what mixer for 16 track reel to reel

T

Tim95

New member
Hi everyone, I'm a new member here, however I have read many threads from here in the past.
Although I was born in the digital age (I was born in 95) I have always preferred analogue formats, and have always stayed away from digital as much as possible! I listen to vinyl and tape every day!
I am a singer-songwriter and musician, and I have recorded using 4track cassette recorders in the past and have got good results. However my partner and I are having a home studio built as an extention to our property, and I want to have a fully analogue set-up.

I bought a fostex B16 from someone locally, but I don't have a mixer to plug it up too!
I was wondering what sort of mixer I need, and what are some good models to look out for. I am in the UK.
I am actually completely blind, so I want something that has nobs, buttons and sliders, that doesn't have digital menues etc.
Does it need 16 buses? Or just 16 direct outs? I must confess I get very confused with some of the mixer terminology! :)
Thanks so much everyone, Tim
 
There are two ways you can go, inline or split. A split console would mean having at least 32 channels, 16 for inputs to the recorder and 16 for outputs from the recorder. On top of that you would probably want more channels for effects as using auxiliary inputs is rather limited. A forty channel board would do the trick, but that's getting pretty large. An inline console has channels that can handle the recorder sends and returns, letting you monitor playback and live sources at the same time. In fact, each channel can do both at once to facilitate punching in. There's going to be a "flip" button on each channel that determines whether the channel is operating primarily in recording or playback mode. A 24-channel inline mixer would have all you need for a 16-track recorder plus some additional channels for reverb returns etc.
 
Its a shame you're not on the west coast of the US.

I uee an Msr 16 with a tascam m520 board.
It's perfect for 16 track recording.

I have an extra console I'm selling. But I'm not wiiling to risk shipping to anywhere.
 
See if you can find a used Soundcraft Ghost 24 or 32 channel mixer. It's perfect for what you want to do. It is an 8 bus console, but it has direct outs on each channel, so you don't have to use the busses for recording.

I had one of these for almost 20 years, half of that time I was recording to tape and it worked well. It is designed for exactly what you are trying to do.
 
Depends on you budget and how much room you have, but an old Tascam M2524 is made just for this job, and you will get one for under $400. Anyway thats the type of console you need, direct outs, 8 bus, 24 channels in as you always need more then the recorder, and it's inline as well.

Alan.
 
Hi everyone, thank you all for your replies, it's all really helpful!
I don't think I will go down the route of having 40 channels or so, as then it gets just too big!
If I can help it, I don't really want to have to be plugging and unplugging the B16 all the time, I'd rather set it all up and leve it if possible? Are there some mixers which have direct outs on each channel, and tape ins on each channel, so that you could just flip the switches and mix your song down, rather than having to swap all the cables around each time?
Hope that makes sense.
 
Yes, the Soundcraft ghost is exactly what you are looking for.

Each channel has tape in, tape out, direct in and insert. (As well as mic and line in). There are switches to switch between channel out or bus out..

You plug everything in and just use switches to route everything. You never have to repatch.
 
The Tascam m520 is the same way. Nothing has to get unplugged. Also has a seperate 16 chan monitor section. :D

Sorry, just a big fan of these incredibly versatile boards. The others mentioned are great too.
:D
 
I use a Tascam M-2600 MkII, a 24 channel console very similar to the M2524 mentioned by witzendoz, two or three times a week for rehearsals and recording, and I use the same console for studio performances. I never have to re-patch anything. I don't mix recordings on the console anymore, but I could do that without re-patching as well. The console's inserts are connected to a patch bay, as is all the outboard gear, so I can patch any compressor to any channel on the console if I wanted, but since I keep the same sources in the same channels I leave the compressors connected to the same channels as well, all via the patch bay.

I use the eight remaining channels like this: two stereo reverb returns (one short, one long), stereo playback from the computer (where I mix recordings), mono delay return, talkback mic. There is a built-in talkback mic but since I'm using the aux sends in abnormal ways it doesn't get routed where I need it. Using a regular mic into channel 24 lets me send it to any output. Using channels for reverb returns also lets me route them as needed, plus it give me the option to apply channel eq or narrow the panning if I feel it's needed.

Note that there are 16-channel and 24-channel versions of the M-2600 MkII. The difference between the original M-2600 and the MkII is that the original has RCA connectors for the tape outs and ins while the MkII has 1/4" connectors. The one I use has the meter bridge, which might not help you so much, but since you have a partner (whom I assume has vision) she or he would benefit from that. Metering is really important but there are ways around it, mainly by calibrating your playback levels. You would simply turn up the gain on the mic input to the level that sounds right and go from there. Even for those with vision this is an effective and useful technique. Here's a link to a PDF: www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=65. (I just noticed a typographical error, being is spelled begin, as in being exceeded.) The PDF does contain graphics, but you'll likely need some sighted assistance anyway to get it all set up, so the graphics will help them.

One more thing. I have an acquaintance who is a blind sound engineer. Although he worked with tape for many years he has found ways to use a computer for recording, so I know it can be done. If you're interested I could put you in touch with him.
 
Thanks everyone for all your help! I will keep a look out for the desks mentioned! Just so I can completely understand, is it definitely necessary to have a 24 channel mixer rather than a 16? Couldn't I just use effects sends and returns that are on the desk in order to add the reverb etc? It's just that there's a studiomaster 16-8-2 mixer on ebay uk right now, which has been fully serviced, and I wasn't sure whether this may have tape ins and outs etc?
@Bouldersoundguy, thank you for all that useful info! In fact, my partner also happens to be blind too, so she wouldn't be able to help me with the meterbridge etc, but thanks for the info anyway! Also, thanks so much for mentioning your aquaintence who is also blind. I have used computers to record in the past, with screen readers etc, as some music software will work like this, but I just much prefer recording in the analogue way. :)
 
The advantage to returning effects on channels is it allows you to can route the return anywhere and you can eq, compress, etc... the effects return signal.

You can also do things like send a delay return to a reverb, or play with the panning. If you use the effects returns, you will only be able to send the effects to the busses or master.

That isn't to say that it can't be done on a 16 channel board, it's just limiting. It may lead you to want to replace the mixer in a couple years. If you get a 24 channel, you won't outgrow the board unless you get a recorder with more channels.
 
As some other posts have noted, the Soundcraft Ghost is exactly what you're describing. And it's a great console too. I had a Studiomaster 16•8•2 for a little bit too, just to mess with. The book on it online was that it was horrible in the highend but had a sweet lowend mojo, so i was curious to check it out. I thought some peoples reactions to it were a bit much. It's workable, but depending on the type of material it *could* be an obstacle. I recorded and mixed my bands last album on a Yamaha RM800 24 channel mixer, and I like it. I know it's a recording mixer, but it's really quiet, really transparent, and I feel like I can get it to do anything i need it to do. I can't remember from your initial post if you specified what kind of music you're doing or what your specific requirements are, but if you're wanting to record 16 tracks at once, the RM800 only has 8 XLR inputs which isn't a huge deal for me because I usually track drums with two mics.

But anyway, I got a Ghost 32 late last year and I really really love it. If you can afford it, I'd aim for that.

I record 1" 16 also by the way, but on a MS-16.
 
I should say, it IS possible to record 16 tracks at once with the RM800, but you have to use your group busses when doing so, and input is limited to TRS only on these additional 8 channels.
 
My friend who runs one of the two studios I work in started out with a Studiomaster (Diamond Pro 24-4-3?). To be honest I thought it sounded pretty grungy. At the very least it was unusually touchy about levels. Maybe there was a malfunction, but it's sounding like others have had the same experience.
 
Tim95,

Another mixer to consider (probably have to buy it from e-bay) is the Behringer Eurodesk 24/48/8/2 (can't think of the exact model number at the moment, but there were two release versions with different model numbers --- possibly MX1800 and MX-800). I have used two of these desks (one is still in daily use in a community studio).

The desk features "A" --24 x mic/line inputs with direct outputs, "B" -- a separate 24 inputs (with their own volume control knob and treble/bass control), 8 x subs selected from the "A" input section and a stereo master fader. There is the normal EQ, Aux facilities, etc.

There is a change over switch "Flip" which allows either the "A" or "B" inputs to be sent/controlled by the main channel faders, EQ, Aux, etc. The "B" section can also be sent to the master fader , monitors, etc. Thus allowing in mix-down mode for a total of 48 channels to be mixed to a stereo output.

This console comes with or without the meter bridge, but I would seriously only buy one that has the meter bridge. Also ensure that the separate 19" rack, mountable power supply is included in the sale price.

There was apparently a much later version released that has an integrated meter bridge, but I know nothing about this console apart from the fact that there is currently two of them on e-bay for about $US 400 - 500.

To connect a console to your 16-track recorder, the Behringer desk would be ideal.

Having said/recommended the above, I would also say that the Ghost is an excellent desk, but quite heavy in comparison to the Behringer. Many years ago, I did have a Ghost in one of my previous studios.

Good luck with your purchasing and studio set-up and be sure to let us know the final outcome.

David
 
Again, thank you all for your responses!
Sounds like the studiomaster may have not been great, anyhow, someone else has bought it now anyway! Im following an ebay search for the soundcraft ghost, so lets see what happens. There is a 32 channel ghost on ebay right now with another 12 channel mixer thrown in for £700 or so, but I really would rather wait for a 24 channel one, as I'm pretty sure I would just find a 32 too big and the extra channels wouldn't get used.
I kind of understand what you're saying about using the extra channels for fx, but I really have no idea how to go about doing that? And I'm not sure whether I would find I'd need to do it or not. How many effects can you plug into the ghost or Tascam 520 etc without using the extra channels to do it? Do both of these mixers have nobs on each channel in order to bring in your desired level of effect?

CSP, I have heard mixed things about Behringer; how would you say the sound and durability stacks up against the soundcraft ghost?
 
CSP said:
Tim95,
Another mixer to consider (probably have to buy it from e-bay) is the Behringer Eurodesk 24/48/8/2 (can't think of the exact model number at the moment, but there were two release versions with different model numbers --- possibly MX1800 and MX-800). I have used two of these desks (one is still in daily use in a community studio).
Click to expand...

The MX8000 and MX9000 have a meterbridge. I was tempted by one last year when upgrading for the 'Heresiarch' album. However, there are a number of stories of the power supplies going horrible, smoke coming out of the jack sockets etc. The impression I got was that they either worked really well or were horrific. It was also a bit bigger than I had space for. I went with an Allen and Heath GL2400 in the end, but a proper recording mixer and especially a meterbridge would have been nice.

To be honest I'm not sure if a meterbridge is useful for Tim anyway if he can't see, but the MX8000 or MX9000 are definitely options as a recording mixer.

Again, it would be nice to know how many tracks Tim is looking to record, at once and what he needs as front-end to the deck. If it's just to avoid unplugging and plugging in, a patchbay might work. If he needs to use the preamps and EQ, what I've always done is use two mixers, one to mix down with, and a smaller mixer in front to allow for submixing and EQ, and a patchbay for the routing. However, I can get away with that because I rarely record more than two tracks at a time.
 
If it's not too much of a price difference I would still recommend getting something with a meter bridge. One way or another the OP is going to need someone sighted to get things calibrated. Once that's done he can pretty much go by subjective volume. It might be nice to have a pink noise generator set up to help him calibrate his hearing since such perceptions can vary.

OP, you "can" use normal aux returns, but connecting effects to channels is far superior. Being able to eq or even compress your reverbs is a major advantage. Having full pan control of them is really useful. As someone mentioned it's nice to be able to put reverb on a delay return because it's weird for a voice to have reverb but the echoes of the voice to be dry. And you can do things like use the aux send on a delay return to deliberately feed it back to itself instead of using the repeats control on the delay box. Not only does this give you manual control over the delay repeats right on the console, you can simulate that compounding HF loss of tape delay with the channel eq.
 
From memory, there are either 6 or 8 aux sends, but only 4 stereo effects returns. So using the effects returns limits you to 4 effects units, without patching.

When returning a stereo effects unit to channels, each one will take two channels. So 4 effects is 8 channels.

Another reason to use the channels for returns is so you can route effects to headphone mixes. Using the returns, the only way to get effects to the headphonesame is to set the headphone mx to listen to the main output.
 
Thanks everyone. I can definitely see what you're saying about having the extra channels for fx, I may not use them at first, but maybe once I've got to grips with things I may do I guess.
I would imagine it would be very rare that I would record 16 tracks at once, as probably the majority of the time it will just be me, playing an instrument and vocals, and then doing overdubs afterwoods. I am in a couple of duos, so I would probably say that the maximum tracks I would record to at one time would be 8 at the most. However, although I have a pretty good technicle knowledge, I want to mainly focus on the music, so don't want to always be plugging and unplugging stuff, so the desks you've all mention sound great for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top