W
wyr2hs
New member
What does normaled and half normaled refer to. And whats beter a passive or active direct box, and what is the difference and stuff?
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
for patch bays, normalling, half normal etc..
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=67946
for di's passive means its not powered, and does not add gain
active means its powered and may or may not add gain
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=67946
for di's passive means its not powered, and does not add gain
active means its powered and may or may not add gain
L
littledog
New member
from a practical point of view, an active direct box will require phantom power or some other power source to work. The active circuitry may also change the coloration of the sound in a desireable or undesireable way.
a passive box needs no power to work, and unless it's a pretty crappy one, should pass along the signal more or less unchanged.
and to sum up normalling:
a normalled pair of jacks allows whatever signal which enters from the back on the top row to flow unimpeded to what is connected on the patch point directly beneath it, with no patch cable necessary. However, if you plug a cable into the top jack to route it to another destination, the default circuit to the jack right under it is broken.
in a half-normalled patchbay, each jack on the top row is still connected by default to the one directly beneath it, but if you plug a patch cable into the top row to send the signal somewhere else, the connection to the jack directly under it is STILL good. The practical result is that you can split a signal by having it go to two different destinations simultaneously. This is called "multing".
in both normalled and half-normalled, plugging a cable into the BOTTOM row breaks the default connection from the top.
A good normalling scheme can cut way down on the need for patch cable spaghetti. For instance, if 99% of the time you send the direct outs on channels 1-16 on your mixer to tape inputs 1-16, then they would be ideal candidates for some sort of normalling, where you would have your direct outs going to the top row on your patchbay, and the tape inputs directly underneath them. That's 16 patch cables you've just eliminated!
it sounds confusing when described, but it's pretty simple if someone shows you in person!
a passive box needs no power to work, and unless it's a pretty crappy one, should pass along the signal more or less unchanged.
and to sum up normalling:
a normalled pair of jacks allows whatever signal which enters from the back on the top row to flow unimpeded to what is connected on the patch point directly beneath it, with no patch cable necessary. However, if you plug a cable into the top jack to route it to another destination, the default circuit to the jack right under it is broken.
in a half-normalled patchbay, each jack on the top row is still connected by default to the one directly beneath it, but if you plug a patch cable into the top row to send the signal somewhere else, the connection to the jack directly under it is STILL good. The practical result is that you can split a signal by having it go to two different destinations simultaneously. This is called "multing".
in both normalled and half-normalled, plugging a cable into the BOTTOM row breaks the default connection from the top.
A good normalling scheme can cut way down on the need for patch cable spaghetti. For instance, if 99% of the time you send the direct outs on channels 1-16 on your mixer to tape inputs 1-16, then they would be ideal candidates for some sort of normalling, where you would have your direct outs going to the top row on your patchbay, and the tape inputs directly underneath them. That's 16 patch cables you've just eliminated!
it sounds confusing when described, but it's pretty simple if someone shows you in person!
Sennheiser
New member
Half-normalled is what you are after hanging out here for any length of time.
Right now I have no use for a patchbay. I'm fortunate that my console is configured as such that I don't even need it to bounce tracks. (Heaven forbid I should ever have to.)
I have one more open send to fill. After that, if I add anything else it will be time for a bay.
The only thing a bay would be handy for now is to run a mic or line signal direct into an outboard so I don't have to crawl under the rack, but I don't record using effects anyway.
Right now I have no use for a patchbay. I'm fortunate that my console is configured as such that I don't even need it to bounce tracks. (Heaven forbid I should ever have to.)
I have one more open send to fill. After that, if I add anything else it will be time for a bay.
The only thing a bay would be handy for now is to run a mic or line signal direct into an outboard so I don't have to crawl under the rack, but I don't record using effects anyway.
L
littledog
New member
It's true, Sennheiser, that not everyone needs a patch bay. At least, until they get one and then wonder how they ever worked without one!
A typical example of where a patch bay is invaluable that doesn't even involve having "lots" of gear:
You are recording takes of a lead vocal, and you want to do 5 or six passes onto 5 or six seperate tape tracks, from which you will eventually comp a final vocal. Now, your mic is plugged into a channel on your mixer. With a patchbay, routing the output to the appropriate tape track takes about one second - just move one end of the patch cable from one hole to another.
On the other hand, if your mixer is "hardwired" directly to your recorder (with each individual direct out going to a particular tape track), then to do your multiple vocal takes you will probably have to keep moving your mic from one mixer preamp to another, which is certainly more awkward. You'll need to mute the outputs to keep from wiping out your monitors and the singer's ears, and you probably should keep turning off the phantom power before unplugging as well.
A patch bay makes life a lot easier. And it's a LOT easier to mult (or split) a signal with a patchbay than any other method. (And please don't mention... shudder... Y-cords.)
A typical example of where a patch bay is invaluable that doesn't even involve having "lots" of gear:
You are recording takes of a lead vocal, and you want to do 5 or six passes onto 5 or six seperate tape tracks, from which you will eventually comp a final vocal. Now, your mic is plugged into a channel on your mixer. With a patchbay, routing the output to the appropriate tape track takes about one second - just move one end of the patch cable from one hole to another.
On the other hand, if your mixer is "hardwired" directly to your recorder (with each individual direct out going to a particular tape track), then to do your multiple vocal takes you will probably have to keep moving your mic from one mixer preamp to another, which is certainly more awkward. You'll need to mute the outputs to keep from wiping out your monitors and the singer's ears, and you probably should keep turning off the phantom power before unplugging as well.
A patch bay makes life a lot easier. And it's a LOT easier to mult (or split) a signal with a patchbay than any other method. (And please don't mention... shudder... Y-cords.)
Sennheiser
New member
Understood. I have used them before with smaller setups, but in my case right now the setup is pretty streamlined.
If I were using 16 track it would be a must-have item, but, with eight tracks it just isn't something I can justify at this time. I'd never be doing that many takes unless it was acapella.
Two takes, tops.
I'm not saying don't get a patchbay. Like LittleDog said, they can be mighty handy in many applications. Think how a patchbay could benefit your signal routing, and if you can justify it, do it.
If you're constantly re-patching everything on the console or the back of the rack, or wanting to mult, then you need a patchbay.
If I were using 16 track it would be a must-have item, but, with eight tracks it just isn't something I can justify at this time. I'd never be doing that many takes unless it was acapella.
Two takes, tops.I'm not saying don't get a patchbay. Like LittleDog said, they can be mighty handy in many applications. Think how a patchbay could benefit your signal routing, and if you can justify it, do it.
If you're constantly re-patching everything on the console or the back of the rack, or wanting to mult, then you need a patchbay.
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
One thing I'm curious about is if you have your inserts wired up to a patchbay normalled and you do not plug anything into the loop isn't your signal taking that entire trip through your patchbays for no reason? Has anyone found that to be an issue?
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
One other question. Do you guys normal the aux sends to your headphone distro amp? That's what I was planning on doing and just looking for any comments on that. If not how do you regularly feed your tracking headphones, busses?
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
Depends whether or not the inserts are controlled by switches or not. I never really seen a problem, but it IS an unbalanced line traveling all that way anyhow. I hardly ever have a reason for the inserts anymore anyhow, as I dont usually group signals what with unlimited track counts.
About the aux and headphones thing. Did you get the ghost? Works awesome to half normal Studio A or Studio B to the headphone boxes
About the aux and headphones thing. Did you get the ghost? Works awesome to half normal Studio A or Studio B to the headphone boxes
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Thanks for the tips. Yeah, I got the Ghost. I'm using Studio B for headphones but I'm trying to figure out the best way to run a few different mixes for tracking full bands. I haven't picked up a headphone amp yet so I'm trying to figure out how I'll configure it all.
I guess I could use studio B as the main stereo feed then use the Aux's for 'more me'.
Aaron, Check your PM, got a question for you.
I guess I could use studio B as the main stereo feed then use the Aux's for 'more me'.
Aaron, Check your PM, got a question for you.
L
littledog
New member
Tex, I'm doing exactly what you are talking about, with great results.
Here's my set-up:
My 16 Pro Tools Hardware Outputs (8 from a 192, 8 from an 888/24) are hardwired to a patchbay and half-normalled to line inputs 1-16 on a Studio Master Trilogy. I can then set up each instrument in the Pro Tools session to go to a particular channel or pair of channels on the board. I chose this mixer out of the universe of various $1000 boards specifically because it has six aux sends on each channel that are simultaneously available (unlike Mackie) AND all six can be set to Pre-fader (unlike A&H and most others). This allows me to create 3 independent stereo cue mixes (or six mono ones) while I can use the channel faders, solos, and mutes on the Trilogy to listen to whatever I want on my own headphones or monitors without fear of changing anything the musicians are hearing.
But it gets better!
Then I bought another $1000 board (this time an A&H MixWizard) which also has six simultaneous aux sends, although not all can be made pre-fader. (In this case, not as important, as I won't be futzing with the channel faders or mutes). Then I connected the Trilogy channels 1-16 to the Mix Wizard channels 1-16 by using the insert points (again, prefader) on the Trilogy into the line ins on the MixWizard.
The result is I can now create 6 seperate stereo cue mixes (using the 12 total aux sends, pairs of which can be routed to various headphone preamps scattered around my rooms.) For my studio, that is usually enough. Everyone having their own mix makes the musicians' life a lot easier, and they love it! I think it definitely contributes towards getting me repeat business.
This method may not seem as elegant as some of the newer headphone stations that allow each musician to "mix their own", as all the musician controls is overall volume of their cue mix, and they have to ask me to get changes in the instrument balance. But there are advantages to this (besides cost) method. Sometimes musicians screw up their own mixes when they have control , and then struggle to play through the mess, often without realizing it. By creating the cue mixes at the board, I can always solo them and listen to what the musician is hearing if they seem to be struggling, and can make suggestions for how to change their cue mix to their advantage.
Here's my set-up:
My 16 Pro Tools Hardware Outputs (8 from a 192, 8 from an 888/24) are hardwired to a patchbay and half-normalled to line inputs 1-16 on a Studio Master Trilogy. I can then set up each instrument in the Pro Tools session to go to a particular channel or pair of channels on the board. I chose this mixer out of the universe of various $1000 boards specifically because it has six aux sends on each channel that are simultaneously available (unlike Mackie) AND all six can be set to Pre-fader (unlike A&H and most others). This allows me to create 3 independent stereo cue mixes (or six mono ones) while I can use the channel faders, solos, and mutes on the Trilogy to listen to whatever I want on my own headphones or monitors without fear of changing anything the musicians are hearing.
But it gets better!
Then I bought another $1000 board (this time an A&H MixWizard) which also has six simultaneous aux sends, although not all can be made pre-fader. (In this case, not as important, as I won't be futzing with the channel faders or mutes). Then I connected the Trilogy channels 1-16 to the Mix Wizard channels 1-16 by using the insert points (again, prefader) on the Trilogy into the line ins on the MixWizard.
The result is I can now create 6 seperate stereo cue mixes (using the 12 total aux sends, pairs of which can be routed to various headphone preamps scattered around my rooms.) For my studio, that is usually enough. Everyone having their own mix makes the musicians' life a lot easier, and they love it! I think it definitely contributes towards getting me repeat business.
This method may not seem as elegant as some of the newer headphone stations that allow each musician to "mix their own", as all the musician controls is overall volume of their cue mix, and they have to ask me to get changes in the instrument balance. But there are advantages to this (besides cost) method. Sometimes musicians screw up their own mixes when they have control , and then struggle to play through the mess, often without realizing it. By creating the cue mixes at the board, I can always solo them and listen to what the musician is hearing if they seem to be struggling, and can make suggestions for how to change their cue mix to their advantage.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
I remember with the ghost I think you could choose different sources for studio a and b. I would usually send the control room mix out for one of em, mix b out for others and sometimes aux 7 or 8, whichever one was pre fader
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Thanks again guys. LD you must have a lot of desk space for all those mixers. Now that I have my core setup going I need to spend money on all the not fun stuff like racks, furniture, cables, more headphones, etc.