Line mixer vs. "regular" mixer

[Anderton]

I'll echo j_e_f_f_g's comments about the option to use an audio interface as a stand-alone mixer. Quite a few of them are designed with that task in mind, and as he points out, the main differences in terms of using them live relates to how many button presses you need to do to make adjustments on the fly, and also, any extra features like onboard DSP.

 

In general, I think these are at their best when used in a more or less "set-and-forget" context; if you really need to adjust levels, it's probably faster to do it at the synths.

[mister natural]

Don't know why you cats are dogging Alesis mixers; I've banged good sound in & out of mine for 4+ yrs now without a hitch . . .

[DINpluggedIN]

 

 

If you don't mind an external "line lump" power supply, you might consider a Rane SM82 (earlier, non-"S" model). They often sell for under $200 on eBay -- I got one a few months ago for $129, including shipping. If you decide to go that route, beside the usual eBay precautions, make sure that the power supply is included, since it has an atypical plug.

 

The Ranes have Expand In/Out jacks, which allow addition of another unit if you ever need more than eight stereo inputs. Make the connections and you wind up with more inputs, but still just a single stereo output. That can provide 16 stereo stereo inputs in just 2 rack spaces (or 24 in 3, etc.).

[j_e_f_f_g]

Craig, yeah, the "audio interfaces", when used as live mixers without a computer, are more suited to people who "set once and then forget". Of course, if a guy uses a computer on a gig anyway, then he can use the graphical mixer software. It looks just like a real mixer (on the computer screen) with graphical sliders, knobs, meters, etc arranged in "channel strips". But you operate it with a computer mouse, instead of your fingers (unless you use a touchscreen like I do). We could use some tutorials here on Harmony Central about this sort of stuff, because I think a lot of guys would really like these small, versatile setups (especially if the guy wants to use VSTs live, or master his own recordings). But it sounds like a lot of people don't know where to begin. (I get the impression a lot of people aren't even aware that these $500+ "recording interfaces" have such full-featured hardware mixers built-in. Obviously, that's easy to overlook because there aren't visible, physical "channel strips" on the exterior of the box).

 

I'd be willing to help out with putting together some tutorials, if there was some spot to post them (where they wouldn't be "buried" in some hard-to-locate forum thread). Also, I've not seen a nice, independent comparison of the features on "recording interfaces", such as which ones can be operated standalone. HC should look into doing that.

 

P.S. At the risk of looking like a complete suck-up, I have to say Electronic Musician was my fav mag when you were editor, and then went to hell afterward (although never as boring/useless as Keyboard Player). And the Peavey DPM SP is still the best user manual I've read.

 

Mister N, it's not that everyone who buys a $200 mixer has it burst into flames during a gig. And it's not that expensive gear never breaks down. But there is a difference in the quality (such as tolerances, and materials) of the components in, and build construction of, for example a Rane mixer versus that $200 Alesis. Granted, a consumer can't always "see" those kinds of differences if he's just looking at labels on the external knobs, or just counting the number of sliders. But those differences are there, and if you're going to make recommendations, it's the responsible thing to note them, especially if making a recommendation to a pro musician. For example, if the guy makes $200 playing a gig, that's the price of the Alesis. But if he doesn't understand why this one mixer costs $300 more than this other mixer with the same amount of knobs, don't you think he'd appreciate an explanation why that could be, and a suggestion "For the price of 2 gigs, you could have xxx model which is a better build, and will likely serve a gigging musician better"?

 

Granted, manufacturers publish "specs" to tell consumers things that aren't apparent just by looking at the external box. But even there, you have to be careful. For example, I noted how Alesis' specs are more ambigous, tell you less, and are undoubtably tailored to avoid revealing weaknesses, than other specs like the ones on that Roland mixer. (Or for an even more dramatic differences between the level of accuracy in specs, compare what details companies like Rane, A+H, Ashley specify versus what that Alesis mixer's specs omit), Presumably, a guy asks for a recommendation on HC because he's hoping he'll get info from someone who has no life, like Craig Anderton, and therefore reads lots of specs (and knows when a company is "showcasing" its superiority versus a comapny that's struggling to make its product look better).

 

Bottom line: I don't have any grudge against Alesis. (Have a QS8. Love the keybed feel, Mediocre sounds). I'm saying "that alesis isn't as good quality as these other choices, and for the price difference, I think the other choices are the better buy for a gigging musician" because that's my conclusion.

[Synthaholic]

 

In any event, I use a MOTU Ultralite Hybrid for my mixer, because it takes up only half of one rack space, allows 2 mics to be plugged into it (along with 6 additional mono 1/4" line ins, and 1 stereo SPDIF in), and has built-in EQ, compression, and digital reverb . It also functions as a 24-bit digital audio interface to a computer (via USB or firewire), for audio recording/playback with DAW software. (It additionally functions as a computer MIDI interface, but MIDI input is erratic on Windows OS). http://www.motu.com/products/motuaudio/ultralite-mk3

 

 

Do you like the onboard reverb, EQ, and compression?

[j_e_f_f_g]

 

Do you like the onboard reverb, EQ, and compression?

 

 

Yes, I do. But whereas the EQ section is a bit versatile, the reverb and compression are basic. For example, the reverb doesn't have much individual settings for reflections, and "mike placement in the room", and other settings you will likely find in a dedicated reverb unit. It has a selection of preset "reverb types" (ie, some plates, some halls), and then some very broad settings you can apply, like reverb decay, and the amount of delay before the early reflections. I don't use lots of reverb/compression effects. I set them once, and then leave them. (Well, sometimes I dial back the reverb level in live rooms). So those features work well for my live sound needs.

 

If you're expecting, for example, a Lexicon reverb built into the Ultralite, you'll probably be disappointed.

 

One nice thing about the Ultralite is that its effects can also be digitally recorded in your DAW. (ie, The stereo reverb appears as 2 separate DAW inputs). On the Roland Octacapture for example, the reverb is only for monitoring purposes. You'll find only the dry inputs listed in your DAW.

 

One thing that I dislike about MOTU is that they don't make their online user manuals openly downloadable. You first have to register on the site to be able to download manuals. And you can't register until you have the serial # from a MOTU product you already bought! I like to download/read the manual before I buy a product, and I almost didn't buy the Ultralite because I couldn't. MOTU's setup discourages sales. MOTU is definitely not a very enduser responsive company, and that may ultimately kill them.

 

But if someone really wants to read the manual, I suppose I could email it. Warning: I don't consider it to be well-written. It really is not written in any sort of tutorial or linear fashion. It's more like a bunch of disconnected topics, written by different authors, collected into one book.