Master/My Fader V2.0 Are Here!

[RoadRanger]

IMO they have to be at least as functional as the analog mixers at this level - the 1604 (which has groups and the "rude solo" which we just lost ) and the MixWiz (which has a master FX mute button AND footswitch jack). They both also have per-channel switching of pre/post on some auxes. Dunno why Mackie ever though they didn't have to be at least as good as what they are replacing ?

[WK154]

Trial and error method at worst case you'll need a dual DI box. I ran 50' unbalanced to a powered speaker in a quiet environment, you may not be so lucky. Not using Mackie's power supply on the mixer( see pin one problem).

A DI might not have enough output depending on the amp's input sensitivity, so an iso transformer with the ability to unbalance the secondary might be the call for longer wire runs. Of course I'm sure you'll recommend the Jensen

I don't think that a consumer level input would be a problem for a pro level output if anything you may need to cut down the signal (Rolls and others have a solution). Yes I would recommend Jensen but only if he has a solution. On the other hand a pro level amp would be a better solution per RR.

[WK154]

IMO they have to be at least as functional as the analog mixers at this level - the 1604 (which has groups and the "rude solo" which we just lost ) and the MixWiz (which has a master FX mute button AND footswitch jack). They both also have per-channel switching of pre/post on some auxes. Dunno why Mackie ever though they didn't have to be at least as good as what they are replacing ?

Totally agree and they will have to face their own customers coming off 1604 VLZ's and other analogs once the novelty of the iPad wears off and real audio work has to be done in live venues.

[Wynnd]

I think we need to keep in mind that this is a low end digital mixer.  Mackie needs some positive feedback and I for one will be thanking them for a very good effort that appears to not have any software bugs.  I'm impressed.

[sam.spoons]

Nothing is perfect, The DL gives me more than I could have dreamed of a couple of years ago. That doesn't mean I won't be asking for more but (are you listening BenO) it is a bloody good mixer.

[Jkowtko]

Dual means two (link). Mono means single (source). There is no interaction between the channels. Pan simply adjusts the loudness of the channels relative to each other. There is no "stereo" capability to bleed one channel into the other (width). KISS explanation.

As long a PAN (on the linked channels) is set at 0 (center), I would expect the two channels to be isolated. By panning I would expect one channel to be "bled" onto the other. Isn't this a valid description of the current operation?

The difference between Dual Mono and Stereo is how they feed into a stereo bus.  A Dual Mono channel will feed the signal from each side into both sides of the stereo bus, creating a mono sound from your stereo bus.  A Stereo channel will feed it's left side signal into left side of the stereo bus, and it's right side signal into the right side of the stereo bus.

Check out the block diagram in the 2.0 manual ... it's pretty clear.   Channel linking is "stereo linking", and Aux linking is "stereo aux linking".

As for panning a stereo channel, I thought the center position has both channels at full volume and panning in either direction attenuates the opposite channel.  Different mfgs may do this differently, but that's the way I've seen the volume curves diagrammed.  (Fyi LCR mains do something similar but with three channels instead of two.)

[sam.spoons]

Dual means two (link). Mono means single (source). There is no interaction between the channels. Pan simply adjusts the loudness of the channels relative to each other. There is no "stereo" capability to bleed one channel into the other (width). KISS explanation.

As long a PAN (on the linked channels) is set at 0 (center), I would expect the two channels to be isolated. By panning I would expect one channel to be "bled" onto the other. Isn't this a valid description of the current operation?

The difference between Dual Mono and Stereo is how they feed into a stereo bus.  A Dual Mono channel will feed the signal from each side into both sides of the stereo bus, creating a mono sound from your stereo bus.  A Stereo channel will feed it's left side signal into left side of the stereo bus, and it's right side signal into the right side of the stereo bus.

Check out the block diagram in the 2.0 manual ... it's pretty clear.   Channel linking is "stereo linking", and Aux linking is "stereo aux linking".

As for panning a stereo channel, I thought the center position has both channels at full volume and panning in either direction attenuates the opposite channel.  Different mfgs may do this differently, but that's the way I've seen the volume curves diagrammed.  (Fyi LCR mains do something similar but with three channels instead of two.)

That seems to be how it works 

[WK154]

Dual means two (link). Mono means single (source). There is no interaction between the channels. Pan simply adjusts the loudness of the channels relative to each other. There is no "stereo" capability to bleed one channel into the other (width). KISS explanation.

As long a PAN (on the linked channels) is set at 0 (center), I would expect the two channels to be isolated. By panning I would expect one channel to be "bled" onto the other. Isn't this a valid description of the current operation?

The difference between Dual Mono and Stereo is how they feed into a stereo bus.  A Dual Mono channel will feed the signal from each side into both sides of the stereo bus, creating a mono sound from your stereo bus.  A Stereo channel will feed it's left side signal into left side of the stereo bus, and it's right side signal into the right side of the stereo bus.

Check out the block diagram in the 2.0 manual ... it's pretty clear.   Channel linking is "stereo linking", and Aux linking is "stereo aux linking".

As for panning a stereo channel, I thought the center position has both channels at full volume and panning in either direction attenuates the opposite channel.  Different mfgs may do this differently, but that's the way I've seen the volume curves diagrammed.  (Fyi LCR mains do something similar but with three channels instead of two.)

That seems to be how it works 

OK I guess I created a monster with the "Dual and Mono" definition. I did state that it was the KISS explanation. So much for KISS. Mackie on their diagram calls it true stereo. I don't have the inclination to go into the details here but a good explanation is given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound
However all three of you missed the real point in that by Mackie choosing to treat both channels with identical DSP processing parameters have removed a lot of flexibility and any possibility of modifying the stereo image with other than loudness control. Yes I do know how to read the diagram and the "linked channels" never "bled" into each other as stated above. We would also have had at least a dual channel DCA. Also the need for pairing adjacent channels as opposed to any two channels is also limiting and there was no need for that other than to maintain their simplicity and one size fits all mentality (KISS). Their choice and there is nothing wrong with that but it will need to be changed when groups or DCA's are implemented. They already have this in mute groups. Too bad they didn't finish the job.

[LeeSteel]

I doubt they are done.

[Jkowtko]

DCAs and stereo channel linking ... two different things, and both are needed

[WK154]

DCAs and stereo channel linking ... two different things, and both are needed

Stereo channel linking as implemented in the DL is a subset of DCA not different.

[Wynnd]

I would argue that we all want a lot of things that we don't really need.  (3 intimate relationships come to my mind.  Pretty sure that in order to live with my Wife, that can't happen.)  So now that I understand what is being complained about, it might be nice, but it's far from a necessity.  If the hardware will support that, it would be a good suggestion for MF Ver 3.0  and if we're lucky, we'll see that before we feel obligated to move onto a different mixer.  (I can see this lasting at least 5 years for me.) 

[Jkowtko]

DCAs and stereo channel linking ... two different things, and both are needed

Stereo channel linking as implemented in the DL is a subset of DCA not different.

I'm sorry I don't understand.

My understanding of DCA is that it's a group volume override/delta control.  DCAs only affect effective fader level of the channels they are governing, nothing else.  If you've seen otherwise, please share.

A stereo channel is nothing more than two separate channels that are tied together as follows:
 * routing to stereo busses is done stereo style instead of mono
 * panning curve is different
 * EQ, dynamics, gain, routings are effectively linked between the two channels, so one control does the same thing to both channels.
 * but a stereo channel still carries two distinct channels of audio, L and R

Are you implying that there are boards out there that do some form of stereo image processing within the stereo channel?

[LeeSteel]

All I am getting out of these posts is that a few are looking to have the volume control be the only thing tied together in the pair, beside that, they want individual EQ and DSP.

[Wynnd]

I can see a use for that, but two fingers does that already.