Stage snake/box with built-in Mike Pre's??

[Terry King]

Does anyone make a typical-looking snake/stage box with mike preamps
built-in? Seems that sending back line level would make sense, and if
you need to buy mike preamps anyway...

Any pointers appreciated!

--
Regards, Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont

The one who Dies With The Most Parts LOSES!! What do you need?

[Thomas Bishop]

"Terry King" > wrote in message ...
> Does anyone make a typical-looking snake/stage box with mike preamps
> built-in? Seems that sending back line level would make sense, and if
> you need to buy mike preamps anyway...

I don't know the answer to your question, but if you're wanting a full 32
channels of preamps, that's what mixing consoles are for. If you just want
to add a couple of very high quality mic preamps for vocals or whatever,
then you probably don't want 32 of them. If they're high quality then
they'll cost a lot for only one; get 32 of them in a box and you'd never be
able to afford it. Just think: 32 channels of Great River in a snake box
would cost a LOT of money. You could possibly spend as much on your snake
as you spent on your entire live rig. You wouldn't want your snake preamps
to be worse than your console ones because that would defeat the purpose.
Plus, it would have to be a very large box to accomodate that many preamps.

You would want to mix on a line level mixer for FOH, and I'm not sure any of
them would be near as functionable as a console designed for that one
purpose.

[George Gleason]

Look at presonus, of couse while your at it might as well mix on a Digital
desk and move your signal on cat 5 or lightpipe
i am gearing up a dm1000 and fiber optic snake system for next spring
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Terry King wrote:

> Does anyone make a typical-looking snake/stage box with mike preamps
> built-in? Seems that sending back line level would make sense, and if
> you need to buy mike preamps anyway...

> Any pointers appreciated!

Some folks are putting the preamps right on stage already (and have been
for a while - onion audio had a preamp rig on the Armadillo World
Headquarters stage in 1974) and sending line levels from there.

But consider that such a unit wouldn't necessarily be "typical looking"
if you want real preamp functions, like phantom power, pads, polarity
flip, etc. Were I to want such a device right now I would see if Dan
Kennedy at Great River Electronics would build one for me.

--
ha

[Scott Dorsey]

Terry King > wrote:
>Does anyone make a typical-looking snake/stage box with mike preamps
>built-in? Seems that sending back line level would make sense, and if
>you need to buy mike preamps anyway...

The Crookwood Paintpot is the one I see most often. Add your own snake
with pigtails and use the paintpot as the stage box.

Aphex also makes a remotely-controllable preamp that you could set up like
this.
--scott

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

[Fletcher]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

> But consider that such a unit wouldn't necessarily be "typical looking"
> if you want real preamp functions, like phantom power, pads, polarity
> flip, etc. Were I to want such a device right now I would see if Dan
> Kennedy at Great River Electronics would build one for me.

He's busy building equalizers at the moment [at least he damn well better be
building equalizers!!]... maybe in a few months he could get to that
project... but, uhhhh, what's the budget?
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

[WillStG]

>Terry King
>Does anyone make a typical-looking snake/stage box with mike preamps
>built-in? Seems that sending back line level would make sense, and if
>you need to buy mike preamps anyway..

I don't know about remote controllable, but I used to work in a remote
bus that had several of the 4 Channel John Hardy M1 micpre units in racks that
would send back to the Neve VR in the bus at line level. And it sounded a lot
better than running 800 feet at mic level, made a big difference on Will Lee's
bass which sounded awesome DI'ed through them.

I think James Taylor recorded a whole tour with M1's on the stage (or
maybe they were M2's, which have the detented stepped gain switches.)


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Samuel Groner]

Cadac (www.cadac-sound.com), Grace Design (www.gracedesign.com) and
AMS-Neve (www.ams-neve.com) have remote-controlled preamps. But all
expensive stuff...

The Cadac-pre (like the Aphex which was mentioned before) has three
independent outputs, so would be perfect for splitting signals.
Samuel

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Does anyone make a typical-looking snake/stage box with mike preamps
> built-in?

Not that I know of. There have been stage boxes with mic preamps and
A/D converters, sending back the mics as a multi-channel digital data
stream, but that's about as close as it gets.

Of course there may have been one custom made by a sound company
somehwere. The idea isn't out of the question, just the selling of it
to people who are likely to buy one.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Some folks are putting the preamps right on stage already

> But consider that such a unit wouldn't necessarily be "typical looking"
> if you want real preamp functions, like phantom power, pads, polarity
> flip, etc.

Aphex (and probably some others) makes a remote controlled preamp
which, on the control end, looks like an ordinary preamp with all the
usual controls, except that it's all digital so you adjust the gain by
looking at numbers on a display rather numbers around a knob.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[WillStG]

(Mike Rivers)
>There have been stage boxes with mic preamps and
>A/D converters, sending back the mics as a multi-channel digital data stream,
but that's about as close as it gets. >

If you're interested in that kind of thing try this link

http://www.xvisionaudio.com/MADI.html

You can use for instance the Studer D19m or DM 21M boxes with micpre
cards over a "MADI" digital connection with a Sony DMXR100 console, a
Soundtracs Digigo console or with a Neve Capricorn... The "MADI" connection
boxes are a pretty modular system, but not cheap I think. The Capricorn's a
pretty big boatanchor though.

The discontinued Roland digital mixers let you put the input unit on the
stage too, one cable to the remote controller/mixer surface, they got blown out
pretty cheap.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Fletcher wrote:

> LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

> > But consider that such a unit wouldn't necessarily be "typical looking"
> > if you want real preamp functions, like phantom power, pads, polarity
> > flip, etc. Were I to want such a device right now I would see if Dan
> > Kennedy at Great River Electronics would build one for me.

> He's busy building equalizers at the moment [at least he damn well better be
> building equalizers!!]...

I thought he said something about going fishing until after the first of
the year.

> maybe in a few months he could get to that
> project... but, uhhhh, what's the budget?

Right, if the man wants something decent it'll cost decently. If he just
wants some signals he could put a VLZ Pro onstage with a bunch of
Y-cables. <cough>

--
ha

[Rick Powell]

Terry King > wrote in message >...
> Does anyone make a typical-looking snake/stage box with mike preamps
> built-in? Seems that sending back line level would make sense, and if
> you need to buy mike preamps anyway...
>
> Any pointers appreciated!

I've seen a few...but not "typical looking". They have been in an
Anvil-type case at the stage end, holding multiple rack-mount mic
pre's, with a multi-pin Amphenol-type connector to the snake cable.
I'll bet Conquest Sound could build you one.

www.conquestsound.com/contact.html

RP

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> You can use for instance the Studer D19m or DM 21M boxes with micpre
> cards over a "MADI" digital connection with a Sony DMXR100 console, a
> Soundtracs Digigo console or with a Neve Capricorn...

Sony makes a MADI extension card cage for the DMX-R100 now. You can
put mic preamp cards into that box and run them outboard of the
console. Quite expensive, and I'm sure not what the original poster
had in mind.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[GKB]

Hey Scott knowing of many things , where does the
ev pl9 dynamic omni fit into there line ? quality wise ?

thanks in advance regards Greg

[Terry King]

Wow! Thanks for a great discussion; sorry, I was on the road...

OK, I'm looking up some of the pointers...

Let me put this in my perspective, fully understanding that there are
several perspectives, and much more 'pro' approaches and requirements.:

-- I'm a little guy specializing in on-location multi-tracking of typical
'small club' performances by individual artists, thru 5 piece groups or
so.

-- I have a relatively low-cost 16 track system (fast home-built
computer, 2 M-audio 1010LT's). I usually track 4 to 14 tracks at 48KHz,
24bits. So far I'm snaking FOH inserts, adding a few Room and Percussion
mikes. Some stuff sounds pretty good when mixed decently.

-- I have been out of recording/broadcasting since 1974 when I went to
work at IBM as an Engineer. Did lots of different stuff, including DSP
chip design and some system stuff for PC Audio / Modems etc. Now I'm
semi-retired in a Log Cabin in very rural Vermont. Yah!!

-- I have built a lot of stuff in many media, including complex PC
boards, and I intend to build 16 mike pre's Real Soon Now. Typical INA163
IC preamp, 2 Polypro caps to block Phantom power, rest DC servoed, thru
Ti Balanced line drivers and receivers to unbal M-Audio ins. I
understand some about what the next 'step up' would be in input
circuitry and balanced drivers etc, but I'm willing to forgo that 5%
improvement on this level. I have 20 of each chip sitting here on my
desk and I'm starting the first breadboard tomorrow. I have decent test
equipment.

-- I like the idea of placing the pre's out front. I'm also considering
making the box with XLR's IN and OUT on the inputs, allowing a 20K
bridging 'mike splitter' function on FOH mikes, if the FOH guys are into
it. I don't need polarity reverse (M-Audio has it), but I don't know how
to do a no-compromise gain control remotely right now, unless I use
relays. Yuk.. Ti just announced a "Digitally Controlled Professional
Mike Preamp" chip, basically an INA163 type with digital controls, but I
don't think it's real yet..

-- Ideally, I want everything in the world, but at a reasonable cost :-)
Hey, That's Engineering! I would (ideally) like to be able to (A) swipe
FOH channels at the inserts, (B) Swipe (Split) FOH mikes onstage, and (C)
run my OWN mikes as needed, for adders at a show, or for a total on-
location recording job. If I had another $5 to $10K to put into mikes...

OK, you guys are really out there, making stuff work, mostly in a pro
environment. What did I say above that makes you groan?? What can you
suggest for a low-budget guy In The Woods In Vermont??

Thanks! Whatever happens, I love the live music, and I'm going to be out
there every week, capturing it as best I can.

--
Regards, Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont

The one who Dies With The Most Parts LOSES!! What do you need?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, GKB > wrote:
>
> Hey Scott knowing of many things , where does the
>ev pl9 dynamic omni fit into there line ? quality wise ?

Dunno, I think it is more or less comparable to the 635A but it was
intended to sell through MI dealers. I don't think it has much bottom.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1069010456k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>In article > writes:
>
>> You can use for instance the Studer D19m or DM 21M boxes with micpre
>> cards over a "MADI" digital connection with a Sony DMXR100 console, a
>> Soundtracs Digigo console or with a Neve Capricorn...
>
>Sony makes a MADI extension card cage for the DMX-R100 now. You can
>put mic preamp cards into that box and run them outboard of the
>console. Quite expensive, and I'm sure not what the original poster
>had in mind.

Also, I found the D19m very disappointing... the converters in the thing
really didn't sound very good at all. I wanted to like it, but in the end
I wound up buying some cheap junk that sounded better.

I remember the Capricorn external converters as sounding great, but that
was a good while ago and I doubt I'll ever get to work on one of those again.
Sadly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Terry King > wrote:
>
>-- I have built a lot of stuff in many media, including complex PC
>boards, and I intend to build 16 mike pre's Real Soon Now. Typical INA163
>IC preamp, 2 Polypro caps to block Phantom power, rest DC servoed, thru
>Ti Balanced line drivers and receivers to unbal M-Audio ins. I
>understand some about what the next 'step up' would be in input
>circuitry and balanced drivers etc, but I'm willing to forgo that 5%
>improvement on this level. I have 20 of each chip sitting here on my
>desk and I'm starting the first breadboard tomorrow. I have decent test
>equipment.

Good idea but I would watch out for good RF rejection if you are working
in clubs and going to be using an instrumentation amp front end. You
might try a common mode choke, maybe bypass caps. Play around and key
a VHF walkie talkie up near it to get a sense of the RF issues.

>-- I like the idea of placing the pre's out front. I'm also considering
>making the box with XLR's IN and OUT on the inputs, allowing a 20K
>bridging 'mike splitter' function on FOH mikes, if the FOH guys are into
>it. I don't need polarity reverse (M-Audio has it), but I don't know how
>to do a no-compromise gain control remotely right now, unless I use
>relays. Yuk.. Ti just announced a "Digitally Controlled Professional
>Mike Preamp" chip, basically an INA163 type with digital controls, but I
>don't think it's real yet..

Use relays. Or use potentiometers with mechanical servo control. Every
single VCA circuit I have ever seen has some compromise, and since you
are running wide converters, you don't need the most precise level setting.
If you just did everything in 6 dB jumps it would be fine.

The TI chip gives me the willies.

>-- Ideally, I want everything in the world, but at a reasonable cost :-)
>Hey, That's Engineering! I would (ideally) like to be able to (A) swipe
>FOH channels at the inserts, (B) Swipe (Split) FOH mikes onstage, and (C)
>run my OWN mikes as needed, for adders at a show, or for a total on-
>location recording job. If I had another $5 to $10K to put into mikes...

I wind up having to bring my own mikes in order to replace the crappy
junk the PA guys normally have. If the PA doesn't sound good, the leakage
won't sound good, and then nothing sounds good.

You really want transformers for splitting, by the way, if only because
the PA guys invariably have grounding problems.

But what is wrong with relays? Takes maybe six control bits per channel,
driving six relays each of which have twice the attenuation of the next
one. If you do it in 6 dB log steps, that's a huge range.

>OK, you guys are really out there, making stuff work, mostly in a pro
>environment. What did I say above that makes you groan?? What can you
>suggest for a low-budget guy In The Woods In Vermont??

Omron relays from Digi-Key.
--scott

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

[WillStG]

(Scott Dorsey)
>Also, I found the D19m very disappointing... the converters in the thing
>really didn't sound very good at all. I wanted to like it, but in the end
>I wound up buying some cheap junk that sounded better.
>
>I remember the Capricorn external converters as sounding great, but that
>was a good while ago and I doubt I'll ever get to work on one of those again.
Sadly.

Yeah the Capricorn is a pretty big financial boatanchor. But RME is
making converter units and PCI cards with MADI I/O, and Neve and others are
making MADI out boxes that can be used in a modular manner with other consoles.


Other remote micpres, Calrec boasts about the Sigma we have at work being
able to network the micpre rack remotely between a lot of consoles. Facility
design engineers like those kind of features. But these damn things have a
very slow, unfriendly interface for use in a fast paced live environment, you
can't poll console settings on all channels at a glance like you can with the
Euphonics and Soundtracs/Digigo digital broadcast consoles, and there isn't
even a true peak limiter avaialble on the main outs! And I don't think what
comes out of the Calrec sounds a whole lot like what goes into them either -
and that's unfortunately pretty common in the digital console world for
broadcasting purposes I think...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Terry King]

> Good idea but I would watch out for good RF rejection if you are working
> in clubs and going to be using an instrumentation amp front end. You
> might try a common mode choke, maybe bypass caps. Play around and key
> a VHF walkie talkie up near it to get a sense of the RF issues.
Good Point!! I have a 144/440 Mhz Talkie to test with.
RE: Common Mode Choke: I heard a reference to some manufacturer using
"Pulse Transformers" in input suppression. Since many pulse transformers
have 1:1 windings, and HF toroid coils, maybe that's not so dumb..
I have a few small pulse transformers I can try.
Any ideas on that??

> Use relays. Or use potentiometers with mechanical servo control. Every
> single VCA circuit I have ever seen has some compromise, and since you
> are running wide converters, you don't need the most precise level setting.
> If you just did everything in 6 dB jumps it would be fine.
Good point. But lotsa relays are driving size/cost/complexity up...
Hmm..

> The TI chip gives me the willies.
Still, IF it's real (I'll call them tomorrow.. no samples offered on the
web yet..) it does solve the gain control issue. Anybody seen a LOW
value digitally (heck, analoglly) - controlled resistor?? The darn INA163

or 103's need to get down to 10 ohms for high gain... I could do the
microcomputer control stuff for those Ti chips OK, and almost no added
components... Hmmm..

> You really want transformers for splitting, by the way, if only because
> the PA guys invariably have grounding problems.
Well, Bill Whitlock at Jensen would agree, but some of the guys at
Whirlwind think transformerless good CMRR may be OK. The real problem is

that the PA guys can have some DI with/without ground-lift sitting with
minus-42 of hum and buzz and 'live with it', and then I have to ride the
darn channel or noisegate it in mixdown. Differential signal crap is
differential signal regardless of the CMRR, transformer or other.. ???
>
> But what is wrong with relays? Takes maybe six control bits per channel,
> driving six relays each of which have twice the attenuation of the next
> one. If you do it in 6 dB log steps, that's a huge range.
Relays aren't wrong. I used to use lots of those cute TO-5 can Teledyne
guys in test equipment I designed. But the doggone things are $24
apiece, and then there's the control circuits and drivers. I have a
strong desire to Keep It Simple. Which I may lose!
>
Great, thought-provoking comments!

--
Regards, Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont

The one who Dies With The Most Parts LOSES!! What do you need?

[nmm]

Innova Son make a digital snake system .. so i think 92 channels of audio
travel down 1 RG-59 CoAx cable.

They also make a few digital consoles now too. THis puts all your Mic pres
on stage.

I've heard that there is no noticable lag problem even when using the D
to A/ A to D system for inserting analogue effects FOH.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> -- I like the idea of placing the pre's out front. I'm also considering
> making the box with XLR's IN and OUT on the inputs, allowing a 20K
> bridging 'mike splitter' function on FOH mikes, if the FOH guys are into
> it. I don't need polarity reverse (M-Audio has it), but I don't know how
> to do a no-compromise gain control remotely right now, unless I use
> relays.

You could use digitally controlled attenuators. Most preamps are
designed so that they run at full gain and attenuation is added to
keep from overloading and to adjust the output level. No reason why
you couldn't build yours that way.

> OK, you guys are really out there, making stuff work, mostly in a pro
> environment. What did I say above that makes you groan?? What can you
> suggest for a low-budget guy In The Woods In Vermont??

A larger budget.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Scott Dorsey]

WillStG > wrote:
>
> Other remote micpres, Calrec boasts about the Sigma we have at work being
>able to network the micpre rack remotely between a lot of consoles. Facility
>design engineers like those kind of features. But these damn things have a
>very slow, unfriendly interface for use in a fast paced live environment, you
>can't poll console settings on all channels at a glance like you can with the
>Euphonics and Soundtracs/Digigo digital broadcast consoles, and there isn't
>even a true peak limiter avaialble on the main outs! And I don't think what
>comes out of the Calrec sounds a whole lot like what goes into them either -
>and that's unfortunately pretty common in the digital console world for
>broadcasting purposes I think...

Didn't Zaxcom have a thing like this also? Again, as I recall the control
stuff was not very friendly.
--scott

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

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article walkinay writes:

> > Some folks are putting the preamps right on stage already

> > But consider that such a unit wouldn't necessarily be "typical looking"
> > if you want real preamp functions, like phantom power, pads, polarity
> > flip, etc.

> Aphex (and probably some others) makes a remote controlled preamp
> which, on the control end, looks like an ordinary preamp with all the
> usual controls, except that it's all digital so you adjust the gain by
> looking at numbers on a display rather numbers around a knob.

I think Grace, GML, and Gordon offer remote control.

Worked with a Gordon preamp last week, BTW; damn nice preamp. Might get
to shoot it against Millennia and Grace next weekend.

--
ha

[Scott Dorsey]

Terry King > wrote:
>> Good idea but I would watch out for good RF rejection if you are working
>> in clubs and going to be using an instrumentation amp front end. You
>> might try a common mode choke, maybe bypass caps. Play around and key
>> a VHF walkie talkie up near it to get a sense of the RF issues.
>
>Good Point!! I have a 144/440 Mhz Talkie to test with.
>RE: Common Mode Choke: I heard a reference to some manufacturer using
>"Pulse Transformers" in input suppression. Since many pulse transformers
>have 1:1 windings, and HF toroid coils, maybe that's not so dumb..
>I have a few small pulse transformers I can try.
>Any ideas on that??

Sure, give it a try. They are common and cheap, and they are basically just
a few winds around a pot core. And they should match well.

Digi-Key has a bunch of common mode chokes for power lines that would also be
fine.

>> Use relays. Or use potentiometers with mechanical servo control. Every
>> single VCA circuit I have ever seen has some compromise, and since you
>> are running wide converters, you don't need the most precise level setting.
>> If you just did everything in 6 dB jumps it would be fine.
>Good point. But lotsa relays are driving size/cost/complexity up...
>Hmm..

Digi-Key has an Alps thing that is a pot with a DC motor on them.

>> The TI chip gives me the willies.
>Still, IF it's real (I'll call them tomorrow.. no samples offered on the
>web yet..) it does solve the gain control issue. Anybody seen a LOW
>value digitally (heck, analoglly) - controlled resistor?? The darn INA163
>or 103's need to get down to 10 ohms for high gain... I could do the
>microcomputer control stuff for those Ti chips OK, and almost no added
>components... Hmmm..

Well, you can run it at high gain, and then just add an attenuator at the
end. If you adjust the gain-setting resistor, the impulse response of the
stage changes all, so it sounds different at different gains. I think this
is a bad thing personally, but a lot of people seem to get a kick out of
finding the "sweet spot" on a preamp. On the other hand, if you do this
you have defeated a lot of the benefit of remoting the things.

Honestly, the relays aren't so bad.

>> You really want transformers for splitting, by the way, if only because
>> the PA guys invariably have grounding problems.
>Well, Bill Whitlock at Jensen would agree, but some of the guys at
>Whirlwind think transformerless good CMRR may be OK. The real problem is
>that the PA guys can have some DI with/without ground-lift sitting with
>minus-42 of hum and buzz and 'live with it', and then I have to ride the
>darn channel or noisegate it in mixdown. Differential signal crap is
>differential signal regardless of the CMRR, transformer or other.. ???

Bingo. If the PA system were set up properly and cleanly with good
grounding practices wherewhere, transformerless splitting is fine. But
sadly this is often not the case, and often it turns into your job to fix
problems with the PA system as well (because the PA guy doesn't mind the
hum, and it's a serious problem when you're recording).

Hmm... I wonder how those $12 red-dot transformers in the digi-key catalogue
would sound as splitters? They saturate easily, but they aren't all that bad
if you are careful about loading on them and only use the low-ratio ones.

>> But what is wrong with relays? Takes maybe six control bits per channel,
>> driving six relays each of which have twice the attenuation of the next
>> one. If you do it in 6 dB log steps, that's a huge range.
>
>Relays aren't wrong. I used to use lots of those cute TO-5 can Teledyne
>guys in test equipment I designed. But the doggone things are $24
>apiece, and then there's the control circuits and drivers. I have a
>strong desire to Keep It Simple. Which I may lose!

So, use the cheaper DIP package Omron ones. Or steal some of the Teledyne
ones from work. Just use gold or mercury-wetted contacts and you will be
fine. By doing it in large jumps and by using binary encoding, you can
minimize the number of relays you need... and you can drive them off of a
BCD rotary switch through a long ribbon cable too.
--scott

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

[Terry King]

Subject: Re: Stage snake/box with built-in Mike Pre's??
From: Terry King >

In article <znr1069034203k@trad>, you say...
> A larger budget.
(... Suppressing my stupid comments...!):
OK Mike, I'll let people know where I REALLY end up budgetwise...

[Terry King]

Guys, more later, but this is a subject of it's own!
In article >, says...
> Well, you can run it at high gain, and then just add an attenuator at the
> end. If you adjust the gain-setting resistor, the impulse response of the
> stage changes all, so it sounds different at different gains. I think this
> is a bad thing personally, but a lot of people seem to get a kick out of
> finding the "sweet spot" on a preamp. On the other hand, if you do this
> you have defeated a lot of the benefit of remoting the things.

Let me see if I understand this... Are you saying that on INA163 type
preamps, (INA103, and that 2017 replacement thing..)that the Transient
Response changes with gain set resistor changes??

I gotta get a breadboard running, and flip to square wave, and look at
that! What's happening on the internal nodes of that chip? And what's
voltage swing got to do with it??

"Sounds different at different gains". That could be true, and explain
some of the subtle stuff. Like the things Arny has been talking about
over in "Preamp Fundamentals". I'll ask him to drop in...

I gotta think about this. Maybe we should fix the gain at, say 40 or 50
Db for stage work, and leave it there, and switch an input attenuator??

Any pointers to this PART of the subject??

This is still in the "more questions are getting added than answered"
part of the process, but I've learned the hard way never to fight THAT!

[Scott Dorsey]

Terry King > wrote:
>Guys, more later, but this is a subject of it's own!
>In article >, says...
>> Well, you can run it at high gain, and then just add an attenuator at the
>> end. If you adjust the gain-setting resistor, the impulse response of the
>> stage changes all, so it sounds different at different gains. I think this
>> is a bad thing personally, but a lot of people seem to get a kick out of
>> finding the "sweet spot" on a preamp. On the other hand, if you do this
>> you have defeated a lot of the benefit of remoting the things.
>
>Let me see if I understand this... Are you saying that on INA163 type
>preamps, (INA103, and that 2017 replacement thing..)that the Transient
>Response changes with gain set resistor changes??

Of course. That happens whenever you change a feedback resistor in any
circuit.

>I gotta get a breadboard running, and flip to square wave, and look at
>that! What's happening on the internal nodes of that chip? And what's
>voltage swing got to do with it??

When you change the feedback, all kinds of things change. You get more
linearity at low gains, but you get different response.

>"Sounds different at different gains". That could be true, and explain
>some of the subtle stuff. Like the things Arny has been talking about
>over in "Preamp Fundamentals". I'll ask him to drop in...
>
>I gotta think about this. Maybe we should fix the gain at, say 40 or 50
>Db for stage work, and leave it there, and switch an input attenuator??

I tend to like doing that, but if you do that, you get poorer S/N at low
gains than you would if you adjusted feedback levels.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I think Grace, GML, and Gordon offer remote control.

Yes, the Gordon does indeed have a remote control which connects to
the box of gain and lotsa parts through another XLR cable. Somehow I
don't think this was quite what the original poster had in mind,
though.

> Worked with a Gordon preamp last week, BTW; damn nice preamp. Might get
> to shoot it against Millennia and Grace next weekend.

I talked with the Gordon guy (his name isn't Gordon) at AES and he has
some interesting ideas on how to design a preamp, as well as very high
standards for the components that go into it. It will be interesting
to hear tales of your upcoming comparison.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[P Stamler]

>When you change the feedback, all kinds of things change. You get more
>linearity at low gains, but you get different response.

That's why I've always liked designing fixed-gain stages, in pairs, with a
lowish-gain stage before the gain control (really just a volume control) and a
higher-gain stage after. Long as you use a *real* quiet second stage, and a
*real* clean first stage, you get a preamp that sounds the same no matter where
you have the gain control set.

Peace,
Paul

[Terry King]

In article >,
says...
> >When you change the feedback, all kinds of things change. You get more
> >linearity at low gains, but you get different response.
>
> That's why I've always liked designing fixed-gain stages, in pairs, with a
> lowish-gain stage before the gain control (really just a volume control) and a
> higher-gain stage after. Long as you use a *real* quiet second stage, and a
> *real* clean first stage, you get a preamp that sounds the same no matter where
> you have the gain control set.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
OK, I'm still figuring out how to simply remote the mike pres out
onstage. So, maybe one approach is to use a low-noise preamp like a
INA163 with fixed gain, like maybe 40db, followed by a low-noise VCA of
some type. And maybe a switchable input pad of, um, maybe 15 or 20 Db
for real hot mikes in very SPL, like an SM57 licking up to a guitar
amp...

Anyone have an opinion on what gain is the "sweet spot" or "Nice"
(whatever THAT is..) Transient Response spot for a INA163 . 2017 etc??

--
Regards, Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont

"The one who dies with the most parts LOSES! What do you need??"

[Terry King]

WOW! HOLY.. (COW, I guess, being in Vermont...):
I just installed RightMark Audio Analyzer 5.1 and in 20 minutes I got it
running on my 1010LT's, ran all tests, and put the results on the web
at:
http://www.terryking.us/public/1010LT.htm

Just amazing!

Now, with my brand new Free $1000's of test gear, I'm ready to replace
the straight wire with "Stuff of my own"...

Once again, the Web and open software development enables the little guy
to do what only the financially gifted could do a decade ago...

Get it at:
http://audio.rightmark.org/

--
Regards, Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont

"The one who dies with the most parts LOSES! What do you need??"

[Scott Dorsey]

Terry King > wrote:
>
>Anyone have an opinion on what gain is the "sweet spot" or "Nice"
>(whatever THAT is..) Transient Response spot for a INA163 . 2017 etc??

No, but I know that with the INA103, most of the distortion is the result
of low-level problems on the output stage, so running the front end with
as much gain as possible is a definite win. Dunno if any of the biasing
tricks (pull-up resistors to turn the output stage into a single-ended
device, for instance) will work on the 103, and I don't know how the 163
compares with the 103 internally. Do some listening tests.
--scott

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

[WillStG]

(Scott Dorsey)

>Didn't Zaxcom have a thing like this also? Again, as I recall the control
>stuff was not very friendly.

Yeah, so do Neve and SSL and several others, some you can see every setting
without having to select a module first, but not everyone offers a per channel
mix minus or true groups either! I wish we had taken a look at the Euphonics
and Sountracs though, because not being able to see the settings on every
channel at a glance really slows you down when you have a busy show with a lot
of changes coming in on the fly.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[nmm]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 2:56 PM, WillStG > wrote:
> I wish we had taken a look at the Euphonics
>and Sountracs though, because not being able to see the
>settings on every
>channel at a glance really slows you down when you have a
>busy show with a lot
>of changes coming in on the fly.

Studer Vista 7 you can visually monitor all the inputs.

The Euphonics tower is really noisey, and the control surface has an
awkward layout. THe one that got put in a Wick truck a few years back had
to have an A-1 follow that truck arround all the time. ( might be good for
job security, til they swap the console)

I thought the Soundtracs was the Digico?

[Terry King]

In article >, says...
> I know that with the INA103, most of the distortion is the result
> of low-level problems on the output stage, so running the front end with
> as much gain as possible is a definite win.
Thanks, Scott; that's in my notebook already...
--
Regards, Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont

"The one who dies with the most parts LOSES! What do you need??"

[ScotFraser]

<< The discontinued Roland digital mixers let you put the input unit on the
stage too, one cable to the remote controller/mixer surface, they got blown out
pretty cheap. >>

And with good reason. Those things were about as counterintuitive as Bush's
economic policy.


Scott Fraser