[[email protected]]

In theory the music is not (or barely) changed if we keep all the
knobs at the "U" position. In theory if we keep the trim or fader at
neutral ("U") position for the mixer, we should get only minimum
distortions even with a basic mixer like Mackie 1202.

For testing, we can use a high quality mic (say Neumann 89) and preamp
(say Millannia HV-3) and feed the output into the basic mixer (say
Mackie 1202), then adjust the setting on the preamp so that we can
simply use 'U' for trim and faders on the mixer. The result should be
similar to that of using a top-notch mixer.

Any use of the trim or fader on the basic mixer would kill the music
as many Mackie 1202 users have claimed in the past. I used this
technique to produce decent music, but I have not compared the result
with a top-notch mixer.

Is there any reason that we still have distortions by keeping all the
knobs on the mixer at 'U' position?

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 3, 8:18 pm, wrote:

Is there any reason that we still have distortions by keeping all the
knobs on the mixer at 'U' position?

Sure. Because you can feed too much level to the channel and cause
clipping right at the front end. And if you have all the channels
operating close to their maximum level, this will overload the mix bus
and cause clipping there. You can't do these things without
understanding what's going on and expect success all the time.

Besides, mixers don't make great music, musicians do.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 5:29 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:18 pm, wrote:

Is there any reason that we still have distortions by keeping all the
knobs on the mixer at 'U' position?

Sure. Because you can feed too much level to the channel and cause
clipping right at the front end. And if you have all the channels
operating close to their maximum level, this will overload the mix bus
and cause clipping there. You can't do these things without
understanding what's going on and expect success all the time.

Besides, mixers don't make great music, musicians do.

The premise is using the fader on the preamp (one for each channel) to
control the level of the sound of individual channel. So overloading
the mix bus on the mixer is not a concern under this premise.

I'm thinking about a minimum form of mixer with all the preamp,
effects, EQs, and faders off board. If we remove all the knobs on the
mixer, where does the distortion come from?

I'm just curious whether in theory a bare bone mixer like this can
preserve the music that talented musicians can make. All the
distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout the
years can be avoided this way.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:44:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The premise is using the fader on the preamp (one for each channel) to
control the level of the sound of individual channel. So overloading
the mix bus on the mixer is not a concern under this premise.

I'm thinking about a minimum form of mixer with all the preamp,
effects, EQs, and faders off board. If we remove all the knobs on the
mixer, where does the distortion come from?

I'm just curious whether in theory a bare bone mixer like this can
preserve the music that talented musicians can make. All the
distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout the
years can be avoided this way.

If you pass a signal through ANY circuit distortion will occur.
Keeping the circuitry minimal makes it easier to reduce this
distortion, but by no means guarantees it :-)

Distortion caused by the microphone, loudspeaker and the rooms you
record and listen in will be enormously more significant than that
caused by any modern preamp/mixer (at least, by those which strive for
transparency - not all do.) There are probably much more productive
directions to aim your perfectionist zeal.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 6:16 pm, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:44:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The premise is using the fader on the preamp (one for each channel) to
control the level of the sound of individual channel. So overloading
the mix bus on the mixer is not a concern under this premise.

I'm thinking about a minimum form of mixer with all the preamp,
effects, EQs, and faders off board. If we remove all the knobs on the
mixer, where does the distortion come from?

I'm just curious whether in theory a bare bone mixer like this can
preserve the music that talented musicians can make. All the
distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout the
years can be avoided this way.

If you pass a signal through ANY circuit distortion will occur.
Keeping the circuitry minimal makes it easier to reduce this
distortion, but by no means guarantees it :-)

Distortion caused by the microphone, loudspeaker and the rooms you
record and listen in will be enormously more significant than that
caused by any modern preamp/mixer (at least, by those which strive for
transparency - not all do.) There are probably much more productive
directions to aim your perfectionist zeal.

This discussion is focused on the transparency of a mixer based on a
given set of music source. Assume we have a transparent source of
music come in from a decent mic and preamp (as I stated), the question
is whether keeping the knobs at 'U' on the mixer or not will affect
the music dramatically.

I was surprised when I found out recently that the same music went
through the mixer without knobs at the 'U' position sounded much more
distorted than I that it was at 'U'. This would not have happened if
the fader indeed contributed little distortion.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:32:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:


This discussion is focused on the transparency of a mixer based on a
given set of music source. Assume we have a transparent source of
music come in from a decent mic and preamp (as I stated), the question
is whether keeping the knobs at 'U' on the mixer or not will affect
the music dramatically.

I was surprised when I found out recently that the same music went
through the mixer without knobs at the 'U' position sounded much more
distorted than I that it was at 'U'. This would not have happened if
the fader indeed contributed little distortion.

Your conclusion that the distortion was *caused* by the faders
is incorrect. The topic that you want to research is called
"gain-staging" and will be useful to you in lots of other ways,
too.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"It's 90% boilerplate, 1% real work, 9% WTF?"
-Les Cargill

[geezer[_2_]]

Keeping the knobs at 'U' will NOT affect the music dramatically.
Having bad musicians will.

But no-one here can talk you out of what you think you heard. I wonder
if you'd hear the same distortion in a blind test. I'm thinking
probably not...

A fader that is properly designed, even if relatively inexpensive,
coupled with proper gainstage management, should be the least of your
worries. Spend more time on putting the right mic in the right place,
and creating an environment that facilitates great performances by the
musicians.

Without that, you're just spending a lot of thought and energy
polishing turds.

-glenn

On Mar 3, 9:32*pm, wrote:

This discussion is focused on the transparency of a mixer based on a
given set of music source. Assume we have a transparent source of
music come in from a decent mic and preamp (as I stated), the question
is whether keeping the knobs at 'U' on the mixer or not will *affect
the music dramatically.

I was surprised when I found out recently that the same music went
through the mixer without knobs at the 'U' position sounded much more
distorted than I that it was at 'U'. This would not have happened if
the fader indeed contributed little distortion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:32:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

This discussion is focused on the transparency of a mixer based on a
given set of music source. Assume we have a transparent source of
music come in from a decent mic and preamp (as I stated), the question
is whether keeping the knobs at 'U' on the mixer or not will affect
the music dramatically.

I was surprised when I found out recently that the same music went
through the mixer without knobs at the 'U' position sounded much more
distorted than I that it was at 'U'. This would not have happened if
the fader indeed contributed little distortion.

If everything's set to unity gain, sure - why put that stage in at
all? It sounds as if, in this case, the mixer DID have a job to do.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:

I was surprised when I found out recently that the same music went
through the mixer without knobs at the 'U' position sounded much more
distorted than I that it was at 'U'. This would not have happened if
the fader indeed contributed little distortion.

This is because you're clipping the hell out of something, and the
Mackie has very, very little headroom on the mix buss.

Turn the trims down, and don't let the output metering get into the
orange. Clipping is bad.
--scott

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

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

If you pass a signal through ANY circuit distortion will occur.

National's latest op-amps have THD figures of -130dB.

Your statement is false. Such circuitry will not add distortion in any
meaningful way.

Graham

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...



Laurence Payne wrote:

If you pass a signal through ANY circuit distortion will occur.

National's latest op-amps have THD figures of -130dB.

THD isn't rated in dB, it's rated as a percentage across a particular frequency
band.


Your statement is false. Such circuitry will not add distortion in any
meaningful way.


THD is a specific type of distortion, and certainly not all types of distortion
are THD. He was referring to distortion in the general sense of the term, in
other words, the signal not being perfectly reproduced and any difference from
the signal on one side of the circuit to the other referred to as distortion.
Not total harmonic distortion, just distortion.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:56:02 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:

If you pass a signal through ANY circuit distortion will occur.

National's latest op-amps have THD figures of -130dB.

Your statement is false. Such circuitry will not add distortion in any
meaningful way.

Which was my point, as you'd have discovered if you'd read on before
knee-jerking with a put-down.

Everything introduces distortion. Often it's negligible, and not
worth chasing.

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:

If you pass a signal through ANY circuit distortion will occur.

National's latest op-amps have THD figures of -130dB.

Your statement is false. Such circuitry will not add distortion in any
meaningful way.

Bob Pease has a demo where he runs a 1KC square wave through a high
grade monolithic op-amp. And it looks perfect. The he runs a square
wave through a board with ten of those op-amps. And it still looks perfect.

So, he pulls out a board that is about a foot on a side, and you know,
the square wave has a little ringing and a little overshoot. Then he
goes behind a partition and pulls out a huge PC board with a thousand
op-amps on it, plugs it in, and the square wave just looks awful.

It's an asymptote. You can get pretty close to zero coloration these
days, but you cannot get there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Keeping the circuitry minimal makes it easier to reduce this
distortion, but by no means guarantees it :-)

Often the best kit has rather more circuitry than others !

Honestly, today's tecnology makes your suggestion baseless.

Graham

[RD Jones]

On Mar 3, 5:29 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

Sure. Because you can feed too much level to the channel and cause
clipping right at the front end. And if you have all the channels
operating close to their maximum level, this will overload the mix bus
and cause clipping there. You can't do these things without
understanding what's going on and expect success all the time.

Besides, mixers don't make great music, musicians do.

On Mar 3, 8:44 pm, wrote:
The premise is using the fader on the preamp (one for each channel) to
control the level of the sound of individual channel. So overloading
the mix bus on the mixer is not a concern under this premise.

I'm thinking about a minimum form of mixer with all the preamp,
effects, EQs, and faders off board. If we remove all the knobs on the
mixer, where does the distortion come from?

I'm just curious whether in theory a bare bone mixer like this can
preserve the music that *talented musicians can make. All the
distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout the
years can be avoided this way.

If the purpose is recording then don't use a mixer at all.
Just plug straight into the recorder's input jack, and control
the level as you describe with the preamp.

If the purpose is live sound reinforcement, then all bets are off
since distortions and colorations of varying room acoustics,
loud monitors, poor mic technique, highly efficient but non-linear
reproduction speakers, etc, will swamp any gains in linearity
by using a minimal signal path.

Faders themselves are passive devices not prone to adding
color or distortion except in the case of poor design.

In trying to optimize a signal path by moving all processes
"off-board" you risk the added problems of many more places
where gain staging can be done improperly as compared to a
single well designed channel strip.

And by the way, if you remove all the preamps, EQs, faders,
and effects you're not left with much of a mixer.

In my observations, distortion and coloration comes from
places where gain is the highest and large impedance
differences must be matched.


rd

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 6:20 pm, RD Jones wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:29 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

Sure. Because you can feed too much level to the channel and cause
clipping right at the front end. And if you have all the channels
operating close to their maximum level, this will overload the mix bus
and cause clipping there. You can't do these things without
understanding what's going on and expect success all the time.

Besides, mixers don't make great music, musicians do.

On Mar 3, 8:44 pm, wrote:

The premise is using the fader on the preamp (one for each channel) to
control the level of the sound of individual channel. So overloading
the mix bus on the mixer is not a concern under this premise.

I'm thinking about a minimum form of mixer with all the preamp,
effects, EQs, and faders off board. If we remove all the knobs on the
mixer, where does the distortion come from?

I'm just curious whether in theory a bare bone mixer like this can
preserve the music that talented musicians can make. All the
distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout the
years can be avoided this way.

If the purpose is recording then don't use a mixer at all.
Just plug straight into the recorder's input jack, and control
the level as you describe with the preamp.

If the purpose is live sound reinforcement, then all bets are off
since distortions and colorations of varying room acoustics,
loud monitors, poor mic technique, highly efficient but non-linear
reproduction speakers, etc, will swamp any gains in linearity
by using a minimal signal path.

Faders themselves are passive devices not prone to adding
color or distortion except in the case of poor design.

In trying to optimize a signal path by moving all processes
"off-board" you risk the added problems of many more places
where gain staging can be done improperly as compared to a
single well designed channel strip.

And by the way, if you remove all the preamps, EQs, faders,
and effects you're not left with much of a mixer.

In my observations, distortion and coloration comes from
places where gain is the highest and large impedance
differences must be matched.

rd

Yes I sometimes record the music to the recorder directly and bypass
the additional processing of the mixer. Thanks for the reminder.

You made some very good points regarding the overall framework of the
mixer. I do understand the complexity to build a well coordinated
mixer. Though off-board effect and processing are common place and
what I stated was not any different. My main curiosity is whether the
distortion introduced by the fader can be avoided.

It is very true that "distortion and coloration comes from
places where gain is the highest and large impedance differences must
be matched." Though I recently found out that the fader on the mixer
may contribute to more distortion than we might have expected.

So either we need to buy a high-end mixer or skip the mixer to
preserve the transparency of the music source. Though as I stated,
keeping the knobs at 'U' just might be one option if we only have a
basic mixer at hand.

[RD Jones]

On Mar 3, 6:20 pm, RD Jones wrote:
Faders themselves are passive devices not prone to adding
color or distortion except in the case of poor design.

In trying to optimize a signal path by moving all processes
"off-board" you risk the added problems of many more places
where gain staging can be done improperly as compared to a
single well designed channel strip.

And by the way, if you remove all the preamps, EQs, faders,
and effects you're not left with much of a mixer.

In my observations, distortion and coloration comes from
places where gain is the highest and large impedance
differences must be matched.

On Mar 3, 9:47 pm, wrote:
Yes I sometimes record the music to the recorder directly and bypass
the additional processing of the mixer. Thanks for the reminder.

You made some very good points regarding the overall framework of the
mixer. I do understand the complexity to build a well coordinated
mixer. Though off-board effect and processing are common place and
what I stated was not any different. My main curiosity is whether the
distortion introduced by the fader can be avoided.

It is very true that "distortion and coloration comes from
places where gain is the highest and large impedance differences must
be matched." Though I recently found out that the fader on the mixer
may contribute to more distortion than we might have expected.

So either we need to buy a high-end mixer or skip the mixer to
preserve the transparency of the music source. Though as I stated,
keeping the knobs at 'U' just might be one option if we only have a
basic mixer at hand.

The "U" indicator is nothing Magic or special.
It's just the same as a 0dB gain point and it occurs on both
the trim knob and fader. It's there to assist in setting your
gain staging, quite literally how much gain per stage you
add (or subtract in the case of a fader).

If you are getting audible distortion you have a problem.
Something is being overdriven or overloaded.

So if you have unity gain on the trim and unity at the fader
you are not adding any gain in the strip and no attenuation
at the (post fader) ouput. At this point you could take the
channel strip out of the path and you should be left with
exactly the same signal you put in. A line input from an
external preamp should be capable of exceeding small
amounts of distortion well below the threshold of being
audible. A small amount of gain or attenuation should have
very little effect and a properly designed strip should not
add or subtract anything from the sound.

Remember, a fader is passive, hung on the output of the
channel to control the output level. If there's distortion it's
happening in the active circuits ahead of the fader.

rd

[Paul Stamler]

wrote in message
...
You made some very good points regarding the overall framework of the
mixer. I do understand the complexity to build a well coordinated
mixer. Though off-board effect and processing are common place and
what I stated was not any different. My main curiosity is whether the
distortion introduced by the fader can be avoided.

It is very true that "distortion and coloration comes from
places where gain is the highest and large impedance differences must
be matched." Though I recently found out that the fader on the mixer
may contribute to more distortion than we might have expected.

The only time faders contribute distortion is when they're defective. (Which
I have seen, but not often.) In electronic equipment, distortion only comes
from two places: amplifying circuits and bad contacts, and the overwhelming
percentage of the time it's amplifying circuits. All active circuits produce
some distortion, even if it's sometimes so low it's hard to measure. The
point of gain staging is to keep the levels in the amplifying circuits
sufficiently low that the distortion doesn't become audible, without
seriously compromising noise levels. Some mixers are better at that than
others; some Mackies, in particular, have highish distortion levels in the
bus, summing and output amplifiers, so one needs to run those at
lower-than-usual levels to avoid the distortion.

So either we need to buy a high-end mixer or skip the mixer to
preserve the transparency of the music source. Though as I stated,
keeping the knobs at 'U' just might be one option if we only have a
basic mixer at hand.

What you need to do, instead of flogging this particular dead horse, is two
things. First, take a look at the r.a.p. FAQ, with particular attention to
"gain staging". Second, get a copy of the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement
Handbook and read it from cover to cover. Even if your focus is recording ra
ther than sound reinforcement, this book provides a good overview of what
goes on inside a mixer.

Peace,
Paul

[Eeyore]

wrote:

All the distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout
the
years can be avoided this way.

With today's technology, even the cheapest mixers ( e.g. Behringer - not
total junk ) barely add any distortion now. Look elsewhere.

Graham

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 9:54 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
wrote:
All the distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout
the
years can be avoided this way.

With today's technology, even the cheapest mixers ( e.g. Behringer - not
total junk ) barely add any distortion now. Look elsewhere.

Graham

This is not consistent with real time usage of many people. I read on
a professional audio forum frequented by the audio engineers and the
consensus is that there is much to be desired for the transparency of
the basic mixers. I suspect that the main problem is the input stage
amplifier, which is logically inferior to the best preamp in the world
due to cost. I believe this can be fixed by adding a switch to turn
off the input amplifier and let users use their own preamp. (right now
the build-in amp cannot be bypassed.)

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 04:01:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 3, 9:54 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
wrote:
All the distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout
the
years can be avoided this way.

With today's technology, even the cheapest mixers ( e.g. Behringer - not
total junk ) barely add any distortion now. Look elsewhere.

Graham

This is not consistent with real time usage of many people. I read on
a professional audio forum frequented by the audio engineers and the
consensus is that there is much to be desired for the transparency of
the basic mixers. I suspect that the main problem is the input stage
amplifier, which is logically inferior to the best preamp in the world
due to cost. I believe this can be fixed by adding a switch to turn
off the input amplifier and let users use their own preamp. (right now
the build-in amp cannot be bypassed.)

I did a bypass comparison test right here some time ago, using a
Behringer UB802 mixer mic preamp. It was presented blind, and nobody
here could identify the difference between signals that had passed
through the mic amp and those that hadn't.

It is laughably easy these days to make audio equipment that is
effectively totally transparent. The difference between cheap and
expensive mixers is not going to found in sound quality, but in
functions and features - and maybe longevity.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
All the distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout
the years can be avoided this way.

With today's technology, even the cheapest mixers ( e.g. Behringer - not
total junk ) barely add any distortion now. Look elsewhere.


This is not consistent with real time usage of many people. I read on
a professional audio forum frequented by the audio engineers and the
consensus is that there is much to be desired for the transparency of
the basic mixers. I suspect that the main problem is the input stage
amplifier, which is logically inferior to the best preamp in the world
due to cost. I believe this can be fixed by adding a switch to turn
off the input amplifier and let users use their own preamp. (right now
the build-in amp cannot be bypassed.)

This is indeed the usual ******** that infests such places.

Most of these people need to get a life and learn how to use kit properly.

However a Mackie CR1202 or 1402 preamp is a LOUSY choice for any comparison if
you want some gain out of it. They haven't made it for what ? at least TEN
years. It was crap then and it's crap NOW. Why are you using a damn MACKIE CR
series ?

Graham

[Paul Stamler]

wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 9:54 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
wrote:
All the distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers
throughout
the
years can be avoided this way.

With today's technology, even the cheapest mixers ( e.g. Behringer - not
total junk ) barely add any distortion now. Look elsewhere.

Graham

This is not consistent with real time usage of many people. I read on
a professional audio forum frequented by the audio engineers and the
consensus is that there is much to be desired for the transparency of
the basic mixers. I suspect that the main problem is the input stage
amplifier, which is logically inferior to the best preamp in the world
due to cost. I believe this can be fixed by adding a switch to turn
off the input amplifier and let users use their own preamp. (right now
the build-in amp cannot be bypassed.)

You're wrong and it can. I've tested the input amplifiers on some cheap
mixers (Mackie XDR series) and they were okay, audibly and on the test
bench. If you took the output straight from those input amplifiers you could
(and can) get decent recordings, maybe not the equal of something like a
Grace, but quite decent. Where these mixers fell down was the bus and
summing amplifiers, which were badly designed, measured poorly and sounded
crummy. So bypasssing the imput amplifiers in these boards, as you're
suggesting, would simply skip the best-sounding stage and put your good
signal through the worst.

If you *still* want to do such a thing, however, you can. There are insert
jacks on the boards which come after the input amplifiers, and you can run
an external preamp into the "receive" part of the insert jack to your
heart's content. I've done it sometimes for unusual setups, and it works
fine. You'll still be limited by the bad parts of the mixer, though.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 3, 8:44 pm, wrote:

The premise is using the fader on the preamp (one for each channel) to
control the level of the sound of individual channel. So overloading
the mix bus on the mixer is not a concern under this premise.

It's a concern if you're going to mix those channels. I assume you
are. Otherwise, why have a mixer?

Perhaps it would help if you were to state exactly what equipment
you're asking about. There are differences, and you may not be calling
things by their right or meaningful names.

I'm thinking about a minimum form of mixer with all the preamp,
effects, EQs, and faders off board. If we remove all the knobs on the
mixer, where does the distortion come from?

The input sources. You don't know how loud these will be.

I'm just curious whether in theory a bare bone mixer like this can
preserve the music that talented musicians can make.

Sure, if you use it properly. A completely passive mixer (and
honestly, I don't know if you can actually buy one other than the Roll
Music Folcrom - http://www.rollmusic.com/folcrom.php) won't distort at
the summing point, but you'll need additional gain after the mixer in
order to get the signal up to a usable level.

All the
distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout the
years can be avoided this way.

Faders on cheap mixers don't create distortions, uneducated or lazy
operators or careless designers create distortions.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 4:41 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:44 pm, wrote:

The premise is using the fader on the preamp (one for each channel) to
control the level of the sound of individual channel. So overloading
the mix bus on the mixer is not a concern under this premise.

It's a concern if you're going to mix those channels. I assume you
are. Otherwise, why have a mixer?

Perhaps it would help if you were to state exactly what equipment
you're asking about. There are differences, and you may not be calling
things by their right or meaningful names.

I'm thinking about a minimum form of mixer with all the preamp,
effects, EQs, and faders off board. If we remove all the knobs on the
mixer, where does the distortion come from?

The input sources. You don't know how loud these will be.

I'm just curious whether in theory a bare bone mixer like this can
preserve the music that talented musicians can make.

Sure, if you use it properly. A completely passive mixer (and
honestly, I don't know if you can actually buy one other than the Roll
Music Folcrom -http://www.rollmusic.com/folcrom.php) won't distort at
the summing point, but you'll need additional gain after the mixer in
order to get the signal up to a usable level.

All the
distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout the
years can be avoided this way.

Faders on cheap mixers don't create distortions, uneducated or lazy
operators or careless designers create distortions.

It's nice to know that there are passive mixers available. Thanks for
the info. I'll see if I can find one.

[Paul Stamler]

wrote in message
...

It's nice to know that there are passive mixers available. Thanks for
the info. I'll see if I can find one.

There are several available. They all share one weakness, though: you can
only place signals left, right or (in some passive mixers but not all)
center.

If you only put signals L, C or R these would be fine. If.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:

The premise is using the fader on the preamp (one for each channel) to
control the level of the sound of individual channel. So overloading
the mix bus on the mixer is not a concern under this premise.

That's true.

I'm thinking about a minimum form of mixer with all the preamp,
effects, EQs, and faders off board. If we remove all the knobs on the
mixer, where does the distortion come from?

From the amplifiers. The channel amplifiers, and the make-up gain amplifiers.
If there is an active summing buss (like the Mackie uses), that adds
distortion too.

I'm just curious whether in theory a bare bone mixer like this can
preserve the music that talented musicians can make. All the
distortions created by the faders of the cheap mixers throughout the
years can be avoided this way.

No. Distortion isn't just clipping. Eliminating clipping is easy.
Eliminating all other forms of distortion is impossible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Is there any reason that we still have distortions by keeping all the
knobs on the mixer at 'U' position?

Yes. Electronics add coloration. Life is like that. If you spend more
money, you can get better sounding coloration, and sometimes less coloration.
But everything has coloration. Only live acoustic music is accurate.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 5:33 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:

Is there any reason that we still have distortions by keeping all the
knobs on the mixer at 'U' position?

Yes. Electronics add coloration. Life is like that. If you spend more
money, you can get better sounding coloration, and sometimes less coloration.
But everything has coloration. Only live acoustic music is accurate.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I am more thinking about the option of less colorization, which many
musicians have spent billions of dollars trying to get ( but failed).
There should be options for them too.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:33 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:

Is there any reason that we still have distortions by keeping all the
knobs on the mixer at 'U' position?

Yes. Electronics add coloration. Life is like that. If you spend more
money, you can get better sounding coloration, and sometimes less coloration.
But everything has coloration. Only live acoustic music is accurate.

I am more thinking about the option of less colorization, which many
musicians have spent billions of dollars trying to get ( but failed).
There should be options for them too.

If you want less coloration, you need fewer stages of electronics, and
better quality stages.

There is a reason why the Millennia Media Mixing Suite is expensive and
has kind of doubtful ergonomics. It's designed for as short and accurate
a signal path as they could manage.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

If you want less coloration, you need fewer stages of electronics, and
better quality stages.

You presume that any stage of electronics will colour the sound.

That's a VERY flawed assumption.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

If you want less coloration, you need fewer stages of electronics, and
better quality stages.

You presume that any stage of electronics will colour the sound.

That's a VERY flawed assumption.

I don't think it is. We don't live in a perfect world, although in terms
of electronic technology it gets a little more perfect every day.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 6:10 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:33 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:

Is there any reason that we still have distortions by keeping all the
knobs on the mixer at 'U' position?

Yes. Electronics add coloration. Life is like that. If you spend more
money, you can get better sounding coloration, and sometimes less coloration.
But everything has coloration. Only live acoustic music is accurate.

I am more thinking about the option of less colorization, which many
musicians have spent billions of dollars trying to get ( but failed).
There should be options for them too.

If you want less coloration, you need fewer stages of electronics, and
better quality stages.

There is a reason why the Millennia Media Mixing Suite is expensive and
has kind of doubtful ergonomics. It's designed for as short and accurate
a signal path as they could manage.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Agreed. If a signal has to go through N devices and each contributes
0.005-0.05% distortion to the music signal, the distortions add up and
the transparency more or less suffers.

Some call these distortions desirable colorization. My emphasis is on
the transparency in the 5-8K frequency of the vocal, which is
typically blurred after a few stages.

[jakdedert]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
Is there any reason that we still have distortions by keeping all the
knobs on the mixer at 'U' position?

Yes. Electronics add coloration. Life is like that. If you spend more
money, you can get better sounding coloration, and sometimes less coloration.
But everything has coloration. Only live acoustic music is accurate.

In a good room....

jak
--scott

[Eeyore]

wrote:

In theory the music is not (or barely) changed if we keep all the
knobs at the "U" position. In theory if we keep the trim or fader at
neutral ("U") position for the mixer, we should get only minimum
distortions even with a basic mixer like Mackie 1202.

NO !

The FADER should be indeed operated around the 'U' mark generally speaking
but the input trim needs to be adjusted to suit the signal source.

Depending on the sensitivity of the microphone in use and the distance of
the performer from it and how loud their voice or instruemnt is, the
output from ther mic will vary HUGELY ! That's why you need a trim with a
50dB (or more) range, to get the right 'working level' going through the
channel.

A 'loud' signal might clip the mic preamp set at 'U' whereas a quiet
signal would suffer poor signal to noise figures if dealt with this way.

This is FUNDAMENTAL stuff.

Graham

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 9:52 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
wrote:
In theory the music is not (or barely) changed if we keep all the
knobs at the "U" position. In theory if we keep the trim or fader at
neutral ("U") position for the mixer, we should get only minimum
distortions even with a basic mixer like Mackie 1202.

NO !

The FADER should be indeed operated around the 'U' mark generally speaking
but the input trim needs to be adjusted to suit the signal source.

Depending on the sensitivity of the microphone in use and the distance of
the performer from it and how loud their voice or instruemnt is, the
output from ther mic will vary HUGELY ! That's why you need a trim with a
50dB (or more) range, to get the right 'working level' going through the
channel.

A 'loud' signal might clip the mic preamp set at 'U' whereas a quiet
signal would suffer poor signal to noise figures if dealt with this way.

This is FUNDAMENTAL stuff.

Graham

You missed the point completely. It's not about whether the mixer has
amplifier or not, it's about whether the mixer activates the amplifier
if the user does not dial the fader above the 'U'.

In theory, a mixer can deactivate the amplifier associated with a trim
or fader if it is at the 'U' position.

Unfortunately as someone pointed out, the amplifier will be in use no
matter what the fader position is in current design of most mixers.
Thus the 'U' position is not significant in terms of distortion.
(There will always be distortion because the amplifier cannot be
turned off.)

I haven't seen this issue being explicitly discussed.

[Eeyore]

wrote:

You missed the point completely. It's not about whether the mixer has
amplifier or not, it's about whether the mixer activates the amplifier
if the user does not dial the fader above the 'U'.

You're ****ing CLUELESS. There is no such thing as 'activating' an amplifier.

Stop posting your brain dead **** will you and go and read a bloody book about
how this stuff works.

You're WORSE THAN STUPID quite frankly.

Graham

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 6:49 am, Eeyore
wrote:
wrote:
You missed the point completely. It's not about whether the mixer has
amplifier or not, it's about whether the mixer activates the amplifier
if the user does not dial the fader above the 'U'.

You're ****ing CLUELESS. There is no such thing as 'activating' an amplifier.

Stop posting your brain dead **** will you and go and read a bloody book about
how this stuff works.

You're WORSE THAN STUPID quite frankly.

Graham

Why not? It can be easily done with a bypass switch. Think harder.

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
You missed the point completely. It's not about whether the mixer has
amplifier or not, it's about whether the mixer activates the amplifier
if the user does not dial the fader above the 'U'.

You're ****ing CLUELESS. There is no such thing as 'activating' an amplifier.

Stop posting your brain dead **** will you and go and read a bloody book about
how this stuff works.

You're WORSE THAN STUPID quite frankly.

Graham

Why not? It can be easily done with a bypass switch. Think harder.

I DESIGN mixers you brain dead IDIOT.

There is NO NEED to bypass stages that are sonically neutral.

Graham

[Paul Stamler]

wrote in message
...
You missed the point completely. It's not about whether the mixer has
amplifier or not, it's about whether the mixer activates the amplifier
if the user does not dial the fader above the 'U'.

In theory, a mixer can deactivate the amplifier associated with a trim
or fader if it is at the 'U' position.

Unfortunately as someone pointed out, the amplifier will be in use no
matter what the fader position is in current design of most mixers.
Thus the 'U' position is not significant in terms of distortion.
(There will always be distortion because the amplifier cannot be
turned off.)

I haven't seen this issue being explicitly discussed.

That's because there are no mixers which "deactivate" the amplifier at
certain fader positions. Does. Not. Happen. And I find it difficult to
imagine a circuit where it could happen. An amplifier is either there or it
isn't. If it's there, then signal is passing through it, and it will add an
amount of distortion which will either be significant or it won't be,
depending on how well the amplifier is designed and whether the operator is
feeding it the proper amount of signal.

Now, the idea of *bypassing* amplifiers is a different story; there's one
microphone preamp on the market, the Gordon, which I believe switched more
or fewer amplifiers into the chain depending on how much amplification is
needed. And it has a very, very good reputation, but it also costs a whale
of a lot of money. And that's done by switching, NOT via fader settings.

Peace,
Paul