Mixers: analog vs. digital vs. me

N

Noplasticrobots

New member
Hi, it's been a very long time since I've been active here, but it's good to be back. I just purchased a basic home studio package from Musician's Friend. I'll be recording to a Tascam DP-01FX (digital). I want a modestly priced (under $300) mixer that can accept 10-12 channels (trying to plan for the future).

Here's my problem: I read that if you have a digital recorder, you should only use a digital mixer. Something about signal conversions I think. The only digital mixers I see cost a lot more than I'm willing to spend. So will it make a huge difference using analog with digital? Can anyone reccomend a mixer in that price range that will work well with a digital Porta Studio? I've been looking at Behringer products myself, but I'm open to anything. Thanks for any help!
 
If your Tascam accepts analog inputs I'd get get an analog board. You can keep using it if you every upgrade your interface. The Behringer stuff gets slammed regularly. For not much more you can get a Yamaha MG series that people seem to like ok. Bit more than that you're into the Soundcraft Spirit M-Series and Mackie boards. I have Soundcraft M12 that I got for around $500 or so I think and it's nice.
 
I think that's a bit of a myth about using digital mixers with digital recorders. I record digital to PC and I have an old Allen & Heath analog desk as my front end.

Analog desks all have their own sound, digital mixers can only manipulate the digital information played through them....none of them will add and "character" to your sound. I don't have anything against digital mixers but I like my analog board. I like a knob for each function 'cause it's good to have a stand up and a good look at the board to see exactly what is going on in your mix instead of having to sift through a pile of menus.

Each to their own. Good luck with your choice.
 
Yeah, just go with analog unless you need a digital mixer for some other reason (perhaps you're integrating it very highly with something designed to integrate with it, for example).

Basically you're just using it for pre's and possibly eq's, and perhaps some basic mixdown. I'm all for an solid front end into a computer interface myself.
 
Thanks! I'll be going with analog. I definitely wanted knobs to turn and sliders to push. I just wanted t make sure there wasn't gonna be some huge mess if I went analog. Thanks for the help!
 
Digital's the way

If you haven't already purchased an Analog mixer. Don't. You said you were thinking of the future. What's the point of having a Digital recorder if you are mixing analog signals. You are going from Analog to digital to record, and then back to analog to mix, and then to a CD which is digital?

that makes no sense. You are converting from analog to digital twice before you even get to your master.

There are cheap digital mixers available. You need to find one. I used to use the Yamaha 01v which is a great deal. They also have built in effects processing.

Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. Good luck!
 
Hmm....looks like that tascam unit can only record 2 tracks at a time and has no direct outputs- analog or digital. A mixer with 10-12 channels would work well for recording a live band, but you're still going to have to mix it down to 2 tracks to get it into the recorder.

You won't be able to mix with your mixer once you have recorded into the tascam since it has only a few outputs- and they are designed to be hooked up to your stereo or monitors.

And since it has neither digital inputs or outputs, a digital mixer won't do you any good at all. Your best bet is to get to know the thing and see how it works. If you find that you can't get a good sound out of the 2 preamps that it has built in, then concider upgrading your preamps with either an outboard preamp or a mixer- unless you need to record more than 2 channels at once and need a mixer to six it down to 2 for recording.

Take care
Chris
 
MXStudios said:
If you haven't already purchased an Analog mixer. Don't. You said you were thinking of the future. What's the point of having a Digital recorder if you are mixing analog signals. You are going from Analog to digital to record, and then back to analog to mix, and then to a CD which is digital?

that makes no sense. You are converting from analog to digital twice before you even get to your master.
Click to expand...

I use that techniqe and have had some fantastic results. It's the same with anything you do, there will always be a compromise or a trade off. I record at 24/48 and all the tracks stay that way right through to bouncing to 2 track Master.

Once all the tracks are recorded at 24/48 they come back through the analog desk adding more warmth and glue, they go through the master L/R outputs and are recorded again at 24/48 to a stereo .wav From there it can go straight to a mastering house or I can dither down my own projects and burn direct to CD

I have the best of both worlds and they work together flawlessly. For now the convertors in my Delta 1010's are doing a fine enough job for my ears as well as my clients. Sure I'd love to shell out the big bucks and go lucid or apogee, but for now that is just overkill for my current skill level.

An analog sound and feel with the convenience of digital editing is the route I've chosen, and when I hear some of the results from digital mixers with their "one knob doess all" board layout I'm glad I found this path first.
 
LemonTree said:
An analog sound and feel with the convenience of digital editing is the route I've chosen, and when I hear some of the results from digital mixers with their "one knob doess all" board layout I'm glad I found this path first.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what I do as well, although I can mix entirely digitally if I choose to. I have both analog and digital mixers. But my preference is to do editing and volume/panning moves in the DAW, but then send the tracks out analog for processing with my outboard compressors and eq.

I feel that the tradeoff as far as AD/DA conversions is worth it, as long as good converters are used and the number of conversions is kept to a minimum.
 
LemonTree said:
I use that techniqe and have had some fantastic results. It's the same with anything you do, there will always be a compromise or a trade off. I record at 24/48 and all the tracks stay that way right through to bouncing to 2 track Master.

Once all the tracks are recorded at 24/48 they come back through the analog desk adding more warmth and glue, they go through the master L/R outputs and are recorded again at 24/48 to a stereo .wav From there it can go straight to a mastering house or I can dither down my own projects and burn direct to CD

I have the best of both worlds and they work together flawlessly. For now the convertors in my Delta 1010's are doing a fine enough job for my ears as well as my clients. Sure I'd love to shell out the big bucks and go lucid or apogee, but for now that is just overkill for my current skill level.

An analog sound and feel with the convenience of digital editing is the route I've chosen, and when I hear some of the results from digital mixers with their "one knob doess all" board layout I'm glad I found this path first.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that. It all depends on what you are doing. All that really matters is how the final product sounds. I personally like to keep it all in the digital domain.

Some painters use a brush, some splash it on the canvas. To each his own.

I don't think his motivation for the original question had anything to do with liking to use outboard processing, or the analog "sound and feel". I just wanted to point out what he was doing with that configuration.
 
I choose to make one A/D conversion on the way in, and that's it. If you really want a true analog sound...why get a mixer?? Why not send your final mix through a 2 channel analog tube preamp/compressor for coloration or more efficiently, vst effects like Voxengo's Analog Suite, PSP's Vintage Warmer, or T-Racks 24? That way you can keep all the mixing in the digital domain (think automations and such).

In my college days I used to mix on a huge analog board (hello scratchy pots!) but now, with the help of folks like UAD, Voxengo and others, digital mixing is much more attractive and cost effective. Just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top