Woods,
Since your going to be doing remotes your system should be compact and easy to set up.
I would consider a rolling rack with a space on the top to mount the Mackie. You can mount the ADAT under and hard wire the system. With a small set up like this a patch bay would be excessive. Wire the 8 direct outs on the Mackie to the ADAT ins. Wire the ADAT outs to channells 9 through 16 on the Mackie. I would set the system up as a minus ten system using the unbalanced connections unless I could find a really good deal for an ADAT Elco snake.
Go to your local music store and ask them to give you 50% off LIST price on HOSA cable. I have had very good luck at getting this deal in several different locations in the country. This should save you a bunch of dough. Don't buy used cabeling, your only asking for trouble.
I would be "aa -scared" to take an 1178 out on remotes unless I had a really good shock mount rack for it. (Even this would make me nervous.) It is a GREAT comp / limiter to have for tracking and mixing in the studio but the 1178 is a VINTAGE piece and is of considerable value. I wouldn't want to bang it around.
Check out the RNC for a remote compressor, you will need a few of them. If you can't do this try tracking (on remotes) sans comprssion and add it later at mix. This will make your set up even easier. The Mackie has a headphone amp in it and it may suffice for monitoring on remotes. If not, I would recomend the Rane HP6. I have had 2 of these for years now and they have never given me a problem. For near fields I always recomend Yamaha NS10's. They are not in production any more and you will need to search the used market for them.
If I couldn't get NS 10's, my next choice is Dynaudios. The Hafler powered nearfields are great and KRK manufactures some nice nearfields as well.
I would consider a CD burner rather than a DAT. DATS are becoming obsolete very quickly. Your much better off burning CDR's and blank CDR's are cheaper than DAT tapes!
Hopefully this will get you started. Keep us posted as to how it's going.....Fats

Fats thanks for the interest.

When I say remotes I'm not talking about live shows. I mean recording 3 and 4 piece combos over 2 -3 days in a remote barn or basement, like that. mixing would probably be done in my own room but the two racks would be the same config for mixing as for the remote tracking - so I think the patchbay will be a definite component. I can see me having two rollin racks like the one you mentioned.

Now, a couple of issues you raised above:

i) hardwire the system? versus what alternative?

ii) what is a minus 10 system?

iii) Is the ELCO snake for a balanced system?

iv) Does my version of remote recording bove) still make you nervous about taking the 1178 out?

v) Could you give me an idea of what you mean by a "few" RNC compressors? I'll elaborate on my micing ideas below - so from that you could analyze number of comps needed (or are gates better on drums when tracking - or how critical is comp/gating drums when tracking - oh and how might one apply compression to drums that are being subed to two tracks?

vi) Any disadvantages of tracking (sans) I guess you mean without compression?

vii) The headphhone amp is a definite and I am leaning towards the Oz Audio HM6 (a matrix thing that allows distinct 4 ch mixes for up 4 or 5 sets of headphones. Are you familiar and if so how would this thing interface with my Mackie?

viii) I have a consumer home stereo CDRW, could this be used to master to?

Finally,

Somebody mentioned using buses and direct outs at the same time. Could I do this: I would like to record a 4 piece band in their barn. I would like to use 5 drum mics, 2 on acoustic gtr, 2 vocals, 1 telecaster, and 1 bass guitar. Thats That makes 11.

SO: Is it possible with 16 Mackie and 8 trks of ADAT? If I sub the drums to two tracks - that leaves 6 trks for the acoustic gtr, vox, tele and bass.

However, I now run into a monitoring problem with the Mackie's limited channels? Or do I?

Is there some way to utilize the other subs or the patch bay routing to accomodate my set-up?

If so could you help explain. A good in-depth expalanation of what patch cable goes where and a diagram if that's possible?

Woods,
Here are some answers to the specfic questions you asked.

Q: hardwire the system? versus what alternative?
A: Versus having a patch bay interface.

Q:what is a minus 10 system?
A: Minus 10 (or -10) referrs to the nominal level the system runs at. Typicaly -10 is unbalanced.

Q:Is the ELCO snake for a balanced system?
A: Yes, and it runs at +4 level. This is usually the level most balanced systems run.

Q:Does my version of remote recording above still make you nervous about taking the 1178 out?
A: YES!!

Q:Could you give me an idea of what you mean by a "few" RNC compressors? I'll elaborate on my micing ideas below - so from that you could analyze number of comps needed (or are gates better on drums when tracking - or how critical is comp/gating drums when tracking - oh and how might one apply compression to drums that are being subed to two tracks?
A: You would want a compressor for the bass, acoustic guitar and at least 1 for the vocal bus. That's 3. If you have the budget go ahead and get a 4th comp and compress the vocals individualy (on their channel) rather than in the bus.

Q: Any disadvantages of tracking (sans) I guess you mean without compression?
A: Yes, less level to tape. The upside is you won't get stuck with a bad effect printed to tape.

Q:The headphhone amp is a definite and I am leaning towards the Oz Audio HM6 (a matrix thing that allows distinct 4 ch mixes for up 4 or 5 sets of headphones. Are you familiar and if so how would this thing interface with my Mackie?
A: I have never used one of those so I couldn't say. Any one out there got any info on this?

Q:I have a consumer home stereo CDRW, could this be used to master to?
A: Yes you could mix to it but you would be better served to think about a Alesis Masterlink. It has a lot of editing eq and mastering features for the buck.

Q: Finally, somebody mentioned using buses and direct outs at the same time. Could I do this: A: Yes, but if your trying to get more than 8 channels mixed to tape you are going to run out of channels to monitor on. The 1604 is not a split mixer so each channel is only able to function in one mode at a time. You can't route to tape and monitor at the same time on the same channel.

Q: I would like to record a 4 piece band in their barn. I would like to use 5 drum mics, 2 on acoustic gtr, 2 vocals, 1 telecaster, and 1 bass guitar. Thats That makes 11.
SO: Is it possible with 16 Mackie and 8 trks of ADAT? If I sub the drums to two tracks - that leaves 6 trks for the acoustic gtr, vox, tele and bass.
A: I would think about doing it this way, 4 tracks for the drums, 1. Kick, 2. Snare, 3./4. left right - toms, hat and overheads subbed to 2 tracks. 5. Acoustic Guitar mono 1 track,
6. both vocals. 7. Electric guitar 8. Bass. When you mix you can add a subtle chorus or room effect to the guitars to widen them up. You might even add some of this to the vocals.

Q: However, I now run into a monitoring problem with the Mackie's limited channels? Or do I?
Is there some way to utilize the other subs or the patch bay routing to accomodate my set-up?
A: Yes you do run into problems with the Mackie's limited channels. Yes you can use the main bus to route to tape. You may also use the aux sends. But you are going to need a second mixer to monitor with while you track. Any small 8 channel line mixer will work but the better the mixers facillities the easier it will be to do things like multiple headphone mixs. In my current home set up I am using 2 Mackies, a 1604 to route and bus signals and a SR24 to monitor and mix headphones on.

I hope this answers your questions. Keep us all posted as to how the system works.... Fats

A Potential Rack Setup for my Project.

Rack 1

Mackie 1604 on top
ADAT 8trk next
Crown 200 watt
? point patch bay

Rack 2

OZ Audio HM6 (headphone matrix) on top
UREI 1178
Dbx 160
2 RNC
2RNC
Lexicon MPX 1
Lexicon MPX 500

How would you folks wire this up so that I can record as many as 10 to 12 sources (subbing 4 drum mics) while recording to 8 tracks. Then mix those 8 with a minimum of plugging/unplugging from the back of effects, console and ADAT. In other words optimizing my tracking and mixing via optimization of the patch bay.

Is there anywhere on the web that I can find a good diagram showing this kind of patch bay wiring. The ultimate patching how to guide?

Ciao for now,

Woods

Woods,
I just don't think you can get there from here. You need at least 20 channels on the mixer to do what you want to do, count it up. You want 12 mics (scources) and 8 channels to monitor. Can't be done with a 1604. ..... you still need another mixer to monitor with. Another way to go is to just get some additional pre amps to go to tape with (these would most likley sound better than the Mackie pre's). Also with the 2 racks your going to spend a lot of time connecting and reconnecting every time you move the system. If you insist on doing this elaborate of a set up you should put the Urie and the DBX 160 away (PLEASE) and get a bunch of other comps like the RNC's that are more roadable and an additional or larger mixer. Perhaps you could get some individual Anvil shock mount cases for the Urie and the DBX. This would be much better (if you insist) It still scares me. I have a 1178 and I would NEVER NEVER NEVER take it on the road .....................Fats

OK then how about this?

Mix the drums to subs 1 and 2. Here's how. Assign channels 1-4 (for 4 drum mic's) to the subs 1 and 2. Kick in channel one..panned straight up. Snare in channel 2....panned straight up. One mic panned left for the left over head and one panned right for right overhead. Just 4 mics. You now have a stereo drum mix at the outputs of SUB 1 (left) and Sub 2 (right). Run those two outputs to your inputs 1 and 2 on ADAT.

These next channels get sent to subs 3 and 4, panned straight up. Channel 5 Mic Tele amp, Go direct out of that channel into tape input 3. Channel 6 bass mic, Direct out to tape input 4. Do the same for channels 7 and 8 for acoustic
gutiar. That's 6 tracks on the tape machine. Leave vocals for last two channels. Run the same as above. Vocal mic in channel 9 and direct out to tape. Vocal mic in channel 10.

Now assign all 4 subs to mains. This way no matter if the track was sent to subs 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 they will be heard at the master output. You can use this as your head phone mix if you want. Notice we have not hooked up the outputs of the tape deck yet? Beacause you need 10 channels of your board to make the recording, you dont have enough to return all 8 outputs to the mixer. This is ok. Make your recording as described. You will be listen to what is going to tape, not what is already on the tape.

What do you think of this method?

Are there any debilitating pitfalls to listening to whats going to tape -- as apposes to monitoring what is coming off tape?

As far as the 1178 goes. If I had 2 or 4 channels of RNC what is the minimum sound sources you would compress to tape in my 3 or 4 piece combo recordings -- or is it utterly necessary to compress anything before going to tape?

Thanks again,

Woods

Woods,
You asked; "Are there any debilitating pitfalls to listening to whats going to tape -- as opposed to monitoring what is coming off tape?"
That would work but how are you going to let the band hear a playback? How are you going to do punch ins? Besides it's much better for you to be monitoring off of the tape outs because you can set up a mix where all elements are even, level wise. That way you can make accurate judgments regarding compression and tones.

You also asked; "If I had 2 or 4 channels of RNC what is the minimum sound sources you
would compress to tape in my 3 or 4 piece combo recordings -- or is it utterly necessary to compress anything before going to tape?" I would compress the bass, vocals and the acoustic guitar. It is possible to track without compression or limiting but I think it sounds better to compress a little to tape and then a little more at mix......Fats

Somebody sugested that the following scenario may be possible with the Mackie 1604 - Does anybody know if it is or not?

They Said:

You can use the inserts on, say, four of the Mackie's higher 8 channels to both send the mic pre's output to the ADAT and to receive back the ADAT's playback output. If the outputs can automatically monitor (mult) back a copy of the inputs, then this completely solves your problem without requiring any cable changes (for the sake of mixer channels, that is). I believe the tip is the insert's output and the ring is the input, so just custom wire some cables or use adapters to send the tip to the ADAT input and use the ring to receive the ADAT output. Do that for, say, channels 13--16 (to ADAT inputs 5--8), then use 1--8 to create submixes to send through the 4 group outputs to the other 4 ADAT inputs (1--4), whose corresponding outputs then come back to 9--12 on the Mackie. This way, the alternate numbering works out correctly (Mackie channels 9--16 have alternate labels 1--8 for playback).

Originally posted by Woods Palmer:
Somebody sugested that the following scenario may be possible with the Mackie 1604 ... They Said:

That would be me, as [url=(dead link removed) on Fletcher's forum at PSW[/url]. As stated there, I am not an expert. However, I do believe this is your best bet. Let me explain it another way.

You ain't got enough channels. But you don't need mic pre's for your tape returns. So if you don't bother using anything in a channel strip beyond the mic pre for, say, 4 of your mics, then you can use just the mic pre's on those 4 channels for tracking and use the rest of the channel strips on those 4 channels for mixing/monitoring from the tape deck. That's what the insert jacks let you do -- you separate the mic pre from the rest of the channel strip. Use 9--12 for that, and you've still got 1--8 dedicated for the other 7 (or 8) mics during tracking. From those 8, you could take some as direct and sub-mix the rest as 4 more signals to tape.

The main challenge is in choosing what to submix, and that's up to what you feel comfortable with. Since you would likely want to mix the 5 drum tracks down to 2, that would be a quick and easy way to settle the matter. Put those in Mackie 1 -- 5, submix to groups 1 & 2 panned as desired, or a bit wider than desired in the end. Route group 1 & 2 outputs through an RNC directly to ADAT 5 & 6 inputs. Now select which 3 or 4 mics you're willing to take directly from mic pre's on the Mackie without using the remainder of the Mackie channel strips. For example: bass, tele, and both acoustic guitars. Those go in Mackie 9 -- 12, routing the insert sends of those channels to ADAT inputs 1 -- 4, and bringing the ADAT outputs for those channels back to the insert returns of the same corresponding Mackie channels (9 -- 12). This leaves you with 2 more mics, the vocal mics, which you can put through Mackie channels 6 & 7, using the direct outs to ADAT inputs 7 & 8 (with a compressor or two in between, if you wish). That's just one way to do it.

If you didn't follow all those numbers, then please re-read it with a pencil in hand and some scratch paper so you can draw it out. That's much easier than me trying to make up a diagram to post here.

You might consider that the recordings direct from mic-pre's (9--12 above) will be a bit cleaner since the signal will not have passed through the Mackie's EQ and bus-routing section, etc. If you're going to pass it all back through the Mackie on mix-down anyway, that won't buy you much, except those signals go through the full Mackie channel strip only once instead of twice.

You might also notice that the example I gave only submixes the drums. You could instead choose to submix the acoustic guitar and tele tracks down to 2 (ac hard L&R, tele up the middle), which basically frees up another ADAT input to be devoted to something from the drums, such as the snare (or kick). Having the snare separate can be useful for adding triggered samples later or for doctoring it up better at mixdown. Having the kick separate gives you yet another chance to shape it's sound better at mixdown so that it fits well with the bass guitar.
Since the bass guit has it's own channel already, which can get you half-way to fixing any kick/bass conflicts at mix time, I suggest choosing snare. On the other hand, you could just separate out the 2 drum overheads and submix the rest of the drums to a single mono channel, but that's still risky, similar to submixing drums to stereo during tracking. You really need to get that mix sounding great, as you won't have much control over it after tracking is done. I'm sure others here can recommend other submix scenarios, and I should think it would depend entirely on the production goals, the sounds you're getting, etc.

As for doing the insert thing, you'll either have to use adapters to split the send from the return, or wire your own cables. In each case, you're dealing with an unbalanced signal on the Mackie end, which will likely require dropping the cold half of the balanced signal on the ADAT end. I haven't done this as I'm suggesting, so there might be a minor problem or two to overcome, such as the signal on those channels being half as loud as the signal on 13 -- 16 which would likely be balanced Elco connections. If so, you might as well go ahead and solder up cables for those other 4 to go into the insert returns as well (you just won't need to use the insert send half, since you won't have mics there, though of course you *could*, even if it were just to feed the key input of a compressor or gate somewhere -- ok, forget I said that). If going unbalanced introduces too much noise, then, well, that's a whole other can o'worms I won't touch. But there are solutions. I seriously doubt this scheme will cause any major problems, so try it and see.

One more thing. I'm assuming that the ADAT outputs can be used to monitor the inputs without significant latency. Notice that channels 9 -- 12 don't get into the Mackie's EQ sections or buses (including the headphone sends) until after they have gone to the ADAT and come back from there. Most recorders could do that with no problem so I assume yours can, but I've never used an ADAT so I don't know for sure. If there is a latency issue in the tape returns, then you might not be able to do this, or you might have to choose which tracks are least vulnerable to causing problems with latency in the headphone mix.

There, I hope this helps explain my point a bit better. As always, expert corrections to my neophytical surmizings are welcome.

Keith & Woods,
That scenareo will work but I have to warn you it is a huge fedback loop looking for a place to happen..... and if it happens while someone is wearing the headphones you are going to have a very pissed off musician.....Fats

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
Keith & Woods,
That scenareo will work but I have to warn you it is a huge fedback loop looking for a place to happen

Thanks for the tip. Hmmm... I don't get it. Sure, you'll get feedback if you happen to press one of the group bus routing buttons (1&2 or 3&4) on any of the upper tape-return channels (13--16). I don't think that's such a big risk. Don't do that, and you'll be fine; unless the ADAT does things I'm not aware of that would create additional feedback issues. What did you have in mind, Fats?

Keith,
When I opened my first studio I was using an SR24 to track and mix and I recall having these issues. It was a motovating factor in getting into a larger desk. I can't recall exactly any of the particulars I just remember that I was getting accidental loops all the time. It got to where I would have all the talent remove their phones anytime I wanted to change a patch.....Good Luck.... Fats

The following was taken from the Mackie Frequently asked questions website. What do you guys think of this method? If it were such a great threat waiting to happen I wonder why mackie would officially promote this method?

Thanks,

Woods

Can I use a 16-track recorder with my CR1604-VLZ?

A: No problem! To record 16 tracks simultaneously, all you need is 16 “Y” insert cables. The trick is to use each channel insert to send and return the signal from the multitrack. Plug a “Y” insert cable into channel insert #1. Next, plug one end of that “Y” cable into the input of track #1. Connect the other end to the output of track #1. Test this connection; if there is no signal present, switch the input with the output. Duplicate this on all 16 channel inserts.

Well Mackie says a lot of things especally if they are trying to sell somthing. Yes this works, yes I have done it before and yes this type of set up didn't occur to me previously until you mentioned it. I don't care much for this patch set up (that's probably why it slipped my mind) for the before mentioned reasons, because it becomes a patch bay rat nest and because of gain structure problems I have encountered. Also if your going to use the 8 direct outs, they are dedicated to the first 8 channels on a 1604. That means if you want to submix anything those mics will have to be plugged into inputs above 8 using the 1 - 4 bus or the stereo bus. That in it's self seems to preclude doing it that way... It just seems simpler and more elegant to think of an additional mixer or pre amps. API makes a quad pre that has a 2-bus for mixing toms or anything else to stereo and units can be ganged to get 8 channels to 2. ..........Fats

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
because it becomes a patch bay rat nest and because of gain structure problems I have encountered.

By the way, when I suggested tapping inserts, I meant doing that without a patch bay. If you use a patch bay, then you'll want to take the inserts to it (top row is insert send, bottom is insert return, and they should be half-normalled -- right?). Once there, doing what I suggested is easier because you don't have to use Y cables or create your own. But then you would have already done even more work setting up the patch bay so it's still easier to do it without the patch bay, especially since no swapping of cables is required when switching from tracking to mixing (except with outboard gear, perhaps).

Also if your going to use the 8 direct outs, they are dedicated to the first 8 channels on a 1604. That means if you want to submix anything those mics will have to be plugged into inputs above 8 using the 1 - 4 bus or the stereo bus.

Not quite correct. He's only got 8 tape inputs so using all 8 directs and sending a submix doesn't compute. The scheme I detailed above points out a way to do it submixing from some of 1--8.

It just seems simpler and more elegant to think of an additional mixer or pre amps.

Ding! I certainly won't argue with that! But the 1604 is easily racked, and using inserts in this way has been a viable solution for a very long time. It is also useful for getting cleaner signals from the mic pre's without having the EQ and such stuff muck with the sound, even when you only have 8 mics. Using the direct out's won't get you that, so it's a trade off. If you're just going to track and get rough mixes on location, then mix down with a nicer deck elsewhere, then it makes even more sense to take the insert sends for all the channels. I think even the group buses 1--4 might have inserts (can't remember). Certainly the main 2 mix does. The goal can be accomplished with what is on hand plus a few Y cables (preferably custom-made to avoid the use of additional adapters).

Keith,
If you read the whole thread you'll see what I'm mean. Woods asked;

Mix the drums to subs 1 and 2. Here's how. Assign channels 1-4 (for 4 drum mic's) to the subs 1 and 2. Kick in channel one..panned straight up. Snare in channel 2....panned straight up. One mic panned left for the left over head and one panned right for right overhead. Just 4 mics. You now have a stereo drum mix at the outputs of SUB 1 (left) and Sub 2 (right). Run those two outputs to your inputs 1 and 2 on ADAT. These next channels get sent to subs 3 and 4, panned straight up. Channel 5 Mic Tele amp, Go direct out of that channel into tape input 3. Channel 6 bass mic, Direct out to tape input 4. Do the same for channels 7 and 8 for acoustic gutiar. That's 6 tracks on the tape machine. Leave vocals for last two channels. Run the same as above. Vocal mic in channel 9 and direct out to tape. Vocal mic in channel 10. Now assign all 4 subs to mains. This way no matter if the track was sent to subs 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 they will be heard at the master output. You can use this as your head phone mix if you want. Notice we have not hooked up the outputs of the tape deck yet? Beacause you need 10 channels of your board to make the recording, you dont have enough to return all 8 outputs to the mixer. This is ok. Make your recording as described. You will be listen to what is going to tape, not what is already on the tape. What do you think of this method?

Woods wants to have 12 sources to tape and the monitor 8. Can't get there from here....Fats

I meant to say;Woods wants to have 10 sources to tape and then monitor 8. Can't get there from here....Fats

I think have come up with a solution to this problem using elements from all 3 approaches disscussed previously. It goes as follows; Mix the drums to subs 1 and 2. Route stereo drum mix at the outputs of SUB 1 (left) and Sub 2 (right) to inputs 3 and 4 on ADAT. Channel 5, Tele amp mic, direct to tape input 5. Channel 6 bass mic, direct out to tape input 6. Channels 7 and 8, direct out to tape 7 and 8 for stereo acoustic guitar. That's 6 tracks on the tape machine. Plug the vocals into channels 9 and 10 and use an insert cable to route the mic pre directly to tape inputs 1 and 2 and returning them to channels 9 and 10 on the Mackie. Now you can make a completly independent mix for the phones and contol room as well as track all at the same time. What do you think of this method? :c:

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
Woods wants to have 10 sources to tape and then monitor 8. Can't get there from here.
...
What do you think of this method?

It has now become quite clear that, in fact, you have not bothered to read and understand what I wrote. I understood from the beginning what Woods said he needed, both on Fletcher's forum and here. He actually said he had from 10 to 12 mics at first, then he said 11. Now you assume 10. Whatever. I assumed the worse case of 12. By using inserts as I explained in excruciating detail, you can easily use tracks 9--12 on the Mackie mixer for both tracking and monitoring at the same time. The mic pre's are used for tracking and the rest of the channel strips (on each of those channels) are used for monitoring; all of this is simultaneous and without any need for swapping cables around. 12 mics and 8 returns being monitored, all at the same time, on a 16 channel mixer (Yes, you can "get there from here"), in direct contradiction to what you just said.

Now you propose "another" solution which sounds like the exact same thing that I said from the start, except a bit less detailed, and you only need to insert 2 tracks (due to assuming 10 mics) instead of 4 (due to assuming 12 mics). I'll just say this once more: please go back and read what I wrote and draw yourself a diagram this time. Excuse me if I don't bother to keep up with this discussion any more, as I've already repeated myself to no avail and this is becoming somewhat annoying. Please also excuse me if that annoyance shows; no offense intended.

Good luck, Woods. Let us know what you end up doing.

Keith,
I feel your post invites a response.
Your comments were;

Since you would likely want to mix the 5 drum tracks down to 2, that would be a quick and easy way to settle the matter. Put those in Mackie 1 -- 5, submix to groups 1 & 2 panned as desired, or a bit wider than desired in the end. Route group 1 & 2 outputs through an RNC directly to ADAT 5 & 6 inputs. Now select which 3 or 4 mics you're willing to take directly from mic pre's on the Mackie without using the remainder of the Mackie channel strips. For example: bass, tele, and both acoustic guitars. Those go in Mackie 9 -- 12, routing the insert sends of those channels to ADAT inputs 1 -- 4, and bringing the ADAT outputs for those channels back to the insert returns of the same corresponding Mackie channels (9 -- 12). This leaves you with 2 more mics, the vocal mics, which you can put through Mackie channels 6 & 7, using the direct outs to ADAT inputs 7 & 8 (with a compressor or two in between, if you wish). That's just one way to do it.

The drums start out in channels 1 through 5 and go to ADAT 5 & 6. I am assuming these are monitored on Mackie channels 13 & 14 (You didn't say). Bass, Tele and Acoustic guitars start at 9 --12 going via inserts to ADAT inputs 1--4 and then back to Mackie 9--12. The vocal mics, start at Mackie channels 6 & 7, using the direct outs going to ADAT inputs 7 & 8 and once again I am assuming being monitored on channels 15 & 16. I got it...and I thought I said it was a combination of all the ideas that were presented, your included. As a matter of record I did.

I think have come up with a solution to this problem using elements from all 3 approaches disscussed previously.

I never claimed it was an original thought and I certianly didn't mean to infringe on your intellectual property. My statment (and it wasn't meant in a mean way at all) about reading the whole thread was that Woods wanted to use the bus' to send and to monitor with and that he had decided to bring the number of inputs down to 10. I had not taken into account the insert split technique you discribed until you offered it up. I do however have certain reservations in the use of this particular chop and I have already stated them. In the scheme I proposed, this technique has been used but at a minimum, reducing the hazards. These hazzards are more likely to happen using ADATS because of the input output monitor modes employed by ALESIS. I also have attempted to keep as much of the elements in the full mixer path so that the eq (such as it is) and inserts for compressors and auxs are available on tracking channels as Woods has expressed in this thread and others wanting to be able to use dynamics and multiple headphone mixs. I personally don't think the signal path is anymore noticably mucked up in the case of a Mackie (it's like, what tastes worse half a crap sandwich or a whole one?) but that is subjctive and ultimately up to the end user. (Still can't get the taste out of your mouth.) In the case of the Mackie it can be argued that the pre amps are the worst of it. But please don't be annoyed, I myself understood what you were saying all along. I was trying to offer up another slant or perhaps an improvment. Just doin' what I was asked too......Fats :cool:

I have been watching this thread....With good info exchanged as well!

This one is great..

_________________________________________________
I personally don't think the signal path is anymore noticably mucked up in the case of a Mackie (it's like, what tastes worse half a crap sandwich or a whole one?)
_________________________________________________

LOL!

Also:

_________________________________________________

(Still can't get the taste out of your mouth.) In the case of the Mackie it can be argued that the pre amps are the worst of it.

_________________________________________________

Could not agree with you more on that one. IME,(e for examination) the Behringers sound much better at half cost or less...of course they are not road rugged, but they do have some headroom with all channels flowing. I have heard (quote me different if I am wrong here) that Mackies inherently put the EQ AFTER the post gain of the fader meaning the eq driver circuit catches hell if you use it to gain dynamics (remember, eq up means higher dynamics first, then frequency balance (in order of importance))where many other products wire the EQ in first before the post boost of the trim attenuator and line level fader for each channel. Notice how a mackie eq gets completely out of hand at even -18 line with 8dB boost?(on more than 3 equilizers at a time)

Yes, not all signals need flat eq...hence, use the thing for dynamic balance and blend. Cutting also leaves little to be desired as the sound turns to hash when boosted..for some reason..(poss. the floor of the eq driver is fucking with the signal)

....Not to mention the mackies' powersupplys PUKE when they have more than 8 to 10 channels running at the same time. Oh Well...just means mixing on a mackie to get PHAT sound means gain management at the "Entthhh" degree and a good set of ears. I actually have done "ok" with the Mackie boards in a pinch...but I can tell blindfolded if a mix was done on one with an operator that did not gather the info on the gain management issues. Different boards simply have different character, in the mackies case..Yes 1604VLZ...it gets really cloudy once you start getting past -20dB line and -20dB post. No BALLS..

Just my 8 centavas.

PS, Not slamming mackies..just really you have to learn it will bite you if you crowd it..

It can pass as much DC as an Old woman passes gas....

Gentlemen -- Thank you. I may be new here but I can tell from the exchange this was a very good first period -- extremely competitive -- but probably not as informative if not.

I do want to acknowledge that I did obscure the number of mics from 10 to 12 which helped ad to the fun.

Probably enough has been said on this specific issue for now to get me going. Thanks very much guys.

Mr. Roberts you certainly came in at the right time but I'm afraid all you've done is spark a whole bunch of curiosity. Hope you're ready to help out with this "gain management" area?

I'll organize my thoughts a little but my initial concern is a general one about the Mackie: I thought I was getting upper echelon in its category.

Ciao,

Woods

Gentlemen -- Thank you. I may be new here but I can tell from the exchange this was a very good first period -- extremely competitive -- but probably not as informative if not.

I do want to acknowledge that I did obscure the number of mics from 10 to 12 which helped ad to the fun.

Probably enough has been said on this specific issue for now to get me going. Thanks very much guys.

Mr. Roberts you certainly came in at the right time but I'm afraid all you've done is spark a whole bunch of curiosity. Hope you're ready to help out with this "gain management" area?

I'll organize my thoughts a little but my initial concern is a general one about the Mackie: I thought I was getting upper echelon in its category.

Ciao,

Woods

Woods,
You are most welcome. As you observed there are often many different ways to solve a problem in audio. Sometimes when it seems there isn't any way to get something done it turns out that when there's a will there's a way. IMO that's what this forum is all about, the free exchange of ideas and information. For me it's not really a competitive thing, it's that what I am supposed to do around here, as moderator, is answer peoples questions and provide alternate points of view. I look forward to your ensuing posts and I am most anxious to hear of your progress. Keep posting, Cedar Flat Fats.

I guess I did, but for GOOD cause..not the other way around.

Firstly, the Mackie is built like a battleship. You can litterally stand on the pots (knobs) with your full weight and not fear of a cracked circuit board. I saw a 24/4 fall off of a truck in New Orleans at Jazz fest right into a big mud pile. They wiped it off and got busy. I have seen them take abuse like many cannot..and you pay IMO, 60% more for that ruggedness.

Gain management.

Two rules of thumb.

1.Low inputs and high outputs.
2. High inputs (console compression) and lower output setting for same voltage out.

Mackies get UGLY when crowded. (I said that before) not a simple warning, just mass cluster f*ck. UGLY..and if you get use to that clustered sound, you may grow to like parts of it. OK for a main stack at 50 yards, no good for studio recording and mixing. Non Linear compression just reaks of non accurate dynamics. Thank goodness you have a 16. It is not that bad..but an analog 32/8? Power supply starves.

Mackies fit catagory one.

The mackie mic pres are worth about 12 dollars each. Noisy, not the better part of the chain. Use outboard mic pres and line input. Nuff said.

Line inputs. Again, keep the input level low. High enough to overcome the internal noise, low enough to keep the eq section from clipping to the outbound of line pres to main out. IF you need radical eq settings, use outboard units (EQ) per channel. Unfortunanly they will amplify the Mackies noise floor..So listen to the noise floor (usually by A/D into a recorder to watch your -70 level). Seems that when tracks come in here with a floor on instrumental at -56 to -52..I then ask..you using a Mackie?

Well actually you can get the mackie to a real -85dB if you use proper gain management.

It certianly seems most Mackies (analog) were intended for live performance use, instead of studio use.

Now do not get me wrong, you CAN make it work well. Very acceptible. Learn the limitations and learn to avoid them. Work around them. Going out and buying a new board will not change anything until you do the teething on the Mackie and learn its' ways. I suppose Most Mackie users have either found the way around, or are content with them.

One of my Producers was just sending me shitty sound. even though he is 800 miles away and I have been to his studio..and taught some of the techniqes, he is a musician first..and really his monitors are from a fisher rack system (at that time). I told hime to buy a Behringer..and he did..

For some unknown to me reason, he has great sound now. Perhaps it was partially he realized the Mackies problems (oppurtunities to learn)..and the Behringer did not give that. Partially because he use to mix only one way..and the Behringer is better suited for his style of mixing. Jury is still in recess on that.

He said the difference was insane. Well his mixes are so much better. Perhaps a new piece and actually reconnecting everything could have made a difference and reading the manual. New wires too! Now that we all know makes differences in spades.

Anyway, keep the mackie and learn it. I personally don't like to use any console "balls out" with everything used up. Better to get a larger board that can live comfortable. An exception is the Crest consoles. They sound the same if you use 2 channels or have every jack filled. Good powersupply and design in gain assesment.

I do not intend to confuse you. As I stated, Mackies can be used to maximum potential. You can do it!

These are just caveats that I have observed. If I had one, I would get the best out of it..which would be good enough to master. It can be done, just learn its' ways.

Repeating, with Mackie, you will not find a more durable unit at any cost. It can take the abuse.

if it were me i'd make sure i had too many channels to deal with, that way my head would'nt hurt so much,and i could handle anything that came up. if you don't have enough channels going in to do the job, many hours that could be spent drinking are wasted thinking up bizarre ways to do things.
chris perra