ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: DL1608 radio reception  (Read 482 times)

Kirby Yarbrough

  • SR Forums
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 490
  • Reston, Virginia
DL1608 radio reception
« on: September 27, 2020, 12:25:21 pm »

Anyone encounter using a Mackie DL1608 and have it receive what sounded like a radio talk show?  Very low level, and appeared in the main LR bus only; muting input channels one by one had no effect.  The better question is what could be done to shield the unit?  Donning flame suit now.

Logged

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6880
  • Audio Plumber
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2020, 01:36:14 pm »

Anyone encounter using a Mackie DL1608 and have it receive what sounded like a radio talk show?  Very low level, and appeared in the main LR bus only; muting input channels one by one had no effect.  The better question is what could be done to shield the unit?  Donning flame suit now.

Try unplugging input channels one by one instead of muting. If the radio signal is being demodulated in a bad solder connection in a cable it may be getting in on the ground so muting won't have any effect on it. You may need to unplug all and reattach one by one.

Mac
Logged

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21576
  • Wichita, Kansas USA
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2020, 02:57:20 pm »

What Mac says...

Demodulating radio stations is a Mackie tradition.  Back in Ye Olde Analogue Dayz« the fix involved ferrite bead chokes around individual conductors in the XLR-M back shell.
Logged
"Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possible can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something."  - Kurt Vonnegut

Henry Cohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1021
  • Westchester Co., NY, USA
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2020, 05:06:05 pm »

What Mac says...

Demodulating radio stations is a Mackie tradition.  Back in Ye Olde Analogue Dayz« the fix involved ferrite bead chokes around individual conductors in the XLR-M back shell.

Solder gap tuners; ahhhh the good ole' days  :(
Logged
Henry Cohen

CP Communications    www.cpcomms.com
Radio Active Designs   www.radioactiverf.com

Ike Zimbel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm not a newbie, I just play one on the internet!
    • Zimbel Audio Productions
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2020, 05:19:14 pm »

What Mac says...

Demodulating radio stations is a Mackie tradition.  Back in Ye Olde Analogue Dayz« the fix involved ferrite bead chokes around individual conductors in the XLR-M back shell.
It's also worth your time to check and tighten ALL of the jack hardware. That would be XLR screws, 1/4" nuts, and the screws that hold any RCA connectors in place. Mackie mixers had the Pin-1 problem sorted, BUT, that is totally dependent on the hardware making a clean, solid connection to the chassis for it to work. If that connection has gone high resistance, I imagine it would behave the same as a bad solder joint.
Logged
~Ike Zimbel~
Wireless frequency coordination specialist.
Manufacturer's Representative (Canada)

Radio Active Designs
~416-720-0887~
ca.linkedin.com/pub/ike-zimbel/48/aa1/266

Caleb Dueck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1305
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2020, 05:20:47 pm »

Demodulating radio stations is a Mackie tradition.  Back in Ye Olde Analogue Dayz« the fix involved.....

..... A non-Mackie mixer.  Yes I experienced it, no I don't believe anything Mackie makes is worth the money wasted on it.   ;D
Logged
Experience is something you get right after you need it.

Russell Ault

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 787
  • Edmonton, AB
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2020, 05:38:50 pm »

..... A non-Mackie mixer.  Yes I experienced it, no I don't believe anything Mackie makes is worth the money wasted on it.   ;D

It's amazing how things change. When I first started doing sound the one thing you could say about a Mackie was that "at least it's not a Behringer". :D

-Russ
Logged

Chris Hindle

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1947
  • Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Earth, Sol System,......
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2020, 05:44:01 pm »

It's amazing how things change. When I first started doing sound the one thing you could say about a Mackie was that "at least it's not a Behringer". :D

-Russ
When I started, Mackie wasn't born yet, and "That 200B costs WHAT?" :o
Chris.
Logged
Ya, Whatever. Just throw a '57 on it, and get off my stage.

Caleb Dueck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1305
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2020, 02:35:05 am »

It's amazing how things change. When I first started doing sound the one thing you could say about a Mackie was that "at least it's not a Behringer". :D

-Russ

I remember those days. The first few mixers I used were Mackie analog, the first van and trailer tour I was on was with the 32ch Beringer analog, while the Soundcraft Spirit 40ch was what I wanted that year instead.  Until we had an ML4000 and Series 5, which were amazing. The Behringer at least was much better than the Yamaha MG I had to use on one tour.  Heard of the elusive Midas and ATI Paragon II in hushed tones from various touring techs but never touched one. 

Adding up the true cost in terms of labor, travel, shipping, parts, testing, etc - cheap mixers that don't work right are best sold and replaced. 

A previous church I mixed at was looking at $800 or so to get a $100 mixer working again in a small youth room.  Sold and replaced instead. The true cost of cheap gear is more than I can afford.
Logged
Experience is something you get right after you need it.

Mike Caldwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
  • Covington, Ohio
    • Mike Caldwell Audio Productions
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2020, 07:34:51 am »


A previous church I mixed at was looking at $800 or so to get a $100 mixer working again in a small youth room.  Sold and replaced instead. The true cost of cheap gear is more than I can afford.

Audio equipment in a "youth room". If the equipment can survive that it can survive anything!

How did the 32 channel Behringer analog mixer hold up? I don't think I've ever seen one that was 100%
working, even the ones that did not ride around in a trailer!

Kevin Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1347
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2020, 09:45:36 am »

To add another thing to check out to what the other have said. One time in a church youth room (that years ago was their main sanctuary) they told me they occasionally had a radio station broadcast coming over their sound system. This had been going on for years, even when it was their main sanctuary. I tracked it down to a badly wired Electrical outlet, it was miss-wired and there was a small hole in one of the wires and the screws were loose. I fixed it and they havenĺt had the radio station interference since.
Logged

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1341
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2020, 11:45:58 am »

Try unplugging input channels one by one instead of muting. If the radio signal is being demodulated in a bad solder connection in a cable it may be getting in on the ground so muting won't have any effect on it. You may need to unplug all and reattach one by one.

Mac

I have experienced this with a brand new 1608 years ago when installing one for a church.  It was specific to channels that had Shure MX202 mics installed as house mics for their radio program.

Definitely check through channels as Mac has indicated since a bad solder joint in a cable may be the culprit.  Be sure to not just disconnect and then reconnect one at a time but disconnect and leave disconnected while you move to the next one.  Since you may have more than 1 connection that is problematic if you disconnect and reconnect one at a time you will never eliminate all problem connections.

If you find that all cables are good and only specific paths (ie. choir mics into the console for instance) cause the problem, cross plug and see if the problem moves to the newly connected channel.  If it moves to the new channel then you may have a problem cable, you may have a problem Mic or the console may just have an issue that makes it great at receiving radio signals.
Some mics are also very good at rectifying radio signals.  Try temporarily changing out the mic to another type such as an SM58 just to see if the problem goes away.

If it is not faulty solder connections or other easily remedied items then you could try some Shure A15RF pieces placed appropriately.  https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/accessories/a15rf
If the Mic is rectifying RF then you are best off with an RF blocker between the mic and the cable, If the cable junction to the console is causing the problem then you are best off with it at the console, sometimes you are best off with one at each end or sometimes even with 2 stacked together at the console. 
These will pass phantom power so no issues with condenser mics.

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Mike Caldwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
  • Covington, Ohio
    • Mike Caldwell Audio Productions
Re: DL1608 radio reception
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2020, 05:29:11 pm »

Anyone encounter using a Mackie DL1608 and have it receive what sounded like a radio talk show?  Very low level, and appeared in the main LR bus only; muting input channels one by one had no effect.  The better question is what could be done to shield the unit?  Donning flame suit now.

I take this is an install unit.

If you can narrow it down to an input or two that is causing the problem try getting a snap together ferrite core, making up about a  two foot XLR jumper, wrapping it around half of the core as much as possible and still get it to close and try that at the mixer on the problem mic line.
That took care of RF issues at a school that is in the neighborhood of some FM and TV broadcast towers.

https://www.parts-express.com/ferrite-core-1-2-cord-noise-suppressor--110-454

Also if an install check for pin 1 tied to the XLR shell on wall plates and in cables.

Shure makes inline RF filters that have worked as well.
You may need to use a transformer on the input. One of the single channel mic splitters that has
a transformer iso split output will work, just use the iso side to go into the mixer.

I had a multi day service call at a church with extreme RF bleed into the system so much I could clearly listen to the radio station on the system.

Cleaning up wire nut and butt splice on the snake wiring at each end, finding a couple wire staples through some audio lines, most of the floor box jacks had pin 1 tied to the shell, adding transformer isolation to the computer playback inputs and using DI boxes on keyboard and guitar inputs instead of hardwired 1/4 inch to XLR cables took care of 99% percent of the problem. The electronic drum input no matter what I did needed to have a transformer at the mixer input to take care of the last bit of RF.

The mixer was Yamaha MG but not the biggest issue considering everything else.

And now for the kicker....this church is maybe 500 feet away from a 250 watt AM radio broadcast tower.
 



 

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: DL1608 radio reception
┬ź Reply #12 on: September 28, 2020, 05:29:11 pm ┬╗


Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.05 seconds with 23 queries.