Please recommend a small mixer

[Mats Nermark]

Hi,

 

I have a Mackie CR1604-VLZ that must be about 20 years old and it has started to crackle and cut out on different channels. So I'm thinking of replacing it. My requirements have changed in the past 20 years so I'm looking for some very basic mixing functions. What I'm basically doing is using it to hook everything up in the studio that I may need to record and then the mixer feeds my audio I/F for the DAW, Studio One 3.2.

 

So basically I could make do with a 12 channel line mixer as long as I can have one stereo output going to my monitors, one stereo output going to my audio I/F and one headphone output with volume control. EQ and everything else is done ITB. Rackmount preferable.

 

Can you recommend anything that would work for me?

 

Cheers,

 

Mats N

[MikeRivers]

Tough job, but let's see if it can get any easier.

 

First, how are you counting channels? Do you need 12 mono inputs? or 12 stereo inputs? Or some of each? Do you need some mic inputs, or do you have outboard preamps? Second, do you need a mixer to mix, or is it a router that you really need? Could you use a patchbay and a headphone amplifier?

 

There are a good number of rack mount line level mixers around, but most of them are smaller than the 12 channels you're looking for. They tend to come in eights, some eight mono in, some eight stereo in, generally with level and pan ("balance" on stereo intputs).

 

Some examples:

 

ART MX821S - 8 mono inputs in a single rack space, switchable to either mic or line. It has a bus input so you can stack two if you need 16 channels, and cheap enough to do that. The ART MX822S is similar but with eight stereo line inputs, with one mic preamp that can be the (mono) input to Channel 1. That might keep you happy. TASCAM's LM8ST is similar (8 stereo line with the option for a mic on one channel)

 

For something more upscale, the Rane SM82S has 8 stereo line (only) inputs as well as a single auxiliary send bus and an auxiliary return input which you could use for a secondary mix if you need it.

 

But for general purposes, it's hard to beat a Mackie VLZ4.

 

As an alternative, is it time to change your audio interface yet? There are a bunch now that have a built-in very low latency DSP mixer and monitor section, some even with more than 8 inputs. With only a couple of exceptions, you have to open a screen on your computer to see the mixing controls, and if all you need is a bunch of inputs to route to a single stereo or mono output for recording, it's kind of overkill, but yet kind of handy.

 

Conincidentally, I just finished up an article for Recording magazine that will probably be in the June DAW issue. It's about signal flow in the DAW environment, and I use the monitoring path as an example for tracing a signal from microphone to monitor, drawing parallels between the traditional analog mixer and recorder and their in-the-box equivalents.

[Mats Nermark]

Tough job, but let's see if it can get any easier.

 

First, how are you counting channels? Do you need 12 mono inputs? or 12 stereo inputs? Or some of each? Do you need some mic inputs, or do you have outboard preamps? Second, do you need a mixer to mix, or is it a router that you really need? Could you use a patchbay and a headphone amplifier?

 

There are a good number of rack mount line level mixers around, but most of them are smaller than the 12 channels you're looking for. They tend to come in eights, some eight mono in, some eight stereo in, generally with level and pan ("balance" on stereo intputs).

 

Some examples:

 

ART MX821S - 8 mono inputs in a single rack space, switchable to either mic or line. It has a bus input so you can stack two if you need 16 channels, and cheap enough to do that. The ART MX822S is similar but with eight stereo line inputs, with one mic preamp that can be the (mono) input to Channel 1. That might keep you happy. TASCAM's LM8ST is similar (8 stereo line with the option for a mic on one channel)

 

For something more upscale, the Rane SM82S has 8 stereo line (only) inputs as well as a single auxiliary send bus and an auxiliary return input which you could use for a secondary mix if you need it.

 

But for general purposes, it's hard to beat a Mackie VLZ4.

 

As an alternative, is it time to change your audio interface yet? There are a bunch now that have a built-in very low latency DSP mixer and monitor section, some even with more than 8 inputs. With only a couple of exceptions, you have to open a screen on your computer to see the mixing controls, and if all you need is a bunch of inputs to route to a single stereo or mono output for recording, it's kind of overkill, but yet kind of handy.

 

Conincidentally, I just finished up an article for Recording magazine that will probably be in the June DAW issue. It's about signal flow in the DAW environment, and I use the monitoring path as an example for tracing a signal from microphone to monitor, drawing parallels between the traditional analog mixer and recorder and their in-the-box equivalents.

 

Thanks Mike! I'll look into all these. Your comment on mixer/router is also an eye opener.

 

Cheers,

 

Mats N

[Ernest Buckley]

Hey Mats,

 

As Mr. Rivers mentioned, I think the Mackie VLZ Series is a no brainer. I own the 1402 VLZ4 and use it primarily to monitor my keyboards. Its a very quiet board with a very useable EQ.

 

EB

[Mats Nermark]

Hey Mats,

 

As Mr. Rivers mentioned, I think the Mackie VLZ Series is a no brainer. I own the 1402 VLZ4 and use it primarily to monitor my keyboards. Its a very quiet board with a very useable EQ.

 

EB

 

 

Hi Ernest,

 

Thanks for the input. My Mackie is old but it has served me very well so another one lies close at hand.

 

Cheers,

 

Mats N

[MDMachiavelli]

I would also check out the Behringer Xr series of rack mounted digital mixers. They have really come a long way with their digital mixers and the prices are great. It also will work as an interface with your DAW.

[Mats Nermark]

That might keep you happy. TASCAM's LM8ST is similar (8 stereo line with the option for a mic on one channel)

 

Hi Mike,

 

This one seems to fit my needs to a T. But, Tascam's distribution network in Scandinavia leaves a lot to be desired. Their closest distributor is in Germany and I can't find a dealer that carries the product.

 

Cheers,

 

Mats N

[WRGKMC]

Matts, I'm not sure why you even need a mixer. The shortest path from mic to converters is always going to yield the highest sound quality. Adding an additional mixer can only add coloration and noise. Mixers were an essential part of the recording chain in analog recording to tape but with digital its simply a redundant piece of gear that's not necessary. Even if you want to run hardware effects, you have programs that integrate sends and returns for them into the virtual mixing options. If its the hands on you prefer, most controllers do a fine job for that.

 

In reality all you need is an interface with good mic preamps and converters. The number of channels you need will determine how many independent tracks you can record at the same time. An interface like this Tascam 1608 costs $299 New and less used. you'd have 16 channels with 8 mic preamps. You can keep everything connected, and it allows you to record any or all instruments at the same time. If your gear increases simply get a patch bay and use it to swap inputs. There's no need for a mixer. The interface is your mixer.

 

The eight 1/4" inputs are adjusted from a software driver panel which you open up and you have all your levels and panning located there. Once connected you basically set and forget it.

 

The big benefit of having a multichannel besides being able to record all 16 inputs to separate tracks is, you can set up a 16 channel recording template in a DAW program. When you open it, you simply arm the channels you want to record and hit record. You don't have to keep selecting different inputs within the DAW program nor do you wear out cables swapping them when you multitrack.

 

I bought the smaller 6 channel Tascam recently for $89 on sale. I figured for that price what the heck. I been using pretty much exclusively lately. Its USB so its bit more CPU hungry compared to my PCI cards, but the few glitches I may get are very minor and only occur when I'm pushing the number of plugins mixing. I have zero problems recording with it.

 

I still have my 3 PCI cards which give me 24 channels for recording full bands. For personal projects I can get by with less channels and the Tascam does a good job. Even my Ribbon mics do well with the preamps with no noticeable background noise. Those cards are becoming obsolete now since manufacturers have phased out PCI for PCIe They only have line level inputs so I have to use multichannel preamps. I used use a Mixer like you do, especially for the drums, but having those mic preamps in the interface is by far superior.

 

All that extra cabling between the mixer and interface that can add intermittent issues noise and hum can be dumped too. I have a ton of cables

when I add in the Preamps, Patch bay, snakes that run across the studio to patch in all the mics. There's allot of fidelity losses added when you add in all that extra wire.

 

If a mixer is your thing, I's save up and go digital. Some of the newer ones will tie into a DAW program for multitracking now. Some of these companies are finally seeing the light. Musicians like to travel light and having one mixer for live and one for recording is a hassle. If you can have one mixer that can be used live and also records multitrack you have less gear to haul around.

when I add in the

[Mats Nermark]

Matts, I'm not sure why you even need a mixer.

 

Hi WRGKMC,

 

Thank you very much for your detailed respons.

 

The reason is purely convenience.

This is for my home studio/private business office where I also practice a lot of guitar.

My recording system is a PC and my business/browsing/mailing/watching TV and movies is done on a Mac. So the only computer that is usually on when I just want to listen to music while working and practicing along with backing tracks is my Mac. So I need to have a quick and easy way to listen to a few audio sources without my PC being turned on.

 

I've been on a lookout for a audio I/F that will work as a standalone mixer even if the connected computer isn't turned on and the only one I have found that is readily available in Sweden is the Roland Studio Capture. That is, however, USB 2.0 and I would like to go directly to USB 3.0. There are a few multichannel audio I/Fs that are USB 3.0 but they do not work as a standalone mixer.

 

 

I'm frankly surprised that I seem to be the only one with the wish of the audio I/F working as a standalone mixer.

 

Cheers,

 

Mats N