80hinhiding
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2016
- Messages
- 97
.
No, 10k is high,but remember, for a virtual earth mixer the bus impedance is virtually zero. For a passive mix bus is is the parallel combination of all the bus feed resisters. So if you have 10 channels with 10k bus feed resistors, the bus impedance is 1k.80hinhiding said:I guess I should query a bit more..
Would 10K be considered low bus impedance? Additional resistors after the DP3T network I've drawn.
With virtual earth, a buffer after the pan is not necessary.I am doing virtual earth yes. Would it be better to use a non inverting buffer right after the pan/LCR assignment rather than just another resistor?
A
I don't know of any way to artificially lower the off resistance of the pot.80hinhiding said:Hmm.. just curious, is there a way to fake/or create a lower minimum resistance for the pot?
I guess now I'm looking at a few options for balanced panning: a) continuing with the DP3T slide switch idea, b) looking into 4 gang linear pots with buffers c) hard wiring panning for now and switching out xlr cables if I want to change position in the stereo image.
I've been doing things balanced because it seems to yield a better sound, so far in my experiments.
Adam
ruffrecords said:I don't know of any way to artificially lower the off resistance of the pot.
80hinhiding said:So, if a 10K pot would be more attenuation, and less residue - I am curious about the design choice for a 1K pot in the schematic.
If I swap in a 10K pot in that schematic I should be good to go? I have 10K audio taper pots here for level at the moment. If this would work together with a dual gang for panning I might go that route.
Adam
80hinhiding said:Ahh okay. I knew there would be a reason for that, and wanted to understand why.
What would be your recommended solution for balanced panning? 4 gang pot, followed by something?
Adam
80hinhiding said:Thanks Ian. I bet that would be an awesome setup. Time to price it up.
I went back and did a unbalanced vs balanced sound test last night and even though I had configured it for very close to the same level of amplification the unbalanced test was thinner sounding and resonated differently. Probably doing something wrong in the unbalancing. I would likely need an input transformer, or to electronically unbalance it better with more components, but then there's added cost to that front section of the line input.
So, maybe I am better off maintaining the balanced connection and potentially putting money into the fancy balanced level and panning.
Adam
Are you going to try a more scientific approach one day? It tends to make things more predictable.80hinhiding said:Clearly not scientific
A half-decent understanding of the circuit and the use of mathematics.80hinhiding said:What's a predictable way to keep the entire frequency response while going unbalanced?
80hinhiding said:Hmm.. everything I try unbalanced loses bass response.
Just tried transformer coupled output with a transistor and there's plenty of signal but its low end is filtered a lot.
I've tried other things too but always ends up thinner. Weird
A
80hinhiding said:I'm attaching four images, bear with me.
Figure 1:
My balanced circuit that feeds the output transformer.
80hinhiding said:Fair enough. Don't forget I also compared this to a textbook opamp configuration and variations on that based on tips. Would love to know what a good design sounds and looks like.
80hinhiding said:Looking.. for the first time. I see some similarities, and some things I could try. I know the obvious thing would be to copy the whole thing but... where's the fun in that?
I'm hoping to keep it pretty simple for now.
Adam
Enter your email address to join: