interface and mixing board?

[Capt Hair]

(new question check 4th page) Ok I'm kind of confused on this and seems like these are going to be some really "dumb" questions So prepare yourself

What is the difference here?

you have a audio interface like a Presonus firestudio that has your xlr inputs, gain controls, built in pre-amps, etc. And then you run it to a DAW, protools, whatever. Simple enough, you do all your mixing in your work station.

Then there's a mixing board. Has the same features, built in pre-amps, controls. Only real difference (that I'm aware of) is that most have an EQ feature, compression, talk back, and things like that. It is just your mixing set-up that is in every DAW.

But then you still have to go through a DAW?...What's the point of a mixing board in a studio then, say the Presonus StudioLive, if you still have to run it to a DAW to mixdown and export?

They're both interfaces, I get that. maybe some of you guys can clue me in here.

thanks guys!

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Good question! Mixing boards today, (because of the increase in digital technology) are practically useless. Mixing boards are really best if your recording onto tape. However some people, (like me) like to mix on hardware, so you don't have to go through mouse clicking and button pressing. And no, mixers are not interfaces. They are mixers haha.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Mixing boards by definition combine multiple individual signals into one or more mixed signals. Whether that's something you need to do outside the computer depends on your recording process. If you're recording yourself through a small interface you might not see the benefits. If you're recording multiple musicians at once and want several true zero latency monitor mixes there is really no other way than to use a big analog mixing board.

 

[Capt Hair]

Good question! Mixing boards today, (because of the increase in digital technology) are practically useless. Mixing boards are really best if your recording onto tape. However some people, (like me) like to mix on hardware, so you don't have to go through mouse clicking and button pressing. And no, mixers are not interfaces. They are mixers haha.

Alright cool, I was some what on the right track then. Is it more or less just a preference thing or are there any benefits from recording with a mixer?

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Mixing boards by definition combine multiple individual signals into one or more mixed signals. Whether that's something you need to do outside the computer depends on your recording process. If you're recording yourself through a small interface you might not see the benefits. If you're recording multiple musicians at once and want several true zero latency monitor mixes there is really no other way than to use a big analog mixing board.

Ahh i forgot about the latency. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Capt Hair]

Mixing boards by definition combine multiple individual signals into one or more mixed signals. Whether that's something you need to do outside the computer depends on your recording process. If you're recording yourself through a small interface you might not see the benefits. If you're recording multiple musicians at once and want several true zero latency monitor mixes there is really no other way than to use a big analog mixing board.

Could you not do the same with digital mixing boards? Or is there really going to be a latency issue?

 

[MrStitch]

We're talking two different animals here that can be used doing the same thing, in similar ways, but both usually do completely different things. Hahahahah

While everyone else explains the difference between the two (which are in fact two different real world uses), i'd like to toss this in there - You know how you can use protools (or whatever) to add things like reverb, chorus, or other cool effects? Well, if you use a mixer and connect real-world rack/hardware units, then you can find your sound and record it right the first time, rather than applying effects and changes to those effects over and over again in the software.

Lets not forget the additional processing power if you're trying to run 16 tracks of music, each with they're own effects plugins running.

A mixer combines hardware units and mics signals into one processed output, all ready to go for the amp or whatever you're doing. The Firestudio (and units like it) are meant for capturing that signal and sending it to your computer. There ARE mixers that have outputs for a computer, but some research would have to be done as to what kinds of preamps they have, software, all kinds of stuff. I only looked at ONE once, and it had a simple USB output... but the computer would only see ONE single input. It's just the way that particular unit was designed.

If you want a mixer that inputs ALL your channels WITH good pre's... then I imagine that you're going to shell out some good dough, mostly because there is SO much more involved with a mixer than a simple converter like Firestudio.

/two cents

 

[chris2002rock]

Well, yes and no. You have overlap because there are devices that are ideal for a certain function, but can be used in combination with other devices...remember that this is capitalism, not communism. There is no central vision for any given set of products. Brands sell what they can profit from selling. So users often have overlapping or even inappropriate tools but paid for them because they followed someone else's ideas.

Always remember the above going in, so that you don't get suckered in to thinking you need something.

The cheif difference in most mixers vs mixing in the PC is that mixing in the PC can have as many discrete tracks as the hardware and software bundle can handle. Recording with a mixer usually means one stereo track, so you have to "mix live" and this removes the ability to balance out the sound form track to track had you used a sofware "mixer" which controls the discrete tracks. In summary, mixing in software usually opens up the possibility to remix and tweak individual tracks.

That is the most significant thing to know.

It still makes sense for some small single-person studios to have a mixer, I use a 12-channel mixer to keep all of my instruments in and configured, then I record one at a time and move the tracks over in software.

So, let's say I have mics, keyboard, bass guitar, guitar etc. I record one, then stop, drag the tracks over in software, then move to the next instrument on the physical mixer etc.

This gives me the best of both worlds, because I can tweak all the instruments together, and even if I have a band that wants to rehearse, I just have to have them take turns if I want to record loops or other individual performances. The key to remember is that physical mixers generally force you to record the master tracks in a bus, which is limited to a stereo pair in every mixer I have seen.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

The cheif difference in most mixers vs mixing in the PC is that mixing in the PC can have as many discrete tracks as the hardware and software bundle can handle. Recording with a mixer usually means one stereo track, so you have to "mix live" and this removes the ability to balance out the sound form track to track had you used a sofware "mixer" which controls the discrete tracks. In summary, mixing in software usually opens up the possibility to remix and tweak individual tracks.

Not true. You can send the outs of the interface to the ins of the mixer, and use inserts and auxes for your signal processing and can do everything you can do in a DAW. The stereo output is for the mixdown after your done mixing everything OTB. You need an expensive interface to have multiple outs though. Unless your saying that you can't remix the song because there is no way to "save" your settings?

 

[musicmachine]

This is a great question IMHO.
My (old school) definition of a "mixer" is one that sends a stereo track, but also has the ability to send several other mixes or aux sends (if desired). These are sent to a recording interface and converted to digital info the computer/DAW can understand. On the other hand, a recording interface with multiple inputs (which gives it the appearance of being a "mixer") receives the individual sound sources and converts them automatically to digital info. The hard part for a lot of people (including me) is determining the proper recording interface to purchase that has the ability to receive multiple sound sources simultaneously & send each sound source as individual tracks to the DAW & what the hardware/software requirements are to accomplish that. Maybe someone else can chime in on that one.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

The hard part for a lot of people (including me) is determining the proper recording interface to purchase that has the ability to receive multiple sound sources simultaneously & send each sound source as individual tracks to the DAW & what the hardware/software requirements are to accomplish that. Maybe someone else can chime in on that one.

Pretty much any interface with multiple inputs can record them separately. An exception is the category or mixer-interfaces, many of which are really set up for recording rehearsals and shows as a stereo mix.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

This is a great question IMHO.
My (old school) definition of a "mixer" is one that sends a stereo track, but also has the ability to send several other mixes or aux sends (if desired). These are sent to a recording interface and converted to digital info the computer/DAW can understand. On the other hand, a recording interface with multiple inputs (which gives it the appearance of being a "mixer") receives the individual sound sources and converts them automatically to digital info. The hard part for a lot of people (including me) is determining the proper recording interface to purchase that has the ability to receive multiple sound sources simultaneously & send each sound source as individual tracks to the DAW & what the hardware/software requirements are to accomplish that. Maybe someone else can chime in on that one.

Okay. Go to Sweetwater.com. Click on computer audio. Then click on audio interface. And BAM! You have many mulit channel interfaces at your disposal.

 

[musicmachine]

I should have said confusion about choosing whether it should be USB/firewire/S/PDIF/ADAT etc., MAC/PC compatibility, software compatibility, etc etc. Anyone seen a recent, comprehensive (and noobie friendly) guide lately?

 

[CrowsofFritz]

I should have said confusion about choosing whether it should be USB/firewire/S/PDIF/ADAT etc., MAC/PC compatibility, software compatibility, etc etc. Anyone seen a recent, comprehensive (and noobie friendly) guide lately?

Both firewire and USB have multi channel mixers. ADAT is just a way to expand the amount of ins you have. It's not really an interface format. And as for MAC/PC compatatibility, I can't really help you out there too much. I know that Apogee is MAC only. But that's it. And pretty much every interface should be compatible with any DAW. Unless you have Pro Tools older than Pro Tools 9. Then you can only have certain hardware. Lets keep to the thread though. If you have further questions you could always start a new one.

 

[musicmachine]

If you have further questions you could always start a new one.

It wasn't a question as much as an observation. For someone new to computer recording understanding the choices are not always easy because of the (perceived) technical complexities of computer recording & recording interfaces. Used to be you plugged a mic into a "mixer" & then to a tape machine or P.A. and voila! (I'm way over simplifying of course.) For most people those days are long gone.

 

[Bobbsy]

Alright cool, I was some what on the right track then. Is it more or less just a preference thing or are there any benefits from recording with a mixer?

There CAN be benefits but a mixer is a long way from necessary.

Some of the benefits could be:

-Ease of setting levels for recording--faster and easier with a real fader than a small knob or a software control.

-Where you have multiple line level sources (several keyboards for example) you can leave them all hooked up and not have to repatch between takes.

-Ease and flexibility of setting up monitor feeds. My mixer has 8 Aux channels, all switchable pre/post. I find I can get better performances from people if they have a customised (and "perfect") mix in their earphones.

-Limiting/Compression: my mixer has dynamics processing on every channel. I do not track using compression but have a limiter in circuit to prevent clipping. With proper gain structure this should never be used...but once or twice a year it saves a brilliant/unexpected take.

-Control surface: some mixers can function as a control surface for your DAW software.

Now, a couple of points. First, most of my "potential advantages" do NOT apply to a cheap MI analogue mixer. Mine is a pro quality Yamaha digital. Second, I also do a lot of live stuff that NEEDS a mixer. If I was purely doing home recording, I would go a very different route and just use a good interface.

I suspect most people see pictures of pro studios with big mixers and just assume that a console is needed. It's not--and, with the cheapies they can often get in the way and add noise to your recordings. If a newbie doesn't know why they need a mixing desk and/or can only afford a cheapie, they're likely better off without one.

 

[Capt Hair]

There CAN be benefits but a mixer is a long way from necessary.

Some of the benefits could be:

-Ease of setting levels for recording--faster and easier with a real fader than a small knob or a software control.

-Where you have multiple line level sources (several keyboards for example) you can leave them all hooked up and not have to repatch between takes.

-Ease and flexibility of setting up monitor feeds. My mixer has 8 Aux channels, all switchable pre/post. I find I can get better performances from people if they have a customised (and "perfect") mix in their earphones.

-Limiting/Compression: my mixer has dynamics processing on every channel. I do not track using compression but have a limiter in circuit to prevent clipping. With proper gain structure this should never be used...but once or twice a year it saves a brilliant/unexpected take.

-Control surface: some mixers can function as a control surface for your DAW software.

Now, a couple of points. First, most of my "potential advantages" do NOT apply to a cheap MI analogue mixer. Mine is a pro quality Yamaha digital. Second, I also do a lot of live stuff that NEEDS a mixer. If I was purely doing home recording, I would go a very different route and just use a good interface.

I suspect most people see pictures of pro studios with big mixers and just assume that a console is needed. It's not--and, with the cheapies they can often get in the way and add noise to your recordings. If a newbie doesn't know why they need a mixing desk and/or can only afford a cheapie, they're likely better off without one.

Thanks for the posts guys, some really good info!

And as you said, bobbsy^^^. To a new person or someone not in the audio world, we always get this picture in our heads of this giant mixing board and that's where our preconceived notions are, i guess, formed about needing a mixing board to do "proper" recording.

So i got what most of the differences are now. So what is the point really of having a giant mixing board costing 10s of thousands of dollars when you can realistically have the same functions, quality, running through protools, but going through a top line interface at a fraction of the cost. Maybe I'm missing something here? There's obviously a reason why these studios have them. And choose them over several interfaces.

For your examples:
you can set up to track to record through a limiter or compressor and send it back to monitor in protools. We learned about that through a "signal flow" lesson in one of my classes the other week.

Assuming you don't have a single interface, but multiples chained together. You wouldn't have to worry about re-patching lines would you?




I guess I'm just still not seeing why you would need a mixer when most of everything can be done through interfaces and in a DAW.

 

[Bobbsy]

It's MAINLY down to a convenience issue. Even though you can do 90% of this "in the box" it can be more convenient to "grab a handful of faders" than mess with tiny knobs or, even worse, software controls that you operate one at a time with a mouse.

Beyond that, the point I made about a mixer as a control surface comes more and more into play as things get more professional. Many/most of those big mixers you see allow for full automation complete with motorised faders that move up and down exactly as preset--even my little Yamaha can do this.

So, basically it's not that you CAN'T do most of these things with an interface--it's just that having dedicated faders, knobs and buttons can be more convenient. Again, this only applies with "big boys toys"....the small ones don't give anything near the same functionality.

 

[Dionna Blue]

Ok...this is very interesting to me cuz I'm thinking I want to try a mixer to give me the option of controlling my sound better before it's recorded. When you say that you record and then move the tracks over to your software...what exactly do you mean?

Also, that mixers generally require recording in a bus...what does that mean??

In my mind, I would plug my mic into the mixer, mixer to the interface, interface to my laptop USB, test my vocals and then when I got the sound I wanted, record as usual...is that not how it works?

The cheif difference in most mixers vs mixing in the PC is that mixing in the PC can have as many discrete tracks as the hardware and software bundle can handle. Recording with a mixer usually means one stereo track, so you have to "mix live" and this removes the ability to balance out the sound form track to track had you used a sofware "mixer" which controls the discrete tracks. In summary, mixing in software usually opens up the possibility to remix and tweak individual tracks.

That is the most significant thing to know.

It still makes sense for some small single-person studios to have a mixer, I use a 12-channel mixer to keep all of my instruments in and configured, then I record one at a time and move the tracks over in software.

So, let's say I have mics, keyboard, bass guitar, guitar etc. I record one, then stop, drag the tracks over in software, then move to the next instrument on the physical mixer etc.

The key to remember is that physical mixers generally force you to record the master tracks in a bus, which is limited to a stereo pair in every mixer I have seen.

 

[gecko zzed]

In my mind, I would plug my mic into the mixer, mixer to the interface, interface to my laptop USB, test my vocals and then when I got the sound I wanted, record as usual...is that not how it works?

Yep . . . that's fine.

But it's not the only way.

There are two disadvantages of a mixer in the path:

1 You introduce another component, and therefore another source of noise; and
2 You can't undo what you've done if you decide afterwards that you don't like it.

With a computer-based system the mixer is unnecessary, unless you work best with the physicality of actual knobs and faders, or there is really something special about the gear you have that makes it overwhelmingly desirable over an in-the-box system.

In my mind (and in reality), I would plug my mike into the interface, interface into computer, and record. I would then listen to what I had recorded, then make adjustments as needed. The advantage is that you can change your mind, and try something different if you don't like what you hear.