Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
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. >>>> >>>> >>> >