1U, 8 Channel Sub mixer with FX sends.

[Popup]

Hi,

Let me first say that I really am a newbie so please take it easy on me. I still struggle to understand busses and aux and sends and inserts despite having read a fair few guides. Experience is the only way I get stuff like this. It does seem every time I go to research a new idea, nothing seems to be made for it. I must be doing something wrong!

It sounds simple enough. I have multiple synths in a rack and wish to have a 1U Rackmount Balanced/unbalanced 8 channel stereo line mixer with an effects send/return control on each channel, of at least 'Mackie quality' and hopefully at a sub £350 price to act as a sub mixer before going into my 1202 Mackie mixer and from there off to my monitors and my PC for recording.

In an ideal world, I would love to be able to simply add another one as I need it in the future if my setup expands any more. Old or new is not a problem as such either.

At the moment, I am using 2 1202 VLZ's together and it just takes up too much room and creates too much mess.

I have seen a few examples but all seem to be short on one thing or tall or another:-

1. Alesis Multimix line 8. Not so good comments on noise and heat.

2. Rane SM-82s. Good quality I hear and looks like a perfect fit with an expanding capability as well. Cons:- Priced right if you live in the US but ripped off here in the UK. I wish but too expensive.

3. Tascam LM-8ST. Laid out alot like the Rane but no one seems to have purchased one and I don't understand if it will fulfil my needs as I don't understand the way the 2 busses can operate.

4. A behringer unit that seems to have some great features and good ideas but seems to be the Amstrad of audio gear?

any solutions would be very much appreciated.

[Popup]

I have found another couple of contenders if anyone could comment on which sounds the best or any experience would be amazing thanks.

5. Rolls RM203X. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr05/a ... mr203x.htm
Mono effects send but that is not criminal IMO.

6. Behringer RX1602. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul05/a ... rx1602.htm
I don't get the Unbalanced output 'issue' they mention. Will my synths create this problem?

[Martin Walker]

6. Behringer RX1602. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul05/a ... rx1602.htm
I don't get the Unbalanced output 'issue' they mention. Will my synths create this problem?

It depends on the rest of your gear, but your synths should be fine if you use pseudo-balanced cables from their outputs to the balanced inputs of th RX1602 (this avoids any ground loops and the rsulting digital background noises)

When you connect the RX1602 unbalanced outputs to other gear you may need to do the same again to avoid further ground loops, but once again as long as the inputs you are connecting them to have balanced options you can resolve any ground loop related issues with another pair of pseudo-balanced cables.

Martin

[The Elf]

I use a Rane SM82. The quality is OK, but I certainly wouldn't record through it. I definitely wouldn't record through a chain of mixers.

I use a couple of mixers for monitoring my synths (I have, err... quite a few!), but bypass the mixer and send individual synths directly into my audio interface when I record them - I do this using a patchbay. This way the quality and features of the mixer are irrelevant - it is just there to enable simultaneous monitoring.

[Popup]

I use a Rane SM82. The quality is OK, but I certainly wouldn't record through it. I definitely wouldn't record through a chain of mixers.

I use a couple of mixers for monitoring my synths (I have, err... quite a few!), but bypass the mixer and send individual synths directly into my audio interface when I record them - I do this using a patchbay. This way the quality and features of the mixer are irrelevant - it is just there to enable simultaneous monitoring.

Hi, 'The Elf'!

I really feel stuck on my own in this and your answer has intrigued me but only in the sense that I must be doing it all wrong

I will explain the setup I have and maybe someone can help me out?

I have a main synth keyboard (Roland V-synth) along with a rack of 9 hardware synths, all fully MIDI'd with their own channel into my PC. I also have 2 external effects units that I would like to use with any or all synths if required.

I am using SONAR as my MIDI sequencer and have a Hammerfall DSP 9632 soundcard for recording either completed individual MIDI tracks on to my hard drive if required or the entire 'song' when I am happy.

I tend to write music quickly and not spend ages tweaking so I like to have a straight forward, click and go setup. Like the simple sequencers built into children's keyboards.

My thoughts were to (and I use this jargon on very shaky legs) Sub mix the rack-synths with effect sends down from a rack mixer to one channel on my Mackie mixer along with with effects return as a second then have one output going to my monitor speakers and one to my soundcard.

Is this a very silly way of doing things then? Can I have a more direct way? An easier way? A Tidier way?

Any answers that include product links and MSPaint pictures would be really helpful for basic routing!

I have save up and got all the gear I fantasised about all my life and just want to make some music!

Many thanks,

[Wease]

hmmm

the only real issue i see is the lack of aux returns so you can have you're effects accessable by all or none of the synths in an easy way

you need 10 stereo inputs for the synths (9 racks plus v synth) and 2 sets of stereo sends and returns for the effects which i'm presuming your running live in the mix..cause it seems as if your daw isn't playing live audio - just being used as a midi sequencer (which is fine btw - I think the elf composes first then records each of his synths individually to a daw for further effecting, am i right elf?)

now, having a quick google this looks good - the samson pl1602 - allows 16 line inputs....has 2 aux channels per channel (so 2 stereo outs and returns) and mixes it to a stereo feed - however - you're missing a stereo line input!!!(i can't find one with 18 line inputs (stereo feeds for your synths and racks!!!)

your rme card is great - I had the 9652 and miss it terribly. I'm presuming you have the analogue breakout cable - but if you don't you can get it from rme direct (or most suppliers i imagine) - I'd take the mix out from the pl1602 into the rme's breakout cables stereo input - recording a stereo channel into your daw. I'd monitor the signals from the rme stereo output - RME's total mix is excellent and you shouldn't get any latency - so you'd actually monitor from the rme soundcard (with the additional plus of a headphone out as well-bonus!)

you can then get rid of your desks (or keep them for expansion if you so require) - freeing up real estate on your desk! (somewhere to put your coffee!)

the samson thing is rackmountable - and you'll have a permanent set-up - ready to go...which of the 2 rackmount synths are you happy to go mono with?


the only one I've seen for sale is here near the bottom of the page - £130 - although it's ex-demo

the Elf may know of an alternative to the samson thing?

[Soundseed]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but is your problem arising from the 9632 only having a stereo input? (unless you expanded it) ....

It should still be pretty straightforward - but you really need a desk with the ability to send any channel or fx return to the inputs of your card, independent of the stereo mix which goes to your speakers - that is it needs to have busses.

For example, I have a Mackie Onyx 1642 (or something like that) ... with your setup, I would

a) Connect the synths and outputs from your soundcard into the channels
b) Connect the effects (reverbs/delays i assume) into the effects returns
c) Connect 2 of the buss outs into your interface inputs

Now whenever you want to record something, you simply switch the buss button on the channel with the sound you want to record, and set Sonar to record, and away you go. This counts for anything that you care to record - for example if you want to record the full mix, you just press the buss 1-2 button on each channel and fx return, and the sum is exactly the stereo mix you are hearing through your monitors, with all panning and individual levels as you would expect.

The only things you have to watch for in this scenario is that you are not "direct monitoring" - but with the system as described, there is no need for it.

Hope that helps

--------------------------
http://piethaag.bandcamp.com/

[Wease]

..i thought the issue was that every synth needs to be played at any time - and effected by 2 effects units at any time

and the current desk set-up was taking up too much room

cause it would be easy on - say - an allen and heath Zed 420 - but the real estate used (and possibly the cost) makes this option prohibitive?

[Popup]

Thanks Wease. You work fast!

I have a Matrix 1000 and a Nord rack 2 so there are the Mono's

I don't sing or play any other instruments into the mix but I do wish to use my PC for some audio channels as well if needed. I also wish to mix-down (if that is the right word) several tracks into an audio-wave track and play it back while I add more midi tracks. I mostly make heavy, swirling other-worldly Berlin School stuff and it can get messy!

Trouble is that I may still wish to add more racks in the future too (knowing what I am like) and wish the system to be as scalable as possible in this regard.

The Samson is a great find and I cannot believe I missed it!

I have the breakout cable. I was using the ALT 3/4 bus on the Mackie to send the channels off to the PC for recording and had the PC-Audio-Out on a channel too (but obviously not sending it to ALT 3/4! because of feedback). The Monitor-out on the Mackie mixer was going to the Monitors.

Maybe expecting all the synths to get sent to the FX is my weakness and I should only use it on the likes of a select few (like the Matrix and the Nord which have none) and rely on the built-in effects of the other synths?

By sending the Sum of the entire rack to the Mackie mixer, can I not just mute the MIDI channels that I do not wish to record into the PC as I go?

Soundseed, I think that is what I was using the ALT 3/4 buss on the Mackie for?

Very charitable and friendly folks here. Thanks for your input

[Popup]

..i thought the issue was that every synth needs to be played at any time - and effected by 2 effects units at any time

and the current desk set-up was taking up too much room

cause it would be easy on - say - an allen and heath Zed 420 - but the real estate used (and possibly the cost) makes this option prohibitive?

Other than the amendment I made (above) to allow less FX sends and maybe even having the 2 FX processors in series on one aux send? I think that you have got what I am after. Less desk, more rack height. I will take a pic.

[Wease]

...... By sending the Sum of the entire rack to the Mackie mixer, can I not just mute the MIDI channels that I do not wish to record into the PC as I go?

you don't need the mackie mixer - just send the sum of the samson directly to the rme card - the breakout cable will accept that stereo feed.
Sell the mackies to fund the samson....

the rme will also be your monitor output (the stereo output cable on the breakout cable thingy) plug this directly into your monitors (if they are powered - how are you monitoring btw??)....and the totalmix software acts as a -pre DAW - software mixer - so you won't get any latency (it's like the totalmix software "sits" on top of the rme card - it replaces any need for the mackie.) - and you have an additional headphone output for free on the rme - they are such great products!

why not have the effects channels available for each synth?....nothing like overkill to get the juices running - and it means that you can instantly access the 2 effects boxes on any synth you want when composing- which is nice no?

as for thanking me for finding the samson - don't be so hasty - I'm not sure they make them anymore to be honest - but second hand could be your saviour yet!!

as for recording by muting the midi channels - thats fine - although i would be wary of also recording the effects on the same channels - I'd record the synths individually first - dry (without effects - by the method of midi muting you described) then record a separate stereo channel of effects - that way you have further control if needed. - this will mean some extra routing

personally I'd go for the whole hog finished mix as a stereo feed - "playing" the effects - do you do much changing of effects thoughout the song - or do you just leave them running (like a short reverb on one, accessed by some of the synths and a delay(for example) on the other effects unit accessed again by some synths?)

it sounds as if your more of a live mixer than a record and mix kinda person - which is cool - your only real problem is that finding a suitable rack-mountable 2 aux send and return line mixer is hard - most products with 2 aux outs are more traditional larger format desks with faders etc etc which take up space I'm afraid! - or they are 1 aux 8 input mixers (like the alesis one) - but this makes things more difficult when trying to access 2 aux effects units from 9 synths on a 2Unit high rackmounted mixer - I like your style!!

I am quite pleased with my find tho!

[Popup]

Thanks very much for your help! Brilliant stuff.

I am using a couple of powered monitors so that should be ok then and I do like to mix as I go.

With this set-up you propose, I could still (if I really wanted to) have a hard-disk recorded track playing along-side my onslaught of synths while adding in a new track AND still being able to record the lot together as one final track?

At the least here, I am able to see more clearly that I am on the right track and that there is nothing wrong with the core of the set-up. Only trouble I see is adding more synths (which I will most likely do)- I still have 7 free racks.

Let's just say that I went for the Rolls RM203X, which is a 9 input, 1U with 1 send and then added a second when I get more gear, taking a total of 2u with 18 stereo channels and a second send. I could have one effects box per 9 units (they are both multi-effects) and I could then have 2 inputs on the Mackie taken up with another 2 for FX (muting/controlling/recording separately to the mix), with the ALT 3/4 buss sending the selected tracks to the RME soundcard for recording. Less flexible perhaps but there is a reason to keep one mixer and sell the other with this set-up......

I will still have to keep one Mackie I think as this room is used for gaming, Hi-Fi and watching movies as well!

[Popup]

I promised a pic. I have coloured the spare racks in green. It must look quite tidy but you need 10 feet arms to use it all. Looks like phantom of the opera! Oh. And I know the foam sucks!

[The Elf]

I compose using MIDI and I like to hear all of my synths while I'm working this way - hence my need for a mixer or two. Once I decide that I can commit to an individual part I then record that part into my DAW as audio, bypassing the mixer and plugging each synth directly into the audio interface to enable it to take the shortest, simplest route to being digitised. At this point I want a clean, high-quality recording and I don't want my budget mixer adding noise.

I also don't want effects recorded when tracking. I'll often remove any synth's built-in effects and I never record external effects along with the part. I'll more often use plug-in effects, but I do have hardware effects that I'll plumb in after getting the audio parts recorded. That way I can record the effects as separate audio tracks and set their relative level when I come to the mix.

Much of this approach relies on a neat patching system.

Hope that helps to explain my approach!

[Popup]

That does sound a very neat and very well thought out. I guess that after getting everything set up for composing, the next holy grail is going to be sound quality and you have been down that route too giving you a better end result.

I have never been much of a planner when it comes to making music. I just pile in and go with what sounds good and often forget what sounded good pretty quick if I don't get it down. None of this stuff I do will ever reach the public ears. It is just for personal pleasure but I still know that you may well be 'future me' when it comes to my setup and refining it for a better recording quality.

Thanks for your input.

[The Elf]

No problem. I hope it helps in some way!

Like you, I like to work very quickly and spontaneously and my 'planned' system actually enables me to do just that - so that I have to do no planning to get a piece of music happening.

Only when I have moved from the creative arranging to 'fixing' my work do I then begin the mechanics of recording. Sometimes I will record rough parts knowing that I will replace them later. One can only have so many MiniMoogs and Oberheim Xpanders after all!

[Soundseed]

Just a further thought, but have you considered that you could perhaps do this all with a fireface 800 and a pair of 8 input a/d convertors? You could just plug your synths directly into the interface/s and use a pair of outputs for sends to your fx, feeding the fx ouputs back into audio interface, with another pair for your stereo out to monitors.

This way you have a choice of "mixers"... either use Totalmix which comes with RME products, and is pretty sophisticated for routing, with recallable setups, or if you can live with what would probably be miniscule latency use Sonar as your mixer. Sonically you have the shortest signal path possible, and you can stack multiple firefaces so potential to grow the system to pretty epic proportions. And you'd only need one mixer, or even just a monitor controller.

I used the example of the fireface as I'm pretty familiar with it, and love the stability of RME stuff, but I'm sure there are alternatives...

-------------------------
http://piethaag.bandcamp.com

[Popup]

I must admit Soundseed, it was the new generation of 'interface' style firewire mixers that still had me dumbfounded as far as being a possibility in my setup. I really never knew if my clunky collection of hardware synths really suited this more modern way of mixing. With so many software and DJ solutions on the market, it can be easy to take a wrong turn. I can see that it is certainly a very clean way of doing things and is also rather expensive.

You guys are all superstars without even hearing your music!. I fully intend to continue contemplating all these new options and weighing up which way to go although I need to stop fantasising about gear and just Elf's mention of Moogs makes me all zombie again.

Although I have a real budget system by today's standards, it's so nice building up all those items you dreamed about owning as a child.

[The Elf]

Just a further thought, but have you considered that you could perhaps do this all with a fireface 800 and a pair of 8 input a/d convertors?

...which is precisely the system I run (FF800 + 2 x Behringer ADA8000). But it still leaves me short of inputs for simultaneous monitoring of all my synths!

Yep, the FF800 is a great device, but may be overkill in this instance. TotalMix takes a while to get your head around, but once you do it leaves you breathless with possibilities.

[Popup]

Just an update...

I decided to go for the Alesis Multimix 8 as the price point seemed pretty good and a second unit could be added as needed. However, when I switched the unit on, an annoying buzz/hum came from the power supply. Worse still, there was a fair amount of noise from the outputs too. Only took me two minutes to call an end to that. There is little data on the internet regarding this unit but I was not impressed with what I got and would not recommend this unit if this is the norm with these.

So... I ordered the Tascam LM8-ST instead and the jump in build and performance is very noticeable. Trouble is that I am not really sure the best way to set it up in terms of sending to my effects unit. I know that because this unit seems to only have one send that I have lost some flexibility but it is the allure of a 1U per 8 stereo inputs that makes this sacrifice worthwhile. I have never really got this whole pre/post fader stuff and the multiple outputs and settings make me wonder what the best way to connect it is!

The manual (http://tascam.com/content/downloads/pro ... _om_va.pdf) is probably obvious to the more experienced here but it does not help me whatsoever. If anyone can offer to enlighten me on the best way to set this up, I would be very happy

I think that I want the output from the effects going to my Mackie mixer on it's own channel along-side the Tascam's output rather than back into the Tascam, so it's only the send on each channel pot I want to use to make sure the correct synth gets the added effects if you catch my drift.

[Wease]

that tascam looks like a nice piece of kit btw.....how much did you pay for it if you don't mind me asking?

it's also got a rather useful mix buss in - so if you need to expand - you can get another unit and add this into the system without much issue!

and an xlr input for a mic - if you ever become inclined to vocalise along with the synths!

ok - i think it's fairly obvious how to connect the synths into the unit - you have 8 (rather usefully) stereo ins and outs on the back

these 8 signals are fed directly to each bus output - output 1 and output 2

on the underside of the unit there are little switches for each channel (by the looks of things in the manual) switching these switches to ST2 gives you 2 independent stereo outputs on the unit itself. the st2 knobs on the front of the tascam then give you like a sub mixer - with these knobs you can adjust how much of each of the synths sounds go to the st2 output (the st1 knobs will do the same for the st1 output - interestingly these seem upside down to me - with st2/aux being the top knob and st1 the bottom)

so you can mix your dry synth sound with the st1 (bottom) knob - and send that directly to the rme for recording - via the st1 output xlr's if you wish

then use the st2/aux knob to send varying amounts of each signal that you want to be effected. I know you want to use the mackie - but if you were just using 1 effects unit, then i would just send this signal (via the st2/aux xlr output) directly to your effects unit and into the rme.

now - there is a way to run both effects units with the mackie desk - send the st2/aux signal to the mackie desk (input channels 1-2) - you have 2 aux knobs on the mackie - this means you can send and return 2 aux signals - both the effects units can effect the st2aux signal from the tascam, via the mackie - if you return both effects units to their own channel in the mackie you can then just have these returned signals playing(ie no output from channels 1 and 2 - just output from whichever channels you've plugged the effects units into). You only want the 'wet' effects signal anyway - the dry signal is already being sent to the rme card from the tascam.

MONITOR VIA THE RME (i shout this cause it is your best option IMHO) - you'll get a balance of each sound.

you are placing another signal path when using the mackie desk into your system....which could well degrade the sound somewhat...which would be a shame - especially since you have some quite loverly synths there!!

Now - there is another thing.....i don't know if you can send the signals from every one of the tascams outputs at the same time - or you use either the xlr's (marked 15 on the manual) AND the rca phono (marked 16) at the same time.....this could expand your options......! - you could send the st2aux signal from the xlr outputs (15 in the manual) to one of the effects units and the RCA outputs to the other unit...you could then get rid of the mackie desk altogether - and investing in rme's expansion cards (the A14S-192) will add 4 inputs to your system....meaning you'll have 6 inputs to the rme card - the tascam goes into 2 (for stereo) and the 2 effects units go to the other 2 (again for stereo)...voila - 6 inputs directly to the rme without the extra signal path degeneration of sound from the mackie desk! - all controlled by the knobs on the tascam!

sounds like a nice system to me.....I'd draw a picture if i could - but i don't have paint on this mac.....

is that clear - or mud like?

[Popup]

Thanks for all the info and help again Wease. You are obviously an asset to this community.

I think that (as always) when I get going with this, I will start to experience the shortfalls of certain aspects of whatever path I decide to take and then refer back to this page and better understand the physical impact each setup you mention has.

I am still a little unsure of how the underside switches effect the way in which the unit operates and what applications each would suit but I shall experiment.

I paid £329 for the mixer with delivery. I hooked up a simple test and was impressed with the performance. If the Alesis was hard to find reviews on then this is pretty much impossible. It looks really nice in the rack too

Now I have all this fun stuff to try out now when I get a bit of free time. I think I will look into getting the RME input card as there is nothing wrong with having more inputs. With this last setup you propose, I would have access to either FX box but no ability to send individual instruments to each one would I not? How about connecting the FX in series so that a chain could be set up (or maybe, I could bypass one and still use the other? Can I also still have sounds playing from my PC while monitoring/recording etc with these setups?

Lol, I guess I will have to find out. Sorry for throwing so many questions!

Oh, and if you do feel like getting out the crayons then there is a simple paint prog for macs here :- http://paintbrush.sourceforge.net/
and posting the picture into the forum via Postimage is friendly enough
:- http://www.postimage.org/


Thanks again.

[TimboTimber]

I've been watching this thread with interest as I'm also in the market for a (preferably) stereo line mixer to accommodate my increasing number of sound modules.

I quite fancy a stereo aux-send which rules the Behringer out (although I was tempted at that price!) so was thinking about the Alesis Multimix 8 Line but the comments here are definitely not the first negative impressions I've seen about that unit!

So the next step up is the Tascam LM-8ST, there's very little that I can find on the web but the few mentions I can find are positive. A second-hand Rane SM 82 also seems like a good option but I don't think they're that common in the UK.

If I buy from a certain dealer they throw in an extra 3 year warranty so I may still go for the Alesis yet...

[Popup]

While being off work sick for the last couple of days, I have had some time to think.

What would happen if I got a second Tascam for the leftover inputs that would otherwise have gone to the Mackie. Trying to sort out how I would wire this is doing my head in to be honest What if I got the input and output cards for the RME and had 2 Tascams and no mackie. Remember that I have PC and PS3 audio inputs along with a second output going to my HI-FI (with different speakers)for entertainment purposes. I also wish to allow Software synths to be added into the mix too.

I pretty much think that is it and I will start to order the bits if someone can offer any advice on this and hope that any other newb travellers following this path will get a better grip on what must seem audio101 to the more experienced guru's here

Thanks.

[Popup]

I tested the all-output method you mentioned and the mixer does indeed send the signal from both at the same time so the 'Parallel' effects method would work but....

I have also noticed that both of my effects units have a bypass mode. This means I can wire both in series and use either unit on it's own or both together for mashed-up stuff etc. I think I prefer this way.

Lol, I still have no idea if this is going to allow me to get it all plugged in. Having thought about losing both Mackies, I am coming around to the idea but still need ultimate flexibility.

hmmmm.