Skip to main content
forums, blogs, song critique, support & more...

mixer into computer

Hi ppl. :)

Tell me, why isnt this recording setup ever used (or is it?):

inputs (drums, guitars etc) > mixer (and preamsp, effects etc) > computer > monitors
where inputs from the mixer are grouped and then sent to inputs on the computers soundcard (obviously im talking a multi input card, eg: Waveterminal 192M)

i would think this to be very useful because now you will have individual (sp?) recordings of each instrument (drums, guitar etc) on your computer, even after passing them through a mixer

you see i dont like working with software mixers, it takes alot of the fun out :p . so i was wondering how my above example would work.

Comments

drbam Sun, 09/21/2003 - 13:17

Many people work this way. If fact I know more people who utilize mixers and consoles than those who work strictly "in the box." However, obviously the quality of your input signal is dependent on the quality of your mixer.

drbam

launchpad67a Sun, 09/21/2003 - 18:49

This set-up is used all the time. But for me I still like to have my hands on faders and knobs, it just seems to be more real!
I only use the computer for mastering. Wavelab is the only mastering software to own.

Your method of recording to the computer is just fine. Watch your gain staging, it can get tricky!!

Mike

PS: drbam, I'm getting ready to build a home in Prescott!! Mabey we could get together. I'm at Lake Powell right now.

Profile picture for user AudioGaff

AudioGaff Mon, 09/22/2003 - 11:31

Is the Behringer eurodesk 24 channel 4 bus(MX2442A) mixer of high quality?

Compared to what? Compared to the pro stuff like an SSL, API and Neve - NO. Compared to the Biamp and Peavey I used to own and use in the 1980's - Yes. If your just a guy wanking at home then it is likely to be more than good enough. It works much better if you use outboard preamps and eq and just use it for monitoring and mixing.

Clueless Tue, 09/23/2003 - 05:15

I've gone down this road (expanding from computer to outboard mixer) and am happy to have taken the path. Step one, I bought a Mackie 1604 on ebay. A cheap way to see if the workflow got better. It did. But, I was disappointed with the EQ, so I started reading the net and reviews and concluded that nothing less than a Soundcraft Ghost would do for me.

However, the Ghost is just a little to large for the space I had to allocate, so for more money, I got a smaller board: the Midas Venice. Wow! It's like walking into the room instead of listening in from the outside (as on the Mackie). I'm sure the Ghost is a nice board too, but believe it when the Midas folks say "it doesn't matter how many knobs are on your EQ, it matters what those knobs *do*".

drbam Tue, 09/23/2003 - 06:22

>>PS: drbam, I'm getting ready to build a home in Prescott!! Mabey we could get together. I'm at Lake Powell right now.

That'd be great. email me at drbam@cableone.net

Sanoz0r Tue, 09/23/2003 - 09:17

Thanks for all the help guys... but just one more question:

what sound card should i use? im guessing itll need to be at least 8 channel input?

drbam Tue, 09/23/2003 - 09:34

>>what sound card should i use? im guessing itll need to be at least 8 channel input?

I use an recommend an Echo Layla 24. Excellent unit, solid drivers and very good support.

drbam

Profile picture for user Kurt Foster

Kurt Foster Tue, 09/23/2003 - 12:39

Another soundcard that works great, is expandable to 32 inputs and has wonderful drivers is the Frontier Dakota. But you need to get some outboard converters for it as it is only an ADAT light pipe sound card and does not include converters. I use this set up with a pair of ALESIS AI3 converters and it gives me 18 simultaneous 24 bit inputs and outputs that sound pretty good. I’m into the whole shabang for about 1100 bucks, which is relatively inexpensive for what it does. An 8 channel set up would run about $700.

As far as the mixer question, the main reason that a lot of folks are going strictly "in the box" is the expense and physical space that is entailed with having a mixer. Also to be considered is the quality issue. IMO there just aren't any mixers available for a good price that sound very nice. The exception to this would be as sited, the Midas and perhaps some offerings from TLA and Crest. All the Mackie, Behringer and other stuff like that might be fine for PA work but when it comes down to recording I feel they fall short of the mark. I have chosen to invest in a bunch of quality front end like pres, eq's and compressors and I cheaped out in the mixer department by using a Mackie SR24 only for headphone mix's and for no latency monitoring while tracking. Nothing that is ever recorded goes through the Mackie. For this, it works fine. I then mix in the box, coming out via spdif to the stand alone CDr recorder.

Clueless Tue, 09/23/2003 - 15:39

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
[...] I cheaped out in the mixer department by using a Mackie SR24 only for headphone mix's and for no latency monitoring while tracking. Nothing that is ever recorded goes through the Mackie. For this, it works fine. I then mix in the box, coming out via spdif to the stand alone CDr recorder.

Yup...this is what first drew me to using an out-of-box mixer--ya just can't track accurately through digital. And this is what pushed me beyond mackie: ya just can't record through a Mackie. I'm still early in the Analog+Digital world for tracking and mixing, and some days I love life and some days I hate it. I think I love it more than I hate it.

x