Okay, so I'm looking at getting a Behringer sx2442fx with the intent on expanding total inputs in conjunction with an audio interface, to allow me to record full drums for any band I track. BUT I also want to be able to mix on this mixer, mostly for the use of the onboard EQ and Compressor.
So I'm aware that many interfaces have ADAT outputs, but the issue is not the number of outputs on the interface so much as how to get the interface's outputs to the mixer's inputs and then BACK to the inputs of the interface in order to recieve the channels back in my daw?
Each channel on the mixer has line in as well as an insert, but the inserts are labeled as "I/O" ... so is there a way I can use that to output the channels back into the interface and into my daw??
As far as I know, the "I/O" inserts come BEFORE channel EQ, and typically, the master stereo out would be going into the interface's inputs. But I want to be able to send each channel from the mixer, through the interface, and into its own respective channel in my daw so I can maintain the ability to process each track. Is this possible?
Need help with analog mixer routing!
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 2 posts since 25 Jun, 2015
-
Winstontaneous Winstontaneous https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=98336
- KVRAF
- 2351 posts since 15 Feb, 2006 from Berkeley, CA
How many total channels are you hoping to mix at once this way?
You're right, looks like inserts are pre-EQ/fader so that's not so helpful for mixing.
I've integrated some inexpensive mixers (nice little Soundcraft and a cheapo Numark DJ) into my computer setup but only a few tracks at a time. In the lower price ranges there are a lot of tradeoffs in terms of features/quality and it's only worthwhile if you actually like the character of the board.
You may be better off looking for a mixer with individual channel effects and has a USB interface for multi-channel return to the DAW, but that would be more expensive and not integrate your current interface.
You're right, looks like inserts are pre-EQ/fader so that's not so helpful for mixing.
I've integrated some inexpensive mixers (nice little Soundcraft and a cheapo Numark DJ) into my computer setup but only a few tracks at a time. In the lower price ranges there are a lot of tradeoffs in terms of features/quality and it's only worthwhile if you actually like the character of the board.
You may be better off looking for a mixer with individual channel effects and has a USB interface for multi-channel return to the DAW, but that would be more expensive and not integrate your current interface.
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Hi VeineMarée
In addition to some mixers having channel "direct inputs" or "direct outputs" or the "insert" input/output ring-tip-sleeve plug-- If a mixer has more monitor and FX busses than you expect to need, you can use them to send a mix of one or more mixer channels into an audio interface input.
It is just another possibility. For instance if your mixer might have 4 main busses and 6 or 8 monitor/fx busses, then in some cases maybe do a "live band stereo monitor mix" on the main busses and do "submixes" on the monitor/fx busses and connect cables from the mixer monitor/fx outputs into computer interface inputs.
Similarly if your mixer has a lot of FX returns you don't normally expect to need, you can use those as extra stereo line inputs for sources that do not need EQ. In my case, for instance anything coming out of the computer interface, if it needed EQ I would do it in the computer, so I would connect interface outputs to FX return inputs and Aux/Tape inputs. Which all had gain knobs on the mixer master and would "cleanly" mix right into the stereo mixer output without wasting any of the mixer's "real channels" just for returning computer interface outputs into the studio monitors.
Some mixers that have some pre- sends and other post- sends, might have little dip switch headers inside so you can change from one to the other. But you would have to open up the mixer every time so its not something to do on a whim. Also some mixer manufacturers would publish instructions on how to "fairly easily" cut a few stripes and tack solder a few wires to turn a pre- into a post- or vice versa. Also old-style analog mixers were generally simple and un-crowded enough that you could probably figure out how to do it without instructions, but of course bye-bye warranty.
I've not looked inside a modern mixer presumably surface-mount everything on the boards. Maybe nowadays it would take the skill of an eye surgeon to do such simple mods just because everything might be so tiny. I haven't a clue.
Something I did a few months ago, after looking around for a tiny analog board with more channels and busses than my old tiny 16 channel analog mixer (no luck, at least for what I wanted to pay)-- My one-room home studio is compact enough that I need a giant mixer console like a hole in the head.
I finally got a behringer xr18 rack mount digital mixer. They make smaller ones that didn't have enough features, and they make bigger ones that cost more and are, well, bigger. But 18 analog inputs works for my needs. One thing of note there-- The 16 channel and less models do not have the multi-channel computer interface features. The 18 channel is the smallest one that also functions as more than a stereo audio interface.
I can route everything to everything else in the mixer and computer. In my opinion beats the crap out of an analog mixer, several patch bays, a computer interface, and miles of spaghetti in-between those three things. So far I have no complaints with the sound or features.
The only "issue" I noticed is that the xr18 doesn't have a fan and runs a little hotter than I prefer. Actually I prefer every chassis ice-cold to the touch. So I bought a pair of tiny little USB-powered fans and epoxied them to a piece of quarter-inch plywood, and attached the fans to the passive air inlet on one side of the rack mixer (using a tiny little steel 1 inch C-clamp). Maybe $20 parts and now it runs cool to the touch. Maybe it would have run hot for years with no problems but I'm just superstitious.
If I needed more than 18 inputs, after being happy with the XR18, I'd just get a digital mixer with more inputs. But I don't need more than 18. Especially since the mixer is also the computer interface and all the computer interface spaghetti is gone and gratefully forgotten. My patch bays are still in the rack but at the moment NOTHING is connected to either the front or back of the patch bays!
In addition to some mixers having channel "direct inputs" or "direct outputs" or the "insert" input/output ring-tip-sleeve plug-- If a mixer has more monitor and FX busses than you expect to need, you can use them to send a mix of one or more mixer channels into an audio interface input.
It is just another possibility. For instance if your mixer might have 4 main busses and 6 or 8 monitor/fx busses, then in some cases maybe do a "live band stereo monitor mix" on the main busses and do "submixes" on the monitor/fx busses and connect cables from the mixer monitor/fx outputs into computer interface inputs.
Similarly if your mixer has a lot of FX returns you don't normally expect to need, you can use those as extra stereo line inputs for sources that do not need EQ. In my case, for instance anything coming out of the computer interface, if it needed EQ I would do it in the computer, so I would connect interface outputs to FX return inputs and Aux/Tape inputs. Which all had gain knobs on the mixer master and would "cleanly" mix right into the stereo mixer output without wasting any of the mixer's "real channels" just for returning computer interface outputs into the studio monitors.
Some mixers that have some pre- sends and other post- sends, might have little dip switch headers inside so you can change from one to the other. But you would have to open up the mixer every time so its not something to do on a whim. Also some mixer manufacturers would publish instructions on how to "fairly easily" cut a few stripes and tack solder a few wires to turn a pre- into a post- or vice versa. Also old-style analog mixers were generally simple and un-crowded enough that you could probably figure out how to do it without instructions, but of course bye-bye warranty.
I've not looked inside a modern mixer presumably surface-mount everything on the boards. Maybe nowadays it would take the skill of an eye surgeon to do such simple mods just because everything might be so tiny. I haven't a clue.Something I did a few months ago, after looking around for a tiny analog board with more channels and busses than my old tiny 16 channel analog mixer (no luck, at least for what I wanted to pay)-- My one-room home studio is compact enough that I need a giant mixer console like a hole in the head.
I finally got a behringer xr18 rack mount digital mixer. They make smaller ones that didn't have enough features, and they make bigger ones that cost more and are, well, bigger. But 18 analog inputs works for my needs. One thing of note there-- The 16 channel and less models do not have the multi-channel computer interface features. The 18 channel is the smallest one that also functions as more than a stereo audio interface.
I can route everything to everything else in the mixer and computer. In my opinion beats the crap out of an analog mixer, several patch bays, a computer interface, and miles of spaghetti in-between those three things. So far I have no complaints with the sound or features.
The only "issue" I noticed is that the xr18 doesn't have a fan and runs a little hotter than I prefer. Actually I prefer every chassis ice-cold to the touch. So I bought a pair of tiny little USB-powered fans and epoxied them to a piece of quarter-inch plywood, and attached the fans to the passive air inlet on one side of the rack mixer (using a tiny little steel 1 inch C-clamp). Maybe $20 parts and now it runs cool to the touch. Maybe it would have run hot for years with no problems but I'm just superstitious.
If I needed more than 18 inputs, after being happy with the XR18, I'd just get a digital mixer with more inputs. But I don't need more than 18. Especially since the mixer is also the computer interface and all the computer interface spaghetti is gone and gratefully forgotten.
My patch bays are still in the rack but at the moment NOTHING is connected to either the front or back of the patch bays!-
- KVRian
- 626 posts since 15 Jun, 2015
I don't think there is any easy way to do what you're trying to do with a modern analog mixer and an audio interface. Here a few ideas...
Some vintage mixers have multiple inputs on each channel strip. For example, you might find a balanced XLR, unbalanced TR, and a Tape In RCA jack on each channel (sometimes a "sub in" as well). This kind of setup would allow you to use one jack for your recorded signals (mics, instruments, etc) while leaving another input for your audio interface outputs to use while mixing. I wouldn't try using the inserts; you'll have to make custom cables to even attempt it (a TRS plug with one contact intentionally disconnected). I don't think anyone makes such a cable.
Keep in mind that your audio interface is going to need a *lot* of analog outputs, which is also not typical except on fairly high-end units. The only units I'm aware of that will allow you to convert the ADAT output of your interface into analog outs costs quite a bit more than just buying a digital mixer and replacing your audio interface.
What you really want is a mixer with a built-in audio interface. Some (not all, so shop carefully) will allow you to route your mics and instruments directly into your computer, and will also allow you to use the faders on the mixer to mix from your computer. The Mackie Onxy 1640i is an example. I think all the PreSonus digital mixers have this feature.
Keep in mind, with the setup you described, you will be converting audio to digital (during recording), then digital to audio (to mix), then audio to digital again to record your mix. Unless you're using really high grade converters and high sample rates, you may get some audible signal degradation. A digital mixer that integrates directly with your DAW will avoid this.
Some vintage mixers have multiple inputs on each channel strip. For example, you might find a balanced XLR, unbalanced TR, and a Tape In RCA jack on each channel (sometimes a "sub in" as well). This kind of setup would allow you to use one jack for your recorded signals (mics, instruments, etc) while leaving another input for your audio interface outputs to use while mixing. I wouldn't try using the inserts; you'll have to make custom cables to even attempt it (a TRS plug with one contact intentionally disconnected). I don't think anyone makes such a cable.
Keep in mind that your audio interface is going to need a *lot* of analog outputs, which is also not typical except on fairly high-end units. The only units I'm aware of that will allow you to convert the ADAT output of your interface into analog outs costs quite a bit more than just buying a digital mixer and replacing your audio interface.
What you really want is a mixer with a built-in audio interface. Some (not all, so shop carefully) will allow you to route your mics and instruments directly into your computer, and will also allow you to use the faders on the mixer to mix from your computer. The Mackie Onxy 1640i is an example. I think all the PreSonus digital mixers have this feature.
Keep in mind, with the setup you described, you will be converting audio to digital (during recording), then digital to audio (to mix), then audio to digital again to record your mix. Unless you're using really high grade converters and high sample rates, you may get some audible signal degradation. A digital mixer that integrates directly with your DAW will avoid this.
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Agreed. A "moderately big" project studio board of yesteryear would work as good with many audio interface i/o as it did in the old days with many tape tracks. I guess they still make the equivalent of "mackie 8 bus" maybe several companies. Behringer used to make an 8 bus console very similar to a mackie 8 bus, either 24 or 32 channel as best I recall. Maybe they still do.
Years ago folks would strap three 8 track adats or three 8 track tascams to an 8 bus and it wasn't too unreasonable a way to work. I remember setting up a couple early computer systems for friends where 24 tracks of audio interface, such as MOTU, would get strapped in parallel with three adats or tascams, and later they kept working the same way and just removed the tape machines, or alternately used the tape machines as ADC and DAC for the audio interfaces.
Most of those project 8 bus mixers were a design called "inline mixer" where each channel strip had a "light weight" channel strip and a "heavier duty" channel strip both on the same channel strip column. Each column had a button so if the channel's mic/line input went into the "fancier" channel strip, the tape return automatically went into the "simpler" channel strip. Then press the switch the other way and the two inputs were swapped.
So for multi-tracking, typically the tape returns would be coming back into the "simple" part of each channel strip, and the fancy eq and lots of sends was assigned to mic or line live inputs for recording. Then after tracking was complete, you could go push all those source buttons so all the tape (or audio interface) outputs are connected to the fancy parts of each channel strip for max flexibility in making the final mixdown.
This layout worked but could be very confusing. Even after a lot of experience working such a board, you could hit spots late at night tired or early not enough coffee, where nothing was working right because one out of a zillion switches was switched the wrong way and you about had to go over the board with a magnifying glass to find the wrong setting.
There was another strategy, which you could roll yer own just with two fairly capable mixers, but having it all built-in probably had advantages-- The "split mixer". It could be any number of channels, but maybe ya got 32 record channels connected to a 24 bus setup. Each bus goes to one of 24 tape or computer tracks, and any one of the 32 channels can be panned between any pair of the recorder's 24 input channels. Then you have an entirely different 24 channel mixer permanently attached to all the tape or interface outputs. Thataway you can be tracking with the record mixer and also "getting to work" mixing the final product on the playback mixer. After laying all your tracks you don't have to change a bunch of switches and knobs all over the mixer. You just keep mixing on the playback mixer part of it and just ignor the record mixer part until you need to record again. That was generally bigger and more expensive but IMO faster and less likely to get ya temporarily flummoxed with dumb "switch set the wrong way" kinds of mistakes.
Either of those old ways implies a mixing console a whole lot bigger than I want in my little play-pen.
With a digital mixer, all a matter of taste/preference but I wouldn't want to use the digital mixer to actually mix the computer tracks. At worst, if the mixer sliders would work like a hardware control surface, controlling the DAW mixer maybe it would be OK.
I'm generally fine with what a DAW mix can do in the computer. If I was to send all the computer tracks to the digital mixer for final mixing, then I would have to send the stereo mix back to the computer so I could render mix files. Seems easiest just to keep all the final mixing in the computer. But its a matter of preference, different strokes.
So far with the XR18, I might enable as many as 18 xr18 inputs direct to different DAW tracks. I've turned that on and it works but never needed to record that many simultantous yet. Mainly its nice to be able to record any one or combination of 18 synth outputs into the DAW as I please, though usually only just a stereo pair. Without patch bay or a lot of trouble.
I reserved the XR18 stereo return 4 as my daw stereo mix output back to the XR18. So any mix I do, or youtube video, or foobar2000 playback, whatever, its always just a stereo pair coming from puter to XR18 on stereo return 4. Thataway it doesn't use up any channels just to get a stereo pair out of the computer. So I'll do a daw mix and monitor the stereo coming from computer on return 4, mixed into the main stereo output and out to the studio monitors. Mixing in the DAW, it renders the disk mix files as always, no need to figure a way to send tracks to the mixer and back to the computer just to render a mix file.
Years ago folks would strap three 8 track adats or three 8 track tascams to an 8 bus and it wasn't too unreasonable a way to work. I remember setting up a couple early computer systems for friends where 24 tracks of audio interface, such as MOTU, would get strapped in parallel with three adats or tascams, and later they kept working the same way and just removed the tape machines, or alternately used the tape machines as ADC and DAC for the audio interfaces.
Most of those project 8 bus mixers were a design called "inline mixer" where each channel strip had a "light weight" channel strip and a "heavier duty" channel strip both on the same channel strip column. Each column had a button so if the channel's mic/line input went into the "fancier" channel strip, the tape return automatically went into the "simpler" channel strip. Then press the switch the other way and the two inputs were swapped.
So for multi-tracking, typically the tape returns would be coming back into the "simple" part of each channel strip, and the fancy eq and lots of sends was assigned to mic or line live inputs for recording. Then after tracking was complete, you could go push all those source buttons so all the tape (or audio interface) outputs are connected to the fancy parts of each channel strip for max flexibility in making the final mixdown.
This layout worked but could be very confusing. Even after a lot of experience working such a board, you could hit spots late at night tired or early not enough coffee, where nothing was working right because one out of a zillion switches was switched the wrong way and you about had to go over the board with a magnifying glass to find the wrong setting.
There was another strategy, which you could roll yer own just with two fairly capable mixers, but having it all built-in probably had advantages-- The "split mixer". It could be any number of channels, but maybe ya got 32 record channels connected to a 24 bus setup. Each bus goes to one of 24 tape or computer tracks, and any one of the 32 channels can be panned between any pair of the recorder's 24 input channels. Then you have an entirely different 24 channel mixer permanently attached to all the tape or interface outputs. Thataway you can be tracking with the record mixer and also "getting to work" mixing the final product on the playback mixer. After laying all your tracks you don't have to change a bunch of switches and knobs all over the mixer. You just keep mixing on the playback mixer part of it and just ignor the record mixer part until you need to record again. That was generally bigger and more expensive but IMO faster and less likely to get ya temporarily flummoxed with dumb "switch set the wrong way" kinds of mistakes.
Either of those old ways implies a mixing console a whole lot bigger than I want in my little play-pen.
With a digital mixer, all a matter of taste/preference but I wouldn't want to use the digital mixer to actually mix the computer tracks. At worst, if the mixer sliders would work like a hardware control surface, controlling the DAW mixer maybe it would be OK.
I'm generally fine with what a DAW mix can do in the computer. If I was to send all the computer tracks to the digital mixer for final mixing, then I would have to send the stereo mix back to the computer so I could render mix files. Seems easiest just to keep all the final mixing in the computer. But its a matter of preference, different strokes.
So far with the XR18, I might enable as many as 18 xr18 inputs direct to different DAW tracks. I've turned that on and it works but never needed to record that many simultantous yet. Mainly its nice to be able to record any one or combination of 18 synth outputs into the DAW as I please, though usually only just a stereo pair. Without patch bay or a lot of trouble.
I reserved the XR18 stereo return 4 as my daw stereo mix output back to the XR18. So any mix I do, or youtube video, or foobar2000 playback, whatever, its always just a stereo pair coming from puter to XR18 on stereo return 4. Thataway it doesn't use up any channels just to get a stereo pair out of the computer. So I'll do a daw mix and monitor the stereo coming from computer on return 4, mixed into the main stereo output and out to the studio monitors. Mixing in the DAW, it renders the disk mix files as always, no need to figure a way to send tracks to the mixer and back to the computer just to render a mix file.
-
- KVRAF
- 15252 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
Looks nice for the price! Any idea how this compares to a proper Allen&Heath console? Second hand these go for a simular price, very good work horses.VeineMarée wrote:Okay, so I'm looking at getting a Behringer sx2442fx
No one asked yet: what is your current audio interface, or which one do you have in mind?with the intent on expanding total inputs in conjunction with an audio interface
So do you want to record two, eight, sixteen or 24 tracks separately? I have settled for a 8ch interface, but a soon as you can record the drum kit, you want the whole band in one take. So that will be 16ch at least.to allow me to record full drums for any band I tracked.
Note that this mixer looks like a big 24-ch but only has like 14 mic preamps. Do study the details!
Sorry, I don't see any per-channel compression on this mixer. Not enough knobs! You won't find that in this price range anyway. And compression is overrated for live usage anyway (too easy to mess it up.) I can't see the actual channel details on my phone, but you'll want at least a 80hz HPF switch, bass / treble shelves and two sweepable parametric mids per channel.BUT I also want to be able to mix on this mixer, mostly for the use of the onboard EQ and Compressor.
As said, you can use the four aux sends, maybe some group buses. But it will be a disappointment. You can do much more and with more ease in your DAW.how to get the interface's outputs to the mixer's inputs and then BACK to the inputs of the interface in order to recieve the channels back in my daw?
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. 
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
-
- KVRAF
- 2625 posts since 2 Jun, 2016
Consider a Soundcraft MTK 22 (or MTK 16).
It might not fit your brief perfectly, but it's in the ball park. I have a MTK 22 and it's excellent.
It might not fit your brief perfectly, but it's in the ball park. I have a MTK 22 and it's excellent.
