Hi all. I was looking for a audio interface like an m-audio one with 2 inputs or something like that but found that you can get a mixer with a lot of channels quite a bit cheaper than I expected. I found this mixer and would like to know if anyone can tell me if its any good? It won't let me post the link but it is a Pyle Pro PMX1609. Would this be ideal for use in a home recording studio??? If not, does anyone know of any relatively cheap mixers that would be suitable for say at least 10 mice at once? About £200-£400 would be my budget If I can get anything for that would be wiling to spend a bit more and don't mind buying second hand. I've seen a few decent looking ones go for that sort of price on ebay but Im new to this so i don't know what the quality of them is like. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Looking for a cheap console with plenty of channels for drum mics etc.
- Thread starter TheThing
- Start date
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
The Pyle is a pile (of crap).
If your budget is that low, don't even consider using mixers -- Just get a simple interface with a bunch of mic preamps and run with it. It's not like there's an advantage to having a mixer (especially a crappy one) in a simple recording rig.
Even with that mixer (that doesn't even have tape outs), you'd still need an interface with at least 10 line inputs.
If your budget is that low, don't even consider using mixers -- Just get a simple interface with a bunch of mic preamps and run with it. It's not like there's an advantage to having a mixer (especially a crappy one) in a simple recording rig.
Even with that mixer (that doesn't even have tape outs), you'd still need an interface with at least 10 line inputs.
DM60
Well-known member
If you can drop down (audio interface) to 8, you have many options within your budget. Usually they go from 8 to 16 with the price doubling.
there are some virtues you can learn from using a mixer. particularly mic placement. In one of my teaching exercises it involves using multiple mics and moving one mic to get the feel of the relationship of the other mics (this really hard to explain in words) phase/pan relation, how relative distance can effect overall sound. etc.
but for modern mixing techniques that require the low headroom mixes that are used commercially, spitting your tracks up: Kick(s) mono, Snare(s) mono, toms stereo, overhead stereo. so a by 8 would be optimal.
I would look into a mid 70-s to mid 80's studiomaster as a beginner board. The channel pre's are better than most and the only thing above those would be your higher end pre's (like API or John Hardy…etc).
It is also nice to have headphone mixes on a board compared to a computer. I use a presonus studio/live just for headphones so when different musicians come to play I have a good rough mix for them already saved.
but for modern mixing techniques that require the low headroom mixes that are used commercially, spitting your tracks up: Kick(s) mono, Snare(s) mono, toms stereo, overhead stereo. so a by 8 would be optimal.
I would look into a mid 70-s to mid 80's studiomaster as a beginner board. The channel pre's are better than most and the only thing above those would be your higher end pre's (like API or John Hardy…etc).
It is also nice to have headphone mixes on a board compared to a computer. I use a presonus studio/live just for headphones so when different musicians come to play I have a good rough mix for them already saved.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
And the relationship between a mixer (edit) and mic placement is what exactly...?
You're confusing the issue between mono and stereo... Inputs are mono. The MIX is (or is not) stereo. It's the difference between L&R. And again, has nothing to do with a mixer (unless you're mixing, which isn't what the thread is about).
Gonna disagree in a major way there. I don't know if I've ever heard "Studiomaster" and something eluding to "nice preamps" in the same sentence... And still, the OP needs an interface.
Saving them or not, I'll go along with that (headphone mixes being much easier and intuitive using physical auxiliary sends).
That said, for the OP's purposes, just about any mixer would be a waste of -- everything. Except for a couple inputs.
Last edited:
maybe you don't understand how sound waves capture in real space to relative positioning angles of one and many capturing points in space simultaneously? Maybe you must have learn by classroom instead of artisan like me.
since the OP was aiming for recording a consolidation of many mics to one channel or a couple of channels (which has been done commercially since the late fifties).I was referring to one of my techniques that I have taught others and they use it commercially. The channel layout you probably don't understand and that is ok. That is why we only give you two tracks and pay you to nick-pick. the point is to consolidate like voices so there is more control over the mix as a whole.
I'll let you wonder about that since they were in vogue when you were a child. Maybe you should research who used them and what studios used them.
Yes, the OP needs an interface, line levels in only, because those mic preamps on the interfaces are poor quality. And its better to use something that was used in the field instead of Chinese copies of gear that hasn't. Might as well use the correct stuff from the start. then replace with nicer later and not play the converter upgrade game.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
There's something being lost in translation here, because I found this text impenetrable. For example, you really need to have another go at explaining this: "maybe you don't understand how sound waves capture in real space to relative positioning angles of one and many capturing points in space simultaneously." I was trying to assess your reported post, and I really can't tell what the issue is.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
No, I understand it just fine. But again -- WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH HAVING A MIXER over simply using a multi-channel interface?
Don't be an ass, okay...? I had several hundred recordings under my belt before I got thrown into the mastering chair on just about any board you can think of. Including Studiomaster. They weren't that great -- And I certainly wouldn't want to put someone with limited technical knowledge into a 30-year old console that's going to need a bunch of maintenance when he just wants a simple and freakishly cheap way of getting some tracks into a computer.
I don't even know what you mean by that... Been there - done that. They were the Allen & Heath of the time. Inexpensive, reasonably decent for the money, but nothing spectacular by any stretch.
So the "correct" stuff would be a 30-year old, probably rusty, certainly out-of-prime, noisy by today's standards (even with most of the cheap stuff), definitely large (etc., etc., etc.) console *AND* a separate interface (and all the additional cabling necessary, etc.) instead of just throwing a few hundred bucks into a single rack space with 4 or 8 preamps and no additional trouble...?
Let's leave it at "he knows his options now" and go from there.
Using a mixer to review multiple microphones wile monitoring them in the headphones and relating positions and angles between multiple microphones and observing tonal and amplitude changes with pan can be helpful to get the desired sound for the recording is a great tool for leaning different microphone positions and combinations. I hope that helps you understand what I'm saying in Czech.
What I understand the original poster was combining channels then tracking them like my generation did in the four track days.
What I understand the original poster was combining channels then tracking them like my generation did in the four track days.
IDK, I just spent the last few days with the mixer in sonar - while the mackie 24-8 did (and does) get used for phones mixes for tracking, it sets idle otherwise.
I do agree that having and learning via hardware/mixer setup is probably a good discipline', and handy if it fits your work flow and methods, whether it's the way to go these days..?
I do agree that having and learning via hardware/mixer setup is probably a good discipline', and handy if it fits your work flow and methods, whether it's the way to go these days..?
Farview
Well-known member
You don't need a physical mixers to do your Mic placement experiment. The only reason he was trying to premix the drum mics is because he easy focused on using a two channel interface. If he used the money to get an 8 channel interface with preamps, there would be no need for a mixer and all the cabling and stupidity that goes with it.
I would think that starting out with the most basic type of rig would be the best way.
Chili
Site Moderator
There are a couple of options in that price range. Take a look at the Tascam US-1800. 8 channels with mic pres. There is also a Zoom R8 which might do what you want. Both units have been used by members here and are well received for what they do.