[John Phillips]

I do some live recording of small (low budget) bands with an Alesis
HD24. My problem is getting the levels correct for their mixer inputs
and and the HD24 inputs at the same time. Typical mixers that I see are
Peavey, Fender (no line level inputs), and Mackie. For recording, I use
the Presonus M80 which has mic and line outputs for each channel. When
I use one of the band mics for recording a channel, I use the M80 for
the mic pre. I send the M80 XLR output to the band's mic input with the
TRS going to the HD24. My problem is that it is difficult to get enough
signal to the HD24 without overloading their mixer input. I could use
inline attenuators on my mic outputs but the mix would still change as I
adjust the record levels. I do set the levels during sound check but
things change during the show and I really do not care to mix the show.
I do not have passive mic splitters which is probably the best way but
the few that I have looked at are very expensive ($300). If that is
the only way to solve the problem then so be it, product suggestions
welcomed. I would also be interested if someone has a lower cost
solution, I am ok with an active solution but realize that it has its
problems. Since I do not use many of the band's mics, I would not need
a lot of split channel devices.

Thanks for any help,

John Phillips
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Scott Dorsey]

John Phillips wrote:
Typical mixers that I see are
Peavey, Fender (no line level inputs), and Mackie. For recording, I use
the Presonus M80 which has mic and line outputs for each channel. When
I use one of the band mics for recording a channel, I use the M80 for
the mic pre. I send the M80 XLR output to the band's mic input with the
TRS going to the HD24. My problem is that it is difficult to get enough
signal to the HD24 without overloading their mixer input.

Well, you can stick a pad in front of the HD24 for this. Or you could
get a transformer splitter. Put the splitter between your rack and the
PA rack. Political problems are ended, and everybody has independant level
control.

I could use
inline attenuators on my mic outputs but the mix would still change as I
adjust the record levels.

Not if you use adjustable ones, and use them to adjust the levels to tape.

I do set the levels during sound check but
things change during the show and I really do not care to mix the show.
I do not have passive mic splitters which is probably the best way but
the few that I have looked at are very expensive ($300). If that is
the only way to solve the problem then so be it, product suggestions
welcomed. I would also be interested if someone has a lower cost
solution, I am ok with an active solution but realize that it has its
problems. Since I do not use many of the band's mics, I would not need
a lot of split channel devices.

Passive splitters are the best real solution. They shouldn't be all that
expensive, though, if you only need a couple channels. Sescom has some
decent splitter transformers and if you can do the metalwork yourself you
can just put them into some cheap metal boxes and add connectors.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Nov 17, 11:58*pm, John Phillips wrote:
I do some live recording of small (low budget) bands with an Alesis
HD24. *My problem is getting the levels correct for their mixer inputs
and and the HD24 inputs at the same time. *Typical mixers that I see are
Peavey, Fender (no line level inputs), and Mackie. *For recording, I use
the Presonus M80 which has mic and line outputs for each channel. *When
I use one of the band mics for recording a channel, I use the M80 for
the mic pre. *I send the M80 XLR output to the band's mic input with the
TRS going to the HD24. *My problem is that it is difficult to get enough
signal to the HD24 without overloading their mixer input. *I could use
inline attenuators on my mic outputs but the mix would still change as I
adjust the record levels. *I do set the levels during sound check but
things change during the show and I really do not care to mix the show.
* I do not have passive mic splitters which is probably the best way but
the few that I have looked at are very expensive ($300). *If that is
the only way to solve the problem then so be it, product suggestions
welcomed. *I would also be interested if someone has a lower cost
solution, I am ok with an active solution but realize that it has its
problems. *Since I do not use many of the band's mics, I would not need
a lot of split channel devices.

Thanks for any help,

John Phillips
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

You can find a snake the has their stage boxes with XLR male and
female for every channel. Canare makes some. I have 8 pair stage boxes
and 32 pair stage boxes. I use handfulls of isolation transformers
(mainly for line level sources connected to video) for any problems I
have with noise. You might find some older Canare snakes available on
EBay because they had other problems with not have a 1 to 1 pin out,
so they share grounds. For me, it just means that I don't ever run
clear com intercom down the snake. Most other problems can be solved
with iso transformers and ground lifts.

[Mike Rivers]

John Phillips wrote:
I do some live recording of small (low budget) bands with an Alesis
HD24. My problem is getting the levels correct for their mixer inputs
and and the HD24 inputs at the same time.

For recording, I use
the Presonus M80 which has mic and line outputs for each channel. When
I use one of the band mics for recording a channel, I use the M80 for
the mic pre. I send the M80 XLR output to the band's mic input with the
TRS going to the HD24. My problem is that it is difficult to get enough
signal to the HD24 without overloading their mixer input.

I guess this is really a matter of how many volts Personus considers Mic
and Line levels to be. But does the band's engineer (or whoever serves
as one) know how to use the TRIM control on the mixer? And does he know
that the knob is there so that you can adjsut it? I don't know about an
old Peavy, but a new Mackie will take most of a line level at the mic
input without clipping. All you need to do is turn down the gain trim.

the mix would still change as I adjust the record levels.
I do set the levels during sound check but
things change during the show and I really do not care to mix the show.

So set the preamp so that the record level is comfortably low and and
leave it there. You aren't trying to record all channels at full scale
all the time are you? You definitely don't want to be changing what's
going to the PA system unless you're mixing the show. The real answer is
mic splitters.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
John Phillips wrote:
Typical mixers that I see are
Peavey, Fender (no line level inputs), and Mackie. For recording, I use
the Presonus M80 which has mic and line outputs for each channel. When
I use one of the band mics for recording a channel, I use the M80 for
the mic pre. I send the M80 XLR output to the band's mic input with the
TRS going to the HD24. My problem is that it is difficult to get enough
signal to the HD24 without overloading their mixer input.

Well, you can stick a pad in front of the HD24 for this.

I read the OP's statement as saying that the level into the HD24
was too LOW, not too HIGH.

[John Phillips]

Mike Rivers wrote:


I guess this is really a matter of how many volts Personus considers Mic
and Line levels to be. But does the band's engineer (or whoever serves
as one) know how to use the TRIM control on the mixer? And does he know
that the knob is there so that you can adjsut it? I don't know about an
old Peavy, but a new Mackie will take most of a line level at the mic
input without clipping. All you need to do is turn down the gain trim.

I run into all kinds but the last one that I did had a Fender board and
all it had was a XLR and volume control (plus tone controls) and no trim.


the mix would still change as I adjust the record levels.
I do set the levels during sound check but
things change during the show and I really do not care to mix the show.

So set the preamp so that the record level is comfortably low and and
leave it there. You aren't trying to record all channels at full scale
all the time are you? You definitely don't want to be changing what's
going to the PA system unless you're mixing the show. The real answer is
mic splitters.



You have identified one of my problems. I try to record too high for
best SNR and get into trouble, I am working on it. The more I think
about it the more the splitters make sense.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Phillips]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Passive splitters are the best real solution. They shouldn't be all that
expensive, though, if you only need a couple channels. Sescom has some
decent splitter transformers and if you can do the metalwork yourself you
can just put them into some cheap metal boxes and add connectors.
--scott



It appears that the passive is the best solution. I will probably need
about 5 or 6 just to be safe. If anyone can suggest a pre built
solution then that would be helpful. A couple years ago I bought all
the parts from Digikey to build two reamp boxes from an article that you
wrote, I am going to build them but I do not know when.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Phillips]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
John Phillips wrote:
Typical mixers that I see are
Peavey, Fender (no line level inputs), and Mackie. For recording, I use
the Presonus M80 which has mic and line outputs for each channel. When
I use one of the band mics for recording a channel, I use the M80 for
the mic pre. I send the M80 XLR output to the band's mic input with the
TRS going to the HD24. My problem is that it is difficult to get enough
signal to the HD24 without overloading their mixer input.
Well, you can stick a pad in front of the HD24 for this.

I read the OP's statement as saying that the level into the HD24
was too LOW, not too HIGH.


Yes, the problem is the levels are too low for the HD24 while starting
to distort the mixers that I had to deal with. But the theory is the same.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
John Phillips wrote:
Typical mixers that I see are
Peavey, Fender (no line level inputs), and Mackie. For recording, I use
the Presonus M80 which has mic and line outputs for each channel. When
I use one of the band mics for recording a channel, I use the M80 for
the mic pre. I send the M80 XLR output to the band's mic input with the
TRS going to the HD24. My problem is that it is difficult to get enough
signal to the HD24 without overloading their mixer input.

Well, you can stick a pad in front of the HD24 for this.

I read the OP's statement as saying that the level into the HD24
was too LOW, not too HIGH.

You're right.... in that case, pad goes into their mixer input.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Federico]

The M80 XLR runs a +4dB signal so it's not mic level.
You have to adjust the levels so to be right for the HD24 and then go from
the send TRS of the M80 to the LINE input of the console (usually TRS) not
into the MIC input (usually XLR).
If you are still having a too hot signal in the board try using an
unbalanced signal...
F.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Phillips wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Passive splitters are the best real solution. They shouldn't be all that
expensive, though, if you only need a couple channels. Sescom has some
decent splitter transformers and if you can do the metalwork yourself you
can just put them into some cheap metal boxes and add connectors.

It appears that the passive is the best solution. I will probably need
about 5 or 6 just to be safe. If anyone can suggest a pre built
solution then that would be helpful.

There are a lot of prebuilt splitters out there, but they are all pretty
expensive compared with making your own.

If you are on a budget, I would call Sescom at 785-883-3000 and ask about
splitters... they make some one and two channel splitter boxes that are
expensive per channel but have a low up-front cost compared with a big
16-channel splitter box.

Whirlwind also makes a thing called the SP1X2 that will let you take
an isolated split from a mike line.

Both of these use okay transformers. They aren't in the Lundahl or Jensen
league, but they don't cost what the Lundahl and Jensen stuff does either.

A couple years ago I bought all
the parts from Digikey to build two reamp boxes from an article that you
wrote, I am going to build them but I do not know when.

Put it together! You can do it in an afternoon... the hard part is drilling
all the holes in the boxes. They are nifty little gadgets and they work
well!
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

John Phillips wrote:

I run into all kinds but the last one that I did had a Fender board and
all it had was a XLR and volume control (plus tone controls) and no trim.

There are two approaches, neither of which is mutually exclusive. One is
to have a box full of pads, the other is to find out what equipment
you'll need to interface so you can come prepared (with a box full of
pads g).

You have identified one of my problems. I try to record too high for
best SNR and get into trouble, I am working on it.

You don't want to record 30 dB low, but if your peaks never get above
-10 dBFS, that's OK too, even if you're using 16-bits. Modern converters
are a lot better than they used to be. Back in the day of the original
ADAT (and before) about all you could expect from a 16-bit converter was
12 bits of real data and the rest noise, so it was beneficial to use all
the headroom you could get away with.

Modern converters still can't do 24 real bits, but losing 10 dB from a
modern converter is no big deal. You still have more dynamic range than
you can use in a final product. What you'll have to get used to, and
this is the thing that makes people thing that there's something wrong
when they record some ways below peak level, is that you'll have to turn
the gain or faders up more than you're used to. And if you're looking at
waveform graphics in a DAW they look mighty feeble.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Federico wrote:
The M80 XLR runs a +4dB signal so it's not mic level.

If that's the case, then John is confused. Some people measure levels
with their eyeballs. If they see an XLR, it must be mic level. g

Sure enough, from the manual: "The Send Jack on the back panel of the
M80 routes the signal being processed by the channel to
outboard devices or to recording media." Looks to me like it doesn't
really have a mic level output. If you need on, you have to make one by
adapting either the 1/4" Send or XLR main outputs with a pad.

It wouldn't be difficult to modify an inexpensive 8-channel XLR snake
with pads so you could run that from the XLR output of the M80 to the PA
console, and use the Send jack to feed your recorder.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Federico]

If that's the case, then John is confused. Some people measure levels
with their eyeballs. If they see an XLR, it must be mic level. g

Usually micpres have line level outputs :-)

http://www.presonus.com/media/manuals/29_m80_manual.pdf
Page 11....

F

[John Phillips]

Federico wrote:
The M80 XLR runs a +4dB signal so it's not mic level.
You have to adjust the levels so to be right for the HD24 and then go from
the send TRS of the M80 to the LINE input of the console (usually TRS) not
into the MIC input (usually XLR).
If you are still having a too hot signal in the board try using an
unbalanced signal...
F.


Shame on me, I did not realize that the signals from the XLRs were so
high. If I had read the manual then I would have known. I knew that
the signals were hot and I was planning on some attenuators.

Thanks,
John Phillips
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Phillips]

Mike Rivers wrote:


You don't want to record 30 dB low, but if your peaks never get above
-10 dBFS, that's OK too, even if you're using 16-bits. Modern converters
are a lot better than they used to be. Back in the day of the original
ADAT (and before) about all you could expect from a 16-bit converter was
12 bits of real data and the rest noise, so it was beneficial to use all
the headroom you could get away with.

Modern converters still can't do 24 real bits, but losing 10 dB from a
modern converter is no big deal. You still have more dynamic range than
you can use in a final product. What you'll have to get used to, and
this is the thing that makes people thing that there's something wrong
when they record some ways below peak level, is that you'll have to turn
the gain or faders up more than you're used to. And if you're looking at
waveform graphics in a DAW they look mighty feeble.



I agree, old habits die hard.

John Phillips
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Phillips]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


If you are on a budget, I would call Sescom at 785-883-3000 and ask about
splitters... they make some one and two channel splitter boxes that are
expensive per channel but have a low up-front cost compared with a big
16-channel splitter box.

I will check this out, I will request the costing information. The
Sescom site could be more helpful. At least the box will be easier to
drill than the reamp.



Whirlwind also makes a thing called the SP1X2 that will let you take
an isolated split from a mike line.

I found were you can get the SP1X2 for about $80 and the SP1X3 for about
$90. For $10 more, you can have two isolated outputs in addition to the
direct. It is interesting but I do not know where I would ever use the
extra output.

Thanks for the sources. After reading and thinking more about this, it
is obvious that I need to go the transformer route. That way, everyone
is happy.

John
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Phillips]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Federico wrote:
The M80 XLR runs a +4dB signal so it's not mic level.

If that's the case, then John is confused. Some people measure levels
with their eyeballs. If they see an XLR, it must be mic level. g

Yes, that would be me.

John Phillips
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Federico]

Hi Scott,
IYO would these suit?
http://store.shure.com/store/shure/e...ctID.104210500
http://store.shure.com/store/shure/e...ctID.104210800
F.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Phillips wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:


If you are on a budget, I would call Sescom at 785-883-3000 and ask about
splitters... they make some one and two channel splitter boxes that are
expensive per channel but have a low up-front cost compared with a big
16-channel splitter box.

I will check this out, I will request the costing information. The
Sescom site could be more helpful. At least the box will be easier to
drill than the reamp.

Sescom will actually sell you pre-drilled boxes... you can buy one to
put the reamp circuit in, even. They'll charge for the service, though.

Whirlwind also makes a thing called the SP1X2 that will let you take
an isolated split from a mike line.

I found were you can get the SP1X2 for about $80 and the SP1X3 for about
$90. For $10 more, you can have two isolated outputs in addition to the
direct. It is interesting but I do not know where I would ever use the
extra output.

The normal use of the extra output is for a monitor console. Another handy
use is to solve political fights... when the PA and recording guys are
fighting about who gets the direct and who gets the isos, you settle it by
both taking an iso.

Thanks for the sources. After reading and thinking more about this, it
is obvious that I need to go the transformer route. That way, everyone
is happy.

Right, and when someone isn't happy, it won't be your fault. The great thing
about the splitter is that it provides a line of demarcation and you can't
blame anyone else for something that goes wrong.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Federico wrote:
Hi Scott,
IYO would these suit?
http://store.shure.com/store/shure/e...ctID.104210500
http://store.shure.com/store/shure/e...ctID.104210800
F.

The A15AS is the handiest thing to have around... 25 dB is usually enough to
put a line input into a mike input, and if it's not enough you can stick
two of them together. Everybody should have a dozen of the things in the
studio because they are just essential little tools.

For a long time, though, I used to say you might as well just buy the Shure
pad because it was just as cheap as making your own from a Switchcraft barrel
connector... but that was back when they were $20 each. I am shocked now
to see them selling for $52.50.

Tec-Nec and Audio-Technica sell some very similar pads and they might be
less expensive. Fifty bucks is a lot of money for a couple resistors and
a switch in a barrel, even if it IS one of the most useful studio gadgets
around.
--scott


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

[George's Pro Sound Company]

let me go way out on the limb here
and risk the wrath of the pro recording community
for under 100$ you can make a dozen 1 female to two male passive splitters

this will give you "your own" feed to your mixer

I don't know of a mic today that reacts badly to a simple 2 way passive
split.

I invested heavily in iso's and broadcast splits andhave never found the
investment was worth it
with Jensens at around 60$ each it got real expensive real fast

I have not found anyone yet who can tell what was done through the iso's and
what was done on a simple passive split snake

I can count on one hand with four fingers left the number of times I have
needed the ground lifts on my Radial Convertible big concert snake.

Flame suit donned.
George

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
let me go way out on the limb here
and risk the wrath of the pro recording community
for under 100$ you can make a dozen 1 female to two male passive splitters

this will give you "your own" feed to your mixer

This is true, and if all the system grounds are correct, everything will
work fine doing this.

There are two problems with this method. First of all, not all the PA systems
you deal with will have proper ground configurations. In fact, most of them
won't. The second problem is that there will be political arguments about
whose responsibility problems are when they turn up. The transformer splitter
avoids the arguments.

You will encounter PA guys who just plain won't put a passive-Y in front
of their system. It doesn't matter if it is going to cause a problem or
not, they won't even try it.

I don't know of a mic today that reacts badly to a simple 2 way passive
split.

This is because most inexpensive consoles today have fairly high-Z inputs
and it's more common that they don't load the mike _enough_ rather than
that they load it too much. You may even find that the mike (especially
something like an SM-57) sounds _better_ with the double load on it.

Impedance matching used to be the main argument for the splitter, and it's
seldom a good argument today. I mean, we do sometimes encounter transformer
isolated consoles with low-Z inputs, but not s often.

I invested heavily in iso's and broadcast splits andhave never found the
investment was worth it
with Jensens at around 60$ each it got real expensive real fast

Yes, I think the big deal with the original poster was that he only needed
a couple channels. It helps if you're just pulling vocals off rather than
grabbing all the sends off the board.

I have not found anyone yet who can tell what was done through the iso's and
what was done on a simple passive split snake

Frankly, this is an argument in favor of the isolation system you bought...
most of the isolation transformers degrade the sound somewhat.

I can count on one hand with four fingers left the number of times I have
needed the ground lifts on my Radial Convertible big concert snake.

Yeah, but it sure saved your rear when you did, didn't it? That's the
thing about stuff like splitters.... sometimes you don't need it, but
when you do, you're really glad you do.
--scott

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

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
let me go way out on the limb here
and risk the wrath of the pro recording community
for under 100$ you can make a dozen 1 female to two male passive
splitters

this will give you "your own" feed to your mixer

This is true, and if all the system grounds are correct, everything will
work fine doing this.

There are two problems with this method. First of all, not all the PA
systems
you deal with will have proper ground configurations. In fact, most of
them
won't. The second problem is that there will be political arguments about
whose responsibility problems are when they turn up. The transformer
splitter
avoids the arguments.

I guess I haven't encountered that issue as it's "my" pa system

You will encounter PA guys who just plain won't put a passive-Y in front
of their system. It doesn't matter if it is going to cause a problem or
not, they won't even try it.

I guess you would need a way to know this in advanceor put up yur own mics,
the level of PA your talking about (where the operator even knows a passive
from a Iso split) is well beyond the "average pa" I feel the op was
addressing.

I don't know of a mic today that reacts badly to a simple 2 way passive
split.

This is because most inexpensive consoles today have fairly high-Z inputs
and it's more common that they don't load the mike _enough_ rather than
that they load it too much. You may even find that the mike (especially
something like an SM-57) sounds _better_ with the double load on it.

Interesting.

Impedance matching used to be the main argument for the splitter, and it's
seldom a good argument today. I mean, we do sometimes encounter
transformer
isolated consoles with low-Z inputs, but not s often.

I invested heavily in iso's and broadcast splits andhave never found the
investment was worth it
with Jensens at around 60$ each it got real expensive real fast

Yes, I think the big deal with the original poster was that he only needed
a couple channels. It helps if you're just pulling vocals off rather than
grabbing all the sends off the board.

I have not found anyone yet who can tell what was done through the iso's
and
what was done on a simple passive split snake

Frankly, this is an argument in favor of the isolation system you
bought...
most of the isolation transformers degrade the sound somewhat.

I can count on one hand with four fingers left the number of times I have
needed the ground lifts on my Radial Convertible big concert snake.

Yeah, but it sure saved your rear when you did, didn't it?


50 channels at 12$ per channel for ground lifts= 600$ for teh ground lifts,
a single 15$ gl adapter would have done the job just fine, or I would simply
cut the ground at the split, my point is it was alot of money for something
that is rarely needed and when needed there are many work arounds that are
under 20$ or even free

I even bought the scanner that searches for the signature noise of a ground
problem and lights a led on thechannel that is giving trouble, before line
check
a 1200$ option I used maybe 6 times

That's the
thing about stuff like splitters.... sometimes you don't need it, but
when you do, you're really glad you do.
--scott

George

[John Phillips]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


The normal use of the extra output is for a monitor console. Another handy
use is to solve political fights... when the PA and recording guys are
fighting about who gets the direct and who gets the isos, you settle it by
both taking an iso.


For recording at the best quality, I would assume that I would want the
direct out to go to the pres feeding the recorder and the iso output
feeding their PA board (assuming there are no fights). The Whirlwind
and Sescom sites do not say if the 48V is passed to the iso out or not.
Is it typical that the direct line supplies the 48V to the mic and the
iso does not have the 48V present?

Thanks,
John Phillips
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Federico]

For recording at the best quality, I would assume that I would want the
direct out to go to the pres feeding the recorder and the iso output
feeding their PA board (assuming there are no fights). The Whirlwind and
Sescom sites do not say if the 48V is passed to the iso out or not. Is it
typical that the direct line supplies the 48V to the mic and the iso does
not have the 48V present?

Don't "iso" stand for isolated? So no direct current, no 48V...
F.

[[email protected]]

On 2008-11-20 said:
I guess you would need a way to know this in advanceor put up yur
own mics, the level of PA your talking about (where the operator
even knows a passive from a Iso split) is well beyond the "average
pa" I feel the op was addressing.
Probably so, but if he encountered me at one of his gigs I"d
insist. But, I"m the guy either doing a mix for broadcast
or recording these days.
THat's why I have a bunch of channels of xformer split with
ground lifts. tHat way, I know what I'e got when I want to
take a feed from mics the sr folks already have up.



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[Scott Dorsey]

John Phillips wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

The normal use of the extra output is for a monitor console. Another handy
use is to solve political fights... when the PA and recording guys are
fighting about who gets the direct and who gets the isos, you settle it by
both taking an iso.

For recording at the best quality, I would assume that I would want the
direct out to go to the pres feeding the recorder and the iso output
feeding their PA board (assuming there are no fights).

Yes.

The Whirlwind
and Sescom sites do not say if the 48V is passed to the iso out or not.

It is not. If it were, it wouldn't be isolated.

Is it typical that the direct line supplies the 48V to the mic and the
iso does not have the 48V present?

Right, that's the only way it can work, unless you have a separate phantom
supply in front of the splitter (which some big splitters do).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Phillips]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


The Whirlwind
and Sescom sites do not say if the 48V is passed to the iso out or not.

It is not. If it were, it wouldn't be isolated.

Is it typical that the direct line supplies the 48V to the mic and the
iso does not have the 48V present?

Right, that's the only way it can work, unless you have a separate phantom
supply in front of the splitter (which some big splitters do).
--scott

I think that I have what I need and thanks everyone.

John Phillips
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Phillips]

Federico wrote:
For recording at the best quality, I would assume that I would want the
direct out to go to the pres feeding the recorder and the iso output
feeding their PA board (assuming there are no fights). The Whirlwind and
Sescom sites do not say if the 48V is passed to the iso out or not. Is it
typical that the direct line supplies the 48V to the mic and the iso does
not have the 48V present?

Don't "iso" stand for isolated? So no direct current, no 48V...
F.


You are correct, I was confused buy something else that I read, it all
makes sense if you think about it.

John Phillips
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

I guess I haven't encountered that issue as it's "my" pa system

Running both the PA system and the recording system together eliminates
90% of the problems out there. Most of them are political ones anyway,
like whether we use the mike that the PA guy wants or the mike the recording
guy wants.

In fact, if you are running both, there's no reason you can't just use
a PA board with direct outputs to feed the recording rack and save yourself
a whole lot of complexity.

You will encounter PA guys who just plain won't put a passive-Y in front
of their system. It doesn't matter if it is going to cause a problem or
not, they won't even try it.

I guess you would need a way to know this in advanceor put up yur own mics,
the level of PA your talking about (where the operator even knows a passive
from a Iso split) is well beyond the "average pa" I feel the op was
addressing.

Could be.

I invested heavily in iso's and broadcast splits andhave never found the
investment was worth it
with Jensens at around 60$ each it got real expensive real fast

If you decide you want to sell some of those, let me know.

50 channels at 12$ per channel for ground lifts= 600$ for teh ground lifts,
a single 15$ gl adapter would have done the job just fine, or I would simply
cut the ground at the split, my point is it was alot of money for something
that is rarely needed and when needed there are many work arounds that are
under 20$ or even free

This is absolutely true.

On a lot of this stuff I like to build it in 8-channel blocks, that way
you can mix and match. The advantages of having all the grounding stuff
switchable is that it's very quick to flip switches around and change the
grounding configuration when you're in a rush. You pay for that speed.

I also have encountered some really, really scary PA rigs and some scary
backline stuff plugged into PA rigs, and it makes me want as much isolation
as I could possibly get sometimes. I'm talking about measuring 60V ground
fault currents on a cable shield. That goes beyond hum and into potential
injury.

I even bought the scanner that searches for the signature noise of a ground
problem and lights a led on thechannel that is giving trouble, before line
check
a 1200$ option I used maybe 6 times

That seems a little bit over the top, yeah. But you might have noticed that
I am not a fan of automation anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."