adequate and so is the noise spec of the power amplifiers. Far better
than than any of the sources connected into the console.

Yes, yes, yes ... you missed the black box concept in the point i made, when
it comes to mixer output level it is irrelevant whether amp + speaker is
very simple or internally very complex.

Also, and it gets to be about how I would make system a system today, yes to
all of the above and I would still attenuate power amp inputs because some
of time in the real world things go wrong, processors fail or plugs get
pulled incorrectly, and the simple procedure of adapting power amp input
sensitivity to the real world requirements will then reduce the severity of
the consequences. If you prefer not to include "what if things go wrong" in
your system planning ... your show, not mine.

Interestingly also, you omit the one point that actually is in favour of
just running the amplifiers flat out sans modification: the reduction of the
signal voltage due to the cross-over (whatever and no mattre how complex)
dividing the audio up in ranges, Graham does make that point, albeit kinda
backwards. I have actually considered for some years whether that should
change the strategy I have decided on as the wisest, and the answer is that
it is technically preferable for all the same reasons, including simple fail
safe design, to add gain to the active cross-over and keep amplifier
sensitivity lower.

Noise specs btw. does not improve in linear proportion with the price of a
contraption. The outlay span between 300 dollers and a million dollars only
gets you max some 10 dB, ref the recent discussion about the properties of
the DCX in rec.audio.tech.

Thank you for having made a much better point so that the nuances of this
come out.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen