Re: Where is Graham's mixer design? (was Re: RAT Tube Mixer update?)

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47CD6DCF.12723526@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Iain Churches wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > Iain Churches wrote:
>> >> "Ian Iveson" wrote
>> >> > Ian said:
>> >> >
>> >> > I couldn't maintain interest in mixer design beyond getting
>> >> > the ideas straight. It seemed like a fool's errand, and
>> >> > still does. I can't see why a valve mixer is a good idea.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't:-)   One often works with artists who bring along their
>> >> own microphone (often a classic Neumann) and tube mic preamp.
>> >> That's fine.
>> >>
>> >> I remember tube recording desks - 24/4/2. Rarely did one
>> >> get through a complete session or remix without having to
>> >> call maintenance.  On a large session there was usually a
>> >> service engineer standing by with hot soldering iron and
>> >> a pocket full of tubes.  That's not so fine.
>> >>
>> >> I would not like to go back to those days.
>> >
>> > That's design shortcomings really.
>>
>> No I don't think so.  There was no lack of design
>> expertise at the major studios.
>
> Why do you say that ?

I say that because I knew personally some of the very
capable designers and wiremen at Decca, CBS, EMI.
the Beeb, and film companies in Wardour Street.
London. (the centre of the UK film post production
business)

In those days, the equipment used by major studios
was built in house.

>
> Another aspect might be the lower durability of older components.

Yes indeed.  Caps in cardboard tubes, that periodically
went off like firecrackers, and splattered sticky good inside
the mixer.

Iain