that box will give you a split but one of them will go through a transformer (and a not very good one at that).

Radial does http://www.radialeng.com/js2.php

Thanks Kurt, that's what I'm looking for!! but won't the Jensen get in the way for critical comparisons?

JS2/JS3™ Passive Microphone Splitter
Part no. R800 1022 ~ JS2 single isolated output Part no. R800 1023 ~ JS3 dual isolated outputs

• Jensen transformer-equipped for optimal signal transfer
• Choice of 2-way or 3-way designs for extra flexibility
• Compact design , up to 8 may be rack mounted in J-Rak
• Ultra rugged 14-gauge steel construction for added durability

The Radial JS2 and JS3 are high performance balanced mic level splitters that let you split a signal and feed multiple destinations at the same time. Typical applications include splitting a signal in the studio to feed more than one preamp, feeding a stage mic to more than one mixing console, or even splitting the signal to a live PA during a broadcast event.

Two units are offered: The JS2 is equipped with one isolated output while the JS3 has two. The engine inside both units is a premium Jensen transformer. It features a nickel laminated core for exceptionally low harmonic distortion without the usual phase shift and limited bandwidth typically introduced by lesser designs. The JS2 and JS3 deliver better than 90dB of noise rejection, eliminating troublesome noise caused by stray DC voltage and hum & buzz caused by ground loops. The signal path is 100% discrete and incorporates RF filtering for even greater noise suppression. These 'problem-solvers' offer a simple yet highly effective interface for microphones or direct boxes, and by engaging the built-in -30dB pad, consumer and line level devices may also be connected without distortion or fear of overload due to saturation.

As with all Radial products, both mic splitters feature rugged 14-gauge steel construction for maximum durability. A unique book-end design creates a protective zone for switches and connectors against the harsh environment of concert touring while the internal I-beam frame makes it virtually impossible to torque the PC board which could otherwise compromise the sensitive solder joints. The innovative design also has the unique advantage of allowing up to 8 units to be rack-mounted using the Radial J-Rak.

The Radial JS2 and JS3... split the mic signal without compromising your sound.

the only ways to do a split are either completely passive (Y cable) which impacts impeadence through transformers or through an active amp (mixer) .... choose your poison.

The beauty of transformers. :)

I suppose without be completely anal , both A/B would be sharing the same tranny path which levels the playing field.
I like Radial equipment. There stuff is build like a tank. Have use used this one?

Exactly what I'm talking about. Either for comparisons or stacking . JS3 might even be better.

Using the JS2 to compare two mic preamps
In the studio, it is often advantageous to compare the sound of two mic preamps on a particular voice. The JS2 is ideally suited for this as it will not color the sound of the mic or add distortion. The plug & play simplicity makes set up quick.

no ..... i do have x4 pro co lying around somewhere.

http://www.radialen… HERE!

I would look for an older radial withe the Jensen in it, they are pretty nice transformer in those. I do not believe the new ones are still using Jensen?
Also if your are using an active unit I believe you are also adding color ( the IC sound and for the record not something I am against ), to the signal as well.
Not sure I would do a y cable set up?
I would just buy a Jensen transformer ( have a friend wire it up for you or do it yourself ), and be done.

Thanks Pan,

Through research, Apparently a simple Y could do it too, and regardless of what route I take, to expect a slight drop the level. Its an easy makeup gain on the pre's so I'm not overly anal about a slight change but I will be using Transformerless Pre's too, so it would be choice to have the straightest wire.
The better transformers are going to be less coloured. Radial claims to be using silver winding yielding a transparent path. Perhaps transparency could mean opinion or fact.

Using our search, there is plenty of discussions here too:
http://recording.or…

A good one about using a Y for a Mic Splitter, when Remy was at her best I must say.
http://recording.or…

RemyRAD, post: 246293, member: 26269 wrote: I love this thread/question.

Microphone splitting is a passionate conversation piece.

We must first discuss the type of program content involved. Why does that matter? Because we typically listen to approximately 10% distortion coming from PA systems. Nobody complains about that much. You probably won't hear it in your rock-and-roll recordings either. So for rock-and-roll, rock-and-roll gospel, contemporary jazz, etc., you might find the deleterious effects of splitting to be minimal, even for your recording. If you can hear it at all.

If you are recording operatic, orchestral, fine arts material, which also has to be amplified, a few more factors may determine your decision-making?

Most microphones want to see a 1500 ohm load or higher. Yes, I know the microphones are rated at 50/150/250/600 ohms. But 1500 ohms actually happens to be the typical load for most microphone preamps since there is a physical resistor placed across the microphone preamp input. If you use a "Y" cable, to plug into a second mixer, the microphone will see a 750 ohm load. Slap a third 1500 ohm load across that for the recording mixer and you're looking at about 500 ohms. What happens to the microphone? It won't hurt the nice microphone. Well that largely depends on the microphone technology utilized. Your typical SM57 PA microphone and equivalents, output along with frequency response will be somewhat diminished. But a condenser microphone is generally less affected since it has an active lower impedance output. Don't even think about it with a ribbon microphone. You'll have virtually no output level and a mangled frequency response, if not a destroyed microphone. So forget ribbons unless active splitters are employed.

When dealing with phantom powered microphones, there should only be a single preamp supplying that power. This also largely depends on whether a passive "Y" split is utilized in comparison to a ground lifted "Y" split, transformered or active splitter. Phantom power can actually be canceled out if 2 supplies are utilized simultaneously. Generally, phantom power cannot be provided through a splitter transformer or a ground lifted split as only the AC components are inductively coupled not the DC components. I.e., it doesn't pass DC phantom power at all. Active splitters have their own microphone preamps and with that, with phantom power supplies included within the splitter. So that's really not a splitter but a "multed" (many multiplied) output microphone preamp, whose output level has been knocked down so as to be able to plug into another microphone input. I've been plugged into those and really don't care for those. DON'T TRY THEM AT HOME KIDS.

The term "Transformer splitters" can be deceptive. How can they be deceptive? Because a transformer splitter generally includes a direct passthrough of the microphone while slinging a transformer across that microphone line. The output of the transformer is referred to as the secondary split. The direct passthrough of the microphone is called the first split. Generally, us recording guys love to have the direct "first split" since it really isn't a split at all. (but the primary first split must also provide phantom power, which has other ramifications) All other outputs come from the secondary output side of the transformer, with its inherent distortions & shortcomings. But on large venue jobs, this is rarely the case. You get the secondary side of the transformer or active split. I'd rather have a transformer it split than the output of an active splitter as I'll still get all of the benefits of my vintage Neve and/or API preamps (with an extra of free transformer thrown in) as opposed to some other so & so's crappy microphone preamp, with the gain improperly set.

So having recorded all three ways, four ways (forth as ground lifted as opposed to non ground lifted "Y" XLR cables). So basically, I'll take whatever I can get and still deliver a beautiful product regardless of method of splitting. I really don't care.

In fact, some folks are so anal about this, they'll only accept Jensen microphone transformer splitters and no others. I utilize Sescom 3-way line level splitters for my microphone splitters. This is against the recommendation from not only the company that made them but from all others. Why? Because distortion in the low frequency spectrum goes up at levels lower than line level blah blah, etc.. That would be applicable if my microphones were in fact outputting -50 DB levels. But they're not. At least not on rock-and-roll jobs. They're on screaming loud guitar amplifiers. Inside and on top of concussive drums. Not to be outdone by the lead singers trying to cough their vocal cords out. So certainly not -50 DB.

Now I wouldn't use this particular contraption while trying to amplify and record the Washington Opera Company or the National Symphony Orchestra because of the lower-level nature of that kind of acquisition. Yeah, right, where you need 80 DB of gain for that low output level ribbon microphone during the oboe solo. But generally you probably won't have to worry about that scenario much?

So it really all comes down to your mixing & engineering chops. Are you feeling lucky today, punk?

Dirty Ms. Remy Ann David not Hairy

pan60, post: 422733, member: 40762 wrote: I would look for an older radial withe the Jensen in it, they are pretty nice transformer in those. I do not believe the new ones are still using Jensen?
Also if your are using an active unit I believe you are also adding color ( the IC sound and for the record not something I am against ), to the signal as well.
Not sure I would do a y cable set up?
I would just buy a Jensen transformer ( have a friend wire it up for you or do it yourself ), and be done.

don't hold my feet to the fire on this but i think Radial bought Jensen.

I read Remy's piece and think she got it spot on. We have a company in the UK (Sowter) who make respected transformers for audio applications - and for the electrical isolation, they're useful to have in line - but the reality seems to be that passive splits or tranformer ones seem to me to be indistinguishable from each other, after you have spent a few seconds inserting them. They work, they appear to do the job, and as long as they work - I'm happy. Both Jensen and Sowter talk about the changes in sound that happen when audio passes through a transformer, so I guess we should add them to the list of devices that 'colour' the sound that people now very strangely seem to like?

Kurt Foster, post: 422738, member: 7836 wrote: don't hold my feet to the fire on this but i think Radial bought Jensen.

Radial purchased Jensen in July. I know they were using Jensens before, at least in their higher end boxes. I'd be surprised if they didn't move completely toward Jensens, if they're not already.

paulears, post: 422742, member: 47782 wrote: so I guess we should add them to the list of devices that 'colour' the sound that people now very strangely seem to like?

I like this comment! I feel like I just got a new friend. Paul, I've been pretty vocal about my "appreciation" towards a more "transformerless" approach . Care to expand why you put it this way?

For years, I subscribed to the notion that we should record with the best fidelity we can manage on our budget, not record with any eq, or treatment of any kind, because this is destructive to the original, and should be applied as necessary as a post-recording process. However, now we seem to like microphones, processors, pre-amps and other devices that add something of themselves to the signal passing through. Colouration was a bad thing, we wanted transparency, truth, even if this did reveal problems with our sound source. We'd be happy to tweak, enhance and even disguise afterwards. Now we buy equipment that is deliberately coloured, as in NOT transparent. This, to me, is a complete reversal to what I was taught, and is to use a rather nice word, in humble opinion humbug!

(PS - all the really expensive devices are by design, destructive to what I call reality) Colour is really distortion, nice distortion maybe to some, but it's less than the original and surely this is bad?

Nice one Paul, thanks for sharing (y)

Here is a most interesting observation.

When looking for "character/ colour" I have not been able to get a better vocal chain without an LA2A /1176 combo going into a "transformerless preamp", preferably the M-2b
I do not get the expected results using the same UA gear through a transformer based mic-pre. The signal always sounds smaller and less interesting compared. Big rail, transformerless pre-amps are my choice.

Transformer preamps combined with tube mics, tube comps sound smaller with less interesting character.
Transformerless preamps combined with tube mics, tube comps sound huge and full of character.
Transformerless preamps sound closest to the real thing. Like using clean water for a pot of coffee. You can taste the bean, the roast, the cream better.

    paulears, post: 422752, member: 47782 wrote: Now we buy equipment that is deliberately coloured, as in NOT transparent. This, to me, is a complete reversal to what I was taught, and is to use a rather nice word, in humble opinion humbug!

I don't know what you mean when you say "NOW we are buying..." We've been buying colored equipment for years... either in various consoles/pres, or gain reduction, both FET and Tube based, or through mics that use tubes and circuitry designed to deliver a particular character. How many hits have been tracked in music history using U47's, ELAM251's, Neumann Tube mics...? Well, more than I could ever count, to be sure.

    paulears, post: 422752, member: 47782 wrote: For years, I subscribed to the notion that we should record with the best fidelity we can manage on our budget, not record with any eq, or treatment of any kind, because this is destructive to the original, and should be applied as necessary as a post-recording process.

This may be your choice. I can't take exception to it. But thousands of albums have been recorded using tube mics, tube pres, console strips that were known for their "character", and plenty of EQ "on the way in".
Clearmountain to Lang, Alge to Emerick, Parsons to Rundgren, Nile Rodgers to Tom Dowd, Nichols to Swedien, have all used "character/colored" signal paths on the way to the multi track destination, in many different variations, over many years. I'm not gonna deny that their methods didn't play huge parts to the success of the albums/artists they recorded.

IMHO, to call it "humbug" is a bit of a stretch. Use what you use, and it if works for you, then that's all that counts. But, for you guys to say unequivocally that these methods are BS is pretty grandiose, and just because what you do works for you, doesn't mean that your way is the only "right" way to do things.

    audiokid, post: 422754, member: 1 wrote: When looking for "character/ colour" I have not been able to get a better vocal chain without an http://www.uaudio.c… LA2A /http://www.uaudio.c… 1176 combo going into a "transformerless preamp", preferably the http://www.mil-medi… M-2b

Except that if you are going through an LA2, you are going through transformers... maybe it's an A-10, maybe it's a UTC HA100x, but still transformers nonetheless...and, in addition to that you are also sending signal through tubes, too.

So I'm trying to figure out what you guys are saying when you say you like a transparent signal path the best, yet then say something like "I have not been able to get a better vocal chain without an http://www.uaudio.c… LA2A http://www.uaudio.c… 1176  combo..."

??

DonnyThompson, post: 422755, member: 46114 wrote: I have not been able to get a better vocal chain without an http://www.uaudio.c… LA2A http://www.uaudio.c… 1176 combo..." .... and to take it a step further, an LA2a even though it's a tube box, is much "cleaner" sounding than an 1176 which in spite of being solid state, has a particularly filthy sound.

.... and to take it a step further, an LA2a even though it's a tube box, is much "cleaner" sounding than an 1176 which in spite of being solid state, has a particularly filthy sound.

 DonnyThompson, post: 422755, member: 46114 wrote: Except that if you are going through an LA2, you are going through transformers... maybe it's an A-10, maybe it's a UTC HA100x, but still transformers nonetheless...and, in addition to that you are also sending signal through tubes, too.

    So I'm trying to figure out what you guys are saying when you say you like a transparent signal path the best, yet then say something like "I have not been able to get a better vocal chain without an http://www.uaudio.c… LA2A http://www.uaudio.c… 1176 combo..."??

You tell me? If you were here and we did the comparison through that beast, I'm pretty sure you would be typing the same thing too hehe.
;)

All I know is a transformerless mic-pre combined with tube gear sounds better vs the a transformer mic-pre with the same chain. I think Paul is somewhere along the same lines as me on this.

Personally, I don't really care about the past and all the testimonials. The present and future is where I look today. So much of what old school says is great, is dated in my world. We used to have all the old schoolers here and they all said Pro Tools would never take out the big studios. Those same guys all raved about Big Bens and 10M.

Look at me, only up until last year did I say analog and hybrid was better. Today I hear different. I need less of what I used last year because I'm learning how to implement today's technologies "better".And we all know better is subjective too.

Too much of one thing is mud so I am beginning to wonder (if you have this option), the capture sounds better if I put the colour into the mic, comps, and EQ, rather than on the pre. A purer Pre's is looking like the better choice when combining UA grit. That's what I'm saying.

That's what I think today.

i think you may be confusing impeadence matching with signal degradation. i've said many times, no piece of gear or software is going to improve a signal. any processor degrades the audio ... it doesn't improve it, rather it modifys it.

BUT
sometimes we connect two pieces of equipment and get a huge sound serendipitously. impeadence match!

phase correlation and impeadence matching .... yeah, that's it ... yeah!

Kurt Foster, post: 422756, member: 7836 wrote: and to take it a step further, an http://www.uaudio.c… LA2A even though it's a tube box, is much "cleaner" sounding than an http://www.uaudio.c… 1176 which in spite of being solid state, has a particularly filthy sound.

Which may be why I love character gear with Clean pre's. The bandwidth and crunch stay big and nasty compared to a pre that is already compromising the "size". Follow me.

I understand how subjective this topic is.
Being said, I really get what people have said over the years where two products with colour can be too much. Even detrimental. This generation seems to think colour in everything all going at once is cool.
I don't hear it that way.

If for a particular singer I like the sound of an SM58 fed into an API3124+, I don't worry that there are three transformers in line (in the microphone and at the input and the output of the pre-amp) that may be adding a colour. The point is I like the result. I love my BG1 pre-amps too, and, as it happens, they are transformerless and have a clean sound. I use them as appropriate. When I apply EQ during mixing, I am colouring the audio. It's all a way of attaining a sound - I don't think we should get hung up on it.

What I look for in audio gear is quality, in the design, the construction, the service and above all the sonics. We may argue and discuss what quality means in each category, often using words like colour, but what we as recording engineers gain through experience is an instinct for what combination of gear we want to use for each occasion, no matter what's inside.

I don't know what I'm confusing anything with, Kurt. All I know is a transformerless pre with that combo sounds way better than say the other pre's with trannies through that chain. Plug and play :) nice. Fat, gritty big. Easy to mix. I will go as far to say, even the Orpheus or Atlas SS pre's in the converters sound similar. But the M-2b has something that no other pre has which is an extra glowy tube sound.

Is impedance matching what the M-2b does better then? All my mics including a 58 sound better through that pre on it own.
When I use an LA2A through with it, I like how it smoothers the vox out. When I add an 1176, I love how it adds some grit and snap. If I switch the pre's to transformer based, I don't it as much. I can live with it but it definitely doesn't sound a rich and open as the transformerless. Is that what an M-2b does. Is this impedance matching?

And, I totally agree with Bos. In the end, we use what we have and if what we have sound right . then is good. We switch things around and sometimes find a combination that fits best.

I mean, do we really need a huge sounding vocal chain on a huge voice . Maybe not. Or maybe it is good if we are able to fit it into a mix after the fact. Who knows.

I think that the differences in mic pres as comparative colorization is fairly marked...That is, a huge difference from one to another. And "classic" circuits tend to display this also. At the one end of the capture...there are very very few mics that don't display some sort of color or character....maybe measurement mics would be something that is 'colorless', but for the most part, ALL popular mics have something of a color associated with their sound. Some good, some bad, some 'indifferent'....Mic pres seem to be 'colorless' , 'neutral' or 'colored' ...Again some good some bad etc....Compressors seem to be unique in that some compression you can't actually 'hear'....it doesn't add a color to its working, but by the same token, the circuit that some of these are built around may add that touch of 'color' just by running a signal through them. Other compressors are simply colorful displays of whatever you run through them, and most have a range of compression from subtle to brutal and I have found that even these that will do the brutal thing may NOT add any distinct 'color' to the signal other than what happens when the source is slammed beyond recognition.

Color is such a subjective thing and one that can't really be avoided at some point in the process.

I think the point is to chose your palette wisely or fuck it all up beyond recognition....but thats what makes this so much fun

Chris makes a point about fitting it into the mix. Some things just dont fit no matter what we do to it.

I am still interested in the mic splitter though ;) :D I would love to do a few comparisons before I drop dead.

I'm going to quit worrying about all this stuff and concentrate on the music side more this year. I've reached a pinnacle point and trust whatever I do beyond what I have now is simply seeing if I can emulate what I feel is already pretty unbeatable. I think we can do so much ITB now, talent is what I need around here.

Back to Dave's nice injection :)
I have DPA transformerless mics here that are amazing!! But almost too real for my crappy rooms. I do however prefer them with a transformer pre.
They do sound nice when I use a Crane Song STC-8 in the chain. But I just sold my STC-8 because I get a better sound, slightly fuller, tighter image using the comps in Sequoia. Go figure.
Which is why I am looking at the Apollo 16 as an optional emulation front end now, I hope I'm onto something. It would be nice to save some money.
So, I get it, its all subjective to what we have, source, the room etc.

audiokid, post: 422757, member: 1 wrote: ou tell me? If you were here and we did the comparison through that beast, I'm pretty sure you would be typing the same thing too hehe.
;)

I'm not disagreeing with you. Not in any way about that. I was just pointing out that the vocal sound you like the best isn't really "transparent"... not with those LA2's and 1176's in your chain - which, BTW is "dated", according to many modern DAW engineers and their methods.

My point? Some of that "dated" gear still sounds great. I'm all for the DAW platform...I love the convenience, I think it allows us to cover ground that just 20 years ago was a pipe dream...but I'll be damned if I'm gonna sacrifice sound at the same time and throw the baby out with the bath water. ;)

Half of what I hear today sonically makes me wince with pain... so if I have to rely on a few "dated" methods - just like you do with those classic ( dated) pieces in your vocal signal path that you say you like so much ( and I can see why you would) in order to bring back warmth, silkiness and other factors that some now consider "dated coloration methods", then that's what I will do. I'll take that - any day of the week - over the ever popular "cat in a blender" frequencies or sterility that I hear in so much of the current music/mixes. ;)

And that's what I think today. :)

d.

DonnyThompson, post: 422768, member: 46114 wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you. Not in any way about that. I was just pointing out that the vocal sound you like the best isn't really "transparent"... not with those LA2's and 1176's in your chain - which, BTW is "dated", according to many modern DAW engineers and their methods.

I KNOW! That's what I'm saying!!

I love nasty grit to clean. You are missing the big one here, Donny. I'm saying, when I want grit I get better character results using a transformerless pre combined with character gear. The transformerless pre seems to translate the vibe in tubes or UA tranny better. The combination is like icing on cake. Or like clean water when making a pot of coffee.

It gels really well. Which is where I think Paul is going here too. I just happen to have a nice transformerless pre with a tube here that is pretty astonishing. Its hard to describe it. But is it interesting never the less.

When I refer to the years past and get opinionated about the dated concepts, its really about how we used one console for everything.

I hope to get a good mic Splitter that will preserve my path enough to share some of this for fun. Thats all its about for me now.
FYI, with the exception of some special projects that make this investment worth it $, I'm pretty much doing it as a hobby now. I can't come close to making a living in the business without sacrificing my family life and cash flow needed to sustain 5 people anymore. I'm lucky I got the gear I did before it all got really expensive. CDN is crazy now too. Everything this is 15% higher in cost and that doesn't include duties and shipping.

An LA2A will cost around $4500 here now. The Pultec are $3600 or more a piece and this list goes on. Its insane. Wish it was to 80's again. Damn that was fun!

What does all that have to do with anything? I don't know :p, what else is there to talk about.

I think the Radial J2 looks right for me?

I suspect I like to use the Royal 'We' because I'm just as guilty of breaking the rules I was taught. I actually failed to get a job in my teens working for the BBC, because I lacked the understanding of signal integrity - I didn't realise that because of sickness, I got interviewed by the Chief Engineer, and he considered my lack of physics to be more important than my ears. Things have really changed now, and maybe I'm the dinosaur? Probably. In one of my outings with the BBC - Radio OBs, I got introduced to splits for the first time, and these were 2 way transformer splits in big racks. They enabled the OB truck to have the transformer split - which was simply for electrical reasons, rather than any sonically designed in purpose. They were just inserted into the audio feeds from the mics.

I do understand that 'we' select microphones for their sound and not perhaps their truthfulness, but if introducing a mic split then adds or subtracts to it, surely that's a bad feature. The purpose of a split being to simply produce multiple, as close to identical outputs? If the split is being used to modify the sound, then it's not a split at all, it's processing, and should be in-line even if the second output is not needed?

I just can't quite settle myself with the idea that we select the U87 for that slight murky, warmness, and then change it a bit more with the splitter. For my purposes, I want the splitter's contribution to be as close to zero as possible. My current passive splitter rack seems to make no difference whatsoever to the sound - which is exactly what it's for. From time to time it catches me out with bizarre and tricky to tie down ground loops, usually from DI'd or other higher level sources - but to all intents and purposes, it's invisible. I'm very happy with the gizmos some like in the signal chain that also add something to the signal but I just don't think a splitter should do anything at all apart from split.

I'd also suggest that the simply crazy prices for some splitters are totally out of proportion. One of the most popular with the broadcasters in the UK is made by one of Canford Audio's companies - EMO. All my EMO products, splits and DIs just work - and I don't think of them as having any other properties. I've no idea what brand transformers they use, it seems rather unimportant.
http://www.canford…
We've been using these problem solving devices for quite a few years now, and 6 ways is around 700 UKP, which is pretty good value.

Okay, so, then what would be the harm in making your own splitter using nothing but really good cable to get the job done? It might bring the gain down a bit, but couldn't you use gain on the preamp input to make up for that? You wouldn't be using a transformer, so wouldn't the only change be the gain? Just wondering here, thinking out loud... I don't know... I'm not telling, I'm asking...

None - works for me, and the extra gain required is a very small turn of the knob, or not even one worth doing! Keep it simple!

Y-cables are generally OK to use for dynamic mics, but can be tricky when you are splitting phantom-powered condenser mics. It can be done, but you have to be familiar with the circuit details of the input stage of the pre-amps you are feeding from the split and know the risks. Generally speaking, pre-amps that have a transformer input and separate PP switch per channel are safe, but not always. Transformer-based splitters remove you completely from this risk.

Boswell, post: 422782, member: 29034 wrote: Y-cables are generally OK to use for dynamic mics, but can be tricky when you are splitting phantom-powered condenser mics.

Oooo boy... I forgot about that.

If Chris is wanting to go to two separate pres at the same time - which I think is what his intention is, to test two different pre amps at the same time - I'm not seeing how this Y split will work, because he would need to engage phantom on both lines, no? And as you mentioned, isn't this where things might get dicey? Or... could he engage PP on one pre input - to power the mic - and then leave the PP disengaged on the other pre, so that it's not seeing double the voltage it's supposed to? ... Or, he could use a mic with its own power supply (with PP) and then split the out from that to two pres using a Y cable, but at that point, we're back to having transformers in the path.

So unless he's using a 58, SM7, ( or would the fact the the SM7, which has a low output traditionally, defeat that?) or RE20 or other good dynamic.... the Y cable idea isn't going to work, is it?

paulears, post: 422776, member: 47782 wrote:
http://www.canford…

Thanks Paul. This looks ideal! Everyone, this is a much better value than the Radial, yes?

http://www.canford… EMO MICROPHONE SPLITTERS
These professional quality microphone splitters are available in two formats, either free-standing or panel mounting. The microphone splitters have three outputs in either format, one direct and two transformer coupled, one of which will pass phantom power to the input. The microphone splitter is fitted with two phase change switches and an earth lift switch; this combination will solve most operational problems. The panel mounting microphone splitter is suitable for permanent installation in OEM equipment, studios, OB vans, mobile sound systems, etc. If a multiple splitter is required, the 19" rack frame will accommodate up to six units. E535 panel-mounting DI boxes http://www.canford… E337  http://www.canford… E337 blanking plates may be used to take up unused space.

Again, these working for everything you throw at them? What can't you use with these? Like you, I don't care about the gain differences either. I simply want to audition various pre-amp for my own tests and requirements. This isn't scientific but I do want accuracy as the saying goes, " its close enough for Jazz".

DonnyThompson, post: 422783, member: 46114 wrote: If Chris is wanting to go to two separate pres at the same time - which I think is what his intention is, to test two different pre amps at the same time - I'm not seeing how this Y split will work, because he would need to engage phantom on both lines, no? And as you mentioned, isn't this where things might get dicey? Or... could he engage PP on one pre input - to power the mic - and then leave the PP disengaged on the other pre, so that it's not seeing double the voltage it's supposed to? ... Or, he could use a mic with its own power supply (with PP) and then split the out from that to two pres using a Y cable, but at that point, we're back to having transformers in the path.

Yes, thanks Donny.

I do have (expensive $ :cry:) mics with there own power supplies. But, I'm also wanting something that will serve as a simple way to short list a few, (3 is better) mic's at once. The splitter doesn't have to be clinical transparency (although I would prefer this.

Boswell, post: 422782, member: 29034 wrote: Transformer-based splitters remove you completely from this risk.

Risk is something I'm not prepared to take. So, with this in mind, What Paul suggests looks idea, easy enough for an intern to plug and play, correct?

DonnyThompson, post: 422777, member: 46114 wrote: Okay, so, then what would be the harm in making your own splitter using nothing but really good cable to get the job done? It might bring the gain down a bit, but couldn't you use gain on the preamp input to make up for that? You wouldn't be using a transformer, so wouldn't the only change be the gain? Just wondering here, thinking out loud... I don't know... I'm not telling, I'm asking...

I used to be excellent at soldering bigger projects but those days are past. I'm cool to buy something that works.

Thanks everyone, fun topic too. We got to mash up the tranny thing again!!:D

Any other suggestions?

Now all I need to do is stop using my iphone to type. reading over my posts, the auto correction is miss correcting my typing and missing wording more than i realized. erk!.

I intended to throw that in there the other day but Bos beat me to it. And as Paul said, in a splitter, the transformer is about the electrical part of this more-so than the audio part. If you are auditioning a tube mic with its own supply, a condenser needing phantom, and a dynamic into a single source, you are MOST ASSUREDLY going to want everything isolated from each other in a non-destructive way at all times. A good splitter will not add any GAIN either direction and most that I have experienced added nothing other than the ability to control ground loops and not have phantom bleed into the other devices in the split. Transformer ISOLATION in this case is totally electrical in nature.