API 8200 summing line mixer

[s2n]

API 8200 summing line mixer. An alternative to the D2B? It certainly can do more. $1995 list.
More info here: http://www.apiaudio.com/pdfs/8200brochure.pdf

[vtone]

Originally posted by s2n
API 8200 summing line mixer. An alternative to the D2B? It certainly can do more. $1995 list.

yeah, I'd like to hear from users what they think. ie, how does it sound?

[vtone]

Originally posted by s2n
$1995 list

another thing to consider is that it's 2k for 8 channels... the d2b is 16 channels.

[hollywood_steve]

Uh, I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but have you noticed any master controls or even a two bus output on the 8200? Everything that I have read/heard seems to indicate that it was designed to be utilized with the 7800 master section (and that adds a quick $3k to the price)

Please prove me wrong, because I could really use a sub-$2k API line mixer.

steve
lex125@pacbell.net

[Fletcher]

I don't believe the 8200 has been released yet... so it's kind of a moot point until it has [if it's as cool as the 3124MB+, then it'll be a beautiful thing... if it ain't... well then it ain't... but nobody knows until it's been released]

[Jules]

Sheesh talking about taking their time!

API were rumoured to be thinking of DAW summing solutions 3 years ago!

That you can stack em up looks to be a cool option.

[NathanEldred]

From what I understand the 8200 is supposed to be a departure from traditional API design, and is said to be completely colorless with no transformers in the path.

[Nutmeg II.]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
From what I understand the 8200 is supposed to be a departure from traditional API design, and is said to be completely colorless with no transformers in the path.

Who wants API to build something colorless?!?
I realy hope they don't go the way Neve did with his designs!!!evileye

[NathanEldred]

Originally posted by Nutmeg II.
Who wants API to build something colorless?!?

That's direct from the source.

[hollywood_steve]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nutmeg II.
Who wants API to build something colorless?!?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's direct from the source.
**************************

Well, "colorless" will now be subjective, because there is a variation complete with 2520 and transformer. Here is Paul Wolff's email reply to my recent inquiry about the 8200. (used with permission) This thing is starting to sound like the solution to many different problems.
**************************

(PW) Well, I'm gonna make you happier than a pig in shit... See below for replies...

(HS) Surprised that my post to a newsgroup travels so far & wide; but it has to be a good thing that manufacturers and end users get to communicate like this. Since I've inadvertently got your attention, here are few obvious questions that many of us have been wondering about:

(PW) I have spies everywhere. I constantly monitor the rectal temp of the industry through newsgroups. It's the only place that gets down to half degrees...

(HS) 1. Can the 8200 be utilized as a "stand-alone" line level mixer? Can I connect several of my mic preamps to the 8200's inputs and then take a stereo output from the 8200 directly to tape?

(PW) Yes it can. It is called option -02 and it has ICs for the sends outputs, ICs for the solo outputs and 2520s and transformers for the stereo outputs. At that point, you basically have summing outs, but no master controls. It can then be linked with as many 8200s or 7600s as you want. It will not be linkable with the 7800 unless you remove (unplug) the internal amps.

(HS) 2. The PDF file states that all I/O is on the rear panel, but it does not describe the format of the I/O, other than to mention that there is a DB25 connector. What are the line level input connectors? Are there Direct Outputs from each channel and what format? How about the Balanced Inserts, are they on XLR, TRS or ???

(PW) All I/O except the stereo outs are DB25 with the standard Tascam pinout. The stereo option has XLR.

(HS) The 8200 appears to be a remarkably well-featured product and the integration with the 7800 offers the possibility of a real API console to folks who could never even dream of a Legacy. But many of us were just looking for the mixer from the 3124M without the mic preamps. Just a simple 4x2, 6x2 or 8x2 line level mixer that we could use with our existing mic preamps to generate a high quality stereo output without lugging a console around. Maybe you can someone provide that functionality in the 8200? If not, it seems like a very easy product to derive from the 3124M.

(PW) But wait, there's more... Option -01 brings the wipers of the level controls out for use as direct outputs into a recorder when you need level controls.

(HS) Thanks for showing an interest in your customers concerns. There are large numbers of us with racks filled with 500 series modules and a simple line level ONLY (no mic preamps) mixer is just what we need. The API 3124M and the ATI 8x2 mixer are great products but many of us do not need more mic preamps, we need some way to sum the preamps we already have.

(PW) That is exactly why I designed it. I'm going to use them for 24 additional inputs into my 36 in API console.
Paul
*****************

so, them's the real facts, straight from the man.

[NathanEldred]

Option '02' must have been very recently added to the plan. When I talked to Paul about it a couple of weeks ago, the 8200 was supposed to be a departure from previous API designs, basically a 'straight through' kind of idea, like the Dangerous. Depending on how much the tranny option is, you could easily build your own box with Transformers of your choice for about $150 or less (for something like Lundahls or Sowters, both of which seem to be my preference these days).

[digiman]

Come on API....Why does this have to be so difficult??? I'm so confused after this thread that I am really starting to lose interest in the product, altogether. All I'm looking for is a line mixer/summing buss ala the Manely 16 x 2 and SBM2 that will serve 2 functions:

1) a line mixer with direct outs on each channel to allow me to track using the DI inputs as a front end into PT.

2) a summing buss that will allow me to bypass PT summing buss for mixing down to stereo.

Can the 8200 stand alone acheive this or what combination of other units do I need to get to get these results.

I need 16 channels of i/o and no preamps are necessary?

Please help this make sense to me without having to have a PhD in electronic engineering?

[faeflora]

WHOA IT'S CHEAP. AND IT'S AN API. well most API gear is priced lower than compartive products.


But I'm gonna get one baybeeee!

dfegad

Oh yahhhh!

[chap]

On a similar note - the fellas at Dangerous Music are releasing an 8 x 2 line mixer that will directly interface with both the Dangerous Monitor and the Dangerous 2 Buss. I have the prototype and it sounds great and works flawlessly.
It also does not color the sound (don't we all have stuff that does that?)
So....bye, bye console .Audio quality and flexibility are better. Now I have a place to put the whiskey.
cheers

[doug_hti]

Originally posted by chap
On a similar note - the fellas at Dangerous Music are releasing an 8 x 2 line mixer
cheers

When is the dangerous 8x2 release? any word on retail price?

When is the API expected release?

Are these really making a difference??? I don't care about the what does what, what can't do what....just, does it seem easier to "gel" a mix or take out the mush without raping individual tracks of EQ, especially with higher track counts?
I've finally gotten descent result on PTHD, but I still feel like there is maybe a bit much manipulation going on to get from point A to point B.

[chap]

Depending on what you do to the tracks, the D2Buss can make a subtle or huge difference. Either way it is a sonic improvement. I think my PT mixes are less claustrephobic with a tighter low end and better imaging.
The Dangerous guys can explain from a technical point in a much more articulate fashion than I can.
As a full time musician/producer, I can tell you it's changed the way I mix.(and master)
cheers,
chap

www.dangerousmusic.com

[NathanEldred]

Originally posted by doug_hti

Are these really making a difference??? I don't care about the what does what, what can't do what....just, does it seem easier to "gel" a mix or take out the mush without raping individual tracks of EQ, especially with higher track counts?
I've finally gotten descent result on PTHD, but I still feel like there is maybe a bit much manipulation going on to get from point A to point B.

Doug,

It's ALL about summing in the analog realm to my ears in the here and now. Maybe it will be different in the future, but I personally think that digital has 6-10 years before it's going to catch up to the sonics of mixing on a good desk. Or maybe it will never really catch up. But I'm still having a hard time understanding why the industry has felt a need to push ahead with immature technologies. Economics and convenience is my theory. But for professional AE's, we really shouldn't have to be subjected to the trickle up technology (after all, didn't this shit start on the consumer level?).

It's not just about bits and sample rates. It's not even a traditional 'analog vs digital' debate. There is no WOW factor involved here, just the capability of great audio or on the flip side only having the capability to work your ass off for merely decent results. Like you said you've "finally gotten decent results"...I think with the substantial time and finances we all have involved, we all deserve great results. I've heard this common story so many times about how hard AE's have to work to get it to sound really good in the box...I think it's a hell of a lot of time wasted when there are easier tradtional methods to be had. If it ain't broke, why is it trying to be fixed?

And if someone out there is getting what they feel are satisfactory results out of mixing in the box, then more power to them. If I take a good track that I know would sound great, say just running from preamp to console to speaker, then take that same track and run it through an A/D then out of the computers summing bus...it sounds thin and destroyed. And the A/D is not nearly the bulk of the problem. I'm getting great results with three overall conversions....A/D to the recorder, D/A into the console, summed to analog reel to A/D to Masterlink via HEDD.

There seems to be something else going on that I myself am not knowledgable enough to even come close to understanding on a technical level, but I hear it. Maybe a programmer or math whiz can explain it in simple terms. I would rather record to 24/48 with a great front end and mix on an analog console (or something like the Dangerous, etc), than record to 2 inch, transfer into the computer, and stay/mix there. Maybe somebody can explain to me why Alsihad is the leading format in today's studio world? Why does everyone put up with the overpriced format, a PITA proprietary hardware, a snail paced r&d department, and an upgrade path that leaves it's most loyal customer base in the dust? Just give me some great musicians, a high count multitrack DSD recorder with the ability to internally submix, and a baby API or 9098 and I'll be happy.

[Funbags]

I have a friend at API. He tells me they're shipping out an initial order of 8200's now. From what he tells me, He's seen more interest in this box than anything the company's done in a while.
I guess we'll have to wait and see but it looks like this could be a great solution for those of us that have to work digitally ( that would be most of us I imagine)......

Funbags

[vtone]

hey chap

do you mix with the dangerous 2buss in line or do you mix in pro tools and then send you mix to the d2b?

thanks