x
anonymous 21 March 2003

I am looking for that kind of thing to use primarily for mix down. The smaller the better (size-wise).

Anything out there? Capable of mixing 24 tracks. Very high quality electronics. Must have good head room, hi quality EQ and busing electronics. Mackie ain't gonna cut it sonically.(May not even use for tracking - I'm going direct to HD24 with stand alone pres) But just to keep my otions open I would prefer 8 bus in case I did want to try it tracking.

Would the Studiomaster Mixdown 8 Classic perhaps fit in this category.

Thanks,

Woods

Tags

Comments

KurtFoster Sat, 03/22/2003 - 09:23

Woods,
What you are asking for is "The Holy Grail" of home recordists. Quality mixers are just not really out there in a small format. I have heard some say that the Allen Heaths are nice but then others have reported a lack of headroom and noise issues. The Crest X series of consoles are reported to have a very nice sound and are affordable. Not 24 channels however. http:// . Another solution would be the Inward Connections from Boutique Audio.. (deadlink) Be prepared, this stuff is very pricey! 24 channels would run $24K! At that point you could just buy a large format console. But then your into a lot of maintenance and difficulty moving it etc… you’re still trying to have a mobile rig, correct?

What you want, is one of the reasons many of us have decided to go with DAWs, … mixing without a console. Sure a nice console sounds better but very good results can be achieved on a DAW with a little care and caution.

Quality audio paths are not inexpensive to manufacture and unfortunately they are difficult and expensive to maintain. Good sound requires a lot of headroom and that means lots of power. All that heat has a tendency to be hard on components over time. This is why digital mixing has become so popular. Perhaps your solution would be to go with a high quality digital mixer like the Sony DMX 100. Kurt

anonymous Mon, 03/24/2003 - 04:28

Kurt, I agree that's why so mant go with a DAW. But there are to many advantages over a console to mention.
I don't agree that a console would "sound better".
With a console your pretty much stuck with it's EQ, compression ect. With a DAW you have access to so many different sounding plugs.

The summing issue many have is what makes the difference. Not all DAWs are created equal. Can't put them all into the same problems box. The summing I get out of my DP rig is better than the digital console I have WRDA7.

The imaging is as good as any analog console i've heard, or commercial release done on one.

anonymous Fri, 03/28/2003 - 10:04

Originally posted by Woods Palmer:
Thanks so far.

Pres are not a priority with me as I have good externals.

Excluding preamps which of the following mixers might be the best package of Head Room, EQ, Busing, Faders, Aux Send Return capacity:

Soundcraft Ghost
Sound Tracs Solologic
Speck Xtramix
Trident 65

Thanks,

Woods

I really think the Xtramix can eliminated from your list. It's a rack mount line mixer and lacks EQ and linear faders.

We've tryed to position the Xtramix in the marketplace as an alternative to the desk sytle mixer. It certainly has the specs (no pun) and some of the features you've mentioned, but I think it's better suited in a "set-and-forget" studio setup where you need a ton of line inputs is small space.

You should put together a product matrix of mixers that are in your price range. Using a spreadsheet, put your mixer choices in "columns" and their respective features/specs in "rows". I think an answer to your question will reveal itself as you look at the data in your list.

Now having said that...if your running low on choices for a high quality 4-rack space, 72 x 8 bus line mixer, then give the Xtramix a look.

Vince Poulos
Speck Electronics
http://www.speck.com

KurtFoster Fri, 03/28/2003 - 10:40

The Speck Xtramix is a great piece for what it is designed to do, which as Vince mentioned is line inputs. I would not hesitate to use one of these mixers to submix reverb returns or keyboard inputs. It could also be used as an analog summing and mixing box for DAWs where eq and other processing were "in the box" but the digital 2-bus was being bogged down by too many inputs for the computers processing ability. The Speck Xtramix would be a very good solution for that kind of problem. Speck is an excellent company with a long history of quality affordable products.

I currently have a Speck 5.0 mic pre in the studio in the review process and I must say it is built like a tank and has a very clean and open quality to it. Very transparent and loads of headroom. A vast improvement to the mic pres found in many small format mixers. I will be posting a full review of the Speck 5.0 pre in the review form and in the RO E-Mag in the next couple of weeks!

“I really think the Xtramix can eliminated from your list. It's a rack mount line mixer and lacks EQ and linear faders ………... it's better suited in a "set-and-forget" studio setup where you need a ton of line inputs is small space.”

I have to applaud Vince for saying this. It is refreshing to hear a representative of a company state that one of their products isn't what is called for. IMO this speaks volumes as to the honesty of the company. Kudos Vince!

JPH said;

Kurt, I agree that's why so mant go with a DAW. But there are to many advantages over a console to mention.
I don't agree that a console would "sound better".
With a console your pretty much stuck with it's EQ, compression ect. With a DAW you have access to so many different sounding plugs.

The summing issue many have is what makes the difference. Not all DAWs are created equal. Can't put them all into the same problems box. The summing I get out of my DP rig is better than the digital console I have WRDA7.

The imaging is as good as any analog console i've heard, or commercial release done on one.

JHP,
You’re preachin’ to the choir on this one. I do everything “in the box”. I actually advised Woods to go this route several months ago to avoid the issues he is currently dealing with! If you read the thread again you will see that I am advocating using DAW rather than a stand alone recorder and an analog console. However some people are daunted by the aspect of a steep learning curve with a computer based recording system. I would say to them, jump in and do it. For many reasons.. it’s the future, it’s not as hard as you would think. I am a moron when it comes to computers however I was tracking by the third day. Two or three days of figuring it out and getting your basic set up saved to a default start point and you’re ready to go!

That being said, I still think that if one were to mix on a Neve, a Trident A Range, SSL or other high end console, all other things being equal the console would probably sound better. My two cents and more ….. Kurt

anonymous Sat, 03/29/2003 - 11:08

I have tried a Studiomaster 16-8-2 side by side with a Mackie (with the old pres). In comparison the Studiomaster had a nice "colored" sound. Especially the lower frequencies sounded just great, massive and "hold together". The Mackie was more bright in the sound and more boring...and without the nice bass response. In my opinion the Studiomaster was superior to the Mackie and great. I recommend it...and for the prices second hand today...gosh!

Hans

anonymous Sun, 03/30/2003 - 11:53

Originally posted by lamp:
Vince. Since you are here,what was the model number of the 16x8x2 Speck mixer from the eighte's ? I had one back then.

Was the EQ of those desk's simular to the new EQ.

Got a link or a picture? Thanks.

A link or picture to what? The EQ or the old consoles? The new EQ (ASC) can be found on our web site. Nothing on the old consoles. I may scan some of our old brochures some day and put them on our site.

OT: I have a file cabinet of brochures for audio gear dating back to the early 70's. Virtually every console, tape recorder, processing gear, price list, you name it! I'd love to have all that stuff scanned and put on our web site.

BACK TO THE TOPIC:
I think we had three different console models during the 80's; the SP800C (a blue colored modular), the Speckmix 16 (a black panel non-modular), and the Speckmix MKii (a blue panel non-modular).

The EQ's in those consoles were 3 band sweepable. The new ASC is 4 band fully parametric. I've been told that the high band on the ASC sounds the same as the EQ on those early consoles.

Regards,

Vince Poulos
Speck Electronics
http://www.speck.com

Davedog Sun, 03/30/2003 - 11:57

...Well I was lookin for a good argument so I'll start one...I'm sure the Speck is as high quality as you can get for the money.And if it fits the footprint of what your needs are then by all means check it out....In response to your mixer list....the Trident is a very good sounding console and it is not 'small'...most of the problems with them involve maintainence...if you have a good tech at your disposal then this might be what you're looking for...and the pres in it will probably rival some of your outboard pres..as well as the eq...again, maintainence,...the soundtracs always sounded thin to me...I have done work on a couple and wasnt that impressed..their routing and monitoring capabilities are very cool though and it might also make a nice usable platform for what you need...then theres the Ghost.It will do all you need and more.very patchable and very nice sounding. a few minor upgrades brings these up to a much higher standard of sound...as for some of the other mixers mentioned....I would stay away from studiomaster..they have a pretty low rail voltage(the ones i've used) and have no overhead at all....you'd be on ten with everything....the mackies suck IMHO theres this intense upper-mid harshness that comes through and after you start multing tracs it builds up..Bill mentioned the old Ramsa WRS series mixers...these sound like GOD on steriods...nothing has been produced in this range of boards with the depth and quality that they had....the switches(as was said) are rotarys and are the weak link as are the eq pots...find one in like new condition with these replaced and you've got something...Older Yamahas sound great and are bullet proof....all in all you want a GHOST...reliable and clean and the eq really works...no matter what anyone may tell you...

anonymous Wed, 04/02/2003 - 22:51

Hi

I recently bought a 'small' Calrec console. 12 monos, 12 stereo, 8 mono groups with compressors, 4 extra stereo compressors, 2 masters, monitoring module, etc etc. Its excellent. Really high quality. Maintenance is an issue of course. They really squeezed a lot into a small space with little or no compromise, and consequently it runs hot...and so will need recapping sooner. The other disadvantage is a lack of metering...but that can be solved with a Mackie meterbridge and a bit of clever wiring at the bay. Overall though, if you want a small, very high quality desk, if you are prepared to give it TLC, there are options put there.

Jack

anonymous Sat, 04/05/2003 - 09:31

Thanks for all the posts everyone.

Does anyone know if the following is possible?

Is there any such thing as a stand alone fader module (24 channel)?

Any such thing as a standalone system that offers just busing and aux send/return?

Then, if so, could you add in several channels of EQ (such as API 550, etc.)?

Obviously this is a custom console thing. But what I am wondering is can it be assembled just that easily or do you really have to build something like that from the inside out. In other words can you buy the modules and just plug them all together?

Look at the custom console at Sorcerer Studio in New York
Acoustilog GB-1 Console
32 Inputs + 32 Returns
10 Independent Auxiliary Sends
2 Stereo, 4 Mono Effects Returns
32 Acoustilog 4 Band Sweepable EQ
24 Neve EQ's with Microphone Preamps

Thanks

Woods

KurtFoster Sat, 04/05/2003 - 11:45

Woods,
API has something like this. It is however, pretty expensive. here is a link,

http://www.apiaudio.com

You can also look at the stuff "Inwards Connections" has.. they may be seen at;

[url=(deadlink)[/url]

Nice stuff, again very expensive. Quality costs. No cheap solutions. Before you continue down this path I strongly encourage you to rethink your approach. DAW is in my estimation the only affordable path to high quality audio. Kurt

anonymous Mon, 04/07/2003 - 17:49

I think if you want something new & of very good quality, the API's modules are a great way to go.
I am looking at those myself...

There is some decent older stuff on the used market all the time.
The one thing about buying an older analog board that you may want to keep in the back of your head is the need for maintenance.
The analog goodness will come at a price & if you aren't willing to spend time refurbing, tweaking, repairing or pay someone to do so, then you may find a used old console more trouble than it's worth.

I recently picked up a used SoundWorkshop console on the cheap.
I know some people knock the SW, but I have to admit I am more than pleased with it & love the EQ + overall sound.
I am using it to track to an Otari (1") 8 track, from there I dump to either 1/4" tape for mixdown or I go right into a DAW for further edits & processing.
I am getting the big, fat, warm sound I always wanted.

For my DAW I have an AW4416 (Yamaha) and can do pretty much anything on it.
I don't use P.T. (by choice) right now, but may possibly shoot for a 001 or Mbox later just to have some basic compatibility with other producers down the line.

:p:

anonymous Wed, 04/30/2003 - 01:49

Yeah, If you already got HD, go for a nicer digital board. Someone earlier mentioned the
DMX-R100. I couldn't agree more. One of the nicest, most intuitive digital boards I've used. And the internal effects on it are nothing to sneeze at either. I know a compressor/gate/eq, on every channel, and I can't recall what else it had going on. Routing/busing, lol, you make your own. I love open ended consoles.

Anyways, I'm a big fan, next on my list would be a Ramsa DA7, same type of perks as the last.

They way I figure, If you already have a DAW, why not unleash it's full extent and capability.

other note, I do like the control 24, but no effects, all pt plugins for effects. Otherwise that is my favorite for mixing.

Well I've rambled enough
Rob

anonymous Mon, 05/05/2003 - 13:45

Thanks for all your input on this so far -- i have been taking it all in and researching my options. I have located a Ghost 24.

But somebody said something that gets me thinking.

They said they use their Ghost just for monitoring. I said: "how come you don't use it for mix down?"

They said they didn't have enough converters. They said maybe if they had a rack of 24 decent converters they would to take advantage of the warming character of the GHost -- but right now they only had 8 channels of decent converter.

However, they are tracking to a PC using cubase or something. I am tracking to the Alesis HD24. Would I be subject to the same quandry of the the other person or would the Ghost be good for mix down for my situation.

ALSO: I have 8 channels of outboard pre - 4 API 312 - 2 buzz - 1 avalon 737 - 1 tube bass preamp. Then track to HD24. Then mixdown thru Ghost then thru Cranesong HEDD and then into Masterlink. Are there any poteential conversion problems in this train of events?

Ciao,

Woods

Davedog Mon, 05/05/2003 - 14:12

The only problem you'll have with that set up will be controlling the intense feeling of satisfaction you'll get listening back to it.

I have a Ghost and track to an HD24. Any outboard pres I might want to use I go direct to the HD24 and monitor the procedings thru the B bus on the Ghost.The converters in the HD24 are just fine for this as they are analog from the factory.

No will not have any problem using the Ghost to mix down with what you have currently.You are gonna love it.The eq is quite good and the pres are decent for most things at tracking plus you have enough outboard toys to get a quality separation of tones.

When you add the Ghost to your setup then I'll let you in on a cheap upgrade that will make it all work even better.....peace

davesdogg house

anonymous Mon, 05/05/2003 - 14:36

Thanks for all your input on this so far -- i have been taking it all in and researching my options. I have located a Ghost 24.

But somebody said something that gets me thinking.

They said they use their Ghost just for monitoring. I said: "how come you don't use it for mix down?"

They said they didn't have enough converters. They said maybe if they had a rack of 24 decent converters they would to take advantage of the warming character of the GHost -- but right now they only had 8 channels of decent converter.

However, they are tracking to a PC using cubase or something. I am tracking to the Alesis HD24. Would I be subject to the same quandry of the the other person or would the Ghost be good for mix down for my situation.

ALSO: I have 8 channels of outboard pre - 4 API 312 - 2 buzz - 1 avalon 737 - 1 tube bass preamp. Then track to HD24. Then mixdown thru Ghost then thru Cranesong HEDD and then into Masterlink. Are there any poteential conversion problems in this train of events?

Ciao,

Woods

anonymous Fri, 05/09/2003 - 02:20

Hi all,

I was in the same position: looking for a nice small mixer for tracking and mixdown. I ordered the new Yamaha DM1000 witch is the same footprint as the Yamaha 01V, but is in fact the little brother of the DM2000. Sonically identically and although a different flavour, definitely up to the standards of the DMX-r100. 48 channels at mixdown, expansion slots for 32 digi channels, 4 FX (some plug-in surprises coming up up last year, you heart it here first ;) .

Great Protools and Nuendo control, 16 t.s. faders etc... Can't wait!

Good luck with the search,
Dirk

omegaarts Mon, 05/12/2003 - 21:25

I'm using a DMX R-100 with Nuendo and it works great.
I use the converters in the DMX. It also adds 24 mic pre's to my set up but lets me use all my OB gear.
Between all my OB gear and the comps and EQ's on the DMX and all the plugs I have (UDA-1) waves, etc. it does about eveything. I have great OB mic pre's and tube comps and gates so it's sorta like being on a cruise, all you can eat and then some.
I also have 5 DA 88's that are very lonely since Nuendo moved in.
I've been in the analog world since 1967 so it's taken a while to make the switch but I really wouldn't ever go back. Maybe I'll actually go in the box before it's all over.
By the way ARDSYNC II to make eveything talk nice to each other.
Larry

encephalon Tue, 05/13/2003 - 08:36

What do you guys think about the Yamaha 02R96 and/or the 01V96?

I'm in the same situation with mixers right now. I track/edit/mix in Logic with outboard preamps through a MOTU 1224. For monitoring and headphone busing I've been using a TASCAM TM-D1000. It's not that great. It only has 8 analog channel inputs. This week, the analog monitoring electronics have died (I only paid $200 for this thing used at GC, so I'm not that unhappy).

I bought a crappy Behringer UB2442FX to tide me over for my monitoring needs, but I'm looking to replace the whole system with a console that I can actually use beyond just monitoring.

Until yesterday, my plan was to buy an Apogee Track 2 so I could have 2 channels of high end amp/conversion. Now I'm wondering if I should consolidate the budget around a good console and add an Apogee conversion card ( I really only need 8 channels). This way I could use the routing flexibility of the console to its full advantage. I'd also be using the console to do the AD conversion.

A friend of mine is doing this with the old 02R. He uses the 888|24 though, but used to go through the Yamaha/Apogee cards for conversion.

I'd love to get the Sony DMX-R100, but that would probably max out my budget, and I have some other things that I need to get. I could probably swing the 02R96, or maybe the Yamaha D1000 (have you guys seen this board?).

How much better (sound quality alone - not features) is the 02R/D1000 over the 01V96? Would it be overkill to get the 02R? I mix "in the box", so I mainly need something for monitoring and mixing my live sources when I'm not recording (like MIDI gear, CD player, and computers).

Sorry if this post is long and confusing. Thanks for your help.

Brett

anonymous Tue, 05/13/2003 - 11:29

Interesting thread. Hope the original posters are still watching....

My question:

If I've understood what's been said, I think that if I do all my mixing in the box, then the Speck Xtramix is the best bet for me?

My current setup is:

external mic pre / comp / limiter
Mackie 1604 VLZ Pro insert
Mackie direct out
Digi 888

Mics and pres are ok in quality - for example - Drawmer 1960, FMR RNP, Soundelux U195, Neumann TLM103 - you know, the usual project studio stuff.

I do all my mixing in the box and have no plans to get external eq comp limiter etc. for mixing.

I just need to be able to monitor, bring in a bunch of line level signals either from CD, radio, mic pre, etc., and to have the ability to send signal to an amp for control room monitoring and an amp for headphones.

Thanks for your help,

dave

KurtFoster Tue, 05/13/2003 - 12:59

Dave,
Hi again! :D I have never used the Speck Extramix but Vince at Speck Electronics
http://www.speckelectronics.com
has been kind to RO and has sent me for review, a MicPre 5.0 (published, see the Emag or the Reviews forum) and a pair of ASC Eqs to review (this review is on the burner as we speak).

I can say that these pieces were absolutely excellent and live up to the highest expectations! If the Extramix is anything like the MicPre 5.0 and the ASC Eq (and I bet it is), I would say you would have a hard time going wrong with it! I hope that helps! Kurt

Studio Jiimaan Tue, 02/28/2023 - 19:02
Likely too late to the party with this post and maybe a bit more $ than you might want to consider but you could look at some 500 series module based analogue consoles such as FIX Audio Designs (designed and built by Paul Wolff,https://www.fixaudi…; https://www.mixonli…) or Looptrotter (http://looptrotter…) or even the Purple Audio MFTwenty5 (https://www.purplea…; https://tapeop.com/…)
x

User login