this is a "in the future" speculation post.
I don't care all that much to own a full blown studio. really nothing more then being able to track in an iso booth.
I am far more interested in mixing then I am recording, so I dont see my self needing more then 8 tracks to record with at any given time.
So here is my idea:
for tracking, getting my hands on a decent analog 8 track console. I will more then likely use preamps before to the console.
It would be be recorded to a computer (I will figure out what interface and system is the best for me when the time comes).
As far as mixing goes, I am in love with using an Icon. But I don't love the idea of paying all that money. So I would be more then willing to settle for a Mackie controller. combined with the extended fader packs and parameter controller, it has pretty much every thing I use on the Icon.
Is this at all a feasible set up?
I just prefer recording with analog gear, and mixing in a digital format. I figure iI could get both and not need to spend a great deal of cash on something to do both with.
Comments
Some of the greatest sounding, affordable analog consoles on the
Some of the greatest sounding, affordable analog consoles on the market are some of the least common and biggest underdogs...
Ramsa.
You can't buy them new, but a good used one on Ebay will set you back far less money than a pair of Mackie Controls.
Gobs of headroom, huge summing bus, great sounding preamps.
Consequently, I just got a very nice condition 8 channel (2-bus) portable ramsa for less than $50. The preamps in there are FAR better than any 8 pack of pres you could buy for under $2K on the market today.
Now this is why I love this place. I took your word on the 2BA-2
Now this is why I love this place.
I took your word on the 2BA-221, and other then it being in shipping to get repaired is has been great. (the 1/4 out started to make allot of upper mid range buzzing)
any other good companies to look at.
I am by no means attached to any name. I just prefer the mackie control for mixing, since it can work with PT, Logic, and pretty much every thing else I use. I am more concerned with a good quality console to record a few tracks at a time. Also the ability to use a patch would be a must. I want to get out of using plugins for every thing.
I said the Verona because I think that you'll need 8-bus groupin
I said the Verona because I think that you'll need 8-bus grouping, but maybe not. The Verona (and the 4-bus Venice) have great mic preamps and EQ, good headroom. No inline monitoring, but better quality than what Soundcraft and A&H offer in that price range. You could buy a used Mackie 8-bus, but they're so-so, and can be a problem with reliability issues as they age. You could also check out a used Soundcraft Ghost (no longer made). Many like the sound, but be prepared for it to need servicing.
Then there are the Japanese mixers from the 80s...
RAMSA was Panasonics "pro" line. I had an RM8410 many years ago. Like Cuccoo said, they sounded great, built like a tank. I don't know how well their noise level will hold up against "modern" gear.
Yamaha, well-known for their live mixers, made a recording mixer with a modest inline monitor mixer. Pretty good build, good headroom. Model RM-24 (?).
Tascam is the most famous. I had one we called "Trashcan". Purely crap sound. Lots of features.
Personally, I'd go with analog mic preamps and a digital mixer. Many flvors that way. I. too have a Summit 2BA-211 based on Cucco's recommendation. Then the schmuck sold his off :lol:
I wanna say that it was a M2600. I've had the "pleasure" of sitt
I wanna say that it was a M2600. I've had the "pleasure" of sitting behind many Tascams-the Model Ten (their first board), Model One (passive pisser), Model 15, Model 508,yadayadayada. They all sucked, IMHO.
Not to mention my (2) DM24's. I should have bought Yammies.
Oh yeah moonbaby, I've had to sit behind all of those. The firs
Oh yeah moonbaby, I've had to sit behind all of those. The first time I was behind a model 10, it was 1973. It was awful. And the most recently was last year cutting a rock-and-roll CD for some friends on their M2600. Those midrange equalizers totally suck. And all but barely touched the high and low frequency controls but only if absolutely needed. And because headroom is so poor, I play this little trick where I push all of the linear faders up all the way and then trim microphone gain for proper output level. This buys you an additional 10 to 12 DB of headroom at the expense of signal to noise, to allow some actually decent tracking. And then I mixed it on a Midas Venice. It had good usable midrange equalization and plenty of headroom. It actually had a nice sound and so I didn't mind mixing on that desk. I'd gladly use that Midas Venice again. I wonder what it would have sounded like if I had tracked the microphones through it? Either way, their next CD is being done on the old Neve.
Wires coming out of my ears
Ms. Remy Ann David
Well, your idea is quite feasible since that's what most of us a
Well, your idea is quite feasible since that's what most of us are basically doing already. I have a 36 input Neve console and also 20 API microphone preamps that I take out when I can't use the Neve but it really wouldn't make much difference if I only had the microphone preamps and equalizers racked up from the desk. Sure, I still mix in analog, because it's still great and I can. But I'm also mixing in software or doing DSP before feeding out 24 channels of analog to the analog desk for analog summing and mixing. There's plenty of engineers who realize that utilizing analog summing still possesses some sonic advantages over digital summing. One is a natural process and the other is a huge crunch of a mass of numbers. You do the math because I can't.
1-2-3-many
Ms. Remy Ann David