compact mixer of decent quality

[Nate Najar]

For my little portable PA I've been using an little yamaha MG mixer. They're practically free and they sound like it but I've had it for years and I do so few gigs where I need to provide my own PA that I don't bother to replace it. However every time I do use it I think to myself that I need to replace it. The preamps have absolutely no headroom. I have to pad down the line out from the bass amp with a box and then I have to crank the channel gain. And I really hate external power supplies for a few reasons.

Since everything is mass produced in China to a price point and marketed directly to weekend warriors, I don't know how to find something of quality that is compact. i would get an allen and heath mix wiz- I think they're terrific for the price, but even the small one is much too large a mixer for what i need. i usually only run 4 channels, sometimes 4 or 5 but that's about it. It's usually just a talk/vocal mic. guitar mic, guitar DI and bass DI. Sometimes I need additional inputs but basically I need 4-8 halfway decent mic channels. And I need a compact footprint.

The allen and heath zed series seems to have the right size and features (and a built in power supply thankfully) but they seem geared to the home recordist and I'm wondering about reliability versus something like the too-large-footprint mixwiz. Who else even makes a compact mixer? Are the little mackies any good? i haven't used one since I had an original 1202 when they first came out in the mid nineties and I was a teenager so I have no idea how bad it may or may not have sounded.

lets say under $1000 give or take for 4-8 mic channels. I don't need built in effects or multiple foldback sends. compact, good sound and a built in power supply are the name of the game.

I look forward to your recommendations. As usual, thanks for the discussion.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/3/2014 7:18 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> For my little portable PA I've been using an little yamaha MG mixer.
> . . . . . The preamps have absolutely no
> headroom. I have to pad down the line out from the bass amp with a
> box and then I have to crank the channel gain. And I really hate
> external power supplies for a few reasons.

I agree with you about the external power supply, but I don't understand
why you're having the headroom problem. Are you using the line out from
the bass amp into a DI, and into the mic preamp? If you're setting the
preamp gain so that it doesn't clip, you should be able to get the bass
up to a reasonable level in the mix, unless you need to turn down
everything else, and raise the gain on your power amp. Do the meters
jive? If you set the preamp gain (trim) so that when you solo the
channel pre-fader, you see the meters running between 0 and +10 VU and
then set the channel fader and master fader to its design center ("unity
gain" which may not actually be unity), do you see the master (mix)
level peaking somewhere a bit lower than the soloed channel level?

> i would get an allen and heath
> mix wiz- I think they're terrific for the price, but even the small
> one is much too large a mixer for what i need. i usually only run 4
> channels, sometimes 4 or 5 but that's about it. It's usually just a
> talk/vocal mic. guitar mic, guitar DI and bass DI. Sometimes I need
> additional inputs but basically I need 4-8 halfway decent mic
> channels. And I need a compact footprint.

The smallest Mix Wizard has 8 mic inputs. Is that too much?

> The allen and heath zed series seems to have the right size and
> features (and a built in power supply thankfully) but they seem
> geared to the home recordist and I'm wondering about reliability
> versus something like the too-large-footprint mixwiz.

I don't know for sure, but my inclination is that for two lines that are
pretty similar, they use as much of the same parts and circuitry as they
can. That saves a lot of money over making two completely different
products that aren't really that different. But I suspect that they sell
more Mimx Wizards than they do Zeds because everybody needs a mixer for
live sound but more and more people are trying to record without one.

> Are the little mackies any good? i haven't
> used one since I had an original 1202

The VLZ3 was fine and now they have a VLZ4 which is pretty much the same
but uses different ICs. The new ones are quieter than the old ones and
with the VLZ3, they finally got the internal gain structure right
without compromising the signal-to-noise ratio, which was the problem
pre-VLZ3.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>
>Since everything is mass produced in China to a price point and marketed di=
>rectly to weekend warriors, I don't know how to find something of quality t=
>hat is compact. i would get an allen and heath mix wiz- I think they're te=
>rrific for the price, but even the small one is much too large a mixer for =
>what i need. i usually only run 4 channels, sometimes 4 or 5 but that's ab=
>out it. It's usually just a talk/vocal mic. guitar mic, guitar DI and bass=
> DI. Sometimes I need additional inputs but basically I need 4-8 halfway d=
>ecent mic channels. And I need a compact footprint.

Considered a field production mixer? They aren't really designed for the
job but they are small and light.

I assume the Sonosax and Cooper stuff is beyond your budget but try a
Shure FP32 or one of the Sound Devices field mixers.

But to be honest... what's wrong with the Yamaha you're using now?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nate Najar wrote:
> For my little portable PA I've been using an little yamaha MG mixer.
> They're practically free and they sound like it but I've had it for
> years and I do so few gigs where I need to provide my own PA that I
> don't bother to replace it. However every time I do use it I think
> to myself that I need to replace it. The preamps have absolutely no
> headroom. I have to pad down the line out from the bass amp with a
> box and then I have to crank the channel gain.

That's not headroom - that's gain staging. Make an H pad. Google H pad;
people have calculators and everything.

> And I really hate
> external power supplies for a few reasons.
>

Yeah.

> Since everything is mass produced in China to a price point and
> marketed directly to weekend warriors, I don't know how to find
> something of quality that is compact. i would get an allen and heath
> mix wiz- I think they're terrific for the price, but even the small
> one is much too large a mixer for what i need.

So how about the smaller ZED models? Say a ZED 10? 14?

> i usually only run 4
> channels, sometimes 4 or 5 but that's about it. It's usually just a
> talk/vocal mic. guitar mic, guitar DI and bass DI. Sometimes I need
> additional inputs but basically I need 4-8 halfway decent mic
> channels. And I need a compact footprint.
>
> The allen and heath zed series seems to have the right size and
> features (and a built in power supply thankfully) but they seem
> geared to the home recordist and I'm wondering about reliability
> versus something like the too-large-footprint mixwiz.

They're pretty reliable, and I'd say they're pointed at either live use
or recording ( although it's not really enough inputs for that ).

Band I played with last year used a ZED 10. It sounded fine. The rooms
were bad, but the mixer showed no sign of being unuseable.

> Who else even
> makes a compact mixer? Are the little mackies any good? i haven't
> used one since I had an original 1202 when they first came out in the
> mid nineties and I was a teenager so I have no idea how bad it may or
> may not have sounded.
>

They are okay if you take it easy on 'em. Scott's written at length here
about features like gain controls in the feedback paths of opamps which
makes it not only a gain control but a tone control...

> lets say under $1000 give or take for 4-8 mic channels. I don't need
> built in effects or multiple foldback sends. compact, good sound and
> a built in power supply are the name of the game.
>
> I look forward to your recommendations. As usual, thanks for the
> discussion.
>

I really suspect the ZED 10 is what you are looking for. If you need
room to grow, there's the ZED 14.

That is what I would get; a ZED 14.


Fabienne: Whose motorcycle is this?
Butch: It's a chopper, baby.
Fabienne: Whose chopper is this?
Butch: It's Zed's.
Fabienne: Who's Zed?
Butch: Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.



> N
>

--
Les Cargill

[Nate Najar]

thanks everyone!

with the yamaha, I take the balanced, xlr line out from the bass amp and with the gain on the preamp all the way down, the little red channel led lights up on transients and it spends a pop to my speakers- not good. So I instead take the signal from the unbalanced line out through a DI and pad it (15db is my option) and then I have to crank the gain and the channel fader to get decent level. It isn't the end of the world, but when I have to setup and operate everything myself, one less step (in this case the DI) is helpful.

The big reason to replace the yamaha is that the external line lump scares the hell out of me. I want to get something with an internal supply that takes an IEC cable. If I'm going to get something new, I want something good. I don't buy crap anymore which is why I have schoeps mics and prism converters now but I also rarely buy anything because I don't want to spend money on crap. When I need more mics I borrow or hire them.

Les, your comment about the ZED makes me feel better. I looked at it and features and size are fine. If it will perform satisfactorily, that is what I care about. I wouldn't hesitate to buy the mixwiz that Mike mentioned except that I want something with a smaller footprint.

Scott, I looked at the sonosax the other day- it's almost perfect but it is beyond the budget especially considering the types of gigs I do where I would need my own rig.

thanks again for taking the time!

N

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 04-07-2014 00:18, Nate Najar wrote:

> For my little portable PA I've been using an little yamaha MG mixer. They're practically free and they sound like it but I've had it for years and I do so few gigs where I need to provide my own PA that I don't bother to replace it. However every time I do use it I think to myself that I need to replace it. The preamps have absolutely no headroom. I have to pad down the line out from the bass amp with a box and then I have to crank the channel gain. And I really hate external power supplies for a few reasons.

Soundcraft EPM or EFX.

> I look forward to your recommendations. As usual, thanks for the discussion.

Just my USD 0.02

> N

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

Nate -

I have a Yamaha MG102C that is practically brand new

http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/MG102c/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=livesound&utm_term=yamaha_mg102c&adpos=1t1&creative=14165841361&device=c&network=g&matchtype=b&gclid=CLeXoJmXq78CFUEF7AodPUAADA

There are four XLR phantom powered inputs plus some phono and/or RCA line
inputs, compression, EQ, panning. I think about $100 would do it.

Gary Eickmeier

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 04/07/2014 03:33, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Nate Najar > wrote:
>>
>> Since everything is mass produced in China to a price point and marketed di=
>> rectly to weekend warriors, I don't know how to find something of quality t=
>> hat is compact. i would get an allen and heath mix wiz- I think they're te=
>> rrific for the price, but even the small one is much too large a mixer for =
>> what i need. i usually only run 4 channels, sometimes 4 or 5 but that's ab=
>> out it. It's usually just a talk/vocal mic. guitar mic, guitar DI and bass=
>> DI. Sometimes I need additional inputs but basically I need 4-8 halfway d=
>> ecent mic channels. And I need a compact footprint.
>
> Considered a field production mixer? They aren't really designed for the
> job but they are small and light.
>
> I assume the Sonosax and Cooper stuff is beyond your budget but try a
> Shure FP32 or one of the Sound Devices field mixers.

How much is a Cadac Live1? They do a 8 mic + 4 stereo line-in version
which fits in a 19" rack, don't they?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/3/2014 11:09 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> with the yamaha, I take the balanced, xlr line out from the bass amp
> and with the gain on the preamp all the way down, the little red
> channel led lights up on transients and it spends a pop to my
> speakers- not good.

If you're connecting the XLR line output from the amplifier to the XLR
mic input on the mixer, you'll have the same problem with just about any
mixer. You'd need to pad it down by 20 to 30 dB to avoid clipping the
input stage of the mixer, even with the mixer's input gain at minimum.

But, you know, I'll bet that the 1/4" hole in the XLR combo jacks on the
mic/line inputs on your MG mixer is set up like everyone else's - a 30
dB pad wired to the mic preamp input, maybe with a couple of capacitors
to keep phantom power off the line input. Why not try the amplifier's
XLR output directly into the line input through an adapter or an XLR-TRS
cable.

Another alternative is to use an XLR-1/4" adapter between the amplifier
line out and a DI box, and then connect the XLR out of the DI to the mic
input of the mixer. The XLR-1/4" adapter will unbalance the output of
the amplifier, so either use a simple adapter or a short piece of cable
if you're making one yourself. Don't use an adapter with a transformer.


> So I instead take the signal from the unbalanced
> line out through a DI and pad it (15db is my option) and then I have
> to crank the gain and the channel fader to get decent level.

Assuming yours is a normal DI with a transformer or active circuit that
converts the line level input (1/4" jack) to mic level (XLR) there
should be no need to pad down the DI output, unless the amp has a
really, really hot line output.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>
>with the yamaha, I take the balanced, xlr line out from the bass amp and wi=
>th the gain on the preamp all the way down, the little red channel led ligh=
>ts up on transients and it spends a pop to my speakers- not good.

1. The XLR input and the 1/4" input on that console are at diferent levels.
You can use an XLR to TRS cable and go into the 1/4" input that has lower
gain.

2. You can put an XLR barrel attenuator in the line. You should have a bag
of them lying around, they are amazingly useful for all kinds of things.


>So I ins
>tead take the signal from the unbalanced line out through a DI and pad it (=
>15db is my option) and then I have to crank the gain and the channel fader =
>to get decent level. It isn't the end of the world, but when I have to set=
>up and operate everything myself, one less step (in this case the DI) is he=
>lpful.

So what if you go into the DI without the pad?

>The big reason to replace the yamaha is that the external line lump scares =
>the hell out of me. I want to get something with an internal supply that t=
>akes an IEC cable. If I'm going to get something new, I want something goo=
>d. I don't buy crap anymore which is why I have schoeps mics and prism con=
>verters now but I also rarely buy anything because I don't want to spend mo=
>ney on crap. When I need more mics I borrow or hire them.

It's true that those things do fail a lot, although the advantage of them is
that they get the transformer physically away from the electronics which is
otherwise hard to do in a tiny little compact box.

>Scott, I looked at the sonosax the other day- it's almost perfect but it is=
> beyond the budget especially considering the types of gigs I do where I wo=
>uld need my own rig.=20

The Sound Devices mixers are made for similar work but are less expensive
and more stripped down. But I think you'd be better off just buying some
pads and a spare line lump.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nate Najar wrote:
> thanks everyone!
>
> with the yamaha, I take the balanced, xlr line out from the bass amp
> and with the gain on the preamp all the way down, the little red
> channel led lights up on transients and it spends a pop to my
> speakers- not good. So I instead take the signal from the unbalanced
> line out through a DI and pad it (15db is my option) and then I have
> to crank the gain and the channel fader to get decent level. It
> isn't the end of the world, but when I have to setup and operate
> everything myself, one less step (in this case the DI) is helpful.
>

I still think you can make an H pad out of a mic cable ( and/or maybe
a Radio Shack project box ) and do this better. Since it's an artifact
of the bass amp, keep it with the bass amp.

Heck, you don't even have to build it - google for "Whirlwind IMP Pad -
20 dB " and "Whirlwind IMP Pad - 30 dB"

I have not used this product, but that's nearly certainly where I'd
start. My bass amps each have a pot for the output level so I don't
have this problem.

> The big reason to replace the yamaha is that the external line lump
> scares the hell out of me. I want to get something with an internal
> supply that takes an IEC cable.


It shouldn't. Indeed a lump in the line is generally an easier thing to
replace. I realize it signals "cheap" but it's the right kind of cheap
- the maker gets to avoid the NRE of emissions and safety testing for
the internal power supply, plus is makes shipping and weight easier for
overseas-produced goods.

A lump in the line will probably also be easier to find.

The risk is the power input connector on the mixer.

<snip>
> Les, your comment about the ZED makes me feel better. I looked at it
> and features and size are fine. If it will perform satisfactorily,
> that is what I care about. I wouldn't hesitate to buy the mixwiz
> that Mike mentioned except that I want something with a smaller
> footprint.
>

It's a pretty good little mixer, although I've never driven one.

I'd investigate the sound quality differences between the ZED and
MixWiz before deciding. The MixWiz is about 5 Franklins more.

I'd just do that before buying a Mackie or a Behringer. Mackies famously
have poor buss headroom and Behringers pop inputs.

> Scott, I looked at the sonosax the other day- it's almost perfect but
> it is beyond the budget especially considering the types of gigs I do
> where I would need my own rig.
>
> thanks again for taking the time!
>
> N
>

--
Les Cargill

[Sean Conolly]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/3/2014 7:18 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
>> For my little portable PA I've been using an little yamaha MG mixer.
>> . . . . . The preamps have absolutely no
>> headroom. I have to pad down the line out from the bass amp with a
>> box and then I have to crank the channel gain. And I really hate
>> external power supplies for a few reasons.
>
> I agree with you about the external power supply, but I don't understand
> why you're having the headroom problem. Are you using the line out from
> the bass amp into a DI, and into the mic preamp? If you're setting the
> preamp gain so that it doesn't clip, you should be able to get the bass up
> to a reasonable level in the mix, unless you need to turn down everything
> else, and raise the gain on your power amp. Do the meters jive? If you set
> the preamp gain (trim) so that when you solo the channel pre-fader, you
> see the meters running between 0 and +10 VU and then set the channel fader
> and master fader to its design center ("unity gain" which may not actually
> be unity), do you see the master (mix) level peaking somewhere a bit lower
> than the soloed channel level?

I've had exactly the same experience on every MG series board I've used
which has been several now. There just isn't enough headroom. Turn the
preamps down all the way and they still clip audibly with a strong singer or
horns, forget about drums.


> The VLZ3 was fine and now they have a VLZ4 which is pretty much the same
> but uses different ICs. The new ones are quieter than the old ones and
> with the VLZ3, they finally got the internal gain structure right without
> compromising the signal-to-noise ratio, which was the problem pre-VLZ3.


+1 on the VLZ3. Other than the well know problem with the ribbon cables they
are reliable and cheap used. For a new mixer I'd get the ZED, but for
something that didn't get used much I'd pick up a used 1202 VLZ3.

Sean

[DanielleOM]

On 7/3/2014 7:18 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> For my little portable PA I've been using an little yamaha MG mixer. They're practically free and they sound like it but I've had it for years and I do so few gigs where I need to provide my own PA that I don't bother to replace it. However every time I do use it I think to myself that I need to replace it. The preamps have absolutely no headroom. I have to pad down the line out from the bass amp with a box and then I have to crank the channel gain. And I really hate external power supplies for a few reasons.
>
> Since everything is mass produced in China to a price point and marketed directly to weekend warriors, I don't know how to find something of quality that is compact. i would get an allen and heath mix wiz- I think they're terrific for the price, but even the small one is much too large a mixer for what i need. i usually only run 4 channels, sometimes 4 or 5 but that's about it. It's usually just a talk/vocal mic. guitar mic, guitar DI and bass DI. Sometimes I need additional inputs but basically I need 4-8 halfway decent mic channels. And I need a compact footprint.
>
> The allen and heath zed series seems to have the right size and features (and a built in power supply thankfully) but they seem geared to the home recordist and I'm wondering about reliability versus something like the too-large-footprint mixwiz. Who else even makes a compact mixer? Are the little mackies any good? i haven't used one since I had an original 1202 when they first came out in the mid nineties and I was a teenager so I have no idea how bad it may or may not have sounded.
>
> lets say under $1000 give or take for 4-8 mic channels. I don't need built in effects or multiple foldback sends. compact, good sound and a built in power supply are the name of the game.
>
> I look forward to your recommendations. As usual, thanks for the discussion.
>
> N


I see Yamaha has updated that MG series. I know the updated models now
show up on the Swee****er site. About 4 years ago I went mixer shopping
and tried one of those before buying and keeping a Soundcraft EFX8
mixer. I suspect the MG mixer I brought home at the time was defective
as it really was introducing substantial noise. I have been happy with
the EFX8. I used it a regular basis hosting an acoustic open mic and I
regularly got compliments regarding the sound. (I moved and no longer
host an open mic on a regular basis)

Soundcraft had some small ones (Notepad series), that I thought would be
nice for a small format, however they are discontinued, and they no
longer have anything that small. I think they show up on ebay at times.

I sometimes play out as a duo with a bass player in a small venue. I
have been keeping an eye out as well for a more compact solution. For
some events we don't bother with the mixer and each of us goes direct to
a powered monitor.

Do you need a mixer with effects? (e.g. reverb for vocal)

Sometimes I don't bother with a mixer and just use my powered JBL EONs.
For an upcoming gig, my vocal mic and guitar will go to one. Bass player
will use the other one. It's one of those situations where we really
need to minimize set up time. This has worked reasonable well for us,
but I do miss having reverb on the vocal. I use a Zoom G2.1u effects
pedal to get reverb on the guitar.


Danielle

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/5/2014 12:40 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:
> I've had exactly the same experience on every MG series board I've used
> which has been several now. There just isn't enough headroom. Turn the
> preamps down all the way and they still clip audibly with a strong singer or
> horns, forget about drums.

That really isn't "not enough headroom." Headroom is a system concept
that isn't device-specific. If you want to complain about the mixer
itself, complain about not having sufficient gain adjustment range at
the front end. But this is a design compromise on a simple mixer, and
it's the reason why many more expensive mixers have a built-in swithable
pad.

All it takes, as many have suggested here, is a pad for a loud source
and you'll have enough headroom. But that might not eve be necessary if
the line output is connected to a line input, not a mic input. One of
the things that I emphasize when I give talks about PA system basics is
that specific types of jacks aren't necessarily used for specific
purposes. An XLR output isn't always mic level (as is the case with
Nate's bass player's amplifier) so it's not correct to connect it to a
mic level input even though the connectors mate physically.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Sean Conolly]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/5/2014 12:40 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:
>> I've had exactly the same experience on every MG series board I've used
>> which has been several now. There just isn't enough headroom. Turn the
>> preamps down all the way and they still clip audibly with a strong singer
>> or
>> horns, forget about drums.
>
> That really isn't "not enough headroom." Headroom is a system concept that
> isn't device-specific. If you want to complain about the mixer itself,
> complain about not having sufficient gain adjustment range at the front
> end. But this is a design compromise on a simple mixer, and it's the
> reason why many more expensive mixers have a built-in swithable pad.
>

Take a mic and an average singer into the MG, and you have to turn the trim
well down, if not entirely off, to keep it from clipping. In my book you
shouldn't need to pad an average singer and mic, which is the typical
application for a board like this - which doesn't have pads BTW.

That's what I call 'not enough headroom'.

Sean

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/5/2014 4:38 PM, Sean Conolly wrote:
> Take a mic and an average singer into the MG, and you have to turn the trim
> well down, if not entirely off, to keep it from clipping. In my book you
> shouldn't need to pad an average singer and mic, which is the typical
> application for a board like this - which doesn't have pads BTW.

> That's what I call 'not enough headroom'.

I understand what you mean, and it's an inconvenience, perhaps even a
problem the first time you discover it and you don't have a pad.

I call it having too much input sensitivity, but it's a problem that you
can do something about pretty easily. If you have a quiet singer and a
low output mic and can't turn the gain up as much as you want, that's a
real problem.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Nate Najar > wrote:
>>The big reason to replace the yamaha is that the external line lump scares
>>=
>>the hell out of me. I want to get something with an internal supply that
>>t=
>>akes an IEC cable. If I'm going to get something new, I want something
>>goo=
>>d. I don't buy crap anymore which is why I have schoeps mics and prism
>>con=
>>verters now but I also rarely buy anything because I don't want to spend
>>mo=
>>ney on crap. When I need more mics I borrow or hire them.
>
> It's true that those things do fail a lot, although the advantage of them
> is
> that they get the transformer physically away from the electronics which
> is
> otherwise hard to do in a tiny little compact box.

Most of the modern mixers with inbuilt supplies are switch mode, so the
transformer is small, light, and operates at high frequency, so little
problem putting them in the box now.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>
>Most of the modern mixers with inbuilt supplies are switch mode, so the
>transformer is small, light, and operates at high frequency, so little
>problem putting them in the box now.

That makes the noise issues even worse!
Now instead of something spewing 60 Hz magnetic fields into your quiet
electronics you have something spewing high frequency magnetic fields
AND electrical fields all over.

Take a look inside one of the newer Allen and Heath cheapies and look at
some of the extreme measures they've had to go through to keep switcher noise
under control. It's beautiful work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/6/2014 9:11 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> That makes the noise issues even worse!
> Now instead of something spewing 60 Hz magnetic fields into your quiet
> electronics you have something spewing high frequency magnetic fields
> AND electrical fields all over.

As I say too often, improved technology doesn't always make things
better, but it always changes how we make things (including making
things with things that employ the new technology). Music isn't any
better if it's recorded with a DAW than with a mixer and tape deck.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[jason]

On 6 Jul 2014 09:11:40 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
article >
>
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
> >
> >Most of the modern mixers with inbuilt supplies are switch mode, so the
> >transformer is small, light, and operates at high frequency, so little
> >problem putting them in the box now.
>
> That makes the noise issues even worse!
> Now instead of something spewing 60 Hz magnetic fields into your quiet
> electronics you have something spewing high frequency magnetic fields
> AND electrical fields all over.
>
> Take a look inside one of the newer Allen and Heath cheapies and look at
> some of the extreme measures they've had to go through to keep switcher noise
> under control. It's beautiful work.
> --scott

+1

The tiny, Verizon-branded phone charger in my car completely obliterates
FM reception when it's charging the phone. That takes some doing! I
presume it's a switcher - the clunky old one didn't behave like that.

For fun, I took the charger inside and hooked it to to a battery; I can
hear a raucous buzz on every ham band from 1.8 through 50 MHz. Winding
half a dozen turns of the wire around a split ferrite core pretty much
killed the noise. It makes me wonder if there are any EMC compliance
standards for these things.

Switching supplies make a lot of sense but without care a lot of noise,
too. A new culprit: PV panels with integrated inverters. It's a good idea
to boost the voltage right at the panel to reduce losses, but panels on
the roof are probably pretty good antennas. (I can hear one such
installation on a house a quarter of a mile from mine. I've been working
with the owner to figure out how to mitigate the issue. Fortunately, he's
receptive because he was "hearing something strange" on radios in his
house.)

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 22:56:02 -0400, Jason >
wrote:

>On 6 Jul 2014 09:11:40 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
>article >
>>
>> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> >
>> >Most of the modern mixers with inbuilt supplies are switch mode, so the
>> >transformer is small, light, and operates at high frequency, so little
>> >problem putting them in the box now.
>>
>> That makes the noise issues even worse!
>> Now instead of something spewing 60 Hz magnetic fields into your quiet
>> electronics you have something spewing high frequency magnetic fields
>> AND electrical fields all over.
>>
>> Take a look inside one of the newer Allen and Heath cheapies and look at
>> some of the extreme measures they've had to go through to keep switcher noise
>> under control. It's beautiful work.
>> --scott
>
>+1
>
>The tiny, Verizon-branded phone charger in my car completely obliterates
>FM reception when it's charging the phone. That takes some doing! I
>presume it's a switcher - the clunky old one didn't behave like that.
>
>For fun, I took the charger inside and hooked it to to a battery; I can
>hear a raucous buzz on every ham band from 1.8 through 50 MHz. Winding
>half a dozen turns of the wire around a split ferrite core pretty much
>killed the noise. It makes me wonder if there are any EMC compliance
>standards for these things.
>
>Switching supplies make a lot of sense but without care a lot of noise,
>too. A new culprit: PV panels with integrated inverters. It's a good idea
>to boost the voltage right at the panel to reduce losses, but panels on
>the roof are probably pretty good antennas. (I can hear one such
>installation on a house a quarter of a mile from mine. I've been working
>with the owner to figure out how to mitigate the issue. Fortunately, he's
>receptive because he was "hearing something strange" on radios in his
>house.)

Yes the FCC lay down compliance standards and to meet them you need a
combination of good design and added suppression components. I've
recently put a switch mode psu into production that meets the limits,
and is regularly verified by a very discerning customer.

On the other side, I have bough - and returned - a PC power supply
that carried the FCC marking, but had clearly subsequently been
stripped of all the protection components, presumably in a fraudulent
attempt to cut the cost.

d

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/6/2014 10:56 PM, Jason wrote:
> The tiny, Verizon-branded phone charger in my car completely obliterates
> FM reception when it's charging the phone. That takes some doing! I
> presume it's a switcher - the clunky old one didn't behave like that.

> For fun, I took the charger inside and hooked it to to a battery; I can
> hear a raucous buzz on every ham band from 1.8 through 50 MHz. Winding
> half a dozen turns of the wire around a split ferrite core pretty much
> killed the noise. It makes me wonder if there are any EMC compliance
> standards for these things.

FCC approval mostly is about interfering with over-the-air television
interference. You should be able to watch TV in the living room when
your phone is charging in the bedroom. They check radiation from the
device itself and also EMI going out to the AC power line through the
plug so it won't radiate all over the house. The CE certification is
more inclusive and testing is more stringent, but for consumer devices,
it's not that it won't interfere under any condition, it's like there
are some reasonable conditions under which it can be used without
interference.


One important reason why wall warts are so common is that the wall wart
company can get all the approvals and then none of the device
manufacturers need to get those approvals if they use the approved wall
wart for power. Of course the whole device needs to be tested for EMI
compliance in order to approval, but knowing that the power supply part
is OK makes that easier.

I use a transformer wall wart to test susceptibility to induced AC hum,
and use my cell phone to test for RFI susceptibility. Handy on-topic
tip: Don't leave your cell phone on top of your mixer.




--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>Yes the FCC lay down compliance standards and to meet them you need a
>combination of good design and added suppression components. I've
>recently put a switch mode psu into production that meets the limits,
>and is regularly verified by a very discerning customer.

And if I you walk through Wal-Mart with an EMI receiver you'll find that
almost nothing sold today actually meets the Part 15 requirements when
in actual use.

>On the other side, I have bough - and returned - a PC power supply
>that carried the FCC marking, but had clearly subsequently been
>stripped of all the protection components, presumably in a fraudulent
>attempt to cut the cost.

I found at work a very, very noisy PC, that was at least 20dB above the
Type B limits. I called the manufacturer, explained the problem, and they
offered to send me an FCC compliance sticker that I could put on the back.
As if, somehow, putting the sticker on fixed everything.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/7/2014 6:52 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:

> FCC approval mostly is about interfering with over-the-air television
> interference.

Of course, I meant off-the-air television reception, not interference,
though sometimes the interference is more interesting to watch than the
TV program.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

a small external power supply can be a good thing.

get a spare power supply and throw it into the emergency case..

how do you recover in the field from a failed mixer power supply if the power supply is internal to the mixer.

Mark

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/7/2014 11:33 AM, wrote:
> how do you recover in the field from a failed mixer power supply if the power supply is internal to the mixer.

Same as you recover from a failed external power supply only it's a
little more difficult and the spare part is a little more expensive,
and, for an older mixer, perhaps less easily obtainable.
A good mixer's power supply shouldn't fail, but I have read enough
stories about Mackie VLZ series mixers with dead power supplies and no
factory stock of replacements to believe that if you want reliability,
you need to spend more than the minimum for a better grade product.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike,
Are you saying you carry a spare internal power supply and swap it out in the field?
Mark

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/7/2014 10:37 PM, wrote:

> Are you saying you carry a spare internal power supply and swap it out in the field?

I could if that seemed to be the best alternative. But if this was a
mission critical job and the mixer was small, I might take a whole spare
mixer. If it was a large mixer, I'd look for one with a redundant power
supply. You don't have to own this stuff, you can rent it, but you need
to figure out what makes the most sense on a job-to-job basis.

Understand that I come from an time when these things weren't cheap as
dirt. It was important to be able to fix things when they break, even in
the field. At a festival in El Paso about 25 years ago, we were setting
up for a broadcast feed when we discovered that the Soundcraft 200 mixer
was dead. The problem was with the power supply. This one had an
external power supply (and, no, we didn't have a spare with us) so
opening it up to see what was wrong - it could have been as simple as an
internal fuse - didn't require removing as many screws as, say, a
Mackie. I didn't have a schematic, and this was pre-Internet so I
couldn't just download one, but I did have a multimeter, a soldering
iron, and some hand tools. I was able to repair it right there on the
edge of the stage at Chamizal Memorial Park and had it up and running in
time for the show.

You may ask "what if it went out during the show?" or "Supposed you
couldn't fix it?" Well, that's probably when we would have figured out
how we could make do with a different mixer and borrow it from one of
the daytime PA systems. You don't stand there with a beer in your hand
saying you'll never buy another piece of gear from this company again.

I don't plan that there will be failures, though, because I don't start
off with (or keep) equipment with questionable reliability or something
that I can't fix.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 08/07/2014 12:05, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/7/2014 10:37 PM, wrote:
>
>> Are you saying you carry a spare internal power supply and swap it
>> out in the field?
>
> I could if that seemed to be the best alternative. But if this was a
> mission critical job and the mixer was small, I might take a whole spare
> mixer. If it was a large mixer, I'd look for one with a redundant power
> supply. You don't have to own this stuff, you can rent it, but you need
> to figure out what makes the most sense on a job-to-job basis.
>
> Understand that I come from an time when these things weren't cheap as
> dirt. It was important to be able to fix things when they break, even in
> the field. At a festival in El Paso about 25 years ago, we were setting
> up for a broadcast feed when we discovered that the Soundcraft 200 mixer
> was dead. The problem was with the power supply. This one had an
> external power supply (and, no, we didn't have a spare with us) so
> opening it up to see what was wrong - it could have been as simple as an
> internal fuse - didn't require removing as many screws as, say, a
> Mackie. I didn't have a schematic, and this was pre-Internet so I
> couldn't just download one, but I did have a multimeter, a soldering
> iron, and some hand tools. I was able to repair it right there on the
> edge of the stage at Chamizal Memorial Park and had it up and running in
> time for the show.
>
Nice work.

> You may ask "what if it went out during the show?" or "Supposed you
> couldn't fix it?" Well, that's probably when we would have figured out
> how we could make do with a different mixer and borrow it from one of
> the daytime PA systems. You don't stand there with a beer in your hand
> saying you'll never buy another piece of gear from this company again.
>
Because there are *lots* of people ready to lynch you... ;-)

> I don't plan that there will be failures, though, because I don't start
> off with (or keep) equipment with questionable reliability or something
> that I can't fix.
>
>
>
My experience with wall wart supplies is that nine times out of ten,
it's failed where the wire goes into the plug or comes out of the wart.
This happens rather more often than a kettle or figure of eight
connector fails when the gear has an internal power supply. At least the
wall warts are small enough to carry a spare at all times.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

At least the
>
> wall warts are small enough to carry a spare at all times.
>
>
>

yes, that was my point,

wall wart powered mixers may have some disadvantages,
but the ease of carrying and changing to a backup power supply in the field could be considered an advantage.


At the higher pro level you would have a complete backup desk in the other truck.

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Mike,
>Are you saying you carry a spare internal power supply and swap it out in the field?

With a remote truck where you have plenty of room for spares and usually a
staff member along to swap things out, it's not all that unusual to do.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/8/2014 8:41 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> My experience with wall wart supplies is that nine times out of ten,
> it's failed where the wire goes into the plug or comes out of the wart.

I've found that to be the case, too. This can be repaired with a knife
or hacksaw (to open the case) and a soldering iron, but it would be an
"emergency" field repair.

> At least the
> wall warts are small enough to carry a spare at all times.

But you have to plan ahead for that. I don't know why there are so many
different wall warts and connector sizes, but it seems that people here
are constantly looking for one that matches the specs on the device they
need to power (usually it's because they "lost" the wall wart, rather
than it failed) and can't find the right combination of voltage and current.

Since the old ones weren't regulated, a 9v supply, depending on its
current rating, might put out anywhere from 10 to 15 volts open circuit
and depend on having the right amount of current drawn from them to get
the terminal voltage into tolerance. So you can't always safelly use a
2A wall wart on a device that calls for 500 mA. But you could replace it
with a new switching wall wart of the right voltage and sufficient
current capacity since they're well regulated and, as a benefit, have
much less ripple than one filtered only by a resistor and capacitor. But
the tradeoff is a different radiated EMI spectrum.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[PStamler]

On Tuesday, July 8, 2014 5:05:45 AM UTC-6, Mike Rivers wrote:

> I don't plan that there will be failures, though, because I don't start
> off with (or keep) equipment with questionable reliability or something
> that I can't fix.


*All* equipment has questionable reliability.

Especially at an outdoor festival.

Especially on Sunday.

Especially when it's over 24 hours' drive from the house.

For every festival I worked, I always threw an E-V Entertainer in the back of the trailer as a backup. Saved my ass more than once.

Peace,
Paul

[geoff]

On 7/07/2014 5:37 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/6/2014 9:11 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> That makes the noise issues even worse!
>> Now instead of something spewing 60 Hz magnetic fields into your quiet
>> electronics you have something spewing high frequency magnetic fields
>> AND electrical fields all over.
>
> As I say too often, improved technology doesn't always make things
> better, but it always changes how we make things (including making
> things with things that employ the new technology). Music isn't any
> better if it's recorded with a DAW than with a mixer and tape deck.
>


Current state-of-the-folklore seems to be that music must be better if
it's recorded on tape. And played on vinyl ....


geoff

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>>Most of the modern mixers with inbuilt supplies are switch mode, so the
>>transformer is small, light, and operates at high frequency, so little
>>problem putting them in the box now.
>
> That makes the noise issues even worse!
> Now instead of something spewing 60 Hz magnetic fields into your quiet
> electronics you have something spewing high frequency magnetic fields
> AND electrical fields all over.
>
> Take a look inside one of the newer Allen and Heath cheapies and look at
> some of the extreme measures they've had to go through to keep switcher
> noise
> under control. It's beautiful work.

And you don't see a contadiction there, or is the Allen and Heath still
"spewing high frequency magnetic fields
AND electrical fields all over."? Or is it simply a design problem engineers
already know how to overcome?
And do you really need to mix audio signals in the frequency range the
switch mode PS operates? It is well above the audio region for a purpose
after all, it's easily filtered out. More easily than 50/60Hz transformers!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> As I say too often, improved technology doesn't always make things better,
> but it always changes how we make things (including making things with
> things that employ the new technology). Music isn't any better if it's
> recorded with a DAW than with a mixer and tape deck.

The music going in may not be better, but the audio quality coming out can
be!

Trevor

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Current state-of-the-folklore seems to be that music must be better if
> it's recorded on tape. And played on vinyl ....

No, you need to record direct to Edison cylinder surely?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/7/2014 6:52 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:
>> FCC approval mostly is about interfering with over-the-air television
>> interference.
>
> Of course, I meant off-the-air television reception, not interference,
> though sometimes the interference is more interesting to watch than the
> TV program.

I've never seen that with digital TV (all we have here now) it's always
worse when the picture pixelates and the sound drops in and out. :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
> a small external power supply can be a good thing.
> get a spare power supply and throw it into the emergency case..
> how do you recover in the field from a failed mixer power supply if the
> power supply is internal to the mixer.

Isn't that what the spare mixer is for?

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/9/2014 2:57 AM, Trevor wrote:
> The music going in may not be better, but the audio quality coming out can
> be!

So who cares? Probably the people who don't actually listen to the music.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
> On 7/07/2014 5:37 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 7/6/2014 9:11 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> That makes the noise issues even worse!
>>> Now instead of something spewing 60 Hz magnetic fields into your quiet
>>> electronics you have something spewing high frequency magnetic fields
>>> AND electrical fields all over.
>>
>> As I say too often, improved technology doesn't always make things
>> better, but it always changes how we make things (including making
>> things with things that employ the new technology). Music isn't any
>> better if it's recorded with a DAW than with a mixer and tape deck.
>>
>
>
> Current state-of-the-folklore seems to be that music must be better if
> it's recorded on tape. And played on vinyl ....
>
>
> geoff


I think tape is actually a reaction to Melodyne and a statement about
workflow. They never went through some of the multitracks that were
available from the Olde Dayes. You'd have need a map to navigate the raw
tracks to "Bohemian Rhapsody" so that's not much an example for
workflow purity.

The vinyl thing? Who knows?

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/9/2014 7:03 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

> I think tape is actually a reaction to Melodyne and a statement about
> workflow.

What does Melodyne have to do with tape (or not tape)? It's just another
tool.

> They never went through some of the multitracks that were
> available from the Olde Dayes. You'd have need a map to navigate the raw
> tracks to "Bohemian Rhapsody" so that's not much an example for
> workflow purity.

Exactly - they made a map, or more like a matrix, as a guide when
mixing. You might have a tambourine on the trombone track when the brass
section isn't playing. Usually the way that was handled was to split the
track to two mixer channels (there were always more mixer channels than
there were tracks - otherwise how else would you track an orchestra?),
set up level, panning, EQ, and effects for the trombone, the other for
the tambourine, and un-mute the right one at the right place (or else do
the mix over again).

> The vinyl thing? Who knows?

The people who love vinyl the most have all partially lost their hearing
and eyesight.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/9/2014 7:03 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> I think tape is actually a reaction to Melodyne and a statement about
>> workflow.
>
> What does Melodyne have to do with tape (or not tape)? It's just another
> tool.
>

Melodyne is mentioned in every interview I have read
where people say why they want to use tape.

>> They never went through some of the multitracks that were
>> available from the Olde Dayes. You'd have need a map to navigate the raw
>> tracks to "Bohemian Rhapsody" so that's not much an example for
>> workflow purity.
>
> Exactly - they made a map, or more like a matrix, as a guide when
> mixing. You might have a tambourine on the trombone track when the brass
> section isn't playing. Usually the way that was handled was to split the
> track to two mixer channels (there were always more mixer channels than
> there were tracks - otherwise how else would you track an orchestra?),
> set up level, panning, EQ, and effects for the trombone, the other for
> the tambourine, and un-mute the right one at the right place (or else do
> the mix over again).
>
>> The vinyl thing? Who knows?
>
> The people who love vinyl the most have all partially lost their hearing
> and eyesight.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/10/2014 8:57 AM, Les Cargill wrote:

> Melodyne is mentioned in every interview I have read
> where people say why they want to use tape.

Every interview? Really? How strange. Melodyne makes a program called
Capstan (quite expensive) that, in some cases, can reduce flutter. Maybe
nutty tape people are buying it and using it when they digitize their
tapes. When I think of Melodyne (as a product) I think of their musical
pitch correction and "Audio DNA" polyphonic editor.

The Plangent process really works and removes both frequency modulation
and amplitude modulation ("scrape flutter"), but it's for people with a
budget for commercial reissues, not for home enjoyment, except for
wealthy audiophiles.





--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 7/10/2014 8:57 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Melodyne is mentioned in every interview I have read
>> where people say why they want to use tape.
>
>Every interview? Really? How strange. Melodyne makes a program called
>Capstan (quite expensive) that, in some cases, can reduce flutter. Maybe
>nutty tape people are buying it and using it when they digitize their
>tapes. When I think of Melodyne (as a product) I think of their musical
>pitch correction and "Audio DNA" polyphonic editor.
>
>The Plangent process really works and removes both frequency modulation
>and amplitude modulation ("scrape flutter"), but it's for people with a
>budget for commercial reissues, not for home enjoyment, except for
>wealthy audiophiles.

The last I heard, the Plangent system didn't work in realtime and was still
based on some heavy Matlab code for the demodulation. It's amazing, though,
the change in sound is considerable. Then again, the blending and blur that
it removes is part of the reason why people still use tape today.

I have never even heard of Melodyne before...
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/11/2014 9:08 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The last I heard, the Plangent system didn't work in realtime and was still
> based on some heavy Matlab code for the demodulation. It's amazing, though,
> the change in sound is considerable. Then again, the blending and blur that
> it removes is part of the reason why people still use tape today.

Obviously it's not a simple task. Celemony's (the company that makes
Melodyne) Capstan program also crunches numbers in its own good time.
It's $4,458 to buy and a 5-day rental for all the flutter you can remove
is $199.

> I have never even heard of Melodyne before...

That's what you use when you don't want to use Auto-Tune. It has some
neat tricks when it's smart enough, and the audio is clean enough. You
can run it against a chord, it'll show you all of the notes in the
chord, and you can change the pitch of an individual note, like change a
chord from major to minor. I think PreSonus is bundling a light version
of it with their mixers and audio interfaces now, maybe as part of their
Studio One DAW program.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 7/10/2014 8:57 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Melodyne is mentioned in every interview I have read
>> where people say why they want to use tape.
>
> Every interview? Really? How strange.

No, small sample size plus somebody I know.

> Melodyne makes a program called
> Capstan (quite expensive) that, in some cases, can reduce flutter. Maybe
> nutty tape people are buying it and using it when they digitize their
> tapes. When I think of Melodyne (as a product) I think of their musical
> pitch correction and "Audio DNA" polyphonic editor.
>

So that enables you to "autotune" rhythm, phrasing and duration as
well as pitch. It is to recorded sound what MIDI editing is to just the
notes.


There's a backlash.


> The Plangent process really works and removes both frequency modulation
> and amplitude modulation ("scrape flutter"), but it's for people with a
> budget for commercial reissues, not for home enjoyment, except for
> wealthy audiophiles.
>
>

For sure.

>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>> On 7/10/2014 8:57 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Melodyne is mentioned in every interview I have read
>>> where people say why they want to use tape.
>>
>> Every interview? Really? How strange. Melodyne makes a program called
>> Capstan (quite expensive) that, in some cases, can reduce flutter. Maybe
>> nutty tape people are buying it and using it when they digitize their
>> tapes. When I think of Melodyne (as a product) I think of their musical
>> pitch correction and "Audio DNA" polyphonic editor.
>>
>> The Plangent process really works and removes both frequency modulation
>> and amplitude modulation ("scrape flutter"), but it's for people with a
>> budget for commercial reissues, not for home enjoyment, except for
>> wealthy audiophiles.
>
> The last I heard, the Plangent system didn't work in realtime and was still
> based on some heavy Matlab code for the demodulation. It's amazing, though,
> the change in sound is considerable. Then again, the blending and blur that
> it removes is part of the reason why people still use tape today.
>
> I have never even heard of Melodyne before...
> --scott
>


http://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-is-melodyne

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...

>> I have never even heard of Melodyne before...
> http://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-is-melodyne

Fascinating. I can't help but think "a German Harry Partch".

One of his points is that everything already exists /as an idea/, even if it
hasn't been physically expressed. (I'd go further and say everything exists
/only/ as an idea, but that's another issue.) When I'm trying to solve a
problem, I keep in mind that, if there's an answer, it already exists. I
cannot actually create anything; I can only discover (dis-cover) it.

When he's asked how it was that he came up with his approach to analysis, he
says he doesn't know. In fact, his work and experiences up to that point had
prepared him to recognize something that (probably) no one else had noticed
before.

[Sean Conolly]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/11/2014 9:08 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> The last I heard, the Plangent system didn't work in realtime and was
>> still
>> based on some heavy Matlab code for the demodulation. It's amazing,
>> though,
>> the change in sound is considerable. Then again, the blending and blur
>> that
>> it removes is part of the reason why people still use tape today.
>
> Obviously it's not a simple task. Celemony's (the company that makes
> Melodyne) Capstan program also crunches numbers in its own good time. It's
> $4,458 to buy and a 5-day rental for all the flutter you can remove is
> $199.
>
>> I have never even heard of Melodyne before...
>
> That's what you use when you don't want to use Auto-Tune. It has some neat
> tricks when it's smart enough, and the audio is clean enough. You can run
> it against a chord, it'll show you all of the notes in the chord, and you
> can change the pitch of an individual note, like change a chord from major
> to minor. I think PreSonus is bundling a light version of it with their
> mixers and audio interfaces now, maybe as part of their Studio One DAW
> program.

I can see how Melodyne would be very attractive for a project studio doing
demos for people who really need it. I know a young lady who got her parents
to pay for a lot of studio time and ended up with a really nice sounding
demo. But having heard her in person I would have advised that they save
their money - she's a terrible singer and the studio probably used Melodyne
and a lot of time to fix it all up.

Sean

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
>
>>> I have never even heard of Melodyne before...
>> http://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-is-melodyne
>
> Fascinating. I can't help but think "a German Harry Partch".
>

Exactly. Musique concrete. IMO, it's only German because the
plugin business found more of a home there.

Bomb Factory, all that started in the US but did not remain.

> One of his points is that everything already exists /as an idea/, even
> if it hasn't been physically expressed. (I'd go further and say
> everything exists /only/ as an idea, but that's another issue.)

Gets kinda bootstrappey. Skyhook-ey.

> When I'm
> trying to solve a problem, I keep in mind that, if there's an answer, it
> already exists. I cannot actually create anything; I can only discover
> (dis-cover) it.
>

You could possibly build it from scratch but I doubt you have the budget
for it...

> When he's asked how it was that he came up with his approach to
> analysis, he says he doesn't know. In fact, his work and experiences up
> to that point had prepared him to recognize something that (probably) no
> one else had noticed before.

It's a phenomenal piece of work but it's caused as much despair as
anything else but that's possibly observer bias on my part.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Nate Najar > wrote:

> lets say under $1000 give or take for 4-8 mic channels. I don't need
>built in effects or multiple foldback sends. compact, good sound and a
>built in power supply are the name of the game.
>

Have you seen Bob O's comments at PRW regarding him being suprised to
find a well known and well respected classical recordist in Nashville
tracking a large ensemble using a Mackie Onyx? The man said he was
surprised how very good it all sounded.

I'd look at these, personally, if I'm needing to hang with that budget.
Maybe carry an RNP where I needed more preamps.

http://mackie.com/products/onyx1220i/

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> I agree with you about the external power supply, but I don't understand
> why you're having the headroom problem.

I understand that. I meet it often, and sometimes it's more than
operator ignorance. Some of this kit comes with fanciful specs that
don't hold up well under fire. ****ty preamps abound and dialing back
the input sensitivity only goes so far. Wish it were otherwise.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/9/2014 2:57 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> The music going in may not be better, but the audio quality coming out
>> can
>> be!
>
> So who cares? Probably the people who don't actually listen to the music.

And those of us that do.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> What does Melodyne have to do with tape (or not tape)? It's just another
>> tool.
>
> Melodyne is mentioned in every interview I have read
> where people say why they want to use tape.

Just more proof they don't have a clue then.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "Current state-of-the-folklore seems to be that music must be better if
it's recorded on tape. And played on vinyl .... "


That's because the format intended to supercede those is being used in totally the wrong way.


Plus this: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/is-your-cd-player-changer-too-hot.350381/ The title should be amended to include DVD players and cable/sat boxes.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 06:00:28 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
>
>>> I have never even heard of Melodyne before...
>> http://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-is-melodyne
>
>Fascinating. I can't help but think "a German Harry Partch".
>
>One of his points is that everything already exists /as an idea/, even if it
>hasn't been physically expressed. (I'd go further and say everything exists
>/only/ as an idea, but that's another issue.) When I'm trying to solve a
>problem, I keep in mind that, if there's an answer, it already exists. I
>cannot actually create anything; I can only discover (dis-cover) it.
>
>When he's asked how it was that he came up with his approach to analysis, he
>says he doesn't know. In fact, his work and experiences up to that point had
>prepared him to recognize something that (probably) no one else had noticed
>before.

Does anyone have an idea how he sorts this stuff out? I have a feeling
basic FFT won't do it.

[Nate Najar]

Well ****. That was easy. H pad was just the ticket. Cheap too.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nate Najar wrote:
> Well ****. That was easy. H pad was just the ticket. Cheap too.
>


See? :)

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>Well ****. That was easy. H pad was just the ticket. Cheap too.

Now get a dozen more, because someday you will need them all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."