Patchbay Wiring

  • Thread starter Thread starter DDev
  • Start date Start date
DDev

DDev

New member
I was about to go buy a cheap patchbay when a friend of mine who is an engineer for a local radio station told me he had just taken several out of the station when they went digital, and he gave me 2. Anyway...

These things are open back, and need to be wired (right now there are a ton of clipped wires). I haven't decided if I'll go ahead and try to do it or not (time is the killer), but I first need to know how to actually wire these up, type of wire to use, etc.

The jacks have 3 solder points, one for tip, one for sleeve, and the other is a mystery to me. I've been thinking that I would just wire top-to-bottom straight across the common points, but don't want to miss the opportunity to do it right the first time (I don't usually get many of these!). I plan to use these in my portable recording rig to make my setup easier to deal with.

Also, one of the units had all of the sleeve points already wired together. Is this okay as is?

Any help would be useful.

Thanks,

DDev.....
 
Used longframe patchfields for free? Sounds good to me!

These are TRS patchfields. The third terminal is "ring", and it will be required for balanced interconnect: signal + goes on the tip (pin 2 of an XLR), signal - goes on the ring (pin 3), and signal ground goes on the sleeve (pin 1).

It sounds to me as if these patchbays are a little bit less useful that you would like if they have only three lugs per jack: that means they are non-normalling jacks. A normal-capable jack will have 5 lugs: tip, ring, sleeve, tip-switched, and ring-switched. The two "switched" lugs are connected to tip and ring, respectively, whenever no plug is inserted in the jack. That "normal" connection is broken whenever a plug is inserted. This normalling arrangement allows you to establish a default connection (using the switched contacts), so that signals can take a default path with no patch cables in place.

Your non-normalled patch bays will require a cable from jack to jack on the front side to establish any connection. But they are still very useful, and the price was certainly right...

If you look at the jacks as they are installed in the bay, you'll see that the bottom ones are rotated 180deg. This means that you can't just wire top to bottom in a straight line: for each pair of jacks, the order is reversed on the bottom jack: the lugs will go t-r-s on the top, and s-r-t on the bottom. So if you were to interconnect them, you'd end up with wires crossing in an X.

Since these are non-normalling jacks, you probably won't want to wire the jacks together in any case: You'll just terminate all three points (tip, ring, sleeve) onto a shielded pair cable that will go to the input or output of choice on the board or output gear. To help any more with setting up the bays, we'd need to know what your rig looks like, and what you intend to put in there... But normal switching surely would be useful. Perhaps you could ask your buddy if he has any of those?

The bay with all the sleeves commoned together may present you a problem, and it may not. There are two commonly used grounding schemes in audio production: one (often used in studios) uses the mixing board as the common signal ground point, with all other apparatus grounded to it in a star arrangement. The other, often seen in broadcast use, is to use the patchbay as the common signal ground point. That one bay was set up for that, sounds like. The reason that it might cause a problem is that if the grounds are all connected at the board, and *also* all connected at the bay, you just built in an ungodly number of ground loops, and you may cause yourself more hum-chasing problems that it is worth.

When you clean up the bay, you can remove the sleeve strapping, and just allow the patching to carry signal ground from the board common to all the peripheral gear. I've built patchfields both ways, and I vastly prefer to use the board as my common point. You pretty much have to go board-common with entry-level gear: it always has all the signal grounds tied together at the board, in any case.

I'd take an evening, heat up the iron, and desolder/clean up/tin the lugs, so that you could sit down with a bunch of wire and start terminating. You want to separate the drudgery of cleaning the existing wiring off the bays from installing your own wiring: otherwise, the latter will take _forever_, and not be much fun...

And don't forget to check out https://homerecording.com/patchbay.html,
http://www.sigt.com/PP_Config_Guide.shtml, and http://www.rane.com/pdf/note110.pdf.

The first is right here on the site, the second has good illustrations of that "normalling" thing, and the third has good information on how to handle balanced and unbalanced connections in and out...
 
Skippy,

Thanks for the reply. The links were great. I'm an electrical engineer, so I only understand things that I can see in a wiring diagram.

Anyway, you asked about my setup, so here goes.

I am doing remote recording at a church, and mixing everything down at home using an ADAT (only 1 so far). I interface with the church's Mackie 32x8 board by taking my desired signals out of the channel inserts, except for the vocals which I take out of a subgroup output to get the house mix on those. From there I am going to a separate Mackie CFX12 mixer to provide gain control only for 6 channels, and to submix 2 guitar and 2 drum inputs to 2 other channels via the 4 subgroups. For the 6 channels I take the inserts out to the ADAT, and the other 2 I use the main left and right mixer outs to the ADAT (I don't assign the first 6 to any bus). All the signals at this point are unbalanced, and everything gets recorded "flat", with no added effects or eq.

I originally tried taking signals straight out of the house board, but the signals were too hot for the ADAT, so this is the compromise I came up with to get things under control.

During recording I have no capability of monitoring what I'm getting, so I spend a lot of time up front making sure I get clean signals.

Anyway, my desire for a patchbay is to make the interface to the house board simpler. Right now we have to pull out the board to pick off whatever channels I need for that particular session, and each soundman uses different channels for different things, so I can't just pick a few channels to leave connected all the time. What I want to do is tap into all 32 channels on the inserts, plus the 8 subgroup outputs, and route these to a patchbay that will permanently reside adjacent to where I setup the recording gear. Then I can just tap into whatever feeds are being used without messing with the house mixer. This will also make additional signals accessible when I am able to move up to 16 tracks.

Now, I think I can do this with one of the patchbays by just using it as a jack point (ie. run cabling from the mixer and solder to the appropriate terminals on the patchbay). The only additional thing I might eventually add would be a compressor to tame a couple of the signals I always have problems containing.

I think I'll probably try to set the other one up in my rack with my ADAT to bring the 8 ins and 8 outs to the front of the rack.

Someday I'll probably go to a more complex setup with more effects, eq's, etc. that will make me go to a more conventional patchbay setup, but this is where I'm at for now.

Again, thanks for the help. If you have any other suggestions based on my essay above, I'm all ears!!

Oh yeah, any recommendations on cable? I am currently using a couple of Hosa 8-channel 1/4" snakes, but with 40 potential patch points, I probably should do something else.

DDev.....
 
Another EE? Great! That makes a lot of this a lot easier to explain...

Sounds like you have the absolute perfect setup for what you need, then. Those non-normalling strips are really only useful for access points, and that's exactly what you have there.

You'll have an odd mix of balanced and unbalanced, most likely. The insert steals you will be using will be single-ended (unbalanced), whereas the sub outs will be balanced differential, if I remember the Mackie correctly. This will require slightly different wiring for the two sets, but you probably already knew that...

For the sub outs, just use TRS plugs and go TRS-TRS. Patch the bay to your mixer line ins with with TRS cables, and you're in fat city.

For the insert steals, use a TRS plug with tip and ring shorted in the plug that connects to the mixer, with the hot conductor connected to tip/ring, and the cold conductor connected to shield (ideally with a resisitor somewhere between 100 and 600ohms, although just shorting it to ground will certainly do). This lets your recording gear treat those signals as "pseudo-balanced" (sometimes called "impedance-balanced"), and will let you get noise rejection almost as complete as if the output was a real, balanced differential output.

However, there is one gotcha: you'll get 6dB lower levels on the insert steals than on the real balanced subgroups (since you'll be swinging only one conductor, you 'll have only half the p-p voltage). If you want, you could rig some H-pads on the sub outs on the patch field to pad down the hotter levels from the subs: that would be turd-polishing, but I'm a belt-and-suspenders guy anyway.

Everything that can possibly be run balanced should be run balanced as far as possible, to maximize your noise rejection. The CFX12 has balanced line ins, doesn't it?

I would wire the whole rig with 2-conductor shielded cable, so that in the future you can easily convert to balanced throughout. You may be running mostly single-ended signals today (because of the insert steals). But if you put the infrastructure in place now, it will pay dividends later as the rig evolves: just rework an easily-accessible plug to be TRS rather than shorted tip-ring. Much easier than having to pull and rework the bay...

Hope that helps!
 
Thanks again for the additional info. Now I just gotta find time to do it. Sounds like a good learning project for me since I'm just getting into this after 20 years of wishing I could. There's nothing quite like putting something together yourself to teach you all of the wrong (and hopefully a few right) things to do (just ask my wife about my plumbing!).

Anyway, thanks again.

DDev.....
 
Hey SKippy,

Slick trick with those insert steals... Been working with patch bays (in different capacities) on & off for the last 20 years. Never tried that one before.

Thanks!!

Steve
 
You're most welcome. Just some unpleasant experience speaking, there.

That flavor of insert steal is ideal for this sort of situation- a church where lots of different hands get laid on the hardware every day. You can always do a "single-click" steal, where you plug a single-ended (TS) cable in only up to the first click (instead of seating it all the way). However, this is pretty unreliable: it's an even bet whether some helpful person will see the connector that "isn't right" and either a) pull it out, breaking your feed, or b) push it all the way in, shorting the return to sleeve and killing the channel. And sometimes the normal switching contacts can get flakey with a not-fully-seated plug, intermittently breaking the send-return path as the cable bundle gets bumped, or the board gets moved a little to make room for a coffee cup. Too much exposure to mischief, there...

Using the shorted-tip-ring plug lets you avoid the "helpful helper" problem altogether, since the connector can be seated all the way, and the internal tip-ring short reestablishes the normal connection from send to return for you. It also give you a good opportunity to go pseudo-balanced, if you like. Everybody wins...
 
Yeah...Oh I know about the "single Click" steal, I just always hated it for all of the reasons you mention (but mostly because I'm so damn anal, It's just not right!!)

Oh... I used to use a liquid contact cleaner... but I can't think of the name, and I've got an old Tascam unbalance half-normalized bay (wicked flakey contacts) that I want to spruce up to use for SPDIF).

Could you jar my memory?

Thanks Skippy,

Steve
 
Cramolin. That stuff is the tears of the angels for rejuvenating old patch bays, and not too long ago I found out that is it still made and bought some more to replace my nearly-dried-out 15-year-old stocks...

Caig has similar products (called DeOxit), but I'm very set in my ways and still insist on using Cramolin. It is a two-pass deal: there's a contact deoxidizer that you put on, you wash it off with their cleaner, and then there is a preservative that you put on. I've rejuvenated some _really_ clapped-out equipment with that stuff...

http://www.cramolin.de/starteng.htm

It's still available from Europe, but the US distributor I bought my last batch from doesn't carry it anymore, and a quick web search for other US alternatives didn't show up anything in the first few seconds. So if you're in the US you might want to go the DeOxit route, since it is available. They are supposed to be essentially equivalent.

http://www.caig.com/c-d100.htm
 
That's the ticket!!

Thanks Skip. I'm actually heading to Europe for a few weeks at the end of this month. I'll see if they have any distributors along my route.

Thanks Again,

Steve
 
Back
Top