Ron Kimball wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 12:41 |
Bennett Prescott wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 17:15 | Gated "automixing" sounds pretty horrible, and "automixing" without compensation for the number of open mics is not something I want.
| I thought with the gates set for a 6-12db reduction and a one second hold time it might be a bit better than nothing?
|
If you are in a near feedback situation gating will have no effect on overall system gain if all mics are in use. It will also be pretty easy to hear it working. No net gain for a net loss in quality. Not a good trade off to me.
Quote: |
I think I understand the "compensation" part but it seems to be only needed if you are near max GBF - how deaf are yous guys ?
|
Gain compensation makes the overall gain of the system the same no matter how many mics are open. There is no change in background level, and if you have enough GBF for 1 mic you have enough for 20. The good automixers use this system, and are seamless in operation.
Quote: |
I also understand a "quality" automixer would hold open the last used channel. Also be flexible as far as prioritizing channels but I'd think a single "moderator priority" would be good enough for us? Anyways after reading up a bit on these I'm surprised no-one coming has one .
|
No, a "quality" automixer will keep the system gain at 1 no matter how many mics are active. If the panel is so unruly that you need a moderator priority the good mixers let you set a "weighting" threshold to give more priority to the mics you want.
We expect to have a panel on automixing at the AES Convention this October, led by our own Bink Knowles. Come and find out how these things work.
Mac