Read or download the manual for the Mackie. It gives extremely accurate advice on setting up 4 stereo aux effects loops.

Its better that you do that than I tell you from memory my distorted version of what to do.

And in 2 what are you hoping to do? Listen to the effects, or rerecord them?

I think you would benefit from a read and reread of both manuals and a good understanding of subs, auxes and buses - most good audio books can help.

The 'trial and error' process should be part of your learning curve not an aggravation to be avoided.

You don't make it clear to me what you want which makes me think you don't exactly know yourself. Better that you learn exactly what to do, then you can apply it to more than this one situation,

J

don't know myself? c'mon man get a clue.......

I thought what I asked was pretty specific if you look a little closer....
I have read the Mackie manual and it doesn't go into too much detail in regards to setting up an effects loop with a soundcard.....which I already know how to do but not with effects already inline with my four buses.....in regards to #2 I am trying to record effects as well as hear them......I have had some experience in setting up a mixer and a soundcard and have tripped a number of times.....I've learned its best to ask people who've had experience.....

leftcoastproductions wrote: ... don't know myself? c'mon man get a clue.......

I thought the answer from Jeemy was spot on ... at least he was willing to take a stab at it ... I passed over answering for a couple days myself because I didn't want to have to explain how to use a mixer to you. Jeemy answered in kindness and look how you respond .... that's not the way to get info here. If you want to act like that, try P S W or Gearslutz ... a little decorum please.

First, a compressor is not an effect.. and is not patched or used the same way as an effect ... because you don't seem to know this, it can be assumed you have not comprehended the owners manual for the 1604. This is explained very plainly. Perhaps you have read the manual but it appears you didn't absorb all the content.

Compressors are patched inline or on a channel insert, while effects are usually patched as a loop, off an aux send and returned via an effects return or another channel on the mixer.

Second, if I were you I would try to use as little of this mixer to pass signal to the 1010. I would be coming out of the mic pres via the inserts and sending that to the 1010, bypassing most of the mixer and it's associated problems.

If you want to use outboard gear with your DAW the best way to do this is to come out of the D to A converters, into whatever effect you want and then return the effect to the DAW via the A to D converters.

Use the Mackie to monitor your tracks while you record (for latency free monitoring and phone sends) but try not to pass signal through it that is headed to the DAW for best results.

when I'm being attacked from someone who doesn't know me and am told that I don't know myself out of nowhere for some form of obvious misunderstanding I as well as most don't take well to it....think about it......I have forum etiquette and realize I am subject to criticism but that was out of left field.....when the person replying doesn't have anything constructive to say except read the manual....it comes across as an ego stroke....in which there are plenty of people hovering over these boards .....I'm sure you know that Mackie's manuals are not the most up to date in dealing with a DAW system......I do know that I could easily set up a patch system between the two and patch everytime I wanted to change something around.....what I was asking is there a way to use the effects in the mixer and in a loop with my Delta 1010? I know my Ensoniq Dp4 will because of its multi ins/outs

as for running everything through my desk there are many people that I know that run synths and drum machines through their desks to sub mix and add effects from their bus inputs to add color and a desired sound before hitting the soundcard or ADAT......maybe you know something we don't about this and can explain further as to why its not a good idea.....

I did figure that compression was an effect however....for the simple fact that it effects an audio signal having an effect.....my Joe Meek and TL Audio compressors certainly add a pumping "effect" to my drums....as well as many "effects" processors have compressors in them (TC Electronics.....Eventide)as this is kind of a subjective view I'm not going to say who's wrong or right.....I am curious to know why I shouldn't run a comp on a bus? is there something to be lost here? I run alot of drums on separate outputs and need compression on most of them

thanks for your time

to add color and a desired sound before hitting the soundcard or ADAT... maybe you know something we don't about this and can explain further as to why its not a good idea

Well, if you like what the Mackie does to your sound, go for it. It certainly does add a lot of "color". :roll:

as for running everything through my desk there are many people that I know that run synths and drum machines through their desks to sub mix and add effects from their bus inputs to add color and a desired sound before hitting the soundcard or ADAT......maybe you know something we don't about this and can explain further as to why its not a good idea.....

What Kurt is telling you is to stay out of the mixer as much as possible. Use only the pres ie. in and right back out via the direct outs. While the pres in most compact mixers are decent for what they are, the EQ and Buses will do nothing but degrade your sound. If you setup your effects through your DAC's you will get better audio quality.

I did figure that compression was an effect however....for the simple fact that it effects an audio signal having an effect.....my Joe Meek and TL Audio compressors certainly add a pumping "effect" to my drums....as well as many "effects" processors have compressors in them (TC Electronics.....Eventide)as this is kind of a subjective view I'm not going to say who's wrong or right.....I am curious to know why I shouldn't run a comp on a bus? is there something to be lost here? I run alot of drums on separate outputs and need compression on most of them

Compressors are series devices and as such process the entire signal. Effects units are paralell devices and process only a portion of the signal. You determine how large of a portion of the signal gets processed by the wet/dry mix. Not only would you have to use a 100% wet mix to use a compressor on an aux bus but all of your signals would be sent through that bus (mixing before you hit the DAW). It would get ugly real quick.

when I'm being attacked from someone who doesn't know me

I'm sure Jamie meant no offense in his post, he's a very decent guy. It's hard to tell the meaning of words in print, I know I made the same mistake a few weeks ago with another person. So go easy on Jamie he was only trying to help you. Sometimes mistakes are the best lessons.

leftcoastproductions;
I don't see any of what you describe as an "attack" in Jeemys post. I thought his remarks were very insightful and helpful. The guy was just trying to help. IMO, a little "humble pie" on your part would serve you well ... you seem to have an unwarranted high opinion of yourself. If you really knew as much as you are acting like you know, you wouldn't be asking these kinds of questions.

Your follow up post only serves to reinforce my first impression .. It is so full of misconceptions and whack comments, I simply do not know how to respond without writing a book .

Yes, some engineers do run everything through a desk ... however these are good desks like neves, SSL's, MCI's or old Tridents, not Mackies. it is widely accepted that Mackies do more damage than good to the sound. If you knew as much as you act like you do, you would know this.

The whole idea of a DAW is to avoid cheap mixers and outboard gear. The best thing to do is to keep your audio out of the Mackie.

There is nothing wrong with inserting a compressor across a bus, just like inserting it through a channel. Essentially it's the same thing. But you would not do this with an effect. Effects are usually run in a aux send / return loop as I described previously.

Compression is not an effect! It is a signal processor that controls dynamics. If you can hear the compressor "pump", you're using it incorrectly .... Effects are reverbs, delays, flangers, chorus's etc.

Well said Kurt!

Not only would you have to use a 100% wet mix to use a compressor on an aux bus

I misspoke in my last post, I should have said Aux Send/Return not bus. My bad. :oops:

FAO: leftcoastproductions

If I have caused offence, I apologise. I am of medium experience - 20 years as a musician, 3 as an engineer - your post was clearly passed up by those of very high experience here as it was a very simple question, phrased kinda badly. They therefore left it for somebody in your 'experience ballpark' to answer which i thought I did.

In addition I tried to give you an answer where you would actually learn something, not to mention where I wouldn't confuse you further. Bear in mind everybody in the pro audio field with a few exceptions is working for themselves or very hard for somebody else. We don't have time to go into vast amounts of detail about stuff you really should know. Sometimes you may get quick answers that encourage you to go out and learn further and give you guidance. Shurely this is good guidance not bad?

Even with my limited experience I could tell that you were kinda throwing terms out there. If you knew what you claim you would maybe see that this question is quite odd - I don't see the advantages of what you ask to do.

If you are trying to run your effects through the desk and back in to the DAW and record them you will get all kinds of undesirable latency not to mention huge coloration with which the Mackie won't be kind. Not to mention $40 worth of extra cabling :D

If you wanted to do this for a live session or to practice such, so that you were fading tracks in and out, adding effects etc for a live set of your own material this might be more understandable. Bit of a big desk for that tho.

As it is I don't know why the desk is even considered. Your previous system would work fine with less latency. The EQ built into your DAW may not be superior to the Mackie's but it will be on a par and given the latency and coloration issues, use your onboard EQ.

You're not bringing anything new into the system while doing this, right? Its just a playback mix which you want to record effects onto as a second pass. So what do you need the desk for?

There's no way to use the Mackie to multiply the effective number of aux loops you have as they all have to come back to the Delta at some point. And I am pretty sure having used the 4/4 some years ago that there is absolutely no way of using effects loops while you record with outboard gear.

If you thought you could multiply your effects available by blending them, think again. This gives you so little control over the results you will be rerecording over and over again - hardly effective when you consider the advantages of doing so in the box.

Not to mention the fact that compressors shouldn't be in a loop in the first place, as mentioned above.

If I understand you correctly, sell the Mackie and buy a PCI card with onboard effects of the type you want to use and use them in the box.

If I don't understand you, perhaps you could clarify - or repost in the DAW forums - or search them - which is forum etiquette too.

Finally Big_D if you're reading this - I debated this a while back and didn't get final answer, if you're trying to minimise signal chain, is the direct out (passing through the EQ, aux and faders but balanced) a better option than an insert half-jacked (shorter signal path but unbalanced)?

Finally Big_D if you're reading this - I debated this a while back and didn't get final answer, if you're trying to minimise signal chain, is the direct out (passing through the EQ, aux and faders but balanced) a better option than an insert half-jacked (shorter signal path but unbalanced)?

From everything I've learned on this subject (mostly from Kurt) and my own personal experience, the shortest signal path in any compact mixer is best. That being said I haven't noticed any real difference with direct out vs. insert on the Mackie. I can hear a difference going through the main bus however. I use the direct outs most of the time but use the inserts if I need more than eight channels. If I had to venture a guess I think Kurt and others would say insert. Are we correct Kurt? :D

The insert at "half jack" or out the send of a half normaled patch bay, will be the shortest route .... The direct passes through the eq and channel fader adding more gain stages and adding noise. If you want to use the eq section then the direct send would be right, if you only want the mic pre then the insert is the place to take it from.

thanks for the replies guys :D

I do appreciate the time taken here and believe its not the first time I've been misunderstood in a forum....thanks for bearing through it as I'm sure most of you were wearing thin.....

As you can tell I've had no formal training in Pro Audio and have only gathered bits and pieces from being in forums and in a few studios....
I see how I misunderstood running through a Mackie is quite different than a Neve console.....I had always thought that it would be better to run it through being able to tinker with the eq.....you guys brought up some interesting points of view as to setting up my system.....I think I might sell the 1604 and pickup another Delta 1010 and run them together and use my old Mackie 1202 Pro..... the main reason I wanted to use the 1604 was to have more inputs without patching, buses, live playback with effects, as well as sliders...... if its going to eat my signal up what's the point?

Kurt the pumping compression is an effect I like :D most of the music I make is dance oriented so pumping drums is kind of the norm......

I will take a risk here and post a link to a few tracks that are works in progress if any of you care to comment please feel free :P

http://www.electromancer.com/artist.php?id=b6154fdd88

leftcoastproductions,
All's cool ... and I don't mean to embarrass you in public ... Please continue to contribute and ask questions .. and remember, the best thing to do is to try things out for yourself. It is possible that what you want to try may work best for you in your situation ... so just use your ears and do what works best for you. We tend to speak in generalities here considering the format.

I personally like to eq things and compress a bit on the way to the DAW but I have the advantage of having a lot of nice mic pres, compressors and a couple of great eq's to work with.

I would keep the 1604 as it will be more flexible to use as a monitoring board (more sends, aux's, channels) but as you mentioned, get some more inputs for your system as well ... I can't live without at least 16 line ins myself ... I use 11 channels just for drums quite often. By the time I add bass, a guitar and sometimes stereo keyboard and a scratch vocal, I'm up to 16 inputs just for rhythm tracks ... .

kurt

how about the onyx model do ou know about any improvments there or are the mackies still only good for monitoring

because im on the same road im strongly considering the onyx 1604 with a nice mic pre hooked to a patchbay i have along with
1010

does any one know?

One of the other Moderators here at RO reports that the ONYX sounds pretty good ... but I remain skeptical ... I have not heard one yet but it really looks to be more of the same from Mackie. Mackie has reintroduced several versions of thier small format 1604 mixers and IMO, each one seems to get worse.

Add to that the inclusion of the Firewire interface and you can't even bypass the mixer with a good pre on the way to the recorder .. your stuck with (what I assume is) bad summing and bus headroom which the Mackies have exhibited all along.

Mackes are built like a tank, are great for PA work and very flexible as a monitor system for DAW but I myself would never pass signal to a recorder or mix through one if I could help it..

my situation at the moment is on an up grade

i have the 1010 which has a/d but no pre's the

so i pass signal through a phonic to the 1010 and back out to the phonic like a big loop of sound

i the shortest signal path is the best but without a great pre i use that for the time

how about the soundcraft m12 with a 610 pre or any pre under $1500 tube of solid state

your thoughts

My thoughts are for a mic pre get a Sebatron ... these are the least expensive decent mic pres in the 1 and 2 channel catagory around ... If you're going to get 8 channels or more, then I recomend the TMP 8 from JLM under $280 per channel for world class op amp mic pres ... nothing else in that price range cuts it IMO ...

As for a small mixer to monitor with, almost anything will work ... perhaps your Phonic ... or a used Macke 1604 ... I use a SR 24 because it has the best aux send layout of all the Macke line ... 6 dedicated aux's with the first 4 available as pre send aux's .. and the stereo channels are handy to monitor the outs of a DAW rig through spdif (I convert through my CD burner) while the 16 ins and outs may be used for recording or inserts / aux sends at mix time

these are the least expensive mic pres in the 1 and 2 channel catagory around

I beg to [[url=http://[/URL]="http://store.yahoo…"]differ[/]="http://store.yahoo…"]differ[/]!

:lol:

David French wrote:

these are the least expensive mic pres in the 1 and 2 channel catagory around

I beg to [[url=http://[/URL]="http://store.yahoo…"]differ[/]="http://store.yahoo…"]differ[/]!

:lol:

I should have said least expensive decent mic pres around ... yeah there's a lot of crappy pres that cost less, like the RNP, PreSonus and the Focusrite Platinum's and some like the Syteks that sound ok but can be dimensionally flat and run out of headroom ... but for the least cash for a good mic pre that sounds huge and dimensional, with no compromises, the VMP series from Sebatron and the JLM TMP8 are the best I have come across at that price point .. opinions and mileage may vary but that is my feelings on the topic.

I'm with ya Kurt. I have a Seb and a Sytek and between the two, i'm very satisfied.

are those australian? i saw that ad here

and read a little bit about them

would those have more fidelity
than say a UA LA610 M 610 OR UA2108

or are the ones mentioned like a fashion thing that do not compare the the originals

also how about the red strip heard of that one

Yes, Sebatron is an Australian company. I've used the UA 2-610 before and while I haven't had my VMP-2000e long, yes, it seems to be capable of more clarity than the UA, if that's what you're talking about. The designer has a forum here. Perhaps you can ask him about it.

Sorry to veere off the topic off nice pres but I want to comment on some nothing special pres.

The direct passes through the eq and channel fader adding more gain stages and adding noise.

I realized I was adding more gain stages but didn't notice the noise or at least I didn't think I did, more on that in a moment. I tried a little experiment with the 1604 VLZ PRO by just listening to 2 tracks, (1) recorded Direct Out (1) Insert half jacked. At lower volumes I didn't notice any difference but as I approached U gain and above the diiference became apparent, very very subtle but still it was there. Thanks to you Kurt my ears learned something today.

Mackie has reintroduced several versions of thier small format 1604 mixers and IMO, each one seems to get worse.

It's funny you mention this, I have 2 Mackies the VLZ Pro for recording and an old CR1604 in my PA rig. My friend wanted to borrow the PA but needed 10 XLR's and the CR only has 6 so I let him take the VLZ and used the CR for my weekends tracking. I realized quickly that I like the sound of the CR better, it just sounds more natural to me. I've been using it for about 3 weeks now and think my tracks sound better. The VLZ now resides in the PA rack. The CR doesn't have Directs but has Inserts on the first 8 channels so I use them for recording. Now I'm wondering if what we discussed above is the reason or is it that the old Mackies simply sound better. Oh well another round of experiments.

By the way David, the M9 arrived today and I did some quick vocal tracks with it. First impressions are very good. 8-)
It's like a great woman, nice round bottom, just enough up top to keep you happy and warm all over. :lol:
Kurt's review seems to be dead on. This is a very warm and intimate mic, one of only two I've tried that would seem to fit male and female voices equally well. I can honestly say this is not a bright mic! The only downside is I paid $400 and today when it arrived I also got a catalouge from AMS who is selling it for $300. :( I'm hoping to lay some tracks with it over Christmas vacation and if I do maybe I'll post a link to them if anyone is interested in hearing it.

Kurt, thanks for the review, I never would have known about this little gem if it wasn't for that.

Actually, I think the M9 is plenty bright .. but the overall sound of the mic is more balanced ... not like many of the Chinese mics that are a tad "edgy" ... The M9 is great on drums too! Good news is you know where to get a second one for cheaper ... and I bet if you complain to the dealer where you bought the first one, he will give you a 100 dollar credit on another one and sell the second one to you for the price advertised at AMS ...

Agreed, I guess I should have said "overley bright". It is as you said more balanced and the highs are smoother than other budget mics. Most can be "edgy" or downright brittle but this mic exhibits none of that. I will try it as an overhead on drums today (in place of my C4's) as well as snare and a solid state bass amp. I have some very nice guitar amps (all tube) and am interested to see how it sounds on them as well. I will talk to the dealer to see about a second one or both at the discount price. A pair of these would be just the ticket for my little studio. Thanks again for the reviews they are invaluble to many of us and your efforts are greatly appreciated! 8-)

Kurt Foster wrote: leftcoastproductions,
All's cool ... and I don't mean to embarrass you in public ... Please continue to contribute and ask questions .. and remember, the best thing to do is to try things out for yourself. It is possible that what you want to try may work best for you in your situation ... so just use your ears and do what works best for you. We tend to speak in generalities here considering the format.

I personally like to eq things and compress a bit on the way to the DAW but I have the advantage of having a lot of nice mic pres, compressors and a couple of great eq's to work with.

I would keep the 1604 as it will be more flexible to use as a monitoring board (more sends, aux's, channels) but as you mentioned, get some more inputs for your system as well ... I can't live without at least 16 line ins myself ... I use 11 channels just for drums quite often. By the time I add bass, a guitar and sometimes stereo keyboard and a scratch vocal, I'm up to 16 inputs just for rhythm tracks ... .

thanks Kurt

I may just keep the 1604 since I got such a great deal for it not to mention it fits perfectly on my desk :D
I just purchased a TC Electronics M2000 to round out what my Ensoniq Dp4 doesn't do(delay time) so I am happy about that being on its way my next purchase (after Christmas) is gonna be a couple of good patchbays (and maybe a Rotopod) possibly for all my stompboxes and effects hopefully that will help ease the chaos factor :lol:

This is an old post, but I still have a relevant question

[quote=Kurt Foster]leftcoastproductions;
Yes, some engineers do run everything through a desk ... however these are good desks like neves, SSL's, MCI's or old Tridents, not Mackies. it is widely accepted that Mackies do more damage than good to the sound. If you knew as much as you act like you do, you would know this.
quote]

I have often thought if not felt that same sentiment about Mackie Boards, and here it is in print. I am in the market and am looking to purchase a mixer for the purposes of recording to disk via my own Delta 1010LT but can't seem to come up with a large selection of mixers to compare that have direct outs and great sound.....what are the other choices besides, Mackie, Behringer...I hear there are a lot of issues with pre-amps going out and dead channels in Mackies which is a shock, Behringers sound good but are just as problematic...