Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Advice on a basic audio mixer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

    That just means I'll have to plug the mixer in, right?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      That just means I'll have to plug the mixer in, right?
      Ha...

      It looks like either of those above will work.
      I'm in these bands
      The Humans
      Dr. Goldfoot
      The Bar Brawlers
      ME

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

        What's funny?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          That just means I'll have to plug the mixer in, right?
          You'll be plugging the mixer in, yes.

          You'll be fine with either the MX400 or the Eurorack.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

            Behringer has a reputation as disposable an unreliable. It's cheap so buy 2 if you are going that way with mission critical work. They work... when they work... but you can't trust them TOO much.

            In the A/V world Mackie is more respected for the tasks you are talking about.

            Put it this way: If your mixer craps out and you talk to someone who works in the field of A/V and you tell them you had a Behringer mixer they will say "That was your problem right there". If you tell them you were using a Mackie then they'll say "Hmmmm Unexpected... that's what we use".

            I'm not telling you Mackie is 100% failure proof... But I'm telling you it's the workhorse of the A/V industry for small mixers. ...Although you still see a lot of the small Shure mixers in that world too.
            http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Produc...SCM268_content
            I don't know current pricing on this but truthfully it's probably overpriced for what it is... but it's also an updated version of an industry standard.

            Or put it another way- If you DO have to tell a client your mixer crapped out wouldn't you at least take SOME comfort in knowing you were using an industry standard instead of an M.I. budget unit with a questionable company reputation at best? ...And at least have SOME defense for the problem being entirely random and unpredictable? Of course, at these prices the price of owning a spare mixer is small $$ for the peace of mind it would bring you (not to mention the reputation of being professional and always prepared). Redundancy....

            Soundcraft makes a Notepad mixer (Folio) that probably fits the bill but it'll cost more than the Behringer.

            I'd probably go with an industry standard Mackie and buy a Behringer too purely as an emergency backup for what you're talking about doing. ..If not just two Mackies.

            I do own one of the little Behringer Mixers but it gets assigned to purely NON-mission critical work. I have it precisely because it is disposable. I also own a Soundcraft Folio Notepad. It's more apt to get mission critical work where I only have a couple of mics or inputs.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              Behringer has a reputation as disposable an unreliable. It's cheap so buy 2 if you are going that way with mission critical work. They work... when they work... but you can't trust them TOO much.

              In the A/V world Mackie is more respected for the tasks you are talking about.

              Put it this way: If your mixer craps out and you talk to someone who works in the field of A/V and you tell them you had a Behringer mixer they will say "That was your problem right there". If you tell them you were using a Mackie then they'll say "Hmmmm Unexpected... that's what we use".
              I've worked with both Mackie and Behringer for almost 10 years. I find zero reason to go overboard and spend as much as 2-3 times more $ when it isn't necessary. It's the same reason I'm not recommending industry standard microphones, cables, etc, even though they would improve performance. What Hicks has will be just fine.

              Keep in mind this is being used for depositions, not live shows.

              I've had the same Behringer Eurorack for about 7 years and I use it for demo-ing friends because it's simple and does the job.

              Here are some user reviews:

              http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com...c=date&so=desc

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                I've worked with both Mackie and Behringer for almost 10 years. I find zero reason to go overboard and spend as much as 2-3 times more $ when it isn't necessary. It's the same reason I'm not recommending industry standard microphones, cables, etc, even though they would improve performance. What Hicks has will be just fine.
                Until it breaks...
                Then the question marks will abound.


                Keep in mind this is being used for depositions, not live shows.
                Actually, I was keeping that in mind. As a musician I'd use the Behringer for a pub gig if it's failure didn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things one way or the other. I would never use the Behringer for anything where it's failure could mean an angry client that will never use me again and I lose lots of work over it.

                Moreover, IF I did have a failure I'd rather try and explain myself by at least saying I had the industry standard and not something generally not seen in a corporate environment. There's a reason things become industry standards.

                And with that angle mentioned, it's also more professional to have an industry standard if you're trying to be professional.

                I've had the same Behringer Eurorack for about 7 years and I use it for demo-ing friends because it's simple and does the job.
                I'd use it for that. It's not a mission critical app with a career or secondary career riding on it. Nor are you needing to have the equipment speak for your work or worried about someone looking sideways at you due to your choice of equip for your job.

                If you're an electrician you don't carry Buffalo brand tools... You carry Kleins (or maybe Ideal...). If you're just a handyman fixing your neighbor's lamp, you probably have something more like the Buffalo brand....

                If I've hired an electrician and he shows up with Klein tools then I get a decent first impression (all else being equal) as opposed to him showing up with a toolkit from Big Lots.

                Same thing applies.

                I don't even need to read these reviews because I've seen these type of music store reviews a billion times- The majority have no perspective.
                -A kid retires a garage sale purchased beat up 1980 mixer for a new Behringer and of course it's better (if it's not dead out of the box). So it's the greatest thing since sliced bread to him.

                -Someone finds out they need a mixer for something they want to do. The Behringer is cheap. They buy it. It works. Great review immediately goes up. Again, no perspective. They have no idea of product reliability. They have no comparison on not only function but features. They don't care what pros think of it or why... at least not until it breaks... or they find it limited on a feature they later need.

                I've also seen the other side of the coin a billion times as well. "We're getting noise...." "This just died..." "Why can't we get audio out to...." "Why doesn't this knob work?"

                I'm not telling Hicks that Mackie is my first choice in audio either... so don't mistake that. I'm telling him that Mackie is an industry standard for what he's wanting to do and Behringer absolutely is not (for many reasons including reliability factors). The Behringer will work but it's like bringing Buffalo tools to the jobsite.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Moreover, IF I did have a failure I'd rather try and explain myself by at least saying I had the industry standard and not something generally not seen in a corporate environment. There's a reason things become industry standards.

                  And with that angle mentioned, it's also more professional to have an industry standard if you're trying to be professional.


                  My co-workers will get a kick out of this.

                  This argument is absurd. Eurorack has been one of the top selling mixers for years and you will find review after review from professional musicians (like myself) that have used it extensively (for years) without problem. If it "crapped out" as frequently as you claim stores would no longer sell it. Period.

                  Hicks, if you want to go with an industry standard successor, go with the Shure SCM268 that Bball linked above. Use this cable to run out from the mixer into your camera, and something similar to this to run all of your mics into the mixer (note: this is a stereo 1/8" to rca...you'd be better off with mono 1/8" to rca, but I cannot find them online).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                    I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. There is no argument here because I am right. It's not even debatable. Your coworkers can laugh all they want. It just tells me they don't know what they are talking about.

                    Musicians without perspective are not going to change the dynamics of the situation. Hicks isn't wanting a piece of gear for a bar band or making personal demos at home. He wants something for a professional environment where reliability and presentation matter.

                    If someone's criteria is to buy the most features for cheapest price then Behringer is a front runner. Behringer has a history of support problems, reliability, and quality control. Maybe that has been addressed in recent years (I don't know). It still doesn't change the FACT that Behringer equipment is frowned upon in professional and corporate situations (probably not in small part to those past problems). I cannot state that any more clearly.

                    I will repeat it: Behringer equipment is frowned upon in professional and corporate situations.

                    Hicks could buy a Behringer board and maybe he gets lucky and it performs for years. That still wouldn't change the fact he's swimming upstream and going against the grain. You're telling him to go for it. I cannot do that in good conscience.

                    I work in the audio world myself and I suspect I'm a lot closer to the nuts and bolts of both the corporate and concert audio world than you are. Especially if you're recommending Behringer products for mission critical work.

                    If you go looking at the inventories of A/V houses in any hotel in the USA who frequently serve conferences, weddings, etc (all things with similar mission critical work as what Hicks is describing (not gigs where you want to ask for a 'do-over')), rare will be the place stocking Behringer. I figure there might be one out there somewhere but I've never seen it. Look in pro audio houses.

                    If it was me I'd look to buy either the Shure or the Mackie product. I also might look instead into an auto mixer (which I suspect would be something that Hicks would be most interested in for this application (but may or may not be worth it to him)). And then my cost-cutting move would be to buy a Behringer console as the emergency spare.

                    Without hearing more I'm a little questionable on the current microphones. They may not be the best mics for the task. That 1/8" plug doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But that's another debate.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                      What's so bad about being 1/8?

                      I don't know what to believe to a point when you two argue on this, but the work involved needs to work the first time every time, so I'm now getting scared off from the Behringer stuff.

                      The Shure looks nice, but pricey. Makes the Mackie look middle of the road, and perhaps the right choice?

                      Does that mackie have 4 1/4 outs, btw? The pics I've seen look like it might, but the item description I read wasn't clear or I missed it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        What's so bad about being 1/8?

                        I don't know what to believe to a point when you two argue on this, but the work involved needs to work the first time every time, so I'm now getting scared off from the Behringer stuff.

                        The Shure looks nice, but pricey. Makes the Mackie look middle of the road, and perhaps the right choice?

                        Does that mackie have 4 1/4 outs, btw? The pics I've seen look like it might, but the item description I read wasn't clear or I missed it.
                        I don't know which Mackie you're looking at. I'd suspect it has 1/4" TRS Left and right main outs, an aux out (1/4" TRS), a headphone out (1/4" TRS)... and maybe a second aux out (1/4" TRS).

                        Nothing is necessarily bad about 1/8" connector on the mic. It just means I don't know what mics you are using. I ASSUME these are mics meant to connect directly to your camera? They COULD be stereo mics... one mic body... one mic housing... But a connector that has 3 contacts and two internal mic heads. The connector is then carrying the 'left' mic on one contact, the 'right' mic on the 2nd contact, and the 3rd contact carries the shield (AKA 'ground).

                        If so, just connecting these to the mixer won't get acceptable results unless you get the PROPER adapters. Not just adapters that make the different sized holes line up.

                        Get me model numbers and I can (probably) tell you.
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                          Whoops; forgot I'd looked at a Mackie without sharing the link.

                          I'm referring to this one. I'm not even sure if it's what I need.

                          http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...X0DER&v=glance

                          Unless something new is bought, the mics I am looking at using are all 1/8 and mono. And it's fine that they're mono; I don't need them to be stereo.

                          *edit* Here they are. Meant for our audio recorders, but I don't see why they couldn't be effective for what I've been discussing. I'm sure there are better ones out there, don't get me wrong, but I don't see why I'd have a problem with these, either.

                          http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...p?product=1303

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                            You can only connect two mics to that unit. Is that sufficient?

                            The mics should be fine for your purposes. I was worried you had an 'all in one' stereo mic which would've not worked well with any mixer unless you used an adaptor to split it to two channels, or an adaptor that ignored one of the mic's 2 outputs.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                              When you buy a pair of those microphones, they come with an adapter to plug both into one connection. I would think that would work (2 to 1 into "port" 1, 2 to 1 into "port" 2 for a total of four microphones).

                              What word should I be using instead of "port" to describe where they plug in, anyway? Port sounds wrong.

                              Still, I'd like to know what's the first model from Mackie that could take 4 separately? After all, we might get new/different mics down the road where the 2-to-1 won't cut it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Advice on a basic audio mixer?

                                The two to one thing you have won't cut it for the mixer. What it's doing (from what the picture looks like) is giving you two mics into 1 STEREO connection. The mixer wants to see mono connections. The camera is fine with 1 STEREO connection. That's the tricky part when you don't know what you're dealing with. There's always adaptors that let you line the holes up but that doesn't mean they actually are doing what you want. You'd effectively be creating that 'stereo' microphone that I worried was what you were starting with in the first place.

                                You're looking for "Mic inputs" on a mixer.

                                I suppose you could combine 2 mics into 1 channel but you'd need a different adaptor to do it than what shipped with the mics. ...But externally the adaptor will look the same (or very similar). If you are going to go this route what you'd be looking for is either 2 MONO 1/8th in female jacks into one male MONO 1/4" plug.... or you could also get something originally intended for making 1 headphone output into 2. So that would be 2 stereo 1/8" female jacks into 1 stereo male plug (this only works because the mics your mics have 1/8th MONO plugs themselves so they effectively cause the adaptor to be connect the shield and ring together (which is what you want in this scenario).

                                If you're good with a soldering iron you could change the connectors on the mics to 1/4" or preferably XLR and then get a mixer with 4 XLR mic inputs and not need any adaptors. Or use an XLR "Y" cable to combine 2 mics into one channel.

                                As an FYI: Your current adaptor for combining 2 mics into the camera is not a straight thru adaptor. By that I mean the left connector only connects to the tip and sleeve(shield) of the 1/8" male while the right connector only connects to the ring and sleeve(shield) of the male 1/8" plug. The camera has a stereo mic connector so it's fine with that. The soundboard has a balanced mono connector and it won't like that particular adaptor at all for this. At best you'd get thin, unnatural sound.
                                The holes look the same... but the wiring is totally different.
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X