[Eeyore]

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.

Exactly.

The only attenuator settings you can be sure of being set correctly are full up
and 'off' ! Everything else introduces the element of human error and the danger
of it being fiddled with.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

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.

Peter, you have gone *totally* mad.


Graham

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


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

"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...

The majority of electronic crossovers sold today are
still analogue. DSP is overkill for just a crossover.

Thing is, you walk into the pro audio store and there on the shelf are two
crossovers. One is analog, made by DBX, Rane whatever, and just a basic
crossover. The other is a DCX 2496 which is a DSP-based does-everything
(sort of) box. Either choice costs you $200-300. What's a boy to do?

In your opinion, sure.

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

Some of the $5K for a Lake is hype. I daresay that if you buy a $5k speaker
management box, you get a little better installation and usage support from
the dealer and the value of that is not to be triffled with.

$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?

The point is that being a DSP-based controller doesn't all by itself justify
a $5K price tag.

I guess we can take away from this interchange that George does not know
that the DCX 2496 is a DSP-based controller.

Since George is claiming that anything with a DSP is necessarily a high end
box, he's obviously quite ignorant about well-known products like the
Behringer DSP 110. I think they DSP 110s are about $70. They fully meet
George's spec of being a "DSP-based controller".

BTW, as many of us already know, if you pop the cover on a DCX 2496 and a
DSP 110, you find a SHARC DSP chip inside.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Mickey" wrote

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.

So, which parts do you expect to fail ?

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"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.

Well since nearly all Behringer FOH mixers have PFL and PFL metering, that
only really leaves the ones that aren't designed for that purpose.
And since Behringer has the lions share of the market, I can't see how that
would possibly be less than 5% ?

But of course even their real cheapies like the big selling 1002 do have
metering anyway, but not PFL, since they're not designed as FOH or studio
mixers.

MrT.

[Ron(UK)]

Eeyore wrote:

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Mickey" wrote

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.

So, which parts do you expect to fail ?

Graham


Generally, the backlight tubes or invertors are most problematic,
followed by the caps in the psu


Ron(UK)

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Peter Larsen wrote:

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.

Peter, you have gone *totally* mad.

Lets say we restate what Peter says:

Mechanical Vu meters can be counted on to miss the full impact of very short
transients, sometimes by as much as 10-15 dB.

LED-based peak-reading meters that lack pulse stretchers will display short
transients so briefly that even an experienced eye can miss them. This can
result in under-reading by 6-10 dB.

My reference standard for recorded levels is a magnified display on a DAW
screen. I've seen exactly what Peter is talking about happen in my own work.
That's one reason why I'm such a headroom junkie.

[Mr.T]

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

Can you name one Behringer FOH mixer that does not have PFL?
All the ones I have used do.

Of course if you include things like the 802, yes they don't have PFL with a
single mic channel. Amazing isn't it? :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

The only attenuator settings you can be sure of being set correctly are
full up
and 'off' ! Everything else introduces the element of human error and the
danger
of it being fiddled with.

Running the system sub-optimally to prevent user error is a valid choice.
Not necessarily for everyone though.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
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.

With only ONE balanced input it may be a slight overkill for the intended
market :-)


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.

But surely you understand the concept of design purpose?

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

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

Well since nearly all Behringer FOH mixers have PFL and
PFL metering, that only really leaves the ones that
aren't designed for that purpose.

What is your criteria for identifying a Behringer mixer as a "FOH mixer"?

Is there a secret Behringer product sheet that clarifies this point? ;-)

And since Behringer has the lions share of the market, I
can't see how that would possibly be less than 5% ?

But of course even their real cheapies like the big
selling 1002 do have metering anyway, but not PFL, since
they're not designed as FOH or studio mixers.

Nahh, the whole thing about the small Behringer mixers is that they are
designed to be cheap and simple.

FOH is a term that has a generally agreed-upon meaning. If you apply that
meaning, the phrase "FOH mixer" admits a tremendous number of mixers.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

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.

Peter, you have gone *totally* mad.

I don't know about your world Graham, but in my world a standard PPM meter
is
specified as under-displaying impulses by up to 10 dB and line level
headroom set accordingly.

As for the under-reading or under-displaying of VU's is is likewise well
documented on the literature.

True peak reading digital displays are different beasts. There is then no
need for additional headroom measured in double digit dB's. What you call
madness is in effect my suggestion to the effect that 6 dB headroom in all
stages prior to the start of the amplification system then will be enough
and that more is plain wasteful.

There is still that 130 less 85 conundrum that you didn't solve, but you did
get the math right. And 45 dB white noise in a concert hall is likely to be
audible.

Graham


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Peter Larsen wrote:

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.

Peter, you have gone *totally* mad.

Lets say we restate what Peter says:

Mechanical Vu meters can be counted on to miss the full impact of very short
transients, sometimes by as much as 10-15 dB.

He didn't say transients.


LED-based peak-reading meters that lack pulse stretchers will display short
transients so briefly that even an experienced eye can miss them. This can
result in under-reading by 6-10 dB.

Not true. You don't need a 'pulse stretcher', nor are they designed that way,
you need a *peak catcher*. The response time of these is typically in the
sub-millisecond range so I'd not expect them to under-read musical transients by
any significant margin but do be aware that they need to have a full-wave
precision active rectifier to be able to register either POLARITY of transient.
Failure to have a full-wave rectifier could result in under-reading

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Mickey" wrote in message
...
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.


Funny, I've heard just that from many Goldstar owners, and of course my Sony
died a couple of years ago and I had to get another one :-)
(was a lot less than 20 years old too)

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.

The tube in mine was fine, the tempory fix was smaller. Still lots of faulty
power supply faults, line output transformers etc. and we won't even mention
remote controls :-)

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.

Agreed, but that's not difficult!

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

And the two new globes I replaced within a month in the same fitting prove
too :-)

But it's not hard to make a globe last forever if you don't care about light
output or efficiency.

MrT.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

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

Can you name one Behringer FOH mixer that does not have PFL?

Neither Phildo nor Arny restricted their comments to FOH mixers alone. You're
moving the goal posts again. Not playing.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

The only attenuator settings you can be sure of being set correctly are full
up
and 'off' ! Everything else introduces the element of human error and the
danger of it being fiddled with.

Running the system sub-optimally to prevent user error is a valid choice.

It's not sub-optimal. Your speaker processor/system controller/electronic
crossover provides all the level adjustment you need in one convenient package.

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

So, which parts do you expect to fail ?

Capacitors, power supplies, remote controls, dry joints..... all the usual
suspects.

MrT.

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

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.

Peter, you have gone *totally* mad.

I don't know about your world Graham, but in my world a standard PPM meter
is specified as under-displaying impulses by up to 10 dB and line level
headroom set accordingly.

I'm not talking about PPMs. I'm talking about MODERN peak metering. Show me any
mixing desk (outside the specialist low quantity mainly broadcast market) on
sale today with a PPM will you ?

You simply don't see PPMs much outside of broadcasting in Europe.

Your advice therefore is not relevant to the vast majority of peak reading
meters that ARE in use and which dominate the pro-audio market today.

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" 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.

I'm wondering what scale of performance would use a mixer with ONE balanced
line input? :-)

Frankly I can't see a need for PFL on the 802, but hey, if you want to
compare apples with elephants, go right ahead.

MrT.

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

There is still that 130 less 85 conundrum that you didn't solve, but you did
get the math right. And 45 dB white noise in a concert hall is likely to be
audible.

What ARE you on about ?

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
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.

More like 8 balanced channels. Seems about right to me, anything less could
not be considered for FOH use anyway.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Peter Larsen wrote:

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.

Peter, you have gone *totally* mad.

Lets say we restate what Peter says:

Mechanical Vu meters can be counted on to miss the full
impact of very short transients, sometimes by as much as
10-15 dB.

He didn't say transients.

Agreed, but in the context, I think that is what he meant.

LED-based peak-reading meters that lack pulse stretchers
will display short transients so briefly that even an
experienced eye can miss them. This can result in
under-reading by 6-10 dB.

Not true. You don't need a 'pulse stretcher', nor are
they designed that way, you need a *peak catcher*.

OK, OK, I used some older terminology.

The response time of these is typically in the
sub-millisecond range so I'd not expect them to
under-read musical transients by any significant margin
but do be aware that they need to have a full-wave
precision active rectifier to be able to register either
POLARITY of transient. Failure to have a full-wave
rectifier could result in under-reading

All agreed.

Graham, I'm not comparing a peak-catcher to a pulse-stretcher or any other
kind of peak hold circuit. I'm comparing any kind of peak hold circuit to no
peak hold circuit of any kind at all.

Just like there are lots of small consoles with no PFL metering, there are
lots of LED meters and clip indicators out there that are built without any
kind of peak hold or peak catcher of pluse stretcher circuitry at all. It
is easy to miss short transients with them.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Can you name one Behringer FOH mixer that does not have PFL?

Neither Phildo nor Arny restricted their comments to FOH mixers alone.
You're
moving the goal posts again. Not playing.

OK, if you expect a mixer with a single mic channel to have PFL, good luck
in finding one. :-)

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...
All you need to do is examine Phildo's favourite

manufacturer, Behringer, to
find LOTS of mixers with no PFL.

Can you name one Behringer FOH mixer that does not have
PFL?

In order to do that in a reasaonble way, you need to show us a list of
officially-designated "FOH Mixers". The imprimateur of some well-known
professional organization will suffice.

Of course if you include things like the 802, yes they
don't have PFL with a single mic channel. Amazing isn't
it? :-)

An 802 can definately be used as a FOH mixer, following the
generally-accepted meaning of FOH.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message


"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...

Can you name one Behringer FOH mixer that does not have
PFL?

Neither Phildo nor Arny restricted their comments to FOH
mixers alone. You're moving the goal posts again. Not
playing.

OK, if you expect a mixer with a single mic channel to
have PFL, good luck in finding one. :-)

I've definately seen musical performances that used only one mic, and no
other electronic instruments at all. Why not use an 802 for such a gig?

FOH has a formal definition, so by logical induction, any mixer that can be
used to mix sound for the FOH is in some sense a "FOH mixer".

[Arny Krueger]

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

With only ONE balanced input it may be a slight overkill
for the intended market :-)


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.

But surely you understand the concept of design purpose?

What do you think?

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
What is your criteria for identifying a Behringer mixer as a "FOH mixer"?

Well I don't often get asked to "mix" one channel :-)

Is there a secret Behringer product sheet that clarifies this point? ;-)

Yes, the spec sheets make it pretty clear what they can be used for. Good
luck using an 802 for your next concert Arny :-)


But of course even their real cheapies like the big
selling 1002 do have metering anyway, but not PFL, since
they're not designed as FOH or studio mixers.

Nahh, the whole thing about the small Behringer mixers is that they are
designed to be cheap and simple.

Of course, so what?

FOH is a term that has a generally agreed-upon meaning. If you apply that
meaning, the phrase "FOH mixer" admits a tremendous number of mixers.

Yes, and excludes the 802/1002 types by any reasonable definition.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...
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.

More like 8 balanced channels. Seems about right to me,
anything less could not be considered for FOH use anyway.

Artificial distinction, noted. It's your opinon, and you are entitled to it,
but that doesn't mean it is global truth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" 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.

I'm wondering what scale of performance would use a mixer
with ONE balanced line input? :-)

Ones involving over 100 performers - use the mic for announcments related to
a large symphony or choral concert.

Frankly I can't see a need for PFL on the 802,

I don't see a strong need, but I can see a use for it.

but hey, if you want to compare apples with elephants, go right
ahead.

Excluded middle argument noted.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

"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.

Furthermore "FOH mixer" seems to lack a precise or standard definition.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
What is your criteria for identifying a Behringer mixer
as a "FOH mixer"?

Well I don't often get asked to "mix" one channel :-)

Is there a secret Behringer product sheet that clarifies
this point? ;-)

Yes, the spec sheets make it pretty clear what they can
be used for. Good luck using an 802 for your next concert
Arny :-)

The smaller gigs I pull are well-served by my 1002. It would be pretty crazy
to tote along a LS9 to handle 4 mics.

But of course even their real cheapies like the big
selling 1002 do have metering anyway, but not PFL, since
they're not designed as FOH or studio mixers.

Nahh, the whole thing about the small Behringer mixers
is that they are designed to be cheap and simple.

Of course, so what?

The point is that they are mixers, they are sold in large volumes, they are
widely-used, and they lack PFL.

FOH is a term that has a generally agreed-upon meaning.
If you apply that meaning, the phrase "FOH mixer" admits
a tremendous number of mixers.

Yes, and excludes the 802/1002 types by any reasonable
definition.

Prove it.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
But surely you understand the concept of design purpose?

What do you think?

I think you do, which makes it surprising to me that you think the 802 needs
PFL.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
But surely you understand the concept of design purpose?

What do you think?

I think you do, which makes it surprising to me that you
think the 802 needs PFL.

Never said that. However, an 802 with PFL metering could be a nice touch. I
think they are about $1 worth of parts and production costs away from having
such a thing. I daresay we may see such a thing in the future. Or not.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Artificial distinction, noted. It's your opinon, and you are entitled to
it,
but that doesn't mean it is global truth.


Yes I agree it is a distinction, so can you please explain why you believe
the 802 needs PFL, or is the distinction somewhat valid?

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Artificial distinction, noted. It's your opinon, and you
are entitled to it, but that doesn't mean it is global
truth.

Yes I agree it is a distinction,

Thank you.

so can you please
explain why you believe the 802 needs PFL,

It doesn't need PFL metering, but it could be a nice touch.

or is the distinction somewhat valid?

Somewhat valid = weasel phrase.
..

[Arny Krueger]

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

So, which parts do you expect to fail ?

Capacitors, power supplies, remote controls, dry
joints..... all the usual suspects.

Usually switches, pots, and connectors are the most likely to go bad or be
damaged.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The mixer you use for FOH mixing has a lot to do with
the size of the hall and the scale of the performance.

I'm wondering what scale of performance would use a mixer
with ONE balanced line input? :-)

Ones involving over 100 performers - use the mic for announcments related
to
a large symphony or choral concert.

And you need PFL for that why exactly?

In any case this argument is getting silly. *IF* you need PFL, Behringer
provide lot's of mixers with that facility. That's what spec sheets are for!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Furthermore "FOH mixer" seems to lack a precise or standard definition.

Yes of course, but the spec sheets spell out what facilities are available,
surely it is up to you to choose the ones YOU need?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
OK, if you expect a mixer with a single mic channel to
have PFL, good luck in finding one. :-)

I've definately seen musical performances that used only one mic, and no
other electronic instruments at all. Why not use an 802 for such a gig?

And you need PFL for that why exactly?

MrT.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

But surely you understand the concept of design purpose?

What do you think?

I think you do, which makes it surprising to me that you think the 802 needs
PFL.

It was YOU who arbitrarily introduced the 802.

How about the Xenyx1222FX ? It has 6 mic inputs and no PFL
http://behringer.com/1222FX/index.cfm?lang=eng

Graham