Behringer RX1602 vs MX882

[MaxSuhr]

My situation:

In the small recording studio at our school (iMac/Logic based), we were all getting a little frustrated at the complexity of the Allen & Heath QU16 that people outside the music department had installed. I had recommended buying a Focusrite 18i20 instead.

Having spent some time teaching myself the QU16 I'm slightly regretting that. But in the meantime my boss has bought an 18i20 anyway. It's not the end of the world, the 18i20 is a handy piece of kit which won't go to waste. The lack of visible controls, and the ability to "save to hardware", will get us nearer to a studio set up that will "just work".

But we would like to leave the QU16 in place (or nearby). And ideally as ready to go as possible. And of course we could use both and have a 24 track setup.

I'd like to make it as easy as possible to switch between the two, in terms of the outputs to the studio monitors (Genelec 8030s). So was looking at simple 19" rack mixers.

I couldn't find a 4 input mixer. But did find the Behringer RX1602. Which looks like the job.

But then also found the Behringer MX882. Which acts as a mixer/splitter.

I'm not sure exactly when I might use the splitting function. But you never know.

Given that I actually only need 4 of the 16 inputs of the RX1602 (well, it's 2 of the 8 stereos), might the MX882 be a better idea, in terms of future, as yet unimagined flexibility?

I can imagine where extra mixed inputs might be used - a keyboard played in the control room purely for rehearsal purposes. But I can't exactly think where the splitting function might happen - any suggestions?

Thanks for any input.

[Drew Stephenson]

I'd suggest looking for a monitor controller rather than a mixer - it's the right tool for the job.

[Wonks]

Another recommendation for a monitor controller here. It’s what they were designed to do!

[Hugh Robjohns]

And a third vote for a monitor controller with at least two stereo inputs (one pair for the Focusrite, and another for the QU16.

[MaxSuhr]

Thanks for the swift replies.

So something like:

https://www.andertons.co.uk/recording/c ... ontrollers

or

https://www.andertons.co.uk/recording/c ... udioplus-1

yes?

I've had a bit of a look at the capabilities of the Behringer. I'll mull it over and consider.

I'm suffering a little bit of buyer's regret. Having not really investigated the QU16 as thoroughly as I could have, I'm loathe to ask my boss to buy anything else until we've got a better idea of usage patterns.

And it may sound silly, but I was really looking for something rackmount. Space is at a premium in our so-called control room, hence my initial idea of the RX1602, rather than any of the many small desktop 4 channel mixers that are available.

Thanks for the input.

[James Perrett]

For a school I'd go for something simpler. The passive Behringer Studio M looks like it would work and, being passive, could well sound better than a budget VCA based controller.

[MaxSuhr]

Thanks. I've just read my post. Yes, I said "switch between" didn't I? Which the Behringer Studio M would do. But thinking about it, I think I'd want A+B as an option. But then it is a fairly modest cost.

As I say, some of it depends on usage patterns. I'll mull it over.

[Bob Bickerton]

As has been said, a monitor controller will solve the issue, but just as importantly, is a pretty good idea in any setup! Depending on workflow, you really do it need anything too complicated.

Drawmer have a range of controllers and have an excellent reputation (and some of them are rack mountable): https://www.drawmer.com/products/monito ... roller.php

I use the entry level CMC2, which would be perfect for what you describe.

Bob

[Wonks]

Monitor controllers tend not to be rackmount because you are using it as the overall volume controller, and most racks aren’t immediately to hand when seated in your mixing position.

The Behringer Studio M, like the Behringer Studio Control USB, is their copy of the equivalent Mackie unit. As such, I’d expect it to have all the failings of the Mackie passive Big Knob, including it failing to maintain a balanced signal path with the outputs to the monitors being unbalanced. There are often posts on here from people having problems with the passive Big Knob. You may then find yourself dealing with ground loop hum.

I’m a happy CMC2 user.

To have the ability to have an A+B mix, then you’d have to create an aggregate device on the Mac. If you didn’t want to keep switching the interface device in software, then you will probably have to keep both the QU16 and 18i20 powered all the time to keep the aggregate device software happy (I have no experience with this).

The simplest rack mount alternative to a monitor controller is a patchbay, which makes it easy to swap between the feeds to the monitors. But they aren't designed for live switching, so you’d probably want to turn the monitors off to avoid loud buzzes and bangs when repatching.

Any studio worth its salt will have a monitor controller, so getting the pupils used to using one is all part of the learning process.

[MaxSuhr]

Thanks for the further replies folks. It's given me things to consider and investigate further.

I'm probably going to back out of this situation. I think I may have made an error of judgement, and am trying to rescue the situation by coming up with an ugly compromise. At least for now, we need to decide whether we're using the 18i20 or the QU16. Rapid switching between them probably isn't really the way forward. I don't want to ask my boss to spend yet more money, at this moment in time.

I have a patchbay of my own, somewhere, so could put that in the rack to enable us to swap over from one input to the other, with the monitors off, obviously.

But a bigger issue is that the other end of the studio would need reconfiguring. All the XLRs into the QU16's stagebox would need unplugging and plugging into the analogue stagebox we've also got. Yes, for me that would be 5 minutes work. So to turn the studio round from one way of working to another would take at the most 10 minutes, for me. But it would also mean the channel names in Logic would all be different, the monitor system would change from hardware (on the QU16) to software (Focusrite Control). None of this may seem at all complex to any of you with studio experience, and it isn't particularly complex for me, now I'm understanding how things are routed. But this is a relatively new studio, and at the moment the main impetus is to get students in, usually at lunchtime, and get them recording themselves as quickly as possible. So a stable setup is paramount.

But to respond to some specific points:

The reasons I was looking at rackmount are:
1. To save deskspace.
2. The rack (a short, shallow desktop rack) will have to be in reach for the input gains to be accessible to users.

Yes, I'm aware of aggregate devices, and I personally could cope with that just fine. But for now we definitely don't need that many inputs, and it would add confusion for a student cohort (or some staff, for that matter) who are at the bottom of this learning curve.

[James Perrett]

Looks like it would be more sensible to just carry on using the Qu16 and forget about the Focusrite for now. If the focus is on studio recording then you can set up a preset on the mixer for recording which means that the students can ignore most of it and just learn about setting gains on it. If the students want to learn live sound then they can explore more of its features.

Effectively the Qu16 allows you to teach about more aspects of practical audio than the Focusrite.

However, if you are teaching more in depth about digital audio then the Focusrite might come in useful as it can handle different sample rates and different digital connections.

[MaxSuhr]

Looks like it would be more sensible to just carry on using the Qu16 and forget about the Focusrite for now. If the focus is on studio recording then you can set up a preset on the mixer for recording which means that the students can ignore most of it and just learn about setting gains on it. If the students want to learn live sound then they can explore more of its features.

Effectively the Qu16 allows you to teach about more aspects of practical audio than the Focusrite.

However, if you are teaching more in depth about digital audio then the Focusrite might come in useful as it can handle different sample rates and different digital connections.

Yes, that's pretty much where I am at the moment.

This situation arose because:

1. Somebody else installed the QU16, then pretty much disappeared. Nobody (including me) really knew how to set up the routing. So there were lots of "we just couldn't get any sound in" (or out) moments. Cue much frustration, head/wall juxtaposition, wailing, and teeth gnashing.

2. In desperation I recommended the 18i20. Fortunately I wasn't the only one to recommend it. Other music staff who, like me, are used to using a cheap and cheerful Scarlett box at home said the same.

3. But in the meantime I spent hours with the manual, and basically playing with the QU16. Including things like running really long leads from the headphone amp in the studio to the control room, leaving radios in front of mics to have a sound source, etc. etc. So now I've got it, pretty much.

And where I am now is that while the two devices can do pretty much the same thing in the sense of headphone submixes, routing etc, the QU16 is actually more powerful, and having a physical interface is swifter and more intuitive once you know how to use it. The "outer limits" of the QU16 would only become relevant once some of our students are a lot more experienced. But that's exactly the point where I want to be able to say - "and here's this extra thing we can do". Whereas if they've learnt on the 18i20, I don't want to say - "there's something really clever we can do, but you'll have to learn a whole new device".

A lot of this is informed by the fact that I bought a barely used, still in original packaging with front panel plastic, 18i20 yesterday for £300.

I think my boss paid £440 for the 18i20. It's not a fortune, and I don't think she'll particularly mind. This is a fee paying school, but contrary to popular opinion we are very definitely not awash with money. And I work on the basis that we should spend an organisation's money as though it were our own. I've pointed out that the 18i20, combined with a laptop, makes a fantastic mobile multitrack recording device. This school has a very strong music tradition, like a proper orchestra with good strings, an excellent girls choir, connections with the local cathedral choir etc. So the ability to easily capture some of those live venue performances in high quality won't go amiss. And my boss understands that.

But I'm still going to see if I can put it back in its box in a "return to vendor" condition.

Thanks for the input.