Should I ditch the mixer?

[SeaDog]

Not sure if having the mixer is worth the trouble, so I thought I would ask you guys. Forgive me but I am somewhat of a novice when it comes to audio recording etc. Not sure I need a mixer with the delta 44 interface.

I just want to play my bass, jam to some tunes and record bass along with drum loops etc.
My setup is bass> sansamp di> mixer> delta 44 soundcard > windows pc> pro tools m-powered> mixer> monitors

Other than using headphones, I don't see why I would need a mixer. I am leaning toward a simpler setup like an mbox. What do you think?

Thanks

 

[Bobbsy]

If you were buying from scratch the advice would be to forget the mixer and get a USB interface with direct monitoring to feed your headphones.

However, since you have the mixer and the Delta 44, is there anything your system is doing or not doing that makes you want to change? If not, stick to what works.

If you DO decide to replace what you have, I suspect you could do a lot better than an M Box by the way.

 

[Tadpui]

I loved having a mixer with my Delta 44. For a while I used it for the preamps, but you've got that covered with the SansAmp. Then I used it for direct monitoring of a couple of inputs...it was great to have a physical knob to control my live signal level as I laid down tracks . All the while i used it as a monitor controller. It was very handy to have around. Now that I have an interface with integrated preamps and a more flexible software router, I don't need a mixer. It was an adjustment, but I like the lack of clutter on my desktop.

 

[ecc83]

The Delta 44 is different from most PCI soundcards in that it has a breakout box with balanced ins and outs it is thus a sort of 1/2 way house between a full blown external AI and a PCI card such as my 2496s.

Two things you might miss if you ditch the card and go for a USB (only real option) interface.
1) The comprehensive internal routing, you would not be able to record internal PC sound e.g.

2) The SPEED! By that I mean the very low latency that the card gives, assuming it is comparable to my Deltas.

Bobbsy seems less than impressed by the M Box? I have no exp' of it but I shall (once again folks!) suggest the Native Instruments Komplete Audio 6 as an ADDITION to the 44. You can ditch the mixer* if you like, would not be needed for most record/play/dubbing operations but there is no reason to remove the card from the system. I just plug in my KA6 into any of 3 computers (2496,2496 and ESI 1010E) and sort it out in the DAW (not PT tho' Samplitude mostly) ....In a trice!

*If the mixer is "in the way" it can of course be moved, into another room if you wanted, and still feed the spare 2 balanced inputs of the KA6, which has MIDI BTW!

Dave.

 

[SeaDog]

Thank you for the replies.
To be honest, my problem is that I don't know enough about the mixer so I want to go with something else that would be simpler. I do use it to control monitors, and headphones, and it does the job.

You mentioned a usb interface.. I hear good things about focusrite. What do you use? Dave, the KA6 looks nice.

Thanks

If you were buying from scratch the advice would be to forget the mixer and get a USB interface with direct monitoring to feed your headphones.

However, since you have the mixer and the Delta 44, is there anything your system is doing or not doing that makes you want to change? If not, stick to what works.

If you DO decide to replace what you have, I suspect you could do a lot better than an M Box by the way.

 

[ecc83]

"I hear good things about focusrite. What do you use? Dave, the KA6 looks nice.

Thanks"
Focusrite make some good stuff, no doubt about it but I think their lower priced range is poor value and they don't have a flawless name for reliability or super fast drivers.

I don't actually USE anything! I have put together a Home Studio for a very musical son who has buggered of to France these three years or so!

But, I have done tests with the KA6 on about 6 different computers and in every case it has installed and worked flawlessly. It is also happy on macs and in Linux. I HAVE read one or two negative comments but the overwhelming view is that it is a really solid performer. I think about 3 people on forums have bought one on my reccy and all have been very happy.

You don't say what the mixer is? No matter, you would not need it with the KA6, it can do all your pre amping and output control (as to be fair could any decent AI) but the mixer might be handy as a mic preamp for the other two line inputs on the KA6?

Dave.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Not sure if having the mixer is worth the trouble...... Not sure I need a mixer with the delta 44 interface.

To be honest, my problem is that I don't know enough about the mixer so I want to go with something else that would be simpler.

Chances are you were right the first time.

Mixers have just gained this myth status where every recording setup must have one but it's really not true.
It's like saying you make a lot of meals so you simply must have a deep fat fryer.

If you don't need it you don't need it.

Small mixers can serve a great purpose as a convenience tool - sometimes it's just nice to have a fader eq and mute, or whatever, for a headphone mix but really for modern home recording, the mixer is taken out of the loop.
They could also be handy for small live streaming/podcasting setups for sure, but for home studio input path? I don't see a real advantage.

I mean, the clues in the name. You'll be mixing in your recording software with the luxury of al the time in the world to make your creative decisions.
Large format mixers, in the past, were largely used to mix on the fly to an analog medium and are largely used now for super high quality preamps (direct outs - no mixing!) and flexible routing for rack gear or whatever.
Not that many people are actually mixing properly on them.


If the features you like and use are speaker volume, headphone volume and low latency, and audio interface will give you that.


Interface wise, I would suggest buying big and buying once.
If there's even a possibility that you might record small ensembles or drum kits or anything more than 2 mics at a time, go with a unit with 8 mic preamps.
Maybe something from Tascam? For the price difference, it's totally worth it.

I don't know if avid/digi/maudio have got their shit together or not, but the mbox2 was dire.
I've no experience with the current range, but be aware and do some googling here and on GS.
Take reviews with a pinch of salt if you get them elsewhere - especially in places where the item is being sold!

 

[DM60]

When I was using the 192, I used a mixer for my pre-amps and to route to my monitors for volume control. I wouldn't use my 192 without a mixer. I provided all of my connections, phantom power, etc. Then I switched to to the Tascam 1800 for a portable recording setup. It has everything I need for my connections, route monitors through it and control the volume there. So I no longer require the mixer.

I keep the mixer in case I need to use with my Tascam in case I need some pre-amps for the Tascam. If you stay with the Delta, your mixer is pretty handy, if you switch to a different interface, you can probably drop it or keep for special usage.

 

[Steenamaroo]

If you stay with the Delta, your mixer is pretty handy, if you switch to a different interface, you can probably drop it or keep for special usage.

That's probably the bottom line right there.

 

[ecc83]

When I was using the 192, I used a mixer for my pre-amps and to route to my monitors for volume control. I wouldn't use my 192 without a mixer. I provided all of my connections, phantom power, etc. Then I switched to to the Tascam 1800 for a portable recording setup. It has everything I need for my connections, route monitors through it and control the volume there. So I no longer require the mixer.

I keep the mixer in case I need to use with my Tascam in case I need some pre-amps for the Tascam. If you stay with the Delta, your mixer is pretty handy, if you switch to a different interface, you can probably drop it or keep for special usage.

Some peeps have rather taken against the mixer on forums! In fact, when used in conjuction with a sound card with no controls of its own, the name is misleading since, for the most part it don't mix! The device merely serves to raise mic levels and control line inputs for correct recording and act as monitoring control on playback.

You can OF COURSE mix in other sources if you want to but many people simply have other gear connected, a synth say or the line out of a gitamp and the mixer is simply a neat and tidy way to select devices and avoid plug swapping.

And, said it before! Even small cheap mixers have pan and more versatile gain controls than most AIs.

Dave.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Some peeps have rather taken against the mixer on forums! In fact, when used in conjuction with a sound card with no controls of its own, the name is misleading since, for the most part it don't mix! The device merely serves to raise mic levels and control line inputs for correct recording and act as monitoring control on playback.

You can OF COURSE mix in other sources if you want to but many people simply have other gear connected, a synth say or the line out of a gitamp and the mixer is simply a neat and tidy way to select devices and avoid plug swapping.

And, said it before! Even small cheap mixers have pan and more versatile gain controls than most AIs.

Dave.

That's kinda the point though.
Most people using a mixer in home recording studio won't be using it to mix. They'll be using it as a bunch of preamps, usually with discreet outputs, and a headphone amp.
If, and when, that's the case, I recommend an audio interface because it'll do everything that's needed.

I don't see the advantage of pan, unless you're actually mixing.
I suppose it could be handy in live headphone mixes but, again, the DAW can be doing that.

If the OPs case is as simple as it seems, his current setup would probably work just as well as an all-in-one audio interface but he'll probably get better quality preamps in an AI.
It pretty much boils down to what approach he prefers, I guess.

 

[ecc83]

That's kinda the point though.
Most people using a mixer in home recording studio won't be using it to mix. They'll be using it as a bunch of preamps, usually with discreet outputs, and a headphone amp.
If, and when, that's the case, I recommend an audio interface because it'll do everything that's needed.

I don't see the advantage of pan, unless you're actually mixing.
I suppose it could be handy in live headphone mixes but, again, the DAW can be doing that.

If the OPs case is as simple as it seems, his current setup would probably work just as well as an all-in-one audio interface but he'll probably get better quality preamps in an AI.
It pretty much boils down to what approach he prefers, I guess.

Pan is handy for the noob since they are often bemused by the "one side onlyness" of simple AIs and not many DAWs have a simple way to mono an input (Sam does BTW).

Pre amps in AIs have only fairly recently been quite good. For a long time they were very shy on gain, or noisy or both. AIs, even very good ones, only have one gain control and there is an inevitable compromise with gain, noise and headroom. Even cheap mixers have separate gain and output level control on each pre amp and of course an overall Main Output level control.
Mixers are mains powered and thus can have decent supply rails not limited by bus power.

I ALWAYS advise the kitless noob to go for an interface, no point in getting a mixer, even the USB version are not as useful as a even a modest AI (say the iO2?) BUT I won't have The Mixer denigrated! Still have my A&H hooked up to a 2496 and it STILL works fine.

Dave.

 

[Steenamaroo]

I ALWAYS advise the kitless noob to go for an interface, no point in getting a mixer, even the USB version are not as useful as a even a modest AI (say the iO2?) BUT I won't have The Mixer denigrated! Still have my A&H hooked up to a 2496 and it STILL works fine.

Dave.

Sounds like we're telling the same story.

 

[DM60]

Pan is handy for the noob since they are often bemused by the "one side onlyness" of simple AIs and not many DAWs have a simple way to mono an input (Sam does BTW).

I am not sure what this means. The three I have used, Cakewalk, Reaper and Ableton all have easy channel input for stereo or mono. The statement seems incorrect. Do you mean to mono a stereo track rather than an input?

 

[Steenamaroo]

I am not sure what this means. The three I have used, Cakewalk, Reaper and Ableton all have easy channel input for stereo or mono. The statement seems incorrect. Do you mean to mono a stereo track rather than an input?

TBH I didn't really get that either, but the advice overall is in unison so I left it alone.

Protools also centres a mono input straight away - I can't think of any serious DAW that doesn't.


I could maybe see it being an issue with direct monitoring but, even then, don't most AIs just centre everything or give you their own software mixer for DM control?

 

[Bobbsy]

TBH I didn't really get that either, but the advice overall is in unison so I left it alone.

Protools also centres a mono input straight away - I can't think of any serious DAW that doesn't.


I could maybe see it being an issue with direct monitoring but, even then, don't most AIs just centre everything or give you their own software mixer for DM control?

Same with any DAW I know...if you specify a track as being mono it plays back equally through both sides until you adjust the pan control. The only time I've seen (well, heard) "one sided" issues are when somebody creates a stereo track and only feeds a mono input to it.

 

[Robus]

I'm not really understanding what the mixer is doing in your setup. If you need a volume knob to control your signal into the audio interface, you've got one on the SansAmp BDDI. If you just need the mixer to connect your monitors and headphone, why not put your bass signal straight into the audio interface and send the output of the interface to the mixer, instead vice versa? Is it latency you're worried about?

 

[ecc83]

I am not sure what this means. The three I have used, Cakewalk, Reaper and Ableton all have easy channel input for stereo or mono. The statement seems incorrect. Do you mean to mono a stereo track rather than an input?

Of those I only have Reaper (well, I bought Cakewalk ESS X1 but HATE it!) and I might have this issue all eff'ed up but I know what I mean! I shall do some tests and get back to you.

In the meantime, in Samplitude, if you setup a basic 2 channel track and connect a mic to just one input (from AI or mixer +2496) only that channel works but in Sam's control panel you can easily switch to Mono Mix and get both channels going.

With a mixer you can of course pan a single source anywhere in the stereo field.

Dave.

 

[Bobbsy]

Hmmm...just Googled "Can Samplitude record a mono track" and got all sorts of links to forums with people having the problems ecc83 is describing. There were various solutions to convert a stereo track to 2 mono and so forth but it all sounds a bit messy to me.

Might be a reason to not choose Samplitude...

 

[RFR]

Not being daw savvy, I dont understand this infatuation with stereo tracks. Or the benefit.
With analog recording it's all mono tracks. The only thing really stereo till the mix are effects returns

16 or 24, the tracks are all individual mono tracks.

Seems much simpler that way.