The shows I intend to record this summer are low budget affairs in low budget venues, with low budget PA systems. (I know I'm getting old when only 4 Guinness makes me a bit cruddy in the morn!) :shock: This is just stuff that popped into my early-morning, four Guinness last night slightly addled brain that may be worth considering. May be that your idea IS the best one.Īnyway, I'm just throwing stuff at the wall, as usual, to generate ideas, more opinions, and healthy debate. May be that you absolutely DO need isolation transformers of some sort, and have no choice. Then of course, there are electrical considerations, if the mixers are running from different circuits. It may all depend on the mixers' capabilities and designs themselves. That's a long route each signal must take. Of course, there may be other considerations and problems using a scenario that runs everything first to your mixer, then direct out to the front, and then possibly their direct outs back to a monitor mixer. Got a free weekend to do nothing but solder? And how long does each cable of the split need to be? Do you do a few hundred feet for FOH, and less for the recording side? Is this going to be pretty much the same scenario each time you do this? Now add to that whatever you will need to do to add the transformers to each cable to split. If you build a 24 channel single snake (not split), that's two ends=48. May even be less expensive than building one, after all the parts costs are added up. I have no idea if they exist, or who makes them. Then there's always the possibility that you can buy a snake that is already configured the way you want, if you need to use it. No matter how much the other guy mangles HIS mix, he can't mess up yours.unless he causes the stage mics to pick up feedback and other stuff. Tap it at the input, send this to the direct out jack, and that through the circuitry. The mixer manufacturer pretty much just built in a splitter. That's one of the things pre-fader and pre-EQ direct outs are for. Also, one may assume that you want to run through minimal effects or other fancy stuff that would use your direct outs, leaving yours free, but the FOH may. Then the FOH could provide the monitor mix.if that's how they are doing it. May be easier to just run everything the relatively short distance to you, then on through a snake to the front. Depends how they do it.īut, if you are stageside, it would be rather silly to take their direct outs, if available, and run another long snake back to the stage for you. Of course, it may be that their direct outs are running back to the stage for monitor mixing. if you are next the FOH, and they are have all their direct outs available, you could do it the other way around, with their direct outs feeding your mixer. It kind of depends on where you set yourself up, also, I guess. Why to yours first? Because the FOH may be using its direct outs for other things. All you may need to buy or construct are some TRS-to-XLR cables, if your direct outs are TRS. If your recording mixer that you will use is capable of passing a balanced direct signal, pre-fader and pre-EQ, and it has as at least as many channels as the FOH requires, you may consider running everything first to your mixer, then direct out to the snake to the FOH. I guess there's always the possibility of trying to use an existing snake, and modifying it, if there is room enough inside? I dunno. May not be as budget-friendly as you would like. There may be an alternative method that doesn't require buying a lot of transformers, a metal box, a large spool of cable, a whole bunch of XLRs, and a tremendous amount of time. Here's the first name that popped into my head.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |