The advantage of a mixer instead of just buying pre-amps and a hardware controller ??

[pisces7378]

I have been thinking about getting a Mackie 24/32 channel 8 buss analog mixer and Logic Control + 2x XT fader packs for recording into a MOTU 24I/O (24/96) interface inside a Mac running Logic Audio 6.

In this scenerio I would use the Mackie mixer for it's pre-amps and basically mix inside Logic Audo via the Logic Controller. So after the recording is done, the mixer is basically just sitting there for decoration. I have used it only for it's pre-amps and EQ during input (i.e recording) and that is all. Now, this mixer + meter bridge costs well over $4,000. Could I not just buy 3 Focusrite OctoPre's, giving me 24 higher quality pre-amps and just forget about the mxer all together, and just mix inside Logic through the MOTU 24I/O? My studio will not be the biggest and have a 24 channel 8 bus mixer sitting beside 24 faders of Logic Audio Controller... well it just seems a bit fader excessive.

I am clever enough to see that this sceneraio "will work" as far as getting the signals into the MOTU 24I/O and into the Mac. But what I cannot envision is how I would use any "in-line" hardware signal processing (i.e a Lexicon Reverb Unit, or an Avalon or Focusrite hardware EQ). Also, where will my Mackie HR824 monitors be pluged in? The MOTU has 24 analog TRS ins and 24 Analog TRS outs. Can the monitors simply be plugged into 2 of the analog outs? I am going to be needing 5.1 surround more and more in the coming months so if I bought more monitors and a subwoffer, could these simply be plugged into 6 outs of the MOTU?

So basically I am asking if anyone of you guys can think outside of the box for a minute and tell me in a kindergarten-esque way... "Why do people spend so much money on analog or digital mixers when it seems to me that high quality pre-amp packages and controllers for the software seem to be much higher quality for the money and you save around $1,000 by not buying the mixer?" What is the main advantage of having a mixer that I am not thinking of?

Thanks guys,

Mike

P.S. I don't think that ProTools users have a "real" mixer do they? Don't they usually just have those DSP cards, those interfaces, and a hardware Ethernet controller of the software?

 

[Beezoboy]

Basically yes. I am looking at the same setup. I am getting Aardvark Q10's (I have 1 now) because they already have 8 pres on them. The pres to me are much better than Mackie pres. That way I have pres that will do the job for drums or whatever. Later I will buy some outboard pres for fat vocal/bass/misc tracks.

This way I can record now without a mixer, and in the future will have a pretty flexible setup.

Beezoboy

 

[JR#97]

Another route to consider is the digital mixer. Most of them can also function as a controller. More bang for your buck.

 

[TexRoadkill]

You can get a Ghost 24 with MMC for less than $3 grand used. Sweet pres, transport control and midi mute. Then you can still afford the control surface.

The main advantage of a console is for your monitor mixing and other mundane chores that are a pain if you don't have a flexible routing system.

 

[ambi]

To me the only reason i'd get a mixing board is for the preamps and monitor/headphone control. Hey wait a sec, the aardvark q10 has all of that!

 

[ap]

I think if you hang out at some of the pro bbs's or even the mixing/mastering forum here, you'll see that alot of people do not think software mixing is good enough. Supposedly anytime you do anything in the computer to your tracks, like eq, fx, and especially summing tracks during mixdown, etc., you introduce phase variation, data degradation and other stuff I'm not too clear on. I do know that super pro facilities pretty much never mixdown in software because it just doesn't have that sound- to them. I have no opinion and don't have the bucks to do anything but mix in software, so I haven't really researched this issue too much, but I have seen some pretty convincing arguments against software mixing.

 

[pisces7378]

I don't think you are getting my drift here. in fact some of the others are not getting my point here either. This thread is not a "Digital mixer vs. Analog mixer" thread. It is a "Having a mixer vs. Having NO mixer at all" thread.

An analog mixer (Mackie 24channel 8 bus) is nothing more than 24 pre-amps, with EQ, volume/input level control (fader), a pan knob, ins and outs for patching in external effects, and bus sends etc. (There are of course optional things like talk back mics and these things) But unless I am mistaken, I have basically summed up what a mixer is made up of.

Now... in my budget (which is around $7,000) Now, when I say $7,000 I mean not a penny more! I will be pujlling every trick I can think of to get the $7,000. It is not a question of "wait and save a little more for a digital desk". I have already waited 3 years for the $7,000.

With this limited budget I have to examine my priorities. Which are...

1. Cost to BENIFIT ratio!
2. Highest quality inputs (pre-amps) in my price range.
3. Surround Sound Mixing capabilities
4. Getting my hands off the mouse and on some faders and knobs.
4b. AUTOMATED FADERS!!!
5. Overall size of studio (i.e. smaller is better)
6. At least 12 inputs w/ pre-amps
7. As few steps in the signal chain as possible.

Now, as for the style of music I will be recording the most here is a list #1 being the most often recored.
1. Guitar, Drums, Bass Vocals based Rock/Alter/Indi
2. Very small three to four piece orchestra type music for film and sound track music. (most of this will be extremely augmented by samples with the EXS24mkII for full orchestras)
3. Folly-Sound Design-Special effects sound for films and commercials.
4. Voice recording for commercials, audio books, and syncronizing (dubbing) of films.


OK!!!! Now, that I have laid out my priorities and needs as far as what I will be recording we con procede with the conversation.

I was thinking that on such a limited budget i cannot afford such luxuries as having digital mixers like the Yamaha 02R96, simply because the basic unit is already out of my price range, and by the time I buy three ADAT cards to get my input count up, and then buy plug-ins for it, we are talking about the price of a new car.

So I "settled" in on the idea of getting an analog mixer for inputing (recording) the signals. But I still have priority #4b. which is AUTOMATED FADERS. So then I thought, well I will have enough money for getting an analog mixer for input, and I could still afford a Logic Control (8 faders) and 2x the XT units (total of 16 more fader) for a grand total of 24 automated fader channels for mixing inside Logic Audio Platinum.

Then I got to thinking that since I would only be using the analog 8 bus mixer for recording and that I would not be needing it at all for mixing, that I could invest the $4,000 that the mixer would cost and get a Red1 4 channel pre-amp package, and an Focusrite OctoPre unit for roughly the same money. This would fulfill my 12 pre-amp priority #6.

With my ultra low budget I cannot afford to have multiple pieces of equipment that do the same thing. Redundent functionality is a sin on a $7,000 budget. Therefore, buying a mixer for it's EQ, effects plug-ins, pre-amps, input faders, etc... seems like I am buying two studios that will only act as one.

If Logic Audio Platinum's mixing functionality coupled with the expandable MOTU 24I/O can take care of Priotities #1-7, and give me access to recording music styles #1-4 on my list, then that is the system I am going to get.

Oh, and Zoesch...

What do you mean about have a pain in the "ars" about inputing signals into the system since the mixer with the MOTU 24I/O can't be controlled by the Logic control. I though that I would just set all the virtual level faders to the same level in the MOTU software and control the input gain by actually turning the level knob on the pre-amps themselves. That is what I have been doing with my Delta 66/OMNI Studio set p so far. The faders in the M-audio control panel software just stay the same the whole time, and I control the input level with the knob on the pre-amps inside the OMNI. What is wrong with this logic?

I know it sounds like I have made up my mind here. That is not true. I am just waiting for someone to give me a big fat "YOU CANNOT DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITHOUT A MIXER!!!"

My only gray area that I cannot get my head around is, where do I plug in 6 monitors for surround, and can Logic Audio route 6 signals to these 6 monitors for surround sound?

I am also wondering about where to patch in external outboard gear like Lexicon reverb units or hardware parametric EQ, in ace i win the lottory one day and can afford something like that.

Am I on to something here guys, or am I just kidding myself?

 

[JR#97]

I don't think you are getting my drift here. in fact some of the others are not getting my point here either. This thread is not a "Digital mixer vs. Analog mixer" thread. It is a "Having a mixer vs. Having NO mixer at all" thread.

Ok then, I'll say it again. MOST DIGITAL MIXERS WILL WORK AS A CONTROL SURFACE . The new Tascam 24,Behringer DD16, Yamaha Digital Mixers, Mackie Digital 8, Panasonic/Ramsa, Spirit 8, etc. AND THEY ALL HAVE FLYING FADERS AND DECENT PRE-AMPS. How effective they work as a control of course depends on the mixer and the program you're trying to control. If you picked up the Tascam or Behringer, you would have left plenty of left over money for high quality pre-amps and/or mics as well. What programs are you looking to control? I've found Nuendo (which means Cubase SX as well) to work the best on the PC side. I've also used a digital mixer to control Sonar, SAW, and Samplitude. I've only worked with Logic once and I know the Roland VM3100 digital mixer can control it, so I imagine any other mixer could as well.

 

[ap]

Why do people spend so much money on analog or digital mixers when it seems to me that high quality pre-amp packages and controllers for the software seem to be much higher quality for the money and you save around $1,000 by not buying the mixer?" What is the main advantage of having a mixer that I am not thinking of?

Because "people" think analog mix down, mainly track summing and eq, sounds better. It's not just about the extra routing features, and it's not just about recording.

I don't think that ProTools users have a "real" mixer do they? Don't they usually just have those DSP cards, those interfaces, and a hardware Ethernet controller of the software?

AFAIK, most big-shots with Pro-Tools mix down on analog boards...simply because they feel it sounds better...and they can afford to.

 

[adam]

I don't know how many inputs you need, but with a live indie rock band using the most (given your outline of project types), you should be able to get by with 16, if not less.

There is certainly value in analog mixers. They offer lots of flexiblity. Another option you may consider is a fewer number of high quality standalone pre's - 4-8 channels. Then you can get a smaller/high quality mixer, say 8-16 channels, for extra pre's and retaining some analog mixer capabilities. For example, if the board sounds good and has usable eq and you find it warms up the sound, you can run individual tracks, or whole 2 channel mixes through the mixer. You are doing the majority of tracking with good pre's, and if you need more, you can use the board as well.

If you forgo the mixer all together, I would still consider investing in say 4 channels of very good pre's, and then maybe another 8 with something like an octopre.

Adam

music: http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Adam_Rose/

 

[jake-owa]

Hey pisces7378, I think it comes down to sound quality. Many pros like a Mackie mix over an all digital mix (software).

I personally love to see my mix on a board in front of me.

JR97 is completely right though, my Roland digital mixer will double as a controller for logic or cubase and probably sonar or nuendo as well.

 

[Badger]

Dont forget, adding a mixer means hundreds more knobs, sliders and LEDs......

And thats what its really all about, isnt it?

 

[Teacher]

if u get a good 2 bus summing box u can get preamps and no mixer to sum the single outside the box instead of inside

 

[TexRoadkill]

The main problem I see with a computer/soundcard/control/pre studio is that you are 100% dependant on the computer for EVERYTHING. You can't even hook up a few instruments and jam unless your DAW is fuctioning perfectly. That's not a big deal if it's just for personal use but if you are going to be working with other people you need flexibility and redundancy incase something goes wrong (and it will).

With an external mixer you can do EVERTHING but record. So if you want to do some pre production rehearsals or the band wants to warm up for awhile you can still be doing other stuff on the DAW or even if the DAW is giving you some weird problem you can work on it while they jam.

I could also see some latency issues on monitoring with external effects and stuff but that would depend on the analog routing capabilities of the soundcard.

I finally gave up on computers as my main production tool when I was trying to make a simple rough mixdown to give to a singer and about halfway through the song my DAW kept glitching. It took me hours to just make a simple fuckin rough mix. I bought my Radar and Ghost the next week.

For me DAW's are great for editing and maybe mixing but never tracking or jamming.

 

[JR#97]

tex, we're still waiting to hear your Radar and Ghost. Post some samples of your Marshall or something.

 

[TexRoadkill]

Some stuff is in the works. I'm more picky about the music then I am the engineering and my playing is pretty mediocre. I've got a few good singers and guitarists lined up but the endless search for a decent bass player and drummer continues...

I'm getting tired of waiting though. Maybe we can knock out some cool acoustic stuff this weekend. I picked up a PCM 45 for reverb and it's pretty sweet.