Christian LeBlanc wrote:Great idea - I have the Yamaha MG124CX; the user guide
No. Balanced VS Unbalanced has nothing to do with level.Christian LeBlanc wrote:Follow-up time! Upon closer inspection of my mixer, the return of my effects loop send/return is a pair of 1/4", +4dBu inputs (I assume this means 1/4" balanced, as unbalanced would make it -10dBV?)
Malcolm Boyce wrote:No. Balanced VS Unbalanced has nothing to do with level.Christian LeBlanc wrote:Follow-up time! Upon closer inspection of my mixer, the return of my effects loop send/return is a pair of 1/4", +4dBu inputs (I assume this means 1/4" balanced, as unbalanced would make it -10dBV?)
The term "balanced" comes from the method of connecting each wire to identical impedances at source and load. This means that much of the electromagnetic interference will induce an equal noise voltage in each wire. Since the amplifier at the far end measures the difference in voltage between the two signal lines, noise that is identical on both wires is rejected. The noise received in the second, inverted line is applied against the first, upright signal, and cancels it out when the two signals are subtracted.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Christian LeBlanc wrote:Great idea - I have the Yamaha MG124CX; the user guide
There is no reason why you can't bring things back in on a channel's "line in" in this case without the use of a DI. You will have control over level with the input gain. Although not "perfect", you need the DI less than the device to go from the console to the "effect" box.
Christian LeBlanc wrote:Just to make sure I'm getting my theory right: a balanced mic-level signal is way more important (and, therefore, the standard) than a balanced line-level signal, due to electromagnetic interference being more of an issue with the quieter signals that go with mic-level, right?
Or, to put it in ridiculously simplistic terms: mic-level is like trying to listen to a quiet person in a crowded restaurant. Unless you cancel out all that outside interference, it's going to be one awful conversation. Balancing the line does just that; gets rid of the interference.
You are correct in saying the signal level is one of the factors in whether or not you need to have a balanced connection. As Matt said, the length of the line, and impedance also play a big part in whether a connection needs to be of the balanced variety.Drumwaiter wrote:Christian LeBlanc wrote:Just to make sure I'm getting my theory right: a balanced mic-level signal is way more important (and, therefore, the standard) than a balanced line-level signal, due to electromagnetic interference being more of an issue with the quieter signals that go with mic-level, right?
Or, to put it in ridiculously simplistic terms: mic-level is like trying to listen to a quiet person in a crowded restaurant. Unless you cancel out all that outside interference, it's going to be one awful conversation. Balancing the line does just that; gets rid of the interference.
That's a good piece of insight, however I'd add that the other major factor is distance. In your analogy, even if he was speaking very loudly, given enough distance it wouldn't take too big a crowd to make him impossible to understand. A balanced line is the only way to overcome distance. If you and your friend were close enough the crowd wouldn't matter as much. Makes sense?
Yeah, and even balanced lines have their limits without some kind of help along the way. I've seen systems guys measuring mathematical substantial loss and noise after just a few hundred feet.Drumwaiter wrote:Fair enough. But how long could one go with an unbalanced +4dBu line before the signal to noise ratio would be unacceptable I wonder? With a balanced line you just don't need to worry about it. We have successfully sent the output of an electric guitar down 1800ft. of balanced line with no noticeable noise. Makes me wonder what the breaking point is for distance at different signal strengths of unbalanced signal.
RoadDog wrote:ok, so i've come into this in the middle, but which part of synth to pedals to line in jack on the mixer wasn't working? I understand about impedence,levels, balanced vs. unbalanced and S/N , so i am assuming that you did not dig the 'sound'?
Malcolm Boyce wrote:
Length of path, impedance, and signal level that all play a part in the signal VS noise game. Balanced lines are usually better, but not always necessary.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:It's nice when we get stuff done around here.
Drumwaiter wrote:Oh yeah, we don't just bash music stores and schools... Sometimes we actually like to help people.
Christian LeBlanc wrote:Also, a MIDI patch bay would be great ;)
Drumwaiter wrote:Christian LeBlanc wrote:Also, a MIDI patch bay would be great ;)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ENSONIQ-KMX-15x16-MIDI-PATCH-BAY-VINTAGE-/110661268389?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19c3ecf3a5
Done.
Christian LeBlanc wrote:Drumwaiter wrote:Christian LeBlanc wrote:Also, a MIDI patch bay would be great ;)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ENSONIQ-KMX-15x16-MIDI-PATCH-BAY-VINTAGE-/110661268389?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19c3ecf3a5
Done.
They ship US only! I'm never going on this forum again
...this afternoon.
gamblor wrote:So if I’m planning on re-amping a DI guitar track, do I NEED a re-amp box to do it? Will anything break if I just plug my interface’s output to a guitar amp, or will I just have a poor signal to noise ratio? Not that I’m underestimating the value of S/N, but those re-amp boxes run for 200 bucks and I aint made of 200 dollar bills.
Alain Benoit wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote:If it doesn't already exist, Al would probably make you a cheap device to go simply from console line out to "pedal" or "amp" in.Christian LeBlanc wrote:Thanks for the replies! Now who wants to sell Christian cheap re-amps ;)
Al... Doable, or prohibitively pricey?
$40.
Elegant package though.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests