Hooking up line mixer to console

[3rd Degree]

I don't really get the point, maybe I am missing something. What would be wrong with a patchbay instead? It isn't clear on how you are using the two. Not trying to say you are wrong, I just don't personally understand.

[Sentinel]

Yeah, I didn't think I'd explained it very well. I was planning on using the mackie for tracking, and the ashly for mixing. I need the preamps in the mixer. I'm using a Delta 1010 which doesn't have pres.

[Matt Syson]

Hi
Am I right in thinking what you want to do is use the Mackie for mic amp / Eq into the 1010, then take the outputs from the 1010 to the Ashley for 'mixing'?
If so, then it is certainly one way of doing things which MAY have some (probably small) sonic benefit but more importantly may make your 'workflow' more logical for you.
It would certainly allow a significant number of channels for 'mixdown' if you did this, as you could cascade the Mackie into a couple of chanels (or indeed the Ashley).
Not looked at the specification and 'block schematic' of the Mackie but surely you would normally take the 1010 outputs into the LINE ins on the Mackie to do 'mixing'?
If most of the gear is currently on the shelf in a shop, I would suggest reviewing your requirements further and you may come up with a 'more suitable' piece of gear rather than 2 boxes.
Matt S

[Tone Grown]

I think the ashley should be fine. I have experienced some cheaper brands of line mixers that really compromised the sound. i would have thought that a line mixer would be fairly transparent. I highly recommend if you go that route to do a gear shootout with the gear and see which mixer you prefer for mixing... there may be no difference, but the difference may be very apparent. I also might recommend something like the Mackie 800r over a mixer. the 800r will have a simpler signal path unless of course you are doing your headphone mixes on the mixer.

[3rd Degree]

Ok, that makes a bit more sense. However, I would still do it differently. I would likely buy a bigger mixer than the Mackie in case you need more channels but even with the 16 channel, you could route CH 1-8 out of the Mackie into your Delta 1010 for tracking and route your outputs of your 1010 to CH 9-16 on the Mackie. Without having to patch anything through a patch bay, you will have the same functionality in one mixer.

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by Matt Syson

Not looked at the specification and 'block schematic' of the Mackie but surely you would normally take the 1010 outputs into the LINE ins on the Mackie to do 'mixing'?

Yes, that's what I was going to do originally, but I think having the ashly in the setup would help with workflow. I'm still thinking of a way to have this done with the least amount of hardware, plus I'm trying to work within a small-ish budget.

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by 3rd Degree

Ok, that makes a bit more sense. However, I would still do it differently. I would likely buy a bigger mixer than the Mackie in case you need more channels but even with the 16 channel, you could route CH 1-8 out of the Mackie into your Delta 1010 for tracking and route your outputs of your 1010 to CH 9-16 on the Mackie. Without having to patch anything through a patch bay, you will have the same functionality in one mixer.

Yeah, I'm still looking around at different mixers, but my budget doesn't always allow for me to get the things I really want.

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by Tone Grown

I also might recommend something like the Mackie 800r over a mixer. the 800r will have a simpler signal path unless of course you are doing your headphone mixes on the mixer.

Yeah, that's another option I'm looking at. Just trying to find a decent preamp with at least 4 inputs that won't break my bank.

[popmann]

Well goodness don't buy a VLZ3...bet one of the little Onyx i series...and there's no need for a little line mixer--half the channels on the small Onyx iMixers are stereo line inputs. 1220i looks like exactly what you need.