Mulevaline
New member
I want a different mixer, have been using a Mackie 1604 VLZ, have a very small budget, am way into analog. Want warmer sound, more spacious mixes. Any recommendations? old Tascams? thanks.
analog mixer thoughts
- Thread starter Mulevaline
- Start date
Mulevaline
New member
I'm recording, 8 tracks to ADAT, budget - under $600. thanks.
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Your mixer is perfectly fine, and capable of passing any sound you put through it with minimal change. I'd look elsewhere for warmth, such as EQ, compression, better reverb or better reverb settings, adding subtle distortion effects, etc.
--Ethan
AtoDeficient
New member
Spacious mixes don't come from a mixer. . . But using delays, reverbs, panning, etc, (as Ethan said) can place your intruments in a mix. . Mixing techniques are free, by the way, but they don't come without a price. . . Your budget is the time you're willing to put in listening to pro mixes, studying the placement of instuments- - their depth, their distance, their reflections, the lack of sound in a space, leaving room in a mix . . . recognizing different musical textures, pre-producing a song, choosing the sounds you want in your mix, hearing it in your head first. . . And then trying to create that mix for yourself. . . It's an art worth studying. .. When you make those mixes yourself, it will be a very rewarding experience.
EDIT: The sounds of a song are the sounds of the instruments and how those sounds reflect and combine in a space. .. There has to be a concious effort to remember that it isn't just combining levels and getting a balance in volume, but creating (or re-creating) a virtual space for the instruments to exist, and live, and breathe. . You CAN breathe life into a lifeless recording. It just takes practice and study, like anything else.
EDIT: The sounds of a song are the sounds of the instruments and how those sounds reflect and combine in a space. .. There has to be a concious effort to remember that it isn't just combining levels and getting a balance in volume, but creating (or re-creating) a virtual space for the instruments to exist, and live, and breathe. . You CAN breathe life into a lifeless recording. It just takes practice and study, like anything else.
Last edited:
I tend to agree with what has already been said. It is unlikely that for $500 you are going to find a mixer (or any one or collection of outboard boxes) that will magically add "warmth" or spacious to a mix. Warmth is at best subjective and generally a product of different types of distortion (typically favoring, extenuating even ordered harmonics, very roughly speaking . . . & while, particularly with a cassette recording process & cassette mixdown, a stand alone aural exciter (or running a digital mix through a final tape pass) could marginally improve a subjective impression of warmth it seldom succeeds in effectively mimicking the analog ambient 'grail' for which one was searching . . . so typically 'warmth' on the cheap is a convoluted rabbit hole once entered difficult to exit and ultimately not cheap . . . which isn't to say picking up an old 2nd hand 'exciter' is a bad idea.)
Spacious mixes on the other hand start out, in analog realm, with space. If you are tracking one instrument at a time in small rooms (with parallel surfaces) you typically start with an unified cramped sense of sonic space. Correcting for this in post (even when tracks are stored digitally) is more difficult (not theoretically harder but typically more time consuming) in analog OTB vs digital ITB modes. And it is inevitable that each back to analog pass will cost you in worsened S/N. Sense of space is not purely timing. It also stems from how human sense of hearing responds to different frequencies emanating from similar distances (to other frequencies). How different frequencies respond to ambient obstruction (the stuff that creates 3D reverb), how all the different frequencies (fundamentals & overtones) of all the different voices interact with human hearing. Constructing a sense of space (from cramped originals) is not solely a function of panning, but also EQ, level & dynamics. Very roughly speaking, particularly with entry level gear, achieving a 'spacious' mix is easier if a rough mix is executed on the way to tape. This presents something of a paradox because editing is almost always more satisfactory with files that have the fewest artifacts imposed by the recording process. This poses another issue for cramped spaces because spacious mixes are more readily achieved in response to waves in 3D space, i.e. speakers vs. headphones.
It is possible that a slightly different inexpensive compact mixer might subtly improve some variables. I tend to be slightly happier with fader response and EQ on A&H compact desks then with Mackie, my gut reaction is that Mackie onyx pres are a toss up with similar vintage A&H (again for example) but it is unlikely on OPs budget that any mixer change is going to produce dramatic improvement . . . unless there is something significantly wrong with their current HrdWr.
What is likely to produce the most significant improvement cost/benefit per dollars spent, is to improve the mix/monitor environment. Depending on what monitors OP has, $500, in DIY, mode should, just, provide for significant improvement. Absorption, reflection, & diffusion, within a very specific space have to be addressed . . . and typically you are addressing one small location within the mixing environment. If you do not accurately hear what has been recorded no matter how vintage and/or pricey the gear mixes will seldom be satisfactory.
good luck
Spacious mixes on the other hand start out, in analog realm, with space. If you are tracking one instrument at a time in small rooms (with parallel surfaces) you typically start with an unified cramped sense of sonic space. Correcting for this in post (even when tracks are stored digitally) is more difficult (not theoretically harder but typically more time consuming) in analog OTB vs digital ITB modes. And it is inevitable that each back to analog pass will cost you in worsened S/N. Sense of space is not purely timing. It also stems from how human sense of hearing responds to different frequencies emanating from similar distances (to other frequencies). How different frequencies respond to ambient obstruction (the stuff that creates 3D reverb), how all the different frequencies (fundamentals & overtones) of all the different voices interact with human hearing. Constructing a sense of space (from cramped originals) is not solely a function of panning, but also EQ, level & dynamics. Very roughly speaking, particularly with entry level gear, achieving a 'spacious' mix is easier if a rough mix is executed on the way to tape. This presents something of a paradox because editing is almost always more satisfactory with files that have the fewest artifacts imposed by the recording process. This poses another issue for cramped spaces because spacious mixes are more readily achieved in response to waves in 3D space, i.e. speakers vs. headphones.
It is possible that a slightly different inexpensive compact mixer might subtly improve some variables. I tend to be slightly happier with fader response and EQ on A&H compact desks then with Mackie, my gut reaction is that Mackie onyx pres are a toss up with similar vintage A&H (again for example) but it is unlikely on OPs budget that any mixer change is going to produce dramatic improvement . . . unless there is something significantly wrong with their current HrdWr.
What is likely to produce the most significant improvement cost/benefit per dollars spent, is to improve the mix/monitor environment. Depending on what monitors OP has, $500, in DIY, mode should, just, provide for significant improvement. Absorption, reflection, & diffusion, within a very specific space have to be addressed . . . and typically you are addressing one small location within the mixing environment. If you do not accurately hear what has been recorded no matter how vintage and/or pricey the gear mixes will seldom be satisfactory.
good luck
LeeRosario
New member
Mulevaline,
Ethan touched on the subject directly. In this situation, there are other technical aspects that can help make a mix "jump" out more that if you really got deep into, would cost a bit of money. I would save the money for a good preamp and I personally would work with what you have. Truthfully speaking, there is whole assortment of things that are attributed more on the engineer's end than with the gear itself. The only thing I'd be worried about is the actually analog to digital to analog conversion.
You wouldn't think it, but there are quite a few popular pop mixes out there that where all mixed "inside the box" that sound plenty good to the human ear.
Mulevaline
New member
Thanks so much, everyone....Lots of good information and ideas to think about!
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
I agree with all of the above. Changing your mixer won't automatically create warmth.
That said, watch fleabay for a second hand Allen and Heath Mixwizard. It has warmer (and less brittle) mic pre amps than the Mackie and (if you ever use it) the channel EQ is also smoother and more musical.
That said, watch fleabay for a second hand Allen and Heath Mixwizard. It has warmer (and less brittle) mic pre amps than the Mackie and (if you ever use it) the channel EQ is also smoother and more musical.