Blue Sky Prodesk 2.1 opinion

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgohman
  • Start date Start date
asking some one how a speaker sounds to them, does not mean it's going to be good for you. You must A/B the two to get the real comparision, otherwise its just a comparision of specs.
 
language note:

one cannot be bias.

one can be biased.


forgive the pedantry, but language skills are sometimes even more useful than mixing skills...
 
Little dog what do you use to monitor again? And what do you use to control the volume levels?
 
I have a pair of Genelec 1031a's with a Genelec sub (can't remember model number - it's one up from the smallest), plus a set of NS-10m's powered by a QSC. I use the L-R fader on a Studiomaster Trilogy board for the Genelecs, and two of the sub-group buss faders for the Yamahas.
 
So is that a mixing board? Do you find it noticably degrades the quality of the signal, like it has been discussed in here?
 
seems like an odd way of looking at things.

technically, any time you pass a signal through anything, it gets somewhat "degraded"... which means that every single piece of recorded music you've ever listened was degraded all the way through the recording process, and then degraded some more when you play it back on whatever system you own.

So, yes, I degrade everything i record.

I feel so degraded... :(
 
Seems like a sound way of looking at it to me. Like you said signal degradation can occur every step along the signal path. For playback shouldnt we try to have as accurate a signal path as possible so we can hear what we recorded and are mixing.
 
Sure.

As long as you are aware that 99% of the recordings in existence were recorded and mixed with a mixing board. A lot of them sound pretty good for being "degraded".

I use a mixing board for monitoring, setting up as many as six individual stereo cue mixes, and general routing of various pieces of gear that make noise. (I don't use the preamps, however.) The convenience and ergonomics of working this way far exceed any concerns I have about some microscopic degradation that may be occuring, since similar degradation is occuring at the microphone, the mic preamp, the compresser, the A/D converter, the internal software calculations, the D/A converter, the power amp, and the speakers. To say nothing of the cable... there are some people who might tell me i should also be spending $100 per foot for designer cable or else i'm "degrading" my signal.

If working through a mixing board was good enough for all of the great engineers of the past, I'll take my chances on that particular issue not being the crucial factor in whether I can make a great recording or not.

While working in my studio may or may not be a degrading experience for my clients, I don't think their music has particularly suffered by having a mixing board involved in the process.

Yes, you should focus on gradually upgrading the weakest links in your system. Crappy gear that noticeably distorts your sound is clearly unacceptable. But the search for the perfect signal path is a quixotic goal - therein lies the path to insanity!

Until we can bypass mics, preamps, compressers, eq's, reverbs, converters, sampling and bit rates, and virtually anything electronic, i'm not going to single out the mixing board as the main culprit standing in the way of me and audio purity.
 
My post clearly referred to playback. Accuracy is rarely the goal in recording - pres, compressors etc are usually chosen for the 'colour' they add. I am only discussing the signal path from the D/A convertors onwards.
Where did I say all mixing boards are bad? Dont most studios use pretty high quality desks rather than the behringers or mackies that home recordists can afford. I dont think you can compare their desks to my behringer.

Please dont put words in my mouth.

I dont understand why you are so upset by the term signal degradation. It is an accurate description of what happens every step along the playback signal path. It is not an insulting term but a technical one. I never made any comment with regards to your ability as a recording engineer.

I agree the convenience aspect is a strong argument. My partner is happy using the behringer and accepting some noticeable signal degradation because of the convenience. But in a home recording environment if you dont need the features of a mixer why get a cheap one just to control the volume of you speakers.
 
Last edited:
Nobody's upset around here, as far as I can tell!:D

Maybe I don't know what you mean by playback. To me, when you mix, that IS playback. Unless you are talking about listening to CD's for your own pleasure, but I assumed that kind of situation wasn't implied, given that this is a recording bulletin board. And as you mix/playback, you are often going through all kinds of outboard gear, cables, mixers, amps, and speakers.

There are plenty of boards that provide a much cleaner signal path than the behringer that are still within the realm of affordablity for the home recordist. Admittedly, in the $100 range your choices are pretty limited, and I could see why you might be uneasy with the selections. But if that's all you can afford, it's probably safe to say that you have more problem areas concerning signal degradation than just the mixer. You might want to have your partner check out the Crest line.
 
Thats cool .. hard to tell with communication on the internet :)
It just seemed like you were having a rant about lots of issues than were unrelated to the issue being discussed (using a cheap mixer as a volume control in the monitoring system for home recording) so I thought you might have been a bit upset. Anyway enough of that.

The use of software effects plugins, soft samplers and synths etc has removed the need for a mixer for many home recordists. The playback signal path (for mixing, monitoring and listening) is then pretty simple - soundcard outputs to volume control to amplifier to speakers. This simple setup makes it possible to get good sound quality on a budget, to the point that using a cheap mixer as a volume control may actually be the weakest link in that signal path or at least an obvious weak point - especially as many home recordists tend to spend disproportionately more on their speakers and amps than the recording side, as compared to 'pros', as it doubles as their home listening system. It then seems a waste to spend money on a mixer just to control the volume and to have that be a weak point, when there are other options.

ps I was editing my previous message while you were posting. It shouldnt affect what you wrote in your post. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
its just in the blood of some the people that belong to this site to cause arguments over simple questions and comments and even mis spellings.



oops did i spell miss with only 1 s? :P
 
language - spelling

hey, this is very useful, at least for me :) to have some comments and suggestions about language and spelling
 
occasionally it is in my blood to post something useful (although I'll try not to make a habit of it....):

it occurs to me that one critical reason to have a mixer is to integrate various pieces of equipment that you don't necessarily want to have to run in and out of your sound card. These could include CD players (for referencing mixes), click track sources, synths playing virtual tracks via midi, talkback mics, reverb going to cue mixes only, etc.
 
Any new info? Has there been anyone using these for sucessful mixes since this thread was started? Anyone "move on" from these or still satisfied? Any long term usage problems?

I'm more interested in the Media Desk, and this is an old thread, but it's specific and my thread is getting off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top