But what you want is to retain the same match between your outboard components and between them and the mixer. IOW, as RFB points out, avoid connecting an unbalanced cable to a balanced input or visa-versa.
Ken, I don't see a way to avoid it..
The mixer has rca's and 1/4 jacks (except for the mic inputs with xlrs)
The equalizer has only 1/4 jacks
The exciter can use either kind
The Compellor and the Dominator only has XLRs
So you see for me to avoid mixing unbalanced and balanced connections would to do away with the Compellor and Dominator.
Are you suggesting I would be better off to sell those two units and replace them with a limiter and compressor which feature balanced jacks?
It was thru considerable research that I selected the Aphex Compellor & Dominator, it was my understanding these were a desirable pair to have in a part15 chain.
P.S: What the heck is a recording snake?
Do you have to feed it mice?
But seriously, what is it?
Wait a sec.. Ken I just reread your post.. and I may be confused about -- you said to maintain the same match between the outboard components and the mixer.. -- So by "outboard components" your referring the the audio sources in this case, and not the processing chain.. is this right?
At least I now think that's what your saying.
So if I'm correct, you mean to make sure-------oh cr*p.
No.. I'm still losing it.
What it comes down to is that I apparently just bought the wrong equipment.
Yet, by jumping back to RFB's statement " By putting the STD unit at the output of the mixer, you are now standardizing the audio chain in the balanced mode all the way up to the TX input.. --This makes it sound that I'm alright with the equipment I have.
I think my whole problem with my studio set up is that I blindly moved to fast with it.
So what's the bottom line, what has to be done to correct this chain? Does putting the STD right after the mixer correct it or not? Or does it indeed take a couple of those $150 units mentioned earlier, inserted at the two points where it bounces back and forth from balanced to unbalanced to get it right? Not that there's a chance I could actually purchase those now; but is that what it really will take for this to be right?
Or do I need to sell off the Compellor and Dominator and get different units?
What what what what
What options are there to get this chain right? What really needs to be done
sigh.
I'm still losing it.
The reason why I stated putting the STD unit at the output of the mixer is to allow you to have either the balanced or un-balanced output from that mixer so you can utilize either balanced or un-balanced from that point. Right now with just un-balanced outputs from the mixer (1/4 or rca), your limited to just un-balanced and cannot interface easily to balanced equipment that only has balanced inputs.
The STD makes it universal, so it makes the mixer capable of feeding balanced inputs to other gear or un-balanced inputs to other gear.
You can get away with going from balanced to un-balanced maybe once or twice along the chain...but any more than that and it seriously degrades the performance your going to be expecting out of those "preferred" pieces of gear. Something along the way is going to be cranking up the level to compensate for the lack of level from the previous piece of gear, then again after that. Be like riding a roller coaster..up and down...up and down....eventually noise floor from the equipment itself will show up along the chain, and eventually at the input of the TX.
I think my whole problem with my studio set up is that I blindly moved to fast with it.
That can happen when faced with great deals on used gear..heck I do it sometimes too because of the great prices on the gear. Do not feel bad about that. Its better to have the gear and not need it than to need it and not have it....especially down the road when you can interface them with proper in/out interfacing to maintain levels and keep noise down to a minimum.
So what's the bottom line, what has to be done to correct this chain?
Bottom line is to use the gear that will interface to the mixer directly, in this case the un-balanced method (1/4) and put the balanced only gear on the shelf for later use. You can go ahead and use the one piece of gear that allows for both types of inputs and outputs, and use the 1/4 in and outs and not place the STD unit at the output of the mixer at this time. This way you maintain a standard all the way through the chain and not have to bounce between the balanced and un-balanced anywhere in the audio chain.
Balanced is the standard used in all professional studio installations, be it radio, tv or recording and production facilities. However sometimes a facility might need to plug in something that only has un-balanced interfacing...and is why things like that STD unit and other equipment have the ability to use either balanced or un-balanced. Unfortunately not all of the gear you intend to use has this either/or feature. So bottom line is to go with what you do have..and it appears to be the 1/4 un-balanced connections.
Just set aside the gear that has the balanced only input/output connections for now. Only use the gear with the 1/4 interfacing for now.
Let me also add this...and this is just a bit of advice from a 30 year veteran of engineering in the professional environment. I have seen so many pile up so much equipment in front of their Part 15 transmitter, be it AM or FM, and spend a cahoot of dough doing so. Why. There is not a single Part 15 AM or FM transmitter that meets the specification called for from type accepted or even professional equipment...period. All these processors, equalizers, exciters, etc etc do not do a darn thing except look impressive in a rack and suck up more electricity than necessary to send out a decent audio signal on those Part 15 AM and FM transmitters where everyone is dead set on that signal not reaching more than 200 feet.
There is an old saying...."too much box for the little job"..in the case of filling up a cabinet or rack of processing and eq and such for a 200 foot singal....becomes not only pointless..but incredibly ridiculous. That is soooo overloading the boat.
Radio receivers, AM and FM...are limited in their frequency response directly out of the box. To try to go beyond that limitation is pointless and no one will hear anything but what that receiver is capable of reproducing. Sure you want your sound to be as good as possible...but in practical reality...with all that extra this and that...only about 40 percent of that extra gear's capabilities will even be heard through the listener's radio.
This can even be checked by simply switching back and forth between a receiver audio and your studio line level audio through a good set of studio monitors and you will hear the huge difference. If necessary, connect a o-scope and run a sweep signal through the chain and actually see how much a typical radio receiver leaves out all that extra effort.
Everyone wants their signal to sound loud..be punchy and be like the big stations sound. That is ok...but what most forget is that in order to be loud and punchy....you have to squeeze a wide bandwidth audio signal to "FIT" inside a limited bandwidth signal...10Khz for AM (typically cut off at 5 or 7Khz), and 75khz FM (minus the 10Khz stereo pilot deviation, leaving you with only 65Khz). This is done by the compressors and so forth. Then we have the end user receivers that are limiting the audio bandwidth even more by their internal noise canceling circuits and AGC's and detector limitations and amplifier specs and speakers and on and on.
Im not saying disregard trying to having the best sound possible..but honestly folks...you can have a far better sound spectrum wise on the audio by not overloading the front end so much with a lot of gear that only ends up at the end with a mere 40 or so percent of their ability because of the limiting factors in the transmitters and receivers.
In the long run....and particularly for a Part 15 setup.....its wasting resources when those extra dollars could go towards another transmitter to extend your coverage range instead of piling it all up inside a rack and going no further than 200 feet.
But that is just my take on things. For a mere 150 bucks you can get a decent processor brand new, even one with both balanced and un-balanced interfacing in and out, and get just as good of performance as all this piled up rack of gear being choked by the transmitter limitations as well as receiver limitations.
It all looks impressive in pictures and ohh ahh show off my studio posts...but really..its way OVERKILL when it comes down to the nitty gritty.
Back to the topic at hand...stick with the 1/4 interfacing from front (mixer) to tail (TX) and only use the gear that interfaces with the 1/4. Put away the unit that only has the balanced (XLR) for now. When you can replace that gear that only has 1/4 interfacing with something that has either both XLR and 1/4, then toss in the XLR only piece of gear so you maintain a standard in your audio chain.
There will be less confusion too by doing that.
Hope you get it all lined up and get on the air! 🙂
RFB
If I've been listening well enough I believe you've said that business of interconnecting audio equipment is new for you, and you're learning as you go. That can only mean that it will be very confusing for awhile, and here's why.
Even veteran professional radio engineers find this kind of wiring to be confusing and often make mistakes, even after years of experience. Take me for example.
For over 30-years I owned and maintained a pro studio that did radio program and commercial audio, but the wiring of equipment was always a work in progress and never perfected.
Even with manuals, schematics good lighting and having the equipment physically present I would often discovered previous wiring errors or made new ones.
The only tool that matters right now is patience, and a lot of it. You are learning, but it will be slower than you like.
The good news is that you will figure it out.
First, I've been looking over the specs of your mixer. The stereo output jacks are TRS (tip, ring, sleeve) and are impedance balanced, but you can still treat them as line-outs because it isn't critical in that mixer. These would go to an amp or powered speakers if you were using it in a live performance venue. I'd prefer to take things one step at a time, so ... Here's a quote from your original post:
"Starting from the Yamaha MG10/2 mixer..
MIXER (ST out with two 1/4 jacks) pigtailed to mono EQUALIZER (with option of either a single balanced 1/4 jack in, -- OR a single XLR jack in). Do I pigtail to the 1/4 jack or do I pigtail to the XLR?"
What type of equalizer is it? Let's assume graphic for the moment. Look at your mixer ... it has three knobs (known as 'shelf' filters) for high-mid-low equalization. You can't pinpoint getting rid of noise (like tape hiss or record scratches) as well as a graphic equalizer, but they can help contour the sound. You can decide whether or not you actually need the graphic equalizer.
What are you calling a "pigtail"? You shouldn't use a Y-connector, because the stereo signal is a mixed thing, with some portions in one side, some in the other, some in both, etc. Using a Y-connector combines the signals, but it doesn't mix them into mono. IOW, you could end up with cancellation and doubling problems, muddying it up.
My mixer has a Mono out, but I don't see one on yours. Therefore, my suggestion goes like this:
Assuming for now you just have one mic for voice, for your music source, instead of using the 2TR (RCA) inputs, you can use two of the other channels for stereo input, using the unbalanced Line inputs, not the XLR mic inputs. If you wanted a stereo output, you would pan one hard left and the other hard right, but instead, we leave them both at the center, which gives you a mixed mono signal at the stereo outputs from the board, and you can now use a Y-connector. Note you're combining them, so it will have more power, but this is easily controlled by gain and fader knobs.
The caveat is that this method uses up two channels.
So you're basically using unbalanced line-level connections with your mono equalizer (if you really need it) downstream from the mixer. That will go to your TX. BTW, what TX are you using?
Is this making sense so far?
Now let me look over what can be done with the exciter and compeller. These are pro gear things, so I assume they only have balanced connectors, but I'll take a look. There may yet be a way, but it will involve swallowing at least one more mixer channel ... I'll get back to you.
Hello Everyone ...
I'd like the radio sages and other experts to look over this proposal I managed to come up with regarding Rich's gear. ...
I don't own a Rangemaster, but as I understand the text and drawings, it appears that its audio input is balanced mono. Is that correct?
If so, I think I may have Rich's audio chain almost figured out, if he wants to use all the gear ... remembering what RFB said, i.e., it may be overkill, and not all necessary. But here we go ...
1) The EXCITER is basically an effects device. IOW, from a similar manual (couldn't find one for the legacy type Rich has), you can run it into the AUX Send/Return circuit and mix in variable amounts (dry-wet) from each channel. I would use AUX 2 (POST fade) since AUX 1 is PRE fade, i.e., for stage monitors (you usually want stage monitors to be unaffected by fader levels), which probably won't be used anyway.
So you send AUX 2 to just one of the EXCITER's channels and return to L RETURN which will send it MONO to the stereo bus. The LEVEL adjustment is the top knob just to the left of the meters, so you might need to play with this in conjunction with the output from the EXCITER.
WHAT IT MEANS: You now have the EXCITER affecting both sides of the stereo bus the same way. You can't vary the effect on L & R channels separately, but you could use the other EXCITER channel inline with another (mono) channel input, such as your microphone.
That might be a good idea to give your voice clarity using settings which may be quite different than those used in the other EXCITER channel. In such a case, you would not use the AUX SEND on that mic channel.
You could use it either between the mic and its mixer channel (short XLR cable), or you could INSERT it (INSERT cable). But either way, other than the EXCITER channel controls, you can't reel in a mix. I.e., unlike the AUX sends, it affects the whole input signal. In the case of an insert, in this mixer, it inserts between the channel's equalizer and the fader.
2) You can input (to the board) the music sources normally, I'd use the Channel Input Jacks (7/8. 9/10) so you can utilize the EXCITER.
3) The Compellor can be used in other ways, but I would use one channel as an INSERT (INSERT cable) in a channel you want to use for phone calls, for which it should work really well between the TELCO line and the mixer. You could insert the other COMPELLOR channel into another mixer channel to help with safely controlling dynamics and cleanup of unknown mono sources you might want to plug in ... an example of which might be a scanner or weather radio.
4) The MAIN stereo output is impedance balanced. The first in the outbound chain ... the 10Ω STD Combiner can be used here to make a MONO signal.
5) The second outboard device in the chain to the TX should be your graphic EQ using a Line Level connection, i.e., 1/4". The EQ can be set to get rid of noise harmonics in the system.
6) The EQ has both types of jacks so you can connect to a Dominator channel (which I believe has only XLR balanced jacks) with an XLR balanced connection. This will be the final brick wall limiter to send a protected signal to the Rangemaster.
7) Now you can send a balanced feed from the DOMINATOR to the Rangemaster, which if I read it correctly expects a balanced monophonic input signal.
EVERYONE ... Once again, I ask that y'all look this over and see what you think. There are other ways and things which can be done. I read through a small plethora of manuals and thought about it quite a bit, but that doesn't mean it's all right ... it's just the Word According to Ken.
HTH ...
RF, I read your post with pleasure, and appreciated your insight and expression on this matter, and the technical matters in general, as they were conveyed in such a way that a layman such as myself could comprehend them.
You made some real good points, and I value them, but there are a few things in-particular about what you said I'd like to comment on...
All these processors, equalizers, exciters, etc etc do not do a darn thing except look impressive in a rack and suck up more electricity than necessary to send out a decent audio signal on those Part 15 AM and FM transmitters where everyone is dead set on that signal not reaching more than 200 feet...
There is an old saying...."too much box for the little job"..in the case of filling up a cabinet or rack of processing and eq and such for a 200 foot singal....becomes not only pointless..but incredibly ridiculous. That is soooo overloading the boat.
Not that I don't see where your coming from, but I have to disagree, at least partially, on a couple points.
First off, let me just get the 200ft remark out of the way. You brought it up a couple of times in your response, and I winced both timeS becuase based on what I've read on this forum and other sources, the 200ft "rule" is an inaccuracy.. in that it is not illegal for a usable signal to extend beyond that range - now, which is entirely true? - myself, I'm not really sure. But what is certain is that Part15 transmitters which are certified under Part 15.219 (ie: the Rangemaster) are not governed under the range limitation, but specifically by the limitation of power and antenna length - Correct? So the 200ft thing definitaly does not apply.
I realize you were just referring to it for the sake of illustration, but still..!
As for: All these processors, equalizers, exciters, etc etc do not do a darn thing except look impressive in a rack..
I disagree, and this is based on my last installation 5 years or so ago. Back then, originally hooked up in a mobile home, my entire chain consisted of a dvd player connected directly to the transmitter. Then I got a couple pieces of processing equipment, which if I recall correctly consisted of a Symetrix limiter, a Beringer compressor, a BBE sonic maximizer, and a garage sale equalizer, and the difference it made on the receiving am radio was major! The sound quality was noticeably improved, and the abilty to modulate the signal more without distortion resulted in about twice the range.
This experience leads to the conclusion that installing the rack equipment does a LOT more than just look pretty!
..but what most forget is that in order to be loud and punchy....you have to squeeze a wide bandwidth audio signal to "FIT" inside a limited bandwidth signal... Then we have the end user receivers that are limiting the audio bandwidth even more . ...you can have a far better sound spectrum wise on the audio by not overloading the front end so much with a lot of gear that only ends up at the end with a mere 40 or so percent of their ability because of the limiting factors in the transmitters and receivers.
I assume you are correct that the am radio receiver is only capable of taking advantage of only 40% or 50% of the enhancement the outputting processing gear produces, but a 40% improvement is still nothing to sneeze at.
In the long run....and particularly for a Part 15 setup.....its wasting resources when those extra dollars could go towards another transmitter to extend your coverage range instead of piling it all up inside a rack and going no further than 200 feet.
I could probally legally cover my objective 2 1/2 mile range by utilizing 2 Rangemasters, or at least come close to it. I must admit that after I had finished spending a lump on my gear, accessories, and a few unrequired bells and whistles, I realized I could have bought a second transmitter instead already... and it has occured to me that it might have been the wiser choice.. yet at the same time, it's debatable in my particular situation...
....It all looks impressive in pictures and ohh ahh show off my studio posts...but really..its way OVERKILL when it comes down to the nitty gritty.
Well... yeah... I can't argue that. But you have to admit that the hobby goes beyond just functionally accomplishing a signal, -- It's a hobby, a pastime, a personal enjoyment and satisfaction... and to add additional enhancements and capabilities to it - though they may perhaps be a tad unnecessary or overkill to the actual material objective.. the essence of the hobby itself (I think) consist much more of a personal satisfaction than it does a material objective.
So, to focus on the "nitty gritty" of it all, you would have to eliminate the entire hobby aspect of it altogether, which leaves only the mechanical or technical task... But mechanically, you're right!
And speaking more specifically of my own situation, a important part of my objective does include adding a "ohh ahh" aspect to it all, because I am setting the studio up in a public, high traffic area, where a variety of people will be standing literary 4 feet from my studio rack on a regular basis. So I want it to really LOOK like something! Word gets around fast on this small island. I want people to say.. "Did you see the radio station at the check cashing office? You can listen to it on 1700 AM!
-- A laptop and a microphone sitting on the desk hooked to a wire running outside would just be peculiar, but an entire portable radio station handsomely displayed; that's an impression.
Back to the topic at hand...stick with the 1/4 interfacing from front (mixer) to tail (TX) and only use the gear that interfaces with the 1/4. Put away the unit that only has the balanced (XLR) for now. When you can replace that gear that only has 1/4 interfacing with something that has either both XLR and 1/4, then toss in the XLR only piece of gear so you maintain a standard in your audio chain.
I've was considering this, and I really don't want to get rid of my Aphex chain if I can avoid it.. now, I'm a couple hundred in the hole right now, .. and I don't particularly want to, and it would be awkward to, but I could probably borrow another $150 to purchase that buffer/amplifier you mentioned earlier if I had to - if I got one of those would that indeed be a true solution?
Well, again, thanks a bunch for all your kind input.
Well that is certainly an elaborate "chain of events" going on with that. As I read your plan, it reminded me of the old saying us engineers have for those wire troths...."the hell hole" 😀
I do highly suggest, no matter how complex or simple you make your audio arrangement, that you label everything and even have a block diagram book showing point to point connections with arrows indicating audio flow and description of that audio in each line.
Even the most simple wiring scheme can throw off its own owner who did the wiring when things go sideways and you have to start bypassing and patching and string wires across the console and room!
I say throw it to the wall and see how much of the spaghetti sticks. (all works out).
RFB
Ken, Thanks for looking my chain over.. I'm just dropping a word in here right now. I have to reread your post and get it to sink in before I can respond.. I not to experienced with these setups, and never even used a mixer yet!
It's really necessary for me to go over your post a few times before I can say anything, but I really appreciate what your doing with going over my setups specifications.
I'll say more later.
Thanks again!
Carl,
For over 30-years I owned and maintained a pro studio that did radio program and commercial audio, but the wiring of equipment was always a work in progress and never perfected.
Even with manuals, schematics good lighting and having the equipment physically present I would often discovered previous wiring errors or made new ones.
The only tool that matters right now is patience, and a lot of it. You are learning, but it will be slower than you like.
The good news is that you will figure it out.
To a certain extent, though indirectly, I can associate with what you're saying.. Here around the island everyone thinks I'm some kind of computer expert - I'm not! Never was. But for a couple years I had a little copy center/interent hub on the island, and back then I used to buy these old 386 computers originating from government surplus for $100 each from a guy locally. I'd wipe them, install windows and a bunch of programs and games, then sold them for $400 to $500 each.. I sold a lot of them for awhile, often times by setting up payment agreements.
Then for several years I set up websites, then did a lot of desktop publishing, and have always had some kind of direct connection with computers since the mid 90's.. and all through the last 15 years or so, I have people constantly coming to me because they have a problem with their computer - even people I've never met!
I don't do it as a business any more and haven't charge anyone in years, which has a lot to do why they come to me I'm sure.. but fact is, around here, whenever some one mentions their computer acting up, someone always says "Bring it to Rich!" - and I usually get it corrected, cause truth is, it's usually something basic and simple, and my familiarity with Windows enables me to fix it without to mugh effort.
But my whole point is.. even after all this time, I constantly am learning something new.. it's a never ending process.
I am not a computer expert, I'm just usually able to figure out the problem because of my familiarity with the use of them.
Audio processing.. I have no familiarity with. That's why I cant figure this out!
The whole essence of your post is "There's a light at the end of the tunnel" -- Question is, how long is the tunnel!
At the very least if there is something within my long winded post that is of some help, that is what counts!
And like I have said before...its better to have it (all the bells and whistles too) and not need it than to find you need it and not have it!
I have a closet full of fancy gear from some excellent deals that I could not let pass. And I have from time to time created a mile long array (exaggeration) of audio chain to my Part 15 219 setup, even doing so at times on my Part 15 221 CC setup. I think the most fun part in all that is watching all the peak and gate and level indicators flashing with the room lights turned off! Its Radio Rack Christmas Tree Spree! 😀
Then the fun would come to an end when I had that desire to extend the range of that 219 setup and see a great deal on a transmitter...only to realize I spent all that play dough already! WAHHH!!!! 😉
But I hope that within all of my rant in the post there was that something that helps with your situation. 🙂
RFB
But I hope that within all of my rant in the post there was that something that helps with your situation. 🙂
It all helps
Ken, I keep re-reading your last post, and it's about to bring tears to my eyes.. I think you're trying to drive me crazy. I can't afford a psychiatrist.
I'm thankful for what you've done and know you've got to be making sense in there, but to my ears you might as well be talking about quantum mechanics and string theory! I've read over it several times, and took a printed copy in hand to my studio rack, and tried to follow, but... I'm not sure - it's making me tense.
I think I'm going to try drawing a diagram of what you said on paper, where I can look at it as a whole, in hopes I can get it to come to light for me. I'm not sure yet if I'm really ready for all that... I thought it was just to be a straight chain, one piece to the next 1.. 2.. 3.. 4...
But I'm going to take a breather on it tonight, and maybe try approaching it with a diagram tomorrow, because right now, I want to beat my head against the wall.
I certainly didn't intend it to harass you, only to see if we could get all your gear hooked up. You need to read the manual for your mixer and find out how it works.
Once you get it, you'll know why I chose to use the EXCITER as an effect. In a mixer, you use AUX sends for that, so study that and see if you can understand it. This allowed us to connect the other devices in a straight chain, in an order that allows the connections to be compatible with each other. Otherwise you might not be able to use them because of the differences in connectaibility.
Learning how your mixer works is important in order to utilize it. I took advantage of its available features to allow all your gear to work.
Don't expect it to happen in one day (or night as the case may be). It won't. Sound engineering is a learning process ... just keep at it until the lights in your brain start coming on, be patient with yourself.
I also mentioned some options in there which probably just added to the confusion, and I apologize for that. You don't need them for now, so ignore the options and stick to the main points.
My advice is to start with the mixer manual. Read through it, and get your basic connections going. Pg 21 shows you how to connect things. Keep it simple ... Plug your music source into the L/R RCA jacks in channel 7/8. Use the C-R (Control Room) connections for your powered monitor speakers, or just plug in your headset.
Once you've got sound going in the mixer, let me know and I'll attempt a little tutoring about AUX sends if you email me privately.