[Badmuts]

Are there any 24-channel consoles that have 24 mic pres, phantom power and
direct outs (or Tape Outs) that are located pre-fader, pre-eq (but if
possible post-insert), AND tape returns for each channel + switches to
easily change between the channel using mic/line or tape return as an input?

Compact would be nice (it would be used for live recording or in a
physically small studio room) An optional meter bridge would also be great.
Affordable would be even greater but I'm willing to pay for quality, up to a
certain level.

Background:

I want to send just the mic preamp channel's signal, probably processed by
an fx device (such as a compressor/limiter) plugged into the insert, to the
inputs of the HD24. At the same time I want to have the channel faders, eq,
aux sends etc.available for creating a mix (live, or a rough studio mix to
give to the artists directly after tracking) and a few (stage or headphone)
monitor mixes, without my mixing decisions at that moment influencing the
recorded material - that will be mixed down later. I also want to be able to
record clean signals from a real-life live-band situation, to teach new
techs (volunteers) at the venue I work to how to set up a mix, make a DI'd
bass sound like an instrument again, how to deal with excess dynamics and
that sort of thing.

However, a lot of 'inline' desks I run into, at least all the Soundcrafts I
have looked at (the Ghost for example, or my old Spirit Studio) have direct
outs wired post-fader and post-EQ, which effectively means they're useless
to me. I find it annoying having to set channel gain, EQ and fader to
neutral just to get a clean recording at the right level. Otherwise these
consoles appear to be very thought-through however, so I'm wondering if it's
silly of me that i want to record clean signals. Maybe I'm thinking in the
wrong direction or I want to work 'the wrong way'. But do people actually
make EQ decisions during tracking? And what if at mixdown they find those
decisions weren't right, or they used the EQ merely for compensating flaws
in the sound reproduction system used at that moment or compensating for
tired ears?

Why are consoles designed this way? Was it habitual to use channel fader and
eq in analog tape days?

Something like a 24-channel version of a Mackie Onyx 1640 would be a perfect
match, but I haven't found that yet. In fact, the Onyx 1640 can be
configured to have the workflow I want and has a firewire option. It would
be great to send all channels directly to the computer during tracking and
have the HD24 running as backup from the direct outs. If only it had 24
channels (and a more modest price tag maybe - I own and actually like the
similar but 3 times cheaper Phonic Helix board but that one doesn't have
direct outs and its firewire interface has been a bit flaky - I'm having it
exchanged soon).

As there is no such thing as an Onyx 2440, any recommendations?

I've also been looking at other options like the expensive Tascam DM-3200,
but that would probably eliminate my need to have a HD24 altogether (or
could i still have that running for backup hooked up to DM3200's ADAT
outs?), at least for studio use.

At this point I'm going the 'extra mic pres for the recording setup +
y-cables for all sources to be recorded' route, it works but I don't find it
very elegant and I found I get all kinds of problems such as mics changing
tonality when loaded with 2 preamps, or the *input* of one preamp connected
to the *input* of another preamp causing excess noise in at least one of the
preamps, or just ground loops that I get blamed for when connecting to
somebody else;s PA equipment etc. Maybe using 24 isolation transformers
would cure all that but that's going to cost serious money I think..?

Any input is welcome!

[Federico]

How much do you want to pay for it?
F.

[Mike Rivers]

Badmuts wrote:
Are there any 24-channel consoles that have 24 mic pres, phantom power and
direct outs (or Tape Outs) that are located pre-fader, pre-eq (but if
possible post-insert), AND tape returns for each channel + switches to
easily change between the channel using mic/line or tape return as an input?

Have you looked at the Toft ATB? I'm not sure where they pick off the
direct outputs (the web site seems to be unavailable at the moment) but
otherwise it has all you're looking for. The Trident 8T is quite similar
in architecture, though I know for sure that the direct outputs on the
Trident are post-fader.

Compact would be nice (it would be used for live recording or in a
physically small studio room) An optional meter bridge would also be great.

An in-line design is more compact than a split console, but a 24-channel
version is still not going to be very compact, and the meter bridge,
which I think is essential for a recording console, makes it bigger
still. I had an 8-channel Trident 8T here for a while and I thought it
was way too big for what I might use it for.

Affordable would be even greater but I'm willing to pay for quality, up to a
certain level.

And that level is????

I want to send just the mic preamp channel's signal, probably processed by
an fx device (such as a compressor/limiter) plugged into the insert, to the
inputs of the HD24. At the same time I want to have the channel faders, eq,
aux sends etc.available for creating a mix (live, or a rough studio mix to
give to the artists directly after tracking) and a few (stage or headphone)
monitor mixes

However, a lot of 'inline' desks I run into, at least all the Soundcrafts I
have looked at (the Ghost for example, or my old Spirit Studio) have direct
outs wired post-fader and post-EQ, which effectively means they're useless
to me.

That's old school, but people who think about analog recording consoles
seem to think that way. The Mackie forum is full of people complaining
that the recording outputs of the Onyx mixers are pre-EQ so they can't
track with the EQ that Mackie brags about.

Maybe I'm thinking in the
wrong direction or I want to work 'the wrong way'. But do people actually
make EQ decisions during tracking?

This used to be the norm.

And what if at mixdown they find those
decisions weren't right, or they used the EQ merely for compensating flaws
in the sound reproduction system used at that moment or compensating for
tired ears?

Then you got more experience, or a better monitoring environment. Used
to be that recording was a whole process, not just capturing what came
out of the mics and dealing with it later. But then mixing was less
complicted then, too, so it was reasonable to make decisions while
recording.

Why are consoles designed this way? Was it habitual to use channel fader and
eq in analog tape days?

There was almost always some sort of level control between the mic
preamp output and the recorder so that you had a way to set the record
level. Often the EQ was switchable to be either in the channel path or
the monitor path. There was usually a "flip" switch that swapped the
main faders with the small faders (or rotary knobs) so that you could
use the main faders in the monitor path and the small knobs to adjust
the level going to the recorder. That concept seems to have become
clouded in newer consoles, probably because today's new users don't
understand the concept of the console as a monitor mixer during
tracking, and many don't have any use for the console as a mixer during
mixdown since they use a DAW for that. As an HD24 user, you're just a
misfit. g

Something like a 24-channel version of a Mackie Onyx 1640 would be a perfect
match, but I haven't found that yet.

I've been after Mackie for more than 8 years about updating their 8-bus
console. It seems that it wouldn't be difficult to modify the 8-bus Onyx
live sound version for recording, and for the past couple of years,
they've been telling me that what I've been asking about is being
considered. One of these days, they could surprise me at an AES or NAMM
show (maybe this will be the year) but I've given up on being their paid
consultant on the project.

In fact, the Onyx 1640 can be
configured to have the workflow I want and has a firewire option.

Actually, it can't, at least as it stands. The Firewire card only
returns two channels back to the mixer, and they're hard-wired to the
monitor section.

What you could do is use the recording outputs to feed the recorder
(they're pre-everything) and the channel inserts as your recorder
returns for monitoring and mixdown. There are really only two
disadvantages to this. First, a minor thing is that the insert returns
aren't differential, but that shouldn't matter with reasonably short
(studio length) cables between the recorder and mixer. The other thing
is that the largest Onyx general purpose console is 16-channel. You
could use two, but you'd have to deal with not having solos and
auxiliary sends and returns well integrated.

You could use an Onyx 32-4 (a live sound console) in this way. It has
the same Recording output arrangement as the compact Onyx series except
that it comes after the Insert jack, which might make patching more
convenient for you, and there's an internal jumper that can make it pre-
or post-EQ, but always pre-fader. and the 32-channel version gives you
24 mic preamps. The hitch using the console in this mode is that since
the HD24 has no record (input) level control, the preamp gain is the
only control you have for the record level. If the levels are a good
match, you'll be fine, if they aren't, you're likely to find that the
track levels are too low for your taste, or maybe you have to drop the
level going into the console to avoid overloading the HD24. This is the
control that modern studio gear designers forgot (or intended that the
other guy would provide it).

If only it had 24
channels (and a more modest price tag maybe

Hmmmm . . . if you're balking at a 16-channel Onyx, your budget might
be too small for what you want.

I've also been looking at other options like the expensive Tascam DM-3200,
but that would probably eliminate my need to have a HD24 altogether (or
could i still have that running for backup hooked up to DM3200's ADAT
outs?), at least for studio use.

That would be a very practical way to set up a TASCAM digital console
and your recorder.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Nate Najar]

On Sep 4, 6:03*am, "Badmuts" wrote:
Are there any 24-channel consoles that have 24 mic pres, phantom power and
direct outs (or Tape Outs) that are located pre-fader, pre-eq (but if
possible post-insert), AND tape returns for each channel + switches to
easily change between the channel using mic/line or tape return as an input?

Compact would be nice (it would be used for live recording or in a
physically small studio room) An optional meter bridge would also be great.

[Badmuts]

"Federico" wrote in message
...
How much do you want to pay for it?

At least, less than the price of a Tascam DM-3200

Probably like $1000-$1400, used but in good condition would be fine.

[Badmuts]

yeah i used to use a tascam dm3200 in my home project studio. it's a
very well thought out board and would do everything you are asking for
and more. and it sounds pretty good too. but it is rather large.

That, and the cost, are what kept me from purchasing it so far.
I use a 16 channel Helix Board for small live gigs now.

Thanks for the info on this board, still seriously considering it.

[Badmuts]

Have you looked at the Toft ATB?

I'm always a bit scared of consoles that have the designer's name on them
from a price point of view.

I'm not sure where they pick off the
direct outputs (the web site seems to be unavailable at the moment)

That would be the crucial point for me now.

but
otherwise it has all you're looking for. The Trident 8T is quite similar
in architecture, though I know for sure that the direct outputs on the
Trident are post-fader.

I just read today that Toft's designs are building on earlier Trident
designs. So probably post-fader rec outs, too?

An in-line design is more compact than a split console, but a 24-channel
version is still not going to be very compact, and the meter bridge,
which I think is essential for a recording console, makes it bigger

Ok. Well, maybe 'compact' has to move from the list. I find 19" 16 channel
mixers too compact already and prefer working with the old soundcraft 16
channel that is 3 times as big (and sounds better too), it just gives me a
better overview and ergonomics.

Affordable would be even greater but I'm willing to pay for quality, up
to a
certain level.

And that level is????

Uhm, somewhere inbetween a Behringer MX9000 and a Toft, A&H, Midas or other
fancy $$ names.
Functionality is of the most importance, then sound, and last reliability.
Hmm, i sound like a Behringer buyer. In fact i have quite a bit Behringer
gear.
However, a friend owns a MX9000 and had nightmares trying to maintain it and
it left its sonic footprint all over his recordings until he replaced it.

However, a lot of 'inline' desks I run into, at least all the
Soundcrafts I
have looked at (the Ghost for example, or my old Spirit Studio) have
direct
outs wired post-fader and post-EQ, which effectively means they're
useless
to me.

That's old school, but people who think about analog recording consoles
seem to think that way. The Mackie forum is full of people complaining
that the recording outputs of the Onyx mixers are pre-EQ so they can't
track with the EQ that Mackie brags about.

I've seen it. There are aftermarket mods for those mixers available... and i
thought Mackie got it right!

And what if at mixdown they find those
decisions weren't right, or they used the EQ merely for compensating
flaws
in the sound reproduction system used at that moment or compensating
for
tired ears?

Then you got more experience,

;-)

today's new users don't
understand the concept of the console as a monitor mixer during
tracking

Does everybody do monitor mixes from their DAW these days, including latency
issues and the need for multiple-output sound interfaces?

and many don't have any use for the console as a mixer during
mixdown since they use a DAW for that.

I mixdown in the box too, although i got myself a fader controller
(Behringer BCF2000) and will probably get myself another one, just to have
faders and buttons to touch instead of only a mouse.

As an HD24 user, you're just a
misfit. g

....or so it seems.
I'm also frustrated by the lack of physical controls on interfaces like
Presonus Firestudio. They provide preamps and phantom, but not much more,
mixers are controlled from software, have to phase reverse things like snare
bottom mic in the DAW and you'd be lucky if one or 2 channels have a pad
switch.

In fact, the Onyx 1640 can be
configured to have the workflow I want and has a firewire option.

Actually, it can't, at least as it stands. The Firewire card only
returns two channels back to the mixer, and they're hard-wired to the
monitor section.

I'm aware of that, but as i mix recorded tracks in the DAW and only want to
have the analog mixer as a monitor (or stage!) mixer it doesn't really
matter.
It's just that i hate setting up monitor mixes in DAW, i guess i'm half
old-school and half new school. Or just a misfit indeed

What you could do is use the recording outputs to feed the recorder
(they're pre-everything)

Yes, and that's exactly what i'm after, but in a bigger desk. Shouldn't have
bought that HD24 and the M-audio lightbridge maybe. Life was easier when i
just ran 16 tracks into two Fostex 8 tracks. But i needed more tracks as i
get more and more live recording jobs of larger bands and bands who want to
record everything at once in the studio because of limited budget.

and the channel inserts as your recorder
returns for monitoring and mixdown.

But then i'd loose the channel inserts for stuff like compressor/limiters
(which i consider useful during recording, however there's still the chance
of making hard-to-fix mistakes with those in the tracking stage, too)

There are really only two
disadvantages to this. First, a minor thing is that the insert returns
aren't differential, but that shouldn't matter with reasonably short
(studio length) cables between the recorder and mixer.

I could live with that.

The other thing
is that the largest Onyx general purpose console is 16-channel. You
could use two, but you'd have to deal with not having solos and
auxiliary sends and returns well integrated.

No, that will just confuse me to no end - i want my setup to be simple,
logical and straightforward so my brain can keep up while i have 10
musicians in the studio at the same time all wanting something from me. I've
already tried such a setup with my 16 channel helix board and my Spirit Rack
Pack. It can be done but it's messy, both physically and logically.

You could use an Onyx 32-4 (a live sound console) in this way. It has
the same Recording output arrangement as the compact Onyx series except
that it comes after the Insert jack, which might make patching more
convenient for you, and there's an internal jumper that can make it pre-
or post-EQ, but always pre-fader. and the 32-channel version gives you
24 mic preamps.

That sounds great. Price is around 3000 euros though.
For that money i'd also have a Tascam DM3200 with meter bridge and eliminate
the need for a lot of extra hardware (but still having a lot to learn, too).

The hitch using the console in this mode is that since
the HD24 has no record (input) level control, the preamp gain is the
only control you have for the record level. If the levels are a good
match, you'll be fine, if they aren't, you're likely to find that the
track levels are too low for your taste, or maybe you have to drop the
level going into the console to avoid overloading the HD24. This is the
control that modern studio gear designers forgot (or intended that the
other guy would provide it).

I recently ran into this when the HD24 was connected to a A&H GL2800
console's direct outs. Console operator had around 0 dB VU on the meters and
HD24 was around -20 for that same level, causing my mix to contain a lot of
hiss.

If only it had 24
channels (and a more modest price tag maybe

Hmmmm . . . if you're balking at a 16-channel Onyx, your budget might
be too small for what you want.

At this point i'm really doubting what i want. Analog or digital or in
between, HD24 or laptop+interface or both, still using my old/existing gear
(Fostex D108, Fostex D-90, Soundcraft Studio 16 channel inline, Spirit
RackPac 10 channel mixer, M-audio lightbridge, 2 x behringer ADA8000, HD24,
and tie it all together somehow, or just sell all that stuff and get a
solution like DM-3200 and be done with it. I'm always scared of spending
large sums of money at once or saying goodbye to equipment that has served
me well in the past. My studio was built from pieces of equipment bought one
by one from money i saved. Now that i'm becoming more professional (but
still not rich) i'm not so sure if that's still the way to go.

I've also been looking at other options like the expensive Tascam
DM-3200,
but that would probably eliminate my need to have a HD24 altogether (or
could i still have that running for backup hooked up to DM3200's ADAT
outs?), at least for studio use.

That would be a very practical way to set up a TASCAM digital console
and your recorder.

It would be great, but it's not that attractive to haul a DM3200 for live
gigs and i'm not sure if i can work with a digital console quick enough
during live sound gigs. I prefer analog when i have to work fast or under
stress, and digital when i have lots of time and quiet.

Thanks for your long response, it's being appreciated!

[Scott Dorsey]

Badmuts wrote:
Are there any 24-channel consoles that have 24 mic pres, phantom power and
direct outs (or Tape Outs) that are located pre-fader, pre-eq (but if
possible post-insert), AND tape returns for each channel + switches to
easily change between the channel using mic/line or tape return as an input?

This is a reasonable configuration for a recording console. Look at the
new Toft ATB. At a higher price, API can make you a small format
console.

You might also look for older small recording consoles.

However, a lot of 'inline' desks I run into, at least all the Soundcrafts I
have looked at (the Ghost for example, or my old Spirit Studio) have direct
outs wired post-fader and post-EQ, which effectively means they're useless
to me.

On the Spirit Studio, this ought to be possible to change with a little bit
of cut and paste work. But remember these consoles aren't really intended
as recording consoles; they are intended to be everything for everybody.

Maybe I'm thinking in the
wrong direction or I want to work 'the wrong way'. But do people actually
make EQ decisions during tracking?

I often do... and I don't use a lot of EQ in general. I tend to track the
whole band together, I select microphones so it sounds good, I use EQ when
I can't get what I want by changing microphones, and I get a nice 2-track
mix. The multitrack tape is there so I can go back and clean things up,
but the control room mix should be close to the final mix.

However, these days I do a lot of live recording work, in places where
I often don't have proper monitoring. And when I do that, I feel a lot
more comfortable recording straight splits with no EQ because I can't make
the proper judgements at tracking time.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Badmuts wrote:
the Toft ATB?
I'm always a bit scared of consoles that have the designer's name on them
from a price point of view.

The most significant part of price these days is not the designer's
name, but where and how it's built. The Toft is built in China. It's
part of the same group that makes Studio Projects mics and Joemeek
signal processors.

I just read today that Toft's designs are building on earlier Trident
designs. So probably post-fader rec outs, too?

Not necessarily. Malcolm Toft was the system engineer so he might have
had a different concept in mind this time around. I'm sure I've asked
the question, I just can't remember the answer. The web site is still
unavailable, but don't take that as a sign that they've gone out of
business.

Does everybody do monitor mixes from their DAW these days, including latency
issues and the need for multiple-output sound interfaces?

Seems that's the way it's going. Values of zero for "zero latency
monitoring" are getting closer to the ideal value. First there was ASIO
drivers that reduced the turnaround time in the computer, and with the
current trend toward multichannel interfaces that have a built-in DSP
mixer for monitoring, the latency is reduced to just a couple of
milliseconds, essentially the A/D/A conversion time. This is only
bothersome when listening to your own voice in headphones (comb
filtering when combining the acoustic sound with the slightly delayed
headphone sound) but most people use a sufficiently high headphone
volume so that the effect is minimal. I don't, and I don't like
monitoring that way, but people make compromises to save large amounts
of money. Still, a 24-input DAW system is pretty expensive.

I'm also frustrated by the lack of physical controls on interfaces like
Presonus Firestudio. They provide preamps and phantom, but not much more,
mixers are controlled from software, have to phase reverse things like snare
bottom mic in the DAW and you'd be lucky if one or 2 channels have a pad
switch.

Absolutely awful. But these things are designed by people who have never
tracked in a traditional studio. The idea is just to capture whatever
comes in and don't worry about what it sounds like because you have so
many ways of fixing it in the mix (like inverting a track).

Life was easier when i
just ran 16 tracks into two Fostex 8 tracks. But i needed more tracks as i
get more and more live recording jobs of larger bands and bands who want to
record everything at once in the studio because of limited budget.

Well, you can get two Mackie 1200Fs and have 24 respectable mic inputs
and an on-screen low latency mixer that looks like a mixer (though it's
mighty small). Unfortunately, mixer control via a control surface is one
of those things still on The Wish List. I don't find it any easier to
make a monitor mix on the 1200F than in a DAW. I did play around with
using two displays on the computer, with one having the DAW and the
other having the 1200F mixer. I could sort of use that like a split
console. It was awkward for me, but I suppose if I used it a lot I'd get
used to it.

[using the inserts as recorder returns] But then i'd loose the channel inserts for stuff like compressor/limiters
(which i consider useful during recording,

You don't really need channel inserts. You can just patch the processor
in line between the recording output and the HD24 input. A patchbay is
handy for that, but if it's something you do infrequently, or if there
are certain chains that you always use, you could just plug it in and
leave it.

You could use an Onyx 32-4 (a live sound console) in this way.

That sounds great. Price is around 3000 euros though.
For that money i'd also have a Tascam DM3200 with meter bridge and eliminate
the need for a lot of extra hardware (but still having a lot to learn, too).

The DM3200 seems like a reasonably sensible console. I'm not sure if
it's been discontinued or not since they have the DM4800, and have had
that out for a couple of years now. Honestly, I don't know how much I'd
trust TASCAM as far as digital consoles goes. I'm sure they're fine, but
they've designed, sold, and orphaned so many of them over the years.
It's difficult to fix a Mackie because of the way they're constructed,
but at least you can follow a signal through it and there's a pretty
good chance of patching around a problem section until you can get it
fixed. You can't do that on a digital console. Too many single points of
failure that can take down the whole thing. Yamaha has a better track
record for longevity but their digital consoles are a lot more expensive
than TASCAM's.

I recently ran into this when the HD24 was connected to a A&H GL2800
console's direct outs. Console operator had around 0 dB VU on the meters and
HD24 was around -20 for that same level, causing my mix to contain a lot of
hiss.

That's not really too bad a gain structure. -20 dBFS leaves you about
the right amount of headroom. I suspect that the reason for the hiss is
that the console operator didn't have things set up correctly, and that
the hiss was coming out of the direct outputs.

I'm always scared of spending
large sums of money at once or saying goodbye to equipment that has served
me well in the past.

I can understand that, particularly when that large sum of money buys
you technology that you'll have to learn and relatively inflexible
architecture. If the only compressors and equalizers that you have are
those built into the console, you'd better learn how to like them,
because a console like that isn't conducive to outboard plug-ins (though
as I recall, there are some "floating" analog inputs and outputs that
you can use to patch in outboard gear. More digital consoles should have
that feature. TASCAM has been building consoles for a long time, and
they don't usually make mistakes in their system concept.

it's not that attractive to haul a DM3200 for live
gigs and i'm not sure if i can work with a digital console quick enough
during live sound gigs.

I agree. If you were going to do that, I'll look at the Yamaha digital
consoles which are designed for live sound, with recording being a
secondary function. But they might leave something to be desired in
studio applications.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Federico]

What about a Yamaha LS9?
The direct outputs are on additional slots in ADAT format.
F.

[Monty Parts]

Mike Rivers wrote:

I agree. If you were going to do that, I'll look at the Yamaha digital
consoles which are designed for live sound, with recording being a
secondary function. But they might leave something to be desired in
studio applications.


I'd recommend the Yamaha LS-9-32. A very capable live and recording
digital console. Also it's very easy to use in a live situation with a
lot of cues, plus you can setup a very intricate matrix to channel mix
drums or the vocals or whatever.

It is a larger frame, but I can pick it up by myself. From my point of
view it transports well.


PN

[Paul Stamler]

Why not take the feed from the insert jack? Make up a TRS XLR cable with
tip & ring wired together and to pin 2 of the XLR, and sleeve wired to pins
1 & 3 of the XLR? Signal levels might be a little low, but you've got 24
bits to play with. If you need to compress, patch the compressor between the
XLR out and the HD24.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

The Toft web site is back up. From a quick look at the input section
block diagram, it appears that the direct output is post-fader, but the
EQ can either be inserted in the recording path, bypassed, or inserted
in the monitor path (only). That's half way to what you want. But you
can't afford it anyway, so don't worry about it.

[RDOGuy]

There are plenty of consoles out there that will do this... but many
of them are older. For example... I have a Ramsa WR-4424 console that
would do this job. My son has used it just the way you describe with
his Alesis HD recorder. The TRS inserts are post gain but pre-fade
and pre-EQ. So the insert sends go to the recorder inputs, and the
recorder outputs go to the insert returns. You adjust the gain pots
to set recording levels, and then you monitor (or mix) using the main
faders and EQ.

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 4/09/08 15:46, in article ,
"Badmuts" wrote:

Have you looked at the Toft ATB?

I'm always a bit scared of consoles that have the designer's name on them
from a price point of view.

What, like Greg Mackie and Uli Behringer? ;-)


--
Joe Kotroczo

[hank alrich]

Joe Kotroczo wrote:

On 4/09/08 15:46, in article ,
"Badmuts" wrote:

Have you looked at the Toft ATB?

I'm always a bit scared of consoles that have the designer's name on them
from a price point of view.

What, like Greg Mackie and Uli Behringer? ;-)

Malcolm Toft? Rupert Neve?

Oh, wait...

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Predrag Trpkov]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Joe Kotroczo wrote:

On 4/09/08 15:46, in article ,
"Badmuts" wrote:

Have you looked at the Toft ATB?

I'm always a bit scared of consoles that have the designer's name on
them
from a price point of view.

What, like Greg Mackie and Uli Behringer? ;-)

Malcolm Toft? Rupert Neve?


Harrison, Studer, Neumann...

[Predrag Trpkov]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Joe Kotroczo wrote:

On 4/09/08 15:46, in article ,
"Badmuts" wrote:

Have you looked at the Toft ATB?

I'm always a bit scared of consoles that have the designer's name on
them
from a price point of view.

What, like Greg Mackie and Uli Behringer? ;-)

Malcolm Toft? Rupert Neve?


Then there's John Oram...