Small High Quality Mixer

[hwarwick]

Hi.

 

I need a small high quality mixer. It needs to have a couple of really good mic preamps. 8 - 12 channels is fine. I've used Mackies (1202) and they're pretty good, and the sound is good, and it's GOOD, but I compare the recording to something out of a high end zillion channel Studer or something and frankly/obviously, the Studer sounds better. Where can I find a high quality limited channel mixer? I don't understand why I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get the mixing quality I need.

 

Why so few inputs? All electronic. I have 2 synthesizer (Yamaha Motif XS6 and an old CS2x), some mics (2 shure, a R

[Alan Roberts]

So, you're looking for a board for recording, not live mixing?

[ViLo]

http://www.zzounds.com/item--MDONRV10

http://www.platinum-records.com/Allen-and-heath-zed-14-usb-recording-pa-studio-mixer-prod9400.htm

http://www.jr.com/maudio/pe/MIM_OCTANE/

 

maybe??

[bp]

If you only need pres and a line mixer (no EQ, inserts, auxes), the ATI 8MX2 is excellent. It has 8 great mic pres and an 8 channel stereo line mixer. It is also linkable. Single rack space. XLR ins for pres, db25 for line inputs. Not cheap, but worth every penny.

[ggm1960]

 

Hi. I need a small high quality mixer. It needs to have a couple of really good mic preamps. 8 - 12 channels is fine. I've used Mackies (1202) and they're pretty good, and the sound is good, and it's GOOD, but I compare the recording to something out of a high end zillion channel Studer or something and frankly/obviously, the Studer sounds better.

 

 

What is it about the Mackie that isn't working for you? I mean, have you connected the outputs to a spectrum analyzer to determine what you're getting from the Studer that you don't get from the Mackie?

[UstadKhanAli]

How much are you looking to spend? Speck small mixers are supposed to be good, and Manley makes a small mixer, I think, although that's gonna be a chunk of change. We use a Soundcraft mixer for some stuff and like it, and it's quite cheap.

[MikeRivers]

 

I need a small high quality mixer. It needs to have a couple of really good mic preamps. 8 - 12 channels is fine. I've used Mackies (1202) and they're pretty good, and the sound is good, and it's GOOD, but I compare the recording to something out of a high end zillion channel Studer or something and frankly/obviously, the Studer sounds better. Where can I find a high quality limited channel mixer? I don't understand why I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get the mixing quality I need.

 

Quite simply because a high quality mixer with 8-12 channels costs thousands of dollars. The reason why you see so many mixers of this size that cost hundreds of dollars is because there are many more people who want to buy them at that price and are willing to sacrifice that top quality for pretty good quality at a much lower price. The Mackie Onyx line is a pretty good compromise but there are plenty of people who will tell you that it's no better than an Alesis or Behringer at close to half the price - and for their purposes, they may be right.

 

Why so few inputs? All electronic. I have 2 synthesizer (Yamaha Motif XS6 and an old CS2x), some mics (2 shure, a R

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

The X.SUM line mixer would be a good choice:

 

X.SUM

http://www.speck.com/pdf/xsum/XSum_Manual.pdf

 

http://www.speck.com/pdf/xsum/Xsum%20and%20500%20series%20application.pdf

 

http://www.speck.com/pdf/xsum/XSum_Brochure.pdf

 

 

___________________________________________

 

Speck mixer are the quasi standard for keyboarders in sessions with lots of synths. For years I used the following high quality Speck products:

 

1 SSM

http://www.speck.com/pdf/misc/SSM_Manual.pdf

 

2 XTRAMIX for all synths:

http://www.speck.com/pdf/XmixBrochure.pdf

 

1 MODEL EQ16:

http://www.speck.com/pdf/misc/EQ16_Manual.pdf

 

Of course they do not sound like any Studer console, actually the Speck mixer have no sound of their own but what goes in comes out.

 

However, today I record everything directly into the recorder, respectively audio interface.

 

 

___________________________________________

 

 

What is it about the Mackie that isn't working for you? I mean, have you connected the outputs to a spectrum analyzer to determine what you're getting from the Studer that you don't get from the Mackie?

 

I think no one can see what the difference is with a spectrum analyser.

 

.

[UstadKhanAli]

The guy for Speck is also a super super great guy. He makes an extremely well-respected product.

[UstadKhanAli]

This is the Manley mixer I was referring to before. There's numerous mixers, so have a look.

 

http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/16_299.html

 

[fabian s]

How about Cranesong's Spider?

 

http://cranesong.com/spider.html

[ggm1960]

 

I think no one can see what the difference is with a spectrum analyser. .

 

 

I speak for myself. I'm sorry if you can't. I suppose it's the difference between an electronic technician with the ability to use test equipment for audio frequency analysis and being a guy with magic audio alchemy ears.

 

Franky I have no use for the latter.

[franknputer]

I think maybe he meant that frequency analysis would not tell the whole story as to why the Studer is different from a Mackie. No magic necessary.

[ggm1960]

 

I think maybe he meant that frequency analysis would not tell the whole story as to why the Studer is different from a Mackie. No magic necessary.

 

 

Well I should stay away from these discussions because it's a no win, after all you can't argue with someones ears about what sounds good (transparent, fat, punch, hue, or whatever the daily buzzword is) and most don't understand or give a damn about the actual physical properties associated with the audio frequency spectrum.

 

I'll just add though that in the end, whether you use a Behringer, Mackie, SSL board or a rewired transistor radio, no one will care if unless you can sing, play and write a great song.

 

So unless you think you're going to record the next Boston album in your basement you might want to spend your time concentrating on performance skills for your demo and use the gear you have or can afford while you try to get to a different level.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

I think maybe he meant that frequency analysis would not tell the whole story as to why the Studer is different from a Mackie. No magic necessary.

 

 

I meant it as I said.

 

And no reason to discuss anything console with someone who can't hear but needs a spectrum analyser.

[hwarwick]

Thanks to everyone for your advice. It was very informative and What I am leaning toward is the Allen and Heath, without the USB, where I would use the Allen and Heath mixer, and then take its stereo out and run it through an Apogee stereo DAC.

 

I'd like to respond to one of the posters:

 

 

I realise that - that's why I think it's odd that there aren't small mixers made with the same set of high end components. A serious mixing desk is going to cost $100k or more, and have a jillion channels. I don't need that. I want the quality of the high end desk, just sans the jillion channels, etc.

 

 

I've not heard anyone compare the Onyx to Behringer, but I have heard people claim that the quality out of an Onyx is not in keeping with its cost. I've never used an Onyx, so I can't judge.

 

 

Well, I use microphones sometimes, and bass guitar. Levels need to be adjusted and attenuated before they hit the DAC. Mics need preamps, voices need a touch of compression, so a mixer's effect send comes in handy.

 

 

That's an idea, but it would be better to have it all in one box, just for the sake of simplicity. For example, the Studer I used to work with had pres. They weren't Neve, but they were REALLY GOOD. I do like that idea. I'll consider it and see how it would work for me and my space.

 

Again, thank you everyone. You're a great bunch.

 

[bp]

The Rane SM82 isn't a bad mixer. Not as good as the ATI I mentioned earlier, but it costs far less.

[MikeRivers]

I think it's odd that there aren't small mixers made with the same set of high end components. A serious mixing desk is going to cost $100k or more, and have a jillion channels. I don't need that. I want the quality of the high end desk, just sans the jillion channels, etc.

They're out there. API makes modules that you can put together into a very nice mixer. Oram (Trident) has a nice 8-channel board for about twice the price of a Mackie that's quieter and has more usable EQ, Speck has already been mentioned (Vince not only makes nice products, but he buys nice dinners, too). Allen & Heath is about like Mackie only different. Some like one better than the other. Since it's fashionable to dislike Mackie, you'll find more people on line liking A&H but it's really hard to say which one is better. Depends on what you want.

I've not heard anyone compare the Onyx to Behringer, but I have heard people claim that the quality out of an Onyx is not in keeping with its cost. I've never used an Onyx, so I can't judge.

I will support that the quality of a Behringer is in keeping with its cost, maybe even exceeds it. But given how little it costs, that's not saying much for the overall product. Sometimes you don't discover what you really like or really dislike about a mixer until you've used it for a couple of years. And if you outgrow it a couple of years you'll never know if you really like or hate it, or if it's just OK. I've been using the same Soundcraft 600 (24 channels) for 20 years now. It's getting old and could use an overhaul so I'm thinking about a replacement, but I'm in no hurry.

Well, I use microphones sometimes, and bass guitar. Levels need to be adjusted and attenuated before they hit the DAC. Mics need preamps, voices need a touch of compression, so a mixer's effect send comes in handy.

But you can do all of that with a patchbay, and you can have your choice of preamps and equaliziers, and if you're only recording one channel at a time, you only need to buy one of each, not one for each mixer channel. Any respectable A/D converter has an input level control so you can adjust the level there. A studio mixer does have some handy features but there are alternatives.

 

That's an idea, but it would be better to have it all in one box, just for the sake of simplicity.

That's certainly a legitimate point, but if you want quality you'll pay for it as many times over as you have channels (sort of) and unless you'll be using more than one or two inputs at a time recorded to one or two channels, you really don't need a mixer for mixing. You may, however, find that a mixer is convenient for monitoring when overdubbing.

 

Many people use a mixer that they know has just so-so preamps and EQ, but it has good ergonomics. So they use an outboard preamp straight to the A/D converter and monitor through the mixer. Lots of approaches. I recently wrote an article for Recording Magazine (part 1 just came out) about this sort of thing. Part 2 may be in the July issue and that's where I talk about mixers, "channel strips" and all-in-one boxes. Lots of approaches.

 

I commend your interest in a high quality mixer. So stop worrying about what it costs and get out your credit card.

[ggm1960]

 

I meant it as I said. And no reason to discuss anything console with someone who can't hear but needs a spectrum analyser.

 

 

 

Huh? Sorry couldn't hear you.

 

I suppose it's true though, as I get older, wiser and more skeptical I probably also suffer from some high end roll off. Of course there's no reason to discuss audio with someone who can't spell analyzer.

 

Sorry to be so unfashionable and such a wet blanket though, please carry on.

[ViLo]

........... Of course there's no reason to discuss audio with someone who can't spell analyzer.

 

I think Angelo is in Europe, so he's spelling is correct :poke:

[UstadKhanAli]

 

T I realise that - that's why I think it's odd that there aren't small mixers made with the same set of high end components.

 

 

Have you not seen my suggestions?

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

I think Angelo is in Europe, so he's spelling is correct :poke:

 

That is right, and such an s is what make this forums global or internazional, at least ggm1960 did not say it is not English. It is certainly an enrichment to have someone with us who sings in the protestant basement church boy choir of Boston

[BlueStrat]

I meant it as I said. And no reason to discuss anything console with someone who can't hear but needs a spectrum analyser.

 

 

Are you kidding me?

 

Myspace is filled with people who think their stuff sounds like it was mixed by Bob Clearmountain.

 

Everyone hears everything a bit differently. Unless you're of the opinion that everyone's ear components are exactly alike, using a SA doesn't make you inept. I know my high end hearing is gone from years of standing in front of drummers who thought beating the piss out of crash cymbals was more soulful than micing them.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Well then, please explain to use how you can produce a meaningful result by comparing a Mackie VLZ mixer with a Studer console using a spectrum analyzer.

 

You worked with Bob Clearmountain?

[ggm1960]

 

Well then, please explain to use how you can produce a meaningful result by comparing a Mackie VLZ mixer with a Studer console using a spectrum analyzer. You worked with Bob Clearmountain?

 

 

One of my favorite biker clich