Who uses a phase switch?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ruffrecords

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
16,155
Location
Norfolk - UK
I am looking at ways of squeezing more controls into a small mixer and one way of doing this is by removing little used ones. Most small mixers  (8 to 12 channels) don't have a phase switch so I was wondering just how often do people need one of these?

Cheers

Ian
 
Since all the kidz insist on every possible control on their preamps, you could leave it off the mixer. 
 
As well, every 'proper' engineer should have a few polarity reverse cables or barrel inserts for those special occasions. 
 
"polarity"

I have shared this before but last century I pioneered the strategy of putting full features on only one or two channels of a multi channel mixer, because you rarely need many polarity switches. When multi-miking drum kits one or two, when micing a guitar amp speaker, polarity could be useful, but not on every channel. 

Maybe put polarity on a couple channels, put phantom switches on a couple (with global phantom for rest), HPF on a couple.. they could all use up pretty much the same panel budget.

JR
 
JohnRoberts said:
"polarity"
You are of course correct but everybody calls it phase. For many years I tried to educate people that the term 'hacking' does not mean someone who breaks into computers - that is 'cracking'. Hacking is the process of intense concentration in the production of code. However, the popular press invariably refers to cracking as hacking so I now find it pointless to try to correct them
I have shared this before but last century I pioneered the strategy of putting full features on only one or two channels of a multi channel mixer, because you rarely need many polarity switches. When multi-miking drum kits one or two, when micing a guitar amp speaker, polarity could be useful, but not on every channel. 

Maybe put polarity on a couple channels, put phantom switches on a couple (with global phantom for rest), HPF on a couple.. they could all use up pretty much the same panel budget.

JR

That is a very clever idea where real estate is at a premium. How well was this received by end users. Do you have any examples you can point me to?

Cheers

Ian
 
What about post processing? Of course you can use a daw, but I added polarity to all channels so as to occasionally play with stem imaging / bass response in mixes.
 
ruffrecords said:
You are of course correct but everybody calls it phase.
And many people still spell bus wrong despite decades of my effort.  :'(

When in doubt do what is right,,, not what all the ignorant do.
For many years I tried to educate people that the term 'hacking' does not mean someone who breaks into computers - that is 'cracking'. Hacking is the process of intense concentration in the production of code. However, the popular press invariably refers to cracking as hacking so I now find it pointless to try to correct them
Perhaps a US thing, (or an old man thing) but I worked in a machine shop for summer jobs over two high school summer vacations back in the mid 60's. Back then "hackers", or "hack workers" were called that because of the rough metal edges on their projects due to using a hack saw instead of proper machine tools to cut metal.  To my peers back then "hackers" was a very pejorative term suggesting sloppy, unprofessional work quality from well before software became something civilians were even aware of. Now people proudly declare themselves hackers.  ::)

Coincidentally I am using a hacksaw today to cut some old rusted bolts holding my very old and very tired wheelbarrow together.  The steel pan is rusted and was tearing out around one of the carriage bolt heads holding it together. I have replaced the old with new bolts and 2"+ fender washers... I now expect that wheelbarrow to outlast me (probably not that hard).
That is a very clever idea where real estate is at a premium. How well was this received by end users. Do you have any examples you can point me to?

Cheers

Ian
Not just real estate but cost too. I used it in the Peavey "RQ" (Reference Quality) series way back last century. The RQ3014 was the poster boy for this concept.
https://assets.peavey.com/literature/manuals/80301574.pdf

I called the several full feature channels "super channels", another feature not needed for every channel on your mixer is a pad switch. This may require some re-patching to access the limited availability features, but better than not having one, or paying too much for more than you ever need.

Another tweak I did in anticipation of how people used the mixers was to voice the EQ differently on the first couple channels that usually got kick drum or bass sources, giving more LF control. This practice of putting low bass on first track may have gone away with magnetic tape, but was handy (IMO) back then.

I doubt the current Peavey product management, and/or mixer engineering group leadership share my enthusiasm after I left (I loved all my ideas). I have been off the reservation some two decades now so who knows, or cares what they are doing?

JR
 

Attachments

  • DSCF0158.JPG
    DSCF0158.JPG
    637.7 KB · Views: 18
ruffrecords said:
I am looking at ways of squeezing more controls into a small mixer and one way of doing this is by removing little used ones. Most small mixers  (8 to 12 channels) don't have a phase switch so I was wondering just how often do people need one of these?

I find it usefull, I actually have a small 8 channel Alice 828 mixer that I really like and I will modify it to have PAD, Polarity and 48V switches on every channel. I also have some DIY XLR  barrels and short cables for Polarity reverse, but its practical to have it on the mixer itself.

Saying this I definitely dont use it in everychannel, and like John said maybe having it in just some channels might be a good alternative.

Examples of those implementations are the small format mixers on the market, like mackie and the likes.
There's always some channels with more features than the rest.

Something that I really dont like is a Global 48V switch, I hate it.
But manufacturers do that for cost and size reasons. Those mixers are made on a budget towards a lower price for the consumer.
 
Whoops said:
I find it usefull, I actually have a small 8 channel Alice 828 mixer that I really like and I will modify it to have PAD, Polarity and 48V switches on every channel. I also have some DIY XLR  barrels and short cables for Polarity reverse, but its practical to have it on the mixer itself.

Saying this I definitely dont use it in everychannel, and like John said maybe having it in just some channels might be a good alternative.

Examples of those implementations are the small format mixers on the market, like mackie and the likes.
There's always some channels with more features than the rest.

Something that I really dont like is a Global 48V switch, I hate it.
But manufacturers do that for cost and size reasons. Those mixers are made on a budget towards a lower price for the consumer.
Mixer cost engineering calculus means using a sharp pencil on features that get replicated Nx times (like per input phantom power switches).

I recall lots of issues with global phantom in the early days of wireless mics, before those manufacturers learned how to tolerate and deal with using wireless mics into energized mic inputs. 

If you think global phantom power switching is cheap, how about all the channels out in the world where phantom is not even switchable, but always on (albeit mostly in value products, like powered mixers), but one less switch to confuse inexperienced users.

Getting back to my "super channel" concept, a mix of global and per channel switching allows  the user to either energize only one channel with phantom power, or not energize only one channel as needed.  8)

JR 
 
Small boxes with Al front-back panels (easy hand drilling) and a piece of veroboard inside are quite useful for adding such controls. Like several position of pad, output loads, etc. It takes a few XLRs and switches, veroboard allows easy change of values or control types.
They come handy for testing and use because all are at one place.
 
JohnRoberts said:
Not just real estate but cost too. I used it in the Peavey "RQ" (Reference Quality) series way back last century. The RQ3014 was the poster boy for this concept.
https://assets.peavey.com/literature/manuals/80301574.pdf

I called the several full feature channels "super channels", another feature not needed for every channel on your mixer is a pad switch. This may require some re-patching to access the limited availability features, but better than not having one, or paying too much for more than you ever need.

Another tweak I did in anticipation of how people used the mixers was to voice the EQ differently on the first couple channels that usually got kick drum or bass sources, giving more LF control. This practice of putting low bass on first track may have gone away with magnetic tape, but was handy (IMO) back then.

Looks a fine piece of value engineering.
But as a potential user / buyer I'd have found it all a bit confusing tbh  ;D
 
Newmarket said:
Looks a fine piece of value engineering.
But as a potential user / buyer I'd have found it all a bit confusing tbh  ;D
Depends. Since I built custom mixers, the client decides up front what features he/she wants and if they are present on some or all channels. For example. I regularly built mixers with different EQ on different channels and almost every monitor section is unique. So for me this is an interesting alternative well worth considering. How well it would fare in a standard product is another question entirely.

Cheers

Ian
 
ruffrecords said:
Depends. Since I built custom mixers, the client decides up front what features he/she wants and if they are present on some or all channels. For example. I regularly built mixers with different EQ on different channels and almost every monitor section is unique. So for me this is an interesting alternative well worth considering. How well it would fare in a standard product is another question entirely.

Cheers

Ian

Fully agreed. In a 'bespoke' product for clients who have specific applications and requirements it makes a lot of sense. 'Standard' product is another matter as you say.
 
Newmarket said:
Looks a fine piece of value engineering.
But as a potential user / buyer I'd have found it all a bit confusing tbh  ;D
Less confusing (?) is other value mixers at similar price point that lack the extra features on any channels.  ::)

If price is no object just load up the platform with every feature you can imagine on every channel. In my experience cost (and panel space) is always a concern in mixer design.

Peavey customers did not reward product designs that are hard to figure out, but I guess that can be subjective .

JR
 
Newmarket said:
Fully agreed. In a 'bespoke' product for clients who have specific applications and requirements it makes a lot of sense. 'Standard' product is another matter as you say.

In many ways this is not a million miles away from what I was employed to do in the Systems Engineering department at Neve back in the 70s, Channel amps like the 1073 were standardised but routing modules ,monitoring and patch bay layout were nearly always customised. Even channel amps were developed in response to particular customer requirements (e.g. AIR studios).

I guess the big guys must still be doing this to some extent; after all Neve, SSL and API are still in business.

Cheers

Ian

Cheers

Ian
 
ruffrecords said:
I guess the big guys must still be doing this to some extent; after all Neve, SSL and API are still in business.

I think much less customization nowadays, but also the stock products have a lot of features and flexibility in itself, more than the features of flexibility they had in the 70s. So one stock product might be flexible enough for different types of clients and needs without customization.

But even for Neve, SSL and API the large format analog mixing consoles is a dying market.
All of those brands are venturing into other marking departments.



 

Latest posts

Back
Top