Decent Console + Fulcrum VS Midrange Console

The Greening · 9th June 2005

If a lower console was only used for it's mixing purposes and maybe a slight bit of EQ, would it be sufficient, perhaps better than a more midrange console (midrange in my case is a Midas Venice 160)? **The console preamps would only be used for toms and room, outboard would be used for everything else.

What do you all think, would the ratio of 'cost:sound' be improved by buying a Allen and Heath (GL3, GL2200, other $800-1500), SoundCraft (Ghost, 200, Spirit, etc), TAC Scorpion (or other recommended lower end boards) and combining 16 direct outs into a Fulcrum RMS216

or

Would it be better to go with a Midas Venice 160?

Why the consideration:
1. I'd like a mixing board to patch and mix outboard effects on.
2. A little EQ for the final balance.
3. General feel and studio features

*Trying find the right balance between expenditure and sonics. You people are professionals with experience and your opinions know-how are valued, so thanks!

Will

ziegenh5 · 9th June 2005

I'm not sure I understand. You're comparing a midrange console(Venice) to a low end console and Folcrom combination? Why would you pair any console with the folcrom? Just for more eq's? I'd say either stick with the folcrom and get outboard as budget allows or ditch the folcrom and get the best analog console you can afford. I'd lean towards the analog console myself.
Sean

Ziggy!! · 9th June 2005

The question has to many variables to give a direct response because of the number of consoles that fall under the mid and low range... but i will say that summing is not the only aspect of a console. You have line amps, eq's, gain stages, faders, aux, pans, preamps, etc, etc... Each one effects the way the console sounds.

Dont try and polish a turd. Get something that doesn't have that funky smell to begin with.

Jules · 9th June 2005

I am more in favor of

a small footprint DAW control surface + a summing box (like a Fulcrum)
+ enough outboard mic pres & EQ's for tracking
using a FEW of those eq's at mixdown stage & doing the rest in the DAW with plug ins

I don't want a budget console sitting there

hissing & adding noise
with underwhelming eq's
crappy mic pre's
with no fader or mute automation possibilities
taking up space in my small control room

In reality I don't use much outboard EQ when I mix, I do 99% of that with plug in's..

So I advocate individual outboard pre/eq acquisition

The better you track it, the less manipulation it needs later..

(plus outboard classics will hold their value more than a budget desk)

The Greening · 9th June 2005

Thanks. I was unaware about how much the other stages of a console might add noise, but I guess it's pretty obvious. However, if I decided to not go the console route, what would you suggest for cases where I'd need to bus two sounds together before hitting a AD converter (i.e. a top and bottom drum mic)? Are there separate pieces of gear that can perform similar mixer functions -- perhaps providing knobs or faders for volume balance, but not muck up the signal?

I've seen miniature cheap units aimed at 4-trackers for drum mixing (blending 8 mics to one mono source), but I don't know that their quality would be that great. Additionally, if I decided to out of the DAW to a fulcrum and wanted to hit some outboard compression or EQ on a given stereo stem before the final sum, what would be the best way to balance the various stems' volumes post effect (assuming that sending a maximum DAW signal insures the best sound representation, rather than just turning down the internal signal)? I suppose you could always just play with the make-up gain on the given compressor or graphic EQ...but immediate volume mixing is always more tempting than reaching to a bunch of different rackmounts.

If there are flaws in the logic, point them out. Thanks.

Will

warhead · 9th June 2005

Jules, do you use all outboard preamps during tracking? No console at all?

War

Jules · 9th June 2005

No console, I use all this stuff

Outboard

2 x ch Neve 1073 mic pre / eq’s
4 x ch Helios mic pre / eq’s
4 x ch API mic pre
2 x ch Focusrite 215 pre / eq’s
2 x ch TLA EQ1 mic pre / eq’s valve
1 x ch TLA 5051 mic pre / eq / compressor valve
4 x ch NTI night Pro mic pre / eq’s
2 x ch Chiswick Reach Earlybird valve mic pre
2 x ch Tube Tech EQP1 valve eq
1 x ch Trident 9669 – eq

Compression / limiting

2 x ch Dbx 160 vu compressors
2 x ch Dbx 902 De-essers
1 x ch UA 1176 limiter
1 x ch ADR vocal Stresser
2 x ch SSL compressor
2 x ch Distressor compressor
4 x ch SPL Transient Designer compressor
2 x ch Cranesong STC8 compressor
2 x ch Joe Meek SC3 compressor

Shaman · 9th June 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules

I am more in favor of

a small footprint DAW control surface + a summing box (like a Fulcrum)
+ enough outboard mic pres & EQ's for tracking
using a FEW of those eq's at mixdown stage & doing the rest in the DAW with plug ins

I don't want a budget console sitting there

hissing & adding noise
with underwhelming eq's
crappy mic pre's
with no fader or mute automation possibilities
taking up space in my small control room

In reality I don't use much outboard EQ when I mix, I do 99% of that with plug in's..

So I advocate individual outboard pre/eq acquisition

The better you track it, the less manipulation it needs later..

(plus outboard classics will hold their value more than a budget desk)

Dito - Couldn´t say it much better ! thumbsup

Unless you´re not buying an SSL AWS 900, a small API desk or a Neve BCM 10 sidecar you´re surpassing everything in the midrange market with above mentioned setup + great mics and great converters !

I guess Jules kind of pioneered this kind of hybrid studio model with PT/controller/summing box/lots of outboard.

Jules · 9th June 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greening

what would you suggest for cases where I'd need to bus two sounds together before hitting a AD converter (i.e. a top and bottom drum mic)? Are there separate pieces of gear that can perform similar mixer functions -- perhaps providing knobs or faders for volume balance, but not muck up the signal?

I bought a 4 into 1 Pultec valve mixer second hand, that is handy for 'combining' things

But why not record it to a seperate channel?

Here is my 'track sheet' for a rock band

Inner kick
Outer kick
Top Snare
Bottom Snare
OH L
OH R
HH
Room L
Room R
Tom
Tom
Bass Di
Bass Amp
Gtr 1
Gtr 2
G vox

!6 inputs

Teacher · 9th June 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jules

I am more in favor of

a small footprint DAW control surface + a summing box (like a Fulcrum)
+ enough outboard mic pres & EQ's for tracking
using a FEW of those eq's at mixdown stage & doing the rest in the DAW with plug ins

I don't want a budget console sitting there

hissing & adding noise
with underwhelming eq's
crappy mic pre's
with no fader or mute automation possibilities
taking up space in my small control room

In reality I don't use much outboard EQ when I mix, I do 99% of that with plug in's..

So I advocate individual outboard pre/eq acquisition

The better you track it, the less manipulation it needs later..

(plus outboard classics will hold their value more than a budget desk)

werd

The Greening · 10th June 2005

Jules -- thanks for the feedback. For the longest time I assumed I'd be doing all my work ITB, but after reading about outboard summing and the like, I started wondering about other options. Would you say that the Fulcrum has made a significant difference in your sound? By chance, is there any way I could check out some of the work you've done? As I'm imagining a similar setup (albeit not quite the extensive gear line up at this point), I'd like to hear the possibilities. I just ordered a summing CD from 3Daudio to get an idea over whether or not I'm stressing this point to death for no reason.

Well, my planned setup at this point is to use a Apogee Rosetta 800 (only 8 ins), which is perfect, because I'll be hitting an Ampex 440 8trk 1-inch first, and then coming off the repro head (this way, future tracks are delayed the same rate when they get to the computer). It's a budget way to get a decent tape sound across the board (well, at least I'm a fan of the 440s, can't speak for all), but comes with limitations. So, bussing for drums is necessary in my case if I decide to multiple mic drums.

As is the case, what would you do if going my path, in terms of recording drums? Are X-to-1 units generally crap? Any recommendations? I understand my approach might seem rediculous to some, but like said, it's sound that we pursue and I happen to dig on the tape. Thanks.

Will

Jules · 10th June 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaman

I guess Jules kind of pioneered this kind of hybrid studio model with PT/controller/summing box/lots of outboard.

No way! Don't give me credit for that...

(runs and hides to live in cave in Borneo)

Jules · 10th June 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greening

Jules -- thanks for the feedback. For the longest time I assumed I'd be doing all my work ITB, but after reading about outboard summing and the like, I started wondering about other options. Would you say that the Fulcrum has made a significant difference in your sound? By chance, is there any way I could check out some of the work you've done? As I'm imagining a similar setup (albeit not quite the extensive gear line up at this point), I'd like to hear the possibilities. I just ordered a summing CD from 3Daudio to get an idea over whether or not I'm stressing this point to death for no reason.

Well, my planned setup at this point is to use a Apogee Rosetta 800 (only 8 ins), which is perfect, because I'll be hitting an Ampex 440 8trk 1-inch first, and then coming off the repro head (this way, future tracks are delayed the same rate when they get to the computer). It's a budget way to get a decent tape sound across the board (well, at least I'm a fan of the 440s, can't speak for all), but comes with limitations. So, bussing for drums is necessary in my case if I decide to multiple mic drums.

As is the case, what would you do if going my path, in terms of recording drums? Are X-to-1 units generally crap? Any recommendations? I understand my approach might seem rediculous to some, but like said, it's sound that we pursue and I happen to dig on the tape. Thanks.

Will

Hmmmm...

Why dont you spell out your mic combining needs... what do you need to blend?

And list your mic pre's

Perhaps a Soundcraft M12 or something might fit the bill.. Or little Amek broadcast desk...Are there any litle desks that catch your eye?

I've spent my time developing 'tapeless' work methods, you will have to forgive me if your plan to integrate a 8 track tape machine has me scratching my head... I am sure there are other folks doing the same.... someone will know..!

You can hear some of my reccent work here http://www.munkster.co.uk/johnson/a&r/index.htm Some of these tracks will go towards an album I will finish with the band later this year.

Rednose · 20th March 2006

go for a midrange console.
The pres and eqs will be workable and you'll get better tracks to daw.
you can allways get some great pres and a patch bay.
Good luck!
Matt

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greening

If a lower console was only used for it's mixing purposes and maybe a slight bit of EQ, would it be sufficient, perhaps better than a more midrange console (midrange in my case is a Midas Venice 160)? **The console preamps would only be used for toms and room, outboard would be used for everything else.

What do you all think, would the ratio of 'cost:sound' be improved by buying a Allen and Heath (GL3, GL2200, other $800-1500), SoundCraft (Ghost, 200, Spirit, etc), TAC Scorpion (or other recommended lower end boards) and combining 16 direct outs into a Fulcrum RMS216

or

Would it be better to go with a Midas Venice 160?

Why the consideration:
1. I'd like a mixing board to patch and mix outboard effects on.
2. A little EQ for the final balance.
3. General feel and studio features

*Trying find the right balance between expenditure and sonics. You people are professionals with experience and your opinions know-how are valued, so thanks!

Will

Andrew Kinsey · 28th October 2009

What you can do is take a mid range console that has direct outs on every channel, and use the direct outs of the console to feed the Folcrom. By doing this you will be able to use the faders, eq, and sends on the console but the main mix will not be degraded by all those chips in the desk's master section.

Bassmankr · 28th October 2009

Or just pick a desk that has a great master 2 buss or one that you can mod to be great. If you are getting most of what you want during tracking then Jules approach makes the most sense (short path, a few tools where you need them at the mix stage). If on the other hand you have alot more tracks or tend to do much more outboard sound sculpting at the mix stage then the flexability of using desk/outboard/patchbay could be to your advantage (short and long audio paths). Not having automation on a desk is not the big deal it once was as some of that can easily be automated with the DAW. Recall may be a big deal though and should be a factor in your decision. If fast recall is very important and you want the advantages of a desk then research the digitally controlled analog desks. Is your 8 channel Rosetta your only converter? Remember you will need lots ot D/A with a big desk at mixdown.

JCRockit · 28th October 2009

ummmmmm I just picked up a D&R Dayner here. Its quiet, totally usable EQ, pres, no HISS or all the other negative crap aforementioned. 2 buss is wide , deep and detailed. BTW even crappy hardware EQ usually blows the doors off of ITB plugs. Midas Venice is a nice punchy console but with limited routing options. There are many other consoles out there that are far from "low end" that are absolute bargains in the current environment.

9th June 2005	#1
The Greening Gear Head Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 71 Thread Starter	Decent Console + Fulcrum VS Midrange Console If a lower console was only used for it's mixing purposes and maybe a slight bit of EQ, would it be sufficient, perhaps better than a more midrange console (midrange in my case is a Midas Venice 160)? *The console preamps would only be used for toms and room, outboard would be used for everything else. What do you all think, would the ratio of 'cost:sound' be improved by buying a Allen and Heath (GL3, GL2200, other $800-1500), SoundCraft (Ghost, 200, Spirit, etc), TAC Scorpion (or other recommended lower end boards) and combining 16 direct outs into a Fulcrum RMS216 or Would it be better to go with a Midas Venice 160? Why the consideration: 1. I'd like a mixing board to patch and mix outboard effects on. 2. A little EQ for the final balance. 3. General feel and studio features Trying find the right balance between expenditure and sonics. You people are professionals with experience and your opinions know-how are valued, so thanks! Will

9th June 2005	#4
Jules Gearslutz.com admin Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A Yank in London, UK Posts: 17,356 1 Review written	I am more in favor of a small footprint DAW control surface + a summing box (like a Fulcrum) + enough outboard mic pres & EQ's for tracking using a FEW of those eq's at mixdown stage & doing the rest in the DAW with plug ins I don't want a budget console sitting there hissing & adding noise with underwhelming eq's crappy mic pre's with no fader or mute automation possibilities taking up space in my small control room In reality I don't use much outboard EQ when I mix, I do 99% of that with plug in's.. So I advocate individual outboard pre/eq acquisition The better you track it, the less manipulation it needs later.. (plus outboard classics will hold their value more than a budget desk) __________________ Jules Add your reviews to the new reviews area! Gearslutz on Facebook Follow my GS picks on Twitter

28th October 2009	#15
Andrew Kinsey Lives for gear Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: London Posts: 743	What you can do is take a mid range console that has direct outs on every channel, and use the direct outs of the console to feed the Folcrom. By doing this you will be able to use the faders, eq, and sends on the console but the main mix will not be degraded by all those chips in the desk's master section. __________________ Best Wishes, Andrew Kinsey High End Audio Equipment Specialists In the UK & Europe

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Decent console vs one awesome pre?	davetron5000	Low End Theory	17	18th May 2006 08:05 PM
Decent console or a really nice pre?	davetron5000	So much gear, so little time!	0	11th May 2006 06:48 PM
Recording console VS Live console?	Jack Meov	Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording	6	11th August 2005 02:29 AM
TG and API summing vs. full API console:sonically console wins	RoundBadge	So much gear, so little time!	22	6th June 2005 11:48 PM
midrange console or summing box?	Unknown soldier	So much gear, so little time!	7	29th May 2005 03:32 PM

9th June 2005	#2
ziegenh5 Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 826	I'm not sure I understand. You're comparing a midrange console(Venice) to a low end console and Folcrom combination? Why would you pair any console with the folcrom? Just for more eq's? I'd say either stick with the folcrom and get outboard as budget allows or ditch the folcrom and get the best analog console you can afford. I'd lean towards the analog console myself. Sean

9th June 2005	#3
Ziggy!! Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,319	The question has to many variables to give a direct response because of the number of consoles that fall under the mid and low range... but i will say that summing is not the only aspect of a console. You have line amps, eq's, gain stages, faders, aux, pans, preamps, etc, etc... Each one effects the way the console sounds. Dont try and polish a turd. Get something that doesn't have that funky smell to begin with.

9th June 2005	#6
warhead Jai guru deva om Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: South Carolina Posts: 11,910	Jules, do you use all outboard preamps during tracking? No console at all? War

9th June 2005	#7
Jules Gearslutz.com admin Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A Yank in London, UK Posts: 17,356 1 Review written	No console, I use all this stuff Outboard 2 x ch Neve 1073 mic pre / eq’s 4 x ch Helios mic pre / eq’s 4 x ch API mic pre 2 x ch Focusrite 215 pre / eq’s 2 x ch TLA EQ1 mic pre / eq’s valve 1 x ch TLA 5051 mic pre / eq / compressor valve 4 x ch NTI night Pro mic pre / eq’s 2 x ch Chiswick Reach Earlybird valve mic pre 2 x ch Tube Tech EQP1 valve eq 1 x ch Trident 9669 – eq Compression / limiting 2 x ch Dbx 160 vu compressors 2 x ch Dbx 902 De-essers 1 x ch UA 1176 limiter 1 x ch ADR vocal Stresser 2 x ch SSL compressor 2 x ch Distressor compressor 4 x ch SPL Transient Designer compressor 2 x ch Cranesong STC8 compressor 2 x ch Joe Meek SC3 compressor

10th June 2005	#11
The Greening Gear Head Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 71 Thread Starter	Jules -- thanks for the feedback. For the longest time I assumed I'd be doing all my work ITB, but after reading about outboard summing and the like, I started wondering about other options. Would you say that the Fulcrum has made a significant difference in your sound? By chance, is there any way I could check out some of the work you've done? As I'm imagining a similar setup (albeit not quite the extensive gear line up at this point), I'd like to hear the possibilities. I just ordered a summing CD from 3Daudio to get an idea over whether or not I'm stressing this point to death for no reason. Well, my planned setup at this point is to use a Apogee Rosetta 800 (only 8 ins), which is perfect, because I'll be hitting an Ampex 440 8trk 1-inch first, and then coming off the repro head (this way, future tracks are delayed the same rate when they get to the computer). It's a budget way to get a decent tape sound across the board (well, at least I'm a fan of the 440s, can't speak for all), but comes with limitations. So, bussing for drums is necessary in my case if I decide to multiple mic drums. As is the case, what would you do if going my path, in terms of recording drums? Are X-to-1 units generally crap? Any recommendations? I understand my approach might seem rediculous to some, but like said, it's sound that we pursue and I happen to dig on the tape. Thanks. Will

28th October 2009	#16
Bassmankr Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,646	Or just pick a desk that has a great master 2 buss or one that you can mod to be great. If you are getting most of what you want during tracking then Jules approach makes the most sense (short path, a few tools where you need them at the mix stage). If on the other hand you have alot more tracks or tend to do much more outboard sound sculpting at the mix stage then the flexability of using desk/outboard/patchbay could be to your advantage (short and long audio paths). Not having automation on a desk is not the big deal it once was as some of that can easily be automated with the DAW. Recall may be a big deal though and should be a factor in your decision. If fast recall is very important and you want the advantages of a desk then research the digitally controlled analog desks. Is your 8 channel Rosetta your only converter? Remember you will need lots ot D/A with a big desk at mixdown.

28th October 2009	#17
JCRockit Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 986	ummmmmm I just picked up a D&R Dayner here. Its quiet, totally usable EQ, pres, no HISS or all the other negative crap aforementioned. 2 buss is wide , deep and detailed. BTW even crappy hardware EQ usually blows the doors off of ITB plugs. Midas Venice is a nice punchy console but with limited routing options. There are many other consoles out there that are far from "low end" that are absolute bargains in the current environment.