From James Meagher Sent Fri, Jan 4th 2019, 23:28
From James Meagher Sent Fri, Jan 4th 2019, 23:28
I=E2=80=99ve been using a Mackie 1620i for years without issue. Sure I often= muse about getting something =E2=80=9Cbetter=E2=80=9D, but I gotta admit th= is thing=E2=80=99s been a workhorse and is still running strong. Of course i= t=E2=80=99s a FireWire device, not USB.=20 Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Peter Forrest <xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xx.xx> wrote: >=20 > I think it's general knowledge that Eno sold his Mackie 1604 in the VEMIA a= uction and then realised that he actually loved it so much that he gave the b= uyer some pretty fancy speakers (worth several times the Mackie) so that the= mixer deal didn't go through. > Not saying that was a good idea, but it maybe gives pause for thought. > Basic analogue, not great mic pres.... but there was something about it he= realised he couldn't replace. > I used to use two linked ACES B1816 desks in my studio, and in nearly all w= ays they were average to pretty poor - but that model gave at least one Ital= ian producer a distinctive sound and some good dance hits. > And if you have space and can handle shipping (oops there's the rub) there= are some incredible bargains in big old analogue mixers around. > Having said that .... er I'd probably go for something cheap and recent :o= ) > Peter >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: codemechanic [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx]=20 > Sent: 04 January 2019 22:43 > To: Andrew Wacht > Cc: Brian Willoughby; Jonathan Lippard; Analog Heaven > Subject: Re: [AH] (OT) Mixer recommendations >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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). >=20 > -Ben >=20 >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:35 AM Andrew Wacht <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: >>=20 >> Behringer XR12. It=E2=80=99s digital and has no faders but otherwise I th= ink it hits your points. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Jan 4, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Brian Willoughby <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> w= rote: >>>=20 >>> Given your budget, I couldn=E2=80=99t really think of anything to recomm= end. So, I started thinking outside of the box. >>>=20 >>> Once upon a time, famous bands made music without a mixer - because the e= lectronic mixer had not yet been invented! The earliest 4-track recorders di= dn=E2=80=99t even have a mixer, and once they did, they weren=E2=80=99t actu= ally stereo mixers with pan pots. Bands would record one or two tracks at a t= ime, and then destructively bounce down to free up additional channels. This= era has a distinctive =E2=80=9Cleft-center-right=E2=80=9D hard-panning styl= e (that new bands, such as Stereolab, often return to for nostalgia, style, o= r other reasons). >>>=20 >>> You don=E2=80=99t have to work with quite such a restricted setup, becau= se I assume you have a computer with multitrack mixing software. It seems li= ke all you really need is the ability to record two channels and play two ch= annels. Your DAW can handle mixing everything together so that you have way m= ore than 2 multitrack channels internal to the computer. I assume that you c= an=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 that you r= ecord the synth analog output at the same time you record your guitar or mic= channels. >>>=20 >>> What about getting the best stereo audio interface that $300 can buy, an= d then handle all of the multitrack mixing in the box? >>>=20 >>> I assume that a $300 stereo audio interface will sound much better than a= $250 analog mixer with a $50 interface. >>>=20 >>> Brian >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On Jan 3, 2019, at 12:32 AM, Jonathan Lippard <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> w= rote: >>>> Thanks for all the recommendations so far everyone. >>>>=20 >>>> Budget is the key word here. I looked at digital mixers: even used they= 're too expensive. Analog it will have to be. >>>>=20 >>>> The main requirement is just to have most of my stuff hooked up for hom= e recording. Live performance is not a concern. All I want is something I ca= n use for a year or so with maybe a bit of room to grow and then replace whe= n finances allow. Originally I *was* just thinking of picking up a nice soun= dcard...I'm fine with using my onboard sound for a while. >>>>=20 >>>> 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 multiple s= ynths 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 channels= . I don't mind swapping synths on some channels as I don't envisage using ev= ery piece of gear I have at once, but I'd like to minimize it. So I've mostl= y been looking at 10/12 channel mixers. >>>>=20 >>>> Feature wise, I really don't care about a mixer with parametric EQ righ= t now, would prefer to have something with built-in effects and a USB out. M= y rack effects are pretty non-existent, but I'd like to change that so I'd l= ike to have a couple busses to play with. >>>>=20 >>>> It's a bit vague, but my requirements are vague. The only hard requirem= ent is my gear shouldn't sit around collecting dust for lack of use. (any ti= ps on cleaning dirty switches on a Prophet VS or OB-8? :D) >>>>=20 >>>> -Jonathan >>>>=20 >>>>> 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 practice= >>>>> might boil down to analogue mixer + cheap (maybe built-in) soundcard >>>>> vs nice more expensive soundcard (+ maybe a controller later on if >>>>> necessary). >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> the budget is $300 which doesn't give us too much to work with. >>>>>=20 >>>>> how many channels of mixer would you need? >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Jan 1, 2019, at 3:30 AM, Jonathan Lippard <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> w= rote: >>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I finally have a computer that isn't falling apart, and a bit of spar= e 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 inst= inct is to pick up a budget analog mixer with USB audio functionality, but I= could also just buy an audio capture device and do all the mixing in softwa= re. It won't be just synths, but I already can handle hardware needs for mic= /guitar/etc. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> My budget is $300-ish to get something basic going. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Sorry for the OT, if too OT, please respond direct. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Jonathan >>>=20 >>=20 >=20