From codemechanic Sent Fri, Jan 4th 2019, 22:41
From codemechanic Sent Fri, Jan 4th 2019, 22:41
A Mackie 1604 / 1642 VLZ / VLZ Pro can be purchased used for roughly $200. At the time I purchased the Mackie 1642 VLZ new I remember considering an Allen and Heath 16 channel board (supposedly better eq), but went with the Mackie because of the price point. Rock solid build quality and reliability. I still can't bring myself to sell the Mackie even though I own more expensive mixers. I don't have first hand experience with the Behringer X Air XR12/16/18, but the only thing I'd caution is to make sure your Wifi isn't spotty. For home use you should be fine, but I can just imagine relying on it in a live scenario where every single one of your audience members has a cellphone. Just when the crowd shows up is when it would fail too. And don't take my word for it - the reviews on Sweetwater tell it all. There is the option of using hardwired ethernet, but that misses the point entirely (as well as the "Air" portion of the product name). -Ben On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:35 AM Andrew Wacht <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > Behringer XR12. It=E2=80=99s digital and has no faders but otherwise I th= ink it hits your points. > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Brian Willoughby <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> = wrote: > > > > Given your budget, I couldn=E2=80=99t really think of anything to recom= mend. So, I started thinking outside of the box. > > > > Once upon a time, famous bands made music without a mixer - because the= electronic mixer had not yet been invented! The earliest 4-track recorders= didn=E2=80=99t even have a mixer, and once they did, they weren=E2=80=99t = actually stereo mixers with pan pots. Bands would record one or two tracks = at a time, and then destructively bounce down to free up additional channel= s. This era has a distinctive =E2=80=9Cleft-center-right=E2=80=9D hard-pann= ing style (that new bands, such as Stereolab, often return to for nostalgia= , style, or other reasons). > > > > You don=E2=80=99t have to work with quite such a restricted setup, beca= use I assume you have a computer with multitrack mixing software. It seems = like all you really need is the ability to record two channels and play two= channels. Your DAW can handle mixing everything together so that you have = way more than 2 multitrack channels internal to the computer. I assume that= you can=E2=80=99t play more than one instrument at a time anyway. So, even= if you use MIDI to play the synths, there=E2=80=99s no real requirement th= at you record the synth analog output at the same time you record your guit= ar or mic channels. > > > > What about getting the best stereo audio interface that $300 can buy, a= nd then handle all of the multitrack mixing in the box? > > > > I assume that a $300 stereo audio interface will sound much better than= a $250 analog mixer with a $50 interface. > > > > Brian > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2019, at 12:32 AM, Jonathan Lippard <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> w= rote: > >> Thanks for all the recommendations so far everyone. > >> > >> Budget is the key word here. I looked at digital mixers: even used the= y're too expensive. Analog it will have to be. > >> > >> The main requirement is just to have most of my stuff hooked up for ho= me recording. Live performance is not a concern. All I want is something I = can use for a year or so with maybe a bit of room to grow and then replace = when finances allow. Originally I *was* just thinking of picking up a nice = soundcard...I'm fine with using my onboard sound for a while. > >> > >> Number of channels? Well, one mic, one bass/guitar, a few mono synths,= a few stereo synths, a couple free channels for one offs. I can run multip= le synths through my keyboard amp at the expense of only a global EQ on the= amp, so I'd really like to have the VS and the OB-8 on dedicated stereo ch= annels. I don't mind swapping synths on some channels as I don't envisage u= sing every piece of gear I have at once, but I'd like to minimize it. So I'= ve mostly been looking at 10/12 channel mixers. > >> > >> Feature wise, I really don't care about a mixer with parametric EQ rig= ht now, would prefer to have something with built-in effects and a USB out.= My rack effects are pretty non-existent, but I'd like to change that so I'= d like to have a couple busses to play with. > >> > >> It's a bit vague, but my requirements are vague. The only hard require= ment is my gear shouldn't sit around collecting dust for lack of use. (any = tips on cleaning dirty switches on a Prophet VS or OB-8? :D) > >> > >> -Jonathan > >> > >> On January 2, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jason Proctor <xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote= : > >>> the big decision is analogue mixer vs digital mixer, which in practic= e > >>> might boil down to analogue mixer + cheap (maybe built-in) soundcard > >>> vs nice more expensive soundcard (+ maybe a controller later on if > >>> necessary). > >>> > >>> fwiw, i went digital a while back and never looked back. if you're > >>> recording digitally, then monitoring digital "helps" as then > >>> everything doesn't lack a certain something coming back out of the > >>> box. of course if you're recording jams which involve live > >>> manipulation of a mixer, then that's different and might push you > >>> toward an analogue mixer or a control surface early on. > >>> > >>> the budget is $300 which doesn't give us too much to work with. > >>> > >>> how many channels of mixer would you need? > >>> > >>> On Jan 1, 2019, at 3:30 AM, Jonathan Lippard <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> = wrote: > >>>> Hey all, > >>>> > >>>> I finally have a computer that isn't falling apart, and a bit of spa= re cash to hook my instruments up and start recording again. But it's been = so long since I did, I haven't the foggiest idea where to start again. My i= nstinct is to pick up a budget analog mixer with USB audio functionality, b= ut I could also just buy an audio capture device and do all the mixing in s= oftware. It won't be just synths, but I already can handle hardware needs f= or mic/guitar/etc. > >>>> > >>>> My budget is $300-ish to get something basic going. > >>>> > >>>> Sorry for the OT, if too OT, please respond direct. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> > >>>> Jonathan > > >