David Sumrall wrote on Fri, 12 October 2007 14:26 |
Hey Derrick, We had a couple Sescom IL19 Isolation transformers in stock and we tried putting them in line on the bcast end and bingo, problem solved. So we bought enough for the choir and orch submixers in bcast to fix the issue. |
Karl P(eterson) wrote on Tue, 16 October 2007 15:41 |
These days with remote pre-amps and digital consoles, I find passive splits more and more compelling. |
Quote: |
While I truly appreciate iso'ed splits when we are driving very long copper runs to separate systems sitting on there own "power islands" these days when we are looking at stage splits with all of 30 feet of tail on them to go in two or three remote preamp racks I find the need for a completely iso'ed system becoming more and more unnecessary. |
Quote: |
In your guys console search have you guys looked at the Studer Vista 8? |
Quote: |
Grainger just bought 3 (FOH,Mons,Broadcast) with the associated infrastructure and seem to think they are the best thing since sliced bread. Up to 1000 inputs by 700 outputs (or something crazy like that) as well. |
Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 07:01 | ||||
With remote preamps and digital consoles and digital snakes, it seems like it is getting to be the time to move the split point back past the mic preamp output to the digital converter. The new relatively inexpensive high quality converters with 130 dB dynamic range mean that there's really no longer any need for preamp gain to be adjusted to match the needs of the console. The remaining need to adjust preamp gain relates to the source.
There should be racks of preamps on stage whose gain is only adjusted to adapt to the source. They should feed a mulitplexer that delivers the output of every source to as many consoles as is needed, via a digital link. |
Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 07:01 |
There should be racks of preamps on stage whose gain is only adjusted to adapt to the source. They should feed a mulitplexer that delivers the output of every source to as many consoles as is needed, via a digital link. |
Quote: |
That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work in practice. Assuming that all mixes would always want exactly the same gain settings and changes just isn't realistic. |
Quote: |
Think of the situation where the FOH is given control of the preamps. Maybe something is a little down in level and the monitor mixer caught it first and turned up their channel gain to compensate. |
Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 05:54 |
I'm sorry that I didn't express myself well. The idea is that the preamps and converters have enough dynamic range that their gain need only adjusted to suit the source. IOW mic preamps for a dynamic mic and a condensor mic would be initally be set up with different gains because the output of the mics can vary so much, but once the mic preamp's is set its gain would not be changed as we so commonly do now. |
Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 05:54 |
I'm sorry that I didn't express myself well. The idea is that the preamps and converters have enough dynamic range that their gain need only adjusted to suit the source. IOW mic preamps for a dynamic mic and a condensor mic would be initally be set up with different gains because the output of the mics can vary so much, but once the mic preamp's is set its gain would not be changed as we so commonly do now. |
Quote: |
You set the gain based on whether the mic is a dynamic vs a condenser? |
Quote: |
How about setting the gain based on the SPL of the source? |
Quote: |
Question: would the gain of an AKG C414 inside a kick drum be the same as the gain of that mic in front of choir? |
Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Thu, 25 October 2007 15:37 |
How about setting the preamp gain based primarily on the: SPL of the source Postion and orientation of the microphone Sensitivity of the microphone |