1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

NEED MORE INPUTS!!!

Discussion in 'Recording' started by FUBARd, Sep 15, 2009.

  1. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    I recently broke the bank and bought an apogee rosetta 800. Problem is, I've got something like 28 channels i need to squeze into it. Any suggestions on a clean budjet mixer to tide me over till I can afford a Symphony card & an AD16? I was thinking about an allen n heath board or a mackie onyx but most of the 8 bus mixers cost as much as the AD16 and make it a moot purchase. Im thinking in the $1K range. Anyone?
     
  2. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    So you are wanting an 8 bus mixer to sub down all your tracks to your converter? Why would you want to sub mix everything together just to convert it? Couldnt you simply go in eight at a time ? and then have all your tracks available to mix on the daw rather than stems of subbed tracks??


    Maybe I dont get what the mixer is going to do for you?
     
  3. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    Well yes, 8 tracks at a time to maintain SOME integrity. I'm not looking to do mixdown on a cheap analog board just so I can hear what all is playing together. I even considered a nice patchbay and ghetto in some y cable action to do me just for now. Which would be WAY cheaper and such a purchase would eventually nessecairy anyway. I just thought that maybe a cheap mackie or A&H board would be better as the only patchbays I've used were noisy garbage.
     
  4. Guitarfreak

    Guitarfreak Well-Known Member

    I've got no experience with these particular units, but I can offer some conceptual advice. Buying a 'cheap' or 'budget' mixer just for the sake of plugging some mics into it before conversion might do you more harm than good. If it is anything but transparent then it will affect the tone in some way, and since we are talking cheap, it could very well damage your tone.

    I don't see what you gain from running your mics through a mixer prior to conversion. Flashing lights to impress your clients? It's not like you are doing a live broadcast or something where you need to have minute by minute control of the output levels of each mic, you just take a few takes to set your levels correctly once and then record. Look at it this way, leaving the mixers out of the question entirely means:

    1. Cleaner signal
    2. You only have to set gain structure for one device.
    3. You save money!

    How can you argue with that?
     
  5. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    Yeh i know all this but i HATE not being able to hear all the synths and drum machines and processors, im using at once.

    so youre saying the patchbay is a better option? arent most of em just as dirty as a cheap mixer?
     
  6. Kapt.Krunch

    Kapt.Krunch Well-Known Member

    FUBARd,

    Is there some confusion here, or am I missing something?

    You have 28 channels...of what, where? Already in the computer that you want to monitor...or mix down? Or, 28 tracks that you want to get INTO the computer all at once, while monitoring?

    In either case...I don't see how a patchbay can help. A patchbay cannot mix....in or out. It can only route one signal per connection (single or premixed) to another place, or possibly split to more than one. It cannot combine two or more signals.

    If the 28 channels are already in the computer, are you trying to add more tracks, and need to monitor what's in there, or are you trying to mix them down? If you're trying to mix them down, can't you just mix in the computer to two channels? How many monitor speakers do you have? Two? Then all you need is a stereo mix? You can always group tracks and mute or solo things, and if you are trying to monitor while adding more, can't you just do a rough mix to stereo to monitor while adding?

    If you want to get 28 channels IN, then you'll need more I/O...more Rosetta, or something that will work with it. Or, you'll have to submix all 28 into the 8 inputs of the Rosetta.

    I'm just confused as to what you are trying to do, but it may just be me. Please elaborate?

    Kapt.Krunch
     
  7. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Uh....me too.???!!!
     
  8. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    ...

    (((NEVERMIND)))

    Guitar freak hooked me up, thanx. ;)

    although the flashing lights of an analog board would really please my hip-hop clients' extra chromazone. i'll go with the switchcraft and some nice gold tipped 'y' cables, lol

    ashes to ashes dust to dust. time of death 2:13am fri, 18sep2009
     
  9. Kapt.Krunch

    Kapt.Krunch Well-Known Member

    Guess we'll leave it as a mystery, then....OR..we could have a little contest to see if anyone can guess what the original problem actually was, and what the final solution was? :shock:

    Kapt.Krunch :?
     
  10. Guitarfreak

    Guitarfreak Well-Known Member

    I'm still lost haha. At least the OP is happy...
     
  11. Kapt.Krunch

    Kapt.Krunch Well-Known Member

    Yeah..I'm not sure what he solved from your previous conceptual advice, since it basically explained a possible problem fairly well, but didn't offer a solution to whatever he was trying to accomplish. I figured maybe you contacted him directly and set him straight. :?

    Kapt.Krunch
     
  12. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    Sometimes the best answer is a good question. Put the crystal balls away gentlemen, I decided not to mud my signals with a cheapo mixer, but to be ghetto fix with a 'y' riddled patchbay. Dig?
     
  13. Guitarfreak

    Guitarfreak Well-Known Member

    Well that's not what we were saying either. Just get more channels of digital conversion.
     
  14. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    Right, that'd be the obvious choice wouldn't it? Did anyone read the OP? That's $3.5k I don't have. What I was looking for was a cheap, temporary fix. Enter the budjet mixer to sub down on for the sake of monitoring only to bypass durring actual conversion. Sorry for making it sound so complicated.
     
  15. hueseph

    hueseph Well-Known Member

    So, I think we are talking about mixing a scratch track down to two channel just for the sake of hearing all the parts......yes?
     
  16. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    Good, good, were getting closer. I'm starting to feel like I'm kicking a dead horse here because you guys' questions have already answerd mine. For the sake of good conversation and in the name of keeping such wonderfully heplful friends, I'll elaborate with intention to explain:

    I'm a 15 yr veteran 'homie'. (perhaps your most frustrating forum members) A calssic DIY musician. No fancy degree in audio engeneering, no million dollar console, no $10K mic pre, no room full of audio deticated 'blade' servers. (if that even exists yet) No... In my 'lab' all I have is have a few out-dated drum machines, some dusty old analog synths, a pair of your standard varible spd TTBL's, a few pushbutton FX units from the 70's n 80's, a couple guitars, a cello, bassoon, a few old mics, some decent monitors, a lil Mac, exc, exc, exc all totaling upwards of twenty something channels at the very least. I recently upgraded my input/mixing setup from a Tascam DM 24 & Tascam FW1884. It worked but the sound wasn't great and the interfacing left quite a lot to be desired.

    For said recent upgrades I chose the Apogee Rosetta and a Mackie controll. A worthwhile investment needless to say. My problem now is what do do with all the extra input singals as the Rosetta only has 8 hence the thread title 'Need more inputs'. I realize that I need more AD (the obvious choice) and plan on buying more but I do need something to tide me over (while I save up the $3-4K to buy the additional AD) in the way of signal combining enter either the budjet mixer OR a patchbay with 'y' cables. Granted nither is as perfect solution as simply pulling that kind of cash outta my rear-end but all I seem to get when I try that is something brown n stinky. So, the question was simple; "which budjet mixers out there suck the least?" which is perhaps what I should have labled the thread. I was planning to use a budget mixer to bus my 25+ signals into the 8-ins avalible on the Rosetta. This seemed like a good idea untill gtrfrk asked me why I was considering putting a muddy cheapO in the way of the crystaline Rosetta. Enter the inevitable purchase of the patchbay. Being equipped with 'y' cables, a good patchbay will be able to combine signals as needed. (given a lil gain reduction on the origional units) It gets 'em in, saves $$$, and doesn't crap up the signal like a mixer cheap enough (less than $1K) not to undermine its purchase in the first place.

    So basically, telling me I needed more AD is like telling the guy with a gunshot wound to his chest that he is in a combat zone and needs to put on his body armor. THANX ;)

    Now that the decision to patch em up has been made; the BIG question is "which patchbays AREN'T CRAP?" which perhaps I should start a totally diferent thread asking. I don't know; do you guys think I should start more threads? Even if I make em as fun as this one? Cumon' were still friends aren't we? :))
     
  17. hueseph

    hueseph Well-Known Member

    Well, I think you're approaching it wrong. I get a cheap mixer and mix all the tracks down to a stereo pair. Use that as a scratch and then dump the individual tracks into your DAW 8 at a time. You will always be able to monitor the other tracks though you will only ever be able to control 8 at one time, but you just shift the control over as needed.
     
  18. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    RIGHT! That was my origional question, I'm glad were now on the same page. So now I'll do a search for which cheap mixers and patchbays for making the switch are best. yay.!
     
  19. Kapt.Krunch

    Kapt.Krunch Well-Known Member

    I STILL don't get it:

    "Being equipped with 'y' cables, a good patchbay will be able to combine signals as needed. (given a lil gain reduction on the origional units)"

    NO! AGAIN, a patchbay is NOT used to combine signals. It routes, reroutes or splits signals.

    When you electrically connect two or more amplified outputs of two or more devices, you risk frying the outputs of one or more device. You are feeding both amplified outputs directly to each others' amplified output. This is NOT combining signals. Even though you are forcing part of both signals to one input of another device, you are also trying to force part of BOTH signals BACKWARD to the OUTPUTS of both devices. Would you dare try to connect the outputs of two power amplifiers directly together to one speaker? Why not? Shouldn't that "combine" the two signals? Or will it more likely blow something up?

    Mixers COMBINE signals by using circuitry designed to mix two or more signals together safely to one or more outputs.

    Does this make sense, now? DO NOT CONNECT TWO OUTPUTS DIRECTLY TOGETHER!

    Or, go ahead and do it if you want to be stubborn and experiment. Just keep a small fire extinguisher handy when things start smoking. Before long, you'll save money NOT buying the proper device because you'll have fewer working devices to run through it, anyway, and won't need more inputs.

    And, don't say you weren't warned. Sorry this sounds harsh, but from what I am gathering from your posts, you're just not getting it.

    Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding your explanation of "combining with "Y" cables through a patchbay"?

    Kapt.Krunch
     
  20. FUBARd

    FUBARd Guest

    A patch bay not made for combining signals? Sure... I bet the next thing you're going to say is that I should NOT stick my wet finger into the electrical sockett to use myself at a human extention cord.

    As silly as it seems that I have to prove myself not invalid on this forum I guess I'll take a shot at it by systamaticly pointing out everything wrong with the last post.

    1. They're analog line level audio signals with between around 30hz and 25khz (synths, drum machines, ttbls' mixer out, preamps, processors outs exc) not amplified signals, optical signals, digital signals, encripted signals, or actually improvised explosive devices made from readily avalible household goods found mostly under your sink.

    2. Take two outputs and 'y' them into a single input. not a real complicated a notion.

    3. I never suggested that it was a good idea to connect two outputs directly together. While anything NOT a piece of junk has protection circuits to prevent theyre exploding like an Iraqi taxi, it definately wouldnt get you anywhere as I'm not using my Prophet-10 as headphones. (way too heavy) It IS however possible to use your headphones as a mic but thats another story. Lest stay on point shall we? Wait that was lost about midway the first page of this now catistrophic failure of a thread...

    4. Yes, patch bays are made for spliting signals and mixers are made for combining signals but you could also use four pieces of chicken wire and two beer cans (for drinking to deal with having to demonstrate). Sometimes people get some amazing results from using things around them in ways such things wern't wern't specifically built for.

    5. Yes, you ARE misunderstanding my explaination. Painfully so. In fact I'm thinking so far into it as to wonder if it's not by design. That's a hefty post count you got there... Is THAT how we earn respect around here? Hmmmm?

    Allow me to elaborate; put your patchbay channels in isolated mode, connect up your gear ins, outs, exc to the rear. now go around to the front. its important to remember which jacks are ins and which are outs so you dont make one falce move and combine enough voltage to detonate the massive explosive device youre apparently using to process your vocals. take a 'y' cable and stick two ends ino two of the 'output' jacks and the third end into an 'input' jack. congradulations you just merged (combined) two audio signals through your patchbay. well, really through the 'y' cables but the patchbay made it easier and more organized to say the least. now that I think about it, you could skip the 'y' cables if you just turn around the patchbay and use it in normalized mode. Same circuitry for splitting, reversed, is a merger. But i think i'll go with the 'y' cables to keep from somehow turning my studio into a nuke. I'm sorry but this is as base a level as I can allow myself to sink.

    THANX AGAIN!

    And please nobody tell the 'terrorists' that there's a massive untapped casualty count just waiting for them in every pair of Casio home keyboards.
    :cool:
     

Share This Page