question about mixers,please help!

[host]

Greets,
early next week I need to buy a mixer and since this is my first one I need your opinions. I`m considering buying Mackie 1202 Vlz Pro with 4 stereo and 4 mono channels [1402 Vlz Pro with 4 stereo and 6 mono is a lttle bit to expensive at the moment for me and beside the number of channels and that it has volume sliders instead of knobs like 1202 there`s not much difference].
Since I saw that all the huge expensive mixers have only mono channels and that in the professional studios each synth is connected in 2 mono I was wondering will it make much of a difference if I have some of my or all of my synths connected in stereo channels while mixing? I have at the moment 3 hardware synths and a PC with 2in/2out soundcard and I`m not planning to have more that 4-5 hardware synths at most[!] in the future ..

I really need your help about this as this should be a one time purchase! So is 1402 with 2 more mono channels and volume sliders worth the extra money?

[Timo]

>>will it make much of a difference if I have some of my or all of my synths connected in stereo channels while mixing?

Possibly not. It depends on how many stereo sources you want to record. On the other hand I guess there's no reason why you couldn't use a stereo channel by putting one mono audio source into the L and another different audio source into the R, to make the stereo channels act as hard-panned mono channels, and using the 'balance' knob as a crossfader between the two if needs be.
The only problem in these cases is that you wont be able to pan these psuedo mono channels - they'll each be locked to hard-left or hard-right. So you couldn't really place something like the bass line into either the L or R of the stereo channels alone as it'd be completely lop-sided (bass should ideally be centrally panned), unless you sacrifice a whole stereo channel for the bass (ie. the bass going down both the L and R channels), or using on of the dedicated mono channels centrally-panned.
Having said that, most synths these days use stereo, so you could use the stereo channels on the mixer for inputting things like stereo pads/strings, other stereo instruments, effects and the like.

Personally I always think people should get as many channels as they can afford when looking at a mixer. Not only enough channels for all of their synths and other instruments, but having additional channels left over for additional creative uses. Things like parallel compression (making a duplicate of a channel and compressing one of the channels, and mixing it back with the original, for a fuller sound), psuedo stereo enhancements (taking a copy of the L and R of a couple of channels, inverting the phase, swapping the channels [ie. L > R, R > L], and mixing them back with the originals for a massive stereo field, albeit not very mono compatible if done excessively), or tape-echo based effects (using a delay on an auxillary effects send, then taking the outputs of the delay and putting running them back down their own channels on the mixer, enabling the use of EQ to sculpt the wet delay, and then gentley feeding this back to the delay auxillary for more feedback), or using the outputs of a reverb device and running the outputs back down an empty couple of channels to sculpt the EQ of the reverb's wetness, or sending it to more effects, etc.
There's no limits of creative things you can do with more channels. This also depends on how many aux sends, stereo returns, tape inputs, direct outs, and busses you have, etc.
See here for an excellent article on this: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1996...xerbusses.html

If you have two inputs per single mono channel (line/mic input, and a second Mix B input) that's another boon (like an "inline" mixer), as you can pretty much double up the number of channels that can enter the mixer, although only the main channels will normally be able to access the EQ and/or aux sends, etc.

I think anyone that wants to buy a mixer should first research what mixers are capable of, how they can be used, and understanding the terminology so they can understand the feature-set properly before buying one (ie. clearly understanding the differences between pre- and post-fade aux sends, etc.). Then sitting down, count up all their outputs from their synths that they think they might need, and also think what they need out of the mixer itself, ie. whether they would be happy to record things in a multi-pass way, building up the song in the computer bit by bit so they can maximise the features of the mixer for each musical part.. or whether they want to mix all the music all together in one, single-pass.

There are some good articles regarding the basic concepts of using a mixer on the SOS websites, in their article archive. Some articles I found using the briefest of searches:-

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997...eranatomy.html
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1994...eranatomy.html

I'm sure there are lots more on the site.

[Tomer=Trance]

Been there done that,
I would spend my money on a new soundcard with multiply inputs.
multi channel recording rules.

[F5D]

Originally Posted by Tomer=Trance

Been there done that,
I would spend my money on a new soundcard with multiply inputs.
multi channel recording rules.

I agree.

[djencode]

i have both, i run a mixer, plus i have multi in sound card. ultimately i don't want my ti to blow my speakers with an incidental satan saw (thank god it hasn't happened yet) and also hardware sends and eq is nice

[Tomer=Trance]

Originally Posted by djencode

i have both, i run a mixer, plus i have multi in sound card. ultimately i don't want my ti to blow my speakers with an incidental satan saw (thank god it hasn't happened yet) and also hardware sends and eq is nice

Get a dedicated volume controler (passive design is the best choice),
will do your signal chain only good and will protect you from good old Satan.

Steinberg's Nuendo\Cubase SX\SE&SL 3 offer hardware fx feature which allow you to use hardware effects as sends and inserts from inside the seq, great flexibility.

The eq on these budget units is just noisy, i prefer eqing ITB.

[Khazul]

Do both - maybe look at one of those new multi-channel mixers with audio interface?

Have a Yamaha 01x+i88x here - not sure I could stand going back to a regular mixer + sound card combo without spending some rediculous money (digital mixer, decent audio interface and a decent daw controller).

[djencode]

haha, well, i would hardly call the VLZ a budget mixer. it's more of a "PROsumer" as they call it. and from what i've heard the eq on it is excellent. it's no neve or solid state logic, but it's still quite good. also i want my synths to go through some circuitry before it hits my computer. more than just the sound card. gives it a warmer sound.

[Tomer=Trance]

Im telling you,i had been there.
you wont get analog warmth just additional noise to your signal chain.
if you want to warm it up with some real analog saturation run it thru some nice preamp DI.

[Timo]

Hardware mixer + audio does not automatically equal warmth.

However, yes, there may be something in "analogue summing" that software may not be able to presently match; yes, having a hardware mixer puts your head into the correct state of mind to mix in a correct fashion (taking care of the signal flow [setting correct nominal settings, et al] and headroom); yes, having a hardware mixer uses 0% DSP; and yes, depending on the mixer (ie. not behringer) it may give you a much smoother and more musical EQ...

On the other hand there are other major considerations to balance it out. Yes, it adds more noise; yes, you need loads of cables and considerations to correct wiring; yes, hardware mixers require ongoing maintenance; yes, there's no automation (unless you have more upmarket mixers with automated VCAs)...

But, it's fun! And all them VU meters bouncin around n stuff. And KNOBS! real ones! not crappy virtual ones that you scrat around a screen using a mouse while giving yourself RSI.

I decided to go for the best of both worlds. A computer with a multi-channel i/o soundcard and a hardware mixer, bringing out samples and streams from the computer onto the desk, mixing them with the hardware synths, and pushing them back into the computer for effects and stuff. As well as using the mixer's extra channels for creative stuff.

However, there is the ideology that using a computer to mix can give equally if not better results, you just need to know how to use it properly and get rid of previous entrenched, ingrained (mis)conceptions about mixing (ie. feeling the "need to get as close to 0dB without clipping when tracking in order to obtain the best SNR (when using 24-bits)" << that's one of the biggest, along with "must normalise, must normalise").

If you use a software mixer as if you would a hardware one, then you're going down the correct road.

To Normalise, or not to Normalise

Analogue summing [Neve 8816]

Forum thread regards an article written by a certain "Roger Nichols", regards analogue vs. digital. (The actual article of which is below \/ )

"I (supposedly) heard the mixing buss in Pro Tools is no good. Everyone says I should mix through an external analogue summing buss??" - A frequently asked question answered by Roger Nichols.

Roger Nichols: How to mix

If ever you want to learn about analogue and especially digital, and the misconceptions of each, follow this man around like a bad smell:- [Hugh Robjohns] (Sound On Sound technical editor)