[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

[Mickey]

On 2007-10-02, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"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.

That is what they were saying about the Korean ones 20 years ago....


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.


Yup. And the number of components keeps dropping, too.

I fully expect the Chinese TV I bought 4 years ago to last another decade
or two.

--
Mickey

Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second
time you make it. -- unknown

[Phildo]

"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 have no need to do it. Mike knows what he is talking about when it comes
to live sound and doesn't merely pretend to the way you do.

Even when it comes to religion, Mike is a perfect example of a good xtian,
exactly the opposite of yourself and Bony.

Phildo

[Arny Krueger]

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

Count all the cheapies.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
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.

Phildo and George are a lot of fun. All I have to do is respond to their
every 5th or 6th post and they are off and running for days at a time.

[Phildo]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:27:11 +0100, 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.

They have overload lights which is a form of PFL metering. Even including
those it doesn't make up 95% of all mixing desks so Arny is not in fact
correct and you are merely backing him up because I helped you humiliate
yourself recently. Suffice to say your word on here (which used to be very
well respected) is now taken as seriously as people take Arny. You are a
laughing stock, a figure of fun, someone to be lampooned, the village idiot
etc.

Phildo

[Arny Krueger]

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

Then you were using the cream of the crop.

Are you suggesting the mini 802 etc. need PFL as well?

The point is not whether they need it, the point is whether they have it.
The answer is that they don't.

They have to cut something to keep the size and cost down
I think.

That, and operational simplicity.

How many of these little consoles are sold, as compared to the relatively
few larger consoles with PFL that are sold? From what I've seen going out
the door at the local Guitar Center, and what I see in people's basements,
there are a huge number of these small, stripped-back consoles in use.

[Mr.T]

"Mickey" wrote in message
...
If any Chinese TV made today is still going in 20 years it will be a
miracle.

That is what they were saying about the Korean ones 20 years ago....

And they were right :-)

I fully expect the Chinese TV I bought 4 years ago to last another decade
or two.

Might as well live in hope anyway.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message


"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...

I just discovered that the majority of Behringer's Xenyx
and Eurorack range don't have PFL.

Agreed. These little puppies are sold in relatively high volumes compared to
their more expensive and elaborate brethern. If you know what you're doing,
you can get a fair amount of good work done with them.

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

The mixer you use for FOH mixing has a lot to do with the size of the hall
and the scale of the performance.

Most people don't need a 48-input mixer for jam sessions in their basement,
and that's where a lot of mixing goes on.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Phildo" wrote

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.

All you need to do is examine Phildo's favourite manufacturer, Behringer, to
find LOTS of mixers with no PFL.

Phildo had better admit that Behringer's not 'professional' in view of this.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

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

Isn't it curious how two of the most self-insulting, volumnous and illogical
posters on the Usenet audio groups are named George? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
"Mr.T" wrote:

"Phildo" wrote

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.

All you need to do is examine Phildo's favourite
manufacturer, Behringer, to find LOTS of mixers with no
PFL.

Then, consider their competition.

Phildo had better admit that Behringer's not
'professional' in view of this.

Berhinger is out to make money, not tickle Phildo's fancy. I daresay those
two goals are contradictory to each other.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

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.

They go larger than the '802' types without PFL e.g. the Xenyx 1222FX and the
UB1222FX-PRO.

It seems Behringer's threshold for offering PFL is 16 channels.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

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!

That wasn't Phildo's stated criterion.

Graham

[Mickey]

On 2007-10-02, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"Mickey" wrote in message
...
If any Chinese TV made today is still going in 20 years it will be a
miracle.

That is what they were saying about the Korean ones 20 years ago....

And they were right :-)

No, they are still ticking along just fine. I have one, and I know of at
least two others. I haven't had a television die on me since I can
recall. And I don't hear "my television quit working today, so I had to
get another one" from anyone. I see plenty tossed out because their
picture fades a bit, and just from being too small and too backward, but
they don't fizzle.


I fully expect the Chinese TV I bought 4 years ago to last another decade
or two.

Might as well live in hope anyway.


If it lasts five years, it still will give me much more service per dollar
than one purchased at the 1970 price in real dollars. But I am betting it
will last longer.

The one I have right now I use for a display in my office, and it is on
24/7 and has been for four years. It is the cheapest sort of Emerson 27"
CRT unit, purchased for $230 or so new. It will be a good test case.
I don't expect to replace it unless it becomes unusable, as the size
is perfect for the application and it is hard-mounted. Check back in
6 years and 16. After that, I will have retired. 8-)

Of course that type of anecdotal evidence is pretty meaningless, as
the carbon-filament lightbulb burning in the San Francisco firehouse
since 1911 proves....

--
Mickey

The U.S. Senate -- white male millionaires working for YOU! -- Dave Barry