I feel like this may be a stupid question, but here it is.
I need to connect 1/4" TRS balanced mixer outputs to
RCA ins on an amplifier. Is there any benefit to using
a TRS plug on the mixer side, running all three wires
to the RCA? I assume I'd just tie one of the signals
to ground, which is really the same as just using a
TS connector at the mixer, but was wondering whether
I'd still get the interference rejection by running
both signals through the wire. As I'm typing this
the idea sounds wrong, but I'll let the question stand
at the risk of embarrassment.
I feel like this may be a stupid question, but here it is.
I need to connect 1/4" TRS balanced mixer outputs to
RCA ins on an amplifier. Is there any benefit to using
a TRS plug on the mixer side, running all three wires
to the RCA?
Check out this article and figure out what kind of output you have:
https://crookwood.com/blog/dealing-with-unbalanced-gear-in-the-studio/
So I would run all three wires, connect the output tip to the RCA pin,
and the output ring to the RCS sleeve, and run the output sleeve through
the wire, but not connect it to anything on the RCA side.
Mixer is a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro.
Now, wouldn't this give me a larger signal to the amp as compared to
using a tip/sleeve plug on the output?
I feel like this may be a stupid question, but here it is.
I need to connect 1/4" TRS balanced mixer outputs to
RCA ins on an amplifier. Is there any benefit to using
a TRS plug on the mixer side, running all three wires
to the RCA? I assume I'd just tie one of the signals
to ground, which is really the same as just using a
TS connector at the mixer, but was wondering whether
I'd still get the interference rejection by running
both signals through the wire. As I'm typing this
the idea sounds wrong, but I'll let the question stand
at the risk of embarrassment.
I feel like this may be a stupid question, but here it is.
I need to connect 1/4" TRS balanced mixer outputs to
RCA ins on an amplifier.
Is there any benefit to using
a TRS plug on the mixer side, running all three wires
to the RCA?
to ground,
which is really the same as just using a
TS connector at the mixer, but was wondering whether
I'd still get the interference rejection by running
both signals through the wire.
https://crookwood.com/blog/dealing-with-unbalanced-gear-in-the-studio/
The article says:
At the unbalanced end, always connect the hot wire to the output or input pin, and the cold wire to the ground pin
"Hard balanced outputs*cannot* be shorted to ground ".
"Hard balanced outputs*cannot* be shorted to ground ".
Nothing you read on the Internet is perfeck. What's a "hard balanced
output" anyway? A made-up term for the sake of an article?
Mike Rivers wrote:
=================
"Hard balanced outputs*cannot* be shorted to ground ".
Nothing you read on the Internet is perfeck. What's a "hard balanced
output" anyway? A made-up term for the sake of an article?
** It was defined in the article.
Means twin, out of phase, ground referenced electronic outputs.
Usually, a pair of op-amps, one unity gain inverting and the other a simple follower.
You must not short the follower.
Not possible for ordinary users to know which is which.
IME a lot of twaddle is published about "balancing".
..... Phil
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 20:53:16 -0700 (PDT), "palli...@gmail.com" <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
=================
"Hard balanced outputs*cannot* be shorted to ground ".
Nothing you read on the Internet is perfeck. What's a "hard balanced
output" anyway? A made-up term for the sake of an article?
** It was defined in the article.
Means twin, out of phase, ground referenced electronic outputs.
Usually, a pair of op-amps, one unity gain inverting and the other a simple follower.
You must not short the follower.
Not possible for ordinary users to know which is which.
IME a lot of twaddle is published about "balancing".
..... PhilConnect ground and one signal. If there is sound, you have a ground-referenced balance. If there is no sound it is a floating
balance, and the other signal lead should be grounded.
d
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
TRS outputs are mostly impedance balanced outputs... Mostly.
XLR AES14 and AES59 are mostly differentially balanced...
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
What's a "hard balanced output" anyway? A made-up term for the sake of an article?
** It was defined in the article.
Means twin, out of phase, ground referenced electronic outputs.
Usually, a pair of op-amps, one unity gain inverting and the other a simple follower.
You must not short the follower.
Not possible for ordinary users to know which is which.
IME a lot of twaddle is published about "balancing".
Hardly a formal definition. It's not a common term. "Impedance** It was defined in the article.
balanced," on the other hand, seems to have entered the common
vocabulary anyway. I can't say for sure that I invented that term, but I
made it up (perhaps independently of someone more famous) to describe
this output configuration that, while it's been around for a long time
(some famous microphones use that output configuration) it was
popularized with the proliferation of Mackie mixers and their followers.
That's for sure.IME a lot of twaddle is published about "balancing".
Mike Rivers wrote:
===============
** IME:Hardly a formal definition. It's not a common term. "Impedance** It was defined in the article.
balanced," on the other hand, seems to have entered the common
vocabulary anyway. I can't say for sure that I invented that term, but I made it up (perhaps independently of someone more famous) to describe
this output configuration that, while it's been around for a long time (some famous microphones use that output configuration) it was
popularized with the proliferation of Mackie mixers and their followers.
1. Impedance balanced = output with one active line and one passive both with the same effective impedance to ground.
Some Rode condenser mics have this, designer Doug Ford liked it ( he told me so).
2. Ground cancelling output = a single op-amp stage with one active and one return line that is actually an input.
Identical impedance to ground with both.
Soundcraft " Spirit " series desks all have this.
** :-)That's for sure.IME a lot of twaddle is published about "balancing".
..... Phil
Well there has been a lot of interesting discussion
about this, but wasn't able to glean a solid conclusion
from it. I'll just use a standard two conductor
1/4" at the mixer wired to the RCA.
That as well as anything, until you want to hook up something really balanced.
Using a TS connection In this case, the tip would be signal (hot, non inverted signal)--------------
the ring (normally inverted) would be shorted to the sleeve.
Because it's impedance balance, there is no signal at the inverting ring... So there is no real danger of blowing up the driver circuit when shorting the ring to sleeve.
Guitar player proof!
anthon...@gmail.com wrote:
======================
Using a TS connection In this case, the tip would be signal (hot, non inverted signal)--------------
the ring (normally inverted) would be shorted to the sleeve.
Because it's impedance balance, there is no signal at the inverting ring... So there is no real danger of blowing up the driver circuit when shorting the ring to sleeve.
Guitar player proof!
** Gotta disagree there - nothing is guitar player proof !
I once saw a near new Mackie 1604 *destroyed* by a guitar player.
Wanting to feed his 100W Marshall into the desk, he used a spare speaker jack on the back.
The approx 40VAC signal found it way onto the 16V DC rails and blew the PSU. Then blew most of the op-amps too.
..... Phil
That as well as anything, until you want to hook up
something really balanced.
What happened to the rest of my sentence? It was supposed
to read: "That should work as well as anything . . ."
Mike,_________
That as well as anything, until you want to hook up
something really balanced.
What happened to the rest of my sentence? It was supposedmaybe it didn't escape the unnecessarity filter ;^))
to read: "That should work as well as anything . . ."
It was understandable anyway.
SCNR,
Dieter
On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 6:31:47 AM UTC-4, Dieter Michel wrote:
Mike,_________
maybe it didn't escape the unnecessarity filter ;^))That as well as anything, until you want to hook up
something really balanced.
What happened to the rest of my sentence? It was supposed
to read: "That should work as well as anything . . ."
It was understandable anyway.
SCNR,
Dieter
"SCNR"??
____On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 6:31:47 AM UTC-4, Dieter Michel wrote:
Mike,_________
maybe it didn't escape the unnecessarity filter ;^))That as well as anything, until you want to hook up
something really balanced.
What happened to the rest of my sentence? It was supposed
to read: "That should work as well as anything . . ."
It was understandable anyway.
SCNR,
Dieter
"SCNR"??Sorry, Could Not Resist
Mike,
That as well as anything, until you want to hook up
something really balanced.
What happened to the rest of my sentence? It was supposed
to read: "That should work as well as anything . . ."
maybe it didn't escape the unnecessarity filter ;^))
It was understandable anyway.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 292 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 181:32:16 |
Calls: | 6,616 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,165 |
Messages: | 5,314,382 |