Re: Wot? No tube mixer??(YES IM STILL HERE< TY)

John Byrns wrote:

>  Ian Thompson-Bell <ruffrecords@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > cipher wrote:
> > > Please continue the discussion and correspondance with me..
> > >
> > > This subject is still relevant as I still record quite frequently
and
> > > have found that the "commercially available" products out there just
> > > dont tickle my fancy
>
> > Hi Tynan,
> >
> > I recently purchased a DVD containing the manuals for a range old RCA
> > and other tube based broadcast mixing consoles. One interesting aspect
> > was that the earlier ones all had mic pres which were transformer
> > balanced *out* as well as in. Mixing took place using 200 ohm bridged
T
> > stepped rotary channel faders connected to these transformers and the
> > resultant mix fed into another transformer and amplifier. This meant a
> > lot of expensive transformers and faders.
> >
> > A later model in the same series (RCA BC-6 series) dispensed with the
> > output transformer on each mic pre, included a 100K (stepped) pot half
> > way down the mic pre as a channel fader and a cathode follower output
> > feeding 22K mixing resistors. The mix was amplified by the same basic
> > mic pre topology with the group fader replacing the channel one.
>
> This scheme to eliminate the output transformers from the microphone
> preamplifiers starts to get complex when you consider stereo mixers with
the
> need for pan pots.  Another advantage of retaining the output
transformer is
> that the same amplifier module design can be used for both the
microphone
> preamplifier function and the mixer output function.

Uh ?

Each mic pre doesn't need a damn distorting transformer anyway. A cathode
follower will do. What were you thinking of ?

And using a mic pre for a mixer output is INSANE. God Almighty.

Graham