DIGITAL MIXER OR ANALOG ? HELP PLEASE!

A good analog mixer will be better than a bad digital mixer.
A good digital mixer will be better than a bad analog mixer.
 
the mackie is fine. if you don't like it sell it to me for very little cash... LOL

and yes this is a cross-post and that's not very nice!

guhlenn
 
and a mediocre Digital Mixer will be better than a mediocre analog mixer.

and a TMD-1000 will SOUND cleaner than a Mackie.
and a Mackie 16 has twice the tracks and more ANALOG outs.
its apples and oranges, really. I have both. The tascam for recording, and the Mackie for live sound

xoxo
 
Ive never had one, Ive only used other peoples, and it seemed totally great. I know some guys around here use that... but Ive heard that motorized faders are over-rated and break easy, and i thought it was a little short on digital I/O. Plant two more TDIF jacks on the back and I wouldv'e like it alot more. But Im biased. Id probly get a bigger Tascam, like the 8000 if I was gonna spend the big dough. Or hold out, I hear Allen and Heath are entering the Digital Mixer market pretty soon. I cant wait.

xoxo
 
thanks! still don't know what to do... but i 've got a pretty dumb question i was wondering you could answer; when i ask people with what they mix and or compress (when using software to do it) they always state that they do not use the higher end stuff (waves etc.) cuz it uses to much processing power. i do not get that. can't i just use it on a track and record that (or save it i don't know what's the term) and then use it on the next? ie why use lesser software?

i feel like i'm missing some basics here...

greetz guhlenn
 
You could save it as a file and reimport it back to the software.
But the time and pain to do it......

What would happen if you compress and then while you continue to mix you need to make some changes ? You have to start all over with bringing back the original file- compressing - saving. This is a big pain.

How ever the claim that some people use, that they prefer lesser quality due to cpu strain is a poor decision in my eyes if sound quality is important to you.

Better to get a faster processor or more RAM and work with a good software compressor then to use crap IMHO.
 
There is two ways to use effects on a computer. One is to use it just like an effects box.. by running the signal thru the "plug in" in real time during playback. That takes a lot of processing power. The other way is to apply the effect to the track (or better yet, a COPY of the track) and mix that in. They both have their uses. If you're patient and have a good ear, you can use either for anything either can do.
Plug ins are easier for beginners IMO(!), because you can tweak around if you dont know *exactly* what you want. I guess they are good for seasoned pros for the same reason. But If you can picture ahead of time what you want, applied effects are very powerful, and you can do things that are VERY hard to do with plug ins. Like sweeping dry/wet balance changes and the like. Personally, I like Plug-ins for dynamic-type effects, and applied for reverb/delay-type effects.

MY TWO CENTS, flame on.

xoxo;)
 
thanks camn!

is that what people mean when they say they wanna have "real-time" effects and are switching to vegas to get them?

greetz guhlenn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top