Pg 104 of the manual has a block diagram of the voice architecture showing the analog and digital parts of the chain. The signal path for a voice to the individual outputs appears to be fully analog. So unless the there is already some digital control of the analog path at this point in the voice, I would assume that there is no ‘simple software solution’ to invert the phase of either channel, as this usually requires slightly different circuitry (inverting vs non-inverting amp).
3 Likes
Yea, so panning would be the only software solution then.
I think you may be misinformed here, but would gladly accept being shown otherwise if you can share some links. Anything on the sleeve should normally be ground. A TRS to dual TS Y-splitter would be wired as TS->TS and RS->TS. A ground path would be shared, but not lost. But a TS cable here instead would work just the same.
On a properly buffered output, an unconnected end of a splitter cable would introduce no noise in to the circuit (which would essentially be the same as no cable plugged in at all). An unconnected cable on the input of a mixer, yes there is the possibility of noise passing into the mixer.
At the end of the day, you won’t get a balanced signal from any of the individual outs. Using a mono/TS cable is really the easiest – and currently only viable – solution to your problem. For most, the loss of gain by dropping a channel from a stereo pair is negligible, and in this case can be overcome by hard panning your sound in the AMP page. Is it an inconvenience for your situation? Maybe. Is it crippling? Hardly. The main outputs are balanced, so worst case scenario is that you have to record multiple passes directly from there. For live, I wouldn’t even worry about noise floor, especially if you’re playing in a club/bar where people will be talking over you anyway. And not sure why you’d be worried about panning automations if you’re using mono anyway - it doesn’t take much effort to disable those automations.
Anyway, you can submit a feature request to directly Elektron which, as I understand, is the only/official path for their consideration of an idea.
4 Likes
A ticket has also be submitted.
Edit: I’ll try the cable and let you know how it goes. The panning issue for me isn’t for me panning, it’s for using preset kits or purchased kits that may have panning information built into it.
Edit 2: db are exponential not linear so a 3db loss of gain is 8 times reduction. If that explaination makes sense. That means to match unity there is 8x raising of the noise floor.
it isn’t, it’s about 75% amplitude
1 Like
Yea sorry my math was a bit off. But a 25% loss is significant none the less. But I’ll get the cable, do some measurements and post the results.
No purpose at all for stereo outputs? You could for example have two totally different sounds on one sequencer track, one panned hard left, the other hard right. In fact you could externally mix up to 8 separated “tracks” from your Analog Four.
6 Likes
That’s something I hadn’t thought of. That would be worth running 8 channels into the mixer.
1 Like
Ok so I found one of my splitter cables to test this out. Going left out of the stereo pair into one channel, also monitoring on the mains.
First test is on a kick drum:
Mains on 1-2. Direct out 1 on 6. Track 6 was substantially quieter. A 29.5db gain boost on my preamp was required to get it to unity with the level of the mains, which resulted in a 13 db raising of the noise floor. This test was done in the sound browser. I realize a hard pan would fix this problem but you can’t hard pan in the sound browser, manager or pool.
Interestingly enough, with it split like this, BOTH sides are quieter, even when summed to mono at the end. That kinda nullifies what NRain suggested of having two different sounds on each side, since both sides are substantially quieter and it would result in a noisier end product than if they were on the same side hard panned.
This leads me to believe that a TS to XLR cable wouldn’t work, as I’d still have that near 30db boost on the preamps and the raised noise floor, as I suspected. Of course manually panning left or right on the track itself would solve this problem, but doesn’t resolve the sound browser/manager and pool being quieter, and the sound locking as well until it was panned. The loss in signal might have something to do with impedance, but I’m not certain.
Second Test on the Polytron preset on track one:
Loudness difference isn’t as huge here. I have both outputs plugged in and panned left and right on the direct out, turns off all effects and turned down the effects completely in the mixer. The expected 3db difference in amplitude but something stranger is happening here. There is phase cancellation. Big time. And I find this strange because in this instance, I have it set up as a stereo pair, as it should be and yet so much of the signal is being phase cancelled at the splitter level. I tried flipping the phase on the mixer end to see if that would resolve the problem but it does not. This particular sound doesn’t have panning in the plocks, but does in the lfo. Not sure if that matters to the analysis.
Edit: it seems the cancellation occurs as the sound crosses center.
At this point I’m no longer on the train that I need a software mono switch, I think there is something actually wrong with the direct outs on this machine.
It’s 100% a cable issue but unfortunately the cables I need aren’t ones that are made.
Where there’s a will there’s a way…
Search harder, modify existing cables, custom cables, different mixer connections or different mixer, etc…
What cables do you need?
Trying not to reopen old wounds. @Olle had a potential solution for a cable, that we discussed via PM. I’m guessing other more pressing matters side tracked him.
I might see if my electronics friend can clone the Radial MIX 2:1 - £140 is a lot when you need 4 of them! - I only tried the individual outs today (got the machine last week) and was quite shocked at the volume drop.
I’ll get him to put 4 of them in small biscuit tin. Clumsy, but well worth it if it’s gets the volume back up.
1 Like
Thank to gods at least they’ve made STEREO audio outs for separate channels! 
OB USB-Audio gives only mono. I’ve immediatelly started to use p.locks for panning (as I do usually in DAW and it’s normal). Then I’ve realized that it’s only mono through Overbridge. Or you need cables and a mixer.
I have XR-18 (16 mono inputs) and I will be making a multicore cable soon.
This thread was really helpful, thanks to all the effort put into assessing the issues and the potential solutions. I use TRS cables and my answer was just to simply pan the channels, but this is a little annoying. I’m sure I’ve read this somewhere on either this thread or another on the forum, but in comparison, the AR separate outs don’t have this volume drop problem at all - the eight outputs all send good levels when panning is centred.
I’m going to try a few different cables configurations and see if I can’t get this to work without the track panning.
Update - tried TS cables in the direct channel outs and the levels are just fine, with no noise issues or any need to pan anymore.
Apologies if I missed the point of this thread but my problem is solved nevertheless 