dumb mixing console question

Vigo

Vigo

Member
Im having this debate with someone, you should record through the mixer and send the outputs to an interface that sends those tracks to the computer, right? like say if i have a samson console and a Focusrite interface that'd be Singer - Mic - XLR - Console - Interface - Computer ------ right?
 
The only purpose the mixer serves is if you need it to create a cue headphone mix or something like that...but the mixer should then be getting it's signal after the interface.

You could/should otherwise remove it from the chain...it serves no purpose other than to add more noise to the signal.

Mic--->interface
 
miroslav said:
The only purpose the mixer serves is if you need it to create a cue headphone mix or something like that...but the mixer should then be getting it's signal after the interface.

You could/should otherwise remove it from the chain...it serves no purpose other than to add more noise to the signal.

Mic--->interface
Click to expand...

What he said... ^^^

Unless you have a specific purpose for the mixer, and if you're asking this question, chances are you don't, get it out of the chain.
 
A solid step up -(two actually, one was when I got the Mackie out of the monitoring chain), but the other was in addition to getting a few nicer pres, splitting their outputs - with one side direct to the A/D's, the other to the mixer but only for live monitoring and phones.
Shorter' is gooter! -typically :D
 
bouldersoundguy said:
When the interface has line level I/O (what I usually use) this is exactly how it's done.
Click to expand...


That works for you. I have no console (mixer) at all and see no reason to myself.

24 input tracks, 3 snakes into 3 isolation rooms. Never found a need for a console because I do not use much outboard gear for mixing. Even if I did, I could route to them from my interfaces.

I personally do not get the whole 'console' thing. Not unless it is one worthy of envy...


I'd rather a couple of rack preamps than take up 90% of my desk for things other than beer and controllers.


Just me tho...


We should do sushi again soon! :)
 
bouldersoundguy said:
When the interface has line level I/O (what I usually use) this is exactly how it's done.
Click to expand...


I'm not getting it....what's Line Level I/O got to do with it?

If the console is not adding anything to the signal chain...if you are not using its pre or it's EQ...etc....why would you want the signal you are recording to flow through it...?

I use my console all the time when I track, but I don't track through it..I just feed the output of my tape deck or my interfaces back to the console, and I use the console for cue mixes during tracking.
 
Well, I DO use a mixer so I can't be quite as down on them as the others but I agree that the only reason to have one is if you have a specific need.

In my case, it's a fairly expensive digital mixer and I actually use it like an interface--the mixer does my A to D conversion (and D to A for that matter) and is linked to my computer via 32 channels of ADAT. Even so, my main reason for using it is, as others have hinted, creating headphone mixes (up to 8 different ones). It's also a more convenient way to adjust/ride lots of levels when doing multitrack. Thirty two 100mm faders are easier to work with than 32 small knobs. (Cue the small knob jokes!)

Note that, quality-wise, I'm talking about a mixer that costs as much as a small car, not a $200 cheapie. They're usually more problems than they're worth.

That said, for simpler jobs I have a basic 2 channel interface and don't both with the mixer at all.
 
I didn't say he should use his mixer, I said that if the interface doesn't have preamps then he would use the routing he described. I like a nice mixer, but I don't generally recommend them for home recording. I don't think I'd recommend a Samson, but not knowing any more than the brand it's hard to say. Maybe they're making better stuff now than I remember.

What I'm doing is a bit more involved than most. It's not just a home studio, it's a rehearsal space and we've been putting on live studio performances. Some nights I'm doing four monitor mixes going to wedges and other nights I'm headphone mixes for tracking. Last night was a live show. There's no way I'm mixing live stage monitors with a mouse. It's an analog board so input monitoring latency is always zero. In my case it's a great tool for the job.
 
miroslav said:
I'm not getting it....what's Line Level I/O got to do with it?

If the console is not adding anything to the signal chain...if you are not using its pre or it's EQ...etc....why would you want the signal you are recording to flow through it...?

I use my console all the time when I track, but I don't track through it..I just feed the output of my tape deck or my interfaces back to the console, and I use the console for cue mixes during tracking.
Click to expand...


Prior to getting a Firepod, I had an eight input ISIS sound card which was line-only input.

I used a mixer with the ISIS in the way the OP described: mikes > mixer > interface > PC.

With the Firepod having mike pres, my path is:

mikes > interface > PC
 
miroslav said:
I'm not getting it....what's Line Level I/O got to do with it?

he console is not adding anything to the signal chain...if you are not using its pre or it's EQ...etc....why would you want the signal you are recording to flow through it...?

I use my console all the time when I track, but I don't track through it..I just feed the output of my tape deck or my interfaces back to the console, and I use the console for cue mixes during tracking.
Click to expand...
If all you have is line level inuts on the interface and the only mic preamp you have are the ones on the board, you don't have much choice but to use the board.
 
Yeah, the whole mixer-v-interface thing tends to get a bit heated and "ideological" !

We, son and I really started computer recording with an M-Audio 2496 soundcard and a Behringer Xenyx 802 mixer way back in 2005 mainly because there were no decent, cheap interfaces, the best ones were Firewire which was not found on budget PCs then (and now never will be!) and in any case, Fussywire was an audio nightmare!

The 802 was upgraded to an Allen & Heath ZED10 a few years ago and that setup served him well until he sugared off to France a couple of years ago. He took with him an M-A Fast track pro and a laptop and uses that for guitar recordings in a small bedroom.

Although the "cheap" mixer gets a bad press it is often unwarranted. The mic preamps in an interface are very simple. Gain is all you get, maybe a pad if you are lucky. A mixer such as the 802 gives you gain, generally over a wide range, channel level control and an overall Main out level (to the converters). Pan and EQ. Ok, the latter is not usually used for tracking except that some bass roll off is very useful on most sources. My ZED 10 has HP filters per channel.
There is no technical reason why the mic amps in a mixer should be any worse in terms of noise or distortion and in fact my (limited I admit) experience proves this to be the case. In fact there are good technical reasons for a mixer, even a cheap one, to have better headroom than many ~£100 interfaces.

But for sure you do not want to feed a mixer into the line inputs of an AI if they double as mic inputs because this is technically bad. However, with "real" sound sources you are unlikely to tell the difference!

There are very few things you can buy for $50 or so for a home studio that are as useful and versatile as a small mixer. Gash headphone amp? Scratch Talk Back system?

Dave.
 
No, but there's a budgetary reason why cheap mixers might not be as good as an interface.

Checking prices at Sweetwater (just as an example) a Focusrite 2i2 interface is $150. A Behringer 802 is $65. Despite the price, the Behringer includes a whole lot of extra knobs and connectors, including the toy EQ on the channels, an FX send, etc. etc. There's no such thing as a free lunch so, in order to pack all that in for less than half the price, corners are being cut somewhere.

Even so, I'm not saying that the 802 is necessarily bad for the money--just that you're paying for extra bells and whistles you don't need, almost certainly at the expense of audio and build quality.

The best advice in this thread was earlier on when several said don't use a mixer unless you have a specific need (monitor mixes being an example given) for one. If you have such a need, then check features and make sure the mixer you buy has the ability to do what you need...for example sufficient pre fade auxes and flexible monitor routing. Far too many people buy a mixer because they just assume they have to work like Abbey Road--and end up buying units that add nothing and may take away something.

As mentioned, I use a biggish mixer when I need one...but resort to a small, cheap two channel interface for the simple stuff.
 
Bobbsy said:
No, but there's a budgetary reason why cheap mixers might not be as good as an interface.

Checking prices at Sweetwater (just as an example) a Focusrite 2i2 interface is $150. A Behringer 802 is $65. Despite the price, the Behringer includes a whole lot of extra knobs and connectors, including the toy EQ on the channels, an FX send, etc. etc. There's no such thing as a free lunch so, in order to pack all that in for less than half the price, corners are being cut somewhere.

Even so, I'm not saying that the 802 is necessarily bad for the money--just that you're paying for extra bells and whistles you don't need, almost certainly at the expense of audio and build quality.

The best advice in this thread was earlier on when several said don't use a mixer unless you have a specific need (monitor mixes being an example given) for one. If you have such a need, then check features and make sure the mixer you buy has the ability to do what you need...for example sufficient pre fade auxes and flexible monitor routing. Far too many people buy a mixer because they just assume they have to work like Abbey Road--and end up buying units that add nothing and may take away something.

As mentioned, I use a biggish mixer when I need one...but resort to a small, cheap two channel interface for the simple stuff.
Click to expand...

Ooo! Bob, mate! The 2i2 is the LAST interface you should quote when it comes to "design corners being cut"!

A far fairer comparison would be the UR22, better the Alesis io2 (aka M Track) MUCH closer in price to an 802 and those units show that for some AIs you are paying for a "name". Then, the forums tend to back me up? GAKnows how many 802s and similar mixers have been sold but how often do we see problems? Far, far rarer than with "certain" interfaces.
I have not, did not and never have suggested a mixer/line interface as a starter kit. I merely want to give the facts and they are that very good results CAN be wrought from a mixer such as the 802 and a PCI card..IF that is the set up a person happens to have.

And, as I have mentioned times before, my 802 still delivers sterling service in a bedroom amping up birds and such in my garden for a CCTV recording system. Been doing that for 3yrs+ and was at least that old when it went in.

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