Digital Mixer (looking to purchase)

  • Thread starter Thread starter gregg.mckiernan
  • Start date Start date
G

gregg.mckiernan

New member
Hey guys,

So I am in the market for a digital mixer, though what I hope to accomplish with it is specific and I'm not sure it even exists. I am in the humble stages of putting together a digital recording station. When I say digital I am not saying I am hoping to create electronic music, I will be recording acoustic and electric guitars, as well as analog drum microphoning. What I am looking for capability wise is to have a digital mixer with full interface functionality. Currently I use a ZOOM interface with 8 track capability, however I must use a mixer via Cubase software because the interface simply has gain. Steer me in the right direction if I am in a fantasy right now, but is there a digital mixing set up where the EQ and levels can all be controlled manually on hardware but affect (in real time via USB or FireWire) the track on my laptop?

I appreciate any insight into this,

P.s I was looking at the Behringer Xenyx X2442USB, however after looking into it I realized that the USB capability would only interface a stereo output, and not 8 seperate tracks

Gregg
 
Are you looking for a combination outboard mixer and control surface for Cubase? If so, the Tascam DM-3200 or DM-4800 are very nice and will fit your bill nicely. If you're looking for a digital mixer with plenty of interface, but don't need the software control surface, the Presonus StudioLive series is perfect for that.

G.
 
The Zoom R16 should suit your needs.
I've been advising folks for about 9 months, to buy them.
Finally getting one myself.
The hardware you are looking for specifically, does exist, by the way but why limit yourself to just a control surface.
I use the Korg D3200 which can also serve as a control surface and of course, has full mixer capability within its own software.
 
Is there anything wrong with using the mixer in Cubase?? So many people feel they need to mix with all the knobs and buttons at their fingertips, yet don't realize the power of the software mixer that they are neglecting.
 
Is there anything wrong with using the mixer in Cubase?? So many people feel they need to mix with all the knobs and buttons at their fingertips, yet don't realize the power of the software mixer that they are neglecting.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
 
Chili said:
Is there anything wrong with using the mixer in Cubase?? So many people feel they need to mix with all the knobs and buttons at their fingertips, yet don't realize the power of the software mixer that they are neglecting.
Click to expand...
I just so happen to be associated with a small studio that uses the Presonus StudioLive and uses Nuendo as the software. I assume the mixer in Nuendo is the same thing, if not more, as the one in Cubase.

Now, this is just one studio and one set of preferences, but I gotta say that none of us hardly ever uses the Cubendo mixer for much of anything other than a display for the producer's monitor. There's just very little need for it other than that, honestly.

With all level control handled through a combination of timeline editing and level automation, and all other channel routing, plug control, etc, are available from the timeline screen also, there's really no need to head over to the mixer window to do anything, And since the mixer takes up so much screen real estate that could be used for the timeline window, the engineer's monitor is usually dedicated to the timeline, and the mixer is pushed over to the producer's monitor just so he can see what's happening (if he even wants or needs to.)

In short, control surfaces are great; I wouldn't mind having one myself (I still want a DM-4800 for both digital mixing and DAW control), but if you don't have one, a software mixer is kind of superfluous to the timeline editing you're already using.

gecko zzed said:
Sixteen channels via firewire, and a versatile mixer for studio or live
Click to expand...
And that's just input. You also get 18 channels (two extra for monitors) of simultaneous output via that firewire. Which is great for using the mixer as outboard mixing and routing for the DAW software; you can send up to 16 channels of DAW out to the mixer, mix it via the faders on the mixer, use the fat channel processing for each one, and route through outboard gear, just to send them back into the DAW for simulatneous recording. A very powerful capability to have without having to spend a crapload of extra money on 16 channels of DAC.

YMMV, IME, DNR, DOT, EPA, ETC.

G.
 
Mixer is handy for doing a quick run through.
Give you a rough idea when you want to bring things in and out but I agree, most of the work gets done with the mouse and the results are more accurate.
Mind you, I haven't spent ten years glued to a mixing console.
Zoom R16.
 
Hey guys,

This discussion has really given me a broader idea of what kind of capabilities different hardware has. I currently own an R16 and love the 8 channel interface capability, but was looking for much greater variety in interface controls. The Tascam DM-3200 and DM-4800 are ideally what I would be in the market for, but my budget can't accommodate either purchase in the near future. For now the R16 will do and I will get the cubase mixer doing a little more for my tracks.

Say I was to compare a DM-3200 and a Presonus StudioLive16, how would they stand up beside one another in regards to home studio (if you could call my basement that) recording. I would like the controller surface to be active in Cubase for post processing and once again, budget is an important factor.

Thanks in advance,

Gregg
 
gregg.mckiernan said:
Say I was to compare a DM-3200 and a Presonus StudioLive16, how would they stand up beside one another in regards to home studio (if you could call my basement that) recording. I would like the controller surface to be active in Cubase for post processing and once again, budget is an important factor.
Click to expand...
I have more hours of hands-on experience with the PreSonus than the Tascam, so I can't give you a complete knob-by-knob compare and contrast, but basically they are in a similar class of device, with the exception that the Tascam also works as a control surface for the software itself, whereas the Presonus does not.. Hence the extra $1000.

The PreSonus has a debatable advantage over the Tascam as far as the digital mixer section, IMHO, however, and that's in the design and layout of the "fat channel". That term referrs to the middle of the board, which gives you one big "fat" section for detailed control settings of each channel selectively. For example, you might "select" input channel 1, in which case it shows you and gives you control over all the EQ, aux send settings, etc. for channel 1. Then select another channel, say channel 5, and it now givs you all the setting for that channel, etc. This allows you to have complete control over each input channel without having to duplicate a hundred dials and buttons 16 times, one for each channel.

This is a common feature among digital mixers of that type, but how they are implemented differs from brand to brand. Two thinks I like about the PreSonus is (1) that it does not depend upon a little 3" LCDscreen for the status display; it's instead spread out across the board in backlit buttons and LED metering duisplays. Much easier to read that a little screen, IMHO. And (2) is that this display also doubles as a VU metering bridge should you want to use it as such, whereas the Tascam requires you to spend a few hundred extra bucks for the meter bridge separately.

So The Tascam has the advantage of being a control surface whereas the Presonus does not, but you're paying an extra grand for that capability, and have to pay extra for the meter bridge.

Both have preamp/input sections that sound pretty good. No gold channels there, but no slackers either. But I really could not say which one I prefer because I've never had a situation where I could really compare them fairly.

And finally, I'm not sure offhand of the Tascam's digital I/O capacity. I mentioned one nice feature of the Presonus is the simultaneous 16 in/18 out capability via the built-in firewire. Maybe the Tascam can match that, maybe not, I honestly just don't know offhand. It would be somthing to check into when comparing the two.

G.
 
I have a 2seemy now which allows the Korg D3200 to hook up to a VGA screen but in all honesty, nothing handles editing like a DAW that you know just the same as, nothing records like a recorder.
 
gecko zzed said:
I echo the thoughts about the sentiments about the Presonus StudioLive. Sixteen channels via firewire, and a versatile mixer for studio or live
Click to expand...
The Presonus StudioLive also comes with 24 channels and can be piggybacked up to 48. You need a laptop or computer(PC or MAC) via firewire to record, it has it's own proprietary software but is compatable with other software like Cubase, Sonar, Logic etc.
The Tascam Neo is good for smaller setups. It has 24 channels but with only 8 inputs. It's ideal for the DIY musicians and small bands. There's no need for a computer or laptops but you can export tracks and mixes if you'd like. Now under $600.

The Presonus and DM 3200 are similar and have more functionality for live sound(submixing and aux channels for monitors) but you but you pay for it.
 
NYMorningstar said:
The Presonus and DM 3200 are similar and have more functionality for live sound(submixing and aux channels for monitors) but you but you pay for it.
Click to expand...
Good point about the aux channels. They are a great feature, even in the studio. With our Presonus, which has 6 different aux sends, we can set up up to 6 different headphone mixes if we need to. We run them through a 6-channel ART headphone distribution amp and then out to the CR, live room, and iso booth, as needed.

And frankly, for $2k, I think the 16-channel StudioLive is a bargain. Compare that against the $1200 or so you might pay for something like a 16-channel Makie Onyx or similar, and consider that you're adding full simultaneous 16 in and 18 out digital, 16 channels of full digital reverb/delay, full metering, and a board surface design that's made to both make sense and be entirely visible both in the studio and in a dark live venue (lots of illuminated buttons in the live gear style), and $2k is really a deal IMHO.

The Tascam is a bit more post-production studio-oriented in it's design, and a bit more "conventional" in it's pricing structure, but it's hard to beat he combination of medium-sized digital mixer and software control surface in one (including transport control and automated faders). A at thousand bucks more than the StudioLive, (sans meter bridge), that control surface functionality is not exactly a bargain, but it's not unreasonable in comparison to the rest of the market, either. A whole lot of functionality for $3k. (It doesn't hurt that I've been a Tascam fan since the Carter era, either ;))

G.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top