outboard rack loom

[ghance]

hi,

 

I need a better way of quickly connecting my outboard racks.

 

currently I use a mixture of 5m looms.. 56 pin edac / 120 pin edac (not had pin trouble so far) for inserts and send / returns. also got some 25pin vitton veam and captive 8-ways for stage snakes and small racks. most racks end up with several looms bundled together. its not pretty, and I need a selection of tails to cope with different rack & desk combinations..

 

our typical festival FOH rigs comprise:

 

L/R G.Eq

CD, MD & DAT

3 or 4 FX

 

6 x gates

12 x compressors

2 x 'specials'

 

(i.e. 24 circuits of send/returns & 40 circuits of inserts - for monitor world the 40 insert circuits become 12-ways of EQ, 4 gates, 4 comps)

 

was thinking of standardising on one type of connector like the litton veam 150-pin. getting some 5m tails & matching rack panels made up. I.e dedicate one 32-way tail & panel to send & returns (FX, playback, record sends and maybe output GEQ inserts) and a second 48-way tail & panel to inserts (gates & comps) - the tails would live in the desk back box, so can't be too big / long.

 

Our multicores are all Litton Veam 150-pin (32-ways) so it makes sence to continue with this connector.. but there are some downsides:

 

a) the cost b) the size weight of the connectors - tricky in a small backbox like a venice 160 and c) litton veam don't have 90 degree cable plugs like edac or harting so they tend to stick out 10" or 12" from the back of the rack.. a pain when you're in a real tight FOH.

 

so.. what to do? carry on with LV's and put up with the downsides?? get some custom metalwork with LV panel sockets mounted at 45 or 90 degrees?. use LV's on multicore and harting 108 pin or edac 120 with 90 degree plugs on the racks??

 

thoughts of wisdom please wise ones.

 

ta mucho

 

.spike

[Bobbsy]

I've specced the Litton Veam connectors in the past for applications where the use if REALLY hard and they perform well...really rock solid. However, you've already pointed out the downsides as well.

 

What I'm not clear on is where you see an advantage in standardising on a single type of connector. The applications (multicore snake vs outboard interconnect) are fairly different and, although supercially it might seem "tidy" to use the same connector for both, I don't actually see a genuine operational advantage that outweights the hassles.

 

Like you, I currently have EDACs on my rack interconnects and haven't had the pin problems others have reported. Unless I'm missing something in your description, I'd probably just stick to EDAC for the racks and Litton Veam for the snakes and leave it at that.

 

Bob

[ghance]

hi bob,

 

no absolute reason for standardising, other than keeping the spares & tools to a minimum. and I'm sure there will come that one gig where I need a short extension on the rack or I've broken a panel that I can swap with a spare stage satellite box and some short tails.. but no critcial reason.

 

cheers

 

.gh

[Simon Lewis]

My personal preference would be to standardise on the same series connectors, but to use different shell sizes - e.g main multicore, large insert loom and monitor splits, 150 way; stage sub boxes, amprack multis and returns multis 54 way or 85 way. It should then be possible to interchange different cables, and keep spares that can be used for several purposes.

[ghance]

hi simon,

 

as smaller pins are used in the 150pin, but the shell size is the much same as the 85pin & 100pin, we decided to use 150pin for anything over 24 way and just load them with as many circuits as needed. means stocking spares of 1 pin size & tool.

 

but our smaller 4, 8 & 16 way looms are a real mix of captive XLR's, LV's and edac... I guess if we standardised on 25pin & 56pin we could use these on the smaller racks. but the cost & lack of a 90 degree connector is giving me second thoughts.

 

anyone else gone for a mixture of connectors? eg. veam mutlicore and edac outboard?

 

cheers

 

.gh

[BlueShift]

im gonna go with bobbsy's thoughts here - I dont see many practical operational advantages of standardisation in this particular case. I'd be using hartings - just because they are rock solid.

 

Go with what works, as long as you standardise on your racks you shouldbe fine