I recently broke the bank and bought an Apogeerosetta 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?
Comments
Well yes, 8 tracks at a time to maintain SOME integrity. I'm not
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.
I've got no experience with these particular units, but I can of
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?
FUBARd wrote: I recently broke the bank and bought an apogee ros
FUBARd wrote: 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.
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.
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
... Kapt.Krunch wrote: [quote=FUBARd]I recently broke the bank
...
Kapt.Krunch wrote: [quote=FUBARd]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.
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.
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
(((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
Kapt.Krunch wrote: Guess we'll leave it as a mystery, then....OR
Kapt.Krunch wrote: 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 :?
I'm still lost haha. At least the OP is happy...
I'm still lost haha. At least the OP is happy... Yeah..I'm not
I'm still lost haha. At least the OP is happy...
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
Right, that'd be the obvious choice wouldn't it? Did anyone read
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.
Good, good, were getting closer. I'm starting to feel like I'm k
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? :))
Well, I think you're approaching it wrong. I get a cheap mixer a
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.
I STILL don't get it: "Being equipped with 'y' cables, a good p
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
A patch bay not made for combining signals? Sure... I bet the ne
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.
8-)
try a passive mixer the Y cord is a passive mixer but you reall
try a passive mixer
the Y cord is a passive mixer but you really need to put some resistors in there to help those output electronics
to have the two output straight ' UP ' each other is a bit too guerrilla
a couple of 10 to 20 K resistors will help
you will loose a bit of level but this will be a good thing
...
loose too much level
so reduce the resistors to 5 ... 1k perhaps
experiment a little
it will depend on the input stage that you are using as a summing junction
you said you liked a bit of DIY
google
passive summing
try Fred's paper
http://www.forsselltech.com/downloads/design_discussions/summing_bus.pdf
So, could I ask one simple question which hasnt been answered...
So, could I ask one simple question which hasnt been answered.....
What are you sending these combined(choose your poison) sounds/tracks/instruments/whatever, to?
Where are they going to end up in a haphazardly mixed way?
Is this simply for playback? Or are you making EIGHT stems out of all these sounds/tracks/instruments etc???
I'm not interested in beating any animals of the equine nature, but it seems we are really WANTING to help you, but having trouble with the destination of these......(see above)....dusty old bassoons and what-nots.
The reason I ask, is it was suggested that a mixer used at unity gain and bused to a two channel mix for monitoring, while simultaneously sending eight pristine channels to your converter and then going to your________(insert device) and then repeating the process until all the sounds/tracks/instruments are then collectively reconvened at the __________(insert device) seems like the proper way to do this.
Most small footprint mixers (other than the B&^%$#$%^&rs) will not color the sound if you avoid all the EQ, sub-busing,effects sends, etc etc.
This would go along with a summing mixer quite well and also gives you purpose for the future after you add the proverbial "other AD/DA devices. You'll really never run out of things for a decent summing mixer to do and it is something you can find at your price point.
This will only help you once we establish where these sounds/tracks/instruments are destined for.
Just trying to be a good neighbor. How about you?
I'm confused as HELL... So you have 28 inputs...many of which s
I'm confused as HELL...
So you have 28 inputs...many of which seem like they'd have a hellacious time synch'ing with one another in real time and you want to record them all at the same time onto 8 channels. That's what I've gotten so far.
The idea of using a straight up patchbay and Y cables...just a dumb idea. The amount of Y patches and signal loss necessary plus the change in resistance would be troubling at the least.
So, the thing here is, you're obvious puzzled. We're obviously puzzled. When a handful of folks that have been doing this for as long as we have are all wondering WHY you need 28 inputs at the same time, that should raise a question in your mind too.
Consider this - from the dawn of mono recording, through two track, multi-track and in to digital, very rarely do you ever find a mix that recorded 28 tracks simultaneously using electronic instruments. Unless you have some elaborate way of synching them or very talented fingers and toes, then it's going to be a nightmare. Instead, the way engineers around the world do it is to record 1, 2 or a few instruments at a time then come back and add others.
It's not because the audio engineering lot isn't a creative bunch of people (after all, some audio geek figured out that sticking your finger down on a moving tape makes a cool effect that has since wound up on countless recordings), it's just that some things make sense and some things don't.
You're welcome to learn the hard way or you could just take our advice.
Cheers-
J>
I'll venture a guess to think that maybe the OP has all the stuf
I'll venture a guess to think that maybe the OP has all the stuff, he just doesn't want to plug in/out when he's adding additional instruments. Keep them all patched in so that he can just hit record when the spirit moves him?
That's the only conclusion I can reach.
OP how many tracks do you record at one time? We understand (I think) that you will want to monitor lots of tracks. That is usually done ITB (in the box) these days.
FUBARd wrote: A patch bay not made for combining signals? I gu
FUBARd wrote: A patch bay not made for combining signals?
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?
OK, let's take this point by point to show you where you are wrong about me being wrong.
1) "They're analog line level audio signals....not amplified signals..."
None of those have a "Volume control" on them to control the output volume? A volume control varies the output of an "amplifier circuit".
The outputs of keyboards, drum machines, mixers, etc. are all "Low Impedance", in order to drive the inputs of mixers, etc., which are all "High Impedance". Just because they are not shooting out 5000W of power doesn't mean they like to see another signal trying to load it down. The importance of this is in the next point.
2) "Take two outputs and 'y' them into a single input."
If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a manufacturer?
http://www.rane.com/note109.html
"Why Not Wye?
Introduction
Wye-connectors (or "Y"-connectors, if you prefer) should never have been created.
Anything that can be hooked-up wrong, will be. You-know-who said that, and she was right. A wye-connector used to split a signal into two lines is being used properly; a wye-connector used to mix two signals into one is being abused and may even damage the equipment involved.
Here is the rule: Outputs are low impedance and must only be connected to high impedance inputs -- never, never tie two outputs directly together -- never. If you do, then each output tries to drive the very low impedance of the other, forcing both outputs into current-limit and possible damage. As a minimum, severe signal loss results."
3) "I never suggested that it was a good idea to connect two outputs directly together."
That's ALL you've been suggesting. You even said it again in #2.
4) "Sometimes people get some amazing results from using things around them in ways such things wern't wern't specifically built for."
And sometimes they blow up things when they don't understand what they are doing.
5) I don't think I'm misunderstanding your wish to do risky electrical connections. You've made it very clear. You want to connect the outputs of two devices directly together through "Y" cables. Maybe it won't blow something up. At the least, you will have bad levels problems and most likely a lot of noise. For someone so worried about running signals through an inferior patchbay, you sure seem willing to create junk sound. Maybe you just want a quality patchbay to mix the most pristine noise? You can continue to remain snooty against me if you wish, but I'm just trying to help you understand what you are attempting to do. I'm not going to apologize for being helpful.
Now, something you MAY try is in the following link, if you insist on doing this. It's still not perfect for sound quality, but it's basically what was suggested by Kev in an earlier response to help keep things more safe. Keep in mind that the output impedances of all your devices are likely different, so if you connect a 250 ohm one to a 150 ohm one going into a 10,000 ohm input, you may have some small mismatch with that which may generate noise, and you are sure to get signal loss.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=162891915&blogId=364451794
Also, read this:
http://www.forsselltech.com/downloads/design_discussions/summing_bus.pdf
Am I wrong?
Kapt.Krunch
I think the tidbit of info missing here is that I'm recordig AND
I think the tidbit of info missing here is that I'm recordig AND monitoring through the Rosetta/computer. Additionally my writing technique involves my writing it all together in Logic via midi. I really don't play well enough to be able to sequence keys without hearing what i've already sequenced is bassline with drums exc. I like to do as much via midi including analog gear via cv so I can automate controll changes and whatnot. The mic work of course is done seoporately. And for recording puroses I'd connect directly to avoid coloration. I actually was already looking at that Dane rack mixer and meant to ask about it. I guess I got side tracked. Thanks everyone, I'm glad to be gettig some positive input here. I'll go check out some passive mixers.
So, you use Logic as your sequencer and it controls your externa
So, you use Logic as your sequencer and it controls your external rack-mount and keyboard midi gear. You take the analog outputs of each piece and bring it into the computer. You then monitor the output of that audio in real time.
Is that correct?
If that's the case, you don't need to track all of the synths at the same time. Yes, you may save time doing this versus replaying the file for 3-4 passes, but seriously...28 tracks of sequenced audio is a lot to try to handle at one time. Do you really have enough pieces of outboard gear to generate that many tracks at the same time?
Basically, what I'm hearing from you is that you're hell bent on playing 28 tracks live some how and getting them all into the computer at the same time. What is the necessity driving this?
This is funny :) it seems such a simple concept to me as this is
This is funny :) it seems such a simple concept to me as this is how everyone I know does it but apparently it's not how everyone else does and is quite possibly the wrong way.
Yes that's exactly right, I've got alot of gear I want to hear together for the sake of sequencing parts together with automation and stay 'live' as long as possible for the sake of fine tweaking.
But I'm not hell bent on recording them together, yet I would like to monitor them together but I'm monitoring on the same system I'm recording into so technically it would be possible but not practiced.
Yes I have quite alot of signal generators. 10 channels of synth, 10 of drum machine (which can be sampled into a plug in or tracked individually) ttbls mixr outs, 10 mic pre's and 6 processing that'll be patchbay'd n dealt with later. it's really only the synths and the mixed stereo out on the drum machine that I really need to hear durring the creative phase as they're all on varrible criuse controll I'm thinking maybe doing the patchbay trick (sans y cables but using as a more convienient way of routing) with some leads going into a passive mixr for the sake of monitoring. Cpt Explosive, What do you think?
I didn't realize y cables created noise as the last time I had to use em my gear was junk and sounded like junk with or without y cables.
I'm not asking anyone to apologise for helping but I'd also like to help some of you by stating that you seem quite condecending when doing so. Such does not help but only adds rhetorical tention to an already seemingly complicated problem.
as I said all too Guerrilla smash summing IS something peop
as I said
all too Guerrilla
smash summing IS something people might do for monitoring when desperate but not wise for recording paths
and as I said DO read Fred's paper
and
the Rane library IS worth a read ... more than once
and remember a little knowledge is dangerous but more knowledge is always worth chasing
FUBARd wrote: Cpt Explosive, What do you think? Cpt Explosive
FUBARd wrote: Cpt Explosive, What do you think?
Cpt Explosive?
I think you probably ought to thank me for being the first one to wade through all your confusing explanations to figure out just what you were trying to do, and you should thank all the others whose good advice you kept ignoring, but finally may have sunk in, and may have kept you from connecting things up wrong. There's even the possibility that some of your equipment has been saved from disaster. If I was really an a-hole, I would have gotten ticked at your attitude and told you to go ahead and connect 3 or 4 things together.
Maybe that, instead of calling someone condescending names who tried so hard to get you the proper information, even as you preach about forum ettiquette and condescending attitudes? SOMEone had to wake you up, because you weren't understanding anybody. A stroll back through the entire thread should make that obvious.
Kapt.Krunch
Its unfortunate that this medium is so sterile in its ability to
Its unfortunate that this medium is so sterile in its ability to express concern, or brotherhood or other forms of emotional content that would relieve someones worry of 'HOW' things are being said rather than 'CONCENTRATING' on the content of whats being said.
Knowing these jackoffs like I do, trust me when I say that, had there been condescending verbiage present , the whole thing would have smelled a little different. And the reddass would have burned brightly.
I know its hard to understand where someones coming from on the net, but you havent been condescended to at all....maybe a little frustration at the lack of understanding of the your needs, but we all cant be as clear all the time as we'd like to be.
Just to 'clear' this up.
Dont take it personal.....just be sure and thank the folks for hanging in there ....We really DO care and your situation with all that sound-sources has tweaked a bunch of engineering brains....It is probably unique to this place as well as most others.
So share with us and dont be afraid to seem stupid..... We all are at some point. As we get nearer to terminology that we all can share, we'll be more seemingly kind.
Of course we're not really..... :twisted:
Yes, thanks everyone attempting to help and for having patience
Yes, thanks everyone attempting to help and for having patience with my obvious asumption that everyone is on the same page as I am.
What did 'we' learn here?
1. One should avoid 'y' cables to merge signals.
2. Accept help even when it seems caustic.
3. Just because you may be a seasoned vet in midi, cv, synths, sys-ex programing, 'beat machines', bassline boxes, sequencers and pretty much everything that MAKES noise, doesn't mean you know JACK about MIXING signals. whoda thunkit?
4. Check your ego at the login page
5. The Rane SM25 is probably my best bet. A couple of em.
6. Not everyone's setup is the same or even anything like yours or mine.
7. Sometimes a handjob just isn't enough. ;)
From reading the first few posts again, it seems that all we ach
From reading the first few posts again, it seems that all we achieved then was confusion over your intent.
Everyone jumped on the why-cord/patchbay bandwagon and the original mess was swept away.
I skimmed most of it, but... your intent still confuses me.
You have a large (enough to provide 28 discrete outputs) array of devices, yes?
You wish to have the maximum amount these connected simultaneously, yes?
What you want to do is pair a bunch of these together, to make 8 subgroups?
Assuming this is the case, I'd pick a few heavily used bits of kit, and go directly in with those.
Get a small-ish stereo mixer with a monitor bus or two, use the pan controls to extremes and create (2 + monitor buses) discrete signals which go into the remaining inputs on your AD.
The patchbay would be for if you only wanted a few connected at once, so you can swap between them without wearing down the connectors on your AD or have to get down on the floor behind the PC.
And if this was covered, forgive me. *insert excuses here*
BTW I have a gripe with the 2nd point you make above...replace the word "help" with "acid" and it's definitely not a good idea.
FUBARd wrote: Yes, thanks everyone attempting to help and for ha
FUBARd wrote: Yes, thanks everyone attempting to help and for having patience with my obvious asumption that everyone is on the same page as I am.
What did 'we' learn here?
1. One should avoid 'y' cables to merge signals.
2. Accept help even when it seems caustic.
3. Just because you may be a seasoned vet in midi, cv, synths, sys-ex programing, 'beat machines', bassline boxes, sequencers and pretty much everything that MAKES noise, doesn't mean you know JACK about MIXING signals. whoda thunkit?
4. Check your ego at the login page
5. The Rane SM25 is probably my best bet. A couple of em.
6. Not everyone's setup is the same or even anything like yours or mine.
7. Sometimes a handjob just isn't enough. ;)
There ya go.... :wink:
FUBARd wrote: 3. Just because you may be a seasoned vet in midi,
FUBARd wrote: 3. Just because you may be a seasoned vet in midi, cv, synths, sys-ex programing, 'beat machines', bassline boxes, sequencers and pretty much everything that MAKES noise, doesn't mean you know JACK about MIXING signals. whoda thunkit?
THIS! It's very frustrating (no offense meant in your direction) when somebody who does nothing but create beats with a device meant specifically for that purpose... to create beats... feels high enough on his own ego to tell you what you should be doing with all your little knobbies and blinkies.
Codemonkey you're EXACTLY RIGHT. While I was origionally toying
Codemonkey you're EXACTLY RIGHT. While I was origionally toying with the idea of a patchbay to easily bypass a cheap mixer durring recording, the plot was lost over why I would/could do so to assist in combining signals. It's still the idea too; I'll purchase a few rane sm25's keeping two Rosetta direct inputs open on the patchbay, then patch the signal from the synth or box to that rather than keeping it as normal which would be into the mixer then into the Rosetta achiving as clean a signal as my horricifcly disorganized cables will allow.
Gtrfreak, I agree, but I did come to a recording forum about a problem typical to the electronic musician as opposed to an audio egineer. I thought I could get some good advice about signal mixing from someone who does nothing but that. Eventually, after a little wallbanging, I really did. Also I'm more about the knobbies than the blinkies but the guys that buy the beats sure are entertained by them.
keep you eyes and ears open for a TECHy fellow willing to help y
keep you eyes and ears open for a TECHy fellow willing to help you with your " horricifcly disorganized cables "
seriously there are many geeks like me about, more than willing to come to your workplace to help point you in the right direction
??
even to make a Ycord with a bit of science for combining
and can help advise on gear purchases to suit your situation and finances
???
just a suggestion
FUBARd wrote: Gtrfreak, I agree, but I did come to a recording
FUBARd wrote: Gtrfreak, I agree, but I did come to a recording forum about a problem typical to the electronic musician as opposed to an audio egineer. I thought I could get some good advice about signal mixing from someone who does nothing but that. Eventually, after a little wallbanging, I really did. Also I'm more about the knobbies than the blinkies but the guys that buy the beats sure are entertained by them.
Again, I wasn't referring to you or this thread, only that I have been in that situation a few times before. You did the right thing looking for help. Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to making that problem disappear :D 8-)
So you are wanting an 8 bus mixer to sub down all your tracks to
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?