Allen & Heath vs Mackie

R

radiologic

New member
Hey everyone,

So I'm trying to build up my little studio. I have a couple mics already and a couple DI. Now for one of the most important things, the mixer.

I was set on buying a Mackie Onyx 1620i. I like the firewire option even though I know the EQ's and everything else but the Gain and Preamps are useless when I record.

Now after a little bit of research I saw some positive reviews on the Allen and Heath ZED-14.

I'm only looking for 6 channel mixer, I am aware that the Onyx 1620i is 8 Channels but they dont make a 6 channel one. I also realized that the Onyx is a lot more money. Now the big difference I can see is the Firewire (Mackie) vs USB (A&H). Lets say I'm using the mixer to record six tracks on logic pro, is the difference that big? Or what is the main difference between the two mixers? Which one do you guys recommend?

Like always,

Thanks.
 
Zed let's you record only 2 tracks (aka master output).
But why do you need mixer after all? As I understand you are just trying to record in you studio. Take a look at audio interfaces with 8 inputs, for example m-audio 2626 or focusrite saffire pro 40.
 
Seems to me for digital mixerless is the common way to go, unless you have much mixer experience you can't live without one.
 
Sorry, I think something obvious I forgot to point out is that I want a mixer I could also use in a live setting as wel. You know, to record small performances on my laptop. I don't want to buy 2 separate mixers. Hoping to invest in one that does both.
 
Seidy said:
Zed let's you record only 2 tracks (aka master output).
But why do you need mixer after all? As I understand you are just trying to record in you studio. Take a look at audio interfaces with 8 inputs, for example m-audio 2626 or focusrite saffire pro 40.
Click to expand...

A mixer/interface will probably do the input monitoring in the analog realm for true zero-latency monitoring, unlike any interface with more than two inputs that I know of. This is under-appreciated by those who haven't made a direct comparison.

I set up a studio for a friend with a split to an analog mixer for monitoring. After about a year with it he had to go without the mixer for a few sessions and use the interface's low-latency arrangement. That's when he realized how much better doing monitoring with an analog mixer was.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
A mixer/interface will probably do the input monitoring in the analog realm for true zero-latency monitoring, unlike any interface with more than two inputs that I know of. This is under-appreciated by those who haven't made a direct comparison.

I set up a studio for a friend with a split to an analog mixer for monitoring. After about a year with it he had to go without the mixer for a few sessions and use the interface's low-latency arrangement. That's when he realized how much better doing monitoring with an analog mixer was.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^ This,This and This ^^^^^^







:cool:
 
bouldersoundguy said:
A mixer/interface will probably do the input monitoring in the analog realm for true zero-latency monitoring, unlike any interface with more than two inputs that I know of. This is under-appreciated by those who haven't made a direct comparison.

I set up a studio for a friend with a split to an analog mixer for monitoring. After about a year with it he had to go without the mixer for a few sessions and use the interface's low-latency arrangement. That's when he realized how much better doing monitoring with an analog mixer was.
Click to expand...


Can you into a bit more detail, please. You're saying I'm better off buying a mixer that functions as a interface instead of just buying an interface like the FireStudio Project (for example)?
 
radiologic said:
Can you into a bit more detail, please. You're saying I'm better off buying a mixer that functions as a interface instead of just buying an interface like the FireStudio Project (for example)?
Click to expand...

Well, the FireStudio Project manual claims "zero latency DSP monitoring". But if it's DSP there is some latency, even if it's a little. Digital monitoring requires conversion to digital, processing and conversion back to analog, all of which takes time. That's probably acceptable for most situations, but I prefer actual zero latency monitoring. It helps the performer lock in with the rhythm better if they hear the sound they make when they make it rather than a few milliseconds later. The only way to do that is with analog monitoring.

Personally, I'd rather have a separate mixer and interface than a mixer/interface combo, but I'm biased by the fact that I usually work in studio situations that are more complex than a "home" recording studio. Your needs may be met by a mixer/interface.
 
thats why i got the 1620i .. zero latency.. good for getting ideas together and jamming them out with immediate eq and lots of inputs so that i wasnt switching physical inputs. ie swapping jacks! when recording was required it was all there ready to go. I would have gone for the 1640 but it was too pricey and too big.
 
I thought I'd update this thread because I saw that someone followed my signature link from here. Technology has moved on. DSP on interfaces is very capable of providing extremely low latency input monitoring. Though technically not true zero latency, it's so low as to be "effectively" zero latency. Not only that, computers are so fast that many people are monitoring through the software, with live amp sims, reverbs etc., with very low latency.
 
Something else that has changed in the intervening years is Fire Wire. Well, its presence in the market at least.

Few if any computers are now equipped with FW and although there is a ThunderPants to FW adaptor system it is expensive and, I would guess, not guaranteed to work for every FW device? FW interfaces as a breed were always a bit fussy.

Modern implementation of USB 2.0 can do virtually everything FW 400 did and (at long bloody last!) the 'industry' is getting behind USB 3.0 technology with much higher speeds and nearly double the bus power delivery.

USB 'C' seems to promise a rational standard and the demize of the myriad USB connectors? I am sure we ALL hope so!!

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top