Print

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

[Peter Kowalczyk]

I have a situation where I need to take an unbalanced -10dBu signal and send it across a building to another unbalanced input.  250' or less, probably more like 150'. 

I had planned to use a passive Summing / Balancing box at the source end, and another Balanced -> Unbalanced device at the receiver end.  The Audio Control BLX-10 transciever looks like it would do the job, but it doesn't appear to be available anywhere. 

It occurred to me that I could just take one leg of the balanced signal at the receiver, but then I realized that this would negate any possible CMRR benefit from using a balanced line. 

Then I started wondering if ANY *passive* balanced -> unbalanced receiver would give a CMRR benefit.  My instinct says that it wouldn't; you'd need an active receiver for that. 

What would you use?

[Mike Caldwell]

Look at Radio Design Labs aka RDL.
They have a quite a few unbalanced to balanced interfaces/converters both passive and active and
balanced to unbalanced interfaces.

I would look at using an active unit at the sending end and a passive unit at the receiving end.

[Keith Broughton]

I have done something similar with a Rapco Isobox at each end.
It's a transformer so you maintain CMMR over the long distance run and just wire the in and out sides for an unbalanced line. (short pin 3 to pin 1 and use 1 and 2)

[John Roberts {JR}]

+1 transformers

JR

[Ivan Beaver]

One thing you need to be a little concerned with is the level.  Small transformers will saturate with higher levels.

Look for a +4 dBu transformer and you should be fine.

I used to have a pile of old Altec octal plug in transfomers that I have used in all kinds of situations regarding unbalanced to balanced and vice versa configurations.  They always did the job.

Peavey used to make them also for the balanced inputs into the older amplifiers.

Just don't use a mic level transformer.

Transformers are also good, because the provide physical isolation.  A VERY GOOD thing.

[Steve-White]

Source Active > Destination Passive

[Ivan Beaver]

Source Active > Destination Passive

Why?  With decent quality transformers you should very little loss.

But there is nothing wrong with your statement.  To me, the big thing is having physical isolation at either end

[Mike Caldwell]

Source Active > Destination Passive

In my original post I was thinking that same thing just to bump up the level. At the destination/input end
a good ole fashioned transformer.

That all said a couple hundred feet is not that far and we send a much lower level mic signal that far
down a snake cable all the time or maybe not so much now in the world of digital.

[Peter Kowalczyk]

Thanks Gentlemen,

Yes, transformers!   I had planned to use an Edcor S2M passive transformer device to sum and balance the signal at the source.   https://www.edcorusa.com/s2m.  I have one left over from another job where I bought two and only needed one.  It worked great there.

@ Mike Caldwell - I've used a lot of RDL's little problem solvers before.  I've put a dozen or so of their D-J series Decora input modules in various jobs, including this one.  In fact, the unbalanced source I'm working with is the 'Pre-Amp Out' of their HD-MA35U utility amplifier.  I think I'll get a TX-A2 to use at the receiver.  https://www.rdlnet.com/product.php?page=504

Thinking more, the CMRR behavior of a transformer at the receiving end is obvious.  Duh. 

[Steve M Smith]

Peavey used to make them also for the balanced inputs into the older amplifiers.

Yes. those Peavey transformers are actually qhite good. I have used them in a few things.




Steve.

[ProSoundWeb Community]