ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner  (Read 13442 times)

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6870
  • Audio Plumber
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2011, 02:07:42 pm »

There are small phantom power units available, like 2"x2"x1". But you will need one to power each microphone, and each of those will need AC power (probably provided by a wall wart). Horribly messy solution.

Slim it down to one mic per instrument and see what happens.

Or use dynamic mics. The Beta 98 is without a doubt the most unreliable professional level microphone I have ever used. As they break replace them with Beyer M 201 TG, the dynamic that thinks it's a condenser. For less money I would try SM57s. I have mic'd a lot of marimbas and vibes with the Steve Reich Ensemble, and when the promoter can afford it we used KM184s, when they couldn't we used 57s.

The best answer is get a console with enough inputs. You can get rack mountable full featured 32 input consoles from A&H, Yamaha, and Digico.

Mac
Logged

Jason Gonzalez

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #21 on: August 06, 2011, 02:42:40 pm »

Or use dynamic mics. The Beta 98 is without a doubt the most unreliable professional level microphone I have ever used. As they break replace them with Beyer M 201 TG, the dynamic that thinks it's a condenser. For less money I would try SM57s. I have mic'd a lot of marimbas and vibes with the Steve Reich Ensemble, and when the promoter can afford it we used KM184s, when they couldn't we used 57s.

The best answer is get a console with enough inputs. You can get rack mountable full featured 32 input consoles from A&H, Yamaha, and Digico.

Mac

Mac, out of curiosity I looked up the Neumann.  I literally chuckled out loud...very nice!
I'm bummed to hear your thoughts on the Beta 98.  We did a ton of research before we committed to buying 15 of them.  We could've gone with the 57's, but based on what we read and were told we assumed the Beta 98 condenser would get a better sound.  Now that we have this phantom power issue, I wish we'd gone with dynamic mic's.  I'd hate to go to the group and say, "Even though we have some pretty new mics, we need to buy some different ones."

While the good folks on this forum have provided some good suggestions, I really hope there is a solution out there that we can live with (i.e. quality of sound and cost-effectiveness).
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 03:01:37 pm by Jason Gonzalez »
Logged

Sam Zuckerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 177
  • Baltimore, MD
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #22 on: August 06, 2011, 03:19:35 pm »

Or use dynamic mics. The Beta 98 is without a doubt the most unreliable professional level microphone I have ever used. As they break replace them with Beyer M 201 TG, the dynamic that thinks it's a condenser. For less money I would try SM57s. I have mic'd a lot of marimbas and vibes with the Steve Reich Ensemble, and when the promoter can afford it we used KM184s, when they couldn't we used 57s.

The best answer is get a console with enough inputs. You can get rack mountable full featured 32 input consoles from A&H, Yamaha, and Digico.

Mac

Mac, out of curiosity I looked up the Neumann.  I literally chuckled out loud...very nice!
I'm bummed to hear your thoughts on the Beta 98.  We did a ton of research before we committed to buying 15 of them.  We could've gone with the 57's, but based on what we read and were told we assumed the Beta 98 condenser would get a better sound.  Now that we have this phantom power issue, I wish we'd gone with dynamic mic's.  I'd hate to go to the group and say, "Even though we have some pretty new mics, we need to buy some different ones."

While the good folks on this forum have provided some good suggestions, I really hope there is a solution out there that we can live with (i.e. quality of sound and cost-effectiveness).

If it makes you feel any better I've never had a problem with the 98s. Sure, I've had one of their little cables go bad once or twice but that's it and it was probably from someone rolling a road case or guitar amp over it. Other than that, I just have a habit of loosing the wind screens, but that's a personal problem  ;)
Logged

Jason Gonzalez

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #23 on: August 06, 2011, 04:07:13 pm »


If it makes you feel any better I've never had a problem with the 98s. Sure, I've had one of their little cables go bad once or twice but that's it and it was probably from someone rolling a road case or guitar amp over it. Other than that, I just have a habit of loosing the wind screens, but that's a personal problem  ;)

Thanks, Sam.  I've been busting my head over this for about the last 24 hours, and I've been checking this thread for the responses for about the last 18 hour.  It's been wishful thinking on my part that someone would suggest something cheap and convenient.
But the basic problem here is the lack of phantom power IF we want to use the combiners.  While the easiest solution is to get a bigger board, that's not in the budget.  Not only would I buy a new board, but then I'd have to get a bigger case which only adds even more cost.
It's starting to sound like the most feasible solution is to get some dynamic microphones.  Damn, man.  We could've invested the money we spent on those Beta 98's on some good dynamic mic's.

Is the SM57 the way to go?  Someone mentioned the Audix i5 to me, but it sounds like the SM57 is good ol' reliable.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 04:09:28 pm by Jason Gonzalez »
Logged

Greg_Cameron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 668
    • Cameron Pro Audio
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2011, 04:45:26 pm »

For the cost of outboard phantom supplies and the IMP combiners, you could have got small mixer instead which would:

supply phantom power
given you more inputs
give you actual control over your mic levels
give you some mic EQ
simplify your setup

Why don't you return the IMPs or sell them and get a Mackie 1202? These other ideas are messy an not very versatile.

Greg
Logged
"Procrastinators of the world - contemplate uniting!"

Cameron Pro Audio

Jason Gonzalez

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2011, 05:00:29 pm »

For the cost of outboard phantom supplies and the IMP combiners, you could have got small mixer instead which would:

supply phantom power
given you more inputs
give you actual control over your mic levels
give you some mic EQ
simplify your setup

Why don't you return the IMPs or sell them and get a Mackie 1202? These other ideas are messy an not very versatile.

Greg
Greg, at this point, I don't plan on keeping the combiners 'cause I don't want to deal with the phantom power issues. 
I already have an 8 channel submix board for 8 wireless mic receivers mounted in the Gig Rig, but if I do go out and get yet another submix board we'd have to invest in another snake, too.

I just never foresaw the 16 channels on the board not being enough.
Logged

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6870
  • Audio Plumber
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2011, 05:01:21 pm »

Do phantom power supplies exist in smaller units other than rack units?  All of the combiners are mounted on the instruments, and the cables go from there to the snake (the board is about 50 feet away).  It would be a lot "cleaner" if I could provide the phantom power to the condensers before they are connected to the combiner, so that I can then just run the output from the combiner to the appropriate channel on the snake.

There are several 2ch battery powered phantom supplies on the market. THIS ONE is representative of pricing. Batteries will last a fairly long time since there is almost no current supplied.

Mac
 
Logged

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6870
  • Audio Plumber
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #27 on: August 06, 2011, 05:12:36 pm »

We simply grew more than we'd planned.  Percussion instruments are not very loud, especially on windy days.

The other issue on windy days, is more open mics, more wind noise. I think the instruments might sound better mic'd from above, but as you say that will be worse for wind. fortunately I haven't had to mic all those marimbas outdoors.

Is there a player for every instrument, or do they move around? On "Blast" we had a very large marimba (5 oct maybe?) that was pushed around the stage while it was being played. We used a pair of wireless lavs on the musician's wrists.

Mac
Logged

Sam Zuckerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 177
  • Baltimore, MD
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #28 on: August 06, 2011, 05:21:37 pm »

Thanks, Sam.  I've been busting my head over this for about the last 24 hours, and I've been checking this thread for the responses for about the last 18 hour.  It's been wishful thinking on my part that someone would suggest something cheap and convenient.
But the basic problem here is the lack of phantom power IF we want to use the combiners.  While the easiest solution is to get a bigger board, that's not in the budget.  Not only would I buy a new board, but then I'd have to get a bigger case which only adds even more cost.
It's starting to sound like the most feasible solution is to get some dynamic microphones.  Damn, man.  We could've invested the money we spent on those Beta 98's on some good dynamic mic's.

Is the SM57 the way to go?  Someone mentioned the Audix i5 to me, but it sounds like the SM57 is good ol' reliable.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the cheapest solution would be to get some XLR Y-cables. Wouldn't that pass phantom?
Also, what are the wireless for again? Can you feed those into the combiners? Just trying to save you some $$.

Unfortunately 16 channels goes fast and I know this fact all to well. The BEST option IMO would be to get a second  16.4.2 and link them. That would give you PLENTY of room for expansion.
Logged

Jason Gonzalez

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2011, 05:37:05 pm »

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the cheapest solution would be to get some XLR Y-cables. Wouldn't that pass phantom?
Also, what are the wireless for again? Can you feed those into the combiners? Just trying to save you some $$.

Unfortunately 16 channels goes fast and I know this fact all to well. The BEST option IMO would be to get a second  16.4.2 and link them. That would give you PLENTY of room for expansion.

I'm glad you brought this up the Y-cables again, Sam.  Luke mentioned those earlier on in this thread, and I keep going back to that one.  It most certainly would be cheaper.  It seems from what I've read so far is that the reason the combiner doesn't pass phantom power is because of the transformer within them.  Since there is no transformer in the Y-cable, it technically should work.  I just wouldn't need to use the combiners at that point.  I could go straight into the snake, since the two separate cables would already be "combined."  Am I right?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 05:39:05 pm by Jason Gonzalez »
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: using Whirlwind IMP Combiner
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2011, 05:37:05 pm »


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.057 seconds with 23 queries.