Quote:
Originally Posted by Marjan
Jon, it seems that, when going through the Folcrom, the signal hits the Pre-Amp as Mic level...
Now... we're talking about an extremelly low level... typically around 2 millivolts...
I'm not assuming anything good or bad... I never used the Folcrom, and never heard anything bad about the quality it offers... but I would have thought that cuting off so much signal strenght comming from the DAW's balanced outputs (+4 dBm / 1.23 volts) would eventually mess a great deal with the properties of the mix...
Could you shed some light into this matter?
The thing you need to realize is that EVERY mixer circuit has that very same insertion loss caused by the summing resistors. It doesn't matter if it's an active or a passive mixer - active mixing uses series resistance to feed each channel into a "virtual ground" or low-impedance amplifier input which together constitute a large pad that attenuates the signal approximately the same amount as the Folcrom does. Every mixer requires an amplifier to make up the signal level lost by this attenuation. Most mixers have the amplifier built inside of them, but the Folcrom doesn't. As far as insertion loss goes, the ONLY difference between the Folcrom and every other mixer ever built is that the signal passes out of the box and into another box (the mike preamp) before that make-up amplification takes place. So if you're worried about the sonic impact of reducing the signal level and then re-amplifying it, then you should worry about the signal integrity of every console ever built. As it happens, it's not a problem.
There are lots of circuits in lots of audio gear that require an attenuation and re-amplification in order to work correctly. Most mixers have an internal signal level that's less than "line level" or 1.23Vrms, so your line level inputs get attenuated and later re-amplified. FET limiters have a narrow dynamic range, and so your acclaimed 1176 has a huge pad in front of the FET and a bunch of make-up gain afterward. It's a very common occurance in audio gear. The point Jon is making about the signal path of the Folcrom is that it eliminates a whole bunch of circuitry, a whole bunch of amplifiers, and a whole bunch of dynamic range bottlenecks so that the signal doesn't get re-amplified numerous times throughout the signal path. Just once.
If you want the sound of additional processing, you're free to add it to individual channels by patching gear ahead of the Folcrom, or to the whole mix by patching gear after the makeup gain preamp. It's a choice you get to make, rather than a condition you're stuck with.
Historically speaking, people have tended to dislike the sound of consoles that have a whole ****load of amplifiers in series on each input channel and each output buss, but many engineers were willing to fight with the negative sonic impact of monster consoles because they liked the power of having extensive automation, EQ, and dynamics control on every channel. The idea of performing automation tasks in the computer was very exciting because not only was it more powerful than traditional automation, but it allowed you to bypass the long signal path of the large-format console. Recently I've started to hear people talk about how they actually like the sound of consoles that beat the tar out of the audio signal, which I find somewhat disturbing. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess. If you like the sound of a signal chain with several dozen IC op amps and coupling caps per channel, then go ahead and mix on an SSL. But today we have the ability to break the process down into component parts and choose which of those parts we want to affect different parts of our mix. I think that's a good thing.
If you have any more questions about this subject, feel free to e-mail me or Jon, or start a new thread so we can allow people interested in the Shadow Hills to enjoy this thread.