Wave Music Home
ReleasesCommunityYour OrderWave Music
ArtistsEventsDJ MixesShop

Wave Music Home


Home
About Us
Labels
Distributed Labels
Links




Search


Adv. Search



Subscribe


Email






Go Back   Wave Music Community Board > Tech Talk for Gearheads

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-17-2011, 08:45 PM
thechemist thechemist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chester
Posts: 11
Xone 62 & 92 Fader Curves

Hi,

For one reason and another after some research I've decided to go for either a Xone 62 or 92....

Someone mentioned to me the other day that the two have different linear fader curves? With the 62 being a smoother more gradual curve and the 92 faders not giving much increase in volume until nearly at the top giving them quite a steep increase in the last part of the fader?

Can anyone tell me if this is correct?

Thanks in advance
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-18-2011, 05:29 AM
Laurin Laurin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 472
The Xone 92 will add gain at the end of the fader (like most rotary mixers). This is one of the reason why I could not understand why almost every DJ playing on the 92 put the level faders to the max.
__________________
Facebook
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-18-2011, 08:30 AM
vinyl_junkie vinyl_junkie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South East Kent, UK
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurin
This is one of the reason why I could not understand why almost every DJ playing on the 92 put the level faders to the max.

It's pretty easy to understand, most DJ's don't know what unity is, don't know what a gain control does and red lights are good

To add to that the I would say 90% of new fader DJ mixers are designed to have no gain on the fader and unity at max, also the legending on the 92 is not clear whereas on the 62 it's quite clear... Also blue LED's WTF
__________________
--The future scares me, any chance of a lift back to the past any one?--
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-18-2011, 10:34 AM
thechemist thechemist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chester
Posts: 11
Cheers for the replies guys.

Sorry if Im asking silly questions butÖ..

Laurin Ė when you say the 92 will add gain at the top of the fader does that mean there is a sudden increase in volume? As a relative new comer this seems strange as the gentle curve would allow for smoother mixing would it not?

Vinyl Junkie Ė What do you mean by the legending being more pronounced on the 62 to the 92?

PS Ė Im not really into the blue LEDís either but I need four channels and a couple of mic inputs thatís why Iím looking at the Xoneís.

Thanks again
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-18-2011, 12:30 PM
John-Martin John-Martin is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 176
Personally I think the fader curve on the 92R is more linear than on the 2016. I can't speak for the fader version.

The 92 doesn't add gain the way the 2016 or a Urei do. 10 on the channel fader is unity, though they tell you in the manual to set your gains to +6 on the channel meters. You can set your gains to 0 or +6, whatever makes you happy, clipping is at +22 so you've got plenty of headroom.
__________________
Rane 2016S, CDJ-200s, Traktor Scratch Pro, Sony MDR-7506, Fostex PM 0.5 monitors.


My SoundCloud
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-18-2011, 01:26 PM
Estacy Estacy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinyl_junkie
It's pretty easy to understand, most DJ's don't know what unity is, don't know what a gain control does and red lights are good

To add to that the I would say 90% of new fader DJ mixers are designed to have no gain on the fader and unity at max, also the legending on the 92 is not clear whereas on the 62 it's quite clear... Also blue LED's WTF

Then again, running in the red (or blue with the 92) is no problem for the 92, since the scaling next to the level meters is 9 dB's down. So when your level meters say you're running at 0dB, you're actually running at -9dB. sad but true, the Xone engineers did this to compensate for all the DJ's that run in the red like its normal....
__________________
Technics SL1210mk2s and a Freevox DJ CLUB
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-18-2011, 02:24 PM
misterharrison misterharrison is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 181
I lived with a 62 for a while and my flat-mate (who it belonged to) and I always thought the faders were a bit too sensitive at the top of their range, so you had to be pretty delicate with any adjustments up there. Never used a 92.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-18-2011, 03:25 PM
Laurin Laurin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-Martin
The 92 doesn't add gain the way the 2016 or a Urei do.

All I used and installed did.
__________________
Facebook
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-18-2011, 05:51 PM
der geile ami der geile ami is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: berlin
Posts: 820
given the trim knob, i dont see the problem of a a dj mixer channel fader going up to 10. It allows for more room for mixing, retains the same volume level for cuts or other performance tricks, etc. The sources are already mixed down, so there is no reason to mix to anything else. Besides, the eqs also allow for gain cuts and boosts.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-18-2011, 06:45 PM
Laurin Laurin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 472
With a DJM (or any other Mixer with no gain on the fader) there is no problem.
__________________
Facebook
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-19-2011, 04:57 AM
GregE GregE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by thechemist
...but I need four channels and a couple of mic inputs thatís why Iím looking at the Xoneís.

Thanks again
Have you looked at Formula Sound?

The PM100 is modular and available in three chassis widths. You could buy a four channel chassis, the output module, power supply, plus four universal input channels (either linear or rotary) for similar money to a Xone 92.

I was quite interested to read this interview with Tony Andrews from Funktion One:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony A
There are only 2 mixers that I know of that can still sound acceptable if they are driven into the red. One of them is the Formula Sound PM100 and the other is an Urei...
http://www.ibiza-voice.com/news/news2003.php?id=223

Personally I'd take a PM100 over a Xone 92 any day.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-19-2011, 06:01 AM
thechemist thechemist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chester
Posts: 11
Thanks again everyone,

Am I now right in saying that both the 62 & 92 add gain near the top of the faders but mixers like the Pioneer donít? (donít worry I wont be buying a DJM!).

I guess this little jump in volume is something that I would get used to but it is sort of putting me off the Xone's, I might have a look around and see what else will fits the bill

Thanks for the PM100 suggestion it looks good and would fit my spec the only problem is that it needs to be rack mounted and I could do with a table top mixer, I have always wanted FF6000 but I cant afford it unfortunately

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-19-2011, 01:14 PM
thechemist thechemist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chester
Posts: 11
I live in the UK so I called A&H tech support direct, they were very helpful and sent me the following email

Thanks A&H!

Further to our earlier phone call I can confirm that the Xone:92 has a logarithmic line fader whilst the Xone:62 has a linear line fader.

In essence this means that the Xone:62 fader has an equal distribution of volume along the travel of the fader whilst the Xone:92 fader will have more of the volume distributed at the top of the fader's travel.

In terms of feel, the Xone:92 fader is much lighter to the touch whereas the Xone:62 fader has more resistance.

I hope this helps.

Best Regards
Allen & Heath Technical Support
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-19-2011, 02:28 PM
wheresmejumper wheresmejumper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cork,Ireland
Posts: 70
62 ftw for me
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-20-2011, 05:22 AM
thechemist thechemist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chester
Posts: 11
Just had another email off A&H....

"It might be easier to visualise the difference using this image:"

http://www.lenardaudio.com/education...a09_faders.gif

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-20-2011, 06:33 AM
GregE GregE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by thechemist
Just had another email off A&H....

"It might be easier to visualise the difference using this image:"

http://www.lenardaudio.com/education...a09_faders.gif

So 75% on a 92 fader = 50% on a 62 fader = -6db ?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-20-2011, 08:37 AM
misterharrison misterharrison is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by thechemist
Thanks for the link - I had a look around the rest of that website. The guy is very funny - I like his take on questionable science (e.g. the benefits of Class A amps):

"Class A amplifiers are marketed as having a magical sound. No one has proven in a university controlled test (with double blind A B comparison) that magical sound exists. Audiophile fanatics who believe in magical sound are similar to religious fundamentalists who can become aggressive, if challenged to provide proof."

From here: http://www.lenardaudio.com/education/12_amps.html
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-20-2011, 09:37 AM
thechemist thechemist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chester
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregE
So 75% on a 92 fader = 50% on a 62 fader = -6db ?

I donít think that the graph is a direct comparison of the 62 & 92? But just more of visual representation to explain the difference between to the two types of fader?

It was still useful, armed with that info I'm going to get a 62. I have never used a 92 with linear faders but I would be interested to feel the difference between the two when mixing i really donít know how much difference the types of fader would make?

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-20-2011, 08:14 PM
der geile ami der geile ami is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: berlin
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by thechemist
I donít think that the graph is a direct comparison of the 62 & 92? But just more of visual representation to explain the difference between to the two types of fader?

It was still useful, armed with that info I'm going to get a 62. I have never used a 92 with linear faders but I would be interested to feel the difference between the two when mixing i really donít know how much difference the types of fader would make?


the end result is that with a logarithmic taper, the track doesnt really come in until you are near the top, but gives you a bit more play. Live mixers all use logarithmic tapered faders. When I have to bury something in a mix to make it fit, it might be at -25 or so. if i had to go lower on a linear taper, Iwouldnt have much room before i'm at the bottom.

Linear gives you more play when near zero. However, we hear logarithmically. 10 dB is the equivalent of double hte perceived volume. Pushing the linear fader up will pop the sound in faster, but then does not change much as you get to the top, and most ears need a couple decibels of change to notice a difference

However, given that this mixers are designed with the dj playing with the eq and filters in mind, I wonder just how big a deal it is in practice. It must have been an issue if subsequent mixer fader tapers are logarithmic.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-21-2011, 04:49 PM
bossa nolyx bossa nolyx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 211
It is an interesting issue.

Me, I don't understand why (nearly) every DJ mixer has logarithmic faders. Of course, we hear logarithmic. And it is very important to use this in a studio environment with uncompressed signals.

But for me, the DJ mixer is a special application of a mixing instrument. We put together tracks with mostly not more that 6 - 10 dB of dynamics. So when there is a track running I can't really hear the second track until it's pushed to about -15dB, maybe less maybe a bit more. So I can use only a quarter of the fader rail to really work with the signals an mix them. On a linear taper I have more then the half of the rail where I can hear both signals.

I mean, I can't see any benefit in working with the half of the rail on levels about -20dB - full kill. This range is (more or less) totally uninteresting for tracks with nearly no dynamics.

So, of course we should differentiate between very "full sounding" house music and richie hawtins click clack tooltechno. There we maybe have not that many sounds that are very dense. So we maybe could here a second track a bit earlier. But I think more than 30dB of range are not really interesting.


I changed the pots of my PM5000 to linear ones (ALPS RK40 or "Black Beauties") and I'm very very happy with the result. I can mix much more differentiated and fine.



BUT: I wouldn't do this in mixers without pre-gain like Urei, E&S, ARS. There it is better to have logarithmic taper, because you maybe also have to match tracks with different volume. So you have the same volume-ratio at any fader position.

Last edited by bossa nolyx : 10-21-2011 at 04:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.0.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2006 Wave Music


© Wave Entertainment Group, Inc.