"bill smolenski" wrote in message
om...
i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.

Yamaha o1v maybe
George

"George Gleason" wrote in message ...
"bill smolenski" wrote in message
om...
i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.

I'd vote for the Allen Heath 14:4:2 Mix Wizard

i had an allen and heath mix wizard 16:2. i sold it. it was "ok".
$1500 maybe a small mackie 1202 to monitor off of, and then a
dangerous 2 bus "lite" model to sum the analog signals during mixes.

Used Alesis X2 24x8x2 (24-ch + 24 line in small faders)

--
AudioGaff


"Bill" wrote in message
om...
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
"bill smolenski" wrote in message
om...
i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.

I'd vote for the Allen Heath 14:4:2 Mix Wizard

In article writes:

"bill smolenski" wrote in message
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats

I'd vote for the Allen Heath 14:4:2 Mix Wizard

2-3 ADATs is 16 to 24 tracks. How do you propose that he mix those
projects on a 14-channel board? Use the third ADAT to hold submixes
from the first two ADATs?




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Here's a possibility.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=23 785

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Bill" wrote in message
om...
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
"bill smolenski" wrote in message
om...
i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.

I'd vote for the Allen Heath 14:4:2 Mix Wizard

no mackie 28 X 8? they are reasonable.



(xy) wrote in message . com...
i had an allen and heath mix wizard 16:2. i sold it. it was "ok".
$1500 maybe a small mackie 1202 to monitor off of, and then a
dangerous 2 bus "lite" model to sum the analog signals during mixes.

I'd look for an 80s-vintage Amek. I've heard bad things about the TAC
stuff and the Big, but I've seen BCII's going ridiculously cheap
lately. I love mine, and although it would have cost about $80,000 new
in 1988, we've got about 3% of that invested in it. Real-console build
quality and headroom in a relatively small package (okay, mine's huge
but we have two more in the closet that are pretty much Mackie-size).

ulysses

In article , bill
smolenski wrote:

i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.

A seller with a rating of one? I don't think so.
If I could get the mixer for the $1000 opening price(which ain't gonna
happen), the only reason I would be interested is because I am here in
Oklahoma City!
--
Mitchell Benson
OKC Backup
405.728.7005
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Here's a possibility.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=23 785

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Bill" wrote in message
om...
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
"bill smolenski" wrote in message
om...
i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats
and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.

I'd vote for the Allen Heath 14:4:2 Mix Wizard

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ...
Here's a possibility.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=23 785

--


Roger W. Norman


I realize that digital gear is a whole 'nother ballgame, but I was
wondering if you can apply a basic analog concept to digital mixers?
Out of all the inexpensive digital mixers, is there one that offers
higher quality and minimal features instead of countless features and
mediocre quality? Or does that type of analysis become totally
meaningless with digital equipment?

I can't see ever having any need for 90% of the features offered by
even the cheap digital mixers, but audio quality, build quality and
reliability are all very important. The only reason that I am even
considering a digital mixer is that I want to minimize the number of
A/D or D/A conversions. I am recording to a digital 8 track hard disk
recorder and I would like to stay digital once I have hit the hard
disk. But I'm only dealing with a maximum of 8 tracks, often less,
and the amount of post-tracking processing will vary between little
and none. (A minimalist analog mixer like the Dangerous 2-Bus would
be great, but I really want to at least investigate the possibility of
staying digital once the basic tracks have been converted.)

So, are any of the low cost digital mixers better than the others?
(quality instead of features) or is this a non-issue with digital
gear?

steve

Roger W. Norman wrote:

As Rick Chinn once said, you'll always need more inputs no matter what size
console you get.


It's like closets. No matter how many you have, you always manage to
fill them all up.

In article writes:

I realize that digital gear is a whole 'nother ballgame, but I was
wondering if you can apply a basic analog concept to digital mixers?
Out of all the inexpensive digital mixers, is there one that offers
higher quality and minimal features instead of countless features and
mediocre quality?

Nope. The advantage (to manufacturers and, they think, users) of a
digital console is that they can put in more features without
increasing manufacturing cost. So they do. There isn't a clear
trade-off between better quality and features with a digital console.
There are better user interfaces, and smarter mixing algorithms, but
it isn't rocket science to build a decently functional digital
console. It does, however, approach rocket science to design and build
good sounding analog circuitry.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

hollywood_steve wrote:

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ...
Here's a possibility.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=23 785

--


Roger W. Norman


I realize that digital gear is a whole 'nother ballgame, but I was
wondering if you can apply a basic analog concept to digital mixers?
Out of all the inexpensive digital mixers, is there one that offers
higher quality and minimal features instead of countless features and
mediocre quality? Or does that type of analysis become totally
meaningless with digital equipment?


People who buy digital stuff want all the features -"with
three you get reverb". People who know about why things
are specialized don't buy too many all in one boxes.

Adding features on an all-in-one becomes a matter of
upgrading software, so it's harder to enforce feaure
disipline.

I can't see ever having any need for 90% of the features offered by
even the cheap digital mixers, but audio quality, build quality and
reliability are all very important. The only reason that I am even
considering a digital mixer is that I want to minimize the number of
A/D or D/A conversions.

If you do this right, you eliminate exactly one
full cycle of D/A-A/D.

I am recording to a digital 8 track hard disk
recorder and I would like to stay digital once I have hit the hard
disk. But I'm only dealing with a maximum of 8 tracks, often less,
and the amount of post-tracking processing will vary between little
and none. (A minimalist analog mixer like the Dangerous 2-Bus would
be great, but I really want to at least investigate the possibility of
staying digital once the basic tracks have been converted.)

So, are any of the low cost digital mixers better than the others?
(quality instead of features) or is this a non-issue with digital
gear?

I am told there are substantive differences in just summing
things in the digital domain between things, which perplexes me.

If you do a lot of post-tracking processing, something like Nuendo
might make sense.

steve



--
Les Cargill

Rob Adelman wrote in message ...
Roger W. Norman wrote:

As Rick Chinn once said, you'll always need more inputs no matter what size
console you get.


It's like closets. No matter how many you have, you always manage to
fill them all up.


With closets, yeah, console channel inputs, nope. I've owned a little
16x8 Trident for several years and I've often thought about cutting it
down to an 8x2 so it would be more useful for me. I just don't need
that many inputs and it would be a lot more portable at 8x2 than it is
at 16x8.

I always get a kick out of reading about guys that use more mics on a
single guitar cabinet than I do for an entire recording.

whatever floats your boat..........

but I guess the answer to my original question is NO - nobody is ever
going to offer a high quality, low quantity (inputs and features)
digital mixer.


steve

That's kinda general, generally speaking. g I could use not having 4 feet
of horizontal surface taken up by a console that doesn't give me more access
to functions than a digital would. Then again, I kinda like the idea of
quickly grabbing the CORRECT knob or fader to do something. In live work
it's mostly Good and Quick. Meaning that you have to be good at what you're
doing quick, and you have to be quick to be good. In studio work, it's a
different ballgame and sometimes it's more appropriate to have the functions
at a couple of taps of your fingertips than it is to be sliding down 94
other faders to reach what you're looking for. In the really nice digital
boards, all channel strips are right in front of you because you can take
input 48 from the other end of the board and move all it's controls to the
few you have at center console and still act as if you'd moved all that
distance.

Somewhere this has got to stop. First it was converters and their inability
to sound good, then finally we got a grasp on some of it and new converters
came down the pike that allowed us to get much better dynamic response and
higher sampling frequencies. Now it's a problem that too many features are
available at the touch of a button a few times with a smaller footprint,
less energy consumption, less heat build up and more damned features. I
mean, why not have 4 fully parametric EQ bands with selectable shelves and Q
widths? Why not be able to mult a signal from one input to a number of
others so that different processing can be done at different times with
different mute points?

Too many things to learn, or lesser sound quality? If it's the former than
that's our problem. If it's latter, then it's the manufacturer's problem.

Don't get me wrong. I still like having a hybrid studio, but I don't
believe it's necessary any more. I may well keep my Solo forever, but I'd
like some tactile response to my mixing on the computer, I'd like to be able
to still route playback through the corresponding channels for rough mixes,
and I'd like to have dynamite converters, all for $5.20 per channel, please.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
hollywood_steve wrote:

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Here's a possibility.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=23 785

--


Roger W. Norman


I realize that digital gear is a whole 'nother ballgame, but I was
wondering if you can apply a basic analog concept to digital mixers?
Out of all the inexpensive digital mixers, is there one that offers
higher quality and minimal features instead of countless features and
mediocre quality? Or does that type of analysis become totally
meaningless with digital equipment?


People who buy digital stuff want all the features -"with
three you get reverb". People who know about why things
are specialized don't buy too many all in one boxes.

Adding features on an all-in-one becomes a matter of
upgrading software, so it's harder to enforce feaure
disipline.

I can't see ever having any need for 90% of the features offered by
even the cheap digital mixers, but audio quality, build quality and
reliability are all very important. The only reason that I am even
considering a digital mixer is that I want to minimize the number of
A/D or D/A conversions.

If you do this right, you eliminate exactly one
full cycle of D/A-A/D.

I am recording to a digital 8 track hard disk
recorder and I would like to stay digital once I have hit the hard
disk. But I'm only dealing with a maximum of 8 tracks, often less,
and the amount of post-tracking processing will vary between little
and none. (A minimalist analog mixer like the Dangerous 2-Bus would
be great, but I really want to at least investigate the possibility of
staying digital once the basic tracks have been converted.)

So, are any of the low cost digital mixers better than the others?
(quality instead of features) or is this a non-issue with digital
gear?

I am told there are substantive differences in just summing
things in the digital domain between things, which perplexes me.

If you do a lot of post-tracking processing, something like Nuendo
might make sense.

steve



--
Les Cargill

(bill smolenski) wrote in message . com...
that's the whole point. i don't want to mix inside the computer using
a mouse to move faders. i can get 16 outs on the digi.





Well as long as you don't mind repatching then could use the Mackie
1604VLZ for 16 tracks of mixing in your price range. Behringer makes a
digital board, DDX3216 or something that could be routed to digitally
in your price range.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

In article , Mike
wrote:

(bill smolenski) wrote in message
. com...
that's the whole point. i don't want to mix inside the computer using
a mouse to move faders. i can get 16 outs on the digi.





Well as long as you don't mind repatching then could use the Mackie
1604VLZ for 16 tracks of mixing in your price range. Behringer makes a
digital board, DDX3216 or something that could be routed to digitally
in your price range.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com
A used Soundcraft sprit studio 16X8?

In e.com, Mike
wrote:

(bill smolenski) wrote in message
. com...
that's the whole point. i don't want to mix inside the computer using
a mouse to move faders. i can get 16 outs on the digi.





Well as long as you don't mind repatching then could use the Mackie
1604VLZ for 16 tracks of mixing in your price range. Behringer makes a
digital board, DDX3216 or something that could be routed to digitally
in your price range.

You'd be better off mixing inside the computer than using a cheap
mixer. "Toy" faders are about as useless as a mouse and boards with
"real" faders don't come cheap.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 www.hyperback.com/olhsson Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

"Guitarboy" wrote in message
. ..

A used Soundcraft sprit studio 16X8?

Guitar Center Arvada Colorado has a used 24x8 for $1200 that appears to be
in pretty good shape. They just got it in yesterday from a church upgrading
their system.

Glenn D.

"Thomas Bishop" wrote in message
I have a 32 channel Spirit Live 4 (not squared) that I would part with for
$1500.


I forgot to mention that it comes with an Anvil ATA case that has a
doghouse, place for power supply, and lights.

"hollywood_steve" wrote in message
om...
Rob Adelman wrote in message
...
Roger W. Norman wrote:

As Rick Chinn once said, you'll always need more inputs no matter what
size
console you get.


It's like closets. No matter how many you have, you always manage to
fill them all up.


With closets, yeah, console channel inputs, nope. I've owned a little
16x8 Trident for several years and I've often thought about cutting it
down to an 8x2 so it would be more useful for me. I just don't need
that many inputs and it would be a lot more portable at 8x2 than it is
at 16x8.



How do you do that? I use 8 inputs of my 24 just for effects returns.

--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

"bill smolenski" wrote in message
om...
i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.

How about a Soundcraft Ghost? (I own one.) Or a used TAC Magnum? (I've heard
good things about them.)

--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

Steve Holt wrote:


How about a Soundcraft Ghost? (I own one.) Or a used TAC Magnum? (I've heard
good things about them.)

I don't think you'll find a working Ghost for $1,500. Maybe 3 grand if
your lucky. And even that would be on the low side. I watched them for a
while and ended up buying a new one cause the savings used wasn't enough.

"John Noll" wrote in message
...
Steve Holt wrote:
"bill smolenski" wrote in message
om...

i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.


How about a Soundcraft Ghost? (I own one.) Or a used TAC Magnum? (I've
heard
good things about them.)


You won't find a Magnum for $1500.





You're right. More like $6000+
Sorry.

--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

In article Rob Adelman
writes:


Steve Holt wrote:


How about a Soundcraft Ghost? (I own one.) Or a used TAC Magnum? (I've
heard
good things about them.)

I don't think you'll find a working Ghost for $1,500. Maybe 3 grand if
your lucky. And even that would be on the low side. I watched them for a
while and ended up buying a new one cause the savings used wasn't enough.

Well, I did get a 24 channel Ghost LE for $1400 in perfect condition: all I had
to do was produce a CD for a band that went belly up right afterwards and felt
they owed me something.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

(bill smolenski) wrote in message . com...
i have $1,500 to spend on a mixing board and need suggestions. i
will be using it for a home project studio, recording w/ 2-3 adats and
a digi 001... not much outboard gear: a reverb unit, compressor, and
hardy pre... thanks.

Go for a second hand Panasonic DA7.... you won't regret it (just check
out the www.da7.com user group). Very soon it'll be vintage stuff
since P'sonic decided to pull the plug on this board (shame on
them...).

Cheerz!

Paul

Jay Kadis wrote:

Well, I did get a 24 channel Ghost LE for $1400 in perfect condition: all I had
to do was produce a CD for a band that went belly up right afterwards and felt
they owed me something.

Sweet! Wish I could have found such a deal. I spent close to 5 grand for
mine.

-Rob

Jay Kadis wrote:


Yeah, but I spent $3800 on their CD, so I paid full price for a used Ghost if
you look at it that way. Of course I do have several hundred CDs in the
garage...

Punk rock anyone?



Oh, ok. Not so sweet..