On our mixing desk we have 2 inputs per channel
Balanced cannon and 1/4" phono [guitar type]
What difference exists between the two?
Is the cannon or 1/4" phono the most suitable to vocal mikes?
Why is one better than the other?
Thanks
scul

"scully" wrote in message
...
On our mixing desk we have 2 inputs per channel
Balanced cannon and 1/4" phono [guitar type]
What difference exists between the two?
Is the cannon or 1/4" phono the most suitable to vocal mikes?
Why is one better than the other?
Thanks
scul

There are lots of mixing desks. They aren't the same. What is the make and
model of yours, then someone might have a possibility of answering your
question.

Steve King

scully wrote:

On our mixing desk we have 2 inputs per channel
Balanced cannon

Usually called XLR these days.

and 1/4" phono [guitar type]
What difference exists between the two?

The 1/4" is for higher level 'line' signals, the XLR is for mics.


Is the cannon or 1/4" phono the most suitable to vocal mikes?

Use the XLR for mics.

Why is one better than the other?

It's not *better* as such. It's the input best suited for the task. Impedance,
voltage levels, gain etc.

Graham

"scully" wrote ...
On our mixing desk we have 2 inputs per channel
Balanced cannon and 1/4" phono [guitar type]

Since you didn't bother to identify your mixing desk, we will have
to guess. If we guess wrong, then you will get incorrect answers.

What difference exists between the two?

The XLR ("cannon") connector is typically connected to a
balanced input optimized for low-impedance microphones.
Most modern microphones of of this type. They can be easily
identified because they have matching 3-pin XLR connectors.

Is the cannon or 1/4" phono the most suitable to vocal mikes?

The 1/4 inch phone (not "phono") connector could be low-level
high-impedance ("instrument/guitar" input), or it could be high-
level line level. Might be balanced or unbalanced, no way of
knowing from your vague description.

Why is one better than the other?

The input that is designed for the source is "better".
This does not hold up very well as a generic question.

scully wrote:
On our mixing desk we have 2 inputs per channel
Balanced cannon and 1/4" phono [guitar type]
What difference exists between the two?
Is the cannon or 1/4" phono the most suitable to vocal mikes?

The XLR is better for any mic because it's (usually) a balanced input,
which means better rejection of hum and other interference.

On some mixers the 1/4 jack is less sensitive, being designed as a line
input. It may or may not also be a balanced input - depends on the mixer.

Anahata

"Anahata" wrote in message
...
scully wrote:
On our mixing desk we have 2 inputs per channel
Balanced cannon and 1/4" phono [guitar type]
What difference exists between the two?
Is the cannon or 1/4" phono the most suitable to vocal mikes?

The XLR is better for any mic because it's (usually) a balanced input,
which means better rejection of hum and other interference.

On my mixer, the 1/4 jacks are also balanced.

It's just a standard convention to use XLR for mic inputs and jacks for line
inputs on many mixers. The difference is the sensitivity and input
impedance.

So if your mixer has both, 1 to 10 that the XLR is the mic input.

Meindert

On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:48:56 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"Anahata" wrote in message
...
scully wrote:
On our mixing desk we have 2 inputs per channel
Balanced cannon and 1/4" phono [guitar type]
What difference exists between the two?
Is the cannon or 1/4" phono the most suitable to vocal mikes?

The XLR is better for any mic because it's (usually) a balanced input,
which means better rejection of hum and other interference.

On my mixer, the 1/4 jacks are also balanced.

It's just a standard convention to use XLR for mic inputs and jacks for line
inputs on many mixers. The difference is the sensitivity and input
impedance.

So if your mixer has both, 1 to 10 that the XLR is the mic input.

Meindert

thanks all...the mixer is a cheesy little bheringer 6 chan job
definitely not state if the art....
scul

On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:36:12 GMT, scully wrote:

thanks all...the mixer is a cheesy little bheringer 6 chan job
definitely not state if the art....

Oh, I don't know. Think what you could have got for that price 10
years ago. You might have found a passive mixer with unbalanced 1/4"
jacks. IF you were really lucky it may have had a PP3 battery and
offered a little (noisy) gain. The art has progressed a lot and
Behringer make use of it.

"scully" wrote ...
thanks all...the mixer is a cheesy little bheringer 6 chan job

Then you can safely assume that ONLY the XLRs are
mic inputs and all the 1/4 inch phone jacks are line-
level, etc.

scully wrote:
On our mixing desk we have 2 inputs per channel
Balanced cannon and 1/4" phono [guitar type]
What difference exists between the two?

Depends on the console. On many of them, there is a substantial level
difference.. the XLR connector wants mike level and the phono plug
wants line level. On some consoles the 1/4" is hot enough to use it
with a mike but still much lower level than the XLR input.

Is the cannon or 1/4" phono the most suitable to vocal mikes?
Why is one better than the other?

If you have a mike, you probably want the XLR mike input.

This is probably discussed in the manual for the console.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Laurence Payne wrote:

The art has progressed a lot

Not really. You could have easily made that mixer 10 yrs ago.

and Behringer make use of it.

Behringer make use of cheap Chinese labour to do it.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Laurence Payne wrote:

The art has progressed a lot

Not really. You could have easily made that mixer 10 yrs ago.

and Behringer make use of it.

Behringer make use of cheap Chinese labour to do it.

You could have made it ten years ago, but just barely. It depends for its
compactness on surface-mounted parts, and on for its cheapness on automatic
placement machines, requiring less of that cheap Chinese labor per unit.

Peace,
Paul

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Laurence Payne wrote:

The art has progressed a lot

Not really. You could have easily made that mixer 10 yrs ago.

and Behringer make use of it.

Behringer make use of cheap Chinese labour to do it.

You could have made it ten years ago, but just barely.

Easily I reckon.

It depends for its compactness on surface-mounted parts,

To a certain extent but by no means are all the parts SMD in the ones I've seen.

and on for its cheapness on automatic
placement machines, requiring less of that cheap Chinese labor per unit.

The cheap Chinese labour comes in handy for everything else. Board stuffing is
just part of the equation There's plenty of labour in metalwork manufacture,
assembly, test, packing etc.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Laurence Payne wrote:

The art has progressed a lot

Not really. You could have easily made that mixer 10 yrs ago.

and Behringer make use of it.

Behringer make use of cheap Chinese labour to do it.

You could have made it ten years ago, but just barely.

Easily I reckon.

It depends for its compactness on surface-mounted parts,

To a certain extent but by no means are all the parts SMD in the ones I've
seen.

and on for its cheapness on automatic
placement machines, requiring less of that cheap Chinese labor per unit.

The cheap Chinese labour comes in handy for everything else. Board
stuffing is
just part of the equation There's plenty of labour in metalwork
manufacture,
assembly, test, packing etc.

And just remember that we were saying all these same things about cheap
Japanese labor until they not only caught up with America and Europe but
surpassed us in many ways, leaving us to be the ones to catch up.

Steve

This is probably discussed in the manual for the console.
Which, if it's a Behringer, can be downloaded for free, from:

www.behringer.com

Good luck!

Corey

Steve King wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

The cheap Chinese labour comes in handy for everything else. Board
stuffing is
just part of the equation There's plenty of labour in metalwork
manufacture,
assembly, test, packing etc.

And just remember that we were saying all these same things about cheap
Japanese labor until they not only caught up with America and Europe but
surpassed us in many ways, leaving us to be the ones to catch up.

I wouldn't actually say they've surpassed us in many ways, other perhaps than
making stuff that has good reliability and longevity at a keen price.

Check out aerospace for example. The west is still the leader.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Steve King wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

The cheap Chinese labour comes in handy for everything else. Board
stuffing is
just part of the equation There's plenty of labour in metalwork
manufacture,
assembly, test, packing etc.

And just remember that we were saying all these same things about cheap
Japanese labor until they not only caught up with America and Europe but
surpassed us in many ways, leaving us to be the ones to catch up.

I wouldn't actually say they've surpassed us in many ways, other perhaps
than
making stuff that has good reliability and longevity at a keen price.

Check out aerospace for example. The west is still the leader.

Graham

I was thinking in the past. We have caught up plus stayed ahead in many
areas, including the one's you mentioned. Except maybe we haven't caught up
in automobiles yet ;-)

Steve

On 17 May 2006 12:25:43 -0700, "coreybenson"
wrote:

This is probably discussed in the manual for the console.
Which, if it's a Behringer, can be downloaded for free, from:

www.behringer.com

Good luck!

Corey
thanks guys....great thread

scul

Pooh Bear wrote:

Steve King wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

The cheap Chinese labour comes in handy for everything else. Board
stuffing is
just part of the equation There's plenty of labour in metalwork
manufacture,
assembly, test, packing etc.
And just remember that we were saying all these same things about cheap
Japanese labor until they not only caught up with America and Europe but
surpassed us in many ways, leaving us to be the ones to catch up.

I wouldn't actually say they've surpassed us in many ways, other perhaps than
making stuff that has good reliability and longevity at a keen price.

Check out aerospace for example. The west is still the leader.

Graham


Well the Chinese might not be able to put a man on the moon, but they
can sell you twelve pairs of socks for a pound!



Ron(UK)

--
Lune Valley Audio
Public Address Systems
Hire Sales Maintenance
www.lunevalleyaudio.com