Do I need a mixer or pre amp for my mic, or both?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GrandMasterK
  • Start date Start date
G

GrandMasterK

New member
$200 budget from mixer/pre amp

Some people suggested a pre amp, others suggested a mixer. Well I've never used a mixer before so im not sure if i'd need one, but they do look cool and it's one way to look intimadating eh! :o

Anywho, I posted in another section of the forum for mic suggestions, but I still need something for it to hook into. I have Adobe Audition so I planned on using that for recording. I also use Adobe Audition for all my voice tweaking and what not so again, not sure if I really need a mixer (not saying I dont, so nobody fly off the hook). I could use a little "you idiot, this is what you need, this is what the mic hooks up to, and this the one I suggest for $200!".

I'm just trying to sort out a mobile recording device so if somebody could help me out with that to that would be swell. Google's got me running around in circles, I think I might of picked up on DAT recorders being the way to go but I have no idea and im scared, hold me. :(
 
Yo Grandmaster! A mixer is a bunch of preamps with faders that control volume levels, and a whole lot of internal connections to send signals to various places, generally referred to as routing. Either a mixer or a preamp will power your mic and send a signal to the soundcard of your computer. Note that you will need a specialized soundcard, the basic Soundblaster will not cut it. So... If you have a bunch of mics, and a bunch of signals (drums are the most likely culprit), you need a mixer. If you have 1 or 2 signals, you need the best 1 or 2 channels you can get.
If you spend $200 on 2 channels, you will get somewhat better channels than if you spend $200 on 10 channels and a whole bunch of faders and connectors. $200 will not buy you a great preamp. Really good ones start at $500 per channel, and $1000 or more per channel would not be unusual. Really good mixers aren't $200 either.
And- if you put a really good bunch of preamps in a big mucking mixer, you get- a mixing console, which could be the price of a pretty good new car. But- you have $200.

There are 2 schools of thought here. The first group says that if you only have $200, you should buy the best channel or pair of channels you can afford. They will recommend a preamp. The other group figures that there really isn't much difference between a $20 preamp and a $100 preamp, so you might as well get a mixer, because it will have more channels and more routing options. Both sides are right. It simply depends on what you need to record, and how many mics you will need to use.

Whichever you decide on, here are my suggestions:

Preamp- http://www.8thstreet.com/product.asp?ProductCode=10268&Category=Audio_Processors

mixer-
http://www.8thstreet.com/product.asp?ProductCode=20365&Category=Mixers


And just 2 warnings:

1. Don't buy a preamp because it says it has a tube in it, which will somehow produce a warmer sound. In your price range, that's bullshit.

2. No matter how shiny it is, what cool features it has, or how reasonably priced it is, don't buy that Behringer mixer. There are reasons why it is that cheap.

Good luck- Richie
 
I would go with that Yamaha. I think it gives you like 6 mic channels with Preamps. Thats excatly what you need.

I have the MG 16/4 and it does wonders.
 
tju85 said:
I would go with that Yamaha. I think it gives you like 6 mic channels with Preamps. Thats excatly what you need.

I have the MG 16/4 and it does wonders.


He hasn't told us he needs 6 channels so how can you tell that's EXACTLY what he needs?

Richard gave you some solid advice there. A 2 channel pre at $200 has the potential to be 5 times better the quality than a 10 channel mixer at $200
 
Ugh my first post didnt go through gotta do it over again. I forgot to say, im not doing any band or instrument recording, just voice acting, so only one mic. I'm also looking for advice on what kind of device to get for mobile on location recording.
 
GrandMasterK said:
Ugh my first post didnt go through gotta do it over again. I forgot to say, im not doing any band or instrument recording, just voice acting, so only one mic. I'm also looking for advice on what kind of device to get for mobile on location recording.

If you only plan on recording one source at a time, I would recommend a preamp over a mixer (for the reasons detailed above). For a single channel under $200, something like the Rane MS-1B might be the ticket.

As for a mobile ecording device, you could go with DAT, a laptop, or some other digital recording medium. If you already have a laptop, that's an obvious choice. If not, one of the other options might be more viable.
 
If you want to really stretch your money will good quality recording I would get
Behringer UB802 Eurorack ($49usd)
M-Audio 2496 Audiophile PCI or USB soundcard to record 24-bit/96khz quality.

Total: around $150 minus tax. The best money you'll ever spend.
 
Well, the discussion is all about the preamps (standalone vs mixer), which is all you asked about, but what about monitoring? One of the main reasons to go the mixer route is that, aside from a few preamps, you get a summing buss with faders, you get aux busses, and you get a headphone amp. So for setting up a small recording rig from scratch, the mixer gives you some stuff the standalone preamps don't.

Cheers,
RD
 
Good turn out so far, im impressed. I already got a soundcard covered gully, 24/192 actually. Wow those pre amps are simple looking gadgets. That Rane pre amp thing, how does it hook up to the computer? If anyone has an opposing force scrubs suggestion, please feel free.

you get a summing buss with faders, you get aux busses

I'm not sure if I need those though. I would just record my voice work into Audition, and do any fading from there, if I do like it, there's always an undo. I'm not saying I don't need a mixer im just saying, if there's pluses other than convenience of having physical knobs to move around, I am unaware of them.

Nope don't got a labtop scrubs, so DAT, that'd be my way to go? Any clue what those guys in sound design partments use? I've seen clips of them running around with them and a long fluffy shotgun mic recording sounds.
 
OK Grandmaster. Compression is a tool, and you may already have one. I'm not familiar with Adobe audition, but compression is often an available plugin in recording software packages. It is a really useful tool. Do you need one? Possibly. Do you want one? Yes. Remember that for many years, perfectly good recordings were made without compression, but now, very few people would consider recording much of anything without one. The most commonly used cheap hardware compressors are FMR audio's RNC (really nice compressor- no kidding) and DBX166, and one by Joemeek. High end compressors include the Distressor, and offerings by Avalon and TC Electronics.
Some compressors are called "optical", and it's really just a different electronic path to compression. Some compressors are "clean" and others "colored". The RNC is on the clean side, Joemeek on the colored side.
So what is it? Simply put, compression reduces the difference between the loudest and quietest part of a recorded signal, to improve control over the dynamics of a recording. This allows you to increase the loudness of the soft parts without having components in the signal chain (or your ears) being overwhelmed by the loud parts.
It works like this- First, there is an adjustable threshold. Let's say we set it for 100db. Until the signal reaches 100db, the compressor does *nothing*. Then we have an adjustable ratio. Let's say 3:1. For every 3 db above the threshold, the compressor will allow 1. So at 103db, you get 101, at 106, you get 102, and so on. The 2 other parameters are attack and release. Attack determines how fast the compressor acts when the threshold is reached, and release determines how long the compression effect will remain once the signal drops back down. When we have a fairly high threshold and a fairly low ratio, we call it "soft" compression. When we have low threshold and a high ratio, we call it "hard" compression. When the ratio becomes very high, about 20:1, we now call the compressor a "limiter". The soft ceiling has become a brick wall. Most compressors have "make up gain", to replace gain that the whole signal has lossed due to compression.
So- what do we use it for? There are 2 basic schools of thought here. The first group says that compression is a kind of necessary evil that we use sparingly, only when we have to. These guys avoid compressing as much as possible when actually recording, using it only on very dynamic sources that go from quiet to loud and back again, like drums, and vocalists with less than stellar mic technique. This group will add compression later to an individual track, or even to the finished mix, as desired.
The other group uses quite a bit of compression going in, in order to gain punch and help a signal to stand out in the mix. This is a standard on funk bass and pop vocals. Note this- once you compress something, it is almost impossible to uncompress it. Expanders try to do this, but basically don't. So- if you use a lot of compression when tracking, you need to get it right. Note that "colored" compressors can act as sound filters, and actually change the tone shape of a recording, whether they are acting to control dynamics or not. This is often desired, and can be one of the attractive features of certain compressors, such as Joemeek and Avalon. Cheap compressors often can be heard when they kick in and out, called "pumping", and generally suck. They can also dull the higher frequencies of recordings. The few cheap compressors you find that are popular are appreciated because they don't do that (much).
My advice is to first find out if your software contains a compression plugin. If it does, play around with the settings for practice. For a cheap start, like many people, I like the RNC. It is pretty clean, and has very few of the bad habits of most cheap compressors. It is under $200. Note that it is a stereo compressor, not a 2 channel compressor. Therefore, it can compress one or two channels, but only with the same settings on both channels.
My personal opinion? I'm a group one. I will use soft compression, say 3:1 on some vocalists going in, but I'll usually save compression for post-production processing. If you are recording the 1812 overture, and they roll out those damn cannons, I suggest 12:1. Hope that helps.-Richie
 
Last edited:
I still dont understand the purpose of one. Equalizes the highes and lows so their not all over the place? Why dont people just do that on their software? All these devices are just psyhical alternatives to what you can already do on the computer right?
 
Back
Top