|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mixing console article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Professional sound production||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Stagecraft||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
The article is lacking a section on history, particularly of the large studio consoles. I also thought a section comparing the primary console manufacturers would be informative. It would be difficult to do without making it sound like marketing, but, let's face it, there are only two manufacturers of studio consoles left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthieuIX (talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
need a section with a complete picture that shows the data flow. I read the article. I still dont know how one of these things works. i have some vague idea about some of the pieces, but the big picture is very muddled cloudy and foggy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
How to mix effects with all the inputs with aux send/return
Uh..Please elaborate on this! Do you seek instructions/descriptions of the various ways to operate aux and effect sends/returns on an analog console?
The following is clumsy: the signal produced by the mixer will usually be sent directly to an amplifier, unless that particular mixer is “powered” or it is being connected to powered speakers.
Functionally, the mixer output is always sent to an amplifier and the amplifier output to speakers. If the amplifier happens to be physically part of the mixer (a powered mixer) or the speakers (powered speakers) then so be it.
If a mixer is described as a "32x24" mixer, what do those numbers refer to? Thanks :) TheHYPO 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's more likely 32x4x2 or something: Means 32 input channels, 4 busses (groups or aux') and 2 master output channels (stereo).188.8.131.52 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Appreciate the reply, but I found the terms in two places- the equipment list for number 9 studios which lists an "Amek Angela 36x24 mixing console", and Arlyn studios which has an "API 2343 32 x 24 Mixing Console".
The latter is the studio where an album I was reading about was recorded which says that the album was recorded "on a mere 24 tracks" at Arlyn. I thought this could mean that the studio had only a 24-track mixer, or it could mean that the producer only used 24 of the mixer's tracks. The album is from '98, so the mixer could also have been replaced by now. I was just wondering what teh 32x24 meant; which was the number of tracks, and what the other number meant :) TheHYPO 08:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the tape deck and the console. I'm guessing they only used a 24-track deck.
Most larger analog consoles usually only have 24 output busses. This means that any input can be assigned to any of the 24 main outputs (there's other outputs for headphone mixes and effects). So a 32x24 has 32 input modules, with each module being able to be switched to 24 outputs. Most consoles provide odd-even panning features, ie. if I assing an input module to tracks 3 and 4, I can pan across them using the track panning. Wamnet 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick one, a 32x24 mixer is a mixer which has a total of 32 input channels, and a total maximum of 24 outputs. Some boards will have more busses, but the outputs could be split as 16 Auxiliary sends, 6 Matrix busses and then a stereo bus —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickyJ101 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"32x24" is shorthand for a recording console which has 32 input channels and 24 tape send/return channels. Such consoles are intended for use in recording studios, not for live work. Consoles intended for mixing live performances may be described as "24x4x2" which means 24 input channels, 4 "groups" (usually configured as 2 stereo pairs) and 2 main outputs (a single stereo pair). The groups in a live console are a convenience feature, sometimes used to control a certain number of input channels simultaneously, e.g. instead of varying the level of a number of input channels separately, one can assign these channels to a group and control the level of the entire group with a single control while maintaining the relative levels between said channels. They may also be used to supply an alternate feed which contains only a subset of the channels present in the main mix, and so forth. Smaller live consoles might lack a group feature. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
sugestion need terms defined
- I know this is not the cool thing to do, but I found alot of words with definitions at this link. check it out http://www.sweetwater.com/shop/studio/preamps/glossary.php. I know that you are not supposed to copy and paste so, I didn't but maybe some one with a little more time could take a look at this page and put the information into their own words. Note the term direct out, we have it listed here on Wikipedia but it is not defined.
- Sound mixer does redirect here. I think that's goo enough. We've already listed a bunch of aliases in the lead. I don't think we need more. ~KvnG 15:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Digital Mixing algorithms
The audio mixing article says "Mixing - summing signals together, which is normally done by a dedicated summing amplifier or in the case of digital by a simple algorithm." (emphasis mine) Where is there information on such algorithms? (Hopefully I haven't missed it if it's already in this article!) There must be more complexity than simply summing, because (for example) summing more than one full-amplitude sine wave will result in a lot of clipping. Another example is a full-amplitude sine wave which, after a time, is joined by a second sine wave of equal amplitude -- how are they mixed without clipping, but preserving the psychoacoustic properties? I have yet to find a clear, non-code description of the details of this sort of thing. Or else I have a misunderstanding about the whole process. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- As an end-user of digital mixers, I'm interested in your question, but I'm not a designer of digital audio. As far as I have been able to find out, well-engineered digital algorithms take into account how many signals are being summed, and each signal to be summed is reduced in amplitude by an amount which corresponds to how many active signals are present. Another scheme is to make the processing core be very high bit depth, much higher than the input or output resolution. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw on TV today that Jean-Michel Jarre claims his grandfather André invented the mixing console. It's surely possible, but I can't find any information on who made the first one at all. We know that the first one to make electronic recordings was Orlando Marsh but he doesn't seem to have used a mixer, but just one microphone (at least the only picture of his recording equipment I can find doesn't look like it takes several inputs). And I can find pictures of RCA broadcasting consoles with 4 inputs from 1933. So it must have happened somewhere inbetween.
- The era of electrically-recorded phonograph discs began in 1925, but the first ones used just one microphone. Any that used two microphones would, by definition, have used an early mixer. By 1929, film companies in Hollywood were placing several mics around the movie set, and using custom mixers to adjust the level of each mic going to the recording. Similar efforts were probably going on around the globe, and nobody at the time thought much of it because joining the outputs of several microphone preamps together in a common mix bus was a simple task relative to designing the preamps themselves. Apparently, nobody thought "this will be significant later..." As a result, the answer of the question "who first mixed two preamps down to one bus" has been lost to time. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Perhaps Jarre was the one who built the first consoles for Radio Lyon, but the invention of the mixer itself was, as you mention, simple enough to have been "invented" by loads of people at the same time. I've been looking for early "mixers" in radio, thanks for the hint of looking for it in movie references, I'll try that. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Analog vs. Digital
- I added that bit way back in September '07, somewhere between my 1000th and my 1500th edit, before I was well versed in citing sources, etc. It holds a lot of personal experience as well as knowledge gleaned from books, manuals, and from discussions with electronics design engineers and veteran sound guys. The section might be split to its own article, but whether we settle upon keeping it here or shoving it elsewhere it will need to be supported with cites.
- I don't think that comparisons of mixing boards should be merged into an article about recording formats. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
OnBeyondZebrax has spent a few days making these changes to the article. I'm just getting around to reviewing this. Although I appreciate the contribution and don't see any glaring errors, I find these changes to be a mixed bag. There is no critical new information added and certainly none that is sourced. The article is already well stocked with conversational, unsourced personal knowledge and these contributions take us further in that direction. This is not the direction we want to keep heading. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)