Mixer:Pure Analog Path

[miroslav]

I am not a pro by any standard I am a home musician taht LOVES to play with sounds live, make a few songs, and enjoy himself! And I, like you I guess, appreciate good old analogue sound.....

Let's put our feet back on the ground for a moment.
What "good old analogue sound" do you appreciate?
I mean, what's that highest level of analog sound quality that you have experienced hands-on, so that you now feel compelled to seek out an analog-only solution with the implied disdain you are showing toward digital...???

Facts and actual experiences being used as some guiding light for decisions are one thing, but it sounds to me that you, like so many newbs and come-lately analog lovers, are just waxing poetic about something you've never, ever actually experienced, and you're making assumptions that no matter whatever you use, as long as it's "all-analog", it is automatically better.

Talking about sub-$100 mixers and in the same sentence worrying about "pure analog" about the "bits of digital" ruining your sound.....I mean, what are you talking about exactly?
Not trying to just give you a hard time, but there needs to be a "come to god" momement at some point where hard truths are faced and accepted.
Don't just do what some others around here do at times, and simply toss out blanket statements with mythical origins, just because someone, somewhere planted the analog seed in you head, and you want to now do the "analog-only" thing.
I'm totally into analog gear, but I don't worship anything/everything analog....just because it's analog.

That's the part about this forum that needs to change. This forum wasn't meant just for taking nostalgic trips down memory lane and carrying torches for anything analog, with dreamy myths as the fuel....just because it's analog.
Objective reality needs to be employed at all levels of gear use from the lowest lo-fi the the highest quality pro gear....otherwise blind analog love is just as silly and dumb as the digital fanatics who hate everything analog.


And while I do get some of the "artistic" angle lonewhitefly was referring to...about the use of old-school analog to set some "vibe" going, like a muse that helps you get where you want to go...still, at some point, if your goals are good audio purity/quality or some pro standard you are shooting for...there has to be common sense and reality checks about which analog gear you are using to get it.
I get the lo-fi guys who simply want to intentionally go lo-fi....they at least understand that it IS lo-fi.
Also, I get the home rec guys who just want to play around a bit with some antique analog gear for pure amusement.

Otherwise, if we want to talk about analog where words like purity and quality are in the same sentence...there has to some acceptance and understanding that only SOME analog gear will get you there, and that analog mythical powers don't exist for everything analog just because it is analog.
That's coming from a someone who has tons of analog gear....so I'm no analog hater just here to give someone a hard time about analog gear.

Also...."home recording" isn't the low-budget, duct tape on the mics, 4-track portastudio experience it migh have been 20-30 years ago. It's wide open now....and the funny thing is, much of that is due to digital, not analog. So just because some of us use analog gear, let's not stick our heads in the sand and use "home recording" as some excuse to not consider high-end audio quality as a norm as any audio engineer would. Let's not use "home recording" as a crutch.

 

[ecc83]

You don't have to tell ME FB that this is Home Recording forum! I have on at least two occasions reminded certain persons who were "in danger" shall we say, of being gear snobs. Mind you, this is not the Noobs section so the gloves are off a bit and the OP HAD picked up the totally wrong vibe that "Analogue is good. Digital is bad".

As has been pointed out more than once in this thread, the AO section is not (AFAIK?) here to knock digital or a platform for a digital.v.analogue war. I am of course firmly a digital user and will content myself with the fact that there are digital storage systems where a "back to back" A/B test would result in a chance score from a listening panel. No analogue system that I know of could pass such a test.

"But it is not ALL about fidelity!" Many say. Agreed, that's why this section exists because there are many types of recordist and many types of music makers and they all have their place.

Had I ever been lucky enough to record* a top musician, I would not have presumed to dictate the type of equipment or medium. The performance would have required the best technology I could lay my hands on and since tape, without extra, possibly detrimental NR devices, simply does not have the dynamic range for even a string quartet, I would have to go digital. But then a musician can use whatever he likes to produce the sound quality HE desires.

We "technicians" are forever being dammed for quoting "speccs" but even the most rabid "analoguphile" wants his tape machine "flat" and as noise free as technology can make it. He might slather over Neve "iron" but a build up of IM distortion would not be nice at all! (Circuit benders need not apply!)

All guitar amps distort but some distort "better" than others! The "Arteeests" might despise the technologist but like the car mechanic he cannot run without him!

There is room for all in the music recording game. I do not have the skill, art or inspiration to make music (I was a fair bass player) but if I can help somebody now and again with the nuts and bolts I shall.

Just remember that what is called "warmth", "vibe", "smooth" etc are DISTORTIONS at the end of the day and in the right place and the right genre and at the right level, we love 'em!
*And I should almost certainly done a duplicate recording at 96kHz even tho' I am convinced it makes no difference from 44.1 but I would be humble enough to think that in the future it MIGHT proved better.
Dave.

 

[famous beagle]

You don't have to tell ME FB that this is Home Recording forum! I have on at least two occasions reminded certain persons who were "in danger" shall we say, of being gear snobs. Mind you, this is not the Noobs section so the gloves are off a bit and the OP HAD picked up the totally wrong vibe that "Analogue is good. Digital is bad".

As has been pointed out more than once in this thread, the AO section is not (AFAIK?) here to knock digital or a platform for a digital.v.analogue war. I am of course firmly a digital user and will content myself with the fact that there are digital storage systems where a "back to back" A/B test would result in a chance score from a listening panel. No analogue system that I know of could pass such a test.

"But it is not ALL about fidelity!" Many say. Agreed, that's why this section exists because there are many types of recordist and many types of music makers and they all have their place.

Had I ever been lucky enough to record* a top musician, I would not have presumed to dictate the type of equipment or medium. The performance would have required the best technology I could lay my hands on and since tape, without extra, possibly detrimental NR devices, simply does not have the dynamic range for even a string quartet, I would have to go digital. But then a musician can use whatever he likes to produce the sound quality HE desires.

We "technicians" are forever being dammed for quoting "speccs" but even the most rabid "analoguphile" wants his tape machine "flat" and as noise free as technology can make it. He might slather over Neve "iron" but a build up of IM distortion would not be nice at all! (Circuit benders need not apply!)

All guitar amps distort but some distort "better" than others! The "Arteeests" might despise the technologist but like the car mechanic he cannot run without him!

There is room for all in the music recording game. I do not have the skill, art or inspiration to make music (I was a fair bass player) but if I can help somebody now and again with the nuts and bolts I shall.

Just remember that what is called "warmth", "vibe", "smooth" etc are DISTORTIONS at the end of the day and in the right place and the right genre and at the right level, we love 'em!
*And I should almost certainly done a duplicate recording at 96kHz even tho' I am convinced it makes no difference from 44.1 but I would be humble enough to think that in the future it MIGHT proved better.
Dave.

That's cool. I guess I made the mistake in thinking that most people on this forum are also musicians, and the main reason they got into home recording was to record themselves. I know that's the way it happened for me, and that's certainly the cliche that's disseminated throughout the marketing world.

 

[miroslav]

I guess I made the mistake in thinking that most people on this forum are also musicians, and the main reason they got into home recording was to record themselves.

Sure...but what's your point....was someone implying something different...???

 

[famous beagle]

Sure...but what's your point....was someone implying something different...???

Dave (ecc83) was addressing the fact that if the "artist" wants to use cheap equipment, then so be it, but as recordists, it's our job to record it with the best fidelity possible. My point is that most of the recordists on this forum (at least I would think) are also artists (I know that applies to me, at least, and it's rare that I hear of someone on here that's only an engineer). And therefore, their entire aesthetic and attitude will not only influence the type of instruments they play but could also influence the type of recording gear they choose to use.

 

[miroslav]

Yes...I would agree that probably 80% of the guys on HR talking recording are also musicians.
And I do get the whole "mojo" thing, the artistic influence....not just with the gear we chose, but the surroundings, the lighting...etc.

That said....I also do think that a lot of "home recording" guys DO really care about audio quality, and they're seeking a little more than just demo/garage band results.
When people say "it's just home recording"...that doesn't really mean anything specific anymore in this day and age, and it often sounds like some crutch or excuse at times...and not a conscious intention to keep things at some "home" recording level.
Being also musicians who record at home, isn't always an excuse not to concern ourselves about that quality or an assumption that we don't.

I said it earlier....objective reality about your gear, technique and goals is key here, whatever they are. The mythical beliefs about analog gear or whatever....really make no sense and shouldn't be used as a decision maker.

 

[famous beagle]

I said it earlier....objective reality about your gear, technique and goals is key here, whatever they are. The mythical beliefs about analog gear or whatever....really make no sense and shouldn't be used as a decision maker.

But seriously, why not? Says you, but why is it not ok for someone to want a piece of gear solely because of the way it looks? If it makes them happy, then who cares? So they're only getting a FR of 50Hz to 13.5KHz ... who cares? If they like it, and you don't hear them complaining that they're getting a shitty sound or it doesn't have fast enough editing features ... then why does it matter to you?

I know a lot of guys do care about quality, and if they're asking about that crap, then by all means, chime in with some helpful info. But I don't understand why people feel the need to burst balloons when someone says they're excited about the 4-track cassette player they found. What's really the point of doing that?

 

[Beck]

Get off your effing high horse and read the actual thread. All of it.

Not one digital mixer was mentioned--indeed the only queries were about worrying about an all-analogue path while using an apparently digital drum machine and wanting USB.

Nobody was pushing the OP in the direction of digital and I suspect everyone...even digital fans like me...understands that digital is simply not suitable for this guy's requirements. The only "snobbery" was a suggestion that, if quality is an issue, a sub-$100 Behringer is the wrong choice.

So read the thread and stop trolling, Beck. This ISN"T an analogue vs. digital thread--it's a discussion about what ANALOGUE mixer is most suitable.

Oh, and if we want to talk snobbery, consider the Soundcraft 200B. Are we really recommending a 20 or 30 year old mixer to somebody who wants something reliable enough for live sound? I loved the 200B but I'd only recommend it these days to an enthusiast with deep pockets, a good supply of spare boards and skills with a soldering iron.

I have no problem with keeping track of what is said, what is implied, etc. You quite obviously do.

I don't nor have I ever trolled in any forum. Simply because someone is speaking over your head does not mean they're trolling. It just means you can't keep up.

every time someone disagrees with you, you cry Troll!

When I recommend a vintage console or vintage anything else it goes without saying that it should be in excellent working condition... and that's what we're here for... to help members get suitable gear based on their stated needs.

I'm the one who said this thread should be about which analog console is most suitable. The OP mentioned concerns about the signal path being digital at some stage. But once again you miss those little things. So the thread most certainly did start off right off the bat with the analog/digital question. I have no comprehension problems and have the frustration of being one of the few people I know that can stay with a thread past the first page. I would tell you to go back and carefully read the thread, but judging from past threads I've watched you struggle with you wouldn't be able to retain anything long enough to contribute anymore than you have.

When an OP starts off saying he doesn't want his main signal digitized it most certainly enters the analog/digital issue from the word go. I don't miss a thing. For those that do of course they're not going to catch half of what I'm talking about and what the OP is really getting at.

By the way, how did you know I ride horses?

 

[miroslav]

But seriously, why not? Says you, but why is it not ok for someone to want a piece of gear solely because of the way it looks? If it makes them happy, then who cares? So they're only getting a FR of 50Hz to 13.5KHz ... who cares? If they like it, and you don't hear them complaining that they're getting a shitty sound or it doesn't have fast enough editing features ... then why does it matter to you?

I know a lot of guys do care about quality, and if they're asking about that crap, then by all means, chime in with some helpful info. But I don't understand why people feel the need to burst balloons when someone says they're excited about the 4-track cassette player they found. What's really the point of doing that?

I said "mojo" is OK, I believe in that....but if you're going to then *assume* that because some piece of gear has shiny knobs that you happen to like, and/or because it is something analog.... that somehow your audio will be more pure or better because of that…..
…well then, that's not being objective or realistic, and that's the stuff that creates audio Internet myths that then turn into gospel for some newbs.

Everyone is free to use whatever makes them happy, even if they just like the color of the thing....just do it with some objective reality and don't spread myths based on some mojo that works for you.
Audio gear beliefs shouldn't be like believing in Santa Clause.
It's got nothing to do with "bursting balloons" just to make someone unhappy.....but there's too much mythical crap around that turns into fact...and this being a forum, open discussion is what it's about.
The guy who runs out and buys a $50 USB mic...and then asks why his audio sucks....shouldn't complain or take it as a personal shot when people say, "buy a better damn mic".

 

[Beck]

This forum will always have a little analog vs digital to it. There's no getting around that. Just the fact that its here means a lot of us don't care for digital. If you swoop in here with your digital gospel trying to make waves it is you that is trolling where you don't belong.

 

[miroslav]

Everyone should chase after whatever analog or digital dream they have. The kid with $200 in his pocket asking about a tape recorder so he can add some "analog" to his recordings...hey, whatever. If it's going to make him happy to THINK he's going to get all this "analog goodness" with a 30 year-old 4-track cassette deck...I'm not going to try and stop him, though I may suggest something better.

However...the minute it involves also a discussion about analog purity, about audio quality, about actual sound improvement VS mythical magic....then those balloons need to be burst. Perpetuating misconceptions and/or creating myths is of no real benefit.....not to those who are more into the audio engineering side, not to the recording musicians and not to the guy who just wants to mess around a little with a tape deck.

It's not about snobbery, it's about objective reality at any level....and that applies to analog and digital recording.

 

[mdainsd]

This forum will always have a little analog vs digital to it. There's no getting around that. Just the fact that its here means a lot of us don't care for digital. If you swoop in here with your digital gospel trying to make waves it is you that is trolling where you don't belong.

I never have understood why people come into this sub-forum state their undying loyalty for digital technology and go further to state that they would never use analog. OK, good for you. Each their own. But to come into a place clearly marked as "Analog Only" and start shit. Why? They arent going to change anyone's opinion in here. The analog people have selected analog for whatever reason. It doesnt have to be logical it just has to make sense to them. I dont see the regulars in here trolling the other sub-forums dogging digital. How about the same courtesy? Or maybe they are just uncomfortable with their lifestyle choices, in this case going digital
-

 

[famous beagle]

The guy who runs out and buys a $50 USB mic...and then asks why his audio sucks....shouldn't complain or take it as a personal shot when people say, "buy a better damn mic".

Exactly .... and then asks why his audio sucks

That's my whole point. Many times people start dissing gear on here even when someone hasn't complained about it. They're actually excited about it.

 

[Chilljam]

The OP wanted a pure analog signal path from his instruments to the speaker cone. I agree with what Miroslav is saying but he seems to have interpreted analog purity as meaning some hi-fi analog recording or something and therefore can't be achieved with a behringer micro mixer which ignited most of the discussion.

I thought the OP made it very clear that he is concerned with keeping his audio signal 100% analog from start to finish with no A/D/A conversions so the behringer mixer is fine for achieving this - he didn't say anywhere that he wanted the best possible signal path, just one that was 100% analog all the way.

 

[miroslav]

Well....I don't recall that I personally was ever dissing this OP's choice, and I try not to do that out-of-hand...though sometimes, when you know something is a piece of crap....well, that's what it is

When I asked the OP in the first couple of posts, what type of "pure" he was after....he did say "a good pure analog signal", which certainly to me had more meaning than just "all-analog path", though I know he also was talking about that too.

Again, most of this thread is NOT meant to dissect or attack what the OP was trying to say.....that was only the opening for the deeper thread discussion. I'm not faulting the OP in any way or suggesting that he was trying intentionally to talk about quality audio with his sub-$100 mixer choice...though he was obviously concerned about it......the quality of the audio.
So really, I would think at some point the cheap gear and quality audio discussion are going to come face to face, and that's what happened.

I also don't see that anyone else really jumped on the OP right from the gitgo....though I know it has happened in some threads from time to time.
Guy asks about his microphone upgrade....and 5 guys show up to sell him a studio redesign and lots of acoustic treatment.
Of course....at some point (probably better sooner than later) the guy SHOULD think about his studio space and acoustic treatment if he's not happy with what he's getting, and maybe erroneously thinking he needs a new mic. So then, who is doing the guy more of a dissservice....the folks who just suggest a bunch of mics for him to go buy, or the guys who take a step back and consider the big picture....?

I mean....what's the real focus in an audio forum discussion....not hurting someone's feelings, or giving the facts even if they are not what the OP wants to hear...?
Then you have the folks who sometimes try to dodge, ingore or change the facts by thinking/saying that it's just "home recording"....or who will turn to more mythical perspectives to defend their choices.

 

[Bobbsy]

This forum will always have a little analog vs digital to it. There's no getting around that. Just the fact that its here means a lot of us don't care for digital. If you swoop in here with your digital gospel trying to make waves it is you that is trolling where you don't belong.

The only one in this thread trying to turn it into a typical analogue vs. digital debate is YOU, hence my (pretty accurate) call of "Troll!". Meanwhile the rest of us are having a fairly interesting discussion on the relative quality of various analogue boards.

As for the other half of the discussion, it's one thing to make a gear choice because you like the way it affects sound even if that effect is, technically, a fault. If you like the way something sounds that's great.

Hell, it's even okay to choose a piece of gear because you like the way the controls work.

What's less all right (in my mind) is to choose a piece of gear because it's cheap and easy to get then assume that, because it's "analogue" it will give you the same warm, analogue sound as an SSL or Neve board. That's not a decision on artistic grounds. It's a decision based on a lack of information.

From his initial post, the OP is obviously interested in quality and wants his live performances and recordings to sound good. His proposed Xenyx mixer will not achieve that for him, hence the various suggestions of other--better--economy mixers. It's the same reason I suggested a better second hand unit rather than necessarily going with new. I do, however, question the wisdom of going with a 20 or 30 year old mixer even if it's in "good working order" at the time you buy it. Soundcraft 200B mixers are great and I've used them for thousands of hours--but, at this age there WILL be big ongoing maintenance issues as caps dry out and so on. An enthusiast who likes doing maintenance could get a good mixer (though working power supplies are getting few and far between) but if you want to be an artistic musician, then a really old board and not worry about matters technical, then a 20 year old unit is not the one for you.

 

[miroslav]

All I can say is....
I've done my part to get this thread into the top 10 for HR's Saturday Newsletter.
Some of you are slacking off.....

 

[Bobbsy]

I'm sure we'll make it Miroslav. What would the Saturday Newsletter be without its weekly (or is that weakly?) off topic argument?

 

[miroslav]

I think were keeping on topic fairly well.....that's why it's only up to page 2!

 

[Bobbsy]

If you're in the default number of posts per pages, we're on page 6!

...sort of a post count in dog years or something!