Mixer:Pure Analog Path

[miroslav]

That's nuts....that's like 10 posts per page only.

I set mine for 30 posts/page....so I'm on Page 2, and this post #61 just started page 3.

 

[Beck]

Ah, that looks nice! Unfortunately they do not ship to my country

I will write some more later maybe to clarify what I need the mixer for. 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 rather than the bits of digital. So, my main aim is to enjoy myself playing live and hearing a good analogue sound coming out of the speakers: not for big gigs, but for myself playing alone (why not a gig for ourselves? ), for family and friends. At least for now. And that is why I sequence with the computer - I cant play all at once and I dont own an acoustic piano for example

I did look at used mixers in a website in my country like ebay. I found some interesting stuff of brands you mentioned like Yamaha, Soundcraft and Mackie. Later if I can I will try to find the excat models and ask you for an opinion. They are still 3 times more expensive than a Behringer...so, is it worth it? From your answers it seems it is.

But I would also appreciate people who actually owned and used a behri mixer and then another to tell me what they thought about the sound differences. Sweetbeats recent post explaining that the sound feels "suffocated" on the behringer was very helpful.

Cheers.

That's what we're here for. Show us some specific models you're interested in and w can help you narrow things down.

 

[AudioJunky]

Wow, I am amazed at the size and lenght of discussions already! Never thought that a fairly inocent question would lead to this!

Someone wrote: "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."

Yes, this is correct. This was exactly my intention. I got immediate strong replies (and this was my entry post in the HR forums!) stating that a "sub-100$" mixer is not good enough. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "pure" but I didn't use it to mean hi-fidelity but precisely a path with no A/D/A converters. Hope this is clear.

However you did get me wondering about quality as I had not thought (being new to mixers) that a more expensive mixer could make such a big differences (does it? This is not clear to me yet from the discussions...). In fact, reading reviews online on the Xenyx mixers I get mostly praise, hence I was really surprised with these reactions. Didn't mean you are not right, and that is why I am considering other options. Still would be happy to hear from people who ACTUALLY owned and used/use Xenyx mixers to tell me what they think about their sound as compared to others. I hope you are not dissing them just because they are less expensive but because you actually KNOW from experience that they have a lower sound quality.

So, I started looking around for other mixers. So far I found these second hand that match my specs, please let me know what you think:
Yamaha MG 102 C (75€)
Mackie 1202 (175€)

I need to manage my budget also: I want an adequate mixer but also need to invest in other gear so I need to find a balance here and maybe a Behringer for my needs is not too bad? Please try to be honest, speak from experience, and avoid prejudice. I would appreciate it.

 

[jpmorris]

So, I started looking around for other mixers. So far I found these second hand that match my specs, please let me know what you think:
Yamaha MG 102 C (75€)
Mackie 1202 (175€)

I can't speak for the Xenyx, but my first album was mixed on a Behringer MX802a. For the second one, I upgraded to the Yamaha MG16/4 since I was planning to eventually lock two 8-track recorders together and get 14 tracks instead of 8.
The mastering engineer said that the sound quality was very noticeably better on the second album. How much of that was down to my having had more experience and how much of it was down to upgrading the mixer I really couldn't say, but I found it rather interesting.

 

[miroslav]

However you did get me wondering about quality as I had not thought (being new to mixers) that a more expensive mixer could make such a big differences (does it? This is not clear to me yet from the discussions...).

Yes....it does make a difference, sometimes a big difference.
Of course, you have to put it into perspective....if you're going to compare three similar $100 mixers, you may not notice anything. If you then compare them to 3 other $300 mixers.....I hate to say it, apart from maybe more features and better routing, AFA the "sound" you may still not hear any difference....but once you take a more significant price leap, you'll start to notice it.

It's nothing about "snobbery"....but 12-channel mixers in the low hundred$ are not going to give much consideration to pristine audio quality....which you really seem to be concerned about, and if it's THAT important to you, maybe for now get what you can afford and basically stop worrying about other user experiences and the audio quality at that low price point...and when you are ready, step it up to a higher quality mixer.
Also....if you get 20 people telling you the Xenyx sounds terrific, yet that's about all they've ever used or similar, well, that's not going to be much of a validation for it.

You could also find better, used mixers on eBay, without the brand new high prices....but maybe that's something you don't want to consider...?

Since you're on such a tight budget....get the Xenyx (or any of the three) and whatever else you were planning, and just move on. Focus on you music and have your eye on the future and a possible upgrade, but IMO, right now you're looking too hard for some obvious quality distinctions between the three mixers you mentioned, but in that low price range....it will be splitting very fine hairs....so focus on their fetaures and routing.

I'm sure you'll pick the one that fits your budget and hopefully your expectations....just be realistic.

 

[AudioJunky]

Thanks, that's cool. That's the kind of advice I was hoping to get. Appreciate it.

 

[ecc83]

I would never presume to comment about the "sound" of anything, mixer, mic, anything because I am clinically deaf.
People make great claims for the sound of $1000 strips/pres whatever but as a technician I have never seen any kind of explanation as to how this is achieved?
I understand enough about the construction of high end electronics to know that you can, by throwing a lot of money at the problem, get pre amps with a few dB better noise figures than the run of the mill kit. Also, certain techniques can get distortion down to virtually unmeasurable levels but neither of those parameters makes diddly diff to the SOUND quality and would only be noticed in very extreme recording conditions, e.g. a ribbon further away from the source than is usual or desired.

I don't disbelieve anyone's claims for their equipment I would simply like to know what the fairy dust is?

Once upon a time high end preamps were very expensive because getting low noise and low distortion from valves and transformers is hard. Similarly, when transistors came in they had to be selected for noise and getting adequate headroom was tricky (in fact early transistor amps had distortion levels that would make us cringe today but tape, radio and vinyl were still an order worse so din't matter!).

Modern semiconductors have caught up and far surpassed the old kit even at $5.00 a channel.

Dave.

 

[Bobbsy]

However you did get me wondering about quality as I had not thought (being new to mixers) that a more expensive mixer could make such a big differences (does it? This is not clear to me yet from the discussions...). In fact, reading reviews online on the Xenyx mixers I get mostly praise, hence I was really surprised with these reactions. Didn't mean you are not right, and that is why I am considering other options. Still would be happy to hear from people who ACTUALLY owned and used/use Xenyx mixers to tell me what they think about their sound as compared to others. I hope you are not dissing them just because they are less expensive but because you actually KNOW from experience that they have a lower sound quality.

I wonder what reviews you were reading? If they were from dealers selling the product (i.e. with a vested interest in selling more) or people who have just bought one (who have a vested interest in justifying their purchase) then the reviews are less than trustworthy.

Let's drop opinion from this and give you some numbers.

I just measured the system signal to noise ratio of some Behringer mic pre amps I have. With the gain up all the way, the noise floor varied from -48dB to -52dB (they were all slightly different). This equates to a very audible and annoying "hiss" on recordings made via this gear.

I then did the same reading on the mic pre amps on a Yamaha mixer. Again with the gain up to full, the noise floor was identical on all of them and it was a -89dB (i.e. inaudible). A 20+ year old Soundcraft I have around gave me a -85dB noise floor.

Now, neither of these were on exactly the models you would be considering but, in my experience, are very typical of the quality of the gear in question. I also have opinions on the "character" of the sound from each but that's getting into the realms of opinion so I won't say anything other than I'd rank my preferences as Soundcraft, Yamaha then Behringer a distant third.

Finally, a major elephant in the room is the routing facilities on any mixer. You want to do live mixing and you'll need certain options to do this properly. I can't say exactly what you will need but please do have a think about it and check what each mixer being tried can and cannot do. The differences can be very important.

Does that give you an idea of what we're talking about? I fully understand the "controlling your budget" problem but sometimes it's worth delaying a purchase until you can get something a bit better.

Finally, my advice of watching for good quality second hand gear still stands. You can't just assume you can go out and buy anything but, if you watch, you can generally find stuff eventually. However, if you want to purchase now and/or want a specific model, have you tried THOMANN? They tend to have the best prices in Europe (eBay sellers aside) and ship to most of Europe.

 

[mdainsd]

"People make great claims for the sound of $1000 strips/pres whatever but as a technician I have never seen any kind of explanation as to how this is achieved?"

Id offer three things that might be making a difference:

Transformer coupling, Inductor based EQ, everything balanced, hand selected Op-amps or even select transistors (if thats what they were).

I remember one of my first jobs was as an electronics technician, and I'd get the job of matching transistors for Amps, done on a curve tracer. But what Im getting at is the additional labor, and the costly components add up if you want all the good stuff in a strip.

 

[ecc83]

Sorry to be pikky Bobbs, but what was the output reference level in each case? I.e. "-89db" what?

And what was the total, input to output gain in each case? I take it the tests were done with a shielded 150 load in the input?

Dave.

 

[ecc83]

"People make great claims for the sound of $1000 strips/pres whatever but as a technician I have never seen any kind of explanation as to how this is achieved?"

Id offer three things that might be making a difference:

Transformer coupling, Inductor based EQ, everything balanced, hand selected Op-amps or even select transistors (if thats what they were).

I remember one of my first jobs was as an electronics technician, and I'd get the job of matching transistors for Amps, done on a curve tracer. But what Im getting at is the additional labor, and the costly components add up if you want all the good stuff in a strip.

Transformers won't change the "sound" unless..
1) they are very low spec.
2) you drive them hard.
3) you fail to load the secondary properly (Zobel network) and therefore put resonance in the response.

The first you would not expect in high end gear. The second goes back my point that only at performance extremes will sonic "character" show up. And the last is just bad design which is in this context illogical.

Inductor based EQ has the same criteria as traffs but then putting inductors in EQ circuits is arcane tweakery in these days of excellent opamp gyrators.

Selecting devices I had already covered, just done for lowest noise, highest hfe which gives lowest distortion. Once again parameters that only matter at the extremes ends of the dynamic range. For 99% of work with a decent capacitor mic, never going to show.

So, so far the fairies have kept it hidden!

Dave.

 

[Bobbsy]

Sorry to be pikky Bobbs, but what was the output reference level in each case? I.e. "-89db" what?

And what was the total, input to output gain in each case? I take it the tests were done with a shielded 150 load in the input?

Dave.

Sorry, forgot I was in the analogue forum! Those are dB(FS) numbers. To do measurements I had to convert to digital which was done (in every case) taking line out from the Behri/Yammy/Soundcraft devices and into the line in on a USB interface (a MOTU 8 Pre as it happened since that what I have hooked up just now--my mixer isn't installed yet since moving house recently).

Yes to the 150 ohm load on the input.

With no input at all, the MOTU was showing a noise floor of round -115dB(FS).

I didn't measure the total gain in each device--I just turned each pre amp to maximum gain. This wasn't intended to be calibrated numbers, just a comparison of what you get with economy mixers compared to slightly more expensive ones. It's worth noting that, when each was turned down to around the half way point, the Behringer wasn't THAT much worse than the others--but, at the same time, with mics like an SM58 (common in the live work the OP is talking about) it's necessary to use near maximum gain.

Measurements were done by simply recording a few second of each in Adobe Audition then changing the vertical scale to a point where the noise floor was clearly visible. As I say, this isn't a calibrated test but it's certainly valid for comparison's sake.

 

[ecc83]

Sorry, forgot I was in the analogue forum! Those are dB(FS) numbers. To do measurements I had to convert to digital which was done (in every case) taking line out from the Behri/Yammy/Soundcraft devices and into the line in on a USB interface (a MOTU 8 Pre as it happened since that what I have hooked up just now--my mixer isn't installed yet since moving house recently).

Yes to the 150 ohm load on the input.

With no input at all, the MOTU was showing a noise floor of round -115dB(FS).

I didn't measure the total gain in each device--I just turned each pre amp to maximum gain. This wasn't intended to be calibrated numbers, just a comparison of what you get with economy mixers compared to slightly more expensive ones. It's worth noting that, when each was turned down to around the half way point, the Behringer wasn't THAT much worse than the others--but, at the same time, with mics like an SM58 (common in the live work the OP is talking about) it's necessary to use near maximum gain.

Measurements were done by simply recording a few second of each in Adobe Audition then changing the vertical scale to a point where the noise floor was clearly visible. As I say, this isn't a calibrated test but it's certainly valid for comparison's sake.

Ok, but I am still not happy not knowing the total gain in each case. I shall try to get some numbers for my (retired X 802) using a different methodology if 'er indoors ever gives me a chance today!

 

[Bobbsy]

I agree that would be interesting but I don't have any easy way to measure gain on a mic pre amp, leaving us we manufacturers spec. As you know, they can be economical with the truth (or even skip a spec entirely if it's too embarrassing).

The other thing to note is that a major issue I have with a lot of Behringer gear is a lack of consistency. Just as an example, I have 4 ADA 8000 boxes. Two are fine in terms of gain/noise. The third is marginal and the last one is seriously bad. All were bought within a month of each other from the same supplier. In case you're wondering why I let them get away with it, I used them for months without using the mic pre amps--my main use was for line inputs to be converted to ADAT (my radio mics used live had line out and I had 32 channels of ADAT input into my digital mixer. I was a bit shocked months later when as a matter of convenience I tried the mic preamps on the duff unit at a corporate job. The "one of two fat ladies" chef who was doing a demo wasn't impressed by my need for fast re-patching!

 

[ecc83]

I agree that would be interesting but I don't have any easy way to measure gain on a mic pre amp, leaving us we manufacturers spec. As you know, they can be economical with the truth (or even skip a spec entirely if it's too embarrassing).

The other thing to note is that a major issue I have with a lot of Behringer gear is a lack of consistency. Just as an example, I have 4 ADA 8000 boxes. Two are fine in terms of gain/noise. The third is marginal and the last one is seriously bad. All were bought within a month of each other from the same supplier. In case you're wondering why I let them get away with it, I used them for months without using the mic pre amps--my main use was for line inputs to be converted to ADAT (my radio mics used live had line out and I had 32 channels of ADAT input into my digital mixer. I was a bit shocked months later when as a matter of convenience I tried the mic preamps on the duff unit at a corporate job. The "one of two fat ladies" chef who was doing a demo wasn't impressed by my need for fast re-patching!

Agreed. Measuring the maxed out gain of high gain systems is very difficult.

I had to do this with guitar amps on the max welly OD channels and getting valid results and avoiding external noise pickup and hum loops was a trial. And that was in a "lab" situation! In a "home stooodio" all but impossible.

Note however that the guitar amp model is apt? Different amps have different noise levels but then they also have different levels of gain!

I shall give this some thought!

Dave.

 

[Rod Norman]

I get this question a lot at the studio. The analog/digital argument is like the organic food argument. There are two places digital/analog matter; that is the storage mediu; tape or hard drive, and the amplification; tube or solid state. The only place analog/digital is thought to matter now is in the storage medium. At first it mattered whether you used tape or a hard drive because of the need for capacity, but storage is now is big enough, so there isn't that problem. Second is the tube vs solid state. AD/DA converters have improved greatly and as guitarists have noted, digital is not a bad way to go anymore. Tubes take a while to warm up and simulators are sounding more and more like tubes. If you tear apart your equipment, you'll find a lot of digital in there today, even in the "analog" synths. If you're using synths, computers and midi for your instruments in live performance, you're not going analog. Today everything is going through transformers and capacitors so it is being converted in some way from analog. I would not worry so much. Get an old used spring reverb unit and run that through the effect send/return. Bypassing the digital effect should make verything should sound the way you want to hear it.
Rod Norman
Engineer

Hi, great to be here. I always wanted to find a forum like this

I am looking into buying an analog mixer and for me it is very important to have a pure analog path from the ins to the outs (out to the monitors). My main aim is to perform live with analog equipment (voice over mic, guitars, analog synths and drum machines) mixed with some digital control of analog synths (over midi) and some digital sounds from the computer where needed.

As a first choice I am looking at the Behringer Xenyx 1002 or 1202 (10 and 12 track) but they have them with or without a built-in (digital) effects processor section and USB. I was wondering if the A/D converters through the built-in effects processor only affect the signal if you are using the effects, while otherwise the audio stream would still be purely analog, and if that is the same for the USB connection. The difference in price is small so I don't mind having the effects in case I want to use them (and USB is handy in any case) but I would prefer having no USB and no effects processor if I am not sure the signal is pure analog all the way! Yes, I am a purist...

Does any of you know whether this is so? By the way, is there a way to see/test if an audio signal is analog or digital in any way? maybe it is a silly question but I just thought of it!

 

[ecc83]

Righto' Bobbs!
Theses are my buggerings about.

Xenyx 802 L mic channel, EQ centre, pan hard L ch level 0 (12 o'clock) Main out 0. Feeding line input 3 of a Focusrite 8i6* AI (no gains to fuss about)
AI into HP i3 laptop running Samplitude SE8 (cos I can scoot around that better than anything!)

My only handy acoustic noise source was a crappy clock radio on interstation FM noise. Shoved an SM57 against one speaker (SPL was in fact a wobbly 90C) .

Adjusted gain on 802 for -18dBFS as best I could. Then swapped mic for a screened load (233R, all I could find atmo)
Left noise -84dBFS
Right noise -84 to -81dBFS

Repeated the exercise with the Scarlet pre.
Right noise -83dBFS (got distracted and cannot find left noise recording but it was comparable)

Baseline 8i6 noise both pres at min gain -91dBFS.

Note the gain pot on the 802 was at 3o'clock for neg 18 and the 8i6 at #9.

So, for MY sample of Behringer cheapo pre amps they hold up very well against those in a well respected interface. This ties in with earlier experience because I have recorded Son on acoustic guitar with the 57 and the Berry and it was fine, in fact I could wish for a house further in the country! (google me. NN5 5P*).

*Some will say "why not the KA6?" Well I was buggering about with the 8i6 anyway and Focusrite pre amps have a bit of a reputation and vastly more peeps here will have heard and heard "of" F'rite pres than NI's?

Fergot to say Bob. I used A Audition 1.5 to read the playback levels. One reason to be consistent with you and also because it has a loverly long meter!


Dave (If anyone wants the raw .wavs PM me)

 

[Rod Norman]

I'm going to take a moment here. (I answered this question already) There seems to be some confusion about this newsletter and its purpose. Although it says "Home Recording" it is not intended for just those who are recording in the home. Professional engineers like myself often check it out to see if we can be of any help. Sometimes the question needs clarification or the answer needs to be an explanation. There is no intention of snobbery and certainly no intention to be too hard on newbies. We were all newbies once. There are several things one might try before posting a question, though. Look it up in the manual, get some books on recording in general and especially in the home, and network with other home recording enthusiasts in your area. Sometimes the answer is so obvious that it doesn't warrant inclusion here, but that doesn't mean we might just ignore it. Sometimes our experience included the same conundrum and relating it might be of help. I hope you all continue to ask questions and that pros continue to weigh in occasionally.
Rod Norman
Engineer

Hi, great to be here. I always wanted to find a forum like this

I am looking into buying an analog mixer and for me it is very important to have a pure analog path from the ins to the outs (out to the monitors). My main aim is to perform live with analog equipment (voice over mic, guitars, analog synths and drum machines) mixed with some digital control of analog synths (over midi) and some digital sounds from the computer where needed.

As a first choice I am looking at the Behringer Xenyx 1002 or 1202 (10 and 12 track) but they have them with or without a built-in (digital) effects processor section and USB. I was wondering if the A/D converters through the built-in effects processor only affect the signal if you are using the effects, while otherwise the audio stream would still be purely analog, and if that is the same for the USB connection. The difference in price is small so I don't mind having the effects in case I want to use them (and USB is handy in any case) but I would prefer having no USB and no effects processor if I am not sure the signal is pure analog all the way! Yes, I am a purist...

Does any of you know whether this is so? By the way, is there a way to see/test if an audio signal is analog or digital in any way? maybe it is a silly question but I just thought of it!

 

[miroslav]

AD/DA converters have improved greatly and as guitarists have noted, digital is not a bad way to go anymore. Tubes take a while to warm up and simulators are sounding more and more like tubes.

Let's not open that can of worms again.....



And speaking of the HR Newsletter.....well done guys, we put this thread on top this week!

Mixerure Analog Path
started by AudioJunky in Analog Only

Get your 10 post here!
started by moresound in Newbies

AUDIOBOX USB Hummmmmm
started by Kip Carter in Newbies

Been a while
started by kcearl in MP3 Mixing Clinic

The New Tone Thread
started by Telegram Sam in Guitars and Basses

Leaving It All Behind
started by ido1957 in MP3 Mixing Clinic

Im Stupid, sorry i need help
started by Dat_Nigga_Pari in Mixing Techniques

Noisless pickups in jazz bass humming during recording
started by patvh1 in Guitars and Basses

Which note do you like the best?
started by Greg_L in Song Writing & Composition

another world
started by dobro in MP3 Mixing Clinic

burned mic
started by mrdanny in Studio Building & Acoustic Treatment

Do DAWs compensate for latency?
started by paw1 in Digital Recording & Computers

The Creature From The Haunted Lake
started by Dr.SpringReverb in MP3 Mixing Clinic

Old London Road
started by Mr Clean in MP3 Mixing Clinic

don't come here no more
started by heatmiser in MP3 Mixing Clinic

 

[kummola]

here's something:
Sweet Sound Of Cassette ( Tascam 244 ) - YouTube