[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Splitting Signal
Thank you Andy. Much to ponder in there... clearly you have done this once
or twice before :)
Phil :)
On Aug 8, 2011, at 8:24 AM, andy butler wrote:
> hi Phil,
> the 'rules' apply to any music gear with active electronics.
> 1.You can split any Output to a number of Inputs.
> 2.You can't combine a load of Outputs into a single Input.
>
> There's obviously 2 other rules:
> If you follow rule one and it sounds bad, then that's no good.
> If you disobey rule 2, but it sounds ok then that's good.
>
> The Send output from your amp *should* be suitable for splitting.
> You could always connect the Amp Send directly to the mixer,
> then split the signal 3 ways to the loopers on one of the mixer outs.
>
> I have a stereo three way split going from the Lexicon Vortex to
> my EDPs an LP1 and a mixer channel. That works fine (except that the LP1
> would
> prefer a weaker signal than the other stuff, watch out for that).
> I use what I call "N cables", like conjoined Y cables really.
> I make them out of regular decent quality microphone cable, and
> cheap metal jacks, both of which I buy in bulk.
>
> So you'd want a 'W cable', giving you 5 jack plugs in a nest,
> with any one of them being used for the source signal.
>
>
> As long as the devices involved have regular good quality
> circuitry for their ins and outs then all your doing is mimicking
> what goes on in a mixer when you use that to split a signal.
>
>
>
>
> andy
>
>
> Phil Clevenger wrote:
>> Andy,
>> Reading thru some of your older posts on the subject, i see you have
>> advocated for simple splitter cables before :)
>> "You can always use a Y cable to split an output to multiple inputs,
>> but you can't generally use a Y cable to mix into one input.
>> (of course, the output has to be buffered, which it will be on a mixer)"
>> (2009)
>> I had previously been routing line-level signal through the Mackie,
>> then out via various means (an aux send here, alt 3/4 there, a half
>> insert etc) to the loopers and back into the Mackie for mixing.
>> It seemed to me that this was not such an elegant solution and I was
>> suspicious about all the conversions I assumed was going on :)
>> SO I thought splitting the signal before the Mackie might be better:
>> going directly into the loopers, then neatly into the proper channels
>> on the mixer for mixing. Less conversion must mean better signal
>> fidelity, was the thinking...
>> Hence my search for a splitter. I tried splitter cables, but a Y on a Y
>> on a Y to get four lines was comical and sounded bad; used a Whirlwind
>> A/B box and that was clean but only two lines; then tried a Morley
>> Tripler, which was noisy as can be; tried a Hosa passive 1in to 4out
>> box, and that sucked the last drop of tone out of my world; then looked
>> at Radial and now, I hope finally, looking at the Rane solution.
>> In your opinion, should your splitter cable rules, quoted above, apply
>> pre-Mackie as well as post? Phil :)
>> On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:39 AM, Phil Clevenger wrote:
>>> : /
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:29 AM, andy butler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phil Clevenger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen a lot of talk here about mixers, but not so much about
>>>>> splitters: how to take one mono send and feed that to multiple
>>>>> inputs....
>>>>
>>>> Use a splitter cable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>