Is it essential to have a mixing board?

ManInMotion711

ManInMotion711

New member
Im getting more in depth with my recordings and im hitting a million and one more questions. ill start with this one. Is it essential to have a mixing board? I honestly dont know if what DAW i use makes any sort of difference let alone what audio interface i use but in case i have a Tascam US-1800 running into a i3-2350M 64-bit HP pavilion. and for my DAW i use Mixcraft 5. Mixcraft obviously comes with the ability to digitally mess with the lows, mediums, and highs. Would it be more beneficial though to have an external mixing board and again is it essential? Any sort of information would be helpful.
 
You would want a mixer more for the routing/monitoring options than to alter the sound of the final mix. If what you have now takes care of your monitoring needs then you probably don't need a mixer.

That is, unless you want to get into hybrid mixing, in which case you'll want to spend some serious money on the analog stuff. That could be anything from a summing box to a mixer with a rack of outboard.

Or perhaps you mean a controller? Those look like mixers but really just operate the DAW with buttons, sliders and knobs instead of using your mouse and keyboard.
 
If you are just starting out, then a mixing board is a level of complexity that you can do without. It is not necessary, and you can achieve most of your needs within your DAW.
 
Naw man. Not unless you have reason to do so.

I am curious, why Mixcraft? Did you not like the Cubase LE that came with the 1800?
 
Some boring old git wrote a FAQ on mixers and home recording which you can find HERE.

Suffice to say that the executive summary would be something like "No, you absolutely do not need a mixer. They can be useful for certain tasks as your level of complexity (and experience) goes up but unless you spend a lot of money they tend to add more issues than they solve".

Between your interface (which is a very useful one) and most DAWs, you can accomplish almost everything without a mixer.
 
Bobbsy said:
Some boring old git wrote a FAQ on mixers and home recording which you can find HERE.

Suffice to say that the executive summary would be something like "No, you absolutely do not need a mixer. They can be useful for certain tasks as your level of complexity (and experience) goes up but unless you spend a lot of money they tend to add more issues than they solve".

Between your interface (which is a very useful one) and most DAWs, you can accomplish almost everything without a mixer.
Click to expand...

That boring old git wrote some great stuff! :)
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Or perhaps you mean a controller? Those look like mixers but really just operate the DAW with buttons, sliders and knobs instead of using your mouse and keyboard.
Click to expand...

I was indeed referring to a controller. They do look really similar. sorry for possible confusion. and thanks to everyone for your help. Ive been trying to upgrade and a few things to my equipment and couldnt decide between a mixer ( controller ) or another large diaphram mic. i was going to go with the more essential but i think i just figured out my choice. and Jimmy69 Ive been using mixcraft since day 1. other than audacity < hate it btw. but i just didnt like the feel of cubase. i tried it for a bit, got a song down on it. the whole process was just to different for me.
 
Hey.
A control surface is just a big mouse/keyboard.
Some of them might have basic routing options and volume controls built in, but 90% of the time they're just for convenient DAW control.

Control surfaces are definitely not essential, but some people like them.
 
I considered purchasing a MIDI controller for mixing, KC's, etc and being that I own Cubase I was seriously looking at Steinberg's CMC series specifically designed for Cubase control. I ended up concluding that for my purposes it would take a lot of cash to get enough controller(s) that I could keep my hand off the mouse (especially as feature rich as Cubase is).
 
Oh, ok.
Then yeah. Some people like to have that physical/tangible control, especially where riding faders is concerned.
It's much more natural that using a mouse.
It's also nice to be able to mute/solo things simultaneously for immediate comparison. That's something a mouse can't do.
 
Ethan Winer said:
I think a small format mixer is very useful. It's easier and simpler to set up an earphone mix, and it gives you a volume control to lunge for if something starts squealing really loudly! :D

This article should help:

Using a Mixer With a DAW

--Ethan
Click to expand...

I'm in basic agreement and, indeed, have a decent mixer that I use both in my home studio and also for live work.

However, the key phrase there is "decent mixer". Far too many of the economy small format mixers simply don't have the right signal routing options to make them worthwhile. I'm talking about things like a sufficient number of pre-fade aux channels to set up headphone mixes, direct outs as required for multitrack recording and so on. Worst (and very pervasive) are the USB mixers that only feed the main stereo mix via USB to the computer--and only let you bring the computer output into the main mix--totally useless to my mind. That's why I say that, unless a user has the budget and the experience to choose an appropriate mixer, they're usually better off without one.

ManInMotion711 said:
Basically like some people like having it physical instead of digital is what im assuming your trying to say
Click to expand...

Just to be a pedant, the two aren't mutually exclusive. My mixer is digital but has physical faders etc. :D (Don't worry...I know what you meant.) Even though I love doing live mixing with physical faders, for studio stuff I've gone almost exclusively to "in the box" working for the actual mix. Even if I can use a mixer to roughly set automation channels, I find I'm still diving in and working in the box to tweak my cues to be on exact beats rather than the approximation I get doing it live. For this reason, my mixer spends far more time setting up monitor mixes and gain structure for recording than it does actually "mixing". (That's in the studio...live, of course, it different.)
 
People with a good sense of timing can detect even relatively small amounts of lag (the delay time caused by a signal passing thru AD-DA converters, getting processed by the computer, then reconverted on the way back out.

With a small and inexpensive analog mixer, you can give the talent a headphone mix that blends the output of the computer with the live track, without that lag-time delaying the live track.

Small 4 channel mixers are available for relatively cheap. For example:

Behringer XENYX 802 Mixer | Musician's Friend

I am not recommending any particular brand. The mixer in the link is simply an example of the type of small mixer available at that price point. Shop around if that is the direction you decide to go in, for there are many choice in terms of brands and features (effects, aux sends etc).
 
All true, Tom.

Except that pretty well any decent Audio Interface can provide the same facility these days.

When suggesting features to look at in interfaces, one of the first things I mention is "direct hardware monitoring" which allows the user to set a mix between the prerecorded sound coming from the computer and the "new" sound being recorded. All but the cheapest/nastiest interfaces have this facility and not many without it get recommended by HR regulars.

Indeed, you have to watch out with cheap mixers that they can do this--not all have the necessary pre fade aux channels to allow this. Many USB mixers only bring the computer output to the main stereo mix rather than to an Aux, making them useless for monitor purposes. (I should say that I haven't checked the routing facilities on the mixer you mention--I'm just speaking generally of many cheap USB mixers.)

With that caveat though, the ability to set up multiple headphone monitor feeds is one of the biggest advantages of slightly more complex mixers. I use a mixer precisely for this with one that can create up to 8 monitor mixes...and I've used all 8 on a few occasions with between 2 and 4 being very common.
 
There are many option Bobbsy, including interfaces that have direct monitoring, as well as traditional mixers. The (relatively) new RME Totalmix FX even allows you to put verb on your ITB cue mixes.

My first nice interface I bought back in the late 90s was an ST Audio C-Port 8 channel rack unit with zero latency software mix capability. My current RME card that interfaces with my pres via ADAT lightpipe features multiple cue mixes.

I also have an HD24 racked for mobile location recording, which more or less requires a mixer for the headphone mixes involved in doing overdubs.

Its also important to note that latency isn't that big a deal for some people. Since sound travels about a foot per millisecond through air, an interface that only has a modest 6 ms of lag is about the same delay time as a person standing on stage hears from a vocal wedge monitor at his feet. But, depending on the specs of the computer, many times people have to set their buffers at higher lag times to get stable performance.

But I have noticed that certain singers (and especially drummers) are VERY sensitive to any delay between the sound which they hear in their head via bone conduction and the sound coming back in their cans.

And since there are plenty of interfaces lacking direct monitoring (for example I have an M-Audio Profire Lightbridge that does not) an inexpensive mixer takes care of that nicely. If used gear doesn't scare a person off, there is also a HUGE market (see Craigslist for example) of available mixers for cheap prices out there. But its up to each person to assess their needs (along with their budget!) when making their choices.
 
My main point on cheap mixers, particularly ones acting as a USB interface themselves, is that many don't have the routing options to make them in any way useful for setting up monitoring. I've seen so many posts in here from people struggling because the USB output from the computer can only be routed to the main mix (which, since that main mix is what's fed back into the computer) is a great way to record howl round but not much more.

People also need to be aware that there's no such thing as "something for nothing". If you get a whole mixer including channel EQ (usually useless), extra metering (again, usually useless) and so on, for the same price as a simple AI, corners have had to be cut somewhere. That somewhere is often build and/or audio quality.

Onto other things. You have me curious as to how you're using the Profire Lightbridge. No, it doesn't have direct monitoring but neither is it an interface in the conventional definition of the word. It doesn't have mic inputs etc., rather it's simple a converter to take ADAT signals (up to 4) and convert them to Firewire to interface with a computer. (And the reverse of course.)

I actually use a Lightbridge but it has nothing to do with monitoring for me--that's handled in the digital mixer I feed into the Lightbridge. Also, the Lightbridge doesn't add an appreciable latency in itself, although the problems with a round trip via the computer would still apply if I worked that way. I don't. As it is, monitoring latency on my system is just over 2ms which is the figure for mixer input to mixer output via the worst path.
 
I find this little unit: Behringer: MINIMON MON800

better than a small mixer, has a lot of in/outs etc , talk back mic, dim, mono.

I link it to a 4 channel headphone amp and 2 sets of monitors.

Extremely easy to use, and cheap 40bucks off ebay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top