the modern desk/console in 2021...

[GeorgeToledo]

abbey - do you not understand that it takes a directional mic to have proximity effect? Seriously?

This is an amazing conversation at the point, truly.

Do you not understand this is the cause of the proximity low end a singer is hearing in their cans from cardioid effect? Do you not understand that this is not present in a non-directional mic?

Do you wish to continue to reveal a profound and near shocking lack of understanding for someone who wishes to present themselves as a moderator on a forum that discusses such things?

 

[GeorgeToledo]

Next time you have a 87, 67, similar in front of you, get so close the lows can make plosive. Now turn it to omni. Be prepared to learn something, apparently.

Perhaps you were confused by the context of a *singer singing into a mic* and are thinking of a situation with no appreciable proximity? I don’t know and honestly at this point I don’t care. I feel quite fine about these statements as well and would encourage you to think further before continuing to write, because I think some of your posts have been unfortunate for you at this point.

Also. I am sorry, but you are just an anonymous internet poster and this has already gone far past what I consider warranted given that case. Feel free to not start a new thread, feel free to think about what has been posted already. Your initial post on this in response to a small side point had what I consider an unprofessional and personal level, loaded tone unbefitting for a moderator of a forum. It has now dragged this thread of topic. This is moderation to you? Got it, I would prefer not to take part. Have fun.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I have opened a new thread here
https://groupdiy.com/threads/headphone-effect.78075/

abbey - do you not understand that it takes a directional mic to have proximity effect? Seriously?

But directionality has nothing to see with the existence of interference.

Do you not understand this is the cause of the proximity low end a singer is hearing in their cans from cardioid effect?

Not only I understand perfectly teh mechanisms at work, but I disagree with the claim taht it's due to teh cardioid directivity.

Do you not understand that this is not present in a non-directional mic?

I understand that proximity effect is not present in a pressure sensitive mic (omnidirectional), but again proximity effect is not teh cause of LF disappearing. It's phase that matters.

Do you wish to continue to reveal a profound and near shocking lack of understanding for someone who wishes to present themselves as a moderator on a forum that discusses such things?

And where does your undisputable knowledge comes from?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Next time you have a 87, 67, similar in front of you, get so close the lows can make plosive. Now turn it to omni. Be prepared to learn something, apparently.

I know that very well. But I repeat it doesn't pertain to teh existence of negative interference in the case of reversed phase between the bone conduction and teh electrical path..

Perhaps you were confused by the context of a *singer singing into a mic* and are thinking of a situation with no appreciable proximity?

Confused? Please read my recent post about doing the test in diffused field.

Also. I am sorry, but you are just an anonymous internet poster

And? If you knew my name, what would you gain for it?

 

[GeorgeToledo]

If I am talking about in context of an effect that only happens with directional mics, proximity effect, how in the world do you fail to understand that is not going to be the same with mic that *do not exhibit this effect*.

If it was unclear that the low end I was referring to in the first case was proximity related low end, let it now be clear.

Think. Singer on mic in proximity zone. Hears low end boost. Flips polarity. Now it is cancelling for them, reducing the apparent low end they hear. Flip to omni…*no proximity effect* because proximity effect requires directional mics. So the polarity flip does not have the same perceptual result in omni.

I could write this over and over, and you can strain to argue against it, but the fact of the matter stands and will be apparent to anyone who wishes to test.

—

As far as the anonymity, what is to be gained from lack of it would be some real world accountability for the tenor of the way you are conducting yourself.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

If I am talking about in context of an effect that only happens with directional mics, proximity effect, how in the world do you fail to understand that is not going to be the same with mic that *do not exhibit this effect*.

Please let's not clutter the original thread.
If you want to continue, go to the new thread.

 

[groselicain]

Here, I’ll help.

To folks who really only see a console useful for mixing, how important is the option of pre-fader aux sends to you? Is it something you only see the value of on, say, a couple of sends; none, or all? I know I’ve talked to folks who never use it in mixing. I use it occasionally in a mix, but if I didn’t have it I’d just mult my output from the DAW.

 

[PermO]

Yeah I like the use of pre fader aux sends for atmospheric pads, have a synth pad send it pre fader to reverb and only put the wet signal in the mix to keep it sitting all the way in the background.

 

[Sonic]

To folks who really only see a console useful for mixing, how important is the option of pre-fader aux sends to you?

In my experience, this is useful for moving the sound source deeper or closer, regardless of the FX level send to this aux. Artistic / producer's reception.
P.S. Images of modules in the approximation.

 

[jensenmann]

In my experience, this is useful for moving the sound source deeper or closer, regardless of the FX level send to this aux. Artistic / producer's reception.
P.S. Images of modules in the approximation.

Would you mind opening a new thread about your console to tell us more about what you did?

 

[groselicain]

Would you mind opening a new thread about your console to tell us more about what you did?

I second that motion, I'm really impressed by the pictures!

 

[Sonic]

Would you mind opening a new thread about your console to tell us more about what you did?

I second that motion, I'm really impressed by the pictures!

jensenmann, groselicain and to all readers, thank you for your interest! I will pick up last year's pictures from the archive and post them in a new thread.​

This is a 100% DIY project, i.e. not a single PCB and / or module was ordered on the side - everything is built on its own.

 

[calaverasgrande]

Here, I’ll help.

To folks who really only see a console useful for mixing, how important is the option of pre-fader aux sends to you? Is it something you only see the value of on, say, a couple of sends; none, or all? I know I’ve talked to folks who never use it in mixing. I use it occasionally in a mix, but if I didn’t have it I’d just mult my output from the DAW.

I use my mixer for tracking and mixing.
But yes when just mixing I prefer pre fade post insert for most of my sends actually. Sadly on this mixer it's globally switched. (well half globally since I have an extender).

 

[john12ax7]

For a pre fader aux it would be useful for things like parallel compression. But a mult accomplishes the same thing, so kind of unnecessary for mixing imo. Even better would be a blendable insert.

 

[groselicain]

For a pre fader aux it would be useful for things like parallel compression. But a mult accomplishes the same thing, so kind of unnecessary for mixing imo. Even better would be a blendable insert.

Blendable inserts are the absolute best answer imaginable. I don't really love tying up auxes for parallel dynamics if I can avoid it, just so they can be used for any reverbs or delays—in which case, I have needs for both pre- and post- fader sends for different scenarios. So I'm like you—seeing a blendable insert per channel would be a big addition.

 

[calaverasgrande]

For a pre fader aux it would be useful for things like parallel compression. But a mult accomplishes the same thing, so kind of unnecessary for mixing imo. Even better would be a blendable insert.

I can totally see that way of doing things if my goal is parallel compression. But usually I do parallel compression in the box, since my hardware is light on dynamics and heavy on EQ and effects.

I actually like pre fade sends for reverb. It seems to behave more like moving things back and forth in spatial relationships when I vary the effect send and direct signal proportions. Post fade sends don't allow for decoupling of levels so easily.

I used to work at 2 different venues that both had these ridiculously huge mixers. So I got comfortable bringing my reverbs and delays back on channels with EQ, AUXes, buss assign switches etc.
This is so much more flexible than a plain effects return which at best has buss assign, but in many cases limits you to only the busses they think you should use.

The other stupid human trick I liked to do was to use a spare channel like a submaster so I could EQ on the way in to the effect, then bring back that effect into another input channel. I think some mixers do this by design?
Of course when I have done this I taped a piece of cardboard over buss assign switches because I didn't want that signal accidentally coming into the mix naked.

So to me an ideal mixer allows this kind of flexibility without having to pull stunts like running a cable from the effect send back into an input channel then out the insert or direct out and making little cardboard pieces of art on top of the knobs and buttons.

Of course my thinking here is heavily influenced by the flexibility of DAWs as well.

 

[pucho812]

update on this thread.
I am moving forward at a snails pace on this between projects which keep pulling me away. Anyway I had a thought. I was fortunate enough to work a session in February with Danial Lanois. Yes he usually works out of his own place, but we were fortunate to have him in for a performance and interview. I was lucky to talk production with him in which he laided out the following advice. He has a a couple of side cars, old Neve sidecars which are used specifically for tracking. He has a desk, currently a midas used for mixing duties. He replaced his Neve 8068 which was used for mixing only due to not wanting to rebuild it again. He had done so like 4 times in the desks lifetime. This got me to thinking about the following: doing the layout so that the mic pres are in the center section and feeding directly into the channels so that you never leave the mix window even if the desk was rather large to make preamp adjustments or not having mic pres altogether as these days a lot of folks just use external pres for that duty in a typical tracking session.

 

[ruffrecords]

update on this thread.
I am moving forward at a snails pace on this between projects which keep pulling me away. Anyway I had a thought. I was fortunate enough to work a session in February with Danial Lanois. Yes he usually works out of his own place, but we were fortunate to have him in for a performance and interview. I was lucky to talk production with him in which he laided out the following advice. He has a a couple of side cars, old Neve sidecars which are used specifically for tracking. He has a desk, currently a midas used for mixing duties. He replaced his Neve 8068 which was used for mixing only due to not wanting to rebuild it again. He had done so like 4 times in the desks lifetime. This got me to thinking about the following: doing the layout so that the mic pres are in the center section and feeding directly into the channels so that you never leave the mix window even if the desk was rather large to make preamp adjustments or not having mic pres altogether as these days a lot of folks just use external pres for that duty in a typical tracking session.

The number one question in my mind is do these mic pres need EQ or not? Do you track direct from the mic pre without EQ always??? or would you need a HPF as a bare minimum??? If you don't need EQ when tracking then this makes your suggestion much more viable.

Cheers

Ian

 

[pucho812]

The number one question in my mind is do these mic pres need EQ or not? Do you track direct from the mic pre without EQ always??? or would you need a HPF as a bare minimum??? If you don't need EQ when tracking then this makes your suggestion much more viable.

Cheers

Ian

all good points. Daniel for example uses the full channel pre/eq. Me on the other hand, I do not. I usually track flat(no eq). But I usually will use the bus assignments as I do like to combine things such top andbottom snare mic to one track.

 

[ruffrecords]

all good points. Daniel for example uses the full channel pre/eq. Me on the other hand, I do not. I usually track flat(no eq). But I usually will use the bus assignments as I do like to combine things such top andbottom snare mic to one track.

Full EQ and routing on every input is the Classic mixer way of doing things. I suspect mic pres with just HPF is all that is normally necessary. If the odd track does need to be EQ's in record then the easiest way is to include an insert on the mic pre output. To mix just one or two 'groups' of inputs to a trackj on record could be done with a couple of AUXes.

Cheers

Ian