Pre-Amps On 1680

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcs
  • Start date Start date
R

rcs

New member
Hi,

I have a 1680 and I am having problems with the pre-amp. Specifically, I can't get levels hot enough on tracking without blowing the 1680's pre-amp.

My set-up is as follows:

1) Sound Sources: Trinity, JV-35, Alesis DM-Pro

2) Mixer: Mackie 16 Channel

3) Recorder: 1680

4) Sequencing: Cubebase VST Score

The sound sources are routed in to the Mackie and then run out the main outputs directly to the 1680 (I found this more efficieint then using one of the monitor outs). On the Trinity I can get a hotter signal by running the Trinity's on board compresor, but I hate to run compresors on tracking.

If anyone has anythoughts let me know.

Thanks
 
I don't know for sure...

But someone may be able to answer your question here:

www.vsplanet.com
;)
Sorry, Dragon
__________
wawazzat?
Now don't get mad, nobody is helping this guy
 
I'm curious as to why you are running through the Mackie first...I mean, I can guess, but seeing as the 1680 has a mixer... I'm set up to run out to my Mackie for connection to my monitors. It bugs me that the outs on the 1680 are only rca's.
I ask because I just received a 1680 on loan last week, so my question is for information as well as trying to answer yours question.
 
I have an Roland 880 and a Mackie 1604 VLZ. I almost always run mic's thru the 1604 and then into the 880 (or as in your case the 1680). I get a much hotter signal than when running the mic direct into the 880.

Usually when I do this I rune from the direct outs of whatever channel on the Mackie I have run a mic into and then to the 880. This methi\od still leaves the EQ on the Mackie board in the signal chain. If you wish to remove it use the channel insert jack on the Mackie to go into the 1680 BUT only insert your cable in the insert jack to the FIRST click or stop.

Hope this helps -

PS is the 1680 manual poorly written too?
 
Yikes I should have looked at the typing errors before I sent that last one.
 
Yeah, the 1680 manual tis' a puzzlement...
I figured the run through the Mackie was a signal boost situation.
I'm trying to run as straight to the 1680 as possible to see what it can do on it's own.

I'm bummed about the rca outs for mains/monitors. You would think they would have a balanced output signal.
 
I have a VS 880EX and a VSR 880(rack mount VS). What worked for me was to get my hands on a Midiman Flying Calf 24 bit A/D converter.I plug my source (sometimes my Mackie,sometimes something else) into it and then come out of it via S/PDIF into the Dig. ins on the VS. Sounds better,good hot levels. Cost me $98+ $12.99 for the S/PDIF cable.
 
I believe virtualray gave me a similar answer to aquestion I had a while back about using an A/D converter. I have no0t purchased one yet but many claim by using one and running it into the S/PDIF inputs instead of the rebular ones you can hear a big difference. I do plan on getting one as he suggested.
 
Further in formation as to why I use the Mackie.

In response to an earlier question on why I use the Mackie instead of the mixer on the 1680, the following are the reasons:

First, there are more xlr connections on the Mackie. Second, I have multiple sound modules which I do run (on occasion) in stereo. So it is easier to run a left/right mix out of the Mackie into the 1680. Third, almost all of my stuff is based on sequences, and while the sequencing is going on it is easier to use the Mackie then the 1680. Fourth, I am lazy - my system was set up originally for sequencing with the Mackie and no recording gear. It was easier to just leave the Mackie in place and put the 1680 at the end of the process.

Finally, since some of you may ask why I have a 16 channel recording system if I only do sequences, well the truth is I now have 34 tracks - I just bought an 1880 which I link to the 1680 through my CubeBase Software. Anyway, I have found that the sound quality when you have 20 to 30 tracks of sequences is basically rubbish.

Specifically, if you run a full set of (non-drum) rhythm tracks out of your Trinity, a couple of string parts and a horns out of another sound source, and then a full drum track out of your drum machine the entire process gets muddled in sound source. This is usually because I only run two outs on each sound source. And while some of my sound sources have additional outs (i.e. the Trinity) this is not always the case, and in most situations there are not enough extra outs to cover all of the instruments.

So the solution is to sequence to get the arrangement, and then send it all (sequence track by sequence track) to the 1680 and the 1880. This gives you total control over the tracks, the efx on the tracks, and the mix. (Also on the final mix down I can still use the sound modules for a few extra tracks through the digital mixers of both the 1680 and the 1880.)

So that is my set-up, and the reasons for it.

RCS

P.S. I didn't have time to proof the above, so I disavow any spelling errors or typos.
 
Hmmm... With this flying calf, (in combination with the VS1880) would I have the ability to record 10 tracks at once? Or is there a nasty trick, switch of this and that to use the dig. in? (I don't have my manual near at the moment...)

The flying calf does need a micpre right? And does it have balanced inputs? Other A/D's that are worth considering?
 
Signal path...

I have the older VS880 supplied from a Behringer 26/4/2. It is worth outputting the groups to your VS... this way, you can assign the Mackie inputs to any group output on the mackie giving you seperately recorded tracks on the VS during the same session. Make sure though that you are observing the signal path attenuations as you are running through a few amp stages. The input into the mackie should be levelled correctly and then observed using PFL's (solo) through the different stages whilst listening to the volume changes and correcting. I get a good level in my VS as a consequence, can't think why you wouldn't...


Regards


Geeb...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top