Delta 66 and a mixer?

[auburncatfish]

Is it necessary or beneficial to have a mixer alongside your delta 66?

Does anyone do this and increase their sound performance?

The delta omni 66 which I have is "supposed" to do the same things a mixer would, but I'm not convinced. Plus you could have more inputs with a mixer.

Anyone?

 

[Slackmaster2K]

A mixer itself would not improve sound "performance" at all. Now you could mix with an analog mixer and perhaps achieve better results than mixing with software, but you'd be limited to mixing 4 tracks with the Delta66.

A mixer might give you more inputs, but you're still limited to four inputs at a time with the Delta66. Combining instruments while tracking is definately "dangerous" in that you can't seperate them later...you're stuck with the mixture unless you want to re-track. Another thing to consider is that many small mixers will not have channel inserts or direct outputs, so you'd actually be limited to recording two simultaneous tracks.

One benefit to having a mixer that I can think of immediately would be for monitoring. You could have your recording software output to channels 3&4 and of course whatever you're recording will go out 1&2, thus you could use the mixer to control monitor levels while tracking.

Slackmaster 2000

 

[dafduc]

Slack's right about the inputs - 4 tops with the Delta 66, so it doesn't matter whether you're using the Omni or a Carvin 128 channel - you only get 4 discrete ins.

You CAN mix down to 4, though, so for a live-band-in-the-studio recording, a mixer would be essential.

You may also find a mixer with a better preamp than the Omni - I'm perfectly satisfied with the Omni, but my ears are shredded anyhow.

And I heard, but haven't substantiated, that the AudioBuddy, a cousin of the Omni, only puts out 30v phantom. If that's (also?) true of the Omni, you might need better phantom power for your 48v mics. I haven't noticed a problem, but above note re: my ears...