Looking to step up and buy a mixer

  • Thread starter Thread starter jiznak2000
  • Start date Start date
J

jiznak2000

New member
Ola recording enthusiasts,

Use background (not sure if needed): I like to record a lot of acoustic and electric guitar and vox in my home studio.

My current set up: Windows 7 machine 8 gigs ram, CPU i5 320GHz, 64 bit. Running FL Studio 11 Producer Edition with an Mbox2. I have a pair of M-Audio Studiophile AV40's connected to the outs of the Mbox's Mono out's (right and left).

It works okay, but to be honest I want to step up and buy some better monitors because I don't like the low end of these M-Audios. I'm prepared to spend $500 or more for better monitors. So this is a two part question..

What monitors would you recommend and why (I realize this is completely subjective)?

What mixer (or do I "need" a new mixer as well?) would you recommend I use for my interface and these nice new monitors?

Thanks in advance,

Jack
 
Unless there's something you haven't told us, a mixer would likely be a bad investment for you. Some boring old git wrote https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/newbies/mixers-home-recording-338083/ sticky about the vexed question of mixers in a home studio which outlines the pros and cons. However, chances are you won't get any improvement over you MBox and may find an mixer in your price range worse and more limiting in routing options. If you do want to spend money on the interface, have a look at the Focusrite range or, if you do well in the lottery, maybe RME or MOTU.

Monitors are 100% subjective. I'd suggest you might look at the Tannoy Reveal 601a which should fit your budget--but that's just my taste. Or, watch for a second hand deal on some Genelecs and get a set of monitors you can use forever!
 
I also dislike those M-Audio monitors. Same problem with the low end. My recommendation (I've been sounding like a broken record these last few weeks, sorry to everyone who's been reading the thread I've been replying to) are the JBL LSR305's. I like them better than the reveals, rokits, hs5's, adams, and even the neumann 5" monitors. The only ones that I like more are the Dynaudio BM5A's, but those are over your (and my) price range.

As far as interfaces go, bobbsy's right about a mixer being a bad idea. Stick with a good interface like the Focusrite interfaces. 2 2-channel interfaces that I'd recommend from them are the Scarlett 2i2 (cheap option) which runs about $150 has good conversion and clean pres without being harsh (should you ever need to record something) or the Focusrite Forte (expensive option), which I believe has higher end pres but WAAAYYY better conversion. It's about $500, but you're definitely paying for the conversion on that thing, it's REALLY good. In a shootout between the Apogee Duet (which is $600) and the Forte, the Forte had better conversion and better pres. I heard one recently and noticed a HUGE difference in conversion quality from my mbox 3 I had lying around. So the Scarlett is going to be a step up from the mbox 2, but the Forte is going to be a HUGE step up from it.
 
It really depends on what you want to do. An analog mixer can be an excellent addition to your rig. Its actually sort of funny for me to hear people say you don't need a mixer. I think its just getting harder for people to imagine life outside the box and that's unfortunate. The real recording world is not quite that PC-centric. The amateur home recording world certainly is for the most part, but you may be one of the few that can break away from that scene and try something different.

There are too many great mixers out there to list. But an analog mixer is the way to go. They're simple circuits and its not that hard to make a good one. I do agree that digital mixers are generally a bad idea, however. I don't know of any $150.00 to $200.00 interfaces out there that are going to cut it either if you're serious about recording. Yes, you will blend in with everyone else's crappy sound, but is that all you want to do? The prices of audio interfaces have come down, but so has the sound. Today's state of the art is inferior to yesterday's, but people have become acclimated to it.

You're better off buying a used 10-year-old interface and a 20 to 30-year-old analog mixer. Knobs and faders are intuitive and allow you to treat the mixer more like a musical instrument. Believe me, the sooner you learn how to use a mixer that way, the sooner you'll pull away from the rest of the pack. This is still how the best recordings are made. More home recordists seem to be aiming lower these days. IMO good enough is not really good enough, unless its just some casual hobby like beer can collecting or something.
 
Beck said:
It really depends on what you want to do. An analog mixer can be an excellent addition to your rig. Its actually sort of funny for me to hear people say you don't need a mixer. I think its just getting harder for people to imagine life outside the box and that's unfortunate. The real recording world is not quite that PC-centric. The amateur home recording world certainly is for the most part, but you may be one of the few that can break away from that scene and try something different.

There are too many great mixers out there to list. But an analog mixer is the way to go. They're simple circuits and its not that hard to make a good one. I do agree that digital mixers are generally a bad idea, however. I don't know of any $150.00 to $200.00 interfaces out there that are going to cut it either if you're serious about recording. Yes, you will blend in with everyone else's crappy sound, but is that all you want to do? The prices of audio interfaces have come down, but so has the sound. Today's state of the art is inferior to yesterday's, but people have become acclimated to it.

You're better off buying a used 10-year-old interface and a 20 to 30-year-old analog mixer. Knobs and faders are intuitive and allow you to treat the mixer more like a musical instrument. Believe me, the sooner you learn how to use a mixer that way, the sooner you'll pull away from the rest of the pack. This is still how the best recordings are made. More home recordists seem to be aiming lower these days. IMO good enough is not really good enough, unless its just some casual hobby like beer can collecting or something.
Click to expand...

Ok, so your advice to someone who has $500 budget for monitors, is to buy a 20-30 year old mixer and a 10 year old interface to improve on quality? Really?

Your 'real recording world' is not necessarily the end all. In fact I find it a bit prehistoric in the way most is recorded in the now. This is not 'still how the best recordings are made'. In fact, your insinuation that home recordists are aiming for lower quality is just ridiculous IMO. The quality of sound from digital interfaces has improved dramatically in the last ten years. Guess what sound quality hasn't improved in the last ten; 20 to 30 year old analog gear. Not to mention the cost in going for that type of setup...

Don't get me wrong, I love the sound of vintage analog gear. I would surely and probably will add tape to my studio at some point, but to say that an analog mixer is the way to go, leaves out the fact that it costs a buttload to obtain something worthy. If you find something cheap, it will likely cost an arm and a leg to get it working as desired. All for a guy who has $500 for monitors?

You do have a point with the $150 - $200 interfaces. I have found quite a considerable quality increase once tripling that cost. Still, one has to start somewhere. When it comes to being able to afford the ability to create, then the fact that it is inexpensive to make that possible for an individual is what I feel is most important. I still have those who do not have the desire/time/money to invest in their own gear that pay me to record/mix their projects. No problem for me to suggest entry level gear to someone who wants to start recording themselves. I surely would not say that your recordings are going to suck unless you dump a bunch of cash into old school gear...

I appreciate your love for the analog gear, and I envy the fact that you have great experience with and have much experience to share with it. But this is not the place to make a judgment in directing someone to spend a bunch of money for nothing. Again, 'In My Opinion'.
 
Presonus Eris E8s are on sale for $200 each at Sweetwater this week. Yamaha HS5s are also $200 each.
You don't mention if your room has any acoustic treatment, but you might consider using the $100 left over for that - you can build a couple of bass traps for that amount.
 
jimmys69 said:
Ok, so your advice to someone who has $500 budget for monitors, is to buy a 20-30 year old mixer and a 10 year old interface to improve on quality? Really?

Your 'real recording world' is not necessarily the end all. In fact I find it a bit prehistoric in the way most is recorded in the now. This is not 'still how the best recordings are made'. In fact, your insinuation that home recordists are aiming for lower quality is just ridiculous IMO. The quality of sound from digital interfaces has improved dramatically in the last ten years. Guess what sound quality hasn't improved in the last ten; 20 to 30 year old analog gear. Not to mention the cost in going for that type of setup...

Don't get me wrong, I love the sound of vintage analog gear. I would surely and probably will add tape to my studio at some point, but to say that an analog mixer is the way to go, leaves out the fact that it costs a buttload to obtain something worthy. If you find something cheap, it will likely cost an arm and a leg to get it working as desired. All for a guy who has $500 for monitors?

You do have a point with the $150 - $200 interfaces. I have found quite a considerable quality increase once tripling that cost. Still, one has to start somewhere. When it comes to being able to afford the ability to create, then the fact that it is inexpensive to make that possible for an individual is what I feel is most important. I still have those who do not have the desire/time/money to invest in their own gear that pay me to record/mix their projects. No problem for me to suggest entry level gear to someone who wants to start recording themselves. I surely would not say that your recordings are going to suck unless you dump a bunch of cash into old school gear...

.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by, "This is not the place to make a judgment in directing someone to spend a bunch of money for nothing. Again, 'In My Opinion"

I'm sharing my experience to help steer people away from the status quo and to excellence. When the site prohibits members from doing so I'll be gone.

What I've seen happening lately is a steady decline in quality and skill. It's become much worse in the last few years, to the point where many people that appeared to have some grasp a few years ago are so sucked in (through marketing) to a PC-centric ITB view its getting harder for them to imagine anything else.

jimmys69 said:
Ok, so your advice to someone who has $500 budget for monitors, is to buy a 20-30 year old mixer and a 10 year old interface to improve on quality? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely... because I am not part of this crazy train of people following the lead of marketers into their model of constant transition and planned obsolescence... and ever cheaper toy-like interfaces. There are many 10-year-old audio interfaces that are far superior to brand new cheaply made nterfaces. And you can buy the pre-owned interfaces now on the used market for about the same price or less than a new made in China piece of crap!

An example: The 10+ year-old Echo Layla 24/96 makes the Mbox2 look like a toy. Better build, better sound, better quality in every way and you can get a used one for a couple hundred bucks. Digital audio standards already peaked and are now in decline. I refuse to be a part of this charade... leading people to this crap way of recording because manufacturers have something new they need to sell.

As for analog mixers, once you need more than two inputs at a time that you see on so many interfaces today, of course you need a mixer. And that's one reason I started out by saying it depends on what a person wants to do.

But anyway, the OP said he had a $500.00 budget for monitors. He asked about mixers as a separate issue.

And it is the perception on boards like this that is not the end all of recording, even though about 90% of people using these boards don't know that.

If you're freaking out because someone breaks the group-think and presents a different point of view and insight into what else is going on outside of these amateur forums... that's not good. You should be welcoming diverse opinions and let people decide for themselves.
 
Sorry.

There's room for all sorts for tastes and methods of working. However to actively suggest somebody "needs" a 20 year old mixer to get to more than two inputs is highly irresponsible advice. Unless your hobby is electronic maintenance rather than recording, steer clear of old, cheap mixers. They'll be full of leaking electrolytics and they come from an era when signal to noise ratios were crap and channel EQ tended to be set at frequencies totally useless for real world music. I speak as one who was using some top flight analogue mixers 20 years ago. Some I loved, some I hated...but unless my hobby was electronic maintenance rather than recording please don't send me back there.
 
I was just biting my tongue until someone else chimed in.

Someone obviously has a problem with technology. I wish he would share the knowledge he obviously has, without condemning what the norm is on this forum. Interfaces and digital recording is what is affordable now. And for the most part, even the inexpensive stuff is still better than 10 year old gear specs as far as interfacing with a computer. That is not to say that vintage gear is not worthy by any means. That was not the topic of this thread.
 
Yup.

I see a couple of issues here.

First, even the best quality used gear only tends to be replaced by the original owner when it develops reliability issues. For example, the local theatre where I used to mix live sometimes sold a Midas Heritage 3000 that looked mint--but had developed some pretty nasty intermittent faults that were not economic to fix.

Second, as much as I love live mixing of live sound, for something I'm going to hear a thousand times over the rest of my lifetime, I want the fine control I can get using various forms of automation rather than chancing my reaction times for controlling 16 or 24 or 48 faders at once. I started working the old way before some of you were born...had a great time....but don't want to go back there again. (And some of the mixes I thought were great in 1973 sound pretty shite to me now.)
 
I'm like having a big ol' analog mixer as a front end to a recording setup, but you don't really need one for what you're doing. Spend your money on better monitors.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I'm like having a big ol' analog mixer as a front end to a recording setup, but you don't really need one for what you're doing. Spend your money on better monitors.
Click to expand...

...and/or acoustic treatment. Either will make a huge difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top