I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio. I'm
considering these:

Behringer UB802
Behringer Xenyx 802
SAMSON MDR624
ALESIS MultiMix 6FX

Any stand outs (good or bad) or all about the same?

"toronado455" wrote in message
ups.com...
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio. I'm
considering these:

Behringer UB802
Behringer Xenyx 802
SAMSON MDR624
ALESIS MultiMix 6FX

Any stand outs (good or bad) or all about the same?

Also consider Alto and Phonic, or Mackie if you want to pay more for
something a little more substantial chassis.

Of the lot, considering your price-v-sound criteria, I'd probably go for
the Behringer (ducks).

geoff

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:22:13 +1300, "Geoff@home"
wrote:


"toronado455" wrote in message
oups.com...
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio. I'm
considering these:

Behringer UB802
Behringer Xenyx 802
SAMSON MDR624
ALESIS MultiMix 6FX

Any stand outs (good or bad) or all about the same?

Also consider Alto and Phonic, or Mackie if you want to pay more for
something a little more substantial chassis.

Of the lot, considering your price-v-sound criteria, I'd probably go for
the Behringer (ducks).

geoff


No need to duck. I have a UB802 for small location jobs and it is
great - quiet, and plenty enough features to cover my needs. The only
downside for me is the care you need in setting the mic channel gain
pots to optimize the noise/headroom compromise.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

toronado455 wrote:
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio.

No, you don't. You really want and need a larger, more expensive mixer
(not $100 more expensive, $5,000 more expensive) that has really high
quality signal paths. But if this is all you think you need, any of
those on your list will do equally well.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

toronado455 wrote:
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio.

No, you don't. You really want and need a larger, more expensive mixer
(not $100 more expensive, $5,000 more expensive) that has really high
quality signal paths. But if this is all you think you need, any of
those on your list will do equally well.

The Samson is especial poor at rejecting RF
I sold one to a church that didn't want to spend behringer money, I ended up
eating it's cost
I would avoid the samson
George

"George Gleason" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

toronado455 wrote:
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio.

No, you don't. You really want and need a larger, more expensive mixer
(not $100 more expensive, $5,000 more expensive) that has really high
quality signal paths. But if this is all you think you need, any of
those on your list will do equally well.



Although I do agree with Mike I might suggest hunting down a used a 12 or 14
channel Mackie VLZ pro mixer

Now I'll duck

Don

I would probably go with a Soundcraft/Spirit COMPACT 10.

My step son uses one for film work. Solid construction,
versatile. $179.99 at B&H Photo Video.

-Tim Sprout




"toronado455" wrote:
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio.
I'm considering these:

Behringer UB802
Behringer Xenyx 802
SAMSON MDR624
ALESIS MultiMix 6FX

Any stand outs (good or bad) or all about the same?

George Gleason wrote:

The Samson is especial poor at rejecting RF
I sold one to a church that didn't want to spend behringer money,

Oh, geez, how low can you go? g

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

toronado455 wrote:
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio.

No, you don't. You really want and need a larger, more expensive mixer
(not $100 more expensive, $5,000 more expensive) that has really high
quality signal paths. But if this is all you think you need, any of
those on your list will do equally well.

For a small home studio !?!?!?

I'll have some of whatever you are smoking. Must be really good stuff.

The behringer are the best bang for the buck here but at the money you are
spending you really won't get much of a mixer.

If I were you I would up the budget and look at the Behringer DDX3216.

Phildo

Phildo wrote:

For a small home studio !?!?!?
I'll have some of whatever you are smoking. Must be really good stuff.

The behringer are the best bang for the buck here but at the money you are
spending you really won't get much of a mixer.

I don't recall seeing "Bang for the buck" as a technical specification.
It may be a great bang for the buck, but few bucks still means small
bang.

But I understand what you're talking about. It's nice to have the
appearance of funcitonality even if the quality isn't all that great. A
beginner won't get any better sound working on a Neve than a Behringer,
at least not for a while. But at some point, and it comes too soon for
most, he figures out that he doesn't have enough bang.

If I were you I would up the budget and look at the Behringer DDX3216.

Well, that's going in the direction that I was pointing him. It's quite
a step up from the the 4-input Samson that someone recommended.

Mike Rivers wrote:
toronado455 wrote:
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio.

No, you don't. You really want and need a larger, more expensive mixer
(not $100 more expensive, $5,000 more expensive) that has really high
quality signal paths. But if this is all you think you need, any of
those on your list will do equally well.

Got it. And you'll be sending the $5000 when? g

Actually I *do* need a small, inexpensive mixer. All I have to use
right now is the mixer portion of an old Tascam PortaOne 4-track. It
has no line-ins/tape monitors for connecting the output of my computer
soundcard for monitoring. I need something to create a small mix to
send to the computer soundcard inputs and I also need a way of
monitoring the sound output of the computer soundcard (without creating
an unwanted feedback loop). It also needs to fit on my desktop. It
appears that these small mixers fit the bill (and budget).

Geoff@home wrote:
"toronado455" wrote in message
ups.com...
I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio. I'm
considering these:

Behringer UB802
Behringer Xenyx 802
SAMSON MDR624
ALESIS MultiMix 6FX

Any stand outs (good or bad) or all about the same?

Also consider Alto and Phonic, or Mackie if you want to pay more for
something a little more substantial chassis.

Of the lot, considering your price-v-sound criteria, I'd probably go for
the Behringer (ducks).

geoff


Geoff, thanks for the telling me about Alto and Phonic. (The Makie is
nice, of course, but in a different size/class.)

The Alto AMX-100/FX is interesting. It is larger dimensionally though.

The Phonic MU502 seems to have exactly what I need right now (and
nothing more). It has the 2 XLR inputs unlike the Behringer 502 models
which have only a single XLR input (which is the only reason I was
considering the Behringer 802 models). And I like the Phonic 802
features better than the Behringer 802. But I have no idea if there is
a difference in sound/build quality between the two makes.

George Gleason wrote:

The Samson is especial poor at rejecting RF
I sold one to a church that didn't want to spend behringer money, I ended up
eating it's cost
I would avoid the samson
George



Thanks. I guess I can eliminate the Samson from my list.

Tim Sprout wrote:
I would probably go with a Soundcraft/Spirit COMPACT 10.

My step son uses one for film work. Solid construction,
versatile. $179.99 at B&H Photo Video.

-Tim Sprout

Tim, thanks for the tip about Soundcraft. The Soundcraft Compact 4 is a
possiblity. But not the Compact 10. The Soundcraft seems to be
different from the rest of these. Soundcraft says it's to make things
clearer/easier to understand but it just confuses me more.

Right now I'd have to say I'm leaning toward the Phonic MU502.

On 9 Mar 2006 13:18:19 -0800, "toronado455"
wrote:

Right now I'd have to say I'm leaning toward the Phonic MU502.

Why would you buy a MU502 for $60 when you can buy an EB802 for $50 ?

Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

In article .com toronado455 wrote:


: EB802? You mean the Behringer UB802? I'm still considering that one.
: It's a possiblility. So is the Phonic MU802 for $10 more. The price
: differences here don't concern me that much. I am more concerned about
: any significant quality difference between the two brands. Quality
: being equal between the two brands, I would choose the Phonic.

Having endured one 24x2 Ph*nic mixer which was installed by a "professional"
audio contractor in my church (and which started to decay almost immediately
after the warranty expired), had *terrible* headroom/noise issues, RF issues
(can you say "talk radio" leaking out during services?) the worst EQ I have
ever seen, and replaced it (without the "professional") with an A&H GL2200
four years later for 20% less than they paid for the Ph*nic, ("aaaah, *much*
better!!") I would never, never, *ever* recommend that brand again!!!

OK, I will admit the Ph*nic wasn't the whole problem (replacement was
accompanied by some extensive work on the whole system from mics to speakers),
but it was a *big* chunk of it.

If I *had* to buy Behr or Ph*nic, I'd buy Behringer. Its probably still crap,
but it doesn't smell as bad....

YMMV, of course...

Bob

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

Phildo wrote:

For a small home studio !?!?!?
I'll have some of whatever you are smoking. Must be really good stuff.

The behringer are the best bang for the buck here but at the money you
are
spending you really won't get much of a mixer.

I don't recall seeing "Bang for the buck" as a technical specification.
It may be a great bang for the buck, but few bucks still means small
bang.

The poster asked which of the desks were the best from the ones he chose.

But I understand what you're talking about. It's nice to have the
appearance of funcitonality even if the quality isn't all that great. A
beginner won't get any better sound working on a Neve than a Behringer,
at least not for a while. But at some point, and it comes too soon for
most, he figures out that he doesn't have enough bang.

You don't need a Neve for "a small home studio". It's pretty obvious from
the desk choices this guy gave that he is not in the market for something
like a Neve. It's a small home studio not a commercial house. You don't need
an expensive professional mixer at the level this guy is obviously at. In
most cases you do not need an expensive professional mixer at all given that
most of the audio will be done on a computer these days anyway. A couple of
good preamps and mics to go with your DAW is about all you need for a lot of
applications.

If I were you I would up the budget and look at the Behringer DDX3216.

Well, that's going in the direction that I was pointing him. It's quite
a step up from the the 4-input Samson that someone recommended.

Yes it is and it will do him for a long time to come.

I still think telling an obvious newbie to get a Neve for his "small home
studio" after he's said he's looking at Samson and Behringer level is
ludicrous.

Phildo

"toronado455" wrote in message
ups.com...
Geoff, thanks for the telling me about Alto and Phonic. (The Makie is
nice, of course, but in a different size/class.)

Mackie is no better than the mixers you list. Cheap, overmarketed junk. They
would love you to believe it is better but Behringer is better at half the
price.

The Phonic MU502 seems to have exactly what I need right now (and
nothing more). It has the 2 XLR inputs unlike the Behringer 502 models
which have only a single XLR input (which is the only reason I was
considering the Behringer 802 models). And I like the Phonic 802
features better than the Behringer 802. But I have no idea if there is
a difference in sound/build quality between the two makes.

I have yet to find a single phonic product I would ever consider using.

Phildo

"toronado455" wrote in message
oups.com...

Frank Vuotto wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 13:18:19 -0800, "toronado455"
wrote:

Right now I'd have to say I'm leaning toward the Phonic MU502.

Why would you buy a MU502 for $60 when you can buy an EB802 for $50 ?


EB802? You mean the Behringer UB802? I'm still considering that one.
It's a possiblility. So is the Phonic MU802 for $10 more. The price
differences here don't concern me that much. I am more concerned about
any significant quality difference between the two brands. Quality
being equal between the two brands, I would choose the Phonic.

Quality is not equal. The Behringer is useable, the phonic is junk.

Phildo

Exactly. I'm just learning right now. I don't need a $5000 mixer for
the same reason a beginning violinist doesn't need a Stradivarius. If
some day I become a great recording engineer then I can always upgrade
eh? g

Currently I'm in need of some help with understanding how the mixer is
going to integrate with my DAW. I need the mixer in order to create a
small mix of instruments that will be sent to the inputs of the
computer soundcard. That part I'm pretty sure I understand how to do.
But I also need to be able to monitor the output of the soundcard
itself, seperate from the mix that is being sent into the soundcard.
Can I do both these tasks with the same mixer? Or do I need a seperate,
dedicated device for the purpose of monitoring the output of the
soundcard?


Phildo wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

Phildo wrote:

For a small home studio !?!?!?
I'll have some of whatever you are smoking. Must be really good stuff.

The behringer are the best bang for the buck here but at the money you
are
spending you really won't get much of a mixer.

I don't recall seeing "Bang for the buck" as a technical specification.
It may be a great bang for the buck, but few bucks still means small
bang.

The poster asked which of the desks were the best from the ones he chose.

But I understand what you're talking about. It's nice to have the
appearance of funcitonality even if the quality isn't all that great. A
beginner won't get any better sound working on a Neve than a Behringer,
at least not for a while. But at some point, and it comes too soon for
most, he figures out that he doesn't have enough bang.

You don't need a Neve for "a small home studio". It's pretty obvious from
the desk choices this guy gave that he is not in the market for something
like a Neve. It's a small home studio not a commercial house. You don't need
an expensive professional mixer at the level this guy is obviously at. In
most cases you do not need an expensive professional mixer at all given that
most of the audio will be done on a computer these days anyway. A couple of
good preamps and mics to go with your DAW is about all you need for a lot of
applications.

If I were you I would up the budget and look at the Behringer DDX3216.

Well, that's going in the direction that I was pointing him. It's quite
a step up from the the 4-input Samson that someone recommended.

Yes it is and it will do him for a long time to come.

I still think telling an obvious newbie to get a Neve for his "small home
studio" after he's said he's looking at Samson and Behringer level is
ludicrous.

Phildo

Phildo wrote:


You don't need a Neve for "a small home studio". It's pretty obvious from
the desk choices this guy gave that he is not in the market for something
like a Neve. It's a small home studio not a commercial house.

I'm very careful with people who use the term "small home studio." It's
usually followed shortly by "professional results."

You don't need
an expensive professional mixer at the level this guy is obviously at.

It's obvious to you and me, but is it obvious to him? What does he
really think he's going to get for $100? Like I said, it's a good
approach to learning and making recording that can be fun and pleasant
to listen to. Competent, too, after a while. But is he preapred to buy
something better next year? Or will he get frustrated and sell all his
gear? We don't know. I'd rather advise people on what's best and then
cut back from that based on what they're willing to not do.

most cases you do not need an expensive professional mixer at all given that
most of the audio will be done on a computer these days anyway.

The mixer is, in most cases, the way in and out of the computer. That
affects everything that you record, and everything that you do to that
recording based on what you hear. Now this cheap stuff isn't horrible,
but it is limited and he needs to understand that. He also should
understand that in this price range, it doesn't make a bit of
difference which one he chooses, so he might as well learn to make some
decisions himself. At this level, there's no reason not to buy the
cheapest, but it might be better to buy whatever he can get from a
local dealer even if it's not the chapest so he can start establishing
a business relationship.

A couple of
good preamps and mics to go with your DAW is about all you need for a lot of
applications.

Uh . . . have you forgotten about monitors, a montior amplifier, a
decent mixing room? Sure, that's all you need to "make tracks" but you
can't finish the job, and you can't be sure what you're doing. But you
can indeed impress some of your frineds with a simple rig. I don't
remember if it was in this thread, but I often suggest that people who
are looking for a cheap mixer for the wrong reasons (wrong reasons to
use a mixer, not wrong reasons to buy cheap) consider a mic preamp, a
patchbay, and a monitor controller instead.

I still think telling an obvious newbie to get a Neve for his "small home
studio" after he's said he's looking at Samson and Behringer level is
ludicrous.

I didn't tell him to get a Neve, I suggested that he really needed
something better. If he got a Neve, he'd be able to get his money out
of it. Actually, today there really aren't a lot of choices once you
get above the Behringer/Mackie/Alesis range. The new 8T and ATB
consoles from Trident and Toft respectively look good, but the Mackie
8-bus is sorely in need of a facelift, and Soundcraft isn't really
doing much with the Ghost any longer. Those are real multitrack
recording consoles that could make a good companion to a DAW if you
have the right attitude. And a little Behringer can be good training
for using a full sized console.

So, the point is that the user needs realistic expectations. Otherwise,
rather than assuming that he's going to be satisfied with what $100 can
buy, I choose to assume that he wants quality and let him tell me what
compromises he's comfortable with if he isn't preapared to spend what
it should cost to set up a decent studio.

toronado455 wrote:

I need the mixer in order to create a
small mix of instruments that will be sent to the inputs of the
computer soundcard. That part I'm pretty sure I understand how to do.
But I also need to be able to monitor the output of the soundcard
itself, seperate from the mix that is being sent into the soundcard.
Can I do both these tasks with the same mixer?

You can, with many mixers, but understand that your real mixing will be
done in your computer. Ethan Winer has an article on his web page about
setting up a small mixer with a simple sound card so that you can hear
what you're doing.
http://www.ethanwiner.com/mixer2daw.html

There are other ways of doing it, and there are other approaches that
don't use a mixer, and there are "sound cards" that provide this
function and are intended to use without a mixer if you're recording
just one part at a time.

One of these days, Mackie will get around to publishing the ultimate
mixer reference that I wrote for them a few years back. Until then,
you'll have to scramble, buy a few wrong things, work around your
problems, and learn how signals get from an input to an output and what
happens in between. That's what it's all about, and you CAN learn that
sort of thing with a small and inexpensive mixer. But don't buy too
small.

"toronado455" wrote in message
oups.com...

Frank Vuotto wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 13:18:19 -0800, "toronado455"
wrote:

Right now I'd have to say I'm leaning toward the Phonic MU502.

Why would you buy a MU502 for $60 when you can buy an EB802 for $50 ?


EB802? You mean the Behringer UB802? I'm still considering that one.
It's a possiblility. So is the Phonic MU802 for $10 more. The price
differences here don't concern me that much. I am more concerned about
any significant quality difference between the two brands. Quality
being equal between the two brands, I would choose the Phonic.

IMO the quality is not equal
the phonic is not built as well as the behringer
This is speculation based on comparing other phonic and behringer products
I have owned, I have not compared the two exact units
George

My soundcard doesn't have six mono inputs. It has a set of stereo
inputs. 90% of the music is being generated by software synths. But I
also need to send the stereo signal of one hardware synth to the
soundcard. Maybe at some point I'd like to also be able to send a set
of stereo acoustic signals (2 mics) to the soundcard as well. So I'd
like to have a mixer with at least 2 mic inputs/preamps, and at least
one set of stereo inputs to connect the hardware synth. And I need to
be able to monitor the output of the soundcard without it feeding back
into the mix and creating a feedback loop.

If I understand the way the mixers I'm looking at work, it appears that
if I connect the outputs of the soundcard to the "Tape" or "2TK" ins on
the mixer and press the "Tape to Phones" or "2TK to Phones" or "Tape to
CTRL RM" (depending on model) switch, (and do NOT press the Tape to Mix
switch) I will be hear the output of the soundcard instead of the mix
that is being sent to the soundcard and the signal from the soundcard
will not be mixed in with the mix that is being sent to the soundcard
thus avoiding the feedback loop. Is that correct?


Mike Rivers wrote:
toronado455 wrote:

I need the mixer in order to create a
small mix of instruments that will be sent to the inputs of the
computer soundcard. That part I'm pretty sure I understand how to do.
But I also need to be able to monitor the output of the soundcard
itself, seperate from the mix that is being sent into the soundcard.
Can I do both these tasks with the same mixer?

You can, with many mixers, but understand that your real mixing will be
done in your computer. Ethan Winer has an article on his web page about
setting up a small mixer with a simple sound card so that you can hear
what you're doing.
http://www.ethanwiner.com/mixer2daw.html

There are other ways of doing it, and there are other approaches that
don't use a mixer, and there are "sound cards" that provide this
function and are intended to use without a mixer if you're recording
just one part at a time.

One of these days, Mackie will get around to publishing the ultimate
mixer reference that I wrote for them a few years back. Until then,
you'll have to scramble, buy a few wrong things, work around your
problems, and learn how signals get from an input to an output and what
happens in between. That's what it's all about, and you CAN learn that
sort of thing with a small and inexpensive mixer. But don't buy too
small.

Thanks George and Phildo. I'll avoid the Phonic.

toronado455 wrote:

If I understand the way the mixers I'm looking at work, it appears that
if I connect the outputs of the soundcard to the "Tape" or "2TK" ins on
the mixer and press the "Tape to Phones" or "2TK to Phones" or "Tape to
CTRL RM" (depending on model) switch, (and do NOT press the Tape to Mix
switch) I will be hear the output of the soundcard instead of the mix
that is being sent to the soundcard and the signal from the soundcard
will not be mixed in with the mix that is being sent to the soundcard
thus avoiding the feedback loop. Is that correct?

That's right. But the playback from your sound card just goes to the
monitor section of the mixer (headphones and control room speakers).

"George Gleason" wrote:

I sold one to a church that didn't want to spend behringer money


Didn't want to spend *BEHRINGER* money?!

Just when you think things have sunk as low as they can go, somebody
finds a way to make something even ****tier.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...
You don't need
an expensive professional mixer at the level this guy is obviously at.

It's obvious to you and me, but is it obvious to him? What does he
really think he's going to get for $100?

Then why tell him to buy a $5000 console? Do you tell a kid just starting
out on the violin he needs to buy a Stradivarius just to see if he has any
aptitude for the instrument?

Like I said, it's a good
approach to learning and making recording that can be fun and pleasant
to listen to. Competent, too, after a while. But is he preapred to buy
something better next year? Or will he get frustrated and sell all his
gear? We don't know. I'd rather advise people on what's best and then
cut back from that based on what they're willing to not do.

Right now what is best for him is a cheap mixer to get his audio in and out
of the computer. When he can justify a Neve let him buy one.

most cases you do not need an expensive professional mixer at all given
that
most of the audio will be done on a computer these days anyway.

The mixer is, in most cases, the way in and out of the computer. That
affects everything that you record, and everything that you do to that
recording based on what you hear. Now this cheap stuff isn't horrible,
but it is limited and he needs to understand that.

It will do what he needs and that is enough. Why buy a mixer with lots of
features that he is not going to use?

He also should
understand that in this price range, it doesn't make a bit of
difference which one he chooses,

Yes it does. Some are better than others.

so he might as well learn to make some
decisions himself. At this level, there's no reason not to buy the
cheapest,

Yes there is - it won't do what he wants.

If he got a Neve, he'd be able to get his money out
of it.

How do you work that one out? It's a small home studio not a commercial
recording house. This guy is using it for his own material and is obviously
not making money from it.

Phildo

In article , Phildo wrote:
"toronado455" wrote in message
oups.com...
Geoff, thanks for the telling me about Alto and Phonic. (The Makie is
nice, of course, but in a different size/class.)

Mackie is no better than the mixers you list. Cheap, overmarketed junk. They
would love you to believe it is better but Behringer is better at half the
price.

ALL of this stuff is cheap overmarketed junk, though. There really is not
much in the way of a simple stripped-down small mixer of any quality unless
you want something like the Shure units and can live without EQ or auxes.
So buy what is cheapest and prepare to upgrade.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Phildo wrote:
"toronado455" wrote in message
ups.com...
Geoff, thanks for the telling me about Alto and Phonic. (The Makie is
nice, of course, but in a different size/class.)
Mackie is no better than the mixers you list. Cheap, overmarketed junk. They
would love you to believe it is better but Behringer is better at half the
price.

ALL of this stuff is cheap overmarketed junk, though. There really is not
much in the way of a simple stripped-down small mixer of any quality unless
you want something like the Shure units and can live without EQ or auxes.
So buy what is cheapest and prepare to upgrade.
--scott
I bought a little Soundcraft Folio 12/2 on eBay the other day for $63
(it helped that it was advertised as having a fault, which turned out to
not be the case). I was impressed with the structural integrity--heavy
gauge chassis--but the rotary pots are crappy, tiny pc mount jobs (not
much bigger than trimmers); which actually use the *knobs* for support!
It appears to fill most of the requirements I might put it to...has
sweepable mid eq, low filter, cue etc.

I wish it had channel inserts, and that the monitor send wasn't post eq.
It would work a charm for the OP, however.

jak

"toronado455" wrote in message
ups.com...
Any stand outs (good or bad) or all about the same?

I'm going to suggest you do something different. Since you already have a
DAW, but only a single stereo in, I'd recommend that you think about
upgrading the sound card to a professional card, this will give you many
more line-ins of different types, and assuming that you either have your
other instruments already recorded, or the playing can be seperated, this
should give you results of higher quality (using the mixer that should be
built into the software you're using) and will save you desk space. The idea
may or may not fit your specific needs, and it is generally a higher priced
option, but it should be capable of growing with you for some time.
Joe

Joe, I don't *need* multiple inputs on a soundcard. That's why I picked
the M-Audio 2496. I'll repeat, 90% of the music is coming from software
synths.

Joseph Ashwood wrote:

I'm going to suggest you do something different. Since you already have a
DAW, but only a single stereo in, I'd recommend that you think about
upgrading the sound card to a professional card, this will give you many
more line-ins of different types, and assuming that you either have your
other instruments already recorded, or the playing can be seperated, this
should give you results of higher quality (using the mixer that should be
built into the software you're using) and will save you desk space. The idea
may or may not fit your specific needs, and it is generally a higher priced
option, but it should be capable of growing with you for some time.
Joe

"toronado455" wrote in message
ups.com...
Joe, I don't *need* multiple inputs on a soundcard. That's why I picked
the M-Audio 2496. I'll repeat, 90% of the music is coming from software
synths.

What I was primarily suggesting is using the computer as the mixer, bring
everything into the computer, mix it in there, then output it. Like I said,
I'm not sure if it'll work for you. I had simply assumed that since you
mentioned only a stereo pair, not the 4 input set of the 2496, that you were
attempting to make due with a consumer level, probably embedded sound card.

Since you already have a good card, why not just mix in the computer? It
won't cost you any extra money, and it will almost certainly be higher
quality than any $100 mixer.
Joe

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:36:37 -0600, jakdedert
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Phildo wrote:
"toronado455" wrote in message
ups.com...
Geoff, thanks for the telling me about Alto and Phonic. (The Makie is
nice, of course, but in a different size/class.)
Mackie is no better than the mixers you list. Cheap, overmarketed junk. They
would love you to believe it is better but Behringer is better at half the
price.

ALL of this stuff is cheap overmarketed junk, though. There really is not
much in the way of a simple stripped-down small mixer of any quality unless
you want something like the Shure units and can live without EQ or auxes.
So buy what is cheapest and prepare to upgrade.
--scott
I bought a little Soundcraft Folio 12/2 on eBay the other day for $63
(it helped that it was advertised as having a fault, which turned out to
not be the case). I was impressed with the structural integrity--heavy
gauge chassis--but the rotary pots are crappy, tiny pc mount jobs (not
much bigger than trimmers); which actually use the *knobs* for support!
It appears to fill most of the requirements I might put it to...has
sweepable mid eq, low filter, cue etc.

I wish it had channel inserts, and that the monitor send wasn't post eq.
It would work a charm for the OP, however.

jak

Why would you want to monitor pre-eq?

Just asking

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Joseph Ashwood wrote:
"toronado455" wrote in message
ups.com...
Joe, I don't *need* multiple inputs on a soundcard. That's why I picked
the M-Audio 2496. I'll repeat, 90% of the music is coming from software
synths.

What I was primarily suggesting is using the computer as the mixer, bring
everything into the computer, mix it in there, then output it. Like I said,
I'm not sure if it'll work for you. I had simply assumed that since you
mentioned only a stereo pair, not the 4 input set of the 2496, that you were
attempting to make due with a consumer level, probably embedded sound card.

Since you already have a good card, why not just mix in the computer? It
won't cost you any extra money, and it will almost certainly be higher
quality than any $100 mixer.
Joe

Joe,

The *real* mix will be done in the computer. The hardware mixer is more
just a patchpay of sorts to connect a single hardware synth (and
possilbly a mic) to the soundcard's inputs. And I also need something
to plug my headphones into that has a volume control so I can hear the
ouput of the soundcard. I've all but decided on the Behringer Xenyx
502. It has everything I need and nothing more.

And quality-wise the only requirement is that it be at least as good as
(or hopefully a bit better than) what it will be replacing which is the
mixer from an old Tascam PortaOne cassette 4-track.

Tornado,
I own a larger version of the Alesis you listed, which I use as a
headphone mixer. It has absolutely no headroom. It's advertised as a
"+4"-level device, but must be a "-10." If you can keep it from
clipping, it sounds pretty good.

Yours,
Dan Popp
Colors Audio
USA

toronado455 wrote:

I need to get a small/inexpensive mixer for my home studio. I'm
considering these:

Behringer UB802
Behringer Xenyx 802
SAMSON MDR624
ALESIS MultiMix 6FX

Any stand outs (good or bad) or all about the same?