Mixer:Pure Analog Path

  • Thread starter Thread starter AudioJunky
  • Start date Start date
A pure analog path is easy to accomplish for live. I recommend vintage gear though for this purpose for generally better build quality and QC. I put the Behringer models you mentioned in the toy-like category along with similar offerings by Alesis and Mackie. These are all made in China from the same template, but with different brand and model names. Look for older made in Japan Tascam boards like the M-208, M-216. These were designed with mucho headroom and are great for live use. The older made in USA Alesis and Mackie boards are leaps ahead of anything they're making now. They all sold out long time ago. And I mean literally sold out. They aren't even the same companies anymore.

Also look for the original Mackie CR1604 and the Alesis 1622. Avoid the cheap micro mixers that are all the rage these days. And USB? NO!!!

eBay is your friend. Better gear for pennies on the dollar.

EDIT: The Soundcraft 200b is a nice vintage mixer as well. I don't know how many channels you need, but one of my fav mixers with excellent specs is the Tascam M-106. Get two of them and stack them for 12 channels. They came out mid-80's and have better specs than more expensive boards, plus they have a turn table input for DJ work if you're into that.
 
Last edited:
Just want to comment my "snobbery" comment was not directed at any one person in particular, but was meant to be more general in an effort to highlight that, as far as I could tell, nobody was actually answering the OP's questions and was instead distracted by semantics or brand opinions.

So...yeah...

I just know historically we've had members here with *very* humble setups, and then on the contrary relatively upscale studios and everything in between...and have enjoyed that hardware disparity NOT playing into the enjoyment of sharing and advising that goes on here. I just didn't want to see somebody getting (even diplomatically) judged or slammed for his/her choice of gear or gear consideration when he/she wasn't asking for it.

So that being said I had a Behinger mixer once...UB-802. And just like Beck said they come out of the same 797 Audio factory in China that puts out the stuff that looks almost the same by Phonic, Alesis, etc. it got the job done and the price was really really right for me at the time. But I also felt the dynamic range was squashed in an unpleasant way. Audio through that mixer felt suffocated...that's the best way I can describe it. So I did end up selling it. It was useful for what it was when I had it. If I needed a personal format mixer today and was looking to get new or late model used I think I would look to the Yamaha offerings first as I have owned or own a NUMBER of Yamaha products from instruments to pro audio gear and in every case the QC, features, price and performance are at the top.
 
Actually it was the OP who indirectly or directly brought some "snobbery" into the thread from his first post. :)
I mean...he was obviously very concerned about any digital process mucking up his "pure analog" signal.
That's why I asked for clarity over his "good pure analog signal" comment, and what was his real concern over...?

In this day and age, and even on this "Analog Only" forum, most realistic people and most of us analog lovers would agree that digital isn't the evil signal mangler that only some old-school die-hards and uninformed newbie analog lovers like to believe that it is.
So when someone just assumes that digital will ruin their pure analog signal....IMO, there's a bit of analog snobbery there, but what makes it especially silly for me, is when that concern for "pure analog" involves a sub-$100 mixer.

C'mon now... :D

The mindset by some here, that "any analog is better than any digital" has no basis in fact....but it's occasionally promoted on this forum, and it does lead some newbs down the wrong path when they run around building their "pure analog" dreams around gear that at best will get them consumer results and a lot of door stops.
That's not any snobbery...that's objective reality.
I'm all for promoting analog, and I don't just say that, I live it in my own studio....but I think we can come off looking rather silly if we raise any/all analog to mythical levels....and doing that will not help analog newbs in the long run.
 
sweetbeats said:
I just know historically we've had members here with *very* humble setups, and then on the contrary relatively upscale studios and everything in between...and have enjoyed that hardware disparity NOT playing into the enjoyment of sharing and advising that goes on here. I just didn't want to see somebody getting (even diplomatically) judged or slammed for his/her choice of gear or gear consideration when he/she wasn't asking for it.
Click to expand...

Here's my take:

The setup for my first album was very humble indeed, and it definitely sounds that way too. And I did use a Behringer Euroback mixer for my preamp, but I think that whatever drawbacks in the sound, it's because I just didn't know enough and learned as I went along, not/I] because of any equipment deficiencies. I'm doing a lot more reading these days, so I plan on being prepared next time, and I think that kind of know-how is much more critical to getting a good sound than any piece of equipment could be.

That said, I don't think I'd use another piece of Behringer equipment again any time soon, unless I have no other choice. If you already had the Xenyx you're talking about, or your neighbor had one and was willing to let you borrow it, then I'd say fine, but surely there are better choices out there. Anything used in your area, perhaps? That would be the first thing I'd suggest.

sweetbeats said:
So that being said I had a Behinger mixer once...UB-802. And just like Beck said they come out of the same 797 Audio factory in China that puts out the stuff that looks almost the same by Phonic, Alesis, etc. it got the job done and the price was really really right for me at the time. But I also felt the dynamic range was squashed in an unpleasant way. Audio through that mixer felt suffocated...that's the best way I can describe it. So I did end up selling it. It was useful for what it was when I had it. If I needed a personal format mixer today and was looking to get new or late model used I think I would look to the Yamaha offerings first as I have owned or own a NUMBER of Yamaha products from instruments to pro audio gear and in every case the QC, features, price and performance are at the top.
Click to expand...

+1 to Sweetbeats. My first guitar (an electric) was a Yamaha, the current turntable I'm using is a Yamaha. I use a Yamaha digital mixer for live sound, and also used it to mix down my first album. The best piano in the practice rooms at Ohio State was a Yamaha, so it's the one I used all the time. If I ever buy a motorcycle, I think I'd get a Yamaha. They just make all-around good products, at an affordable price. I'm a big fan.
 
miroslav said:
Actually it was the OP who indirectly or directly brought some "snobbery" into the thread from his first post. :)
I mean...he was obviously very concerned about any digital process mucking up his "pure analog" signal.


... In this day and age, and even on this "Analog Only" forum, most realistic people and most of us analog lovers would agree that digital isn't the evil signal mangler that only some old-school die-hards and uninformed newbie analog lovers like to believe that it is.
So when someone just assumes that digital will ruin their pure analog signal....IMO, there's a bit of analog snobbery there, but what makes it especially silly for me, is when that concern for "pure analog" involves a sub-$100 mixer.
Click to expand...

I didn't see that in the OP's attitude myself. Yes, a sub $100.00 anything is laughable, but in the larger debate about analog consoles vs digital consoles you're going to find many professionals who've been at this a lifetime that won't use a digital console, especially in a live situation. Digital effects... yeah sure, but the main signal going through an A/D/A process is going to mangle the signal. I for one will never use a digital console at any level or any price. It's not snobbery, but simply striving for sonic excellence, and you can do that for a lot less with an analog console than you can with a digital console that would do justice to your sound. Affordable digital mixers have become more toy-like than ever and I only see it going down hill. Since I've been a member of this forum digital has gotten worse not better. And if you're talking USB God help us!

For those of us who still believe your sound is best served by entering the digital domain at the last possible phase a digital console is not an option, and for live sound there's no good reason whatsoever to use a digital console. Digital control -- fine, digital effects -- fine, but leave the signal path analog. If a member can't come to the Analog Only forum without getting jumped just for seeking advice on analog options, then tell me, where the hell can he go?
 
This forum is slowly but surely becoming hostile to analog enthusiasts again. Gillett is gone. MCI-what's his name is gone, and a few other trolls that liked to give people in this forum a hard time. Will we ever have a forum where we can talk analog without getting harangued for doing so? I know its February and the skies are gray and gloomy, but c'mon!
 
Well....are we talking serious *consoles*.....or sub-$100 mixers....? :)

I also wasn't just focusing on consoles/mixers with my comments....but audio gear in general.
Having some preferences is fine, but there's got to be a little bit of common sense and objective reality....which is what I was talking about.

I'll see some recording newb gushing all over the place about the...analog!!!...4-track cassette recorder from the '80s he just picked up on eBay for $50 (which IMO is about the farthest thing from any kind of "analog purity")....and then some Analog Forum members who know better, will cheer him on as though he just scored a mint Studer tape deck.

I'm just saying that sometimes the "any analog is better than any digital" vibe here is over the top, and IMO, is more of a disservice in forum threads to those of use who seriously love and use analog, and who based their audio gear decisions in reality, not just dreamy fantasy associated with anything "analog".
So when a member comes to the Analog Forum seeking advice on analog options.....a bit of objective reality goes along way, and when it's a total newb....let's not just prod him on unquestionably, just because he's buying "something" analog instead of digital.

Honestly....there are times where some newbs here would have done better to choose a digital option (considering the analog option they picked instead)...and I say that as an analog lover who, uses digital too.
It's got nothing to do with "haranguing" guys who talk analog, but accepting the fact that not all analog is "magical", and some of it can be total crap...and any analog lover who rejects that, is not being honest.
So let's talk analog....but objectively and realistically....and I would apply the same to digital talk.
 
I think you're slightly missing the point though Beck.

I didn't see one single post advocating the use of a digital console. What people WERE saying is that, if the OP cares enough about quality to worry about the signal path being analogue or digital then a sub-$100 Behringer desk is probably not for him. That's not analogue bashing--just recognising that cheap analogue has its own quality problems. If you notice, all the alternatives suggested were also analogue--just better quality ones.

Me? I use digital and like the quality. However, if you offered me a Midas H3000 analogue desk for free I'd take it over any digital console (except maybe for the Midas digital). However, I'll take just about any digital desk over a $100 Behringer analogue. That's not hostile to analogue. It's hostile to assuming that the cheapest Behringer is somehow great sounding gear just because it IS analogue. (BTW I'm not even anti-Behringer. I have some of their gear and it does the job I bought it for. However, I bought it in the knowledge that it's made to a certain price point and won't be the greatest quality (audio or build) in the world.)

For the OP, all the alternatives mentioned (Soundcraft, Yamaha, Allen and Heath) will be an audible step up in quality. Any analogue mixer will have a totally analogue signal path. However...and it's a big one...as soon as you add an effects section or a USB output, that part becomes digital. Analogue effects barely exist any more even as expensive outboard--and they never come built into a mixer.
 
Right.....^^^^^^that's what I'm saying.
That...."any analog is better than any digital"...is not a valid view just because this is the analog forum.



Beck said:
Gillett is gone.
Click to expand...



You had to remind me of that nut-job...???? :D

He lacked objectivity, and all he ever wanted was someone to justify for him the choices he made....that's 'cuz he was never sure himself of why he made them.
 
I find the 'any analog is better than any digital' concept to be valid in an artistic and romantic (as well as possibly realistic) sense. Though, of course, it depends on your goals. Cheap analog tends to provide a certain character or frame the proceedings in a special way, which many find appealing.

I think if you approach these things from an artistic angle, instead of using the logic of an audio engineer, it might make more sense. Imagine a painter who creates his work with brushes & paint on canvas. What would the response be if you suggested to him that he could improve the 'objective quality' of his work to make it technically superior by scanning it into a computer and then printing it out again? Most people would likely readily accept his philosophy if this painter would rather work with the cheapest paints & brushes on newsprint than use even the finest illustration software on a computer.

It's strange how we accept artistic standards and 'outdated' or 'pointless' conventions -- or even outright absurdity -- in other forms of art, but in recording, it gets so heated. It's not just workflow ... there are other artistic considerations ... mythology, idealization, fetishization, etc.

A Berhinger mixer is a cheap thing, but it might be just the brush someone is looking for (I've used one and I think they're fine). And if the idea of digital gremlins getting in the way of the purity of the cheap analog signal path make the creator uncomfortable, then I think it's perfectly fine to make sure the gremlins can by bypassed.
 
But I say again. This isn't analogue vs. digital. It's cheap and nasty analogue vs better analogue.

If your artistic goal involves mic pre amps that get noisy about about half way up and have limited headroom--and routing options that will make things like monitoring nigh on impossible--then go for the Behringer.

If you want all the nice sounds that analogue can make, go for something better. I don't personally see a noisy mic pre amp as in any way artistic whether we're talking analogue or digital. YMMV.
 
Let’s pretend for the moment that there are no digital consoles like it was in the past. Well then of course we would be comparing analog consoles and recommending various models based on our experiences because of course they aren’t created equal. That’s what we should be doing here. 20 years ago we would not say every analog console is cool because everything was analog and it was not all good. When a member spells out best he can what he’s looking for we should pick up on his needs and concerns and lead him in the right direction.

Some members mentioned or alluded to analog snobbery. I wasn’t one of them. When it comes to consoles yes I’ll always prefer analog, but digital is very good at reverb and other ambient effects, so I happily use digital processors for nearly 3 decades now.

The OP did a pretty good job of cluing us in on what he was looking for. It was pretty clear he didn’t want the main signal to be digitized. So we go from there and some people made it a lot harder than it needed to be. This is an analog subforum for people looking for advice on analog gear. The correct answer was to set sights a little higher for better analog gear.

Bobbsy said:
I think you're slightly missing the point though Beck.
Click to expand...

No I did not miss that point and I addressed it by stating that all the micro mixers by Behringer, Alesis, Mackie, etc were all crap! And to look for something better, some models which I listed.
 
Speak of the devil... this is a nice mixer if 8 channels is enough. It also has stereo effects returns. I've used these for years and they never disappoint. They make the newer Behringer stuff look like toys.

Tascam M 208 J989 | eBay
 
The "artist brush" argument (Lonewhitefly) is to me a bit of a silly one. There is no digital equivalent to paint on canvass until we get "Datas" who can paint Monets.

IMHO there is a good argument for noobs to stay out of the analogue only site! The whole of sound repro' is riddled with myth, misconceptions, unsupportable opinion, and just plain ignorance.

It is totally forgotten that the guys at Abbey road, BBC and other interested parties WEREN'T trying to capture some arty-farty mythical sound quality (except that of the artist. Where HE/SHE in all this?). No they wanted to get as faithful and technically accurate a recording as technology would then allow. They were only to painfully aware of the limitations of tape and the early pre amps (it costs a very great deal to make a full bandwidth, low distortion valve pre amp. Today, OTTOMH the in/out transformers alone would set you back well over £100. They would have given you their spleen for a bucket of NE5532s!) .

The silliness and inconsistencies are almost in the Russ Andrews area.

Dave.
 
Beck said:
Let’s pretend for the moment that there are no digital consoles like it was in the past. Well then of course we would be comparing analog consoles and recommending various models based on our experiences because of course they aren’t created equal. That’s what we should be doing here. 20 years ago we would not say every analog console is cool because everything was analog and it was not all good. When a member spells out best he can what he’s looking for we should pick up on his needs and concerns and lead him in the right direction.

Some members mentioned or alluded to analog snobbery. I wasn’t one of them. When it comes to consoles yes I’ll always prefer analog, but digital is very good at reverb and other ambient effects, so I happily use digital processors for nearly 3 decades now.

The OP did a pretty good job of cluing us in on what he was looking for. It was pretty clear he didn’t want the main signal to be digitized. So we go from there and some people made it a lot harder than it needed to be. This is an analog subforum for people looking for advice on analog gear. The correct answer was to set sights a little higher for better analog gear.



No I did not miss that point and I addressed it by stating that all the micro mixers by Behringer, Alesis, Mackie, etc were all crap! And to look for something better, some models which I listed.
Click to expand...

Get off your effing high horse and read the actual thread. All of it.

Not one digital mixer was mentioned--indeed the only queries were about worrying about an all-analogue path while using an apparently digital drum machine and wanting USB.

Nobody was pushing the OP in the direction of digital and I suspect everyone...even digital fans like me...understands that digital is simply not suitable for this guy's requirements. The only "snobbery" was a suggestion that, if quality is an issue, a sub-$100 Behringer is the wrong choice.

So read the thread and stop trolling, Beck. This ISN"T an analogue vs. digital thread--it's a discussion about what ANALOGUE mixer is most suitable.

Oh, and if we want to talk snobbery, consider the Soundcraft 200B. Are we really recommending a 20 or 30 year old mixer to somebody who wants something reliable enough for live sound? I loved the 200B but I'd only recommend it these days to an enthusiast with deep pockets, a good supply of spare boards and skills with a soldering iron.
 
Beck said:
Speak of the devil... this is a nice mixer if 8 channels is enough. It also has stereo effects returns. I've used these for years and they never disappoint. They make the newer Behringer stuff look like toys.
Click to expand...

Ah, that looks nice! Unfortunately they do not ship to my country :(

I will write some more later maybe to clarify what I need the mixer for. I am not a pro by any standard I am a home musician taht LOVES to play with sounds live, make a few songs, and enjoy himself! And I, like you I guess, appreciate good old analogue sound rather than the bits of digital. So, my main aim is to enjoy myself playing live and hearing a good analogue sound coming out of the speakers: not for big gigs, but for myself playing alone (why not a gig for ourselves? :)), for family and friends. At least for now. And that is why I sequence with the computer - I cant play all at once and I dont own an acoustic piano for example :)

I did look at used mixers in a website in my country like ebay. I found some interesting stuff of brands you mentioned like Yamaha, Soundcraft and Mackie. Later if I can I will try to find the excat models and ask you for an opinion. They are still 3 times more expensive than a Behringer...so, is it worth it? From your answers it seems it is.

But I would also appreciate people who actually owned and used a behri mixer and then another to tell me what they thought about the sound differences. Sweetbeats recent post explaining that the sound feels "suffocated" on the behringer was very helpful.

Cheers.
 
WHATEVER TF you do you will hear analogue sound coming out of the speakers!

And be careful of those sneaky, class D amplifiers!

Dave.
 
I had my ears replaced with 32 bit floating point digital ones. They sound great but, unfortunately, the supermarket only has analogue speaking cashiers.
 
ecc83 said:
The "artist brush" argument (Lonewhitefly) is to me a bit of a silly one. There is no digital equivalent to paint on canvass until we get "Datas" who can paint Monets.

IMHO there is a good argument for noobs to stay out of the analogue only site! The whole of sound repro' is riddled with myth, misconceptions, unsupportable opinion, and just plain ignorance.

It is totally forgotten that the guys at Abbey road, BBC and other interested parties WEREN'T trying to capture some arty-farty mythical sound quality (except that of the artist. Where HE/SHE in all this?). No they wanted to get as faithful and technically accurate a recording as technology would then allow. They were only to painfully aware of the limitations of tape and the early pre amps (it costs a very great deal to make a full bandwidth, low distortion valve pre amp. Today, OTTOMH the in/out transformers alone would set you back well over £100. They would have given you their spleen for a bucket of NE5532s!) .

The silliness and inconsistencies are almost in the Russ Andrews area.

Dave.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's silly at all. Another analogy may be special effects, animation, or stunts in film. Sure, the goto method has been CGI for a long time, but some directors may choose the antiquated methods for a number of reasons to get a desired result.

Even nostalgia is a perfectly valid reason for someone working with a 4-track cassette if they want to. Who are you to say differently? If they're not inspired by a screen and mouse in front of them, then what's the benefit of all that extra fidelity?

Lest we forget this is a home recording forum. It's not an audio engineering forum. That's not to say that people shouldn't strive for the best product they can. But my point (and lonewhitefly's) is that the best product doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone. Some people get hung up on gear so much that they paralyze themselves and don't ever end up recording. They just keep chasing better fidelity, better "sheen," more whatever. They may be able to tell you every technical detail in the book about why digital is better than analog or why analog is better than digital, but they hardly ever actually record anything. And you know what? That's fine too. If that makes them happy, more power to them.

If it makes someone happy to use a 4-track cassette recorder or a Radio Shack mic, then more power to them. That just leaves more hi-fi gear available for those other hi-fi guys. The same could be said for instruments. If someone wants to use a PRS guitar, great. But if they want to use some ridiculously cheap, "laughable" guitar to most snobs like a ... gee I dunno ... a plastic one sold in Montgomery Wards catalogs back in the day and an amp that was sold in the Sears catalog, then go for it. It's just crazy enough to work!

Oh wait ... it did. And Jack White's a multimillionaire now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top