What can I expect from this unit?

[TonyCrazyMan]

I record mostly keyboards, guitars and vocals. I've read that I should use DI boxes when recording synths/keyboards/samplers and guitars. Currently I don't use any DI boxes in the chain. Can somebody please describe what kind of effect on the sound quality a DI box would create when added in the signal chain and recording with a Mackie 1604 VLZ-PRO analog mixer?

[Daniel Smart]

Depends on the DI box. In a perfect world it woudl be completely transparent. In the real world it'll change the sound to an extent, but that extent really depends on design. Are you talking active or passive, and how much money?

 

All a DI does is match line to mic level inputs. Your mixers got line level inputs on it anyway, hasn't it? Just use those, you'll be fine.

 

-Daniel

[greendoor]

You are basically using the mixer as a DI box. If you have to run cables a long way, you need to use the DI to convert to balanced cables to avoid hum and noise. But some active DI's can add a bit of noise themselves. A high quality passive (transformer) DI box adds no noise and can change the tone slightly, which some people like.

 

Apart from balancing an unbalanced output, a DI box also converts hi-z to low-z (also essential for long runs). The impedance that is placed on an output can sometimes affect the tone. Basically, some outputs can't deliver the current demanded by lo-z inputs, so the bass farts out and generally the tone suffers. Guitars and bass pickups in particular can benefit from extremely high impendance (say over 1 meg ohm) which basically means the DI can extract the best signal because it isn't demanding too much current.

 

I doubt there would be much benefit adding a cheap DI box to your Mackie. However - i'm currently considering an Avalon U5 DI. This might be good for (mono) keyboard tracks, and certainly for bass & guitars, because it has a 3 meg impedance, and also about 30dB gain. This means I could hook a bass or keyboard direct to the U5 and then directly to my Lucid A/D converter. I could bypass my mixer or preamp entirely - and I would expect this to be about the best direct sound possible.

[TonyCrazyMan]

 

Originally posted by greendoor You are basically using the mixer as a DI box. If you have to run cables a long way, you need to use the DI to convert to balanced cables to avoid hum and noise. But some active DI's can add a bit of noise themselves. A high quality passive (transformer) DI box adds no noise and can change the tone slightly, which some people like. Apart from balancing an unbalanced output, a DI box also converts hi-z to low-z (also essential for long runs). The impedance that is placed on an output can sometimes affect the tone. Basically, some outputs can't deliver the current demanded by lo-z inputs, so the bass farts out and generally the tone suffers. Guitars and bass pickups in particular can benefit from extremely high impendance (say over 1 meg ohm) which basically means the DI can extract the best signal because it isn't demanding too much current. I doubt there would be much benefit adding a cheap DI box to your Mackie. However - i'm currently considering an Avalon U5 DI. This might be good for (mono) keyboard tracks, and certainly for bass & guitars, because it has a 3 meg impedance, and also about 30dB gain. This means I could hook a bass or keyboard direct to the U5 and then directly to my Lucid A/D converter. I could bypass my mixer or preamp entirely - and I would expect this to be about the best direct sound possible.

 

 

Ok, I've got the feeling that a DI box (and I would need two for recording in stereo) wouldn't be worth it. After all both the keyboard and the mixer are quite new and I don't have any signal problems as far as I can hear. The cables are pretty short too and I use high quality cables. The signal is quiet and clean.

 

 

This means I could hook a bass or keyboard direct to the U5 and then directly to my Lucid A/D converter.

 

 

You mentioned that you use a Lucid A/D converter. Have you tried any other converters so you know how the Lucid compares? I am really interested in finding out how much difference in sound quality of the A/D there is between for instance an RME Fireface 800 and a Rosetta 200...! It's really in the dynamics department where I think the RME Fireface 800 can't compete with a Rosetta 200. I've got the feeling that as soon as you start using compressors on the mix the difference between a Rosetta and a Fireface becomes pretty much noticable, the Rosetta with the best dynamics.