Connection Methods for Feedback Suppressors in Conference Audio Systems
1. Connect it in series within the audio system like other peripheral devices (e.g., EQ). The advantage is simple connection and operation, suitable for simpler systems. The disadvantage is that this method affects all signals passing through the suppressor when suppressing microphone feedback. For example, connecting a suppressor in series on the mixer's main output means it only suppresses feedback in that signal path, not affecting other outputs like AUX sends or groups.
2. Utilize the INS Insert/Return jacks on the mixer channels to connect the suppressor in series within the corresponding channel. The advantage is maximizing control over the suppressor without affecting other sources. The downside is that one suppressor can control at most two mixer channels this way, underutilizing the device.
3. Utilize the INS Insert/Return jacks on mixer groups to connect the suppressor in series within the corresponding group channel. The advantage is centralized processing for all microphones assigned to that group, without affecting other sources. The disadvantage is the potential for misoperation; e.g., if microphones on channels 1-8 are grouped to Group 1-2, but any channel is accidentally also assigned to Group 3-4 (which lacks a suppressor), feedback could occur. Therefore, deep mixer knowledge and careful operation are essential.
Overall, because this method utilizes the suppressor effectively, it's currently the most common.
4. If some mixers lack INS jacks on group channels, and you don't want to connect the suppressor in series on the main output but still want centralized microphone control, you can use a method that might seem unconventional. For example, suppose mixer channels 1-8 are all microphones. You could send the audio from these 8 channels via an AUX send (e.g., AUX 5-6) to the feedback suppressor. After processing by the suppressor, route it back into the mixer on specific channels (e.g., 23-24). This connection resembles connecting an effects unit. It requires the AUX send to be post-fader, and the AUX 5-6 send on channels 23-24 must be turned OFF to avoid signal loops. Crucially, the volume of channels 1-8 should NOT be routed to any group or main bus (i.e., don't press the L-R, 1-2, 3-4, etc., assignment buttons). Their audio should be sent purely via AUX 5-6, then mixed back in via channels 23-24, and finally output via the appropriate signal path. This can also work well, though it might feel unorthodox. My view emphasizes flexibility and practicality.
5. Another method is using two mixers. One is dedicated to connecting microphones, processing the signal through the feedback suppressor, and then sending the level to the second mixer. The advantage is maximum centralized microphone control and complete isolation from other sources. The disadvantages are: dedicated mixers for mics are often smaller, potentially lower quality and less feature-rich than large consoles, possibly compromising processing quality; and operating two mixers can be cumbersome, especially for less experienced engineers.
2. Utilize the INS Insert/Return jacks on the mixer channels to connect the suppressor in series within the corresponding channel. The advantage is maximizing control over the suppressor without affecting other sources. The downside is that one suppressor can control at most two mixer channels this way, underutilizing the device.
3. Utilize the INS Insert/Return jacks on mixer groups to connect the suppressor in series within the corresponding group channel. The advantage is centralized processing for all microphones assigned to that group, without affecting other sources. The disadvantage is the potential for misoperation; e.g., if microphones on channels 1-8 are grouped to Group 1-2, but any channel is accidentally also assigned to Group 3-4 (which lacks a suppressor), feedback could occur. Therefore, deep mixer knowledge and careful operation are essential.
Overall, because this method utilizes the suppressor effectively, it's currently the most common.
4. If some mixers lack INS jacks on group channels, and you don't want to connect the suppressor in series on the main output but still want centralized microphone control, you can use a method that might seem unconventional. For example, suppose mixer channels 1-8 are all microphones. You could send the audio from these 8 channels via an AUX send (e.g., AUX 5-6) to the feedback suppressor. After processing by the suppressor, route it back into the mixer on specific channels (e.g., 23-24). This connection resembles connecting an effects unit. It requires the AUX send to be post-fader, and the AUX 5-6 send on channels 23-24 must be turned OFF to avoid signal loops. Crucially, the volume of channels 1-8 should NOT be routed to any group or main bus (i.e., don't press the L-R, 1-2, 3-4, etc., assignment buttons). Their audio should be sent purely via AUX 5-6, then mixed back in via channels 23-24, and finally output via the appropriate signal path. This can also work well, though it might feel unorthodox. My view emphasizes flexibility and practicality.
5. Another method is using two mixers. One is dedicated to connecting microphones, processing the signal through the feedback suppressor, and then sending the level to the second mixer. The advantage is maximum centralized microphone control and complete isolation from other sources. The disadvantages are: dedicated mixers for mics are often smaller, potentially lower quality and less feature-rich than large consoles, possibly compromising processing quality; and operating two mixers can be cumbersome, especially for less experienced engineers.