hello,

i've been using sonar 2.2 for awhile now to record n arrange
guitars,vocals, bass for some songs... i'm wondering how helpful it is
to have a mixer? thinkin about getting one... i've been using just
the onscreen mixing consoles/mouse to do it, but those of you who have
a mixer unit, is this a big time-saver? other benefits?

thanks...

What else would you sit in front of
when someone takes your picture ?

My console is used for it's mic preamps and
channel EQ and ... well ... it's mixing abilty.
Not neccesarily a time saver just a different way
of working. If you have much in the way of
outboard processing/effects the console comes
in handy. Even more so for monitoring during
tracking.

rd

On 2005-01-25, wrote:

a mixer unit, is this a big time-saver? other benefits?

Having a mixer will solve countless problems that you might not
even realize you have yet.

wrote in message
oups.com
hello,

i've been using sonar 2.2 for awhile now to record n arrange
guitars,vocals, bass for some songs... i'm wondering how helpful it is
to have a mixer? thinkin about getting one... i've been using just
the onscreen mixing consoles/mouse to do it, but those of you who have
a mixer unit, is this a big time-saver? other benefits?

Mixers are helpful, even in a context of 100% DAW signal path production
methods. They are an economical way to obtain a bunch of mic preamps, and
they assist with monitoring during tracking and mixing.

If it's mostly just you recording yourself and maybe a friend or two, a
mixer might not be that useful. I have ProTools LE at home and got rid
of any sort of mixer a few years ago. Not having a mixer cleared up
some valuable space. I put the money into quality outboard preamps.

What do you need the mixer for, exactly?

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq


wrote:
hello,

i've been using sonar 2.2 for awhile now to record n arrange
guitars,vocals, bass for some songs... i'm wondering how helpful it is
to have a mixer? thinkin about getting one... i've been using just
the onscreen mixing consoles/mouse to do it, but those of you who have
a mixer unit, is this a big time-saver? other benefits?

thanks...

I thought havin a mixer would ease some eye/hand fatigue... i'm using a
m-audio firewire 410 to input vocals/instruments and it has built-in
preamps... and yeah, i would be recording mostly be for me and a few
other people...
i'm a newbie at this and it seems like everyone says that a mixer is
part of a basic home recording set-up so was just asking the necessity
of it given the mixing capabilies of sonar 2.2 and other recording
software out there..

In article .com,
wrote:
I thought havin a mixer would ease some eye/hand fatigue... i'm using a
m-audio firewire 410 to input vocals/instruments and it has built-in
preamps... and yeah, i would be recording mostly be for me and a few
other people...
i'm a newbie at this and it seems like everyone says that a mixer is
part of a basic home recording set-up so was just asking the necessity
of it given the mixing capabilies of sonar 2.2 and other recording
software out there..

Personally I cannot even imagine mixing with a mouse. It just seems like
the most painful way of working possible.

I could see wanting to use a mixer-like interface like the HUI, though,
and you might prefer that over having a real mixer if you are working
entirely on the computer. I'd certainly go the regular console route,
personally, but that's me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

In article .com,
wrote:
I thought havin a mixer would ease some eye/hand fatigue... i'm
using a m-audio firewire 410 to input vocals/instruments and it has
built-in preamps... and yeah, i would be recording mostly be for me
and a few other people...
i'm a newbie at this and it seems like everyone says that a mixer is
part of a basic home recording set-up so was just asking the
necessity of it given the mixing capabilies of sonar 2.2 and other
recording software out there..

Personally I cannot even imagine mixing with a mouse. It just seems
like the most painful way of working possible.

I could see wanting to use a mixer-like interface like the HUI,
though, and you might prefer that over having a real mixer if you are
working entirely on the computer. I'd certainly go the regular
console route, personally, but that's me.

I take it you never got into volume envelopes?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

I could see wanting to use a mixer-like interface like the HUI,
though, and you might prefer that over having a real mixer if you are
working entirely on the computer. I'd certainly go the regular
console route, personally, but that's me.

I take it you never got into volume envelopes?

Most automated consoles can do volume envelopes without any problem.
Although personally, I prefer musicians who can control their dynamics
in the first place.
--scott

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

In article .com writes:

i'm a newbie at this and it seems like everyone says that a mixer is
part of a basic home recording set-up so was just asking the necessity
of it given the mixing capabilies of sonar 2.2 and other recording
software out there..

You have to understand that the technology and tools for recording
have migrated over the years, allowing newbies like you on a peanut
butter budget to have some of the capability of a studio that costs
over a quarter of a million bucks to equip.

One of the things that went away to save that $999,950.05 is the
mixer, on the assumption that you probably have nothing to mix going
into the recorder (your computer) and your recorder has a built-in
digital mixer as part of the DAW software that you're running. Just
about any computer has a sound card with two inputs and two outputs.
If you record one or two tracks at a pass, you don't need anything
more than those two inputs, and if you mix in the computer, you don't
need anything but those two outputs.

If you really want to use your computer with an external mixer in the
same way that you'd use a two-track recorder, but with several
microphones, that's pretty simple - one mixer channel for each
microphone that you need, mix to two channels (left and right) and
send that to the sound card. Listen to your mix played back from the
computer through a "2-track return" input on the mixer.

If you want to use your computer as a multitrack recorder and mix
using your mixer, you need a sound card with as many outputs as you
plan to record tracks - if you want to pretend that you have an
8-track recorder, you need a sound card with eight outputs. Now you've
moved up from peanut butter sandwiches to a good hamburger. For 24
tracks, you need to move up to a decent steak. See how it goes?

These days people who want to get away from the eye strain and
repetitive motion stress of mixing with a mouse choose the "control
surface" route - a box that looks like a mixer, but which passes no
audio (some have mic preamps and/or monitor source switching) and
controls the computer DAW's mixer.

You pays your money and takes your choices.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1106699637k@trad

These days people who want to get away from the eye strain and
repetitive motion stress of mixing with a mouse choose the "control
surface" route - a box that looks like a mixer, but which passes no
audio (some have mic preamps and/or monitor source switching) and
controls the computer DAW's mixer.

The part I see missing is where PC DAW uses have the option to shortcut the
mixing with a mouse problem by going whole-hog into the nonlinear editing
paradigm. IOW you don't sit there and try to simulate using a real-world
mixing console with a mouse, you just draw in a volume envelope with a few
mouse clicks and get on with it.

Well if you're just trying to reduce eye/hand fatigue, maybe you only
need a MIDI controller for your software. Having an D/A and A/D stage,
plus running your audio through a potentially inexpensive mixer, might
actually do more harm to your sound quality than good. I'm not sure
which controllers work with Sonar, but we have some Mackie Controls here
that work pretty well with ProTools. I also noticed Behringer has just
made a sub-$300 knock-off of the Mackie Control, so that would probably
be a cheap way to try it out.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq


wrote:
I thought havin a mixer would ease some eye/hand fatigue... i'm using a
m-audio firewire 410 to input vocals/instruments and it has built-in
preamps... and yeah, i would be recording mostly be for me and a few
other people...
i'm a newbie at this and it seems like everyone says that a mixer is
part of a basic home recording set-up so was just asking the necessity
of it given the mixing capabilies of sonar 2.2 and other recording
software out there..

On 25 Jan 2005 21:50:06 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

If you want to use your computer as a multitrack recorder and mix
using your mixer, you need a sound card with as many outputs as you
plan to record tracks - if you want to pretend that you have an
8-track recorder, you need a sound card with eight outputs. Now you've
moved up from peanut butter sandwiches to a good hamburger. For 24
tracks, you need to move up to a decent steak. See how it goes?

That implies that an 8-output sound card is better than a 2-output
one. It isn't. It's just bigger.

We're talking different sized steaks (or different sized peanut butter
sandwiches).

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

In article writes:

The part I see missing is where PC DAW uses have the option to shortcut the
mixing with a mouse problem by going whole-hog into the nonlinear editing
paradigm. IOW you don't sit there and try to simulate using a real-world
mixing console with a mouse, you just draw in a volume envelope with a few
mouse clicks and get on with it.

You've been pushing the volume envelope thing pretty heavily lately.
I've done it on the Mackie HDR using the guess-and-by-gosh method and
I'm actually surprised at how well it works. Maybe I'm getting less
critical or just lucky. I can't hear something in a mix and say "I
think it needs to be 4.2 dB lower" but if something's too loud, like
maybe a punch-in, I might just guess at the needed volume reduction
(usually my guess is 3 dB, but sometimes 6, or if it really sticks
out, 10), and by gosh, when I play it through, by gosh it's about
right so I leave it alone. But I'd rather do it with a hand on the
fader and my ear on the monitor.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

If you want to use your computer as a multitrack recorder and mix
using your mixer, you need a sound card with as many outputs as you
plan to record tracks - if you want to pretend that you have an
8-track recorder, you need a sound card with eight outputs. Now you've
moved up from peanut butter sandwiches to a good hamburger. For 24
tracks, you need to move up to a decent steak. See how it goes?

That implies that an 8-output sound card is better than a 2-output
one. It isn't. It's just bigger.

The card itself is no better, but the capability might make your
studio better, or your work flow easier. That's better. But then it
might not.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo