Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steve Maksim" data-source="post: 73806" data-attributes="member: 1973">Re: S16 vs. traditional analog snake&nbsp;One benefit of a traditional snake is not have to worry about the limitations of patching in 8&#039;s.With only a pair of S16&#039;s, a single mic source that has to be patched in at FOH requires an entire block of 8 channels, reducing you to only 24 channels being available to route from the stage.&nbsp; I prefer having wireless mics patched in at FOH so that channel can easily be changed, reception and diversity easily monitored, etc., so it&#039;s fairly easy to imagine.What could be done to mitigate this sort of situation?&nbsp; --Patch into the aux returns, but they don&#039;t have the same capabilities as a regular channel.&nbsp; Plus, if you have more than 6 FOH inputs, you&#039;re back in the same boat again.--Get an eight channel snake (or 7 really long mic cables).--Run smaller gigs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steve Maksim, post: 73806, member: 1973"] Re: S16 vs. traditional analog snake One benefit of a traditional snake is not have to worry about the limitations of patching in 8's. With only a pair of S16's, a single mic source that has to be patched in at FOH requires an entire block of 8 channels, reducing you to only 24 channels being available to route from the stage. I prefer having wireless mics patched in at FOH so that channel can easily be changed, reception and diversity easily monitored, etc., so it's fairly easy to imagine. What could be done to mitigate this sort of situation? --Patch into the aux returns, but they don't have the same capabilities as a regular channel. Plus, if you have more than 6 FOH inputs, you're back in the same boat again. --Get an eight channel snake (or 7 really long mic cables). --Run smaller gigs. [/QUOTE]

Verification