Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[OTR-jkl]

Not too long ago I visited a local mastering house and saw the ME using a small device (about the same size as a track ball but with a rotary pot) as the monitoring volume control.

Anyone know of any such device? Who makes them and where they can be found? Or of something similar? Eventually, I want something like a Coleman or Avocet, but those are not in my price range for now...

Thanks.

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Mackie's BIG KNOB and the PreSonus Central Station (CS having an all passive signal path and my personal favorite of the mid-priced models) come to mind.

[grock5]

If your just looking for gain control, You could always homebrew your own monitor control.

[jfrigo]

Gary Longest wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 23:20

If your just looking for gain control, You could always homebrew your own monitor control.

It really is easy to do and affordable. DC even has me considering some slightly more complex projects, but the monitor thing nearly builds itself if you keep it simple. It takes a bit more planning, effort, and budget to do a console with multiple sources and destinations and outboard inserts, but for a passive attenuator, a source selector, and maybe a mono switch, you don't need to be (insert famous name here).

The only semi-complicated thing is choosing the right attenuator for your rig, and Dave will help you with that  right here if you ask him. My guess (based on asking him a similar question) is that he will point you toward Marchand electronics, or DACT if you want to save some coin and still get a great part, and suggest a stepped bridged T attenuator of at least 2k5, or maybe more safe for some things, 5k ohms.

As it's passive, there's no power supply to worry about, nor combining stages, nor any sound altering circuits, chips, or capacitors. It's just "up is louder." As for metering, you're best off getting a pre-made buffered set of VUs from Coleman. Benchmark was also suggested to me, but theirs are pretty expensive, and if you think those are expensive, don't look at Manley's! I think I'd just build the guts of the Coleman into a project box with an attenuator, source selector, and mono switch and have a simple, yet kick-ass 2U monitor console.

[bblackwood]

Custom boxes are cool, but you can also easily add something like the NHT PVC.

One thing to keep in mind - the load presented by the attenuator (if you go passive) is important, as well as how long the cables are between it's output and the amplifier. If you plan properly, it's nice, but there are some possible drawbacks...

[jfrigo]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 13:23

Custom boxes are cool, but you can also easily add something like the NHT PVC.

And it's under a hundred bucks. Can't argue with that. I wonder what kind of attenuator is in there? You'd want to know a little more about it before buying, even if it is inexpensive.

[bblackwood]

jfrigo wrote on Wed, 16 June 2004 01:58

I wonder what kind of attenuator is in there? You'd want to know a little more about it before buying, even if it is inexpensive.

Apparently a high quality dual pot.

From the site: The PVC's single rotary control allows precise two-channel level adjustments within 1dB from 0 to -40dB, with

[Fibes]

I've laid my hands and ears on one of the NHTs and if i needed it (for tracking and mixing) I'd drop the dough in a heartbeat. I vaguely remember the one i used was 175 or so. Much better than the one on my console.

[OTR-jkl]

Thanks for the help guys. I do need a cleaner monitor source select box to replace what I'm using now but that will have to come later. The NHT looks like it might do what I need.

As for the metering issue:
In addition to the metering within Samp, I'm using a pair of large VUs that are mounted on a rack plate and built into a box. They get their signal from a send off the console (which basically acts as a patch bay and monitor source select) and are powered by an old Marantz receiver/amp. The VUs are really an arbitrary thing as I am using them just to see the dynamic range and where the highest values are sitting. I use the RMS values on the Samp meters to get the level right.

If I were to use the NHT, I guess I would have to put it inline with the signal path that feeds my amp. That wouldn't really replace the current pot though...

Hmmmm, when I listen to myself talk, it sounds like I should hold out for a better console...

[Gold]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 16:23

If you plan properly, it's nice, but there are some possible drawbacks...

The general rule of thumb is a 1:10 ratio or better of source impedance to load impedance. Generally source (output) impedances are below 100 ohms. Generally load (input) impedances are above 10K ohms. The lower the load impedance the harder it is to drive. It needs more current to drive it to full level with low distortion.  If you have loads in parallel divide the number in two. Two 10k loads driven together presents a 5K load to the source.

So picking an attenuator value is a balancing act between the desired amount of attenuation and a value that makes what comes before and after it happy.

[Viitalahde]

..And this is exactly the reason I chose not to feed the processing chain while monitoring the input, in my console. In the worst case the feeding DAC would have needed to drive the combinated impedance of the input attenuator, input impedance of the first processor, monitor attenuator and the monitor amp input impedance.

Compromise: don't twiggle the pre/post monitor switch while printing!

[OatBran]

Input impedance is listed as 5k on the NHT PVC.  Here is a link to the manual.

[Peter Simonsen]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 21:23

One thing to keep in mind - the load presented by the attenuator (if you go passive) is important, as well as how long the cables are between it's output and the amplifier. If you plan properly, it's nice, but there are some possible drawbacks...

Brad,

Do you have any "guidelines", or rule og thump to follow regarding Load vs Cable length.

If one is using a 10Kohm load..how long would the "safe margin" of cable length be..???. and what should the max capacitance pr. feet of the cable be in that example..???

Kind regards

Peter

[bblackwood]

Umm, DC taught me virtually everything I know about this (though that's not saying much), but here goes...

I don't know the numbers, but the safe margins are:
1] as short as you can possibly make it, and
2] as low as you can get it.

I have a 15' run of cable out of my passive attenuator to the amp of regular cable and suffer no high frequency loss. I think as long as you are careful and make sure your cables don't have unusually high capacitance, you'll eb fine. You can always measure it with a tone generator and a DMM...

[Gold]

It's not really the load that determines if the signal arrives unmolested. It's the sources ability to drive that load.

A safe bet is AES cable. I use Belden 1800B. The 1800F is better if you're going to be moving it around. Look for cable in the 12-15 pf/ft range. A little bit higher won't ruin everything though.