Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Dedicated Mixers in the Studio + Live Recording


Recommended Posts

This is the thread where we can discuss various mixing strategies, both input and output. Analog, digital, hybrid, all are welcome here.

 

Some interesting discussion grew in my Affordable SMALL Studio thread but it left the topic stated in the OP behind.

https://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3082455/the-affordable-small-studio-thread-getting-bigger#Post3082455

 

This is a better place for discussions on the many ways to deliver audio to a recording medium and to bring that audio back out into the speakers. Size and cost can be freely discussed, the sky is the limit.

 

Enjoy! Kuru

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I was just thinking, "You know, we have quite jumped the shark from the original topic of making music with what's at hand....". Good call on a new thread.

 

YAY!

 

I like this topic and it is worthy of it's own thread so here it is.

Thanks Nathanael!

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Summing up before carrying on. Mike and I were discussing the fact that for anyone tracking a group of live musicians, an in-line console is the best workflow tool. Unfortunately the current analog in-line consoles start at about $15k USD and go up to the stratosphere from there. Digital consoles are mostly for live or broadcast markets and don't often have enough I/O to work in-line, though the electronics are capable with scene controls to do it. I observed that high count digital interfaces like Dante are what make this possible.

 

I also noted that there's no reason I couldn't try this out. So that's next for me in this thread. I'm going to do a mix on my digital console with it getting signal from the computer acting as "tape deck". I will explore the scene capabilities of the SQ-5 (they are very sophisticated and easily able to do what is needed). I am likely to also explore HUI mode and see how capable it is. If this is all highly functional for me, I will likely get an Avid Dock specifically for the wheel style editing. If the mixer works well this way, it will be wonderful, as I own it already!

 

I'm not sure that success on my end will be as meaningful for Mike_R. He records to a hard-disk recorder that does not have Dante or high-channel count capabilities. But in the interest of science, I'll be back to this in a few days after doing enough that I feel like I've concluded something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, what follows is the conversation that Mike Rivers and Nathanael_I and I were having in the "affordable SMALL studio" thread. It escalated into an interesting conversation that is a bit beyond the scope of the original thread and deserves it's own place. Please chime in with any experience, questions etc.

 

 

I'm looking for a console that I can use with my hard disk recorder. I want 24 mic inputs - well, I'll settle for 12 mic and 24 line, and can use preamps that I have in the rack if I need then. This part isn't difficult. But I also want 24 analog line level inputs that aren't on the same jacks as the mic inputs. Those are for "tape" (recorder) returns for monitoring while tracking, and for mixdown. And lastly, I want direct outputs for all the mic and line inputs to feed the recorder. The recorder sends and returns can be ADAT optical or analog, but I don't want to depend on a computer to be my recorder.

 

That's my standing order, and I'm waiting for someone to fill it. ;)

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking for a console that I can use with my hard disk recorder. I want 24 mic inputs - well, I'll settle for 12 mic and 24 line, and can use preamps that I have in the rack if I need then. This part isn't difficult. But I also want 24 analog line level inputs that aren't on the same jacks as the mic inputs. Those are for "tape" (recorder) returns for monitoring while tracking, and for mixdown. And lastly, I want direct outputs for all the mic and line inputs to feed the recorder. The recorder sends and returns can be ADAT optical or analog, but I don't want to depend on a computer to be my recorder.

 

That's my standing order, and I'm waiting for someone to fill it. ;)

 

2 24 channel mixers in the space of one 24 channel mixer seems reasonable. Certainly useful in many ways.

If each channel had send/return you could plug the recorder into the returns but that doesn't provide the fader and EQ options.

 

A 24 channel hard disk recorder IS most certainly a computer, it's just a form factor that you are comfortable with, there is nothing wrong with that. My head spins sometimes as I work on my DAW, it is all that you want and much more but if it is no fun then it is no fun. I manage to have fun and I do enjoy the reduction in the number of cables and connections. That is a huge relief, I can just drag an EQ or compressor to any track any time and bam! it's done.

 

Still, we are not here to change anybody else, I think it's great that we are not all the same - more to be learned with variety. Cheers, Kuru

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking for a console that I can use with my hard disk recorder. I want 24 mic inputs - well, I'll settle for 12 mic and 24 line, and can use preamps that I have in the rack if I need then. This part isn't difficult. But I also want 24 analog line level inputs that aren't on the same jacks as the mic inputs. Those are for "tape" (recorder) returns for monitoring while tracking, and for mixdown. And lastly, I want direct outputs for all the mic and line inputs to feed the recorder. The recorder sends and returns can be ADAT optical or analog, but I don't want to depend on a computer to be my recorder.

 

That's my standing order, and I'm waiting for someone to fill it. ;)

 

In-line consoles in that channel capacity are available from Trident, Rupert Neve, API, Audient, Zahl, ADT, and SSL at least. I think Tree Audio will make them that large, and there is also LoopTrotter if you like 500 modules.... A Trident 68-24 is likely very close to what you are looking for. There's no use protesting the cost - not many people want to work this way - or at least they are unwilling to spend the money to do so. The new consoles that are available are a fraction of their cost 20-30 years ago. If you are willing to consider used, there are many, many options.

 

Digital consoles are mostly set up for live use, and not inline configurations. If you were willing to work in a split console configuration, there are many possible choices.

 

I enjoy recording into a computer - it is natively "in-line", and rock solid dependable. I've never had one act up during a take. I do use dedicated computers.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking for a console that I can use with my hard disk recorder. I want 24 mic inputs - well, I'll settle for 12 mic and 24 line, and can use preamps that I have in the rack if I need then. This part isn't difficult. But I also want 24 analog line level inputs that aren't on the same jacks as the mic inputs. Those are for "tape" (recorder) returns for monitoring while tracking, and for mixdown. And lastly, I want direct outputs for all the mic and line inputs to feed the recorder. The recorder sends and returns can be ADAT optical or analog, but I don't want to depend on a computer to be my recorder.

 

That's my standing order, and I'm waiting for someone to fill it. ;)

 

In-line consoles in that channel capacity are available from Trident, Rupert Neve, API, Audient, Zahl, ADT, and SSL at least. I think Tree Audio will make them that large, and there is also LoopTrotter if you like 500 modules.... A Trident 68-24 is likely very close to what you are looking for. There's no use protesting the cost - not many people want to work this way - or at least they are unwilling to spend the money to do so. The new consoles that are available are a fraction of their cost 20-30 years ago. If you are willing to consider used, there are many, many options.

 

Digital consoles are mostly set up for live use, and not inline configurations. If you were willing to work in a split console configuration, there are many possible choices.

 

I enjoy recording into a computer - it is natively "in-line", and rock solid dependable. I've never had one act up during a take. I do use dedicated computers.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking for a console that I can use with my hard disk recorder. I want 24 mic inputs - well, I'll settle for 12 mic and 24 line, and can use preamps that I have in the rack if I need then. This part isn't difficult. But I also want 24 analog line level inputs that aren't on the same jacks as the mic inputs.

 

In-line consoles in that channel capacity are available from Trident, Rupert Neve, API, Audient, Zahl, ADT, and SSL at least. I think Tree Audio will make them that large, and there is also LoopTrotter if you like 500 modules.... A Trident 68-24 is likely very close to what you are looking for. There's no use protesting the cost - not many people want to work this way - or at least they are unwilling to spend the money to do so. The new consoles that are available are a fraction of their cost 20-30 years ago. If you are willing to consider used, there are many, many options.

 

You don't have to tell me what was, and today is on the market that will meet my wants. However, I'm thoroughly in the "hobbyist" category now and even though I can buy a new API for $40k that would make me very happy, and it's 25% of what one would cost in the 1980s, it's more than I can justify. Used ones go for about as much as new ones, and the new PMI Tridents are still in the $20k range. I missed the boat not buying an Allen & Heath GS-R24, though I'm getting tempted again. After they were discontinued, the price for a used one was only a bit lower than a new one, but I've seen a couple lately that aren't selling in the $5k range. If it wasn't for the cost of shipping, that's getting close. I hope to have this (on lonan) Mackie d8b up and running shortly, and maybe that will fill my need, though with some inconvenience.

 

Digital consoles are mostly set up for live use, and not inline configurations. If you were willing to work in a split console configuration, there are many possible choices.

 

I enjoy recording into a computer - it is natively "in-line", and rock solid dependable. I've never had one act up during a take. I do use dedicated computers.

 

That's what I've concluded, but I really don't want a computer to be my recorder. It's not that I'm afraid of reliability, it's just that there's not a good way yet to completely hide the computer. I keep looking at the Avid control surfaces when we have live trade shows, but when I look at total cost, including putting together a suitable computer and joining the Pro Tools cult, it's not where I want to put my money.

 

It would be so easy for a PreSonus or A&H to make a recording console for about another couple of grand tacked on to the price of one of their excellent and excellently priced digital consoles - all they need is another slug of converters and connectors. I've been bugging them for years to make something like that, but they haven't bit. I need about 1,000 followers to make them consider. Another approach, and they're pretty close here, is to have a box that connects to the console and offers another batch of analog inputs and outputs. There are remote stage boxes but, as you say, they're live-oriented and their price is boosted by having mic preamps in the box. We're getting into the range where a 24 channel line level in and out with Dante or another IP connection could be under a grand. Maybe next year . . .

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking for a console that I can use with my hard disk recorder. I want 24 mic inputs - well, I'll settle for 12 mic and 24 line, and can use preamps that I have in the rack if I need then. This part isn't difficult. But I also want 24 analog line level inputs that aren't on the same jacks as the mic inputs. Those are for "tape" (recorder) returns for monitoring while tracking, and for mixdown. And lastly, I want direct outputs for all the mic and line inputs to feed the recorder. The recorder sends and returns can be ADAT optical or analog, but I don't want to depend on a computer to be my recorder.

 

That's my standing order, and I'm waiting for someone to fill it. ;)

 

 

Will you be recording 24 tracks simultaneously?

 

You could run these as dual 8 channel mono mixers and only need 2 of them. Or you could go stereo and run 3. No, it doesn't have all the outputs you want, but do you NEED them? 3 stereo submixes into your Mackie still leaves 18 free channels that you could dedicate to mic preamps.

https://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/art-mx822-8-channel-stereo-mixer/j13726000000000?cntry=us&source=3WWRWXMP&source=3WWRWXMP&msclkid=9edb4aa942c11ee80ac12abcd20123cd&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=**LP%20-%20Shop%20-%20Pro%20Audio%20-%20Mixers&utm_term=4578572605221632&utm_content=J13726000000000%20%7C%20ART%20MX822%208-Channel%20Stereo%20Mixer%20-%20Powered%20Mixers%20-%20Mixers%20-%20MX822%20%7C%20%24189

 

Not your ideal solution but I'm guessing you'll never even play 3 keyboards at the same time, unless you have amazing skills with your toes.

 

Yet another of my stupid suggestions, feel free to ignore it or (hopefully) share some wisdom as to why this is not a good idea. Cheers Kuru

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A digital inline console would be a wonderful thing. The digital broadcast consoles can all be setup this way. They are $30k and up, though, and designed for massive channel counts. Somehow broadcast and live are the two places that thoroughly embraced digital and actively reject analog. And they have wonderful, professional-grade options.

 

The studio console crowd seems to prefer 1980-1995 workflows. Everyone wants analog and color. I suspect that's why no good studio digital consoles exist. Anyone with $$ buys an analog one. They are completely idolized on Gearslutz, even though the pros hardly use them and are divesting themselves of them as fast as they can. The hobbyists are buying up the analog desks, previously unable to afford them. Digital gear churns so fast, no one wants to invest. Analog is seen as the "safe - it will still work in 10 years" option. It is an interesting dynamic. If one is tracking live bands, an analog inline console makes so much sense. Wonderful things. But so many pros have switched to a rack of great pre's and compressors for input and then do everything ITB. I think fear of missing out is also part of this. For a long time, audio was advancing rapidly. 96, 192, DSD - what do I get, what do I need, etc. But truthfully, any of the modern digital consoles could easily last 10 years or longer. I used a Motu828 for 10 years, and that's hardly high end gear.

 

I have an A&H SQ-5 at the core of my studio today. It sounds great. I don't use any of the emulation stuff available at extra cost. It works just as well at 96kHz as 48kHz. If it was inline, it would be on my desk, and the DAW would be a tape recorder substitute. But it is not inline, so it is off to the side. My room goes Mics-Preamps-Dante conversation. Once on the Dante network, it hits the DAW and SQ-5 simultanesouly. The SQ-5 does sub 1.8ms monitor mixes with up to 48 channels at 96Khz. With 12 stereo busses, it is a dream for fold-back monitoring. I use the software mixer in the DAW to actually mix. So this is effectively a split setup. It is not as efficient as an Avid HDX setup where inline operation is possible. But I get lower latency and don't have AVID's cost structure or their weird way of having HDX and Native work together...

 

There is no perfect answer right now. The only pure digital answer I found was to look at very expensive broadcast consoles - that cost as much as any of the analog consoles. A digital mixer with "scenes" could be set up so that all input is from the mic side, and then another scene set up all from the computer... This would work over Dante because I have access to 128 channels on the wire. 48 could be "live", 48 could be "CPU return" and then toggle the scenes to switch. This works to switch everything. But toggling individual tracks would be a minor pain. Again, no perfect answer for the digital native.

 

I hear you on Avid and their controllers. Expensive friends to have. They are also the only ones to take digital workflow seriously and actually produce things designed to accelerate workflow. The new S1 + Dock is quite capable. I'm considering adding that for my Nuendo setup. Accessing the "jog-wheel" style editing is attractive and completely supported through Eucon. I will likely buy a Dock to test the workflow in the next several months. If it works, I'll add two S1s and have a 16 fader digital "console" to control Nuendo. If it doesn't work, I'll sell the Dock and keep doing what I'm doing.

 

I look at the modern inline analog consoles all the time. But they are so hard to justify. I find that the computer is a completely superior mix environment in every way except haptics. I've never recorded on anything but a computer. I have mixed live on 40ch analog boards, but I am a digital native. I don't have any nostalgia for analog tape, though I have a friend with a Studer 827 - he tells me it was fun to learn, but completely impractical - he records into PT 99% of the time. I would like a proper digital native control option - and Avid have the only real solution, so that's what will be tried next. I actively don't want HDX. 10 year old DSP is not worth the $$, and Avid have made a hot mess of HDX/Native integration.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will you be recording 24 tracks simultaneously?

 

I have in the past, when I had my remote truck and was recording live shows. I think that the session with the largest mic count that I've done in my home was a mariachi band, six or seven pieces with some instruments getting two mics, and everybody sang - probably about 16 or 17 live inputs. Sometimes there were vocal overdubs, but the mics were set up and assigned to mixer channels (and tape tracks) even when nobody was singing. Nobody wants to wait to move or re-patch mics. It doesn't take that long to rewind the tape (re: another discussion on Craig's forum).

 

And if I need more than 24 mics, I'll need more mixer inputs and assign multiple mics to a single output bus. That's how you do three keyboards at once if the player is only playing them one at a time. Or if he's playing on one keyboard and that's MIDIed to a couple of others, I can take all the outputs to the console, mix them to a stereo bus and have stereo keyboards on two tape (or DAW) tracks.

 

The thing is that typically your 24-input mixer will have 8 or at the most 16 subgroup buses, and some of those will be effect sends, and some will be for monitor mixes. And few digital mixers have analog direct outputs from the preamps, so if you want to record the output of a mic to a track, you need to assign it to a bus, which goes to the recorder input.

 

You could run these as dual 8 channel mono mixers and only need 2 of them. Or you could go stereo and run 3. No, it doesn't have all the outputs you want, but do you NEED them? 3 stereo submixes into your Mackie still leaves 18 free channels that you could dedicate to mic preamps.

 

ART mx822-8-channel-stereo-mixer

 

Not your ideal solution but I'm guessing you'll never even play 3 keyboards at the same time, unless you have amazing skills with your toes.

 

I've used setups like that on remotes where basically you need mic preamps and a stereo mixer for monitoring, and there's only one take - from the start of the set to the end. But in the studio you need to be able to be more flexible.

 

One of the greatest features of a digital console is that you can assign any input to any output, so I could re-assign mics to tracks as the session progressed and wouldn't need a patch panel. But unfortunately that only works if the destination of a bus or individual track output (remember - in a DAW, a bus is really a track that you don't see, or one that you do see) is a computer.

 

The other thing is the VIQ - Visitor Impression Quotient. It has to look like a console, with knobs, sliders, and meters. I have to see it every day, and I want to be able to smile and say "It's mine" when I go through that room.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing is the VIQ - Visitor Impression Quotient. It has to look like a console, with knobs, sliders, and meters. I have to see it every day, and I want to be able to smile and say "It's mine" when I go through that room.

 

This. It's so hard to get away from. I am quite sure that it is some significant part of why I can't shake the desire to own an analog inline console. When I was first exposed to music recording the battleship sized SSL9000's were on the cover of Mix magazine, sculpted from pure Unobtanium. Even now, most commercial studio pics have a console at the center if they do any tracking at all. Even the EDM guys often get one once they have a hit. So everything still says, "You have arrived when you have one of these". Never mind that everyone now starts on a computer and has to have a hit from one before being able to get the console!

 

Analog Consoles Anonymous... "My name is Nathanael, and I want a Neve 8424..." It's really hard to say I need one. But I wish one... probably for the reason you state. Objectively, I'm better off in the computer. But it hasn't stopped me wanting one...

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A digital inline console would be a wonderful thing. The digital broadcast consoles can all be setup this way. They are $30k and up, though, and designed for massive channel counts. Somehow broadcast and live are the two places that thoroughly embraced digital and actively reject analog. And they have wonderful, professional-grade options.

 

Digital consoles, as used in the studio (or maybe I should say live consoles as used in the studio) are, in essence, in-line consoles. They just about all have the capability to send an input via USB or another digital connection to a DAW track, at the press of a button, send the output of that track back into the console and into the mixer for monitoring. So, like with an in-line analog console, you can monitor the input source directly through a mixer channel, and then after that track's recorded, switch the console to monitor the track output. Bob's your uncle."

 

But if the recorder doesn't have a USB input for the multichannel output from the mixer, you need something else in line to get from the mic to the recorder. Usually each channel has a direct output from the mic preamp, and that, typically through a patchbay for flexibility, is what goes to the recorder input. But the console designers (or more likely their marketing departments) have decided that to add that feature would be too expensive, and wouldn't have enough customers who needed it. Another thing that keeps this from working is that, in the range of consoles that I can afford (both analog and digital) is that the inputs are on XLR-1/4" combo jacks. While the line level inputs would work find for the recorder returns, if there's a mic plugged into a channel, you can't plug the recorder outputs into the same connector.

 

I describe this problem as "the mixer doesn't have enough holes in it." There are plenty of digital streams available in today's modest priced digital consoles, they just don't have all the input and output connectors that you need for a traditional recorder-console setup.

 

The studio console crowd seems to prefer 1980-1995 workflows. Everyone wants analog and color. I suspect that's why no good studio digital consoles exist. Anyone with $$ buys an analog one. They are completely idolized on Gearslutz, even though the pros hardly use them and are divesting themselves of them as fast as they can. The hobbyists are buying up the analog desks, previously unable to afford them.

 

First off, workflow is a separate thing from analog sound and color. Most people who are buying up those analog consoles are recording digitally and are using the console for mixing (often mixing stems - you have to do that if you have 142 tracks in your project and only 24, or 16, or 8 input channels on your beautifully analogally colored mixer. It's like using your grandad's TEAC recorder that you found in the garage as a signal processor.

 

I'm not a digital hater, nor am I fan of analog color. That's really a product of what I record - all acoustic instruments using good mics. I want to hear in the monitors what it sounds like in the room. The digital recorder gives back what goes in with very little distortion. I don't feel that it needs more. If I was creating sounds rather than capturing them, then I might want to slam the buses or use heavy EQ or compression in addition to what the console sends back. Or use plug-ins in the DAW that's the recorder.

 

Analog workflow is more about the pace of recording and the physical limits of the equipment and how you get around them. You make decisions as you go. You don't leave things until mixdown when you can add the "analog warmth" that you didn't get when you were tracking.

 

Digital gear churns so fast, no one wants to invest. Analog is seen as the "safe - it will still work in 10 years" option.

 

Interesting . . . the studio may not be working in 10 years. The difference in service life between analog and digital equipment of equivalent function is that most analog gear can be repaired and kept working indefinitely. Sure, parts wear out - at some point you'll have to replace the faders and there will be pots and switches that need attention all the time. The bigger the console, the more attention it will require. With a digital console, when something fails, unless it's a power supply, you usually can't fix it. There are no substitutes for many of the parts and when the manufacturer runs out of spares, that's it. So you have to be prepared for a rather short life span with a piece of digital gear.

 

It is an interesting dynamic. If one is tracking live bands, an analog inline console makes so much sense. Wonderful things. But so many pros have switched to a rack of great pre's and compressors for input and then do everything ITB.

 

Here's the workflow thing again. With no console, you do all of your mixing with the computer. If you're lucky, you can set up a couple of monitor mixes and let 'er rip. But when someone wants to hear something different in the headphones, unless you have a console-like control surface you have to get the mouse. Some people are very adept at that. I'm not. I get too distracted working on the computer that I can't pay attention to the music - and I don't like that. For me, it's perfectly natural to grab a fader or a pot that's always right in front of me, regardless of which channel I need to adjust. And as the group is playing, I'm listening on my monitors and tweaking up the mix here and there so I have a good rough mix by the time the first tune is done, and by the time they're finished tracking, I practically have it mixed.

 

I think fear of missing out is also part of this. For a long time, audio was advancing rapidly. 96, 192, DSD - what do I get, what do I need, etc. But truthfully, any of the modern digital consoles could easily last 10 years or longer. I used a Motu828 for 10 years, and that's hardly high end gear.

 

You might be able to continue using your MOTU for another 10 years, but today's interfaces sound so much better than they did back then. One can argue "if it was good enough then, it's still just as good, so it's good enough now." That works fine for some users, but for others, either because they know there's something better and the feel they should have it to do the best job they can, or for those who have real paying clients who may want features that didn't exist when your gear was built that you can't offer.

 

For me, personally, it's just a matter of feeling satisfied with what I'm working with. My Mackie hard disk recorder sounds surprisingly good, a little analog even, and it's 20 years old. But I had a 2" analog tape deck with no noise reduction when I bought the Soundcraft 600 console that I'm still using. That console was as good as my budget could handle at the time, but it's not quiet enough to be a good mate with a digital recorder. I'm making nice clean recordings of the console's noise. It ain't analog warmth, it's hiss because it was a modestly priced 24 x 8 x2 console for its day ($8500) and used op amp ICs that were available at the time, and has a clever but screwy internal grounding system that helps keep noise from external grounds from getting in with the tradeoff that there will always be some hum. Today's customers (in fact customers from 15 years back) aren't accustomed to hearing that noise. Their own home recordings are quieter.

 

 

I have an A&H SQ-5 at the core of my studio today. It sounds great. . . . . My room goes Mics-Preamps-Dante conversation. Once on the Dante network, it hits the DAW and SQ-5 simultanesouly. The SQ-5 does sub 1.8ms monitor mixes with up to 48 channels at 96Khz. With 12 stereo busses, it is a dream for fold-back monitoring. I use the software mixer in the DAW to actually mix. So this is effectively a split setup.

 

What I've been looking for is a 24-channel Dante box with 24 analog outputs to send the mic preamp or bus outputs of the mixer to the recorder, and 24 analog inputs to send the recorder outputs back to the mixer channels for mixing. I'm surprised that nobody's making one. Focusrite has a 16-channel one but it costs almost as much as some of the digital consoles I'm looking at.

 

There is no perfect answer right now. The only pure digital answer I found was to look at very expensive broadcast consoles - that cost as much as any of the analog consoles. Well, there are still analog consoles that are designed for recording, but I'm not a $45k hobbyist. Using the computer as the recorder (and only as the recorder) is the answer. I try to convince myself that if I set up a system like that, I wouldn't try to go down the DAW rabbit hole and waste time fooling with tiny tweaks in the mix, getting another EQ plug-in because what the console offers me just isn't quite right. I never was that picky for my first 50 years of recording, and I don't want to be tempted to go there now. The nice thing about the Mackie recorder is that it works just like an analog multitrack recorder. It has buttons for arming tracks, big transport control buttons, plus some digital features that improve over the analog recorder - like an accurate locator and automatic punch-in and punch-out for example. Yeah, I know a DAW has those, but it takes a different kind of workflow to set those up, and it's just not comfortable for me.

 

That A&H GS-R24 that I've mentioned is a good bridge between both worlds. It's an analog console that has (among other choices) a Firewire output to get in and out of the DAW (it was discontinued before we had fast enough USB or IP protocols) and a button at the top of the channel strip selects Mic, Line (on separate connectors, thank you) or DAW as the channel input source. And it has a mode where the motorized faders communicate with the DAW via MIDI to control the DAW mix, with an option (for final mixdown) of setting all of the channels to unity gain so you can get an analog sum of your DAW mix. I wish someone would revive that concept.

 

I can use my Mackie 16401 16-channel mixer with Firewire I/O in a similar mode - using the DAW as a recorder and sending either the channel input or the DAW return to the channel for monitoring. It works fine, the EQ sounds almost as good as that on the Soundcraft, and there's far less hum and noise. But it just doesn't LOOK as elegant.

 

I hear you on Avid and their controllers. Expensive friends to have. They are also the only ones to take digital workflow seriously and actually produce things designed to accelerate workflow. The new S1 + Dock is quite capable. I'm considering adding that for my Nuendo setup. Accessing the "jog-wheel" style editing is attractive and completely supported through Eucon.

 

I have a Mackie d8b digital console that pre-dated the hard disk recorder by a couple of years. I'm nursing it back to health now. The d8b and HDR together made a really good workstation setup. Because they were both designed by the same team, they could explore all the possibilities and pick the best combination of features that they could offer for the budget that Marketing could give them (that is, they figured out how much the customers would pay). The console could work like an ordinary automated console, with faders following time code coming from the recorder, and because it was digital, signal processing in the console could be automated as well. But the faders could also write volume changes to the recorder if you wanted to work that way. There's a track-arming button on the channel strip for each of the 24 input channels, a duplicate of the transport controls and locator, and a jog/shuttle wheel that feels great and works pretty well, too. It even sounds pretty decent. It has only 12 mic preamps, but I have enough outboards so that if the mariachi band or the jug band shows up again and wants to record, I can have mics for all 24 of the recorder tracks if necessary. Now I wish they'd bring THAT console back. In fact, they tried, but it didn't work out. Part of it was due to some changes at Mackie, but by that time, the cheap DAW had taken hold and most of those customers weren't working with full bands so they didn't need a lot of channels. The justification for an 8-input interface was to record drums.

 

I look at the modern inline analog consoles all the time. But they are so hard to justify. I find that the computer is a completely superior mix environment in every way except haptics.

 

And there you have it. I don't have nostalgia for tape, but I do have a strong desire to maintain the same workflow that I'm accustomed to. I'm not a kid any more, at least not physically, I don't learn that stuff very well, and I don't have the hand/eye coordination to work with a mouse and screen. So I don't care whether the guts are analog or digital - today even cheap digital is really good - I just want the knobs and switches to be where I don't have to hunt for them.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The # of input/output is part of why I switched to Dante. I may just try seeing what I can do. The standard A&H Dante card handles 64 In/Out. The Dante PCI card in my computer does 128ch I/O. I could definitely set channel direct outs for 24 ch on the DAW, and then map those to a set of "high number" inputs on the console. I have to check, but I think the "scene" controls can remap the inputs. If so, I could make a scene for recording input and a scene for DAW input. If it's just touching a button to switch, that's no big deal - same as a physical console. With Dante as the computer I/O, there is enough ports to make it all work. If the Scene idea works, then I could also make scenes that switch just the drums, the guitars, the vocals, keys, etc. That way overdubs would also be just a touch away. I should try this. After all, if I don't cotton to the workflow, a physical console isn't going to magically make it better, even if I like looking at it!

 

There's also some kind of HUI DAW control available for the SQ-5 mixer. I've never tried it, but maybe it would help? It should write the fader moves as automation into my recorder (the computer). Seems you may have a decent answer with the d8B. I looked at that with wonder when it came out. Barely out of college, it was way more $$ than I could afford.

 

It's been a good conversation, first to know that I didn't miss anything in my troll of the marketplace, and second to see that the same dilemma appears. When I'm writing or solo producing, the computer works fine. I would prefer physical controls, but it doesn't stop me. Working "split console" like I do is double the workload when recording other musicians. Because I have to make a mix on the monitor path for them, and then one in the DAW for me.

 

A company like PreSonus that owns a solid digital mixer and a solid DAW would seem to be on the path to solve this. With UAD starting down the DAW path, it can't be too long before everyone is going to need to compete on workflow. And that would be a truly wonderful thing. The world does not need another 1176 clone - but we sure could use help getting digital workflows to be wonderful in the way that a portastudio was.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The # of input/output is part of why I switched to Dante. I may just try seeing what I can do. The standard A&H Dante card handles 64 In/Out. The Dante PCI card in my computer does 128ch I/O.

 

I recognize the potential for high channel counts (does anyone but me still call them "streams?") when there's a computer involved. In this case, analog cables or low channel-count digital cables like AES3 or ADAT Optical, are replaced by a data stream. But that doesn't help getting data between an analog console and hardware recorder input. If my Mackie HDR24/96 had a Dante port, I'd be in business. I can make one (if I want to spend a lot of money) by using one or more Dante to analog boxes, or I can beat up on digital console manufacturers until they put an extra load of A/D and D/A converters and connectors for them into their console - for less money than the cost of an outboard box.

 

There's also some kind of HUI DAW control available for the SQ-5 mixer. I've never tried it, but maybe it would help? It should write the fader moves as automation into my recorder (the computer).

 

This would be easy to do. I bugged PreSonus to add HUI to the StudioLive since they already have data going in and out of moving faders. I believe that the current III series does have this capability, but the setup document doesn't clearly say "When you move a fader on the StudioLive it will move a fader in your DAW." You'd think that at least it would do that with Studio One.

 

The world does not need another 1176 clone - but we sure could use help getting digital workflows to be wonderful in the way that a portastudio was.

 

Hooray for that! We used to have workstations, both simple like the the Portastudios (of varying complexity) and involved like the Synclavier. Then computrs got cheap and once they learned how to handle audio, hardware only had to interface audio to the computer, and the integrated hardware DAW had some hard competition.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Sir Mike, this isn't what you asked for either but maybe useful. They no longer make it, the updated versions lack the feature that is noteworthy on this version.

 

https://www.alesis.com/products/view/multimix-8-line

 

Each channel has it's own send - essentially an output. Line level inputs, compact form factor at a single rack space. It would take 3 of them to provide 24 inputs, probably not that hard to run down or expensive.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 years ago I bought a brand new 32mono/4stereo channel A&H GL-2200 mixer for live mixing. It's a very flexible board for the money, much better sound quality than Mackie and other economy mixers, worked very well for live recording and studio. Lots of features you don't normally find on mixers of this class such as inserts for master L/R AND subgroups. It doesn't have separate input busses for recording playback but that's not a problem. I did some modifications to the board so that the direct outputs are post input preamp not post insert. That allows me to capture raw audio of live recordings and do post processing/mixdown back at the studio.

 

I also modified the muting action on the channels. Out of the factory, the pre-fade effect/monitor sends are also muted. That's fine for theater but not with a live band, so I changed it so the sends are NOT muted. Each channel is a separate PC board which eases modifications.

 

The 32 channel board is now firmly entrenched in my studio, and I have two other GL-2200s for live music one is a 12mono/4stereo channel the other is a 24mono/4stereo channel. GL-2200 can do double duty as a monitor board too.

 

There are newer A&H boards but they omitted some essential features I liked on the GL-2200 such as test tone generator and stereo effect returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Mike, it is an Alesis Multimix 8 Line

 

I tried the link I posted - just above The Real MC's post above. It took me straight there.

 

Here is the Guitar Center ad for it. https://www.guitarcenter.com/Alesis/Multimix-8-LINE-Rackmount-Mixer.gc

 

This is a fail too. So it goes...

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Mike, it is an Alesis Multimix 8 Line

 

That's a pretty old product, isn't it? Not that there's anything wrong with old products. Here's the link to the real McCoy, good photo, and yup, it's "Discontinued." I'll bet it would be really useful to keyboard/electronics musicians, but nothing I could get excited about for recording. I often see "does anybody make" queries for a mixer with a bunch of line inputs and a minimum of mic inputs they don't need, and there are always a couple in the marketplace, some remarkably expensive (but nice).

 

https://www.alesis.com/products/view/multimix-8-line

 

mm8line_angle_large.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Mike, it is an Alesis Multimix 8 Line

 

That's a pretty old product, isn't it? Not that there's anything wrong with old products. Here's the link to the real McCoy, good photo, and yup, it's "Discontinued." I'll bet it would be really useful to keyboard/electronics musicians, but nothing I could get excited about for recording. I often see "does anybody make" queries for a mixer with a bunch of line inputs and a minimum of mic inputs they don't need, and there are always a couple in the marketplace, some remarkably expensive (but nice).

 

https://www.alesis.com/products/view/multimix-8-line

 

mm8line_angle_large.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's probably older. As you say, a good way to run multiple keyboards - more so now that I see that the inputs are stereo.

 

I don't have or use enough stereo line stuff myself to want one.

 

I posted another link in the other thread for the Presonus Studiolive unit with the failed link.

 

... and sent you a PM cuz my brains are scrambled today.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A current model that has surprisingly good sound quality and does even more than that old Alesis (in less space) is the one I am currently using in my studio is The Samson SM10.

 

This is a really nifty little mixer. In one rack space, it gives you ten real stereo inputs for a total of 20 actual channels without ganging or cascading of anything. The first eight have pots for volume, balance, and Monitor and EFX sends (pre and post fader respectively), as well as a Mute button whose LED also acts as a clipping indicator. There are two more stereo Line In channels with volume controls, Monitor and EFX send pots, and a variety of output monitoring options.

 

The rear channel has XLR/TRS combo jacks for the Left side of Channels 1 and 2, with the right side being a TRS. Channels 3-8 have pairs of TRS inputs. All 8 Channels have +4/â10 level select buttons. The two Line Ins and the two Sends (Mon and EFX) are ALL stereo unbalanced on TRS. The Monitor send feeds a dedicated headphone out on the front panel, and the other headphone out can be switched to listen to the Mon, EFX, or Main outputs, or "Mix B" (a mix of all the Muted channels). The Main outputs are available as TRS and XLR.

 

This mixer does a dandy job of mixing a ton of stereo sources together in a small space. However, it has no DAW interface capability on its own; I usually feed it into a stereo channel on my AG06 and record stereo mixes that way. My current search is for a similarly outfitted system that can record multitrack to USB. 16 channels would realistically be enough, but finding something with 16 analog line-level inputs on TRS is impossible below a fairly high price.

 

PS. Thanks for starting the new thread, Kuru. I've been reading with interest!

Dr. Mike Metlay (PhD in nuclear physics, golly gosh) :D

Musician, Author, Editor, Educator, Impresario, Online Radio Guy, Cut-Rate Polymath, and Kindly Pedant

Editor-in-Chief, Bjooks ~ Author of SYNTH GEMS 1

 

clicky!:  more about me ~ my radio station (and my fam) ~ my local tribe ~ my day job ~ my bookmy music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A current model that has surprisingly good sound quality and does even more than that old Alesis (in less space) is the one I am currently using in my studio is The Samson SM10.

 

This is a really nifty little mixer. In one rack space, it gives you ten real stereo inputs for a total of 20 actual channels without ganging or cascading of anything. The first eight have pots for volume, balance, and Monitor and EFX sends (pre and post fader respectively), as well as a Mute button whose LED also acts as a clipping indicator. There are two more stereo Line In channels with volume controls, Monitor and EFX send pots, and a variety of output monitoring options.

 

The rear channel has XLR/TRS combo jacks for the Left side of Channels 1 and 2, with the right side being a TRS. Channels 3-8 have pairs of TRS inputs. All 8 Channels have +4/â10 level select buttons. The two Line Ins and the two Sends (Mon and EFX) are ALL stereo unbalanced on TRS. The Monitor send feeds a dedicated headphone out on the front panel, and the other headphone out can be switched to listen to the Mon, EFX, or Main outputs, or "Mix B" (a mix of all the Muted channels). The Main outputs are available as TRS and XLR.

 

This mixer does a dandy job of mixing a ton of stereo sources together in a small space. However, it has no DAW interface capability on its own; I usually feed it into a stereo channel on my AG06 and record stereo mixes that way. My current search is for a similarly outfitted system that can record multitrack to USB. 16 channels would realistically be enough, but finding something with 16 analog line-level inputs on TRS is impossible below a fairly high price.

 

PS. Thanks for starting the new thread, Kuru. I've been reading with interest!

 

That sounds like a great unit!!!

Thank Mike Rivers and Nathanael_I for starting this thread, all I did was give it a proper home here.

I also find it interesting!

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the small affordable studio thread, now moved over here:

 

I've been researching my needs for a future studio upgrade to get the number of inputs I need and the number of channels of computer I/O that I want, and the prospects are daunting. When nothing smaller and less expensive than an Allen & Heath Qu-Pac will do the job for you, it's time to rethink how you record. Your cheapest option, even if it doesn't always work, is to rethink your approach rather than replace your gear.

 

Another alternative is to do more research and get just a bit clevver, hopefully not too clevver for your own good. (spelling deliberate per the excellent novel Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban)

 

Sweetwater had a limited-time sale on the Zoom LiveTrak L-20R rackmount mixer/interface that I just took advantage of... I'm going to give myself the usual 30 days to beat the crap out of it and see if it will do the job.

 

There are definitely some downsides to it! There aren't any controls on the front panel other than quick tweaks to preamp gain and compression (both of which are, I assume, pre-A/D conversion). That means you have to have an iPad handy at all times to do your mixing and setup. It will record full 96 kHz to the built-in SD card recorder, but the interface won't go higher than 48 kHz. There are built-in effects that are probably pretty good, being Zoom, but no physical sends/returns unless you dedicate a monitor mix to them, and the monitor mixes might or might not be configurable to post-fader... if so, then they can be used as stereo sends/returns with a bit of careful patching, if not then they'll be less useful for that or not useful at all.

 

On the other hand, I just spent a bit over $500 for a full multitrack recording solution for my studio where I thought I was going to be out a minimum of $900, and I'm getting a small, compact, lightweight rig that does everything I want it to and nothing else, really. No money or real estate wasted on stuff I'll never use. Also, if I'm careful with setup and get good clean levels running into my DAW, I won't be messing much with the controls anyway, and I have a place to mount my big iPad where I can use it simultaneously as a backup sound source and as a mixing surface.

 

Mackie is coming out with a new series of ONYX mixers with built-in multitrack USB, and they'll have the advantage of full hands-on control, but they'll also be bulky, expensive, and loaded with features I'm not going to need on the analog side of the divide (at least not until I start gigging out with a ton of synth gear again, which will be, um, how about never, does never work for you?). I might have considered waiting if the difference was only a couple hundred bucks, but at this discount the Zoom will be just over half the cost of the biggest Mackie.

 

So I guess we'll see.

Dr. Mike Metlay (PhD in nuclear physics, golly gosh) :D

Musician, Author, Editor, Educator, Impresario, Online Radio Guy, Cut-Rate Polymath, and Kindly Pedant

Editor-in-Chief, Bjooks ~ Author of SYNTH GEMS 1

 

clicky!:  more about me ~ my radio station (and my fam) ~ my local tribe ~ my day job ~ my bookmy music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...