#623

It’s definitely something inside of the mixer from what I can tell. I am guessing a loose connection, maybe one of the ribbon cables, but the cutting in and out had me worried that it might be related to the power supply in the unit. Plan at this point is to unhook everything (which will give me an opportunity to trace any specific bad channels) and open her up. The doctor is in.

1 Like
#624

I just got SUPER lucky and managed to pick up an ES-9! Do you guys use it as your primary eurorack audio interface. I’ve really wanted to multitrack, and my interface only has two inputs, so I think this is gonna be amazing. The added benefit of vcv rack integration is going to be amazing! How do you guys use your es8/es9s?

#625

ES8 here. I love using it with VCV as it really feels like the racks extend each other. Just works the way you’d think it would. I use it for multi tracking to Ableton Live too, easy to setup and works like a charm. Another nice work flow is using an iPad with AUM as a mixer with effects, accompanied with a usb midi controller (Novation Launchcontrol XL here) to steer AUM channels and FX.

1 Like
#626

Used to have a multi channel interface and 16 channel mixer setup 90s/2000s, loads of outboard synths and effects etc.

These days I prefer just one very high quality stereo channel for recording, minimal outboard gear/instruments, and do all the mixing and most of the effects in the box. I actually get way more stuff done/finished than I used to with the maximal setup.

I have more than enough “analogue mojo” with the original recording chain, then sometimes running it through again individually or busses, then mastering it through the same chain at the end. Definitely works for me and I prefer it to my old way of working. All REAPER here the last few years.

2 Likes
#627

ohhhh i like that idea a lot. I haven’t really thought much about using it with an iPad, but it could be a lot of fun. I’m definitely looking forward to getting VCV rack integrated into my workflow, or even CV tools or something. At the very least, it will be nice to always have that last extra thing I need to tie my patch together. I’m also excited at the idea of using ableton as my primary sampler :smiley:

1 Like
#628

After marinating on what my ideal synth/modular/Elektron setup would be (as far as monitoring/live use), I finally bit the bullet.

My goals were as follows:

-outside of “the box”. I don’t want to have to turn on my computer, turn on the interface, load a DAW, plug in whatever I want to use into said interface, hope I have enough inputs on that…etc.

-LOTS of inputs. I’ve got a Shared System, 2 Mother 32s, 2 DFAMs, Subharmonicon, Sub37, Rev2, Grandmother, Digitakt, Analog Rytm, and a Octatrack…and growing! By the time I plug everything in, I need a break. I want to set it up once, and FORGET it.

-easy way to route effects. I just have to admit it. I need effects on just about everything. An interface with plugins seemed like the only way I wasn’t going to have to bring 6 separate guitar pedal setups to any synth gig I might have…ouch. I still plan on integrating my pedal/modular effects arsenal, but even if I do, I’ll end up short. So some built in effects would be SO helpful from time to time.

-portable. As I said, I mainly want it for messing around, coming up with ideas, but, I don’t want to have to spend an hour to break it down/pack it up for a gig.

-versatile. I want it to work just as well for my Elektron stuff/keyboard synths/modular.

-decent pres, but no need for high end studio quality. I’ve already got 15 channels (and of many persuasions) of quality pres/EQs/Comps, so if the pres I get from this are decent, that’s good enough for me. I’m not stressed about them being as good as what I already have. Just stay clean enough to play live!

So…Been reading a lot of stuff online about what people use. Thought about getting a RME ultra lite, as they seem like the cheapest/best way to get a decent amount of inputs/great interface as well. But again…laptop necessary. And don’t need them interface.

I have always been a bit phobic about always needing to bring a computer to a live gig. Plus I already have a nice interface (UA Apollo 8x) and dont really need/want another one (or want to learn the ins/outs) for recording (muchless only live) purposes.

This got me thinking about another mixer. I had a cheap Mackie a year or so ago. But when I plugged all my stuff in it just couldn’t take it. Never figured out what was wrong exactly, but it just sounded overloaded. Muddy. Lifeless.

So I read up on other brands of mixers. I knew I wanted something with a good amount of inputs and better pres. More headroom. Theoretically I’d like to be able to hook up every synth, all my Elektron stuff, modular, etc, and just leave things plugged in and ready to play.

For a while I was leaning towards an Allen & Heath. Seemed like a step up from Mackie. Thought about the SSL 6, don’t doubt it’s quality, but it’s just not enough inputs for all my stuff and seemed just too much like spending big bucks on recording quality pres/comp/EQ that I already have in spades just for a live mixer that’s expensive enough that I’d be worried about it.

Asked my engineer friend (who doubles as FOH for my band) and he immediately recommended a Behringer.

I was skeptical. But after reading up on the X32 I was intrigued. Seems Behringer (which I had always assumed as even worse than Mackie) has admittedly stepped up their game lately. Not crazy about some of their tactics obviously, but…I’m just not seeing that many options out there for what I’m trying to do.

Ended up going with a step down, getting a Behringer XR18 mixer. Didn’t need the 32 ins, and it shares many of the same features. And so far, I have to say I am very pleased. It does require I use my iPad as a simple interface, but that’s WAY more portable than my MacBook Pro, and WAAAAY less worrisome to bring to a gig. And it has its own modem for connecting to the iPad. Maybe not as quick as some easy EQ, faders, etc. but…

18 inputs! No way was I getting all my stuff plugged in (with channels to spare) without spending about $1000 or more on the high number of inputs I needed for all my stuff.

Also…,and not insignificantly,…Always HATED dragging a mixer to a gig. No easy way to pack them. The XR18 I got from Sweetwater came with its own gig bag. Weighs about 5 lbs, and it’s super portable.

And…it’s very simple. Downloaded the app, and 5 minutes later I’ve got up to 18 instruments plugged in, each with its own separate effects!

Also…has very decent effects. For live, and demoing ideas, this is a big plus. No…it’s huge. You can save all the effects as well. Theoretically could put a whole set list’s worth of different effects chains and have it ready to go. No more worrying about what effects I have in my effects loop/bleed/etc. This alone was well worth the price of admission.

Obviously the effects are not as good as my UA plugin stuff, but for demoing/live use where I might want just a touch of hall verb/simple delay, they are 100% usable and very similar in layout to the UA stuff actually.

Verdict…Pres seem totally legit. 6 outputs I can also easily route out to my Apollo if I want to quickly record into my patchbay/DAW with good pres/EQs/Plugins/hardware etc.

Anyway, just wanted to say, I’m LOVING not being reliant on my computer anymore. It’s as close as I’ve gotten so far to the old PLUG AND PLAY days (like in my guitar years) when I just want to turn on my synth, patch some cables on the modular, and mess around, maybe come up with some ideas QUICK.

I obviously haven’t (and don’t expect anytime soon) taken it to a gig yet. But I also splurged on another QSC K10.2, so I’ve finally got stereo monitors, which sound amazing. Well worth it.

Added BONUS…I’m back in control of my stage volume levels. It sucks not being able to turn your synths up on stage if you’re using the club monitors. Finally I’ll just be turning myself up midsong without the dirty looks from everyone else on stage. Worth it for that alone.

So all in all, I’d give the XR18 a peak if you are looking for an AFFORDABLE way to plug in everything you have and get to playing. It’s better than I was hoping and I didn’t have to spend a lot, which is always a plus.

Honestly, I’m kind of puzzled as to why none of the big synth companies haven’t really gotten into THIS game of monitoring!!!??? It’s obviously very personal as to what each person wants/needs, but these days there really aren’t a TON of options that don’t seem somewhat daunting.

I feel like I took the easy way out. But so far I haven’t found anything I overlooked.

3 Likes
#629

I’m glad you found a mixer you like. I still won’t recommend doing any business with them as a firm, though. I get that everybody needs to make their own decision, but as soon as price comes in people seem to forget what they’re not paying for - in many cases quite a lot of that is stuff they might care about if they had more data. Some firms do a whole lot more that hurts actual innovators and quality producers, and subsidize those actions with other, less arguably controversial, product lines. That doesn’t make buying from them a good thing, though.

I’m not posting this to call you out, by the way. I’m glad you’ve shared your experience here about a piece of gear that’s helped you. But I feel that every time the gushing about how much better a certain company seems to have gotten comes out, the backstory needs to be brought up as well. There’s a cost to all of our decisions, and these days some of those are more straws on an already pretty badly injured camel’s back.

12 Likes
#630

I totally get that. Yes, I’m familiar with what Behringer does. I don’t think I would ever buy ANY of their synth stuff. I really struggled with finding something that checked all the boxes, AND that I could afford. I’ll also admit that for me it’s not so much about how much something costs, as much as it accomplishes what I’m trying to do.

In this case, I honestly couldn’t really find anything that was even close, much less one that wasn’t two sometimes three times as much money for the same thing, or WAY more than I needed.

I feel like there is a serious hole waiting for someone to fill for these purposes. I hope someone figures it out, and fully expect that once that happens I’ll retire this thing soon thereafter. But for now, I’m just relieved to have found something that performs these most basic of utilitarian yet elusive functions.

1 Like
#631

hey! i think this was one of the most (if not the most) detailed accounts of using a piece of equipment in the entire ‘Mixers and audio interfaces’ thread! thanks for taking the time to do that, i’m sure there are a few readers who will find this info indispensable.

3 Likes
#632

I’m in a similar boat as @guitargyro (and probably many others here). I’m not looking for a portable solution, but I want something hands on to connect lots of different instruments (Eurorack, Buchla Command, Cocoquantus, Guitars, Mikes…). I want to be able to just switch on my system and play without connecting a computer. But I also want a simple solution to record each single sound source individually in Ableton when connecting the computer. And I want easy routing to send signals to the Coco or some Eurorack sampling modules.

Long story short: I guess I need an analog desk with integrated USB interface and a few Auxes and/or Subgroups.

I did lots of research and I agree that there are not many choices. After excluding Midas Venice (great sound and build quality, but most 2nd hand units are pretty old, the audio interface is Firewire and it has a fan, which produces some noise) it mostly comes down to Soundcraft Signature 22 MTK and Allen & Heath “MixWizard4” WZ 4 16:2. The A&H has some advantages like Inserts (which are not that important to me), but with the added USB card it’s much more expensive than the 22 MTK. And the USB recording with the 22 MTK seems more flexible, because it can also send back 22 signals to the desk (afaik the A&H only sends back 2 channels.)

Does anybody here have one or the other and can share some insights? Users seem to be happy with the audio quality of both desks, so I’m not sure if/why I should pay a higher price for a WZ4?

BTW: This thread is becoming way too long. I spent quite some time here and it’s just overwhelming. I think splitting it into “Mixers” and (pure) “Audio Interfaces” would make sense imho.

1 Like
#633

RME audio interfaces have fully functional standalone mixing capabilities and can save a default mix which they boot to. They can also be MIDI or OSC controlled for mixing. The computer is not required for a basic mix at all. I believe most modern MOTUs offer similar functionality. For the price of a small desk with half decent quality you can get high end multitrack recording and studio routing/mixing. Or you can check out the Qu-pac from A&H, or the Tascam 24 which I would probably look at seriously before considering the soundcrafts.

Midas is a Behringer brand these days, by the way. My post above applies to them too.

#634

Yes, thanks, I know. I own a RME Fireface UCX, and it’s great. But as you mentioned, you can save a “basic mix” and for everything else you need the computer.
Audio quality is important for sure, but to me “playability” is important as well – like just turning an Aux knob on a desk to send a signal to a hardware sampler or the Cocoquantus.

Why would you prefer Tascam 24 over the Soundcraft? Do you have experiences with one or the other? (Just looked at the Qu-pac: Exactly not what I want – I want direct hands-on control.)

P. S.: I’m totally with you regarding Behringer. (Not judging anybody else, but personally I just wouldn’t buy anything from them.) But Midas Venice is only available on the 2nd hand market, so I’m not sure if the B question applies here. Anyway: I ruled the Venice out already for other reasons.

#635

Ah, I thought the main problem you were trying to solve was “hear stuff in my studio without the computer” (which, by the way, it sounds like you haven’t fiddled with the MIDI remote control for your RME, but that’s another question for another topic, since you can get hands-on control of track volume easily with e.g. a MIDI fighter twister or the like), not “I want to play my studio routing with a physical mixing desk” which, granted, is a totally different problem to want to solve.

As for Midas, no worries there - their old school used gear (pre-B) was fantastic stuff.

I didn’t say I’d “prefer” the Tascam 24, just that I’d give it serious consideration - the reason I’d do so in favour of the Soundcraft is twofold: 1. Tascam has been making definite efforts recently to improve their quality again, and Soundcraft has been seemingly doing the opposite compared to their historic baseline and 2. I have heard the 22MTK and some of the other models in that series and I found them no improvement on what Mackie has to offer, for instance (other than specific features depending on which model you’re comparing - I’m talking sound quality here - build quality was worse than Mackie overall - loads more plastic in the frame, etc.). I don’t expect them to age well for that reason. For folks on a very tight budget or who are less concerned with noise and proper filter shape / Q choices they might be perfectly adequate. Sound on Sound gave the Tascam a rather favourable overall review, and comparing my read of their Soundcraft review with my actual experience with one, I’d be inclined to give the Tascam the benefit of the doubt and a good solid audition before crossing it off my list.

Edit: was there a reason the A&H Zed didn’t do it for you? Do you really NEED the desk to have the record-to-computer functionality if you have an RME?

Edit 2: Referring to getting more tracks out than the desk offers as busses or other recording-specific outputs you can just look for a desk with inserts and use those as individual channel sends to your RME. Using a half-inserted jack you get a clean, buffered unbalanced signal (which is fine for most studios in normal noise environments). Or if the desk has true direct outs, even better.

Last edit: Your post is still a bit unclear on whether or not the main issue is “playing the desk”, “mapping sound sources to audio inputs in an efficient manner”, “recording literally all of my sound sources at once”, or some other aspect. There are solutions to each of these (patchbays are my favourite for one of them), but they all are best solved differently. If you’re trying to ask any one piece of kit to do them all you’ll be looking at a very expensive and highly imperfect piece of kit. Focus on what problems you’re trying to solve and what compromises you’re willing to accept and where your priorities are, and we can probably help you find a workable, affordable, and flexible solution to doing just that.

#636

I think the recent Zoom mixer/recorders have been mentioned in this tread, certainly on Lines somewhere. I hadn’t been aware of them but was very impressed by the price/power/size ratio…

Might be worth a look. If I’m not misreading the OP…

#637

Thanks for your detailed answer. I can’t really tell you what the “main issue” is. I think I mentioned what I want to achieve – and I want all of it. :wink:
The situation is that I had a good Eurorack mixer, but it had too few channels to connect alle my instruments, so now I want to swap it for an external mixer with more channels and more routing flexibility.
I also considered analog desks with Direct Outs (or fake Direct Outs via Inserts), connected to my RME. But if I want to record more than 8 channels simultaneously I would have to expand the RME – so I think buying an analog desk with integrated audio interface would just be easier and in the end less expensive.

#638

Yes, thanks. I also read some positive comments. I think I’d prefer some analog mojo though. :wink:

#639

Understood.

Life is a series of trade offs it seems!

I still have my ancient first generation Mackie 1604, it’s ok, but a dinosaur by today’s standards.

I’m lucky that all I really care about anymore are the personal enjoyment and meditative aspects…

#640

Quite honestly, all of the multichannel desk-recording solutions in desks that cost under several tens-of-k are vastly inferior in quality and feature to just buying more channels of RME. My sincere recommendation is to split the mixing and recording functionality for both a cost reason and a practicality reason - you’re not baking yourself into this decision for the future if you find another means of working is better for you.

You haven’t said how many channels are sufficient for you, but I’ll assume that if the 22MTK fits your needs, you’re looking in the vicinity of 24 channels or fewer. If you need to record all 24 channels simultaneously, the most direct way to get that sort of quality is to get two Focusrite 8 channel ADAT converters and an RME Digiface USB. Between your UCX and the two expanders you’ll have 24 channels in and 8 analogue outputs (or you can get the slightly-more-expensive Focusrites with in and out). That’s a LOT of channels for very little outlay, comparatively speaking, and an insanely flexible set of options. Using direct outs on any solid analogue mixer and you’ve got enough for a full studio’s worth of multitracking plus summing.

If you don’t ever record more than 18 channels at a time, you can do what I’ve done and get a patchbay and a used Fireface 800 to add 10 more channels to your UCX. That’s 18 channels of I/O (for an additional outlay of < $500) and you get to use the full feature set, routing, etc. of the UCX. Combine that with a quality all-analogue desk and that’s a pretty solid project studio’s worth of I/O. The patchbay can be normalled to your typical setup and you can add any additional channels by simply jacking them in as needed.

Either of these solutions will be vastly better than the onboard solutions in any desk, and you won’t be tied to that desk for workflow either.

2 Likes
#641

100% agree with this whole post. I mean, within the parameters you’ve set (analog, built-in USB multitrack to computer, price point), there are not a ton of options and they will all perform more or less the same.

And none of them have anything that can be remotely described as the cliched and elusive “mojo”. Get something with insert jacks and you can add preferred “mojo” outboard as you go.

But if you want something all-in-one you might as well go for the Tascam so that you have the option for DAWless recording too. I have been very tempted by the Model 12, it’s a nice sweet spot price/feature-wise.

1 Like
#642

I was recently in a similar boat (desiring a better mixer and a way to record without my computer) so I picked up a Model 12 and so far I have really enjoyed using it. Being able to make and mix multi-channel recordings on the fly has really led me to record a lot more. The recording quality feels great to me and compares (to my ears) favorably with what I was getting with my Motu Ultralite mk4. Purely subjective anecdotal assessment of course!

FWIW, the Model 12 is fully digital, while the 16 and 24 do have an analog channel eq section (and maybe an analog compressor) before hitting the DAC. The Model 12 has a MIDI in/out which the larger models do not. For my needs, the ability to sync to MIDI was worth it. I use an old rackmount Kawai Stereo mixer as a submixer for my lesser used synths.

For what I do, it’s been great.

4 Likes