Switch box (2 stereo ins <--> 2 stereo outs) with level control?

[Tommi]

Hello,

I'm looking for a "switch box" that would provide (only) the following:

=====

[2 pairs of balanced/unbalanced ins]

|
V

[A/B switch]

|
V

[level control]

|
V

[A/B switch]

|
V

[2 pairs of balanced/unbalanced outs]

=====

The questions:

1) Where can I find one? Does somebody manufacture/sell this kind of a
product?

2) I'm no electrician, but would like to know whether it is easier to
design and manufacture the previously described apparatus with
unbalanced/balanced inputs only? And how does these choices sum up to
the cost of the final product?

--
Tommi

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I'm looking for a "switch box" that would provide (only) the following:

I think you mean select between one of two sources, adjust the volume
and send the signal to one of two destinations. Whatever it is that
you (only) want, you can be assured that nobody makes exactly that.
There are, however, a number of devices on the market that come pretty
close, usually differing on the side of excess - more inputs or more
outputs. About the bottom end of the scale is the Samson C-Control
($99) and they go up from there to well over a grand.

> 2) I'm no electrician, but would like to know whether it is easier to
> design and manufacture the previously described apparatus with
> unbalanced/balanced inputs only? And how does these choices sum up to
> the cost of the final product?

If you mean is it less expensive to build one that's unbalanced only
(not balanced), yes. It takes half as many parts.


--
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

[Tommi]

Hello Mike!


> I think you mean select between one of two sources, adjust the volume
> and send the signal to one of two destinations. Whatever it is that
> you (only) want, you can be assured that nobody makes exactly that.
> There are, however, a number of devices on the market that come pretty
> close, usually differing on the side of excess - more inputs or more
> outputs. About the bottom end of the scale is the Samson C-Control
> ($99) and they go up from there to well over a grand.

Yes, that's what I meant. :) I just couldn't figure out what the thing
should be called. (I usually speak Finnish.)

The Samson's C-Control is actually just about the only product I already
know of that doesn't give me too many features. Rest of the products
(I'm aware of) seem to be line level mixers with at least 4-8 channels.
But I think I could live with 2 sources and 2 destinations. And a volume
control in between.

So, I would be willing to go up with the price, or at least consider
different units... Any suggestions, then?



>>2) I'm no electrician, but would like to know whether it is easier to
>>design and manufacture the previously described apparatus with
>>unbalanced/balanced inputs only? And how does these choices sum up to
>>the cost of the final product?
>
> If you mean is it less expensive to build one that's unbalanced only
> (not balanced), yes. It takes half as many parts.

And: if I want to e.g. compare unbalanced and balanced signals by
switching between them, could I use a plain balanced box for the purpose?

--
Tommi

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> The Samson's C-Control is actually just about the only product I already
> know of that doesn't give me too many features. Rest of the products
> (I'm aware of) seem to be line level mixers with at least 4-8 channels.

At this year's Winter NAMM show, there was a whole flood of similar
controllers. I mentioned a few of them in my show report, which can be
found at http://www.d-and-d.com

The differences seem to be in more features - metering, digital
inputs, more inputs and outputs, balanced as well as unbalanced, trim
controls to balance levels (like to get the same volume when switching
between monitor speakers), headphone monitor outputs, RIAA equalized
phono input, talkback to headphones or selected outputs, and so on.
But once they get more complicated than the basics, if you want a
specific set of features and not other features, you pretty much have
to build it yourself. I would encourage that, in fact I did, in an
article in Recording Magazine a while back, where I described how to
design a switchbox like this with the features you (the individual
you) need.

> And: if I want to e.g. compare unbalanced and balanced signals by
> switching between them, could I use a plain balanced box for the purpose?

Yes. At least that would keep the balanced path balanced as far as
possible.



--
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

[Tommi]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> At this year's Winter NAMM show, there was a whole flood of similar
> controllers. I mentioned a few of them in my show report, which can be
> found at http://www.d-and-d.com

Here's a deserved pat on the back ---> Excellent report, thank you!

Wouldn't it be great if somebody [*hint*] could compare the Furman,
Mackie, and Presonus units side by side, perhaps concentrating more on
the features that they share with each other...? ;)


> But once they get more complicated than the basics, if you want a
> specific set of features and not other features, you pretty much have
> to build it yourself. I would encourage that, in fact I did, in an
> article in Recording Magazine a while back, where I described how to
> design a switchbox like this with the features you (the individual
> you) need.

Hrm... The DIY approach could be fun. I'll see if I can find the Feb'01
issue somewhere.

Thanks again,

--
Tommi