Mixers vs pre-amps for Computers

  • Thread starter Thread starter money
  • Start date Start date
M

money

New member
I want to set up a Pc based studio and I need some sort of preamp. I've been warned that the pre-amps in the mixers i could afford, for example Mackie 1202, wouldn't be good enough. I can mix with the software and I only need to record one instument at a time, so should I just buy a pre-amp with one input and save some money? Thanks for the info.
 
As you'll be recording one instrument at a time, it's natural to buy a single unit preamp BUT I truly like my MS1202 VLZ preamps more than my Joe Meek preamp and much more than my ART TUBE MP.

The MS1202VLZ may be bulkier and perhaps more expensive than your average standalone preamp, but it does sound a lot cleaner and transparent ... And hey, maybe one day you'll record more than one instrument at a time. Do consider!
 
I use a Tube MP and a Dual MP - the Dual MP cost me $249. My mics may not be the best but they're pretty good (AKG C1000S, AT 4033/SM, Shure SM57, and Shure SM58) and am very happy with the sound this setup gives me.

I think most people on this BBS would agree, but some might suggest something else if you were ever going to go higher-end. I think the ARTs suit my needs and my setup pretty well.
 
Money - I think a lot of the answer to your question depends on what type of mic(s) you're going to be using. Most mixers use solid-state preamps, which make *very* expensive mics (ribbons) sound good to trained ears. Cheaper condenser mics usually sound better through a tube preamp, which warms up the sound. Some old hands here (experience, not age :P) use a tube preamp not only for recording, but for mixing down as well. Having said that, I'm using condensers through a solid-state mixer, and getting decent sound.

Also, what Hongteck said is true - if you see yourself recording more than 1 or 2 sources at a time in the future, then maybe a mixer is the way to go.
 
How much cheaper is a good tube pre-amp as apposed to the Mackie 1202 which I can get for about $380? I don't have very expensive mics.
 
I am with DaveO here, a ART will be a much better way to go than ANY Mackie mic pre.

I have yet to find many cases where the Mackie pre amp actually imparts a better sound than the ART, or a TL Audio pre.

The Mackies tend to have a very sharp, cold, crispy, edgy sound to them. The head room sucks which really prevents them from using a little pre amp distortion to smooth out transients when running hot. I have only found one time when a Mackie pre worked better for a track, and that was a Rhodes track I was recording. The Rhodes itself was not in that great of shape, and it was creating a lot of low end distortion. The Mackie's brittle sound helped compensate for this. But other than that, the Mackie pre just really doesn't compare. That is more than just a concensus of people on this BBS, that is a consensus of nearly every engineer I have ever talked to who has tried both.

Ed
 
Thanks fo for all the advice guys. I think I'm going to go with the tube pre amp. Seems good for what I'm doing and cheaper. But I have one Newbie question still: what is ART? also are there any sites I can order good pre amps from? thanks Ned
 
ART is just the name of the company - something like Applied Research and Technology? Just about any music store will have them - I got mine in a local Sam Ash.

I just ordered something off the web for the first time yesterday. I used 8th Street Music based on comments from people on this BBS. Their URL is http://www.8thstreet.com. Decent prices and they are offering free UPS ground shipping right now.

Some other bigger ones I've seen are Musician's Friend and American Music Supply. I'm sure there are hundreds of others.
 
THanks Again! I can't belive how helpfull this site is. I checked out 8thstreet.com and they have an ART Tube MP for $109. This is great for my budget 'cause I'd rather use the money to buy a good sound card. Is the ART only for microphones? Or can I use it to record Acustic/electric gutiar or, Audio from a keyboard, strait from the instuments line out as well?
 
ed ,

if you were in the market for a good mixing board with say $1000 , where would you put that money ?

i wonder why ART doesnt put together a mixer with 4 , 8 , or 16 or its great preamps for direct competition with the mackies..

- eddie -
 
cmiller ,

that was an interesting article.... prorec claims to not be swayed in making comparison decisions based on what manufactuer advertises with them the most, or which one gives them more free stuff to play with, but i have to admit , that sounded more like an infomercial more than an article.. that guy was totally kissing ass.. most of the articles on prorec arent like that at all, they are more concise and to the point.. like i said , i think of prorec as a reputable site , but something about that seemed bogus.. anyone agree ?

- eddie -
 
I agree Eddie. It sounded like it was right off a brosure or something.

Anyway, for around 2K, I would look into the Allen and Heath Mix Wizard. Nice warm sounding pre's, good eq section (British none the less!), and plenty of aux sends. I believe they start at a 4 bus console, but I haven't really checked one out for a while now. But when I did, it was a very impressive sounding board for the money.

I just don't really like Mackie. Never have, probably not much that will make me like them in the future untill they really step up with a decent console that doesn't cheese on the important stuff.

TL Audio does have a tube mixer. I never inquired about the price because I KNOW it is expensive. Probably over 10k for sure.

Ed
 
Money -

When I bought my Tube MP, Zzounds had them for $97.95 and my local Sam Ash matched that price. You might want to check if a store near you can match prices.

I just got my preamps pretty recently so I'm still learning how to use them. Since they're my only source of phantom power I have to use them when I use my condensers. That means I use them on vocals (if my voice qualifies as "vocals"), acoustic, and electric. I've even used them as a preamp for my SM57 on a guitar amp. I just tried sending my drum machine through and that seems to warm up the sound a bit.

I'm looking for a bass to use for recording and thought I'd try using the preammp as a direct box. I posted that idea here a few weeks ago and most people suggested I also get a real direct box, but try it and see what happens.

I've also tried going from my guitar effects pedal, into the Tube MP, and then into the effects return of my amp, bypassing the preamp in the amp. This gives me a sort-of-tube-sound from my electric since I haven't sprung for a tube amp yet.

It sounds like I spent too much time saying you can use them for anything, just try it and see what happens. If I learned anything from the people here it was "keep fiddling with the dials and see what happens".
 
It's "twiddling", not "fiddling", and it comes from the Green Hornet. (If you don't have experience in this matter, then you'll just have to greenhorn it.)

I prefer "twiddling" to "fiddling", because fiddling seems to suggest a kind of aimless, nervous clumsiness, whereas twiddling seems to have some intelligence behind it, some intention, putting things to the test. People who twiddle learn. People who fiddle just annoy. :D

I've been wondering the same thing as Eddie - how come ART haven't come up with a multi-channel mixer?

[This message has been edited by dobro (edited 03-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by dobro (edited 03-01-2000).]
 
My fault for not citing Green Hornet - he told me those words several times. I thought by substituting "fiddle" for "twiddle" I'd avoid any copyright issues.

Anyway, most of the time people who respond to my posts finish it off with "Keep trying" - except for Recording Engineer, who always says "Buy Oktava". :D I agree though. The best way to learn is to try something and see what happens. Sometimes you learn even more by finding out what WON'T work than from what does or might work. That's the best thing I learned from you guys.
 
I posted that link knowing that it was a press release from Mackie. At the top of the page it says as much. So you do have to take what it says with a grain of salt...however, the article mainly talks about how transparent the Mackie's pre's are compared to it's expensive brethren. Now as we're all aware (or should be) coloration of the sound is what we're looking for out of a preamp a lot of the time. We want to "fatten up", or "warm up" the sound of our vocals (or whatever)...something the Mackie just isn't going to do. I was posting the link because I thought it was interesting and it offered a counter argument.

As for my opinion, I agree with Ed. Although I love my Mackie for what it does, it's a pretty sterile box that you just can't drive a beafy sound out of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top