Master Mix techniques

[wordizbon]

So after a long debate on whether I should go analog or digital when purchasing my mixer I decide to go with the Mackie 1604 VLZ PRO.

Now my question is what is the best mixing and bussing tech. I use an 8 output module, 8 output drum machine, and a 4 output keyboard. I also have a MOTU 2408 mkII and patch bay. All are gonna be sent to cubase of mixing equing, etc.

Do I use the 6 direct outputs, the 4 buss, how many channels should I return into the board from the computer. Do I need more than 2 channels.

Configuring a mixer can give headaches for about a week, but once done should be problem free. Any suggestions??

 

[Track Rat]

Kind of a matter of taste, ya know? Some folks prefer mixing completely in software. In that case only a stereo pair just to monitor. With the eight outputs you could treat them like 4 stereo groups. I did something simular to this when I ran a Gina card. I kind of liked that set up. My current set up has all individual tracks going back to an analog console to mix which is what I prefer.

 

[wordizbon]

Ok I hear you. One question though. If I go with the multiple outputs from cubase. What is the advantages of having more than one mix. Ya know Master, Bus 1, Bus 2, etc. Also the mixers manual says a lot of things about mixing down on the main mix to tape. Would I ever really use those outputs for that purpose. Are there any advantages to having the control outputs as well as the main mix. Just trying to expand my mind on this. Get some ideas ya know?

 

[Track Rat]

With the four stereo buss set up you can group things and take the burden of the software stereo mix buss which in my opinion is the biggest plus of this technique. You can send all vocal tracks to one buss, drums to another, guitars to another, etc. By keeping 6 to 8 tracks max grouped and the four groups then mixed analog it just sounds better than pure software mixing. I want to stress that this is just my humble opinion based on my limited experience. Also with this hybrid setup, you can use hardware compression, EQ and effects, a MAJOR plus as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tubedude]

The Mackie is not a great choice for actual mix buss... its very low headroom and craps out easy.
Once again, I suggest a soundcraft M or an A&H for something other than just scoring 8 decent preamps, which is, IMO, what the Mackie is for.
YMMV!

 

[Teacher]

a work around for the low head room in the mackie would be to; when mixing have the main peak meter never go above zero(the more you push the mackie the thinner and more 2d it gets)... and send all the signals to the alt-out(one less shitty mackie op amp to go thru) then get a decent pre amp to raise the volume of the track when going to tape...still sounds a lil thin but the bass sounds a lot bigger this way...

 

[wordizbon]

So what are you guys trying to tell me, the mackie is not a good choice cause of low headroom? Thats the first I've heard something like this. I did research with many people, I mean MANY. And no one ever said bad things like what I'm hearing (seeing) now. I'm confused. I thought the mackie was the highest headroom in it's class? Elab please!

 

[tubedude]

Highest, no. Lowest, close.
Ummm, who did you ask, exactly?
IMO, the Mackie is for preamps and direct outs, maybe headphone monitoring. Anything mix related should go elsewhere.

 

[tubedude]

I just popped on R.A.P and found hundreds of listings under "mackie" and "headroom" in a matter of seconds.
Lots of info there about it.
Like I said, dont know who you asked or where you looked, but its all over the place!
Peace.