Analog Consoles for DAWs

[tINY]

That's a pretty thin budget for a 4 channel interface, let alone a usb-powered mixer thrown in.

Do you really need a mixer, or just the interface?




-tINY

[rollsrock25]

I was thinking it would be nice to have the mixer, but now that you mention it I suppose I could go digital...am I thinking what you're thinking? Suggestions?

[Bungler]

Still not 100% sure I understand what you're trying to do... maybe your wording is just off. Anyway, $100 - $250? Come on... We all aren't rich but that is crazy talk for mixer. Save up a few more bucks.

[indie folk guy]

yeah I'd save up for a low budget mixer the Allen and Heath ZED series provides excellent preamps, EQ's, and does offer USB/Firewire connectivity options.

IMHO those are probably the best bang for buck "low end" mixers and they probably offer a solution that will cater to your individual needs.

[rollsrock25]

Originally Posted by Bungler

Still not 100% sure I understand what you're trying to do... maybe your wording is just off. Anyway, $100 - $250? Come on... We all aren't rich but that is crazy talk for mixer. Save up a few more bucks.

I agree, it is a little crazy...just figured I'd give it a shot

The $64,000 question is whether or not the A&H ZED series allows the user the option to select the mixer's tracks in the DAW for simultaneous multichannel recording. Does that make sense?

[rollsrock25]

Just doing more research, I think the only analog mixers capable of doing what I want is Firewire mixers...

[qbury]

Check out the Zoom R16. You can probably pick up a used one for 250-275. It's a stand alone recorder and interface that allows recording for up to 8 simultaneous tracks at a time, standalone or into a daw. Has usb and works on ac or batteries. It does a lot for a cheaper solution. Most of the mixer style recorders in that price range will only do 2-track recording. This does 8.

[Trainwreckmusic]

How about 1 of these?
Alesis MultiMix 8 USB FX Regular | Musician's Friend
Looks like just what you say you want, $150 brand new

[stella645]

I think the only analog mixers capable of doing what I want is Firewire mixers

You think wrong.

No idea what these are like but it is USB & it's even within your original budget.

Amazon.com: Alesis Multimix 8 USB FX 2.0 8-Channel Mixer with FX and 24-Bit Recording: Musical Instruments

[stella645]

How about 1 of these?
Alesis MultiMix 8 USB FX Regular | Musician's Friend
Looks like just what you say you want, $150 brand new

That mixer does not support multi channel recording!

Only the USB2.0FX I linked does.....which is why it's $100 more expensive.

[gravyface]

I think you're getting a bit confused (and I seriously don't blame you; so many options and marketing terms thrown around out there).

The piece of hardware that allows you to record multiple simultaneous tracks in a DAW is called an audio recording interface (or just "interface" usually).

This interface will use one of several computer (ahem) interfaces in order to connect to the computer: USB (theoretically least amount of bandwidth, but I think drivers play a huge part here more than the limitation of USB itself; plus USB 3.0 interfaces should be coming out soon. My Tascam US-2000 runs like a champ and cranks out 14 concurrent tracks over two-hour non-stop jam sessions without a snag at 24-bit/96KHz) , Firewire (good choice for laptops; some Firewire computer cards are a bit dodgy; heard Texas Instuments based ones are the most reliable but YMMV), PCI (a dead end technology-wise; you'll likely run into issues with newer chipsets like Core i5/7s), or PCIe (slightly more rare, tower computer only essentially).

Along with typical analog inputs and outputs (XLR, TRS), interfaces nowadays have plenty of add-ons, such as:

- preamps
- ADAT/lightpipe/SPDIF (digital expandability)
- MIDI in/out/thru
- software "control panels" or virtual mixers for handling routing, gain, latency, etc.

Back in the day, interfaces didn't necessarily have preamps on them, so a mixer offered a way to add the necessary microphone preamps (gain, impedence, phantom power, etc.) at an inexpensive per-channel cost compared with standalone preamps.

However, since almost all interfaces have preamps in them nowadays, analog mixers are not really necessary anymore for simply providing power and gain to your mics: all that's done right in the interface so you can plug your mic right in and giver.

Where project/entry level mixers made a (somewhat) comeback is in the low-end: Behringer, etc. started offering basic analog mixers but with a two-channel (stereo mains) built-in USB interface so that you could hook it up to your DAW, but essentially only for "mastering" or post-mixdown processing because there was no separation of tracks (and the analog to digital converters were usually pretty poor). That's what you're going to find for < $200.

What also confuses things somewhat are control surfaces: they certainly look like mixers, but they don't have any analog ins/outs/processing, they simply replace/augment the keyboard and mouse to control your DAW's mixer (and plugins, etc.; usually via MIDI command messages).

Finally we get to the Mackie Onyx 1640i and A&H ZED R-16s: these are a combination of analog mixer, multi-channel interface, and control surface. Now you can not only use the mixer dry for tracking, but you can use it as a control surface in your DAW for signal processing, while also routing everything back through the mixer to do a tape-style analog mixdown (back into the DAW to a mixdown stereo track) taking advantage of real, hands-on hardware routing (submixes, busses, etc.), EQs and any hardware/outboard gear you have, just like you would with a "real" mixer back in the day.

If you want to simplify, but want multitrack recording, I'd get a USB or Firewire interface like a Roland Octacapture, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, Tascam US-2000, or Steinberg MR816 (or RME Babyface, or M-Audio, or Presonus, or... or... or...) with as many channels and features as you need.

Typically what alot of project studio folks are doing is getting an 8-channel quality interface with:
- ADAT, to add additional channels like the popular Behringer ADA8000.
- Clean/transparent built-in preamps with a reasonable amount of gain to get started. As they grow, they start to add "color" preamps (GAP Pre73, Warm Audio WA12, ISA One/428, etc.)
- control surface to taste (sadly, this seems to be lacking for selection but you can find a Behringer BCF2000 for a cheap and it comes with motorized faders even; one of their better products, hands-down).

That essentially gets you to a point where source/mic, room, and skill are really the only thing separating you from producing quality recordings.

[rollsrock25]

Originally Posted by stella645

That mixer does not support multi channel recording!

Only the USB2.0FX I linked does.....which is why it's $100 more expensive.

You're the man.

I think this is probably going to be my best bet for the time being...

The only other question I have then would be what actually allows the DAW to read multiple outputs from the mixer? I would assume that there is a sound card in this mixer you are suggesting.

By "multi channel" support, I assume you mean I can select "Mixer Channel 1" on track 1 of the DAW (using the ASIO driver), "Mixer Channel 2" on track 2 of the DAW...and so on...

If so, your suggestion is spot on.

[Bill@WelcomeHome]

Originally Posted by rollsrock25

What would be the best analog mixer (in the price range of $100-250) that would allow for separate selectable inputs from the DAW, for example, if I wanted to record a drumset and be able to have the kick drum and snare drum on two separate channels? I'd need it to be USB powered. I don't need more than 4 XLR inputs.

EIE Pro $200, B&H

[stella645]

The only other question I have then would be what actually allows the DAW to read multiple outputs from the mixer? I would assume that there is a sound card in this mixer you are suggesting.

Yes, there is a built in audio interface.

By "multi channel" support, I assume you mean I can select "Mixer Channel 1" on track 1 of the DAW (using the ASIO driver), "Mixer Channel 2" on track 2 of the DAW...and so on...

Exactly.

Note that if you don't actually need the mixer features then a non mixer interface such as that Bill suggests above will work just as well....That Akai does look to be something of a bargain.
I suspect, though don't have experience of either device that this may be a better option quality wise.

[gravyface]

What Bill's suggesting and I (rather long-windingly) explained, you don't necessarily need a mixer to do multitrack recording.

Why are you looking for a mixer instead of an interface?

[rollsrock25]

Originally Posted by gravyface

What Bill's suggesting and I (rather long-windingly) explained, you don't necessarily need a mixer to do multitrack recording.

Why are you looking for a mixer instead of an interface?

I really wish you were there when I bought the Mackie Onyx 1620i last year! Your explanation of mixers and interfaces is awesome, but I think my confusion stems from the idea of how companies are advertising their mixers. I would have had to either call Alesis or read customer reviews to find out whether or not the Multimix mixers were capable of multichannel recording. I know it states that in the product description, but if I didn't know any better I'd just assume they are saying it has the ability to record four instruments at the same time simply because it has four XLR inputs; not that it can actually be fed to the DAW as four seperate channels.

It's almost like these companies need to figure out a universal way to advertise their DAW friendliness (Mackie does it fairly well with their Onyx mixers)...because you've really got to get to know your mixers and interfaces and do lots of research in order to even find out if it's capable of recording multiple tracks simultaneously. I would have never guessed that the difference between the USB and the USB 2.0 was that one supports it, and one does not.

To answer your question, I don't really NEED a "mixer"...but I really like that the options are there...and I like the idea of keeping things as analog as possible. I once owned a Digi 002, and while it's motorized faders and digital "cleanliness" was nice, I just don't like "control surfaces". I don't feel as if I have as much control over them, ironically. I also think it's a genius idea for companies to even conceive of a unit that can do the "all-in-one" kind of thing...use it on the road, use it to record, whatever! It could also be that the first mixer I ever bought was a Mackie CFX16. The reason I bought that thing was because it looked so big to be at the time...and all the buttons and dials made me feel smart. Yeah, I know.

Maybe you guys can get me to open my mind back up to control surfaces, or interfaces?

[gravyface]

Originally Posted by rollsrock25

I really wish you were there when I bought the Mackie Onyx 1620i last year! Your explanation of mixers and interfaces is awesome, but I think my confusion stems from the idea of how companies are advertising their mixers. I would have had to either call Alesis or read customer reviews to find out whether or not the Multimix mixers were capable of multichannel recording. I know it states that in the product description, but if I didn't know any better I'd just assume they are saying it has the ability to record four instruments at the same time simply because it has four XLR inputs; not that it can actually be fed to the DAW as four seperate channels.

It's almost like these companies need to figure out a universal way to advertise their DAW friendliness (Mackie does it fairly well with their Onyx mixers)...because you've really got to get to know your mixers and interfaces and do lots of research in order to even find out if it's capable of recording multiple tracks simultaneously. I would have never guessed that the difference between the USB and the USB 2.0 was that one supports it, and one does not.

To answer your question, I don't really NEED a "mixer"...but I really like that the options are there...and I like the idea of keeping things as analog as possible. I once owned a Digi 002, and while it's motorized faders and digital "cleanliness" was nice, I just don't like "control surfaces". I don't feel as if I have as much control over them, ironically. I also think it's a genius idea for companies to even conceive of a unit that can do the "all-in-one" kind of thing...use it on the road, use it to record, whatever! It could also be that the first mixer I ever bought was a Mackie CFX16. The reason I bought that thing was because it looked so big to be at the time...and all the buttons and dials made me feel smart. Yeah, I know.

Maybe you guys can get me to open my mind back up to control surfaces, or interfaces?

I can understand the allure of an analog mixer: hell, I've been dumping down my old 4-track cassette tapes using my Tascam M-308 board and it just feels "right", even though I wasn't doing any "mixing" on it.

Having said that, unless I'm planning on investing in outboard gear, the only "analog" mixer I'm considering would be the ZED R16 or the Mackie Onyx 1640i because they have true 16x16 simultaneous recording and routing back to the mixer so that you can record 16 concurrent tracks dry to the DAW, do some processing/clean-up (while using the Mackie as a control surface), and then route it back to the board (and back in again) for analog style EQing and mixdown (summing). That to me would be ideal; plus, it would make a nice travel/small venue board for live work while also giving us the ability to record shows to a laptop.

Outside of that, I see nothing else on the market that's not an interface (and within my budget) that interests me at all. I'd rather spend the money on mics, more treatment, and preamps and continue to work in the box until I feel that ITB is truly limiting me. Next up though is going to be a control surface: I do feel that when doing subtle tweaks I'm focussing on trying to click on the right spot and spin the pixel knob rather than listening intently on the changes. Maybe that's my lack of concentration but I find that when I have pots and knobs in my hand, I don't have to look at it, I can just reach for it and listen.

[Bill@WelcomeHome]

The other side of the coin and what caused me to dump 80 rack spaces of vintage outboard gear and three consoles: we were doing most of our work ITB, the console was a very large volume control for the 2 channels coming from the computer taking up a huge footprint and being an inconvenient reflective surface compromising the audio monitor setup to a degree, and basically being an underused asset. Remove the console, reset the whole work area to be a comfortable workspace with the audio monitors in the right places, and put 36 channels of mic pres in racks out of the way.

In my home setup I've got an old Mackie D8B which is being converted to a control surface via the D8Bridge software (not yet installed.) So I'm back to the 'console in my face' setup. I miss the more relaxed, open, and comfortable 'no console' setup. But most people want to set themselves at some sort of hulking desk/shelf/monitor arrangement anyway. For them I guess it doesn't matter. My situation at the moment is 15 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag. Unless I get rid of some more stuff, I'm stuck. But if I had a choice, .....