Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[David Allred]

Rane uses these resistor values for a stereo balanced to mono balanced circuit.
I modified it to a dual mono output.  I have learned here that direct splitting is not a problem within reason.  Just seeking confirmation of my circuit.

Thanks.

[John Roberts {JR}]

I would be tempted to add similar value build out resistors (475 Ohm) in series with each output too see that one doesn't load down the other.

Not sure the 20k is doing anything useful...

JR

[Ivan Beaver]

I agree with John on the 20K.

I would also lift pin 1 on one of the outputs of the summed devices.  You are setting up a possible ground loop with both being connected.  You only need 1 of the grounds from the outputs.

I would "probably" lift both of the grounds going to the inputs of the next stage.  or put lift switches on them.

[David Allred]

I would be tempted to add similar value build out resistors (475 Ohm) in series with each output too see that one doesn't load down the other.

Not sure the 20k is doing anything useful...

JR

Rane link http://www.rane.com/note109.html

[David Allred]

Seems I read somewhere that the 2k had something to do with limiting crosstalk and not limiting freq response.  I think.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Rane link http://www.rane.com/note109.html

I'm still not sure the 20k is doing anything useful

I'd bond all the pin 1's together, good way to test for pin 1 problems....

JR

[Jerome Malsack]

The 20 K is connected incorrectly when looking at the Rane note 109.   20 K should connect across pins 2 and 3 and not connecting to shield. 

[David Allred]

The 20 K is connected incorrectly when looking at the Rane note 109.   20 K should connect across pins 2 and 3 and not connecting to shield.

Huh?  Did you misread it?  It is connecting 2 & 3.

[David Allred]

Seems I read somewhere that the 2k had something to do with limiting crosstalk and not limiting freq response.  I think.

Sorry, meant 20K.
Perhaps a bit more detail.
The primary role of this is to allow me to keep stereo tops and sum the sub when using only one.  The Yorkville processor does not have a low mono option (of a stereo input). The processor is racked with the amps.  I added the "2nd output" thinking that it would allow me to not make changes (fumble for the parallel switch on the amp in the dark) when I run subs on both side of the amp. 
The secondary role (future option) would be to patch the circuit ahead of the processor.  Gaining the option of bi (or tri) amping one side and full ranging the other.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Sorry, meant 20K.
Perhaps a bit more detail.
The primary role of this is to allow me to keep stereo tops and sum the sub when using only one.  The Yorkville processor does not have a low mono option (of a stereo input). The processor is racked with the amps.  I added the "2nd output" thinking that it would allow me to not make changes (fumble for the parallel switch on the amp in the dark) when I run subs on both side of the amp. 
The secondary role (future option) would be to patch the circuit ahead of the processor.  Gaining the option of bi (or tri) amping one side and full ranging the other.

You asked for advice, opinions then argue against them.

If the 20k is that important to you leave it in, IMO it doesn't do anything useful, but it won't harm anything.

I repeat my advice to add 475 ohm build out resistors to prevent one input from loading down the other excessively.

JR 

[David Allred]

You asked for advice, opinions then argue against them.

If the 20k is that important to you leave it in, IMO it doesn't do anything useful, but it won't harm anything.

I repeat my advice to add 475 ohm build out resistors to prevent one input from loading down the other excessively.

JR

I didn't argue anything.  I apologize if it seemed that way.  I merely stated that I had read from other sources (that seemed credible and pronounced with conviction) that there was a reason given for the various components.  I would suppose that you would then debate your reasoning for the uselessness of the 20k resistor.  1 - are you opposed to the value? or 2 - are you opposed to the presence of any resistor linking the + & -?
Without further info I am left to decide between Rane engineers' recommendations and Peavey Engineers' recommendation to pretty radically change the circuit.  Now add Ivan (who is also trusted and knowledgeable), introducing ground lift recommendations.

Finally, does your recommendation for adding series resistors on each output side of the "Y" also apply to  a single input to "Y"ed output.  (mono mixer output split to 2 amps?  Is so, why so, when many here have stated that output splitters are perfectly fine (limitations of course).

Thanks, as always.

[John Roberts {JR}]

my advice is given freely, value it however you wish...

JR

[Jerome Malsack]

Again yes  did miss read the diagram 2 and 3 20 k is correct.  Sorry about the miss. 

[David Allred]

my advice is given freely, value it however you wish...

JR

...and appreciated.

[David Allred]

I decided to forgo the dual mono output to simplify the  circuit.  I didn't have enough 475 resistors to add to the output circuit.   I will allow the PLX2 series amp parallel switch "circuit" do what it is designed to do.

[Mike Caldwell]

I decided to forgo the dual mono output to simplify the  circuit.  I didn't have enough 475 resistors to add to the output circuit.   I will allow the PLX2 series amp parallel switch "circuit" do what it is designed to do.

The parallel switch on PLX amps is not mono summing but basically a built in Y cable to feed two channels from either input.

 

[David Allred]

The parallel switch on PLX amps is not mono summing but basically a built in Y cable to feed to channels from either input.

Correct.  I will be inputting a mono summed signal into one input of the amp and let the amp split the signal.

[ProSoundWeb Community]