From Jason Proctor Sent Fri, Jan 4th 2019, 23:45
From Jason Proctor Sent Fri, Jan 4th 2019, 23:45
fwiw, before i went digital, i did everything on a CR1604 and then a 1604VLZ Pro. at one point i bought a Yamaha 01V only to sell it shortly thereafter because i liked the character of the CR1604 (Eno and me, similar in so many ways). likewise on the big mute switches, and also i loved the way that mute didn't mute on the CR1604, it directed the signal to the 3-4 outputs (and phones). so cueing was super easy always. can do the same on the later models but it was hardwired (IIRC) on the earlier ones. also for much the same reason, the 1202VLZ was standard equipment for anyone playing out live with boxen back in the day. On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:34 PM David Bivins <xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > I've had great luck and longevity with an Allen & Heather Mixwizard 16:2.= For what you have, you could connect everything without relying on a patch= bay and run anything out the back to a multi-input sound card. Or just ste= reo. > > Back when I recorded more often, I had a Mackie 1604VLZ and it was much b= etter for mixing live if only because the mute buttons were so damned big a= nd easy to punch. I would take it out live and perform live to two-track di= gital in my studio, muting and unmuting on the mixer itself. You can do tha= t on other mixers of course, but the Mackie gave you a few more millimeters= of punching surface for fat fingers like mine. I would strongly consider a= used Mackie. > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 6:25 PM Peter Forrest <xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xx.xx> wrote= : >> >> I think it's general knowledge that Eno sold his Mackie 1604 in the VEMI= A auction and then realised that he actually loved it so much that he gave = the buyer some pretty fancy speakers (worth several times the Mackie) so th= at 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 al= l ways they were average to pretty poor - but that model gave at least one = Italian producer a distinctive sound and some good dance hits. >> And if you have space and can handle shipping (oops there's the rub) the= re 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 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: codemechanic [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx] >> Sent: 04 January 2019 22:43 >> To: Andrew Wacht >> Cc: Brian Willoughby; Jonathan Lippard; Analog Heaven >> Subject: Re: [AH] (OT) Mixer recommendations >> >> 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= think it hits your points. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Jan 4, 2019, at 1:45 AM, Brian Willoughby <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx= m> wrote: >> > > >> > > Given your budget, I couldn=E2=80=99t really think of anything to re= commend. 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 record= ers 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 tr= acks at a time, and then destructively bounce down to free up additional ch= annels. This era has a distinctive =E2=80=9Cleft-center-right=E2=80=9D hard= -panning style (that new bands, such as Stereolab, often return to for nost= algia, style, or other reasons). >> > > >> > > You don=E2=80=99t have to work with quite such a restricted setup, b= ecause I assume you have a computer with multitrack mixing software. It see= ms 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 ha= ve way more than 2 multitrack channels internal to the computer. I assume t= hat you can=E2=80=99t play more than one instrument at a time anyway. So, e= ven if you use MIDI to play the synths, there=E2=80=99s no real requirement= that you record the synth analog output at the same time you record your g= uitar or mic channels. >> > > >> > > What about getting the best stereo audio interface that $300 can buy= , and then handle all of the multitrack mixing in the box? >> > > >> > > I assume that a $300 stereo audio interface will sound much better t= han a $250 analog mixer with a $50 interface. >> > > >> > > Brian >> > > >> > > >> > > On Jan 3, 2019, at 12:32 AM, Jonathan Lippard <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx= > wrote: >> > >> Thanks for all the recommendations so far everyone. >> > >> >> > >> Budget is the key word here. I looked at digital mixers: even used = they're too expensive. Analog it will have to be. >> > >> >> > >> The main requirement is just to have most of my stuff hooked up for= home 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 repla= ce when finances allow. Originally I *was* just thinking of picking up a ni= ce soundcard...I'm fine with using my onboard sound for a while. >> > >> >> > >> Number of channels? Well, one mic, one bass/guitar, a few mono synt= hs, a few stereo synths, a couple free channels for one offs. I can run mul= tiple 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= channels. I don't mind swapping synths on some channels as I don't envisag= e using 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 = right now, would prefer to have something with built-in effects and a USB o= ut. 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 requ= irement is my gear shouldn't sit around collecting dust for lack of use. (a= ny 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> wr= ote: >> > >>> the big decision is analogue mixer vs digital mixer, which in prac= tice >> > >>> might boil down to analogue mixer + cheap (maybe built-in) soundca= rd >> > >>> 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.xx= t> wrote: >> > >>>> Hey all, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I finally have a computer that isn't falling apart, and a bit of = spare cash to hook my instruments up and start recording again. But it's be= en so long since I did, I haven't the foggiest idea where to start again. M= y instinct 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 i= n software. It won't be just synths, but I already can handle hardware need= s for 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 >> > > >> > >>