I'm upgrading my home studio and I'd appreciate advice on
any options I should consider for the following:

I have a computer based sequencing/audio/recording setup on a
Mac, but no audio interface for it yet. I've also outgrown
my current mixer. So I need an audio interface and/or a
mixer. Here are my needs:

1. I have 4 or 5 hardware synths with S/PDIF outputs. It'd be
nice to capture their digital outputs, but using their analog
outputs is also possible.

2. I have 2 or 3 older synths with only analog outputs.

3. At present I need only 1 or 2 mic inputs. Everything else
(at this point) is from a sequenced synth.

4. In principle, I can get by with just a single stereo in and
out on the computer interface and a good analog mixer. That would
probably be the cheapest and most traditional option. Sequenced tracks can
be recorded to audio one at a time and then mixed down on the computer.

It'd be much more convenient though to have a mixer or audio interface
that interfaced directly to the computer, so I could manipulate the
sequenced tracks on external hardware synths individually without having
to record them to audio. I'm thinking of either a mixer with a firewire
or USB interface, or a fancy audio interface that can serve as a mixer.

5. I figure I need at least 16 channels on the mixer -- at least
12 for the hardware synths, at least 2 for mic inputs, and at least
2 from the computer. 20 channels or more would be safer.

6. If I go with a fancy audio interface, I'd prefer one that can
serve as a standalone mixer, because I'd like to be able to play
without firing up my Mac.

7. I prefer a rack mountable mixer, because of the way my space is
arranged. That seems to limit me to 20 channels, I think, if I use
a traditional analogue mixer.

Some options I've come across:
A. Behringer makes some really, really inexpensive mixers with a lot of
features. However, I have a Behringer UB1622FX-PRO right now whose
sound quality is unacceptable (and actually appalling), so I'll need
to be convinced that Behringer makes good equipment.

B. The Allen and Heath MixWizard WZ 20:8:2 is a 20 channel rack
mountable analog mixer with a lot of features. It'd probably give
good audio quality and a good number of inputs.

C. The Yamaha 01x looks quite interesting. Unfortunately, not rack
mountable, but its other features may make up for that.

D. A MOTU interface like the 2408mk3.

Unfortunately, none of these options seems to have more than
2 S/PDIF inputs.

Hamad bin Turki Salami wrote:

1. I have 4 or 5 hardware synths with S/PDIF outputs. It'd be
nice to capture their digital outputs, but using their analog
outputs is also possible.

2. I have 2 or 3 older synths with only analog outputs.

3. At present I need only 1 or 2 mic inputs. Everything else
(at this point) is from a sequenced synth.

Go analog all the way. There's no compelling advantage to using the
digital outputs and it can be a lot of trouble when it comes to word
clock synchronization. It also simplifies your interfacing in that you
don't need at least three different kinds of inputs and cables.

4. In principle, I can get by with just a single stereo in and
out on the computer interface and a good analog mixer.

It'd be much more convenient though to have a mixer or audio interface
that interfaced directly to the computer, so I could manipulate the
sequenced tracks on external hardware synths individually without having
to record them to audio. I'm thinking of either a mixer with a firewire
or USB interface, or a fancy audio interface that can serve as a mixer.

It really doesn't matter where the interface is located, but you
definitely need some sort of computer interface. The advantage of a
mixer with a built-in audio interface that connects with Firewire or
USB is that it's all in one box. The disadvantage is that it's all in
one box - if you want to upgrade a part of the system (like the A/D
converter) or you outgrow the mixer, you have to replace everything. I
much favor separate pieces. You can work the same way either way.

5. I figure I need at least 16 channels on the mixer -- at least
12 for the hardware synths, at least 2 for mic inputs, and at least
2 from the computer. 20 channels or more would be safer.

Take a look at the Mackie Onyx 1620 with or without the Firewire
interface option. It has 8 stereo line inputs (connect 8 stereo synths
here) and 8 mic/line inputs (connect either mics or synth here).

6. If I go with a fancy audio interface, I'd prefer one that can
serve as a standalone mixer, because I'd like to be able to play
without firing up my Mac.

There are some, but honestly, you're better off getting a mixer that
looks like a mixer rather than an interface box that can function as a
mixer.

7. I prefer a rack mountable mixer, because of the way my space is
arranged. That seems to limit me to 20 channels, I think, if I use
a traditional analogue mixer.

You can move furniture. People who rack mount mixers tend not to use
them as mixers, they use them as audio funnels or signal routers
without actually working the knobs. If you want to stay with a rack,
perhaps you would be better served by a patchbay and a rack-mounted mic
preamp. But that wouldn't let you play without the computer other than
perhaps how you preset the interface's built in mixer if you get one
like that.

But if you insist, you might look at the MOTU Traveler. It has a
built-in mixer for monitoring (which is what you're really asking for)
and that can be operated (I THINK - I've never tried it myself) using
the controls on the front panel, without the computer. It's awkward -
you have to switch the one knob to whichever channel you want to
control, but it's possible.

A. Behringer makes some really, really inexpensive mixers with a lot of
features. However, I have a Behringer UB1622FX-PRO right now whose
sound quality is unacceptable (and actually appalling), so I'll need
to be convinced that Behringer makes good equipment.

I think you may already be convinced as much as you need be.

B. The Allen and Heath MixWizard WZ 20:8:2 is a 20 channel rack
mountable analog mixer with a lot of features. It'd probably give
good audio quality and a good number of inputs.

A decent all-around mixer. Crest has a nice one, too, that can be rack
mounted.

C. The Yamaha 01x looks quite interesting. Unfortunately, not rack
mountable, but its other features may make up for that.

I've heard too many stories about difficulties getting it working, and
keeping it working through changes to your computer. Parts of it can
stand alone, but it's very much tied in with the computer.

Unfortunately, none of these options seems to have more than
2 S/PDIF inputs.

Most things don't. Interfaces or mixers with multiple digital inputs
either have AES/EBU rather than S/PDIF (I'll pardon the old terminology
if you will) or use a multi-channel interface like the ADAT optical
with 8 channels on one fiber optic cable.

My suggestion - analog mixer, your choice of computer interface. Get a
good mixer. Start with a decent stereo interface for the computer, and
if you find a need to record multiple channels, you can always change
that part without re-thinking your whole setup.

I have a computer based sequencing/audio/recording setup on a
Mac, but no audio interface for it yet.

metric halo 2882 w/ dsp

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:30:48 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote:

Hamad bin Turki Salami wrote:

It'd be much more convenient though to have a mixer or audio interface
that interfaced directly to the computer, so I could manipulate the
sequenced tracks on external hardware synths individually without having
to record them to audio. I'm thinking of either a mixer with a firewire
or USB interface, or a fancy audio interface that can serve as a mixer.

It really doesn't matter where the interface is located, but you
definitely need some sort of computer interface. The advantage of a
mixer with a built-in audio interface that connects with Firewire or
USB is that it's all in one box. The disadvantage is that it's all in
one box - if you want to upgrade a part of the system (like the A/D
converter) or you outgrow the mixer, you have to replace everything. I
much favor separate pieces. You can work the same way either way.

Maybe I don't understand something about how these mixers with Firewire
interfaces work. Does something like a Mackie Onyx transmit what's
coming out of multiple channels on the mixer to the computer as separate
audio streams? Or does it just transmit the mix or a submix or something?
If it transmits the channels separately, I don't see how you could
replicate that functionality by having a separate audio interface, even if
it had multiple inputs.

5. I figure I need at least 16 channels on the mixer -- at least 12 for
the hardware synths, at least 2 for mic inputs, and at least 2 from the
computer. 20 channels or more would be safer.

Take a look at the Mackie Onyx 1620 with or without the Firewire
interface option. It has 8 stereo line inputs (connect 8 stereo synths
here) and 8 mic/line inputs (connect either mics or synth here).

6. If I go with a fancy audio interface, I'd prefer one that can serve
as a standalone mixer, because I'd like to be able to play without
firing up my Mac.

There are some, but honestly, you're better off getting a mixer that
looks like a mixer rather than an interface box that can function as a
mixer.

Yes, I really have in mind something with faders, like the Yamaha 01x or
the 01v96, etc. I don't think I would be happy with some 1 rack space
thing with some blinking red lights.

7. I prefer a rack mountable mixer, because of the way my space is
arranged. That seems to limit me to 20 channels, I think, if I use a
traditional analogue mixer.

You can move furniture. People who rack mount mixers tend not to use
them as mixers, they use them as audio funnels or signal routers without
actually working the knobs. If you want to stay with a rack, perhaps you
would be better served by a patchbay and a rack-mounted mic preamp. But
that wouldn't let you play without the computer other than perhaps how
you preset the interface's built in mixer if you get one like that.

I'm not sure what most people who have rack mountable mixers do, but
the way I work when I'm actually playing my keyboard is as follows.
I'm seated at a keyboard instrument, with a mic boom in front of me, a
stand in front of me for sheet music and lyrics, and access to my synth
modules, my mixer, and my computer. It's not all that easy to arrange
that, regardless of where you move your furniture. I have a tall rack
with an inclined top that fits a large rack mixer well. I don't really see
what's wrong with having the mixer in the rack.

B. The Allen and Heath MixWizard WZ 20:8:2 is a 20 channel rack
mountable analog mixer with a lot of features. It'd probably give good
audio quality and a good number of inputs.

A decent all-around mixer. Crest has a nice one, too, that can be rack
mounted.

Do you mean the XR-20? I think the Crest mixers are harder to find and
more expensive, at least where I live. I have a deal for a WZ 20:8:2 for
$700.

Unfortunately, none of these options seems to have more than 2 S/PDIF
inputs.

Most things don't. Interfaces or mixers with multiple digital inputs
either have AES/EBU rather than S/PDIF (I'll pardon the old terminology
if you will) or use a multi-channel interface like the ADAT optical with
8 channels on one fiber optic cable.

All of my synths with digital outs have s/pdif outs (though 1 of them is
switchable to aes/ebu). I must be missing something here. ADAT is a
multichannel interface, so you need something that's going to take your
s/pdif outputs and collect them all into ADAT format before they get into
the mixer. Then inside the mixer they have to be split back out into
separate streams. What's the point? What do the mixer companies expect you
to be plugging into those ADAT inputs?

My suggestion - analog mixer, your choice of computer interface. Get a
good mixer. Start with a decent stereo interface for the computer, and
if you find a need to record multiple channels, you can always change
that part without re-thinking your whole setup.

Hamad bin Turki Salami wrote:

Maybe I don't understand something about how these mixers with Firewire
interfaces work. Does something like a Mackie Onyx transmit what's
coming out of multiple channels on the mixer to the computer as separate
audio streams? Or does it just transmit the mix or a submix or something?

I can tell you what the Mackie Onyx Firewire does, because I have one.
It has one output stream for each input channel (12 on the 1220, 16 on
the 1620 and 1640) plus another two for the main stereo mix outputs.
All of those are available (through the driver) to a DAW program. You
can assign any one of those input streams to any track and record it.
You can plug a mic into Channel 1 and use that to record each track of
a multitrack project, one track at a time. You can plug 16 mics into
the channels of a 1640 and record each mic to its own track (great for
recording live performances). Or you can use any combination of mics,
mixer channels, and recorded tracks. It's really quite flexible, but
you have to select which stream goes to which track in your DAW program
before you hit the Record button.

In addition, you can record the mix of any tracks that you have
assigned to the main L/R bus buy assigning that stream to another
(stereo) track. I've done some live shows where I've recorded each mic
to its own track as well as recorded a stereo track of the live mix. I
can make a quick CD of the "live mix" track and use that as a reference
when I go to make (or decide not to make) a mix of the individual
tracks after the show.

If it transmits the channels separately, I don't see how you could
replicate that functionality by having a separate audio interface, even if
it had multiple inputs.

Sure. Say you have an 8-input interface. It sends 8 streams to your
computer and you'd assign them just as you would the streams from the
Firewire option card.

I have a tall rack
with an inclined top that fits a large rack mixer well. I don't really see
what's wrong with having the mixer in the rack.

It depends on how you use your mixer. If you use it just to set up a
session and don't move the faders while you're playing (or playing back
the tracks and mixing) then putting it in a rack is OK. But if, in the
mixing process, you "play" your mixer like an instrument, this is
difficult to do when you have to move the faders vertically. A mixer
with rotary knobs works better for this. You still see them in
broadcast studios with the panel mounted vertically in front of the
operator.

Do you mean the XR-20? I think the Crest mixers are harder to find and
more expensive, at least where I live. I have a deal for a WZ 20:8:2 for
$700.

They are both. But they're different configurations and one or the
other may be more applicable to your work. Or it may not make any
difference. Or (think about this) it may not matter now, but you may
make some changes in a year that will make the wrong mixer obsolete.
Think about what will work today and will probably also work tomorrow.

All of my synths with digital outs have s/pdif outs (though 1 of them is
switchable to aes/ebu). I must be missing something here. ADAT is a
multichannel interface, so you need something that's going to take your
s/pdif outputs and collect them all into ADAT format before they get into
the mixer.

Yes, if your mixer has ADAT inputs. M-Audio used to make a gadget like
that but it's been long discontinued. Today if you want to convert
individual stereo digital sources to a multi-channel digital output,
it's not a simple solution. If you have a digital mixer with modular
I/O, you can often come up with a combination that works for you. For
example, you could get a Mackie d8b, put an ADAT optical I/O card in
one (or more) of the "recorder I/O" slots and an 8-channel (four stereo
pairs) AES/EBU I/O card in the "Alt I/O" slot. Using the mixer's
routing capabilities, you could route any input to the AES/EBU (which
will work as S/PDIF) card to any pair of channels in an ADAT output.
But that's not what I'd call a straightforward solution unless you were
to make the console the hub of your studio. Hey, wait a minute! That's
what a console is SUPPOSED to be. A mixer is something else.

"Hamad bin Turki Salami"
wrote in message
news
I'm upgrading my home studio and I'd appreciate advice on
any options I should consider for the following:

I have a computer based sequencing/audio/recording setup
on a Mac, but no audio interface for it yet. I've also outgrown
my current mixer. So I need an audio interface and/or a
mixer. Here are my needs:

1. I have 4 or 5 hardware synths with S/PDIF outputs.

Presumably you only use one at a time. The cheap easy way to go is with a
mechanical switch. Just about any mechanical switch that works with NTSC
video on coax works with SPDIF.

It'd be nice to capture their digital outputs, but using their analog
outputs is also possible.

Most facitilties with multiple digital inputs have AES/EBU or AES3 inputs.
You can convert SP/DIF outputs to AES/EBU inputs by several
nominally-priced means.

One of things you're going to find is that finding multiple digital inputs
in one product is hard (but not impossible) to find. For example LynxStudio
has some audio interfaces with lots of AES/EBU digital inputs, but they
aren't exactly cheap and neither are their few competitors.

Another way to obtain multiple digital inputs is to get a digital mixer.
Most of them have built-in or optional plug-in cards with multiple SP/DIF or
AES/EBU inputs.

2. I have 2 or 3 older synths with only analog outputs.

Slam dunk.

3. At present I need only 1 or 2 mic inputs. Everything
else (at this point) is from a sequenced synth.

Slam dunk

4. In principle, I can get by with just a single stereo
in and out on the computer interface and a good analog mixer.

Typical and yes it should work.

That would probably be the cheapest and most traditional
option. Sequenced tracks can be recorded to audio one at
a time and then mixed down on the computer.

Works when recording only 1 musician at a time.

It'd be much more convenient though to have a mixer or
audio interface that interfaced directly to the computer,
so I could manipulate the sequenced tracks on external
hardware synths individually without having to record
them to audio.

Huh?

I'm thinking of either a mixer with a
firewire or USB interface, or a fancy audio interface
that can serve as a mixer.

IME the major advantage of a mixer with a built-in audio interface is a
reduction in complexity, box count and wiring which is really only a serious
issue if you're multitracking which you aren't.

5. I figure I need at least 16 channels on the mixer --
at least 12 for the hardware synths, at least 2 for mic
inputs, and at least 2 from the computer. 20 channels or
more would be safer.

I don't know how you get from 6 or 8 synths that you apparently only use
one at a time to 12 channels.

6. If I go with a fancy audio interface, I'd prefer one
that can serve as a standalone mixer, because I'd like to be able
to play without firing up my Mac.

Mixers are a great convenience for monitoring what you are doing.

7. I prefer a rack mountable mixer, because of the way my
space is arranged. That seems to limit me to 20 channels,
I think, if I use a traditional analogue mixer.

In some sense any mixer that is 19" or less wide is rack mountable, right?

Some options I've come across:

A. Behringer makes some really, really inexpensive mixers
with a lot of features. However, I have a Behringer
UB1622FX-PRO right now whose
sound quality is unacceptable (and actually appalling),
so I'll need
to be convinced that Behringer makes good equipment.

B. The Allen and Heath MixWizard WZ 20:8:2 is a 20
channel rack
mountable analog mixer with a lot of features. It'd
probably give
good audio quality and a good number of inputs.

C. The Yamaha 01x looks quite interesting. Unfortunately,
not rack mountable, but its other features may make up
for that.

D. A MOTU interface like the 2408mk3.

Unfortunately, none of these options seems to have more
than 2 S/PDIF inputs.

One way to end up with 16 analog and 8 digital inputs would be a Berhinger
DDX 3216 with a add-on interface card. It has a stereo digital output that
could be routed into your PC with a low cost SP/DIF interface. It's not
rackable as is, but it is only about 17" wide.

1. I have 4 or 5 hardware synths with S/PDIF outputs. It'd be
nice to capture their digital outputs, but using their analog
outputs is also possible.

S/PDIF and midi sequencing/recording were made for eachother. With an
m-audio 2496 card you can get 4 channels of recording at the same time with
your s/pdif and analog inputs. I think the card is only $90. you can then
have a switcher for your individual synth tracks and choose the one you're
recording. (you can monitor analog with the mixer while
composing/pre-mixing).

I disagree with previous advice to go analog.

My roland xv-5050's recorded tracks sound WAY better when they were recorded
digitally than through my signal chain (which is pretty clean, through a
mackie 1202 and most of the gain coming from the synth itself).

paul

does mackie supply a compatible recording program
one that I don't have to putz with buffers and bit rates ,file formats and
other crap to get a multi track recording going
I do not have great patience with software configuration
and as of yet have not found any software that "I" consider user friendly
for multitrack applications
george

George Gleason wrote:
does mackie supply a compatible recording program
one that I don't have to putz with buffers and bit rates ,file formats and
other crap to get a multi track recording going

Yes, no, and maybe. You get a copy of Tracktion and, I believe you
still get a registration code for it. It creates broadcast WAV files,
and there's a limited amount of futzing with buggers (I'm going to
leave that typo - it's too much like a Freudian slip to ignore) that
you can do - basically one setting on the Onyx Firewire control panel.
Everyone has too much latency except for those who don't, but they all
have the same amount.

I do not have great patience with software configuration

Neither do I. I set it so that it didn't click and fart when I recorded
and played back, and I don't use Tracktion (or any other program) for
anything but live one-pass recording, so I'm not bothered by all the
things that I've been successfully avoiding and others continualy
complain about until they buy an expensive program or I reallize that
they're doing the sort of projects where real-time timing doesn't
matter.

"George Gleason" wrote in message
news
does mackie supply a compatible recording program
one that I don't have to putz with buffers and bit rates ,file formats and
other crap to get a multi track recording going
I do not have great patience with software configuration
and as of yet have not found any software that "I" consider user friendly
for multitrack applications
george

If all computers were the same there would be stuff like this but I think
after some trial and error or some research into the different settings,
you'll come to appreciate the ability to configure these parameters.

paul