What is the best mixer to integrate with two blackface ADATS?

[breakin' atoms]

i want a mackie 24x8 but money, necessity, and many other issues are making my choice hard...Is getting one of these ABSOLUTELY the best thing for my setup?

 

[eh91311]

Is a Mackie 24x8 mixer the only choice? No. The Mackie has not-so-great-sounding EQ, the mic preamps are just OK. It's strengths are reliability, lots of options and features (like a built-in talkback mic), fairly clean, neutral sound, and the fact that it is still manufactured new and can be serviced. It will work for you and be dependable. You don't have to have an 8-buss console... a Mackie 1604 will work for a 2 ADAT setup if that's all you could afford. The 8-buss consoles offer more convenience and options.

There's lots of used choices of 8-buss models, like the Soundtracs Topaz & Project 8, Soundcraft Spirit & Ghost models, Allen & Heath. All are good choices. Probably the only manufacturer to stay away from are the Behringers, including analog and digital models, and perhaps the Mackie D8B, which is quickly becoming obsolete from a digital console design standpoint.

 

[chris-from-ky]

Go with a mackie 1604. It'll do the job and do it well for the $$$. I've heard GREAT recordings done on a 1604 and a couple of ADAT XT's. Granted you're using blackfaces but, that shouldn't be of concern, I don't think.

If you are careful when your tracking, a mackie, regardless of what is said on this board, will get you good quality recordings. I've heard it with my own two ears. Those who say Mackie is crap are just wealthy enough to buy a ghost or their lucky enough to get their hands on one in the studio they work at. Mackie makes good stuff IMO.

Used 1604's are easy to find on Ebay or if you were looking at a 24X8, you should have enough to get one new and save 1500-1800 bucks.

My 2 cents. Good Luck to you.
Chris

 

[breakin' atoms]

but what about this inline monitoring junk i keep hearing soo much about? is it really all that important to me?

i plan on recording all my tracks dry through the board, nothing pre-EQ'd or fiddled with...then mixing and editing them on the mackie (does not touching any of the knobs make me not need in-line monitoring?)

is the 1604 gonna do the same job for what i'm trying to do? Without having to re-patch a bunch of cables and whatnot...plus i would like to have a non cumputer plug-in hi-pass for vocals and a built in talkback mic is gonna be some help (i'm sick of using sign language and mostly lewd/graphic gestures)

cuz for more ease while using, i would much rather shell out the extra cash

 

[chris-from-ky]

Would "inline monitoring" be defined as "zero latency" monitoring or are you talking about something else?

You should be able to use the 1604 or the 24X8 to accomplish your goal of interfacing with the blackfaces. If you get it hooked up right, there should be no latency issues to speak of. Latency usually involves a daw.

1604 users... it'd be good to hear your thoughts.

If you can spend the cash for a 24X8, do it. I was just saying that the 1604 would be a decent alternative.

Chris

 

[DDev]

Usually the term "in-line monitoring" means that you can flip a switch on the mixer to go from the mic/line inputs to the tape deck inputs for mixing purposes. The only 16-channel mixer I am aware of (similar to the 1604) is the Alesis Studio 32.

Good luck,
Darryl.....

 

[breakin' atoms]

i think i'll grab the mackie 24-8 and another ADAT...hell, maybe even two just to have a spare

you can never go wrong with 8 extra tracks and a board i wont want to upgrade from anytime soon

now all i have to do is make the money

 

[Raw-Tracks]

Usually the term "in-line monitoring" means that you can flip a switch on the mixer to go from the mic/line inputs to the tape deck inputs for mixing purposes. The only 16-channel mixer I am aware of (similar to the 1604) is the Alesis Studio 32.

Good luck,
Darryl.....

Not exactly, In-Line monitoring refers to a monitor path for tape returns while tracking. In the 2 ADAT/Mackie 1604 scenario, monitoring may be a problem. On a true recording mixer you will have either a split or inline monitoring configuration. The 1604 doesn't really have either. You could run the 1604 and 1 ADAT in a split monitoring configuration. You will will run out of monitoring channels if you jump up to 16 tracks of ADAT. A true recording mixer is like having two mixers in one. One mixer will take the mic inputs and feed them to the recorder. The second mixer take the returns from the recorder and allows you to monitor them while recording.

With the 1604 and 1 ADAT, you would return the 8 ADAT tracks to 8 channels on the mixer. The other 8 channels of the mixer will take you mic inputs and feed them to the recorder.

Inline refers to the fact that the monitoring channel is built inline with the recording channel. A split monitor console has a separate tape return section to the left or right of the recording channels.