Interface and separate mixer, or an Alesis Multimix?

[Him]

Hi there

A question from an out-of-touch 'oldie' here, rather than a total 'newbie' as such...but this forum seems like a nice place to restart! Yes, I've read some of the newbie stickys! Many thanks in advance for your help...

I recently set out looking to get a USB 2 interface of some sort, at least 4-in-4-out, mainly for the possibility of recording a single classical guitar with 3 or 4 separate (phantom-powered) mics similtaneously, for mixing in the DAW. I will also sometimes use it for just a single steel string guitar, plus voice and other things too, but nothing immediately that will require more than 4/4. However, a bit of future-proofing would be a bonus.

I also see myself buying an 8-track (or maybe fewer) mixer at some point soon, for use in a live set-up, but also to pre-mix anything that exceeds the limit of 4/4 on very rare occasions.

Then I see that, for about the same money as buying (say) an Alesis IO4 and something like Behringer XENYX 1204 USB mixer together, I could buy the soon-to-be-released Alesis Multimix 8 USB 2.0 FX instead.

What would be the pros and cons (in theory) of the new Multimix versus two separate units, other than the 8/10 capability and built-in effects?

The lack of an XLR output seems an obvious con, when it's being used as a live mixer, but what others....?

 

[arcadeko]

I think live mixers and home recording mixers are two different animals. If you go with the Xenyx and the I04 your not going to be able to multi-track very well. Not sure how you would route 4 separate channels into 4 separate tracks. I only record right now so I don't have much need for a live mixer - when I do start playing live I will use the venues PA OR buy a cheap live mixer maybe even a Behringer

I wouldn't take my Alesis to a gig. It's a recording device not a live sound mixer.

 

[Him]

Thanks Arcadeko

It seems Alesis wants us to consider the new Mulitmix 8 USB 2.0 FX (and probably all the Multimix line) suitable for live use: "...the MultiMix 8 USB 2.0 FX delivers clean audio to your PA and recording systems.", says their website. But it looks like you don't think they really cut the mustard, live. Any particular reason? There are no sliders or XLR outputs - but maybe there other things too that I don't know about? If it doesn't really work well with live PA, then I'm going to have an even harder think about whether it's the best choice on the recording side...

Regarding your query about routing 4 separate channels into 4 separate tracks: if I've understood these USB machines correctly, then as long as they are genuine 'duplex' 4/4, 8/8, or whatever, then the DAW can just identify and receive each channel separately down the USB connection, and record each channel onto a separate track. Maybe I've misunderstood.

In any case, would you recommend the Multimix line, generally?

 

[bdenton]

Your best bet would be to deal with recording and live as the two different situations they are.

For recording, I would take a look at something like this:

TASCAM US-1800 USB 2.0 Audio/MIDI Interface: Shop Pro Audio & Other Musical Instruments | Musician's Friend

Note that I am just posting this as an example. It has good reviews, but I have not personally even seen one.

This would let you record up to eight mics to separate tracks in your DAW software.

Later, you can look into some equipment better suited to live use. Unfortunately, trying to kill two birds with one stone using inexpensive gear often doesn't alllow you to do either thing very well...

 

[mjbphotos]

Both the Xenyx and Alesis only have 2 channel USB - so that limits you to 2 discreet tracks recording at one time. The wording can be deceiving (in the Alesis's case, where it says 10 ouputs, but if you look further it says "digital-direct stereo connection".

 

[arcadeko]

Thanks Arcadeko

It seems Alesis wants us to consider the new Mulitmix 8 USB 2.0 FX (and probably all the Multimix line) suitable for live use: "...the MultiMix 8 USB 2.0 FX delivers clean audio to your PA and recording systems.", says their website. But it looks like you don't think they really cut the mustard, live. Any particular reason? There are no sliders or XLR outputs - but maybe there other things too that I don't know about? If it doesn't really work well with live PA, then I'm going to have an even harder think about whether it's the best choice on the recording side...

Regarding your query about routing 4 separate channels into 4 separate tracks: if I've understood these USB machines correctly, then as long as they are genuine 'duplex' 4/4, 8/8, or whatever, then the DAW can just identify and receive each channel separately down the USB connection, and record each channel onto a separate track. Maybe I've misunderstood.

In any case, would you recommend the Multimix line, generally?

It probably is suitable for live use but that's not what it was made for. I'm sure it would mix a live band perfectly well. But it is a recording device IMO - i'm mostly basing this in the multimix 8 and 16, i don;t even see the point of a 4x4.

The thing can record 4 tracks but what I am saying is that you would not want to use the Xynyx in that equation - if you were going to record 4 tracks with the alesis you would just use the alesis - trying to get 4 tracks from the Behringer would be difficult.

Your correct about the 4x4 duplex - the Behinger just doesn't fit into the equation (eg recording chain)

 

[arcadeko]

Both the Xenyx and Alesis only have 2 channel USB - so that limits you to 2 discreet tracks recording at one time. The wording can be deceiving (in the Alesis's case, where it says 10 ouputs, but if you look further it says "digital-direct stereo connection".

Negative MJB - the Alesis Multimix USB 2.0 is 4X4

USB
4 In, 4 Out (max)

The Xenyx IS only stereo out...

 

[kidkage]

Your best bet would be to deal with recording and live as the two different situations they are.

For recording, I would take a look at something like this:

TASCAM US-1800 USB 2.0 Audio/MIDI Interface: Shop Pro Audio & Other Musical Instruments | Musician's Friend

Note that I am just posting this as an example. It has good reviews, but I have not personally even seen one.

This would let you record up to eight mics to separate tracks in your DAW software.

I thought the tascam is 8 in 4 out?

 

[mjbphotos]

yes, correction - they need to update the spec pages on the Alesis site! Alesis Multimix 8 USB 2.0 FX: This enables you to send 10 channels (8 input channels plus the 2-Track input) individually to the computer, at up to 24-bit, 96 kHz resolution.
There seems to be an older model (available for $150) which is only stereo (2 channel) out, so make sure you get the new one which looks to be around $300.

 

[Him]

Disambiguation

Yes, the Multimix model history makes for easily-confused reading! I did put the new model "Alesis Multimix 8 USB 2.0 FX" in the original post, but I can see how it could easily be mistaken for the "Multimix 8 USB", "Multimix 8 USB FX" or the "Multimix 8 USB 2.0" - none of which has the 8/10 of the soon-to-be-released model. Thanks for the correction - I thought I'd misunderstood something!

Especially confusing, is why Alesis have added 'FX' to the title of the forthcoming model, when the previous model already had the on-board effects - it's not anything to do with the effects that form the main improvements!

Anyway... You all generally think that I should have a separate mixer for live use. If anyone has used one live and disagrees, let me know!

In that case, considering the needs stated in my original post (plus a bit of future-proofing) does the forthcoming Multimix 8 USB 2.0 FX look like a well-specified choice for the Recording use alone, assuming it does what it says? Maybe there is another option around the $300 or £250 mark? I don't have a rack.

 

[Bobbsy]

Hmmmm....interesting question.

First off, let's state right up front that's I've never tried a Multimix 2 FX for live use.

However, in terms of facilities and layout it looks an awful lot like some of the small mixers I HAVE tried at various times...things like the original Soundcraft notepad for example.

In any case, I do a lot of live mixing and the Alesis multimix would not be something I'd choose to use if I had any other options. My reasons for saying this are:

1. Faders (or the lack). Mixing with little knobs (double entendre intended) is not fun--you lose a valuable visual clue as to where your channel levels are set.

2. Aux channels. I can't envisage a live situation where the lack of pre and post aux channels wouldn't become a limiting factor very quickly.

3. EQ. For live work, effective channel EQ is an essential (unlike recording where I believe in recording flat and tweaking in the box). Most small, cheap mixers aren't sufficient in this area.

On the flip side, with the facilities it has, it might make a decent recording mixer/interface--and, in live work could maybe find work as a sub mixer for drums, keyboards or whatever. But my choice would be to keep it in the studio or as a sub mixer for live...and get something with faders, more auxes and better EQ for live work.

Bob

 

[arcadeko]

Yes, the Multimix model history makes for easily-confused reading! I did put the new model "Alesis Multimix 8 USB 2.0 FX" in the original post, but I can see how it could easily be mistaken for the "Multimix 8 USB", "Multimix 8 USB FX" or the "Multimix 8 USB 2.0" - none of which has the 8/10 of the soon-to-be-released model.

Actually...

All the 2.0 models are full duplex 8X10 so the Alesis Multimix 8 USB 2.0 IS 8X10 as is the USB 2.0 FX - you can pick up a multimix 8 usb 2.0 for under $250

Hmmmm....interesting question.

First off, let's state right up front that's I've never tried a Multimix 2 FX for live use.

However, in terms of facilities and layout it looks an awful lot like some of the small mixers I HAVE tried at various times...things like the original Soundcraft notepad for example.

In any case, I do a lot of live mixing and the Alesis multimix would not be something I'd choose to use if I had any other options. My reasons for saying this are:

1. Faders (or the lack). Mixing with little knobs (double entendre intended) is not fun--you lose a valuable visual clue as to where your channel levels are set.

2. Aux channels. I can't envisage a live situation where the lack of pre and post aux channels wouldn't become a limiting factor very quickly.

3. EQ. For live work, effective channel EQ is an essential (unlike recording where I believe in recording flat and tweaking in the box). Most small, cheap mixers aren't sufficient in this area.

On the flip side, with the facilities it has, it might make a decent recording mixer/interface--and, in live work could maybe find work as a sub mixer for drums, keyboards or whatever. But my choice would be to keep it in the studio or as a sub mixer for live...and get something with faders, more auxes and better EQ for live work.

Bob

The multimix 8 and 16 do have faders, AUX sends and EQ
-- oops make that the 16 only has faders!- Thanks Bob

 

[JimmyS1969]

I thought the tascam is 8 in 4 out?

1800 is 16 in and 4 out. 8 preamped XLR ins, 2 preamped HiZ/line ins, 4 line ins, and spdif in.

 

[Bobbsy]

Actually...
The multimix 8 and 16 do have faders, AUX sends and EQ

I put the model number listed in the "disambiguation" post into Google and was sent to THIS PAGE. Doesn't look like faders to me! (But if it's yet another Alesis confusion, I stand corrected.)

However, on EQ and Auxes my point was that the basic EQ and only two Auxes on the shown mixer would NOT be adequate for any serious live work. I'd want a minimum of 4 auxes (preferably six or eight) and EQ with at least two swept mids to do any proper live mixing.

Bob

 

[arcadeko]

I put the model number listed in the "disambiguation" post into Google and was sent to THIS PAGE. Doesn't look like faders to me! (But if it's yet another Alesis confusion, I stand corrected.)

However, on EQ and Auxes my point was that the basic EQ and only two Auxes on the shown mixer would NOT be adequate for any serious live work. I'd want a minimum of 4 auxes (preferably six or eight) and EQ with at least two swept mids to do any proper live mixing.

Bob

Your right Bob - I guess they saved the Faders for the 16 which is the model I use MultiMix 16 USB 2.0 Integrated USB 2.0 audio interface and mixer I thought the 8 was a scaled down 16 but I forgot it was knobs not faders

I also agree that it's not ideal for a live mixer - I wouldn't use it live - but it's a great budget home multitracker

 

[Him]

However, on EQ and Auxes my point was that the basic EQ and only two Auxes on the shown mixer would NOT be adequate for any serious live work. I'd want a minimum of 4 auxes (preferably six or eight) and EQ with at least two swept mids to do any proper live mixing.

Bob

Channels 1 and 2 do have sweepable parametric mids, according to the Alesis product page, though I take on board the aux and fader issues.

How concerned are you all about the lack of XLR stereo outputs for live use? I don't imagine I'd need a big lead between mixer and PA, on the rare occasion that I might use it live.

 

[gcolbert]

There are a lot of people who froth at the mouth and cross their hearts when someone mentions Alesis equipment on this forum. I use an IO2 Express and a Multimix 8 USB and like them both. I use the Multimix as the basis for a simple home sound board. It feeds a small PA and a nice set of speakers. I use it as a house sound system when friends cime over to play and it is just fine as a mixer for this use. It takes backing tracke directly from my DAW quite nicely while playing. It handles the line out from the amps and has enough mike inputs for what we play. I do occasionally record off of it and it works just fine for simple live recording (Probably wouldn't cut it if I had to mike a full set of drums). I think this would work quite well for small gigs in local bars or for weddings etc. For the price it is a very capable piece of equipment.

I have gotten used to the 24 bit recording that I get with the IO2 Express. Lots of extra headroom. The plan here is to upgrade the Multimix to the USB 2.0 version in the near future. I think that you will be happy with just the Multimix 8 2.0 FCX. It sounds to me like it matches your needs rather well. The 10 inputs will be nice (although I tend to only record one track at a time and don't really even need a stereo out). Unless you think you will need to add drums to your mix I'd just go with the Multimix. It, by itself, should meet your needs.

 

[Him]

Thanks gcolbert and all previous contributors too!

I think I'm getting to some sort of conclusion here, which reads something like:

Unless there is another (non-rack mounted) combined mixer/usb interface with similar features to the new Multimix, at this price point, that hasn't yet been mentioned, or there is anything damming about the sound quality of the Multimix series... then...seeing that it is primarily for recording and only very occasionally for live use... I will probably take the Multimix for its high spec and versatility in a home set up and limited ability when used live. The future-proofing on the home/amateur groups/ensembles recording (which I may also use this for) seems to outweigh any other consideration, as far as number of channels is concerned. 24 bit, regardless of how many channels you're using, seems a decent punch too.

On balance, it does sound like it is some sort of viable live mixer in very simple set ups, which mine would probably be, though I think that there is enough in this as a recording unit to make me forgive myself is I did, eventually, buy a separate live mixer. I do wish they'd given it XLR outputs though: having the best connections seems fairly basic, regardless of internal spec, for anything being billed as (partly) a live mixer.

I guess there are many things that you only learn once you've actually got the unit, but this has helped.

Any fresh thoughts and information are still very welcome.

Graham

 

[arcadeko]

The USB 2.0 FX doesn't seem to be much different that the USB 2.0

 

[Him]

The USB 2.0 FX doesn't seem to be much different that the USB 2.0

No parametric, sweepable mids on older model.

Better S/N ratio on forthcoming one (doesn't say what, though).

36% lower power consumption: maybe it will run a bit cooler than the last one??? I did see reports that the old one runs very hot, but I have no experience of it...

...and less significantly, perhaps:

Wider knob spacing. Well I have got big fingers, but then they've been expensively trained to have superior motor-skills over years of guitar practice, so I'd like to think I'd have managed with the old ones!

Removeable end bits - totally useless! I bet no one ever takes them off.

I'm not sure this is an exhaustive list, but that's what I can gather from the Alesis pages.