T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
782.1 | mixermania '87 | 16514::MOELLER | recycle your used PERSONAL_NAMEs | Thu Apr 30 1987 19:01 | 26 |
782.2 | wha? wet? dry? mixerama? | JON::ROSS | wockin' juan | Thu Apr 30 1987 19:23 | 12 |
| yes, er , maybe. My turn, my turn! To paraphrase:
Each channel has a 'volume' control to (each) effects send output.
So all the channels with their send volumes > 0 will get wet.
(in differing amounts)
"Returns" are different for different boards, but basically,
Each 'return' has one (stereo, now) 'volume' control that mixes
the wet signal (L and R) back into the mixer's outputs.
Ok. Next 25 words-or-less description....
|
782.3 | I'll Never Tell | DRUMS::FEHSKENS | | Thu Apr 30 1987 21:20 | 4 |
| Well, we've left out the matter of pre and post sends.
len.
|
782.4 | | 16514::MOELLER | recycle your used PERSONAL_NAMEs | Thu Apr 30 1987 22:24 | 6 |
782.5 | Go with the flow, then you'll know | ERASER::BUCKLEY | I Might Lie... | Fri May 01 1987 13:50 | 5 |
| I think the best way to understand what *can* happen in a mix is
to get a flow chart of the I/O module of any mixdown board. Look
where the signal can go, the rest is self explanatory.
-Bj
|
782.6 | FX: Mono vs. Stereo Inputs, etc. | NRADM::KARL | It's computerized, no thing c,an go wrong nothing c an g | Fri Dec 29 1989 16:28 | 46 |
| I have a few questions about FX processing and mixers. I am starting to
delve into areas of mixing and effects that I have until now not paid much
attention to. I hope I am using the correct terminology regarding
mixer inputs and outputs, etc.
I own a RAMSA WR8118 18 X 4 X 2 X 1 mixer. It has a MON/EFF L and R output,
which I currently have going to my DEP-5 stereo ins. I have the stereo outs
going to 2 of the 18 channel ins. These get mixed in with the other ins,
and the amount of FX on a synth depends on how much I send to the FX
L and R outputs.
Anyway, I want to add another FX processor to the set up, so that I can
have one dedicated to multiple FX, and the other to reverb. My plan is to
mix directly to 2 tracks from sequences.
The FX ins on the mixer are apparently mono (only one jack), so having the
output from the DEP-5 going to 2 of the 18 channels instead allows me
to use the stereo FX outs.
There is a SEND output jack, which I assume is a mono mix of the L + R,
and also a Cue SEND which I assume is the same thing.
So it looks like the only stereo outs I have for effects are the MON/EFFECT
output jacks. If I add another FX unit, it looks to me like I will have
to send it a mono mix for input.
More questions:
Could I use the outputs from 2 of the 4 Group outs to go to a second
FX unit? Will this create a feedback loop?
Does it even matter if I feed the FX unit a stereo signal, as it will
sum the signals together for processing anyway, and output its own
stereo signal after processing - i. e. the incoming stereo signal is
essentially combined into a mono mix anyway inside the FX unit, so
why would it matter if it receives a mono-mix or stereo input?
The Yamaha FX500, for example, only has a mono input - but is this
really a drawback?
I assume that any stereo effect coming from a synth is really only saved
in it's dry signal path through the mixer.
Thanks for any insight you can offer!
Bill
|
782.7 | Mono Sends OK With My Yamaha | AQUA::ROST | Everyone loves those dead presidents | Fri Dec 29 1989 16:45 | 16 |
| Re: .6
I have a Yamaha SPX-50D, which is an earlier generation of the FX-500
unit, and it works fine with a mono send. I do pretty much what you
do, use 2 channels for the return, since my board has a mono return.
I return only the effected signal (i.e. 100% "wet") and the stereo
image is quite wide. I find that even with the send being mono, adding
reverb actually widens the stereo soundstage.
The "cue" send is not the same as the effects send. "Cue" is for
auditioning input channels separately without having to kill the other
mixer channels.
If you use the group outs, you will indeed get a feedback loop.
Brian
|
782.8 | No Problem? | DRUMS::FEHSKENS | | Fri Dec 29 1989 16:54 | 45 |
| Assumption - the eff/mon send is governed by level and pan controls,
and each of the 18 input channels is mono. A stereo source must
then use *2* input channels, and to get full use of the stereo effect
input, these two channels would have to have their eff/mon pans
set at hard opposites.
Since you're routing the stereo effect returns back into the board
through 2 of the input channels, you don't need to take advantage
of the effects unit's ability to preserve the stereo balance of
the dry signal - you can do that directly from the dry input to
the group busses. The effect should probably be set up to return
*no* dry signal, so you can control the balance at the input faders.
If that's the only real "stereoness" of the effect, you're right,
you don't really need a stereo send, because the way you've set
things up you have an alternative way to accomplish the same thing,
one that doesn't require a stereo send.
You could use two of the group busses for a stereo effect send
as long as you promise to use them for nothing else, and in particular
to take care that you never route the returns from the effect to either
of these busses. Note that you're already living under a similar
constraint; there's a possible feedback path from the effect returns
through the input modules you dedicated to them through the eff/mon sends
on those modules, back to the effect input. So as long as the eff/mon
level on those channels is shut down tight, you're golden.
If you check the block diagram for the mixer, you'll see that the
group busses and the eff/mon busses are pretty much treated the same
way, except for the way selection (buss select switch and pan vs.
pan alone) and level control (slider vs. tiny knob) are done.
But since it seems you don't really need stereo sends, why not just
use the left/right sides of the eff/mon sends as two separate mono
effects sends. This is a little clumsy to control because of the
interactions bewween the pan and level controls, but it is workable.
You'll have to dedicate another input module or two to the return
for the second effect. If it's a mono effect, you can just use
the eff return, unless you want to take advantage of the other
capabilities the input modules give you (like EQ and routing to
the group busses)
I hope this helps.
len.
|