How many people still use mixers?

Lynn


Since I started recording in 1978, I've always used a mixer and an outboard recorder to mix on.  I'm now using a Mackie Onyx 1620i to record into an Alesis Masterlink.  I know that I could record "in the box" and avoid supposed signal degradation, but it seems to me that my mixes have never been better.  I know there is a lot said now days about analogue summing being warmer, but I doubt that I can tell a difference.  I've just gotten used to using a mixer and outboard recorder because of a comfort zone built up after 30 plus years of recording.  I still transfer my mixes from the Masterlink to Sony Sound Forge for mastering even though I could do it all from the Masterlink.  I'm just curious how many CW users still do it the old fashioned way, and if there are benefits or liabilities for doing so.

Lynn,

From my own knowledge of others and from what I read and hear, there are still MANY using mixers, mostly due to the warmer/analog-ish sound that results.

I don't know what percentage it would be, but I know that I *think* I can tell the difference when I hear a mix done that way.   After all, analog IS analog and digital IS digital.

If it weren't for space constraints, I would have both.   I stay ITB ("In The Box") at the moment, but there really are times -- especially for certain tracks -- I wish I had a good board.

There are also hybrid environments ... ie, using a combination of ITB and external hardware (like compressors, etc) that seem to be used often as well.

But I also know of some big names who are staying strictly ITB now too.

So I guess it's an 'anything goes, choose your style' world anyway.

Use what works, as they say.  Or make things work when there are limitations.

ba_midi

Lynn


Since I started recording in 1978, I've always used a mixer and an outboard recorder to mix on.  I'm now using a Mackie Onyx 1620i to record into an Alesis Masterlink.  I know that I could record "in the box" and avoid supposed signal degradation, but it seems to me that my mixes have never been better.  I know there is a lot said now days about analogue summing being warmer, but I doubt that I can tell a difference.  I've just gotten used to using a mixer and outboard recorder because of a comfort zone built up after 30 plus years of recording.  I still transfer my mixes from the Masterlink to Sony Sound Forge for mastering even though I could do it all from the Masterlink.  I'm just curious how many CW users still do it the old fashioned way, and if there are benefits or liabilities for doing so.

Lynn,

From my own knowledge of others and from what I read and hear, there are still MANY using mixers, mostly due to the warmer/analog-ish sound that results.

I don't know what percentage it would be, but I know that I *think* I can tell the difference when I hear a mix done that way.   After all, analog IS analog and digital IS digital.

If it weren't for space constraints, I would have both.   I stay ITB ("In The Box") at the moment, but there really are times -- especially for certain tracks -- I wish I had a good board.

There are also hybrid environments ... ie, using a combination of ITB and external hardware (like compressors, etc) that seem to be used often as well.

But I also know of some big names who are staying strictly ITB now too.

So I guess it's an 'anything goes, choose your style' world anyway.

Use what works, as they say.  Or make things work when there are limitations.

Billy could someone with a system as simple as mine record ITB? Or is a special interface required? Of course my interface doesn't have any pre amps so that would be a limitation but I'd be curious just to check for a sound difference.

A curiosity. You don't have any system specs in your sig - curious.

I use a mixer for routing signals into my audio device, but that's it, everything else is done in Sonar.

Dan

Nope. In da box for the Yoyo

I have a Soundcraft board in addition to a few mic pres that flow into a pair of Frontier Tangos for 16 inputs.  After that it's in SONAR and I stay ITB with the exception an output back to the board for monitoring purposes.

For a while I was mixing on a Mackie 24x8 but having to document all the settings on the board was a pain.

All discrete mic pre's (BTW, just got a 4 channel Sebatron and it's super cool) to an I/O here....I do sum through SSL gear, but I've A-B'd it and I don't know if I can honestly tell the difference.  So I guess I'm a no console guy, but still a hybrid system (summing and a fair amount of external gear).

Dean

codamedia

HumbleNoise

codamedia


No more mixers on my setup. I'm using the VS-100 which has enough ins, pre's etc... for my project studio.

Before I got the VS I was using a very similar setup to Humbles. I had a Delta 44 & a Yamaha MG 12/4. I used the mixer for the mic pre's and routing, but that was about it. Once it was in the box, it stayed in the box. 

Interesting Coda. I went through two or three cheap boards before I found the MG 12/4 with its sub group and channel inserts. Nothing out there in the price range but I know there's better boards. Was looking at the Allen and Heath Zed14 the other day but budget only allows window shopping for now. Does the VS-100 offer the same flexibility as the Yammie?

I think the Yamaha MG series is a huge bang for the buck. The pre-amps sound good and the flexibility of ins/outs is incredible in that price point. I've still got mine, and when I look at the $100 I might get on ebay for it, it's not worth selling! I'll keep it for a rainy day. (or if I need to do a sub mix in the future)
 
I love my VS-100. Being the baby brother of the VS-700 it shares a lot of technology. It will give you 6 inputs into Sonar (+2 more, but you need a digital signal into the VS to use those), and you'll get 6 outputs from Sonar. I was worried when I first switched that I wouldn't have the routing I was used to - but that worry vanished pretty fast. Once I got a handle of how the VS worked I found it much easier. Plus - the VS has the transport control that I love having.
 
The Yamaha had 4 (or 6, I can't remember now) XLR inputs + the stereo inputs. The VS has 2 XLR inputs & 2 Stereo Inputs. Both have phantom power if needed. As far as a hardware "mixer" is concerned, the Yamaha is more flexible in regards to ins/outs. But, the VS is way more powerful in working with Sonar, and provides more flexibility in that regard.
 
I hope that makes some sort of sense.
 
 

Yeah very helpful - thanks very much.

HumbleNoise

ba_midi

Lynn


Since I started recording in 1978, I've always used a mixer and an outboard recorder to mix on.  I'm now using a Mackie Onyx 1620i to record into an Alesis Masterlink.  I know that I could record "in the box" and avoid supposed signal degradation, but it seems to me that my mixes have never been better.  I know there is a lot said now days about analogue summing being warmer, but I doubt that I can tell a difference.  I've just gotten used to using a mixer and outboard recorder because of a comfort zone built up after 30 plus years of recording.  I still transfer my mixes from the Masterlink to Sony Sound Forge for mastering even though I could do it all from the Masterlink.  I'm just curious how many CW users still do it the old fashioned way, and if there are benefits or liabilities for doing so.

Lynn,

From my own knowledge of others and from what I read and hear, there are still MANY using mixers, mostly due to the warmer/analog-ish sound that results.

I don't know what percentage it would be, but I know that I *think* I can tell the difference when I hear a mix done that way.   After all, analog IS analog and digital IS digital.

If it weren't for space constraints, I would have both.   I stay ITB ("In The Box") at the moment, but there really are times -- especially for certain tracks -- I wish I had a good board.

There are also hybrid environments ... ie, using a combination of ITB and external hardware (like compressors, etc) that seem to be used often as well.

But I also know of some big names who are staying strictly ITB now too.

So I guess it's an 'anything goes, choose your style' world anyway.

Use what works, as they say.  Or make things work when there are limitations.

Billy could someone with a system as simple as mine record ITB? Or is a special interface required? Of course my interface doesn't have any pre amps so that would be a limitation but I'd be curious just to check for a sound difference.

A curiosity. You don't have any system specs in your sig - curious.

Larry,

If your audio device has multiple ins/outs (analog) then sure you could stay ITB if you're doing live recordings (mics, guitars, etc).   Many modern audio devices are more than capable of multi-track recording without need for external mixers.   Many have digital mixers (software) as well.

And, if you're not doing any external device recording (mics, line inputs, whatever) then certainly ITB is a good way to go.

I think it still boils down to how one likes to work, what kind of gear one has, budgets, etc.  There can be hybrids of anything these days.

And being ITB never excludes not being ITB.

If you don't have Pre's in your audio device, you can still get another device just for that (M-audio DMP3 is one example, if it's still made).   There are many options today.

As for my sig not having specs, I have a reason for not adding it to my sig because:

1- things can change and if you don't remember to update every frickin' thing it can work against you;  and
2- I generally don't need help in the system area.   I've been building computers for a long long time, and while that doesn't make me a genius, I certainly have a solid knowledge base for most things;  and lastly,
3- I'm resourceful ;)

When I was younger, I owned a pretty well known studio in NYC and had a pretty successful music biz (production and publishing) at that time.   I've done a lot of things in my life and worked with a lot of biggies.   I usually don't discuss that, though.  However, if I feel I need help with something that I can't work out, then I ask.  And at that time giving 'current' info is better than hoping one's "signature" on forums is up to date

I still use a mackie 32-8 during final mixdown and master on the mains.

To my ears, SONAR is about the best clean mix engine out there.  It sounds good - what you put in comes out in stereo.  I have a mixer built into my interface (TC Konnekt 48).  What you miss is the sound of high-quality analog components, which is why I try to track w/ it going in.  Doesn't help much on softsynths/loops, unless you do a conversion w/ it in line (tho most loops are pretty well processed already).

I was reading the Audient Sumo summing mixer review by Paul White in SOS and he remarked that it didn't seem to matter if it was a stereo bounce or 16 channel, the sumo added something to the sound.  And that is considered a clean mixer.  And I've found the same thing true without a mixer, but through a nice pair of stereo comps - well worth a trip through ye old converters to put an analog stamp on the mix. 

So no, I don't use a mixer though I have an old Ramsa here.  I do have some good outboard, which I find sounds better when combined with SONAR's clean mix engine.  But if I had an old Neve (or a new RND) I be happy to use it instead.

I use a small Mackie just to manage signals in and out of the interface and out to the monitors. I certainly don't use it for "color".

The only thing I'm missing is a separate volume control to the monitors. When I record, I have to unplug them from the mixer. I don't want to drop the $$ on a Big Knob or some such but being able to turn those down/off without touching the Master would be rad. I suppose I could aux them...

...wicked


I use a small Mackie just to manage signals in and out of the interface and out to the monitors. I certainly don't use it for "color".

The only thing I'm missing is a separate volume control to the monitors. When I record, I have to unplug them from the mixer. I don't want to drop the $$ on a Big Knob or some such but being able to turn those down/off without touching the Master would be rad. I suppose I could aux them...

Look at the Behringer Mini-Mon if you want something to manage levels of speakers/monitors on the cheap.

BTW, I still use a mixer for my drinks while mixing

We use Mixers for live recording nowadays.In-house it's almost always ITB. Although I do like to run stems through a good mixer in the studio if time permits, when they are needed by a client or for post

Sonar's 64bit mix engine is better than any other mix engine I have heard. Although I have not listened to that many different DAW's It seems to sound more real, warm, and/or dimensional. Perhaps it's just in my head because I like the idea of mixing ITB, and I want it to sound better than any other system available!

All my sources go through an outboard preamp unless they originate as a digital file, such as pre-recorded sound fx.  Good analog preamps make a huge difference if the "right" one is used. Very subjective choice though.

We usually just come out of the box into a Central Station to control routing and headphones, etc,.

Times change, methods change, habits change, trends change. What's good usually is always good, and what's great will always be great.

the combo virtual consol (in sonar) and controller (vs 700) is just some way mor versatile and fun for my use ....so no mixer here , contoller+software consol ...if i wnat that analog sound , i sum it at the end ...but until now , didn't had the need for that ....

ITB just reach levels of quality that we never thought it could reach back n days ....