[Tynan AgviÐr]

Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing ideas
bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.

Everyone ok?
Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

[Rudy]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
: Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing ideas
: bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.
:
: Everyone ok?
: Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

yeah, but after gathering what's required for such a mixing desk,
it's down to drawing up some schematics for various functional parts,
breadboarding, evaluating...that takes some time :-)

here's a "may be required in the near future" option:
although you say you don't want inserts, as mentioned
by other posters, when the time comes that you *do* (maybe),
you're stuck ! so, imo, it would be prudent to plan for at least
2 of the input channels to have an insert incorporated in the design.

it effects material cost and heat generated somewhat, what
do you think ?

Rudy

[Tynan AgviÐr]

"Rudy" wrote in news:4790e0d7$0$11557$dbd4f001
@news.wanadoo.nl:


"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
: Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing ideas
: bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.
:
: Everyone ok?
: Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

yeah, but after gathering what's required for such a mixing desk,
it's down to drawing up some schematics for various functional parts,
breadboarding, evaluating...that takes some time :-)

here's a "may be required in the near future" option:
although you say you don't want inserts, as mentioned
by other posters, when the time comes that you *do* (maybe),
you're stuck ! so, imo, it would be prudent to plan for at least
2 of the input channels to have an insert incorporated in the design.

it effects material cost and heat generated somewhat, what
do you think ?

Rudy



I really do not see the need, Rudy.I never, ever use that stuff..I used to
work that way, but have *evolved* past it. . The only thing I may ever
encounter is a situation in which a limiter might come in handy, but
careful monitoring on my end will negate the need for that.

[Tynan AgviÐr]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in
. 3.70:

"Rudy" wrote in news:4790e0d7$0$11557$dbd4f001
@news.wanadoo.nl:

I really do not see the need, Rudy.I never, ever use that stuff..I
used to work that way, but have *evolved* past it. . The only thing I
may ever encounter is a situation in which a limiter might come in
handy, but careful monitoring on my end will negate the need for that.

OOps, Sir..sorry!
(Wish to clarify the above)..I did not mean to imply that anyone that works
that way was somehow beneath me or behind the power curve..sorry if I came
off that way. I just meant that as I learn more about myself and what my
ears like to hear, my approach changes. I would much rather spend several
hours moving microphones a micrometer this way or that, modifying the
acoustic enviroment, or changing venues etc to achieved desired results
rather than inserting more things in my signal path.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Tynan AgviÐr wrote:
Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing ideas
bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.

Everyone ok?
Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

Yes, we're still here. As Rudy said, once the basic spec is laid out its
a question of some serious thinking and scribbling time.

There is however, one question I wanted to ask. I notice on the devices
you cited as having the right sort of interface that they basically had
a single rotary control for the level/gain of each channel perhaps with
a small number of switches to broadly set the gain. Is this the sort of
interface you like/prefer/are used to? I ask because us old pro mixer
designers like Graham and I are more used to seeing stepped gain
controls that operate in 5 or 10dB steps over a wide gain range and I am
sure you have seen the posts where we have mentioned this. However,
designing such stepped gain controls is pretty hard with tubes. An
alternative method, similar to the devices you cited, would have a small
number of pre-selectable gains with the channel rotary acting as a sort
of fine gain control. The advantage of this is that it is a much simpler
topology for a tube based mixer and I know you are a fellow adherent of
the KISS principle.

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers

Ian

[Tynan AgviÐr]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote in news:fmr5gn$1qv9$1
@energise.enta.net:

Tynan AgviÐr wrote:
Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing
ideas
bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.

Everyone ok?
Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

Yes, we're still here. As Rudy said, once the basic spec is laid out
its
a question of some serious thinking and scribbling time.

There is however, one question I wanted to ask. I notice on the devices
you cited as having the right sort of interface that they basically had
a single rotary control for the level/gain of each channel perhaps with
a small number of switches to broadly set the gain. Is this the sort of
interface you like/prefer/are used to? I ask because us old pro mixer
designers like Graham and I are more used to seeing stepped gain
controls that operate in 5 or 10dB steps over a wide gain range and I
am
sure you have seen the posts where we have mentioned this. However,
designing such stepped gain controls is pretty hard with tubes. An
alternative method, similar to the devices you cited, would have a
small
number of pre-selectable gains with the channel rotary acting as a sort
of fine gain control. The advantage of this is that it is a much
simpler
topology for a tube based mixer and I know you are a fellow adherent of
the KISS principle.

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers

Ian


Hey Sir, yes, I do like stepped gain, (5dB steps are quite nice).., but I
have worked all ways, including with *one* setting fixed gain systems
(nightmare). The pre selectable gain idea with fine tuning is a fantastic
idea. I actually enjoy working with limitations as it forces me to know
my stuff(like the engineers from the golden days had to). The wendt was
a reference for overall features that I would like included, but not
necessarily a blueprint for *how* I would want them implemented. How did
the old neve consoles/desks implement these things?

[Eeyore]

Rudy wrote:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote

: Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing ideas
: bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.
:
: Everyone ok?
: Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

yeah, but after gathering what's required for such a mixing desk,
it's down to drawing up some schematics for various functional parts,
breadboarding, evaluating...that takes some time :-)

here's a "may be required in the near future" option:
although you say you don't want inserts, as mentioned
by other posters, when the time comes that you *do* (maybe),
you're stuck ! so, imo, it would be prudent to plan for at least
2 of the input channels to have an insert incorporated in the design.

I agree very much. An insert point needn't introduce any quality loss.

Graham

[Tynan AgviÐr]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Rudy wrote:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote

: Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing
: ideas bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a
: crawl.
:
: Everyone ok?
: Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

yeah, but after gathering what's required for such a mixing desk,
it's down to drawing up some schematics for various functional parts,
breadboarding, evaluating...that takes some time :-)

here's a "may be required in the near future" option:
although you say you don't want inserts, as mentioned
by other posters, when the time comes that you *do* (maybe),
you're stuck ! so, imo, it would be prudent to plan for at least
2 of the input channels to have an insert incorporated in the design.

I agree very much. An insert point needn't introduce any quality loss.

Graham


Sir(s), I dont doubt either one of you, I have ultimate faith in your
knowledge and ability; but I have no need for them. I am strictly mics
ampsmixerrecorder. This way of working (to me)is most logical, most
simple, and to my ears,the best sounding. I am too dumb to futz around
with knobs and uniquelizers and dynamizers and sodomizers and
glossyassizers. I get all my "effects" with mic placement and venue
selection. Ive seen a gaggle of kids being churned out of schools like
full sail who have apparently been taught that if you arent getting the
sound you need within a couple hours, hell..just buy a new piece of gear
or a new plugin pack. "Cause we can do anything with plugins, man"..****
talent and hard work, and quality for that matter. Damned kids are going
to take us all to aural hell. What I do is call up the Old guys whom I
respect and pick their brains for as long as they let me..most all of
them tell me to get the mic placement right, choose the right venue, and
dont worry about anything else..because by and large, nothing else
matters(other than the quality of the musicians -- out of my control, and
the ability of the conductor/leader, also out of my control)

anything other than the music as it is played, as I hear it, as the mics
hear it,how it comes out of the preamps(the only thing that I do take
liberties with..adding color or "sweetness" on the mic amp side)anything
past that is only my best guess, and though I am a talented musican with
a lot of years experience performing under my belt(and recording), I dont
trust myself to manipulate sound for ****(though I am getting decent with
placement and venue choice). I dont trust other engineers to make
decisions such as balancing, etc either!(that is the conductor/players
job!!) ..this being the reason that my *dream team* collection of
recordings that I love is so small...a lot of engineers are good at
destroying ****, manipulating it, making it ugly.... but so very few
actually know what music is actually supposed to sound like!!and not a
damn one of them knows how to just leave **** alone!!!! (all the ones
that did are Dead or in varying stages of the Death Waltz) I think
listening to a live performance in a good acoustic of Symphonic music,
Chamber, anything acoustic..should be a requirement.

sorry for my disjunct english, was in Europe so long, coming back to my
beloved south is confusing my language skills.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Rudy" wrote in message
...

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
: Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing ideas
: bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.
:
: Everyone ok?
: Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

yeah, but after gathering what's required for such a mixing desk,
it's down to drawing up some schematics for various functional parts,
breadboarding, evaluating...that takes some time :-)

here's a "may be required in the near future" option:
although you say you don't want inserts, as mentioned
by other posters, when the time comes that you *do* (maybe),
you're stuck ! so, imo, it would be prudent to plan for at least
2 of the input channels to have an insert incorporated in the design.

it effects material cost and heat generated somewhat, what
do you think ?


In my view, the lack of insert points at both
channel and track level would severly limit the
usability of this desk, when they could be included
in the initial design for a fairly low additional cost. This is
something that Tynan will find out sooner or later.

I can appreciate his enthusiasms for a clean signal path but
the presence of a pair of normalled jacks will do nothing
to affect the quality of the signal in an adverse fashion.

Tynan must remember that the working life of this desk
may be 20 years or so. As a prof recording engineer, I
find it difficult to forecast what I might need in a week
from now let alone over a much longer time span.

Think ahead Tynan

Regards to all

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote in news:fmr5gn$1qv9$1
@energise.enta.net:

Tynan AgviÐr wrote:
Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing
ideas
bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.

Everyone ok?
Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

Yes, we're still here. As Rudy said, once the basic spec is laid out
its
a question of some serious thinking and scribbling time.

There is however, one question I wanted to ask. I notice on the devices
you cited as having the right sort of interface that they basically had
a single rotary control for the level/gain of each channel perhaps with
a small number of switches to broadly set the gain. Is this the sort of
interface you like/prefer/are used to? I ask because us old pro mixer
designers like Graham and I are more used to seeing stepped gain
controls that operate in 5 or 10dB steps over a wide gain range and I
am
sure you have seen the posts where we have mentioned this. However,
designing such stepped gain controls is pretty hard with tubes. An
alternative method, similar to the devices you cited, would have a
small
number of pre-selectable gains with the channel rotary acting as a sort
of fine gain control. The advantage of this is that it is a much
simpler
topology for a tube based mixer and I know you are a fellow adherent of
the KISS principle.

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers

Ian


Hey Sir, yes, I do like stepped gain, (5dB steps are quite nice).., but I
have worked all ways, including with *one* setting fixed gain systems
(nightmare). The pre selectable gain idea with fine tuning is a fantastic
idea. I actually enjoy working with limitations as it forces me to know
my stuff(like the engineers from the golden days had to). The wendt was
a reference for overall features that I would like included, but not
necessarily a blueprint for *how* I would want them implemented. How did
the old neve consoles/desks implement these things?

Was Neve in business during ther valve/tube era?
Graham worked there later on, I am sure he can tell us.
Most studio recording consoles were built
in-house in those days. Even the very simplest
location recording mixers had the bare necessities,
LF filtering on mic channels, and patch points.

Iain

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Tynan AgviÐr wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote in news:fmr5gn$1qv9$1
@energise.enta.net:

Tynan AgviÐr wrote:
Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing
ideas
bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.

Everyone ok?
Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?
Yes, we're still here. As Rudy said, once the basic spec is laid out
its
a question of some serious thinking and scribbling time.

There is however, one question I wanted to ask. I notice on the devices
you cited as having the right sort of interface that they basically had
a single rotary control for the level/gain of each channel perhaps with
a small number of switches to broadly set the gain. Is this the sort of
interface you like/prefer/are used to? I ask because us old pro mixer
designers like Graham and I are more used to seeing stepped gain
controls that operate in 5 or 10dB steps over a wide gain range and I
am
sure you have seen the posts where we have mentioned this. However,
designing such stepped gain controls is pretty hard with tubes. An
alternative method, similar to the devices you cited, would have a
small
number of pre-selectable gains with the channel rotary acting as a sort
of fine gain control. The advantage of this is that it is a much
simpler
topology for a tube based mixer and I know you are a fellow adherent of
the KISS principle.

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers

Ian


Hey Sir, yes, I do like stepped gain, (5dB steps are quite nice).., but I
have worked all ways, including with *one* setting fixed gain systems
(nightmare). The pre selectable gain idea with fine tuning is a fantastic
idea. I actually enjoy working with limitations as it forces me to know
my stuff(like the engineers from the golden days had to).

There seems to be a number of all tube mic pres on the market that have
a single gain control (usually labeled 'attenuator') plus a simple 20dB
pad at the input. These have a couple of what I think from your point of
view would be interesting properties. First they have a reasonable
maximum gain, typically 65dB, which they claim to be sufficient even for
ribbon mics. Second, they usually include two separate amplification
stages with the attenuator between them. This has the interesting
property that the the first stage output signal level depends only on
the input signal (and the pad switch position). With stronger input
signals they produce a larger output signal and as we all know tubes
produce different levels of distortion a different signal levels. This
means they have a basic means of altering the 'voicing' of the mic pre.
So with a reasonable input signal you could have the pad switched out
and the attenuator set quite low to give added 'tube sound' or you could
switch the pad in and turn up the attenuator to restore the signal level
and get a 'cleaner' signal.

The wendt was
a reference for overall features that I would like included, but not
necessarily a blueprint for *how* I would want them implemented. How did
the old neve consoles/desks implement these things?


They used complex multi-way switches which changed both the gain of the
mic pre and added attenuation for high level inputs. Take a look at the
Neve 1063 or 1073 schematics on this page for an idea of just how
complex they got:

http://danalexanderaudio.com/neve.html

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Iain Churches wrote:

In my view, the lack of insert points at both
channel and track level would severly limit the
usability of this desk, when they could be included
in the initial design for a fairly low additional cost. This is
something that Tynan will find out sooner or later.


Are you sure that additional cost would be fairly low. It most likely
means an output and input transformer pair at a minimum and that's a
good 70 quid a channel on its own.

Unless you were thinking unbalanced inserts?

Cheers

Ian

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

Was Neve in business during ther valve/tube era?
Graham worked there later on, I am sure he can tell us.

The eras overlapped but Neve desks were all solid state.


Most studio recording consoles were built
in-house in those days.

Indeed. I know a studio with a couple of EMI built desks.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

In my view, the lack of insert points at both
channel and track level would severly limit the
usability of this desk, when they could be included
in the initial design for a fairly low additional cost. This is
something that Tynan will find out sooner or later.

Are you sure that additional cost would be fairly low. It most likely
means an output and input transformer pair at a minimum and that's a
good 70 quid a channel on its own.

Unless you were thinking unbalanced inserts?

Most inserts are unbalanced these days. OTOH you can make a balanced
insert using an LME49720 op-amp for a few dollars that will be as audibly
transparent as is possible.

Graham

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Iain Churches wrote:

Was Neve in business during ther valve/tube era?
Graham worked there later on, I am sure he can tell us.
Most studio recording consoles were built
in-house in those days. Even the very simplest
location recording mixers had the bare necessities,
LF filtering on mic channels, and patch points.


They were. The first mixers Rupert Neve built were all valve types. One
of the first, if not *the* first was sold to Chappell Studios in London.
I believe many years later Rupert bought it back from them.

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Eeyore wrote:

Most inserts are unbalanced these days.

Bloody hell.

OTOH you can make a balanced
insert using an LME49720 op-amp for a few dollars that will be as audibly
transparent as is possible.


Balanced but not floating I guess?

Cheers

Ian

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

Was Neve in business during ther valve/tube era?
Graham worked there later on, I am sure he can tell us.
Most studio recording consoles were built
in-house in those days. Even the very simplest
location recording mixers had the bare necessities,
LF filtering on mic channels, and patch points.

They were. The first mixers Rupert Neve built were all valve types. One
of the first, if not *the* first was sold to Chappell Studios in London.
I believe many years later Rupert bought it back from them.

I was under the impression it was solid state !

Not many like that were built though.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Most inserts are unbalanced these days.

Bloody hell.

Not on very high end studio-only gear like Neve but almost everywhere else.


OTOH you can make a balanced
insert using an LME49720 op-amp for a few dollars that will be as audibly
transparent as is possible.

Balanced but not floating I guess?

Define what you mean by floating ? Not galvanically isolated for sure.

Graham

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Eeyore wrote:

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Most inserts are unbalanced these days.
Bloody hell.

Not on very high end studio-only gear like Neve but almost everywhere else.


OTOH you can make a balanced
insert using an LME49720 op-amp for a few dollars that will be as audibly
transparent as is possible.
Balanced but not floating I guess?

Define what you mean by floating ?

Yes, it means galvanically isolated. Floating was the common term used
at Neve in my day.

Cheers

ian
Not galvanically isolated for sure.

Graham

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Eeyore wrote:

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:
Was Neve in business during ther valve/tube era?
Graham worked there later on, I am sure he can tell us.
Most studio recording consoles were built
in-house in those days. Even the very simplest
location recording mixers had the bare necessities,
LF filtering on mic channels, and patch points.
They were. The first mixers Rupert Neve built were all valve types. One
of the first, if not *the* first was sold to Chappell Studios in London.
I believe many years later Rupert bought it back from them.

I was under the impression it was solid state !


I think I got my history facts wrong but the first mixers Rupert built
were definitely valve based. here is an extract I pasted from his web
site (with apologies to Rupert)

Recorded Sound Ltd, London

One of Rupert’s very early clients was Leo Pollini of Recorded Sound in
London for whom he designed and built two valve consoles. The first was
for the studio. The design was based on the successful equipment Rupert
had built in the Plymouth days and included features that were
innovative for that period.

The other was an outside broadcast console. Recorded Sound had a
contract with Radio Luxembourg to broadcast a series of live Sunday
afternoon concerts for which they needed a high quality reliable,
transportable console with all the features of studio equipment and be
capable of feeding music landlines. This console was based on the
earlier studio console that had been working successfully at the
Bryonstone Street Studio. Both these consoles were used by Mr. Pollini
for many years who found them robust and very reliable. Characteristics
for which Neve equipment became renowned.

Not many like that were built though.


Indeed, according to the same web page he went over transistors in 1964!

Cheers

Ian

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Most inserts are unbalanced these days.
Bloody hell.

Not on very high end studio-only gear like Neve but almost everywhere else.


OTOH you can make a balanced
insert using an LME49720 op-amp for a few dollars that will be as audibly
transparent as is possible.
Balanced but not floating I guess?

Define what you mean by floating ?

Yes, it means galvanically isolated. Floating was the common term used
at Neve in my day.

It's not explicitly used to mean that any more. Today it means it'll tolerate
some common-mode voltage.

Transformers are the work of the devil you see. They must be avoided at all
costs. Plus they cost a vast amount for decent ones.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:

Was Neve in business during ther valve/tube era?
Graham worked there later on, I am sure he can tell us.
Most studio recording consoles were built
in-house in those days. Even the very simplest
location recording mixers had the bare necessities,
LF filtering on mic channels, and patch points.
They were. The first mixers Rupert Neve built were all valve types. One
of the first, if not *the* first was sold to Chappell Studios in London.
I believe many years later Rupert bought it back from them.

I was under the impression it was solid state !


I think I got my history facts wrong but the first mixers Rupert built
were definitely valve based. here is an extract I pasted from his web
site (with apologies to Rupert)

Recorded Sound Ltd, London

One of Rupert’s very early clients was Leo Pollini of Recorded Sound in
London for whom he designed and built two valve consoles. The first was
for the studio. The design was based on the successful equipment Rupert
had built in the Plymouth days and included features that were
innovative for that period.

The other was an outside broadcast console. Recorded Sound had a
contract with Radio Luxembourg to broadcast a series of live Sunday
afternoon concerts for which they needed a high quality reliable,
transportable console with all the features of studio equipment and be
capable of feeding music landlines. This console was based on the
earlier studio console that had been working successfully at the
Bryonstone Street Studio. Both these consoles were used by Mr. Pollini
for many years who found them robust and very reliable. Characteristics
for which Neve equipment became renowned.

Not many like that were built though.

Indeed, according to the same web page he went over transistors in 1964!

Thanks for that Ian.

Graham

[Tynan AgviÐr]

"Iain Churches" wrote in
ti.fi:


"Rudy" wrote in message
...

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
: Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing
: ideas bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a
: crawl.
:
: Everyone ok?
: Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

yeah, but after gathering what's required for such a mixing desk,
it's down to drawing up some schematics for various functional parts,
breadboarding, evaluating...that takes some time :-)

here's a "may be required in the near future" option:
although you say you don't want inserts, as mentioned
by other posters, when the time comes that you *do* (maybe),
you're stuck ! so, imo, it would be prudent to plan for at least
2 of the input channels to have an insert incorporated in the design.

it effects material cost and heat generated somewhat, what
do you think ?


In my view, the lack of insert points at both
channel and track level would severly limit the
usability of this desk, when they could be included
in the initial design for a fairly low additional cost. This is
something that Tynan will find out sooner or later.

I can appreciate his enthusiasms for a clean signal path but
the presence of a pair of normalled jacks will do nothing
to affect the quality of the signal in an adverse fashion.

Tynan must remember that the working life of this desk
may be 20 years or so. As a prof recording engineer, I
find it difficult to forecast what I might need in a week
from now let alone over a much longer time span.

Think ahead Tynan

Regards to all

Iain





Rudy et al, let me converse with the guys that mentored me(the guys that
I learned recording from and still turn to for advice regularly). I
really dont see myself needing that stuff, but I am young, dumb, and full
of .... (well, not so young, late 30s) so let me get back to you on
inserts.

[John Byrns]

In article i,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"Rudy" wrote in message
...

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70...
: Yall still alive? I was enjoying the high output of posts, seeing ideas
: bounce back and forth, but it seems to have slowed to a crawl.
:
: Everyone ok?
: Mr. Graham, Mr. Ian, Mr. Byrns, Rudy, Iain?

yeah, but after gathering what's required for such a mixing desk,
it's down to drawing up some schematics for various functional parts,
breadboarding, evaluating...that takes some time :-)

here's a "may be required in the near future" option:
although you say you don't want inserts, as mentioned
by other posters, when the time comes that you *do* (maybe),
you're stuck ! so, imo, it would be prudent to plan for at least
2 of the input channels to have an insert incorporated in the design.

it effects material cost and heat generated somewhat, what
do you think ?

In my view, the lack of insert points at both
channel and track level would severly limit the
usability of this desk, when they could be included
in the initial design for a fairly low additional cost. This is
something that Tynan will find out sooner or later.

Would that it were only "a pair of normalled jacks", providing the
reasonable signal levels and impedances must also be considered, and
will likely add to the cost of the mixer. The third iteration of my
original 26 tube 6 in 2 out mixer could probably provide pre and post
fader inserts for each channel and pre fader inserts for the tracks
fairly easily. However I have been working diligently to reduce the
tube count of my design to allow for more compact packaging and lowered
heat generation. I have eliminated 9 tubes in my second generation
design, resulting in a new design using a total of 15 tubes. The goal
of this redesign was to make a significant reduction in the number of
tubes required, and to reduce the total power dissipation to about that
of a 50 Watt light bulb, exclusive of power supply losses. Of necessity
this new design is less flexible than the original and can accommodate
only pre fader channel insert points and no track insert points.

I can appreciate his enthusiasms for a clean signal path but
the presence of a pair of normalled jacks will do nothing
to affect the quality of the signal in an adverse fashion.

Tynan must remember that the working life of this desk
may be 20 years or so. As a prof recording engineer, I
find it difficult to forecast what I might need in a week
from now let alone over a much longer time span.

Think ahead Tynan

But the feature he may find he really needs a couple of years down the
road could be something no one has yet thought to propose. Sometimes it
is better to not overcomplicate a design, figuring it will eventually
become obsolete and a new mixer will needed anyway, for some completely
unanticipated reason.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote:

In my view, the lack of insert points at both
channel and track level would severly limit the
usability of this desk, when they could be included
in the initial design for a fairly low additional cost. This is
something that Tynan will find out sooner or later.

Would that it were only "a pair of normalled jacks", providing the
reasonable signal levels and impedances must also be considered, and
will likely add to the cost of the mixer.

Well, of course my ideas already handle that. It would be bad practice from a
low-noise perspective NOT to buffer the mic amp voltage gain stage anyway.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:

In my view, the lack of insert points at both
channel and track level would severly limit the
usability of this desk, when they could be included
in the initial design for a fairly low additional cost. This is
something that Tynan will find out sooner or later.


Are you sure that additional cost would be fairly low. It most likely
means an output and input transformer pair at a minimum and that's a good
70 quid a channel on its own.

Still, in the general scheme of things that does not seem exhorbitant to
me for such an essential feature.

Unless you were thinking unbalanced inserts?

We don't really know what the OP wants. On mid priced
desks patch points are not balanced.


Iain