Re: splitter box/patch bay thing

[andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>]

mark francombe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:26 PM, andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk 
> <mailto:akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>> wrote:
> 
>     Behringer Ultralink
>     mini-review
>   it does do split and mix at the same time.
> > 
> HURRAH !
> > 
>     For each channel:
>     When in split mode, the pan pot cross fades the main inputs
>     to the channel out.
> 
> 
> OK get that... but...
> 
>     When in Mix mode, channel input is panned to main outs, and
>     goes direct to channel output.
> 
> 
> When you say "panned" you dont mean in a /left to right/ sense, more in 
> a /sent/ sense?

If you treat the 2 main outputs as stereo, then they are pan pots.
Of course, you're not obliged to do that.

> 
>     One of these won't do everything that Mark asks in his diagram.
> 
> 
> 
> See.. I dont iunderstand that, why not.. it looks pretty good to me 
> (except perhaps that I really need few more channels)

that's it, you have 8 inputs and want to split them all.


> BTW, what happens to the stereo channel? Are the 6 monos really the only 
> one I can use, or does the stereo chan have the same functionality, 
> except in... er stereo.. derrr!

ok, so you've used up your 6 mono inputs, they get sent to the stereo 
output
which goes to your loopers, and the direct outs for each channel go to the 
mixer.
with everything in mixer mode, the stereo in can only be switched to the 
loopers,
there's output to take it to the mixer.

> 
> 
>     Sound quality is more suitable for live work
>     than for posh studio.
> 
> 
> meaning its hissy? hummy, or distorty?
> or the specs say so?  to the oscilloscope might show something?

As it's only 1:1 gain, there's no noise problem even with the cheap chips.
Specs are probably great, but of course specs aren't everything.
If you were a fanatic, you'd be looking to upgrade the chips
to get all those somewhat subjective hi-fi things like clarity and detail.


>     I used one for a few years for my loop rig, after couple
>     of years one pan pot went a bit strange (still usable)
>     for a while. 
> 
> 
> so what replaced it?

the Alesis Ultramix Line 8,
because it has 8 stereo ch, a stereo send 
and a mic-pre.
I had to mod it to get the routing I wanted,
and I'm not overjoyed with it's nothing special
sound quality and magical ability
to summon hum.



> Im in the middle of building 2 new rigs.. and stompbox/laptop rig for 
> Y2KX and a stompbox/looper rack for a new band Im putting together. I 
> really didnt get on with the Fireworx as a guitar effects, and its 
> frankely a relief to get the old pedals out again, but that leaves a 
> redundant Fireworx.. which made me think,
> <cue wobbly picture as flashback happens>
> *"If only I could have the Fireworx as on the send on the mixer instead 
> of wasting that good send for the loopers.. now I wonder..."*
> fade to white
> 
> hence all my splitter questions..

Try a Y-cable from the aux send to the Fireworx and loopers.

That way, as long as you're not recording or overdubbing 
you can  post process the loops.


My routing is 
Input channels modded to only go to Send, not to main bus
(very easy mod indeed, except I made it switchable which was a pain)
Stereo Aux send >>>Vortex 
Vortex via 3 way splits to mixer channel and to loopers.
loopers are 100% wet and come back on mixer channels.

I don't use that for resampling or post process usually,
but easily can if I want.

> 
> Im dreaming that Bobs secret project is a hardware 1 U mixer designed 
> for loopers, with a mute and a group send per channel as well as 2 
> effect sends...

If we're going to dream
the fx sends have to be capable of going pre-fade too.


andy