Combining mics into single channel of mixer?

[Lizardpoint]

Hi Team,
Once again I need your advice...
I put up 2 mics to pick up the congregation in my church.
The idea was to record the singing and blend it in with the band for a recording project.
It worked but there just was not enough crowd and too much band spill from the main PA.
I thought I could add 2 more mics nearer the back of the room ( 15m wide by 20m long) but don't have any more channels on the desk.
Can I combine the mics just using a y splitter cable?
They will both be using phantom power. Will this be a problem ?
I can then route them to the recorder and hopefully have more crowd and less PA.
The existing mics are hypercardiode positioned so that the main PA is at 45 degrees to them for maximum rejection.

What do you think folks?

Any suggestions welcome.

Cheers

Lizardpoint

[The Elf]

Can I combine the mics just using a y splitter cable?

No.

They will both be using phantom power. Will this be a problem ?

Yes.

Each mic needs its own mic input and phantom power supply. You need to either go into an audio interface with sufficient separate mic inputs, or into a mixer with sufficient mic inputs and then sub-mix the mic's to a stereo output. The former is preferable from the point of view being able to mix the results after the event.

[molecular]

It worked but there just was not enough crowd and too much band spill from the main PA.
I thought I could add 2 more mics nearer the back of the room ( 15m wide by 20m long) but don't have any more channels on the desk.

How much have you experimented with the original 2 mics? Are you sure you can't just move them further down the room, or perhaps swap them in for cardioids, back to the stage? Is there any way of suspending them over the audience, even if they're just hanging from a rafter by the cable?

Also, are you running this through the PA's mixer and then sending a 2nd stereo mix of everything to a recorder? If so, perhaps as a one-off for the sake of a decent recording using more crowd mics you could lose a channel or two from the band - e.g. by going mono on a keyboard or drum overheads...?

[molecular]

It also just occurred to me that if you place mics at the other end of the room from a band you'll have a delay of around 50ms, which *might* cause issues if you are mixing straight to stereo and there is a drumkit.

[Scramble]

You could get this. Or better still, this.

[Exalted Wombat]

Why two MORE mics? Why not the same two, further back?

Do the audience mics need to be stereo?

Can the PA be quieter? If the mics can't hear the audience singing, can they? Are they meant to be an important part of the experience? Mix the band lower, to support rather than overwhelm.

[Lizardpoint]

Team,

Common sense abounds for which I thank you.

I'll play with the 2 existing mics and see what can be done.

Cheers

Lizardpoint

[chris...]

existing mics are hypercardiode positioned so that the main PA is at 45 degrees to them for maximum rejection.

I guess you mean 45 degrees from the rear of the mic

(ie. 135 degrees from the front)

[Exalted Wombat]

Team,

Common sense abounds for which I thank you.

I'll play with the 2 existing mics and see what can be done.

One mic on the audience might even sound better than two.

[davidjmaxey]

You might consider getting a small 2 channel mixer with phantom power and take that output back to your single available channel, basically creating a sub mix. Just a thought is all. I've done overheads on the crowds many time but I've typically used 2 mics on 2 channels and only for the recording. I then would pan them 100% hard left and right to keep them out of the band perspective but fill out the live sound.

[DC-Choppah]

General rule to always remember: Y cords are for splitting an OUTPUT into two different INPUTS. For combining two OUTPUTS into one INPUT you always need a mixer (even if its a simple passive one).

DC

[Mike Stranks]

General rule to always remember: Y cords are for splitting an OUTPUT into two different INPUTS. For combining two OUTPUTS into one INPUT you always need a mixer (even if its a simple passive one).

DC

I disagree...

Yes, you need something to 'buffer' the outputs, but it doesn't need to be a mixer - simple devices like the ART one referenced earlier in the thread are fine for combining outputs.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I disagree...

Yes, you need something to 'buffer' the outputs, but it doesn't need to be a mixer

This is partly semantics... but actually in a technical sense it does always have to be a mixer. The function is to mix two signals together, so it has to be a mixer.

The point you're making -- and it is a valid one -- is that it doesn't have to be an active mixer. The transformer box mentioned works as a passive mixer... but it is still a mixer.

Up until about the late 1950s, transformer mixing was very common indeed -- the alternative then being large and expensive valve mix amps. It was the introduction of the transistor, and later the IC op-amp that made active mixers de-rigeur.

Hammond tonewheel organs rely upon transformer mixers, as do many Neve consoles, and older telephones and older broadcast TCBUs... to name but a few passive mixer products!

H

[Mike Stranks]

I disagree...

Yes, you need something to 'buffer' the outputs, but it doesn't need to be a mixer

This is partly semantics... but actually in a technical sense it does always have to be a mixer. The function is to mix two signals together, so it has to be a mixer.

The point you're making -- and it is a valid one -- is that it doesn't have to be an active mixer. The transformer box mentioned works as a passive mixer... but it is still a mixer.

Up until about the late 1950s, transformer mixing was very common indeed -- the alternative then being large and expensive valve mix amps. It was the introduction of the transistor, and later the IC op-amp that made active mixers de-rigeur.

Hammond tonewheel organs rely upon transformer mixers, as do many Neve consoles, and older telephones and older broadcast TCBUs... to name but a few passive mixer products!

H

Fair point Hugh - and this did cross my mind before I posted. But the everyday use of the term 'mixer' by simple souls such as me is about more than one input to one or more outputs where the level of the inputs is controlled by potentiometers. I just wanted to make it clear that you don't have to have one of those to achieve the desired result.

[damoore]

If the PA is the problem rather than the backline of the band, you might also be able to improve the mix by moving the mics forward so they are less in front of the PA rather than back so they are closer to the congregation. However, a lot of your bleed may be off the back wall, in which case this won't help.

A potential problem with moving closer to the congregration is that the character of the sound can change - if you get too close you will start to hear individual voices rather than a blended sound.

Sounds like you are recording off the desk. If you go with extra mics, can you put a small mixer between that and the recorder, and feed your congregation mics into that instead of the main desk?