quote:

Originally posted by spacetrip What are the advantages of using an external mixing desk with MIDI software? - I ask this because most programme have a mixer interface built in. I know you can connect extra instruments using a desk but surely a MIDI (input) box would be an alternative. Thanks.

It adds analog.




On a more serious note, there really aren't many advantages. Pretty much, your summing is continuous if the mixer is analog, which can make for differences on scales that can only be heard at volumes louder than most would care to listen at, and that's only if your sounds aren't digital to begin with. If the mixer is digital, the summing is done in the computer anyway, so it's no real difference.

They do add a sense of more direct control over levels and such, though, which can be nice as far as making multiple independent adjustments at once. It also adds a tactile element which is good for a more emotional connection with what you're doing.

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex It adds analog. They do add a sense of more direct control over levels and such, though, which can be nice as far as making multiple independent adjustments at once. It also adds a tactile element which is good for a more emotional connection with what you're doing.

well said. I totally agree.

___________________
My Space

quote:

Originally posted by callme I've always meant to ask this....who the fuck are you? I mean i have never heard of you or the 5 friends you have on your myspace. Official info : chokeonit

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex only if your sounds aren't digital to begin with

So digital is immune to analog effects?

quote:

Originally posted by Synchronicity So digital is immune to analog effects?

No. The nature of the sounds themselves change when converting from digital to analog, so analog summing of digital sounds actually distorts the original sound, so your summing is in fact less true to the original sounds. On the other hand, summing analog signals in digital will distort the orignal sounds, so the same process is reversed.

It's all moot, though, when you consider that the distortions are well above the average range of human hearing.

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

Having an analog patchbay (which you could technically use a mixing desk as) can be nice if you're into crazy effects. It can be a bit of a kludge to get proper loopback and good routing capabilities on a consumer-grade sound card - although most of the higher-end sound modules have enough ins/outs to take care of this without requiring a full mixer or patchbay.

Still, I wouldn't recommend it. A mixing desk is going to be a lot more expensive than any of those high-end sound modules, and it's really kind of silly - there are so many better ways to spend your money.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

OK, so here's my question about that, DigiNut:

(This is really just an advice question from you, forgive me for being long-winded)

So if I have 4 hardware synths:

JP-8080 - 1 stereo out
Access Virus - 3 stereo outs
JV-1080 - 3 stereo outs
Proteus 2000 - 3 stereo outs

Thats a total of 10 stereo outs.

In addition to that I have 3 hardware effects processors.

So considering my hardware setup, I'm thining about getting a Mackie 1604 Mixer, that has 16 channels. This allows me to use all the outputs on the synths plus have 4 aux busses for hardware effects and additional channels for expansion.

The question is: Is there a better way to connect all this gear?

I mean, a 1604 is like $700. I could go with a audio interface with multiple inputs, but the only ones I have seen that have more than 16 inputs are the MOTU ones, and those are in the 4 figure range. In addition, an audio interface doesn't have any AUX busses for the hardware effects processors.

What do you think?

Eric, I'll answer that question as best I can, although I admit I'm not a huge gearhead so you may have to take it with a grain of salt. Anyway, here goes.

Is there a cheaper way? That depends on what you actually planning on doing with all that gear. Do you need to crank audio out of all of it, simultaneously, or do you generally record one track or a few tracks at a time like most of us do? Think carefully about that and, if it's the second choice, consider that a $50 patchbay might be almost as useful when it comes to your workflow (all you'd really have to do is move two short cables by 1 inch to change what you're recording). A mixer won't help you record them all at once anyway, it'll just allow you to play them all and record... the mix.

So maybe you could get away a lot cheaper. But if that's not for you, then no, you're not going to find a sound module with that many ins/outs for under $1500, and the mixer will cost the least.

The question you should be asking though (IMO) isn't just "what's the cheapest way to connect it all". You should be asking "what do I need, and what do each of the options offer?" Keep in mind that you're getting what you pay for. That $750 mixer offers a lot less than the $1500 MOTU 2408mk3 and/or 24I/O:

1. As I mentioned earlier, the mixer won't enable you to record all of those instruments at once. An appropriate sound module will.

2. Audio interfaces may not have aux outs per se, but they have virtual mixers which will enable you to configure any port as an sidechain (aux). In addition, you can set up internal ASIO strips the same way, which would allow you to put software effects in the middle of the "chain", effectively giving you the best of both worlds. Bring your JP into the interface, stick your favourite distortion/delay/whatever on it, then route it back to your hardware compressor.

3. A good audio interface will also give you digital I/O (ADAT, S/PDIF, etc.). This may or may not matter to you; I personally have a digital receiver on the output connected via S/PDIF, and there are all sorts of digital sources you might want to capture some time in the future. There's no noise and no loss of quality when you use digital connections, as opposed to analog. Who knows, future gear may have digital outs or maybe some current gear already does.

4. Unless your studio is entirely hardware, you already have to spend money on an audio interface, and you're probably going to want one that's high quality if you plan on recording, even from a mixer. You probably already have one, but still, if you're comparing costs, you ought to subtract what you already paid for your current audio interface to be "fair".

All said, it really just depends on what you're trying to do, as I said earlier. The main problem with using a mixer is that it kind of ties you to the hardware side. It's not easy to have hardware and software instruments/effects coexist this way, as it is with a higher-end audio interface, but that may not be something you care about.

If you want to record individual tracks from all that gear, and you want to be able to easily mix hardware and software, you should seriously consider a good audio interface even though the cost is higher. If you don't care about any of that, by all means, go for the mixer - it's definitely the cheaper option.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Thanks Digi, that's what I was looking for.

You are spot on about my workflow. I record one track at a time once I have my parts and arrangement framework more or less completed. It's only during the writing and sound design phase where I ever use the multitimbral aspects of my hardware synths, and that's assuming I'm not using a softsynth for a particular part.

I think in the long run you are right. I think the smart option is to go with the 24IO first. That way, I have the PCI-424 card and I can expand the setup later with other compatible MOTU audio gear if it becomes necessary. I think this will give me maximum flexibility as I'll have 12 stereo channels for the 4 hardware synths and 3 FX processors, all of which can be routed using the CueMix software. If I need digital in the future, I can simply add the 2408mk3 to the setup and I have S/PDIF, TDIF, an extra 8 analog channels, and more on the 2408mk3. Brilliant.

I wasn't aware that you can use CueMix to route hardware signals through software plugins. Thats something I have been wanting for some time now, and once you mentioned it, it made complete sense. Sometimes it can be hard to get that kind of information when doing research on the manufacturers web site without lots of digging. I was definitely looking to upgrade my audio interface anyway, as i have a Delta 66 now that is adequate, but certainly not great. Going this route gives me the options I was looking for, and then some.

Thanks for the help, it is very much appreciated!

Glad you found the answer you were looking for. It's always a tradeoff between performance and price, just have to find the ratio that's best for you!

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here