Have Mixer or Mixerless?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sax_fan
  • Start date Start date

Have Mixer or Mixerless?

  • I use an analog mixer

    Votes: 184 45.2%

  • I use a digital mixer

    Votes: 54 13.3%

  • I use a mixer, but only for monitoring

    Votes: 60 14.7%

  • I've gone mixerless and I'm not goin' back!

    Votes: 109 26.8%
  • Total voters
    407
I have a Carvim CM844. I go back and forth, mixer for monitoring if I am using more than one set of speakers. No mixer if I only use one set.

I never use a mixer going in! EVER!
 
I like analog mixers in a setup. Its great as most people have said for grouping several instruments if your interface only has so many inputs. But having a control surface has its advantages just as analog does.
 
matty c

well here's my deal. i like the idea of being able to craft a mix with my hands but i am afraid of the triple convertion with my e-mu interface (a/d into cubase d/a to mixer a/d comp master). i was really just trying to figure out if my e-mu 1616m - oldskool Tascam m-30 8in 4bus (purchased for a hefty $0) combination will give me good enough sound quality to justify it's use. Any words of wisdom for my ghetto FABricated studzio (that's quebecios for studio).
thanks in adv.
-matt
 
we got rid our Trident console last year, as I was only using it as a volume knob for the CR volume. Even that level of console with good converters wasnt enough to get me back out of the box.
 
I use no mixers now. Everything goes via my Motu 828mkII.
 
I'm doing mixing in the box except when its in a live sound environment - and even then I tend to capture raw tracks and mix them later. I have no studio console, but I love the live mixer I have. I hate the mouse and hate flipping through screens - I have to see it graphically to retain it.

This morning I ordered a Behringer BCF2000 usb/MIDI controller; I simply have to have my hands on those tracks.

I know the unit is pretty limited - faders not touch sensitive and so forth. But it beats the hell out of a mouse and will hold me until I can work up to a Mackie Control or a Tascam unit. And there are no preamps in this thing to worry about... :cool:
 
I'm mixing in the G4 box these days. Even analog tracks from the M-79 4-track get ported to the Mac and then get mixed from Live 6. It's so handy to be able to pull up a project - mix, instruments, effects, patching and all - just with one mouse click. Just for fun, I mix down to my MicroTrack using its digital input. Oh, yeah, that reminds me, I still need someone to buy my Mackie CR-1604 and OTTO-1604 MIDI automation! It's pretty cool for a small live mixer or for up to an 8-track recording situation.

Otto
 
I use a digital mixer. I hate it but I have no money. I know that in a few years or so when I have the money this thing will be worthless and it seems now that if you buy something digital in two years it will be a complete waste because something way better will come along for half the price of what you paid for yours. Shoulda never bought that mixer :(

<sob> phantom power is nice though :)
 
Analog Mixer-> Analog Multitracker (-> DAW If I go over 8 tracks)->Analog Mixer -> (Mostly) Digital Mixdown

I hardly ever do digital summing anymore. No matter what, it doesnt sound right, and I use weeks to finish a mix. Ive gone more towards finishing a mix when I start it, rather than twiddle with a mouse for ages and never get happy. Its easier to do if the recording was done analog, but even then I prefer to run 8 tracks out of my DAW to mix with (decent) hardware.

ve also worked with various control surfaces, and Im not happy with virtual faders either. They make consoleless mixing a lot more enjoyable tho' :) Just my thoughts.
 
I use my SoundCraft mixer because I like the Preamps and E.Q. I use the digital output into a Firebox then to my computer.
 
What are the options in various sequencers for software (consoleless) automation in mixing? (E.G. raising/fading the volume of several tracks); is it possible to do any of this real time, or does one just mark sections and apply the changes one wants and then listen and tweak?

I'm about to buy a Mac Pro, and will initially use Garage Band, but work my way up to Logic (had really wanted to use Sonar Pro when I was still considering going PC).

Thanks,
GVDV
 
Without a motorized fader console, you can only operate either one fader or one group at the same time.
I use Logic and no control surface, but I find it more easy to "paint" in the volume as the track tags along. This allows a very pinpointed accuracy of the volume of the track.
The way I work, that suits me fine.
If I worked more towards recording live sessions/multitracking I would have missed a moto control surface.
And you gonna love Logic once you get the hang of it. I used Cubase/Sonar earlier and after 3 days of total frustration with Logic I finally got the hang of the basics.
Logic has since then totally taken the throne for me, working with songwriting and some vocal production.
Garageband is cool and fast, but a little optionless when it comes to the heavy programming/effect stuff.
Good luck.
 
Emusic,
Many thanks for your reply.

I'm wondering if I might ask something else - and I'm going to :)

I'm going to be buying an RME 400 Fireface as my audio interface, and I am a bit confused about how one would route/use an audio interface such as this with a separate hardware mixer/control surface (if I chose to go the route of buying a hardware mixer).

I'm buying the RME 400 for its pre amplifiers which, as you probably know, are supposed to be excellent. But hardware mixers have pre's too, so does one just circumvent them, or are there passive mixers which will allow me to use the RME without any colouration of the sound from the mixer?

Also, how would one physically route the connections of the two pieces of hardware?

Thanks,
GVDV
 
gvdv said:
Emusic,
Many thanks for your reply.

I'm wondering if I might ask something else - and I'm going to :)

I'm going to be buying an RME 400 Fireface as my audio interface, and I am a bit confused about how one would route/use an audio interface such as this with a separate hardware mixer/control surface (if I chose to go the route of buying a hardware mixer).

I'm buying the RME 400 for its pre amplifiers which, as you probably know, are supposed to be excellent. But hardware mixers have pre's too, so does one just circumvent them, or are there passive mixers which will allow me to use the RME without any colouration of the sound from the mixer?

Also, how would one physically route the connections of the two pieces of hardware?

Thanks,
GVDV
Click to expand...

Well you don't want to plug a preamp into a preamp so you could think of the hardware mixer sort of as a monitor/routing tool. That's how I use my little console.

I have a Delta 1010 which does not have preamps but I have an external rack mounted pre that I use for tracking vocals and acoustic instruments. I plug a condenser mic into the pre and the output goes directly into my 1010. I send all the outputs of my 1010 back into my mixer for monitoring purposes. I mix my tracks using the software mixer of my DAW program. So for the most part all my mixer is doing is monitoring tracks and providing output to monitors.

With the RME you could bypass a hardware mixer. Why would you need one? If you get a mixer and want to use it's pre's then just take the output on your mixer to a "line in" on your RME. It's that simple.
 
I use a mixer in my small home studio, and also of course at the studio. At home, I go from mics to my soundcraft gb4 (16) mixer, and to 2 1010's. all i/os are routed to the mixer from the 1010's (which will eventually be upgraded to a few pt hd or tdm systems). I mix out of the box. patching here and there to the few gear that I have & eventually send it out to my Tascam deck. Eventually getting a few apogee's.
 
I have an analogue mixer I use for tracking and to EQ sends and returns for external effects.

I find mixing in digital to be no harder than mixing in analogue because I leave adequate headroom and I don't work "hot". There might be a small difference in the sound but both sound good to me so I don't fuss about the difference.
 
Really it all is up to your preference, a mixer doesnt make your mix better or worse. I used to have to have a mixer just because I loved to mix with it, but I can mix so much faster with keyboard and mouse than I can using my d8b which is mainly because protools only let's me use 8 faders at a time and plus you will still have to use your mouse to add your plugins. So it's all just personal preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top