In Defense Of My Mixing Position..
From the original Analog Industries archive. Some links and images from that era no longer resolve.
I get a pretty healthy dose of letters regarding posts on this site, and the most common one I get usually reads something like this:
_
Okay. I get it. Mackie and Behringer mixers blow. What the fuck _should_ I buy if I’m on a budget, then? Huh, tough guy?
_
Let me make one thing clear right now: if you’re just starting out, or you’re a hobbiest with no intention of ever actually releasing anything, a Mackie or Behringer cheapie is going to be fine. In this business, you get what you pay for, and while a $199 mixer will, in actual fact, mix, there are trade-offs, and the main thing you’re going to lose is definition, due to the low-quality op-amps.
When you see me repeatedly make fun of people for having Mackie and Behringer mixers, it’s because they have several thousand (or hundred thousand) dollars worth of synthesizers, the best of the best, and they still submix with a $199 mixer. That’s what I don’t understand. If you can afford to buy four Jupiter 8s, you can afford to drop a grand on a mixer that doesn’t blow.
My writing methodology is somewhat different than the normal synthesizer-based musician, so I’ll grant that my opinion isn’t of vast appeal here, but I’m of the firm opinion that any mixer at all is a bad idea. If you have an audio interface with 8 inputs, you should have 8 mic pres of reasonable quality, 8 eqs, and 4 stereo compressors. These should all go to a patchbay. There’s no need for a mixer to submix at all. My own method only involves a pair of mic pres, two eqs, and no analog compressors in the signal chain.
But I tend to record things one at a time, rather than having all my synths chugging away simultaneously, so that method won’t work for everyone. But for god’s sake, if you’re going to spend $10K on your synths, don’t send them through a 3-cent op-amp. Please.
33 comments
Boobs, you said:
"there is nothing out there like a mackie 1604 that is even moderatley high end. If i could find a highend mixer that does everything a 1604 does i'd pay 3-4 grand for it w/o hesitation."
Then you said:
"the toft and the trident are new and i wouldn't buy either w/o a demo or at least some reviews. also, there is a huge debate/thread at gearslutz about both of those mixers and this very issue re: hi spec line mixers."
So there's some hesitation, as it turns out. Both do everything a 1604 does, times 1.5, and do it a fuck of a lot better, and both are from reputable companies. The Huge Debate on Gearslutz is 99% about features that weren't included in either one to cut costs. The other 1% is typical Gearslutz bullshit.
Another obvious choice is the Midas Venice series. I've used all three of 'em, and they're excellent for the money. Their EQ is about as good as it gets on a small format mixer. The 16-channel one easily falls within your price range.
-CR
LOL- yeah i guess there is some hesitation. the toft looks really nice and checking the videos on the toft site is promising but i still need to be sold on it.
it still would be nice to see an all line version of something like the toft.
there was serious bullshit in that gearslutz thread. i found it amazing that so many people had such ruffled feathers.
i did take a gander at the midas venice series as well but can't recall why i wasn't sold on it. i'll take another look.
oh- here's a link to the gearslutz thread (s)
http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=29871&page=26&highlight=trident+ATB
here's a nice inexpensive behringer substitute of quality
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Soundcraft-200B-British-Mixer-24-Channel-CLEAN_W0QQitemZ7391867033QQcategoryZ23785QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
mixing ITB blows, sorry console haters ;)
Strange that some folk seem to miss that point about billion dollar synths running into super budget recording gear. Like driving your Bentley through an automated car wash.
On the budget side, the Behringer/Mackie stuff always felt crappy to me, let alone how they sound.
Have you ever done a round up here on good budget/semi-budget mixers? Might stave off some of the emails further.
I was thinking of something along those lines. I'll do that tomorrow, probably. My MIDInes is "On FedEx Vehicle For Delivery," so as soon as that gets here, I'll be busy for a while.
-CR
behringer mixers are truly fantastic for serious abuse with feedback chains.
people do the same thing w/ cheap conversion. I'd rather use lavry w/ behringer than M-Audio w/ Neve.
How well timed - I was looking at a Mackie Onyx 1220 for part of my new live setup. There really doesn't seem to be anything similar out there at all. Is your concern more for people recording boutique synths through a Mackie or playing a gig through one? Anyway, +1 for the mixer roundup.
Things are probably different for everyone else, but at least for my electronic act, no matter what gear we use, we'll find ourselves running our final mix through a spare channel on an old Pioneer DJM600 anyway.
It's funny, for some reason I'd always thought you were against Mackie mixers because they didn't look the part in gear porn photos.
Playing a gig? Shit. After just shy of 3000 shows in my career, I've learned one immutable fact:
The audience wouldn't know good sound if it hit them upside the head with a frying pan, but they can see a shitty performance from a mile away.
I use a Behringer line mixer live, and couldn't give less than two fucks about it. As long as the little cocksucker keeps working, I'll keep using it. I'm not going to take a $1400 Speck line mixer on stage. I'm far more concerned about putting on a good show. If the audience wants to hear something that _sounds_ good, they can stay at home and listent to the CD. They don't come to hear a show. They come to _see_ one. Live performance is all about the eyes. As long as the bass is booming, all else is showmanship.
-CR
there is nothing out there like a mackie 1604 that is even moderatley high end. If i could find a highend mixer that does everything a 1604 does i'd pay 3-4 grand for it w/o hesitation. i dont even need mic pre's.. it doesn't exist. dont talk to me about the trident/oram S100 doesn't cut it.. and i need 8-12 direct outs post fader and i need 4-6 sends and the 4 busses...
what's the solution? find it for me and i'll buy it.. daking? $25K, manley? $10K and not enough features... used older consoles? no thanks.. you can re-cap them for me..
sure. i have a couple high end DI's ad a couple nice tube compressors w/hiZ inputs and some FMR audio stuff but it doesn't replace a mixer... if you know what you are doing you can make anything sound good. PLENTY of my favorite tracks have been recorded through mackie mixers.. can you say autechre?
i will upgrade from my 300 dollar Mackie LM3204 to a $4000 Speck XtraMix when i can afford to.
i would love to "drop a grand on a mixer that doesn't suck" but you see, if you want a big fucking line mixer there isn't one. not in between the LM3204 and the Speck.
nothing. it totally fucking sucks.
boobs-
A&H Mix Wizard 14:4:2 $1350
Toft ATB $2999
Trident 8T &2999
i dont see the A&H as being much better than a mackie and it doesn't have the same features.. it may sound slightly better but not that much bettter.. perhaps that's just subjective?
the toft and the trident are new and i wouldn't buy either w/o a demo or at least some reviews. also, there is a huge debate/thread at gearslutz about both of those mixers and this very issue re: hi spec line mixers.
if someone could duplicate a mackie 1604vlz minus the mic pre's and spec out the input/direct out stages i'd be all too happy. i dont need massenburg eq's on it or anything.. simple low cut filters, swept mids etc.. maybe a hardware bypass for the eq and a pre/post for the direct outs and i'd cream my pants..
there's also the TLaudio tubetracker and their tube consoles but i don think i want an entire console of that and those are $$ as well.
"mixing ITB blows, sorry console haters ;)"
good qualification there.
call me back when you can actually prove that.
yeah i know the owner of this blog agrees with you.
i mix ITB ... do i go around reminding nibnobs who sum through analog boards that they're hearing artefacts of gain staging and mistaking them for analog summing "sweetness" or reminding people of the bit reduction issues of automating ITB and then summing OTB?
no .. i don't. but i just did.
ha.
if you think i actually believe digital summing is better than analog summing you're assuming things (unless it's a Sony Oxford. then we're talking. _minimal_ rounding errors with THAT mixer). i just think it's all done wrong right now. we need a summing buss mixer with integrated convertors and automation slaved to host DAW before we can really have a good argument about this. right now every summing mixer setup is a kludge. a fucking kludge.
btw no one has pointed out to me a good mixer between my POS LM3204 (which i acknowledge as a piece) and the Speck XtraMix.
if you bitches don't quit maybe i'll build my own damn mixer. heh?
Options?
New? Soundcraft Ghost, Midas Venice, Toft ATB, and... little else?
I'll be trying the Mackie Onyx live console as a recording mixer soon. Shoud be interesting.
The best value in this range is an old console + a good tech, IMO. For a few $k you can get something like an old Neotek, Allen and Heath, or a Yamaha PM-2000, have someone clean it up, and have a really great console.
Or even a Trident VFM... if you can find one. I hear they're pretty good. I searched high and low for a 16x8 one, and finally gave up.
I agree with oscillations on that. You can pick up a 16-channel Studer broadcast console _and_ have it recapped for the price of the new Midas, and that is a fucking excellent console.
I have no experience with the Onyx series, so I have nothing to add in that regard. Once again, I'll take pains to point out that I'm referring specifically to people that have a $50,000 keyboard setup and run it through cheap-ass submixers, which is what I repeatedly make fun of. If you own, say, a monosynth and a Z1, and don't put out records, well, your Mackie is probably fine.
But building your own is certainly an easy way out. A passive summing network is literally just a resistor for each channel plus some common-sense wiring. Add MIDI-controlled motorized faders for automation from host using the various available mechanisms for doing so. Spend the rest of the money on an Apogee Trak2, and you've got yourself a summing mixer with a top-of-the-line mic pre/limiter/A-D convertor. Have a nice day.
-CR
"If you own, say, a monosynth and a Z1, and don't put out records, well, your Mackie is probably fine."
that's sort of a ridiculous thing to say. somewhat elitist, no? are you saying serious musicians dont use cheap gear and do just fine w/it? i think beck's main guitar for writing many songs is the cheap piece of crap he bought at sears 20 years ago... didn't that first The strokes' record get recorded thru a mackie 24/8? there's a million examples.
you dont a high end anything to write a good song.
i do agree w/your point though.. if you're gonna shell out the cash on series synths you might as well make the rest of the signal path worthy.
1604 (original version) was a great mixer in its time. Midas Venice and the Crest are viable alternatives now. If one is looking for just summing, Speck - whose budget EQ's are outstanding - has a new one out and it looks great!
CR is right, tho. The gear porn pics with boyz and 20K worth of gear running thru a $500 mixer is just ridiculous.
I've been using a Mackie 1202-VLZ Pro 12 Channel Compact Analog Mixer as part of my live/studio setup for a few years now. Quite a cost effective solution for the kind of material I am performing. I do like the sound of this Mackie board, but I detest behringer mixers, have had nothing but bad experiences with them.
http://gnosticrocket.blogspot.com/2006/02/some-gnostic-rocket-live-recordings.html
I can see the absurdity of spending 5-digit figures on your gear and then running it through an audio bottleneck. However, if you check the rest of my gear list, you'll see that there's a lot of "second tier" cheap solutions in my gear list (for example, I have an Arp 16-voice Electric Piano - hardly the most popular choice). I love the challenge of taking less than perfect technology and trying to squeeze something good out of it.
6 days a the week i end up working on something new, building up an arrangement while monitoring stereo outputs thru my Studer desk. Towards the end of the process, I assign each sound to an individual output / channel. Things immediately get twice as enormous-sounding and I'm struck for the millionth time that summing ITB blows no matter what console-haters say.
I can't imagine CR not posting something about this, but in the event that one of you missed it, Behringer is in some hot water in the US:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-263862A1.html
This via Music Thing:
http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2006/02/behringer-sued-for-1-million-by-fcc.html
Cheap electronics AND not FCC approved AND pretty much ripping designs off of other major gear manufacturers. Behringer is starting to look somewhat (more) like those dudes who sell knockoff purses and watches on street corners.
It's a good thing I am planning to scrap my Behringer compressor (which, yes, I regret having ever purchased) for a 1176 clone (Gyraf?) . I wouldn't want to be using things not approved by our generally well thinking government. I wonder how contraband status is going to affect pricing?
i know i'm going to sound like a dumb ass for asking... but what does ITB stand for?
http://www.mus-ok.com/
http://www.mus-ok.com/temp_2/strokes.html
ITB = in the box :)
well, its good that i'm looking to get out of the box... i don't think i need a mixer though. any thoughts on analog summing boxes. there's a bunch out there but i'm looking to stay in the $5k or less range.
benji
all of the mixers mentioned in this artical would do a great job. Also.. APi makes some great rack mount mixing/summing gear. Even still, it is important to consider your audio interface... what are you using?
someone did a shoot out of a bunch of summing boxes on gearslutz w/some reviews of each one and who what when where why etc... w/5K you are in a pretty damn good range ;)
here's some links
http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=35192&highlight=summing+boxes
http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=35847&highlight=mixdream
i have a motu hd 192. it is serving me fine but i forsee its death coinciding with my dual g5 tower. last i checked motu hadn't said anything about their pci cards...
my last track:
http://mus-ok.com/temp_2/strokes.html
Yeah, for $5K, the world is your oyster, as far as summing goes. Pretty much anything but the Manley or the Chandler. I think you could score the Geoff Tanner 8-channel mixer for that, even, which would probably be the way to go if you only needed 8 channels.
If _I_ had $5K to spend on summing, let's see. I generally mix to stems, so I'd only need to sum 4 stereo pairs, so I'd probably get the API 8200/7800 combo, and hope I won the lottery a second time to get the 2500 for some 2-buss squishin'. That combo is cool, because it is expandable. You can add another 8 channels, or a couple 7600s, or whatever, and you get sends and what-not.
I'm of the firm (and obviously correct) opinion that everthing sounds better if it goes through an API 2520 discrete op-amp. Because it does.
-CR
I retract the previous post. I forgot about this:
http://www.vintageking.com/s.nl;jsessionid=ac112b801f43b63813f742e945808eac9f4e48e87bde.e3eTaxiPc3mTe34MbxmLbhiQaNj0n6jAmljGr5XDqQLvpAe?sc=18&category=336&it=A&id=5844
-CR
dont forget this:
http://www.phoenixaudio.net/pages/products.html
by the time you get 24 - 32 channels of fancy summing boxes up and running, you could easily get into a fine used console. I think summing boxes are fine for people who simply don't want to ruin their audio, but you don't get all the interfacing with other gear, the front end, monitoring, etc.
also, one of the fun things about analog is playing with gain structure till you hit the sweet spot, and i don't think you can dance that fandango with summing boxes.
Comments are closed on this post.