Magic Mixer

[mcp6453[_2_]]

My latest projects are related to voice-only podcasting. The perfect mixer for
the application would be 8 channels with 8 post-fader aux sends. There doesn't
appear to be such an animal. Some Behringer mixers have six aux outs, but two of
the six are switched such that only four are active at any one time.

Obviously a large format multi-buss mixer would get the job done, but cost is
critical for the application. There is a new unit from Roland called the
Octo-Capture that includes an internal software mixer. It looks like it might be
able to create four software-only mix-minus sends. It would be nice if it were
available in a desktop format.

Am I overlooking any mixers that might be rich in aux sends?

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>Am I overlooking any mixers that might be rich in aux sends?

How about a matrix mixer? Roland made a popular one that has been gone
for ages, but Crest makes a modular system.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/14/2011 12:28 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
> My latest projects are related to voice-only podcasting. The perfect mixer for
> the application would be 8 channels with 8 post-fader aux sends. There doesn't
> appear to be such an animal.

You should be looking at a mixer that's intended for mixing
monitors. I think Allen & Heath might have something. More
than 8 input channels, but maybe as many aux sends as you want.

Have you considered using subgroups to supplement the Aux
Sends? With four Aux sends and four subgroups you might be
able to get what you want and have a wider choice of mixers.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/14/2011 9:12 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 12:28 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
>> My latest projects are related to voice-only podcasting. The perfect mixer for
>> the application would be 8 channels with 8 post-fader aux sends. There doesn't
>> appear to be such an animal.
>
> You should be looking at a mixer that's intended for mixing monitors. I think
> Allen & Heath might have something. More than 8 input channels, but maybe as
> many aux sends as you want.
>
> Have you considered using subgroups to supplement the Aux Sends? With four Aux
> sends and four subgroups you might be able to get what you want and have a wider
> choice of mixers.

I'm not that familiar with monitor mixers, but it sounds like what I might want.
Yes, I've considered using subgroups, and that will probably work fine. I'm
having to train non-technical people to use the mixers, so I'm trying to keep
things as simple as possible. If I can tell them where to set the Aux sends and
then have them leave them alone, things will be easier for all involved. There
is a greater chance that they will move the subgroup faders, but at least there
are options.

The Behringer boards are amazingly flexible for the price. If they didn't do the
stupid "switch" on Aux Sends 3-5 to 4-6, they would be perfect.

I have a Tascam M520 that would be perfect, but I physically don't have room for
it in the immediate application, and it's too darned heavy for any table I have.
It would be a great mixer for someone with a studio, but there aren't many
around any more.

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/14/2011 9:47 PM, mcp6453 wrote:

> The Behringer boards are amazingly flexible for the price. If they didn't do the
> stupid "switch" on Aux Sends 3-5 to 4-6, they would be perfect.

If they had two more auxiliary buses and sets of controls,
then they wouldn't be so inexpensive. ;)

I suspect that within a couple of years there will be a lot
of mixers that have a different auxiliary bus architecture.
All of a sudden there's been a substantial increase in the
number of people using personal in-ear monitoring, and along
with that comes the requirement for not only more individual
mixes, but more stereo mixes.

Take a look at the Allen & Heath Mix Wizard 12M that offers
12 mono or 6 stereo independent auxiliary mixes. Too bad,
for your needs, you can't saw one down the middle and make
two out of it. ;)

http://www.allen-heath.com/mixwizard/wz312M



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" > wrote in message
...

> My latest projects are related to voice-only podcasting. The perfect mixer
> for
> the application would be 8 channels with 8 post-fader aux sends. There
> doesn't
> appear to be such an animal. Some Behringer mixers have six aux outs, but
> two of
> the six are switched such that only four are active at any one time.

Why so many aux sends?

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/15/2011 7:53 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> My latest projects are related to voice-only podcasting. The perfect mixer
>> for
>> the application would be 8 channels with 8 post-fader aux sends. There
>> doesn't
>> appear to be such an animal. Some Behringer mixers have six aux outs, but
>> two of
>> the six are switched such that only four are active at any one time.
>
> Why so many aux sends?

They are used to create mix-minuses.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/15/2011 6:54 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 9:47 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> The Behringer boards are amazingly flexible for the price. If they didn't do the
>> stupid "switch" on Aux Sends 3-5 to 4-6, they would be perfect.
>
> If they had two more auxiliary buses and sets of controls, then they wouldn't be
> so inexpensive. ;)
>
> I suspect that within a couple of years there will be a lot of mixers that have
> a different auxiliary bus architecture. All of a sudden there's been a
> substantial increase in the number of people using personal in-ear monitoring,
> and along with that comes the requirement for not only more individual mixes,
> but more stereo mixes.
>
> Take a look at the Allen & Heath Mix Wizard 12M that offers 12 mono or 6 stereo
> independent auxiliary mixes. Too bad, for your needs, you can't saw one down the
> middle and make two out of it. ;)
>
> http://www.allen-heath.com/mixwizard/wz312M

People have recommended the AH mixers, but I've never seen one yet. They're
definitely something to consider. Twelve aux sends ought to last for a while.

The dilemma is whether I would want to spend $2K for this mixer or get a
Presonus StudioLive 16.4.2. While the AH has more aux sends, the SL has six, and
that's probably enough for now.

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/15/2011 10:54 AM, mcp6453 wrote:

> The dilemma is whether I would want to spend $2K for this mixer or get a
> Presonus StudioLive 16.4.2. While the AH has more aux sends, the SL has six, and
> that's probably enough for now.

You said you had to teach other people how to use the mixer.
The StudioLive has the advantage that you can set it up
correctly, take a "snapshot" and just make sure the user
knows how to load the snapshot. It's not as simple to
operate as an analog mixer but it's not too bad.

Although you can use it entirely with analog inputs and
outputs and don't need to connect it to a computer at all
except to load software updates, like all mixers of this
ilk, it's tempting to use it as the audio interface to a
computer, and that's subject to all the woes of connecting a
computer to something that the people who designed the
computer and operating system don't know anything about.
When I had one here for a review, I plugged it into my
Windows XP computer and it worked fine, but the PreSonus
forum is full of people who can't get it to work with this
or that computer. That's part of the fun of buying a high
tech product with a price too low to support it 100%.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/15/2011 11:17 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/15/2011 10:54 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
> You said you had to teach other people how to use the mixer. The StudioLive has
> the advantage that you can set it up correctly, take a "snapshot" and just make
> sure the user knows how to load the snapshot. It's not as simple to operate as
> an analog mixer but it's not too bad.
>
> Although you can use it entirely with analog inputs and outputs and don't need
> to connect it to a computer at all except to load software updates, like all
> mixers of this ilk, it's tempting to use it as the audio interface to a
> computer, and that's subject to all the woes of connecting a computer to
> something that the people who designed the computer and operating system don't
> know anything about. When I had one here for a review, I plugged it into my
> Windows XP computer and it worked fine, but the PreSonus forum is full of people
> who can't get it to work with this or that computer. That's part of the fun of
> buying a high tech product with a price too low to support it 100%.

It's a Catch 22. If the mixer is expensive enough for 100% support, it probably
doesn't need it.

The more I work on this project, the more clarity I'm reaching, I hope. Last
night, I could not get a feed from a Behringer 1204USB mixer (using Aux 2 out)
to show up on a Dell M65 laptop. The mixer is in Florida, and I'm in NC. The guy
I was walking through the process really doesn't have a clue what he's doing,
but with the aid of a webcam and a lot of talking, I'm sure he had everything
connected correctly. Either there is a bad cable (no spares, of course) or there
is something screwed up on the mic/line input on his computer. His internal mic
works fine.

Any how, part of the reason for this thread is that I am not familiar with a lot
of the low cost USB interfaces and mixers that are now readily available. While
I've been focusing on Aux sends, maybe there is another way to do what I need to
do use submixes, as Mike suggested. (I have used submixes for the purpose, but
most of the cheapest mixers don't have subgroups.)

Here is what I want to accomplish, hopefully in painstakingly simple detail. The
caveat is that the device needs to be less than $200.

Mic -> output 1 + output 2 + output 3
Line 1 -> output 1 + output 3
Line 2 -> output 1 + output 2

Output 1 is the main mix.
Output 2 is mix-minus 1.
Output 3 is mix-minus 2.

In looking through the B&H Pro catalog a few minutes ago, it seems that some of
the 8 in/6 out type interfaces may have the ability to do the desired routing,
but I've never used one, so I don't know. My local dealers don't carry these
sorts of things. A USB output for the main mix would be a dream.

Thanks for the input provided so far. I'm getting close.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/15/2011 11:17 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/15/2011 10:54 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> The dilemma is whether I would want to spend $2K for this mixer or get a
>> Presonus StudioLive 16.4.2. While the AH has more aux sends, the SL has six, and
>> that's probably enough for now.
>
> You said you had to teach other people how to use the mixer. The StudioLive has
> the advantage that you can set it up correctly, take a "snapshot" and just make
> sure the user knows how to load the snapshot. It's not as simple to operate as
> an analog mixer but it's not too bad.
>
> Although you can use it entirely with analog inputs and outputs and don't need
> to connect it to a computer at all except to load software updates, like all
> mixers of this ilk, it's tempting to use it as the audio interface to a
> computer, and that's subject to all the woes of connecting a computer to
> something that the people who designed the computer and operating system don't
> know anything about. When I had one here for a review, I plugged it into my
> Windows XP computer and it worked fine, but the PreSonus forum is full of people
> who can't get it to work with this or that computer. That's part of the fun of
> buying a high tech product with a price too low to support it 100%.

Further to my prior post, now I'm wondering if I can achieve a similar objective
with a USB headset for the mic, the internal audio card on a laptop for line
input 1, and a external USB audio card (Behringer UCA202) for line input 2. If
the software provides the necessary routing, I could solve a separate problem
very eloquently. However, the project with the hardware solution is more urgent.

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/15/2011 7:53 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> My latest projects are related to voice-only podcasting. The perfect
>>> mixer
>>> for
>>> the application would be 8 channels with 8 post-fader aux sends. There
>>> doesn't
>>> appear to be such an animal. Some Behringer mixers have six aux outs,
>>> but
>>> two of
>>> the six are switched such that only four are active at any one time.
>>
>> Why so many aux sends?
>
> They are used to create mix-minuses.

What is wrong with doing that sort of thing on a DAW?

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/16/2011 7:29 AM, mcp6453 wrote:

> The more I work on this project, the more clarity I'm reaching, I hope. Last
> night, I could not get a feed from a Behringer 1204USB mixer (using Aux 2 out)
> to show up on a Dell M65 laptop. The mixer is in Florida, and I'm in NC.

Generally on these low cost USB mixers, there's only one
output that interfaces with the computer via USB, and that's
from the Main output. What comes out the Aux outputs has to
go somewhere analog. Generally they're used to feed
headphones. Your mix-minus suggests this.

> Here is what I want to accomplish, hopefully in painstakingly simple detail. The
> caveat is that the device needs to be less than $200.
>
> Mic -> output 1 + output 2 + output 3
> Line 1 -> output 1 + output 3
> Line 2 -> output 1 + output 2
>
> Output 1 is the main mix.
> Output 2 is mix-minus 1.
> Output 3 is mix-minus 2.

How many people are involved? Where does Line 1 and Line 2
come from? Is this a telephone line? Or line level sources
(music, sound clips)?

Does the main mix go somewhere, like to a streaming server,
via the USB port?

Where do Outputs 2 and 3 go? Are these fed back to phone
lines? Are there other people in the studio with the mixer
who are listening on headphones? Are they expected to talk?
Into what? Is Skype/VoIP involved?

Rather than explaining what you want to accomplish in terms
of inputs and outputs, how about explaining what you want to
DO? For example:

"This is for a call-in broadcast that goes out over the
Internet. There's a local moderator who has a mic, he takes
phone calls that are broadcast, and I also join in to the
conversation by phone from my location, which is in a
different city from the local host and caller."





>
> In looking through the B&H Pro catalog a few minutes ago, it seems that some of
> the 8 in/6 out type interfaces may have the ability to do the desired routing,
> but I've never used one, so I don't know. My local dealers don't carry these
> sorts of things. A USB output for the main mix would be a dream.
>
> Thanks for the input provided so far. I'm getting close.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/16/2011 9:05 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "mcp6453" > wrote in message

>> They are used to create mix-minuses.
>
> What is wrong with doing that sort of thing on a DAW?

I made a post earlier today where I asked the same question. Since that post, I
downloaded Reaper. At this point, I'm trying to figure out how to record a USB
headset mic on Track 1 and the internal sound card on Track 2. (That's a test
configuration.) I don't know if that input selection is even possible. Since I
have almost no exposure to Reaper, it's taking a while.

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/16/2011 9:05 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
>
>>> They are used to create mix-minuses.
>>
>> What is wrong with doing that sort of thing on a DAW?
>
> I made a post earlier today where I asked the same question. Since that
> post, I
> downloaded Reaper. At this point, I'm trying to figure out how to record a
> USB
> headset mic on Track 1 and the internal sound card on Track 2. (That's a
> test
> configuration.) I don't know if that input selection is even possible.
> Since I
> have almost no exposure to Reaper, it's taking a while.

I've never seen DAW softare that didn't provide some kind of input
selection. In my accustomed DAW being CEP 2.1, its part of the settings menu
true.

Stick with it! The learning curve for DAWs can be non-trivial, but a little
bird tells me that they are a big part of the future of audio, if not
already its present.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/16/2011 9:19 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2011 7:29 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> The more I work on this project, the more clarity I'm reaching, I hope. Last
>> night, I could not get a feed from a Behringer 1204USB mixer (using Aux 2 out)
>> to show up on a Dell M65 laptop. The mixer is in Florida, and I'm in NC.
>
> Generally on these low cost USB mixers, there's only one output that interfaces
> with the computer via USB, and that's from the Main output. What comes out the
> Aux outputs has to go somewhere analog. Generally they're used to feed
> headphones. Your mix-minus suggests this.
>
>> Here is what I want to accomplish, hopefully in painstakingly simple detail. The
>> caveat is that the device needs to be less than $200.
>>
>> Mic -> output 1 + output 2 + output 3
>> Line 1 -> output 1 + output 3
>> Line 2 -> output 1 + output 2
>>
>> Output 1 is the main mix.
>> Output 2 is mix-minus 1.
>> Output 3 is mix-minus 2.
>
> How many people are involved? Where does Line 1 and Line 2 come from? Is this a
> telephone line? Or line level sources (music, sound clips)?
>
> Does the main mix go somewhere, like to a streaming server, via the USB port?
>
> Where do Outputs 2 and 3 go? Are these fed back to phone lines? Are there other
> people in the studio with the mixer who are listening on headphones? Are they
> expected to talk? Into what? Is Skype/VoIP involved?
>
> Rather than explaining what you want to accomplish in terms of inputs and
> outputs, how about explaining what you want to DO? For example:
>
> "This is for a call-in broadcast that goes out over the Internet. There's a
> local moderator who has a mic, he takes phone calls that are broadcast, and I
> also join in to the conversation by phone from my location, which is in a
> different city from the local host and caller."

This is for a call-in broadcast that goes out over the Internet. There's a local
moderator who has a mic, he takes Skype calls that are broadcast, and simulcasts
over talkshoe.com, which is a telephone bridge accessible using a SIP client,
like X-Lite or Blink. There are three computers. Computer 1 is the broadcasting
computer that streams to ustream.tv. Computer 2 has Skype, which requires a
mix-minus audio that excludes Skype. Computer 3 has Blink, which requires a
mix-minus audio that excludes Blink.

The arrangement above is the minimum configuration that we use. Sometimes we
also include paltalk.com, a second Skype account, and Google Voice. Assume for
purposes of discussion that each service is on a separate computer.

The above arrangement is trivial to obtain with a mixer with six aux outs. I
know how to do that. The challenge is to find 1) a smaller, possibly portable,
inexpensive mixer or interface, or 2) a software solution. Virtual Audio Cables
appears to be a software solution, but the software is rather clunky, and no
official support is available.

[[email protected]]

MIke Rivers writes:
>Rather than explaining what you want to accomplish in terms
>of inputs and outputs, how about explaining what you want to
>DO? For example:

I've been saying the same thing with this thread, he's been
given some good suggestion, i.e. matrix mixers, etc. Arnie
asks why he can't accomplish what he wants with a daw.
Probably could, if he has the right audio interface with
enough discreet outs, etc.

tEll us what actually is supposed to be happening with the
humans involved, etc. and we can better help you find your
way forward without having to do a lot of guesswork,
especially if you're not in a place where local dealers
stock a variety of types of gear.

I'm under the impression so far that the various mix minuses
go to talent different places, maybe some over phone lines,
etc. AT least, that's the perception I've got from
following along so far. Mike's examplewhich I snipped is
the type of thing that we need to help you get where you
want to go with the minimum hassle, restocking fees, etc.


Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/16/2011 9:05 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

> What is wrong with doing that sort of thing on a DAW?

I'm glad you didn't ask ME that. <g> But probably the best
reason is that the people for whom he's setting up these
systems are apparently clueless. There are fare too many
unknowns with a DAW.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/16/2011 9:23 AM, mcp6453 wrote:

> I made a post earlier today where I asked the same question. Since that post, I
> downloaded Reaper. At this point, I'm trying to figure out how to record a USB
> headset mic on Track 1 and the internal sound card on Track 2. (That's a test
> configuration.)

The problem is that, while you can designate one device as
the output and a different device as the input, you can't
have two devices (the headset USB mic and the sound card)
for inputs. You can on a Mac by setting up what's called an
"aggregate audio device" which lets multiple hardware
devices talk to the same Core Audio driver, but there's no
equivalent setup for Windows.

One possibility, if you think you can get your clueless
field moderators to use software, is to replace the mixer
with a multi-channel USB interface with one or two mic
inputs and a couple of line inputs. As long as you're using
separate computers to handle the external communications,
you can interface them via analog to the virtual router.

You can get a TASCAM US-600 for $200 so it would fit your
budget (don't forget to pay for Reaper, though) and that
should give you enough inputs and outputs to get where you
want to go.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/16/2011 9:32 AM, mcp6453 wrote:

> This is for a call-in broadcast that goes out over the Internet. There's a local
> moderator who has a mic, he takes Skype calls that are broadcast, and simulcasts
> over talkshoe.com, which is a telephone bridge accessible using a SIP client,
> like X-Lite or Blink. There are three computers. Computer 1 is the broadcasting
> computer that streams to ustream.tv. Computer 2 has Skype, which requires a
> mix-minus audio that excludes Skype. Computer 3 has Blink, which requires a
> mix-minus audio that excludes Blink.

I was pretty close, wasn't I? As long as you have all of
those computers, all of your interfacing is analog. Why do
you need six Aux outputs? Are you counting two per device so
you can run it in stereo? Why not mono?



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[[email protected]]

MIke Rivers writes:
>> What is wrong with doing that sort of thing on a DAW?
>I'm glad you didn't ask ME that. <g> But probably the best
>reason is that the people for whom he's setting up these
>systems are apparently clueless. There are fare too many
>unknowns with a DAW.

INdeed, and the clueless have enough trouble knowing that
for this input channel turn this one down but not that one,
etc. I know if I"m going to listen to the output that if
some mouse jockey can't get it right and it sounds bad I"m
going to tune out rather quickly, and this goes for the
clueless with hardware too. I"m not going to listen to bad
sound, but it's easier for the clueless to get acceptable
sound if you can plainly label the controls for the
application <g>.

OFtentimes when doing volunteer communications for events if
I"m forced to provide a portabe transceiver to somebody who
doesn't have one I prefer to give them my MOtorolla uhf if
I"ve got both vhf and uhf capability at my dispatch
position, because all of my vhf portables, or those that do
both are user friendly only if I remember to lock the keypad
first. THe motorolla is simple, turn the knob to select
your channel, there's only six of 'em, adjust volume, push
the button to chatter. wHat reprogramming needs to be done
with it is done via a cable and a laptop computer. I take
care of that, hand the newbie a radio he can't screw up!

Mcp's system sounds like it's going to be complex enough for
the neophyte that just wants to pretend to be Rush Limbaugh
<g>.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/16/2011 11:21 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2011 9:23 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> I made a post earlier today where I asked the same question. Since that post, I
>> downloaded Reaper. At this point, I'm trying to figure out how to record a USB
>> headset mic on Track 1 and the internal sound card on Track 2. (That's a test
>> configuration.)
>
> You can get a TASCAM US-600 for $200 so it would fit your budget (don't forget
> to pay for Reaper, though) and that should give you enough inputs and outputs to
> get where you want to go.

Here's where I get lost. Are you saying that the US-600 inputs would show up
individually as available sources in Reaper? I just read the wholly inadequate
manual for the US-600, and I don't understand the assignments. It looks like
they are assigned in pairs.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

mcp6453 writes:

<snip>
> There's a local moderator who has a mic, he takes Skype calls that
> are broadcast, and simulcasts over talkshoe.com, which is a telephone
> bridge accessible using a SIP client, like X-Lite or Blink. There are
> three computers. Computer 1 is the broadcasting computer that streams
> to ustream.tv. Computer 2 has Skype, which requires a mix-minus audio
> that excludes Skype. Computer 3 has Blink, which requires a mix-minus
> audio that excludes Blink.

Ah yes, this is much as I suspected. THe trouble is, I
don't know of any of the cheapo mixers that give you good
subgroups or enough aux sends, at least in the
Mackie/Behringer world. YOu're looking at something such as the A&H monitor mixers, or something larger footprint.
Scott suggested a matrix mixer.

YOu're going to want good metering on these different
outputs too, which indicates to me that otherwise subgroups
might be the way to go. Remember that often when using
subgroups your position of the pan pot is going to determine level to the various groups you've selected for an input as
well.

Something with 4 discreet sub groups and a couple auxes
would do you nicely, but most of the small format mixers
I've seen last few years don't truly have sub groups all
addressable simultaneously either and selectable by input
channel. Maybe the Onyx is different than the old Mackie
1202 vlz, I haven't laid hands on one, but I don't even
recall if the 1402 was fully addressable in this manner.

Broadcast professionals do this sort of thing all the time,
have done so in the past myself, but ... hmmm, that price
point of $200 or less might be hard to reach while getting
you what you need.

NO matter which way you go it still sounds pretty complex
for the neophyte to get a handle on. SOmebody's going to
need to switch between the different feeds and actually
listen to what's going on, or have good metering,
preferrably both were I doing it. Look to Scott Dorsey, ROy RIsing and other pros in this group for suggestions. Maybe
the software gurus among us can suggest a software based
solution that will actually work. I wouldn't know, I'm a
fan of actual buttons knobs and switches myself <g>.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/16/2011 1:52 PM, mcp6453 wrote:

> Here's where I get lost. Are you saying that the US-600 inputs would show up
> individually as available sources in Reaper? I just read the wholly inadequate
> manual for the US-600, and I don't understand the assignments. It looks like
> they are assigned in pairs.

Basically, all inputs are pairs, even those coming from your
USB mixer. But Reaper can put Output 1-2 Left on one track
and Output 1-2 Right on another track. So you can record (or
not) an individual track from each of the four analog inputs
on the US-600.

But I think I spoke too soon suggesting the US-600, because
it has only two output channels and that isn't enough for
your application. The US-800 has four outputs so you might
be able to use that. I have no real credibility with this
recommendation, though, just giving you some ideas for your
concept. I wouldn't do it this way because I hate using
computers for audio things other than recording and editing.
I don't mix with one when I can avoid it, and that's what
you'd need to do here.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/16/2011 9:23 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
>
>> I made a post earlier today where I asked the same question. Since that
>> post, I
>> downloaded Reaper. At this point, I'm trying to figure out how to record
>> a USB
>> headset mic on Track 1 and the internal sound card on Track 2. (That's a
>> test
>> configuration.)
>
> The problem is that, while you can designate one device as the output and
> a different device as the input, you can't have two devices (the headset
> USB mic and the sound card) for inputs.

Is this a limitation of Reaper?

Its not a limitation of Windows.

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/16/2011 6:39 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

>> The problem is that, while you can designate one device as the output and
>> a different device as the input, you can't have two devices (the headset
>> USB mic and the sound card) for inputs.
>
> Is this a limitation of Reaper?
>
> Its not a limitation of Windows.

No? What's a program (other than Audition - I don't have it
and I know you do) that lets you select multiple audio
devices? I know that with ASIO, it's just one driver per
program and if you want to use more than one device, they
all need to use the same driver. Some can, some can't. I
thought that using the standard USB audio driver might give
more flexibility, but I tried it before posting that "you
can't" message using a Behringer UCA-200 and a Samson USB
mic to get as close as I could to what mcp was asking about.

As far as I could see, I could pick one as the input device
and the other as the output device if I wanted, but I
couldn't pick two input or two output devices. I'm hardly a
Reaper expert, though. Maybe there's a way I didn't see.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Webb wrote:

> NO matter which way you go it still sounds pretty complex
> for the neophyte to get a handle on. SOmebody's going to
> need to switch between the different feeds and actually
> listen to what's going on, or have good metering,
> preferrably both were I doing it. Look to Scott Dorsey, ROy RIsing
> and other pros in this group for suggestions. Maybe the software
> gurus among us can suggest a software based
> solution that will actually work. I wouldn't know, I'm a
> fan of actual buttons knobs and switches myself <g>.

I think it might be a idea for the OP, whomver it is, to look into a
solution based on the Software Audio Console, see:

http://www.softwareaudioconsole.com/

> Richard

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/17/2011 5:40 PM, Richard Webb wrote:
> Peter Larsen writes:
>
>>> NO matter which way you go it still sounds pretty complex
>>> for the neophyte to get a handle on. SOmebody's going to
>>> need to switch between the different feeds and actually
>>> listen to what's going on, or have good metering,
>>> preferrably both were I doing it. Look to Scott Dorsey, ROy RIsing
>>> and other pros in this group for suggestions. Maybe the software
>>> gurus among us can suggest a software based
>>> solution that will actually work. I wouldn't know, I'm a
>>> fan of actual buttons knobs and switches myself <g>.
>
>> I think it might be a idea for the OP, whomver it is, to look into a
>> solution based on the Software Audio Console, see:
>
> That might be an idea. Lots more inputs possibly than he
> needs, but it's sure worth him taking a drive even to check
> one out, if he can find a place that would do a full blown
> demo for him. IT's designed for live sound environments,
> multiple monitor mixes, etc. so it might be just the fit
> he's looking for.
> Iirc it's balanced i/o hardware, and although I had a devil
> of a time trying to fight with SAW as a blind user it's
> getting some good buzz in the industry, a friend of mine's
> gone to it for his live sound work and loves it. IT would
> take a dedicated machine to run it, so that would add one
> more computer to mcp's setup for his talk show, but it's
> worth a look for him.

The software is $500. That's out of reach for this project, but it's a really
interesting idea.

By the way, Richard, your computer clock is wrong. You're in the future. :)
Either that or my usenet server is messed up.

[[email protected]]

MCP writes:
>> That might be an idea. Lots more inputs possibly than he
>> needs, but it's sure worth him taking a drive even to check
>> one out, if he can find a place that would do a full blown
>> demo for him. IT's designed for live sound environments,
>> multiple monitor mixes, etc.
<snip>
>The software is $500. That's out of reach for this project, but
>it's a really interesting idea.

Yeah, I thought that might be a stumbling block, but I don't
know of much with your requirements that's going to be any
cheaper, whether you go with a full blown matrix mixer, or
something with proper sub groups.

>By the way, Richard, your computer clock is wrong. You're in the

NO, my clock isn't wrong, though it looks like the future to
you. My clock is set to universal time, 4 hours ahead of
eastern daylight, 5 hours ahead of cdt, etc. tHIs computer
does my radio logging to, so its clock is set to utc.

About once or twice a year somebody complains about my
system clock, but all my computers are set to utc. I don't
do the time change shuffle with them <g>.


Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Peter Larsen writes:

>> NO matter which way you go it still sounds pretty complex
>> for the neophyte to get a handle on. SOmebody's going to
>> need to switch between the different feeds and actually
>> listen to what's going on, or have good metering,
>> preferrably both were I doing it. Look to Scott Dorsey, ROy RIsing
>> and other pros in this group for suggestions. Maybe the software
>> gurus among us can suggest a software based
>> solution that will actually work. I wouldn't know, I'm a
>> fan of actual buttons knobs and switches myself <g>.

> I think it might be a idea for the OP, whomver it is, to look into a
> solution based on the Software Audio Console, see:

That might be an idea. Lots more inputs possibly than he
needs, but it's sure worth him taking a drive even to check
one out, if he can find a place that would do a full blown
demo for him. IT's designed for live sound environments,
multiple monitor mixes, etc. so it might be just the fit
he's looking for.
Iirc it's balanced i/o hardware, and although I had a devil
of a time trying to fight with SAW as a blind user it's
getting some good buzz in the industry, a friend of mine's
gone to it for his live sound work and loves it. IT would
take a dedicated machine to run it, so that would add one
more computer to mcp's setup for his talk show, but it's
worth a look for him.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.