Line Mixers

Discussion in 'The Rack Space' started by Catch, Oct 7, 2016.


  1. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,770
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Allen & Heath ZED10:
    http://www.allen-heath.com/ahproducts/zed-10/

    Mackie 802VLZ4:
    it has one Aux but a channel insert can be used as a direct out if the right jack is inserted there. Check the User Manual, Appendix B.
    You can have a channel insert feeding your delay and the Aux feeding the reverb. The delay will go to another channel so you can also apply verb to it.

    Mackie 1202VLZ4 has 2 Aux Sends

    Soundcraft EPM6
    has 2 Aux and inserts!
    http://www.soundcraft.com/en-US/products/epm6
     
  2. slybird

    slybird Member

    Messages:
    4,812
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    I've been using that Behringer single space rack unit since 2003. I plug a Triaxis, a Tech 21 Sansamp, Roland VG8, a couple synths, and other random device into it. I have the send feeding a effects unit. Send works great as an assignable loop effect. The Behringer feeds a Mesa 2:50 and the computer via its headphone jack.

    Almost 15 year and it is still going strong. I sometimes think about other options, but it is never worth the money. The thing is more than quiet and transparent enough. For my uses (live and home demos) it works great.
     
  3. Tomo El Gato

    Tomo El Gato Member

    Messages:
    779
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    Is it behringer eurorack pro rx1602? I came to this thread hoping to find some info on it. It seems pretty much perfect for my needs, with it's 8 stereo inputs. It seems like the aux send is mono? This would be one drawback, but I figure I could always use a small stereo line splitter to get more parallel stereo signals going.
     
  4. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,770
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Looking at the Behringer RX1602...
    never been a fan of their products. This one looks like it's made with some metal, though.
    Nice stereo channels.
    Nice balanced inputs!!! And mains outputs.
    Not nice... a Balance. WTF for?
    Not nice... ONE mono Aux Send? What were they thinking ON a STEREO by design mixer?
    Now imagine the same mixer without the balance, add a second SEND to replace it, make the now 2 Sends STEREO (TRS) and you'd have an 8 stereo channels with 2 stereo AUX SENDS (or 4 MONO = 2 linked couples). ADD a couple of switches to make both sends pre or post fader... and you'd have a DREAM mixer they could sell forever. Why so close to it, yet so distant?
     
  5. slybird

    slybird Member

    Messages:
    4,812
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    That's it. I don't know what I could add. It's a pretty simple unit. My experience has been more than positive with it, especially when considering the price. I own two other Behringer mixers and one of their condenser mics. I have had them all for at least a few years. They are all holding up for me.

    I often see negative comments about Behringer, but I've had smooth sailing. All that said, I don't know if I would use them for a larger budget project studio, but for the home demo tasks I put them up to they are great.

    If you are looking for reviews I recommend checking out Amazon. Healthy review community over there. You will find reviews from people that have purchased the product.



    It's a simple line mixer. No need to get too critical. Most people buying the thing are just patching several computers/keyboards/MP3 players together, or just using the thing to save/expand space on their main board.

    The product is at least 15 years old, maybe older than 20 for all I know. It doesn't seem like they have made any change to the model's functions, design, or made any improvements since it was first introduced. Maybe it is time for an update, but I highly doubt they need to make any improvements to keep selling units.

    I've found the balance to be very useful for mono output devices. I am really glad the panning function is on there.

    Send and loop implementation isn't the best, but I've found all pieces of gear have compromises. At $150 I can deal with it. If it was priced at $600 or $1,000 would be a heck of a lot more nit-picky, and I would still have to deal with some compromises. Things can always be better no matter what you are using.

    FWIW, there is the Pro RX1202. I would probably have that instead for not that much more money, but I really didn't want to carry a larger rack to gigs.
     
  6. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,770
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011


    I'm not too critical. Just saying they got THIS close to make it right.
    Mixers don't tend to break easily. I have mixers with me that have been working for 20 yrs now and never had problems, so don't get surprised.
    Yep is a simple LINE mixer they should have given a touch of more attention to.
    The panning: most people don't need that on a STEREO LINE mixer. And it could have been added as a full L or R pan by normalling the inputs to the outputs. You'd just insert a dummy in the unused channel and the used one would be panned to its logic L or R output.
    Taken the panning away they could have added a second STEREO Aux... likely a cheaper feature to add. And make the first stereo too.
    It's the whole concept of STEREO LINE MIXER tha includes those features.
    Same thing for the -10/+4dB switch. Take it off and it will sound better... no need for that on a LINE mixer. They have other products for other markets anyway.
    In all, they got really close to make it a winner, with some more focused attention to what the product is and the missing important details. And price could have been the same. Even at 200 $/€ people'd love it.
    I can't speak for the audio quality. I tried MUCH more expensive Behringer mixers and the level of noise was just unbearable.
    Yeah, I looked at the RX1202 but that makes no sense... that's the kind of noisy stuff you don't want in a rig... and the effects, please no, thanks.
     
    slybird likes this.
  7. drbob1

    drbob1 Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    21,207
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    If you've got the space, I'm going to put in for the Crest M1802X again-it's a monitor mixer and has a pad on the balanced inputs so that you can run your effects as loud as they want to be. Each channel has input gain, EQ and 16 sends, and there are 12 mono and 4 stereo input channels. There's no "main output" technically, so you have to use sends 15 and 16 as your main outs, but otherwise it's perfect for what we're doing! They sold new for nearly $2k, but now they're a $350-400 piece (because in the live mixing world, monitors are now done on the main digital board).
     
    ctreitzell likes this.
  8. Gone Fission

    Gone Fission Member

    Messages:
    258
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Anyone personally done mods to make the aux pre-fader on a Rane SM-26? (For the old version with outboard power supply.) I'm looking at the schematic and layout and trying to figure out how to implement that and just scratching my head a bit.
     
  9. splatt

    splatt david torn / splattercell Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    21,515
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    you might find me somewhere.
    hmmm.
    sm26?
    not personally, but i requested a mod & watched it done, at the time..... back before i knew that a pre-fader "send" was actually a thing.

    dan pearce --- of pearce amps, who designed the lab-series amps & later designed for ART --- modded my sm26 for me, sometime about 30-years ago..... give or take a few years.

    if i remember correctly, dan simply installed a switch on my primary input channel (i.e., dry guitar, at that time) which, when engaged, allowed the input to be distributed as designed, but disconnected its own output from the mix-out(s).
    something like that, i think.

    sorry if that doesn't help.
    we did the same on at least one sm26b.

    whatever it was, i'm sure i described it much more specifically to warren cuccurrullo when he consulted me on his first bradshaw rack in those late '80's. bradshaw went forward making the sm26 a feature in his rack-rigs for quite a while, i think, including having made a few (clearly more betterised, compared to my home-made, learn-as-you-go approach) near-duplicates of my set-up which, ar very least, my friend andy summers used for decades.
     
    pangea2003 likes this.
  10. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,770
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    There are no Aux Sends on the SM26. You probably meant the SM28 model?
     
  11. Gone Fission

    Gone Fission Member

    Messages:
    258
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    D'oh. Major typo. I did mean the SM82. I actually had stumbled back over Splatt's mention of the 26 mod and I might have tripped over that.

    I have an SM82 and a FLM82 incoming. The FLM is half-rack with only four stereo inputs, but the aux can switched to pre-fader from the factory. Off to the two schematics to figure out if I can get the SM to do the same trick.
     
  12. JMP72

    JMP72 Member

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    May 29, 2005
    Location:
    Quebec City, Canada
    Just so you know, behringer x air 12 is a cheap and really versatile option, i'll get one next week, and it comes with rack ear
     
  13. splatt

    splatt david torn / splattercell Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    21,515
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    you might find me somewhere.
    sm82 is what i've been using for quite a long time; the original mod on the sm82 was done for me by a tech at Sweetwater Sound.
    now, John Valesio does them for me; maybe he would answer your Q:
    valesio.audio@gmail.com
     
    Gone Fission likes this.
  14. mentoneman

    mentoneman Guest

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    I would check this one out

    http://ashly.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/lx-308b.pdf

    with all this talk off modding stuff, one piece of my gear i would love to have modded is my rocktron juice extractor, to replace it's antiquated built in cab simulator circuit for an IR loader.

    the reactive attenuator, para eq, hush equipped j.e. with it's 6 outputs in 1 rack space would be made perfect with that final touch.
     
  15. Brian Chan

    Brian Chan Member

    Messages:
    309
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Hi guys..If I wanna hook up my Eventide Eclipse into Rane SM82S...whats the connection should be? I wanna separate FX1 and FX2 engine.

    The signal flow goes like Amp Line out ---> SM82S ( 1 channel for dry signal, 1 channel for FX1, 1 channel for FX2) ---> audio Interface

    or for stereo application, no need separate FX1 and FX2 engine..(1 channel for dry signal, 1 channel for Eclipse)

    Cheers.
     
  16. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,770
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Assuming the Rane uses normalled connection on its stereo inputs, you'll have to connect the Eclipse inputs (MUST BE XLRs!) to the Rane Sends and the Eclipse outputs (XLRs) to the returns.
    You'll need to make proper cables for this: XLR wired balanced on the Eventide side/ 1/4" unbalanced on the Rane side.
    Set Eclipse I/O Mode to STEREO. EVERY preset you will use MUST use DUAL MONO routing.
    Be aware that those presets you now hear as SERIES, won't sound the same at all. You'll have to make your own dual mono tweaks.

    For STEREO applications keep connections as above and use PARALLEL routing for ALL your presets.
    The stereo outputs of the Eclipse will send out both engines stereo fx.
     
    ctreitzell and pangea2003 like this.
  17. Gone Fission

    Gone Fission Member

    Messages:
    258
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    What's your overall setup? Is the rack giving you the W/ or W/ /W to augment your amp's dry? Are you running in the loop of a mono amp? Running a stereo rig with dry and stereo effects?
    Have you reviewed all the routing options on p.38 of the V4 Eclipse manual? Are we talking about Dual Mono? Are you intent on being able to send one block to the other for additional processing?
    Since it's an SM82S I'm assuming no mods. (If mods, people will want to know how, cause that's not an easy nut to crack.) Any other helpful gear, like a splitter (including a half-normalled patchbay channel)?

    I cannot really give a good answer without more info.
     
  18. Brian Chan

    Brian Chan Member

    Messages:
    309
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Hi Italo,

    I actually read your comment on other thread and asked about the connection

    The "problem" with the 2 blocks in series is that you will need to use the wet/dry mix of both blocks to get the right balance of the 2 effects and the dry sound... and that will reduce levels.
    The first block will pass DRY and DETUNED DLYS if its dry/wet balance is anywhere in between. The second block works differently. Its DRY will be the signal coming from the first block (dry + detuned dlys as set by the first block dry/wet balance) and its WET will be the DiffChorus verb. You end up with a very complex mix of 3 signals (dry/Micropitch/DiffChorus) that is not easy to set, let alone the fact the overall level will drop because dry/wet mixes work in subtractive way. When set at 0% or 100% the signal being passed (dry or wet) is at its full level. Any values in between is a cut... even half of the original level.
    A mixer allows to have the dry passing thru, untouched by conversions and subtractive balance(s). Then, using the AUX 1, you send DRY to the first fx block (Micropitch) and keep its dry/wet balance at 100%. You'll work your block 2 wet/dry to get the balance between the 2 effects, assuming MT routes Micropitch > DiffChorus in series only... or you set Eclipse blocks in Dual routing mode and you'll have each block efect fed in mono input and going out in stereo. The 2 effects are now in parallel and you have to set their levels inside the Eclipse, using each block LEVEL... assuming MT runs the two machines in parallel.
    You could even reproduce what MT does, that is using TWO machines, with a single Eclipse.
    Run the Eventide in Dual routing (that's mono in/stereo out for each block as above), connect the mixer dry channel AUX 1 to Eclipse input 1 and AUX 2 to Eclipse input 2.
    Now the effects are in parallel and you can decide the balance between using the blocks levels. Assuming MT runs them in parallel.
    More options, less destructive tonal approach with the mixer and much easier to control with channels levels."


    Thanks for the prompt reply. My question might not be very clear.
    Here is my planning signal routing..the whole thing is for recording mostly.

    Amp (Load Box/Line out output) ---> Cab Simulator (Mono out) ---> UA 6176 ---> Mixer (My friend could borrow me a SM82-S or I could get a right one for the application)
    Eventide Eclipse in the Mixer, Mixer output will go into my UA Apollo interface - Stereo input if possible

    Yes. I intent to run the Eclipse in Dual Mono mode. I wanna have one channel of Dry Signal in the mixer and then other two for Eclipse, so that I could adjust the dry/wet signal

    P.S. I wanna add Eventide H3000 D/SE into the system at some point too

    Cheers..Brian
     
  19. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,770
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011


    Brian

    that is a completely different scenario as the dry sound is also run through Eclipse.
    In your setup you will have an external true dry sound so I wouldn't really be worried about using the blocks dry/wet engines.
    As long as you keep the real dry outside of the conversion, you can (and in my opinion should) use the Eclipse in STEREO because that's how youìre going to get its full beauty.
    Many effects are actually based on the post-processing concept where a second fx stage is applied to the first. Just check how many great presets are built in that way.
    You won't have real level issues as fx levels are usually lower then dry anyway.
    You could also run the 2 engines in dual mono in/stereo out and apply post processing (A>B or B>A) with a mixer with 2 AUx Sends, not the SM82s. The only problem would be that you'll loose the true stereo
    processing of the second block (A or B, depending on which scenario you'll be using)... in which case a desktop mixer w/4 Aux Sends is a much better choice.
    So... keeping the 2 blocks routing is an easier choice you can use.
    Seeing that you want to add an H3000 to your setup... I strongly advice you to get a desktop mixer with 4 Aux Sends. Definitely.
    That will take care of both Eventides in true stereo I/O and any post processing between the 2 Eclipse engines can be done internally to the unit itself.
    The SM82S isn't built for that kind of setup really.
     
  20. Brian Chan

    Brian Chan Member

    Messages:
    309
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Location:
    Hong Kong

    Thanks Italo. Which mixer can does the job? I am not really familiar with pro audio equipment.
     

Share This Page