Is this a good set up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wpolglase
  • Start date Start date
W

wpolglase

New member
Mic –Pre Amp – Mixer – Audio interface – Computer

Mixer – Monitor Speakers / Headphones

Midi Controller – Audio Interface - Computer

If there is a more effective set up how would i connect it all?
 
If you have a mixer, then you don't need a pre-amp. If you have an interface with pre-amps, you don't need a mixer.
You also need to get from computer back out to your monitoring chain.

Depending on your midi controller, you can go through interface, or maybe direct to computer via USB

so maybe:

1 mic - mixer - interface - computer
computer - interface - mixer - speakers/headphones

or

2 mic - interface - computer
computer - interface - speakers/headphones
 
Hi, that's pretty vague and we don't know what you want to do with this setup, but my general advice is to keep the signal path as simple as possible.

Mic plugged into interface.

Monitors plugged into interface.

Midi controller into interface via midi, or just into PC via usb.
Simples :)
Obviously for this to work you need an interface with mic preamps and phantom power if you're using condensers.


Someone people really do want/need mixers, but most people just think a studio should have a mixer.

Unless you're recording down to tape or some other kind of 'mixdown' device, there's no real need.

When I started out it was the first thing I bought, and the last thing I needed.
 
But don't you need to mixer to use the faders?
And say, if you wanted to record drums - wouldn't you need a mixer - or could you just plug that in to the interface (if it had enough inputs)?
 
Like I say, it depends what you want to do, but generally, no.
If you were doing live interviews or podcasting or something, then it'd be useful.


Music wise, in 'the old days' it was common place to have a band all miced up at once, with each mic going to a channel on a mixer.
Maybe the individual tracks were recorded to a multitrack machine, maybe not, but either way it all had to go through the mixer at some point.

That mixer would combine the signals into a stereo mix which was then recorded down to tape, or DAT or something.
If that final tape or dat mix wasn't perfect, you ran it again which meant getting the band to play again, or rewinding the multitrack and trying the mix again.

Engineers would literally sit and perform all the fade ins and fade outs that you hear. They'd eq on the fly, turn up reverb tails etc.

Then hardware automation came in, which meant that the mixer would remember your changes and be able to carry them out from memory each time.
Nowadays it's just not necessary. If you have an interface with X number of inputs, you can record all those channels into software and then automate or control the virtual faders.

You can effectively spend as long as you want doing what engineers used to have 3:30 to do.
 
So why do industry standard studios have REALLY big mixers?
 
I'd say the main reason is because of what they are. Pure quality.

They're neve or SSL or whatever, but those guys are looking at 96 channels of gear, and each channel is probably worth a few grand.
The eqs and compressors and all that jazz; Same reason. Sheer quality, or unique contribution to the sound.

If you need gear on that scale, what's the alternative? 12 sets of high quality converters and either 12 boxes of 8 preamps, or racks upon racks of single/dual preamps?
A big mixer makes sense if you're recording the london symphony or something.


I'm going out on a limb, but I reckon if behringer made a 96 channel mixer with all the same functionality as some mad neve or whatever, no body would buy it.

Keep in mind, most/all of these consoles come with, or are retrofitted with hardware automation, so there's one drawback of the 'old days' dealt with.
They work like a massive 3d protools, or rather, protools works like a software version of these mixers.

There's the routing too. We're talking about studios that have a few hundred thousand tied up in outboard effects and preamps that are like hens teeth.
I suppose it's much more convenient to patch that into a traditional mixer setup.

Plus, many of these guys track to tape, then mix, then bounce to stereo tape. I'm sure there are many studios that pride themselves on being pure analog.

There's the control element too. It's just pure convenience being able to mute/solo by hand, move several faders at once, etc.
I can understand why a lot of home studio guys have euphonix control surfaces and things like that, but that's a lot of money for something with no sonic contribution.


All that all being said, I'm sure there are a lot of 'industry standard studios' who are ITB all the way.

Bottom line, on a budget of a few hundred dollars, a mixer is likely to do more harm than good to any signal path.
 
Last edited:
would the Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 be a good audio interface? and what is the point in having outs on an audio interface - when you just connect it to you computer via usb or firewire?
 
You need outs to feed to your monitors--speakers or headset.

A decent interface let's you do direct hardware monitoring so what you're recording doesn't have to do a round trip through the computer (and adding latency) when you're recording.

There's a sticky HERE giving some of the pros and cons of using a mixer in a home studio. However, Steenamaroo sums it up pretty well. Unless you need some of the specific features (and are prepared to spend a lot more than entry level money) you're probably better off not inserting a cheap mixer into your chain.
 
As Bobbsy said, the outs would go to your monitors.
They usually provide extra outputs for things like reamping, powering headphone amps, monitors in another room maybe, using outboard effects after recording.

Saffire Pro range gets a good name. Be aware though, that's a 'bells and whistles' model. You get S/pdif and adat I/O on top of the analog I/O that you want.

There may be cheaper, more suitable interfaces depending on your needs.
 
i would agree with everybody on here.
1: find out exactly what you what to achieve and then base that on what you need to obtain that goal.
2: get the most simple equipment that you can to achieve your goal.
the reason i say this is that the last thing you want is to have a massive learning curve in front of you, you don't want to have to learn four pieces of gear all at once, it can become over whelming. then again i don't know your expertise level.if you really know your stuff then go for what ever you need and forget about a learning curve.
3: keep doing what your doing and that is research, you can never do enough of it. theres been times where i wanted a new piece of gear and iv'e downloaded the manual just to see what i can do with the gear and how complicated it will be to learn. either way i wish you the best of luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top