#231

Hi guys,

I very much appreciate all your inputs to this topic but, going back to the original reason why I created this topic, I still don’t know if I need a mixer or not.
In the meanwhile my setup has grown and I have a full modular system together with my semimodulars.

I would to hear from those of you who do have a mixer and how they use it. Thanks a lot

#232

I think I mentioned this upthread but I used to have a mixer and now do not but will likely buy a small one to play shows with. Although my recording process rarely uses more than a stereo pair of inputs at once, I found that it was fiddly and annoying to be running inputs through and outputs from my laptop through a physical mixer for monitoring and recording. By contrast, being able to keep everything plugged in at once to my interface is Real Nice.

That said, the mixer I would like to buy for shows would 1) act as a gain stager between my modular and Norns, 2) allow me to sample my bandmate’s audio or another input, and 3) provide a cleaner interaction with front-of-house, especially for my modular.

#233

When you make your choice please let us know what you choose.

1 Like
#234

I use a Motu 16A as my audio interface and an old Mackie 1604 mixer for signal conditioning.
What I look for in a mixer is at least 8 direct outs (post fader outputs)–this allows me to spontaneously attenuate/equalize audio as I improvise/perform.

I’ve been experimenting with writing basic digital modules that I assign to my interface’s physical ins/outs that are accessed through a patchbay–basically an emulated modular synth that lives next to the sampler/sequencer in my computer and works with my outboard gear (modular synth, effects, piano, keyboard synth, etc). In this workflow I’ve been using my mixer a lot.

Also unfortunately these mixers tend to be big, but I’m already finding 8 direct outs to be limiting so I’m casually side-eyeing a Soundcraft GB2R 16 that has 16 direct outs.

1 Like
#235

Do we have a recording/process/technical thread going? I seem to remember we do. Maybe this is the thread I remember?

#236

Maybe this thread is the one your thinking of?

#237

That might be what I was thinking of but not what I had in mind… if that makes sense :slight_smile:. Was thinking we had something going focused more on the overall recording process from a technical/process viewpoint, not just the end stages.

1 Like
#238

what are the reasons to prefer the avb line over older motu devices?
i really dont need the computer interface special multi connection things since the only thing im doing with the comp is cutting out some parts i dont like so much
and even if im jamming with 2friends we dont need more than 8 inputs (or could submix with djmixers)
are the converters in the avb much better?

at the moment im torn between some kind of motu (but i dont get wich of them got the recording without a computer function)
and a used rme ufx … (wich might be overkill but certainly soundqualitywise supersolid)

iwould love to just use a little recorder but i feel like they cant compete with high quality audio converters in good interfaces
or maybe i just havent tested the right ones jet

#239

I have 3 mixers. One is a tiny Behringer with 4 ins/1 out, and was purchased recently as a stopgap to mix a number of mono inputs from various pedals (my improv rig). I will likely keep it but plan to replace it with a Rolls Stereo Mini Mixer VI because that one has a separate headphone output (for monitoring practice, or recording live sets). No EQ, no faders, just 4 knobs. Sounds acceptable if I can gain stage to keep the levels below 5. Smaller footprint than any of my pedals. $25.

Second is a Mackie VLZ3 with 2 mic/inst pres with EQ, and a stereo in. It’s large for what it does (1 ft * 8 in footprint). I appreciate that it lets me use mics when I’m doing improv, so it might become my “acoustic” mixer for when I do live voice and contact mic stuff. It was $100.

Third is a Soundcraft EPM 6. 2 auxs, 6 pres, 3 band parametric EQ with adjustable mids. I bought this mixer to cover all my bases, and to be a small studio centerpiece. I can mix small shows on it, friends can come over and plug in for jams, and the routing is just advanced enough for what I need. I love it, it’s my dear, I won’t part with it. But it’s too big (for me) to tour with. I think I paid $175 new as a crazy deal on eBay.

To speak to your original post, whether I use a mixer or not for recording is dictated by my post-production needs. Do I want to edit/mix after? My interface (Motu Ultralight) only has 2 pres. So if I want to mix each channel/voice, I need a mixer to add more chans of pre so I can record each channel separately.
If I don’t want to bother with editing and I want to treat it like a live performance, I put all my inputs into a mixer, then into the interface. 2 chans, easy peasy.

Given what you’ve mentioned, I would find a mixer with individual direct outs for each channel. Plug each direct out into a line in on a multi-channel interface. That way all channels are line level at the interface, you get tactile control, and you can mix after.

EDIT: You only need pres for things that are quieter than line level - mics and guitars, etc. Synths are generally line level output, so you don’t need a mixer for them, only if you want to do live fades and EQ/fx adjustments on it. If all you’re doing is recording synths, you can skip the mixer and go straight for an interface with line ins. I highly recommend the Ultralight, my Mk3 has weird digital i/o problems but otherwise it’s amazing.

1 Like
#240

They don’t. If you want to record separate channels without a computer I guess you’ll need a dedicated multichannel field recorder.

#241

I’ve got that mixer (“refurbished” on Amazon) and it was very disappointing. First surprise was an overdrive effect on headphone output. I’ve diagnosed bad potentiometer, replaced it and it fixed the headphone out. But then it became apparent that the thing is very noisy. It’s got lots of both white noise and ground hum. Replacing power supply and using a DI box didn’t help it.
Amazon reviews suggest I’m not the only one unhappy with Rolls mixer.
I should probably make that potentiometer bad again and just use the mixer as an overdrive effect, that might be the only good use of it.

1 Like
#242

Has anyone here used the Arturia Audiofuse interface? There’s a couple of things that looks interesting on it, for example the very accessible mix button for direct monitoring and the re-amp outputs.

Its not cheap, but you get a lot of IO, and then it’s small.

#243

Double check how small it is. I saw a video recently and either the musician had tiny hands ir that thing is bigger than it looks in the promo photos

#244

Thanks! You just saved me $75 and a bunch of hassle…

#245

Like others here, I own an unreasonable, indefensible number of effects pedals. As I use an Apogee Duet, I’m without a solid solution for sending tracks out of the DAW to be processed externally. I’m finally ready to make that jump. What would you fine folks recommend by way of interface and reamp box? Or do you have other workflow suggestions? I think I’m missing out on a whole world of sounds at the moment and would love your help cracking this nut.

1 Like
#246

I don’t have one yet but the Little Labs Redeye seems to be a great workflow for dealing with reamping If you are also playing guitar. Curious if anyone has experience with one. Maintaining the raw signal of your guitar allows it to be comped and otherwise warped/effects tweaked to find the sweet spot.

If you are running things out and back into the interface make sure you are lining things up. In my experience, sending a transient and manually lining it all back up (like the movie thing they snap down and say “take 1” or whatever for movies) is easier than wrestling with the automagical compensation stuff built into DAWs. Know that if you start doing complex routing in and out of returns (w some latency included tracks some not) it might be hard to make the phase perfect.

1 Like
#247

Radial makes a range of reamp devices, from $100 passive devices to rackmounted multichannel monsters. How many tracks do you want to send out simultaneously? And will the pedals you want to use truly benefit from reamping?

1 Like
#248

One more suggestion: I built and use one of these. Extremely easy build and inexpensive at $50. I purchased the bundle of these boxes including the line attenuator, summing box, and direct box (with Cinemag transformer option). All are nice quality and well documented. The radial boxes may be a little more robust and heavier duty just as far as the enclosure is concerned. These are sturdy and a bit lighter-weight.

An additional thought: the line attenuator is handy for taking a direct modular output (no output module needed) and running straight to the soundcard/mic preamp.

3 Likes
#249

Great questions. I would only send out one track. And, if I understand your second question correctly, the answer is “yes”. A number of the pedals I want to reamp through generated sounds that are difficult if not impossible to get otherwise (Infinite Jets, Shallow Water, Tensor, Count to Five, etc). Others, like El Capistan and Dark World have workflows or characteristics that I want to use to add additional character to Una Corda and other software instruments.

1 Like
#250

@bradfromraleigh Ah, I will check this out! Always looking for a good therapeutic soldering project.

@jlmitch5 the Redeye thing looks legit!