interface and mixing board?

Ok well then I'll stick with what I have. I wasn't sure if the sound would be different/better coming from the hardware as opposed to the software. Every studio I've ever been in had a huge mixing board...maybe it's just for the wow factor. lol Now if I'm not getting the full spectrum of my voice, what could help improve that? My vocals are on the warm, soft side if that makese sense. I really have to work the eq to get that airy sparkle back that I like and have successfully captured in pro studios. Not that my setup is any comparison to that stuff, but I want to continually make strides in the right direction. I thought the mixer would help.

gecko zzed said:
Yep . . . that's fine.

But it's not the only way.

There are two disadvantages of a mixer in the path:

1 You introduce another component, and therefore another source of noise; and
2 You can't undo what you've done if you decide afterwards that you don't like it.

With a computer-based system the mixer is unnecessary, unless you work best with the physicality of actual knobs and faders, or there is really something special about the gear you have that makes it overwhelmingly desirable over an in-the-box system.

In my mind (and in reality), I would plug my mike into the interface, interface into computer, and record. I would then listen to what I had recorded, then make adjustments as needed. The advantage is that you can change your mind, and try something different if you don't like what you hear.
Click to expand...
 
As previously noted, I use a mixer--in my set up, my mixer can (in theory) send 32 individual tracks to the DAW on my computer. This has been useful a few times recording live events but I've never come close to that track count in my home studio. One or two at a time is far more common.

Beyond that, even though the mixer has a full complement of effects, EQ, etc., guess what? I record everything dry with the EQ flat and add all that other stuff later. There's nothing worse than painting yourself into a corner with unchangeable EQ or effects during the tracking phase. As previously noted, the only processing I add is a limiter on each channel "just in case" but I make darn sure that my gain structure is such that it's a rare event I ever hit that limiter.

Mixers at the low end of the market really don't add anything...except, unfortunately, noise. Unless you have a specific need, you're better off putting your money into a superior interface and monitors.
 
Dionna Blue said:
maybe it's just for the wow factor.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is in fact for the wow factor.

But most of the time it's because it is high quality gear that makes it worthwhile including.

If you want the sparkle in your voice, then it's likely that the best way is to record it dry . . . then play with various effects to see which works best.
 
Monitors and definitely at the top of my list. I'm not having any problems (I don't think) with the Alesis interface, especially since I only use the gain on the Art preamp which makes no noise.

I've never seen a studio record 1 track, the fewest I've seen is 2 and even then the chorus and ad libs are usually more. For different songs, it does change of course. If I was singing something with light instrumentation, like Jazz with a 3-piece band or just a piano, I wouldn't use that many tracks. For this particular song, it just sounded hollow without the buildup.

Bobbsy said:
As previously noted, I use a mixer--in my set up, my mixer can (in theory) send 32 individual tracks to the DAW on my computer. This has been useful a few times recording live events but I've never come close to that track count in my home studio. One or two at a time is far more common.

Beyond that, even though the mixer has a full complement of effects, EQ, etc., guess what? I record everything dry with the EQ flat and add all that other stuff later. There's nothing worse than painting yourself into a corner with unchangeable EQ or effects during the tracking phase. As previously noted, the only processing I add is a limiter on each channel "just in case" but I make darn sure that my gain structure is such that it's a rare event I ever hit that limiter.

Mixers at the low end of the market really don't add anything...except, unfortunately, noise. Unless you have a specific need, you're better off putting your money into a superior interface and monitors.
Click to expand...
 
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the number of tracks I record at one time...by the time I get to mixing I'll have lots of different ones on the go.
 
Someone advised me to see what my interface was doing to my monitors so I plugged them directly into my laptop and wow! They're like completely different monitors. Interface shopping tomorrow! Thanks whoever that was. lol I'll find that thread tomorrow to show proper appreciation.
 
I think the point that's missing is mixing "out of the box" it's fine to use whatever when you are recording in the first place but for those of us that are used to working in live sound or with an analogue mixer the experience can't be replaced by software. When working with the recorded track I prefer to be hands on, Ive been drooling over the Presonus 16/4/2 for that very reason...
 
That's interesting.

I've used analogue mixers for decades--and still do a lot of live work--but I'm the opposite to you. I like having a mixer for setting up and tracking (I have everything set to post fade direct outs). I'll even use the mixer as a control surface to roughly set up the automation on my DAW. However, at that point I move "in the box" and finalise the mix with the precision that only software can give me...often tweaking syllable by syllable or note by note.

I'm generally happy with my mixing in a live situation...but find that the ability to hear things over and over makes me dis-satisfied with my "on the fly" results.

But that's what makes recording and mixing interesting--the infinite number of different ways to achieve what you want.
 
Good points Bobbsy - I think what appeals about the Presonus is you could work in either way, and it acts to a certain degree as a controller. I havn't made the jump yet, but I can't come up with a good reason not to...
 
Bobbsy said:
That's interesting.

I've used analogue mixers for decades--and still do a lot of live work--but I'm the opposite to you. I like having a mixer for setting up and tracking (I have everything set to post fade direct outs). I'll even use the mixer as a control surface to roughly set up the automation on my DAW. However, at that point I move "in the box" and finalise the mix with the precision that only software can give me...often tweaking syllable by syllable or note by note.
Click to expand...

I was so used to having a mixer, that even when I got my firepod, I still had the direct outs going to the firepod. And then I noticed that everything was going in flat anyway . . . so I ditched the mixer and leave all that stuff to in the box. I use envelopes for automation, and I like the precision of ITB.
 
At the risk of boring people (because I've posted this before) I went the other direction--a digital mixer with ADAT expansion cards so the mixer IS my A to D, fed into (and out of) the DAW via a firewire converter. I'm already wondering what to do when Firewire disappears...it might be an Audinate Dante card, feeding straight into the DAW via CAT5.

As I said, it's fascinating how many different ways there are to achieve the same goals!
 
For me the most important reason to have a big analog mixer is for larger sessions with lots of people tracking live. There is simply no other way to get multiple zero latency monitor mixes. But I doubt that's a common practice by people on this forum.
 
If you guys were to suggest a mixer to work with and using it basically as my interface and running it through to pro tools...What would it be? For the sake of price range we'll say keep it around $1k and below.
 
Having a mixer is mostly determined by the types of sessions you'll be doing and to a large extent your work flow. Do you intend to record a large number of open mics all at once? If so what would you think is the number of mics(tracks) you'll be needing?Will you be using the computer as a recorder at this point? Will you have enough interface to bring this many tracks into your computer/recorder?

I replaced tape with a stand-alone digital recorder. An Alesis HD24.But I also have PT9 and my interface is on 003. I also kept my board, a Ghost 32. I still have a lot of outboard besides because I do a lot of different types of sessions. Some people want to do demos and everybody plays at once. I have three rooms I can use for this including a drum booth so I can do 24 at once , mix it down analog and hand em a quality capture of their demo session. If they want to edit then we dump it into PT and have a good time. I like the feel of sliders and I like automation and the 003 gives me 48 tracks of that in PT9. But I can only record 16 tracks into PT at a time. I could squeeze 18 if I had something I could use SPDIF with. But I can do 8 analog as well as 8 digital at once. This is generally how I will do a full length record, though I have had good luck tracking some to the Alesis and dumping it into PT. This usually happens when its a songwriter and we're experimenting. When the arrangements get solid it goes to PT which has a much easier time at editing.

So choosing a mixer is relative to what your needs are going to be. I could get by without the extra 8 channels but its paid for and it sounds good so why bother. I could get by with my outboard pres and the pres in the 003 for that matter and not have a board. But I've had one for so long I dont know what I'd do with the extra space.
 
I gotcha, after doing a bit more research I found it would kind of be arbitrary to do. Because ideally I would like to have a total of 16 xlr inputs, so I would have enough inputs if anyone ever wanted to do live demos, wanted more mics on the drums, etc. ( just have a tascam1800 at home) so it would be probably be best to invest the money into having 2 quality interfaces and chaining them together.
 
Hi guys, newbie here just reading through older threads trying to understand recording and educate myself.

Could be wrong but I thought the advantage of a 'decent' mixer with say Firewire or USB 2.0 would be the ability to monitor a live mix while at the same time sending flat non-EQ'd multichannel signal to a DAT for recording and mixing later. Is that correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top