Carvin furniture mixer

  • Thread starter Thread starter basstone
  • Start date Start date
B

basstone

New member
I am putting together a home studio and think I have enough pieces to get started, but have always been more involved in the playing end, not the production side.

Anyway, here's what I have for mixing down an already recorded demo:

2 Alesis XT-20 ADATs w/snake
1 Carvin MX1688 mixing console
1 dbx 266 Project 1 compressor
1 ART Elite multi effects processor
1 Pentium III computer with n-tracks and CreativeLabs Soundblaster Pro
1 Phillips CD burner

My biggest concern here (which is why it falls under this forum thread) is the Carvin mixer. I've never used this one and am wondering if I should go with it or try to find a replacement before investing a bunch of time into a botched mixdown.

Now, the music is not classical or jazz, but a weird hybrid of Radiohead, Perfect Circle, Fugazi and Weezer. It has a lot of heavy in it, but carries some very light textural moments as well.

Thoughts? I'd love to hear them. I hope to start mixing down in two weeks, somewhere after the holidays.
 
carvin mixers suck for recording. Live is a different story, but you need to get rid of that.
 
Thanks brad, or not brad, but.. I was looking for something a little more constructive. The recording was done using a Mackie 24-8. The Carvin is a replacement to be used only for the mixdown.

I know the board uses op amps for the pres, which is a downer. What I hope to learn is whether or not this particular flavor of Carvin, the MX1688, is actually worth a damn for anything other than live. Generic indictments (like Carvins suck) don't do much.

I've played in the studio with mackie, soundcraft, studiomaster and neve boards in the past. I am not familiar with the Carvin, which is why I asked the question.

Anyway, is there anyone out there with an experienced, explainable position on the Carvin?

Thanks,

d...
 
mx1688

As far as the carvin mx recording consoles are concerned they are pretty good. I dislike almost anything else they ever made though.
 
I use the Carvin CM844 but it's only for monitoring. I would say the Carvin mixers are decent, relatively cheap, and they have great customer service/return policy. I have a lot of Carvin gear and they have always taken great care of me when I have had problems. They have gone as far as replacing items that were not under warranty etc. My mixer isn't bad but I don't need the preamps for going in to the box. I would say order the mixer, try it out, and if you don't like it send the thing back. It's that simple.
 
The CM and MX series can't be compared as the same deal though imo. The MX was built for recording. Granted this was the low end for high end consoles, but still better than the CM stuff I think.
 
Most all Mixers these days use Opamps for the Preamps so that is Probably not why it isn"t a Good Mixer.....You could Upgrade the Opamps in the Mixer to Better quality ones but if you aren"t electricly inclined then this isn"t an Option....

If the Demo was recorded on a Mackie then why not Rent a Mackie for the Mix down??

Cheers
 
Blue Groove said:
The CM and MX series can't be compared as the same deal though imo. The MX was built for recording. Granted this was the low end for high end consoles, but still better than the CM stuff I think.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the MX is better as they were discontinued like 15 years ago.
 
notbradsohner said:
carvin mixers suck for recording. Live is a different story, but you need to get rid of that.
Click to expand...


No offense, but have you ever even seen a Carvin MX1688?
The reason I ask is because you are talking about something you have no idea about. The MX1688 is a good mixer. The real issue is - how much has it been abused - keep in mind Carvin hasn't made these for close to 20 years.

Here's an add for a MX2488, and they also made a 32 channel version.
http://www.carvinmuseum.com/vintageads/87sept-guitarplayer-mx2488.html

One of my friends had one, and the fool sold it before I had a chance to come up with all the cash to buy it. :mad:



Tim
 
Micter said:
I'm not so sure the MX is better as they were discontinued like 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

They were discontinued because of price and weight - they weigh like a billion pounds. The 1688 is completely modular in design, so each channel is on it's own circuit board. Most modern economy mixers are all on 1 circuit board, or they have several channels on a block..say 4 channels on one card.

The issue with Carvin removing it from the catalog was because it was expensive to create and it was expensive to ship.
The MX1688 was about $3,000 in 1987. If they carried this exact board now, they would have to sell it for at least about $7,000-$10,000 range because of the cost of building it.




Tim
 
Tim Brown said:
They were discontinued because of price and weight - they weigh like a billion pounds. The 1688 is completely modular in design, so each channel is on it's own circuit board. Most modern economy mixers are all on 1 circuit board, or they have several channels on a block..say 4 channels on one card.

The issue with Carvin removing it from the catalog was because it was expensive to create and it was expensive to ship.
The MX1688 was about $3,000 in 1987. If they carried this exact board now, they would have to sell it for at least about $7,000-$10,000 range because of the cost of building it.




Tim
Click to expand...
Still, 15 year old technology is 15 years old. I am very familiar with Carvin. I have 5 of their guitars, 4 amps, a PA, studio mixer, etc.. They make a great product for less money than the competition for the most part. I'm not knocking them, I'm just not sure how much better the MX series are compared to the new stuff.
 
Micter said:
Still, 15 year old technology is 15 years old. I am very familiar with Carvin. I have 5 of their guitars, 4 amps, a PA, studio mixer, etc.. They make a great product for less money than the competition for the most part. I'm not knocking them, I'm just not sure how much better the MX series are compared to the new stuff.
Click to expand...


Well, if the option was a Mackie 16x8 mixer or the Carvin MX1688, I'd take the Carvin any day of the week. Granted, it may not be as quiet as the Mackie - I don't know, I'd have to do a listening test, but I prefer the EQ on the Carvin over any of the Mackie EQ's.
I have quite a bit of Carvin stuff myself, and I've been completely happy with all of it - I have three of their 1,000 Watt power amps that they made in the early 90's (FET1000's) and they still work flawlessly.

Obviously, you couldn't compare the Carvin to a Ghost, or a A&H, but I'd probably take it over virtually any other 16 channel mixer in the current $3,000 price range.... it has a lot of features that I like, and it's a relatively, well laid out board, although my friend who owned it didn't like it because it was too deep for him (He was only 5' tall, so he couldn't easily reach all of the knobs without leaning over. :p )




Tim
 
Bwahahaha!

I just noticed - this thread is 2 years old. Hahaha


Tim
 
Three years later...

I like the Carvin. It's a beast to move, but I built a rolling table for it and it still serves beautifully (and quietly) in my new home studio.
 
Also a little late here but:
I still have my Carvin MX1688 mixer I bought new in the mid 80s.
It's a very good mixer. I mixed quite a few records on it that I've heard played on the radio. Yes it's very heavy. It's got a ton of features on it. The EQ is very good too.
 
I love these old threads.

I've been using an old but mint carvin MX1222 for a couple of years.
I replaced it for a couple days with a new Allen Heath 16.2 mix wizard.
Well the mix wizard went back to the store real quick.

I would suspect alot of it has to do with the mixwizard being pure chinese.
After a couple days with the mix wizard my old carvin sounds great again.
I will gladly put up with short throw faders over crummy sound.

Maybe a Ghost has better sound, I've never used one. I wonder if they are
being made in China yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top