Connecting two mixers - not daisy chained but working in parallel - to four inputs of audio interface

S

sumitsimlai

Member
Hello.

I watched with great interest a 3-year old video named "Connect Mixer to Audio Interface For Recording". I am currently in the process of setting up my studio and have exactly this idea of going forward, with the main outs from my analog mixer to balanced line inputs on the audio interface, but with a small change. This is where I am stuck because I can't find a video or a write up. I have two mixers - not identical but functionally the same - which I want to use the same way just as the video shows connecting one mixer main outs to two inputs on the Scarlett 4i4. By using the same method, I would like to be able to record 4 balanced line outs from two mixers working in parallel (this gives me a whopping 14 mono + 4 stereo channels, besides a whole lot of inserts and aux sends etc). My idea is to connect the four main outs from the two mixers to four line inputs of an audio interface, but with separate gain controls for all four inputs on the interface, unlike the 4i4 that only gives two gain controlled inputs and two fixed level inputs.

Therefore I am desperately looking for answers to two questions:
  1. Is the configuration of having two mixers running in parallel something out of the world, and not possible or not advisable, and if not, why not?
  2. If the above is plausible, what could be an audio interface that would give me four balanced line inputs with indepedent gain controls?
Any help would be highly appreciated.

Regards
 
What you are proposing is very possible. However many "line in" connections don't have gain controls. The 4i4 is much like the Motu M4. My line inputs on my Tascam 16x08 don't have gain controls. The gain is usually for the mic pre. True line inputs will bypass the preamp. You shouldn't need to boost the line input signal. You control the signal level at the output of your mixer. Set the gain to minimum and you have the same spec front and back.

Variable Line Inputs
Frequency Response 20Hz - 20kHz ± 0.05dB
Dynamic Range (A-weighted) 115.5dB
THD+N -100dB (Minimum @ 8dB Gain)
Maximum Input Level (at minimum gain) +22dBu
Gain Range 69dB
Input Impedance 60kΩ

Fixed Line Inputs
Frequency Response 20Hz - 20kHz ± 0.02dB
Dynamic Range (A-weighted) 115.5dB
THD+N -105dB (Minimum @ 8dB Gain)
Maximum Input Level (at minimum gain) 22dBu
Input Impedance 60kΩ
 
I am very thankful for your prompt response. Will give it a try.

One issue will be there of course with this arrangement; I don’t know how to control 4 faders from two mixers. That was the benefit if the interface gave that facility.

Regards
 
Last edited:
I ran an 18i8, which gives you those 4 balanced inputs, plus another 4 line-ins on the back, plus ADAT.
I also used a cheap mixer with it, so save a lot of plugging and unplugging.
I had the monitors connected to the mixer, so I could also practice without turning on the computer or interface.
 
"(this gives me a whopping 14 mono + 4 stereo channels, besides a whole lot of inserts and aux sends etc)."

No. it doesn't. You still have only 4 tracks you can record to. This is not to say it is a bad idea, far from it. You will be able to make a balance of the stereo mix to the front and rear inputs and for things like a drum kit, once you have a mic/balance setup you like you can keep it (slate the settings!) As Ray says, you can have sheds of kit plugged up, ready to rock and audition it through headphones. He also runs his monitors through his mixer and that gives you TRUE zero latency monitoring. With a bit of thought you should be able to feed the stereo o/p of one mixer to spare inputs on the other (call it the "master") and thus monitor everything from one H/P feed.

The downside of getting 'too clever' is feedback but once experienced you will know how to avoid it!

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
"(this gives me a whopping 14 mono + 4 stereo channels, besides a whole lot of inserts and aux sends etc)."

No. it doesn't. You still have only 4 tracks you can record to. This is not to say it is a bad idea, far from it. You will be able to make a balance of the stereo mix to the front and rear inputs and for things like a drum kit, once you have a mic/balance setup you like you can keep it (slate the settings!) As Ray says, you can have sheds of kit plugged up, ready to rock and audition it through headphones. He also runs his monitors through his mixer and that gives you TRUE zero latency monitoring. With a bit of thought you should be able to feed the stereo o/p of one mixer to spare inputs on the other (call it the "master") and thus monitor everything from one H/P feed.

The downside of getting 'too clever' is feedback but once experienced you will know how to avoid it!

Dave.
Click to expand...
Obviously Dave I will finally have a mixed-down 4-track output available for mastering, instead of a two track. That should give me good leverage with a pro mastering software, being able to put finishing touches to all four, before I record the final to my Zoom H6, may be still with 4 tracks, which I can then carry to the studio - whether to add vocals or to use tracks for video.

I don't know if all this sounds vague and impossible but no harm giving it a try. What do you think?
 
sumitsimlai said:
Obviously Dave I will finally have a mixed-down 4-track output available for mastering, instead of a two track. That should give me good leverage with a pro mastering software, being able to put finishing touches to all four, before I record the final to my Zoom H6, may be still with 4 tracks, which I can then carry to the studio - whether to add vocals or to use tracks for video.

I don't know if all this sounds vague and impossible but no harm giving it a try. What do you think?
Click to expand...
It all sounds very doable to me. BTW, why record the final mix to the Zoom? I agree that another digital copy will barely change anything but the mastered mix can simply be rendered to stereo in the DAW and delivered to you on a USB stick.

Dave.
 
I don’t do mix in my studio because I neither have soundproofing nor sound treatment. It’s a measly little studio. So studios ask for multiple audio tracks and not stereo so that they have the flexibility of being able to manipulate four to six tracks while adding two vocal / voiceover tracks and then do further mastering. That’s where the Zoom comes in handy for portability so that I can hand over four pre mastered tracks.
 
sumitsimlai said:
I don’t do mix in my studio because I neither have soundproofing nor sound treatment. It’s a measly little studio. So studios ask for multiple audio tracks and not stereo so that they have the flexibility of being able to manipulate four to six tracks while adding two vocal / voiceover tracks and then do further mastering. That’s where the Zoom comes in handy for portability so that I can hand over four pre mastered tracks.
Click to expand...
Well, as I said the degradation of another copy is going to be very small but I still maintain you could have the finished 2 track mix on a stick. In fact I think most studios would send the tracks for mastering over the net as .wavs and get them back the same way?

Dave.
 
"And note I’m struggling with wiring schematic." First step to get help then is the make and model of the mixers. If you can also give us links to a user manual so much the better.

Dave.
 
I just completed a first level schematic of general sequencing and recording sequence considering one computer and one set of all peripherals and interfaces.

I would like to proceed to the next step of detailed point to point wiring diagram. But before that, it would really be nice if someone reviewed these and gave me their comments to be incorporated.

Basically there are four parts of the entire process and I hope I’ve been able to depict them correctly. All I need is for someone to point me in the right direction by pointing out obvious mistakes.

Feedback anxiously awaited.

Regards
 

Attachments

  • Setup_240312_001707.pdf
    12.4 MB · Views: 7
When I had loads of synths and external sound sources I sort of had what you've done in the diagrams- but in truth it was a major faff. What I also had was a Maudio midi 8X8 unit that meant my DAW could talk to all the modules and synths independently - so in Cubase, track 1 went to my JX1, track 2 went to the 1080, track 3 to a Yamaha XG module and so on - so each track in the DAW was a separate sound source. These all went to a Soundcraft LX7 - all this did was get the outputs from the modules into the mixer, and the faders usually stayed in a row, with the DAW looking after the MIDI output levels. The interface I had back then was two mics or 2 lines, and this was on line all the time. Then, anything that came through the mixer could be sent to the computer and recorded. Back then, that would usually be just guitars and a couple of mics. I recorded like this for years. I did NOT use the stereo out, put aux sends 1 and 2 so they were independent. I would turn up only what I wanted to record into cubase.

Nowadays I don't have any of these modules or synths connected, I just got VSTi versions and they're now done in the computer.

Your idea is quite functional, but using MIDI thrus introduces bottlenecks. Your first module needs to be set to say ch1, then the next one channel 2 and so on. This then gets set as the output midi channel for each track. It works, but is unwieldy and goes wrong when you load in old projects that have different mapping. I'd buy a new sound source and discover it needed a different MICI channel, or worse, responded on every channel! That's why I bought the midi 8X8 - my DAW just let me set say, the 1080 and it had it's own 16 channel MIDI channel. That really helped. You can do it like you have planned - but I was so glad to escape doing what you are wanting to start doing.
 
Looks largely reasonable.
Just 2 comments:
1. The first sheet shows the midi controller feeding into the analogue mixer. That's wrong. It is just digital. The other red lines show it feeding to the correct places.
2. You show the audio interface output feeding into the analogue mixer. That's ok, I used to do that.
 
The reason I did that and also the midi devices feeding into the analogue mixer is, to direct the audio outputs of each of these for monitoring. For now I’m assuming that the MIDI controller is a keyboard.
 
Nothing really wrong, but it gets complicated with so many paths, but where they actually go looks a bit confusing. If you do do this, i would add in a patch bay as essential. Once you have this many inputs going to the back of the mixer, its easier to have all these somewhere yo7 can get to.
 
rob aylestone said:
Nothing really wrong, but it gets complicated with so many paths, but where they actually go looks a bit confusing. If you do do this, i would add in a patch bay as essential. Once you have this many inputs going to the back of the mixer, its easier to have all these somewhere yo7 can get to.
Click to expand...
Yes Rob the patch bay is on my list. Since this is only a conceptual sketch I thought keep it simple.

Now that I have the “go” signal from you experts, I’ll be proceeding to create specific schemes for each of my four PCs independently. Thereafter I’ll proceed with figuring out networking schemes for (1) the PCs, for (2) the MIDI devices and for (3) the digital audio / ADAT network.

It’s going to be a tough climb ahead I know. But I’m looking forward to it.

Thanks everyone.

I’ll keep posting. And once the scheme is finalised, I’ll shall post it for others to use.
 
I'm biased, but youre creating a brand new version of what I was so relieved to get rid of maybe fifteen years ago? What are you hoping to do with the four PCs? I'd advise that maybe a NAS drive would be useful. I can work on cubase and adobe products on any of the computers I have, but have never found a way that allowed audio to be from one, while the midi devices are on another and this seems unlikely to be trouble free. I've been looking at the hardware audio devices here. I've attached a picture of a rack in the studio - 1U is in use, my current audio interface. The two dedicated audio computers, the 8X8's - are just obsolete now. I'm guessing you have a cunning plan that needs this level of complication?

This morning, the mac refuses to see one of the monitors and the PC (in another rack) is refusing to start. This may have coloured my judgement on complex systems.
 

Attachments

  • redrack.JPG
    redrack.JPG
    2 MB · Views: 5
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top