Connecting/daisy chaining multiple mixers
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105553 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
mine doesn't look like that ...
has the same number of inputs though, yeah some on the rear.
has the same number of inputs though, yeah some on the rear.
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Maybe for some purposes it would be better to use the two mixers in parallel into two sets of interface inputs.
However if properly gain staged, stacking one mixer out to a line level fx return or aux in or tape in, would be "nearly identical" to the noise performance (and mixer bus wiring) of a purpose built 32x2 mixer.
Just depends what you need. With the mixers stacked you can do real time master fades, and adjust the control room speaker level of all 32 inputs with one control, or plug in phones to the mixer#2 phones output and conveniently hear the entire 32 channel mix.
Now one slight drawback with 32 inputs unmuted and faders raised, then obviously the 32 channel cumulative noise would be bigger than a 16 channel cumulative noise sum.
Also if you happen to be bouncing hardware synths to daw, and by stroke of luck you want to simultaneously record one synth plugged into mixer#1 and another synth plugged into mixer#2 then using as two parallel mixers you could halve the time needed to bounce-record the instruments into the daw. Or alternately the background noise might be a little lower using two 16x2 mixers bouncing in the instruments one at a time. If you don't intelligently use solo/mute features that is.
Dunno how you want to work. I usually have some audio tracks and some midi tracks driving external synths. I like to leave the midi tracks as midi until the song is finished all notes finalized all patches polished. That is what needs a goodly number of mixer inputs for the hardware synths.
Then in the daw I will solo one midi track at a time, and on the mixer will solo that one set of synth inputs, or alternately mute all channels except the target synth. Solo works better on some mixers and mute-all-except better on others. Also some mixers might have mute buttons but not solo buttons. And some mixers don't have good solo features.
Anyway, bouncing in synth tracks one at a time and soloing tracks in the daw and mixer, makes the noise level as low possible when you record each hw synth. All the other mixer channels idle hiss is muted on each record pass.
In that case the extra noise of 32x2 compared to 16x2 wouldn't matter, because you mute all the idle channel noise when bouncing in the midi tracks.
My 18 ch digital mixer "in theory" can work as a 16 input interface and I could maybe bounce in more than one synth at a time but I get lower latency in 2 channel interface mode.
Also, it is not uncommon for me to use synths in multitimbral mode. So if multiple tracks are on one multitimbral synth, I have to do it one midi channel at a time anyway to get several multitimbral synth tracks onto separate dedicated audio tracks.
It doesn't take very long one track at a time and it's not annoying to me and I get to optimize record level of each bounced-in track. Am not in a rush to "get things done". If it's not fun no sense doing it
Apologies rambling. Maybe you need to work some other way. Just describing what I do lately
However if properly gain staged, stacking one mixer out to a line level fx return or aux in or tape in, would be "nearly identical" to the noise performance (and mixer bus wiring) of a purpose built 32x2 mixer.
Just depends what you need. With the mixers stacked you can do real time master fades, and adjust the control room speaker level of all 32 inputs with one control, or plug in phones to the mixer#2 phones output and conveniently hear the entire 32 channel mix.
Now one slight drawback with 32 inputs unmuted and faders raised, then obviously the 32 channel cumulative noise would be bigger than a 16 channel cumulative noise sum.
Also if you happen to be bouncing hardware synths to daw, and by stroke of luck you want to simultaneously record one synth plugged into mixer#1 and another synth plugged into mixer#2 then using as two parallel mixers you could halve the time needed to bounce-record the instruments into the daw. Or alternately the background noise might be a little lower using two 16x2 mixers bouncing in the instruments one at a time. If you don't intelligently use solo/mute features that is.
Dunno how you want to work. I usually have some audio tracks and some midi tracks driving external synths. I like to leave the midi tracks as midi until the song is finished all notes finalized all patches polished. That is what needs a goodly number of mixer inputs for the hardware synths.
Then in the daw I will solo one midi track at a time, and on the mixer will solo that one set of synth inputs, or alternately mute all channels except the target synth. Solo works better on some mixers and mute-all-except better on others. Also some mixers might have mute buttons but not solo buttons. And some mixers don't have good solo features.
Anyway, bouncing in synth tracks one at a time and soloing tracks in the daw and mixer, makes the noise level as low possible when you record each hw synth. All the other mixer channels idle hiss is muted on each record pass.
In that case the extra noise of 32x2 compared to 16x2 wouldn't matter, because you mute all the idle channel noise when bouncing in the midi tracks.
My 18 ch digital mixer "in theory" can work as a 16 input interface and I could maybe bounce in more than one synth at a time but I get lower latency in 2 channel interface mode.
Also, it is not uncommon for me to use synths in multitimbral mode. So if multiple tracks are on one multitimbral synth, I have to do it one midi channel at a time anyway to get several multitimbral synth tracks onto separate dedicated audio tracks.
It doesn't take very long one track at a time and it's not annoying to me and I get to optimize record level of each bounced-in track. Am not in a rush to "get things done". If it's not fun no sense doing it
Apologies rambling. Maybe you need to work some other way. Just describing what I do lately
- GRRRRRRR!
- 15847 posts since 14 Jun, 2001 from Somewhere else, on principle
Of course it can be that easy and the easier it is, the less hassle it will be going forward. I reckon it will give you the greatest amount of flexibility, too, because the more separate inputs you have into your interface/host, the more things you can record at one time into separate channels.
All well and good if you are trying to be as clever as you possibly can but if you want to keep it simple, so you can get on with what you really want to be doing, then you don't want to have to stuff around making sure it's all "properly gain staged" or anything else.
All that can be achieved by keeping them separate, too. e.g. If you want to fade stuff out, fade it via MIDI. If you want to turn everything up, turn up the master level of your 6i6. If you want to hear it all through headphones, plug the headphones into your 6i6. You're looking at is like a standalone hardware rig or your mixer is also your interface but it will all be connected to a computer via a separate interface, so none of your points are really relevant here.With the mixers stacked you can do real time master fades, and adjust the control room speaker level of all 32 inputs with one control, or plug in phones to the mixer#2 phones output and conveniently hear the entire 32 channel mix.
NOVAkILL : Asus RoG Flow Z13, Core i9, 16GB RAM, Win11 | EVO 16 | Studio One | bx_oberhausen, GR-8, JP6K, Union, Hexeract, Olga, TRK-01, SEM, BA-1, Thorn, Prestige, Spire, Legend-HZ, ANA-2, VG Iron 2 | Uno Pro, Rocket.
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Well my main mixer atm is a behringer xr18 which is a digital mixer and also multiport interface.
If you don't gainstage a mixer it ain't gonna work so great. It is just as easy to gainstage a "stacked" mixer as it is to gainstage two parallel mixers.
There are other ways to wire up a small simple mixer than main outputs connected to interface input. Each with its own advantages/disadvantages.
If you don't gainstage a mixer it ain't gonna work so great. It is just as easy to gainstage a "stacked" mixer as it is to gainstage two parallel mixers.
There are other ways to wire up a small simple mixer than main outputs connected to interface input. Each with its own advantages/disadvantages.
- KVRAF
- 5131 posts since 22 Jul, 2006 from Tasmania, Australia
I have 2 12 channel mixers,
I think it will best to get a 2 stereo channel mixer to run them into when I have room
I think it will best to get a 2 stereo channel mixer to run them into when I have room
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2267 posts since 9 Mar, 2009 from Copenhagen, Denmark
D'oh
I forgot the front inputs - possibly beacause I never really use them
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2267 posts since 9 Mar, 2009 from Copenhagen, Denmark
D'oh
I forgot the front inputs - possibly beacause I never really use them
Not much really. I just want to have all my synths connected at once so I can turn on and play them all without switching cables. It's all about workflow really and keeping the creativity alive without too many annoyances . I usually bounce the files once done.JCJR wrote:Just depends what you need.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105553 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2267 posts since 9 Mar, 2009 from Copenhagen, Denmark
I use the backdoor!
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105553 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2267 posts since 9 Mar, 2009 from Copenhagen, Denmark
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105553 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
least now you should be able to get set up
think i may end up with a similar config.
will be one mixer for the multiple modular outputs and one for everything else
then get back in to live mixing and stick to recording straight to two track
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2267 posts since 9 Mar, 2009 from Copenhagen, Denmark
Yeah, I'm gonna order another Behringer mixer and go from there. It also gives me room for future GAS