Digital Mixer vs Analog Mixer

[TS1]

I'm considering getting a "budget" mixer or mixer/interface for home recording (A & H, Soundcraft, Tascam, Presonus, Mackie, etc.). Curious if anyone has done a direct comparison sound-wise of digital mixers versus analog mixers (a shootout to listen to would be cool).

Most analog mixers on the budget end have maybe a low cut filter, and then a 3, maybe 4, band EQ with "swept" mids. And some have a "1-knob" compressor. Then they might have built-in digital FX. The simplicity and limitations could be good, or could be, uhhhh, limiting.

But, more knobs and faders. The work flow for each has plusses and minuses.

The idea of of analog is appealing, but if it doesn't actually sound better or have some sort of tasty flavor that digital lacks, and is mostly digital anyway, not sure the point.

Thanks.

[The Elf]

I would suggest not only not buying an analogue mixer, I would suggest you consider not buying a mixer at all. An audio interface with sufficient inputs of the correct type would be my choice - and leave all the EQ and processing for your DAW to handle.

If you really must have some FX to monitor with then there are plenty of options, and many interfaces include effects for monitoring purposes.

[Wonks]

I would primarily go with the Elf, but it would help to know what sort of music you are making, are you recording anything with mics, are you podcasting, etc.

Do you already have an audio interface and are you already using DAW software?

[ef37a]

Hi TS1, as the others have said, a mixer might not be your best choice* However, on the subject of sound quality it is often said that microphone pre amps give mixers, AIs and the like most of their character? Debated ad.n. I know but don't forget that a digital mixer still has to have analogue mic pres!

*If say you have a collection of synths, drum machines etc then a mixer is probably a good move.

Dave.

[James Perrett]

Those of us who have used analogue mixers extensively in the past would probably tell you not to go for an analogue mixer (or, indeed, any mixer) nowadays.

[Eddy Deegan]

Echoing what has been said above, if you don't know you need a mixer than you may well not need one. That said, if you do get one then get one that you can make the most use of. I have (a digital) one for three reasons, all of which are important to me:

1) It's an audio interface
2) It's a controller for my DAW
3) It's a mixer for in-studio purposes when the PC isn't powered up

At a pinch I'd be able to live without #2 above but mixing with faders again is a joy, plus I have a lot of synths and do a lot of realtime playing without the computer involved so I needed something that could deliver a high channel-count to the DAW as well as allow me to power up a dozen or more synths, jam with them in realtime and record each to its own track either on the DAW or the mixer itself if the DAW wasn't booted up.

I ended up investing in something that catered for all my needs, integrated beautifully with my DAW and added a stagebox to double the channels available (now at 64) but it "only" supports up to 48kHz @ 24-bit resolution.

More than enough for my needs but it wasn't cheap. If I didn't do the realtime jamming and if I was happy with only being able to record a subset of my synths simultaneously then I'd have probably ended up with an 8 or 16-channel interface with a patchbay to cater for the input selection.

I used a 24/8/2 analogue mixer with A/B input selects per channel to cater for tape returns years ago and still think they are lovely things to have under one's hands but in practical terms I wouldn't go anywhere near one now. Digital, with instant scene recollection, onboard processing and USB support is far more compelling.

Loading up a project in the DAW, pressing the 'DAW' button on the mixer and seeing the faders automatically move to the settings in that project never gets old.

A lot depends on your needs though. How many sound sources you have, what your workflow is, the kind of music you make etc. Given the power of DAWs and the plethora of plugins available these days I'd say these are more important than 'the sound' of any desk or interface.

[resistorman]

I wonder if there will ever be a time when this type of question perpetuated by companies that want to sell you overpriced Warm, Fat, Sexy and Delicious True Analog (TM) vs Cold, Hard, Soulless and Brittle digital gear will just disappear...

[TS1]

If you really must have some FX to monitor with then there are plenty of options, and many interfaces include effects for monitoring purposes.

Considering that, too.

What would you recommend?

[TS1]

I would primarily go with the Elf, but it would help to know what sort of music you are making, are you recording anything with mics, are you podcasting, etc.

Do you already have an audio interface and are you already using DAW software?

The music is a band (pop rock 60s 70s influenced...how boring ), acoustic drums, guitars (electric and acoustic), bass, piano.

Already have a DAW and a Focusrite Scarlett coupled with a Tascam for 16 inputs.

[TS1]

Hi TS1, as the others have said, a mixer might not be your best choice* However, on the subject of sound quality it is often said that microphone pre amps give mixers, AIs and the like most of their character? Debated ad.n. I know but don't forget that a digital mixer still has to have analogue mic pres!

*If say you have a collection of synths, drum machines etc then a mixer is probably a good move.

Dave.

I do have some outboard pres...can't really say there is much difference between them and the interface pres I have.

[TS1]

Echoing what has been said above, if you don't know you need a mixer than you may well not need one. That said, if you do get one then get one that you can make the most use of. I have (a digital) one for three reasons, all of which are important to me:

1) It's an audio interface
2) It's a controller for my DAW
3) It's a mixer for in-studio purposes when the PC isn't powered up

At a pinch I'd be able to live without #2 above but mixing with faders again is a joy, plus I have a lot of synths and do a lot of realtime playing without the computer involved so I needed something that could deliver a high channel-count to the DAW as well as allow me to power up a dozen or more synths, jam with them in realtime and record each to its own track either on the DAW or the mixer itself if the DAW wasn't booted up.

I ended up investing in something that catered for all my needs, integrated beautifully with my DAW and added a stagebox to double the channels available (now at 64) but it "only" supports up to 48kHz @ 24-bit resolution.

More than enough for my needs but it wasn't cheap. If I didn't do the realtime jamming and if I was happy with only being able to record a subset of my synths simultaneously then I'd have probably ended up with an 8 or 16-channel interface with a patchbay to cater for the input selection.

I used a 24/8/2 analogue mixer with A/B input selects per channel to cater for tape returns years ago and still think they are lovely things to have under one's hands but in practical terms I wouldn't go anywhere near one now. Digital, with instant scene recollection, onboard processing and USB support is far more compelling.

Loading up a project in the DAW, pressing the 'DAW' button on the mixer and seeing the faders automatically move to the settings in that project never gets old.

A lot depends on your needs though. How many sound sources you have, what your workflow is, the kind of music you make etc. Given the power of DAWs and the plethora of plugins available these days I'd say these are more important than 'the sound' of any desk or interface.

What is it you got?

Part of the reason I was thinking of getting a mixer is that I'm sort of tired of plugins (and DAWs and computers, too, really)...maybe it's a mental thing.

The advantage of recall is obviously enticing with a digital mixer...on the other hand, not having to look at screens, page through things, just twist knobs...also enticing.

Regarding the sound of a low budget analog mixer, I was just curious if there is one, how it differs, the limited EQ and so on, hence wondering about shootouts or examples that anyone could point to.

[TS1]

I wonder if there will ever be a time when this type of question perpetuated by companies that want to sell you overpriced Warm, Fat, Sexy and Delicious True Analog (TM) vs Cold, Hard, Soulless and Brittle digital gear will just disappear...

Sorry to bore you and thanks for the implied insult! Yes, I'm just a brainwashed zombie.

[tea for two]

Part of the reason I was thinking of getting a mixer is that I'm sort of tired of plugins (and DAWs and computers, too, really)...maybe it's a mental thing.

The music is a band (pop rock 60s 70s influenced...how boring ), acoustic drums, guitars (electric and acoustic), bass, piano.

Already have a DAW and a Focusrite Scarlett coupled with a Tascam for 16 inputs.

Allen & Heath ZED FX series.

::

I feel were the thread title to say : Alternative to DAW : also to have these quoted paragraphs in your thread starter post then it would been more specific for you, for us also to respond in kind.

[Arpangel]

It seems that the actual audio "quality" of digital mixers is seldom discussed, it's just automatically assumed to be beyond reproach.
Analogue mixers, it’s talked about all the time, I’ve owned many analogue mixers, and couldn’t do without one, why?
I have a lot of hardware outboard, I'd need a massive interface to integrate into a computer system, very expensive, and not as flexible.
I use my mixer as an instrument, for my type of music.
I can't think of one reason to go digital, the only customers for digital mixers AFAIC are those working in live sound, that's completely understandable, recall etc, but for studio use, no, and no self-respecting studio would buy a digital desk on the basis of sound quality alone.

[The Elf]

If you really must have some FX to monitor with then there are plenty of options, and many interfaces include effects for monitoring purposes.

Considering that, too.

What would you recommend?

At best I would recommend an interface with built-in effects/processing. My RME interface includes EQ and dynamics on every channel, and a basic delay and reverb. I'm sure others can offer viable alternatives from other manufacturers, but RME remain my favourite, not least due to TotalMix.

Second choice, with an interface that has no built-in processing/effects, I would stick a Zoom MS-70CDR (using the well-know 'hack' to customise it with a useful selection of effects) on a couple of spare I/O, but this will require a interface with sufficient I/O to make this possible, and the routing system to tap into it.

For a separate effects processor there are plenty of relatively cheap options, such as an old Alesis MIDIVerb 4, which still holds its head high, or maybe one of the other old rack Zoom models, such as the 1204, or similar. You really can pick these things up cheaply.

All this said, there are more important considerations for choosing an audio interface than monitoring effects, such as I/O count and type. Start there and consider the rest when you've narrowed your choices.

Mixers exist to 'mix'. When you're recording you want to get your separate incoming signals recorded to separate tracks, not a mix of them. Some mixers offer multiple channels to your DAW, but some only offer a stereo pair. If you do go the mixer route be sure to check how many incoming channels it presents to your computer.

[N i g e l]

Zoom MS-70CDR (using the well-know 'hack' to customise it with a useful selection of effects)

That is a classic. Although primarly a delay pedal, Ive added AC30 & mesaboogie distortion to mine

I found this months "why I love...." quite interesting as Ive been wanting to try actually mixing a track on my mixer, rather than just using the mixer as a router to the PC.
Ive been building upto it and this could be the year. I think Ive got enough audio channels [out of the PC] & MIDI control

[ajay_m]

I've posted on this topic elsewhere, but installing a digital mixer into the studio has proven to be a huge ergonomic improvement.

I do get that there are multichannel audio interfaces with dynamics processing and effects of course, but they don't come with the 9 inch touchscreen on the mixer, they don't have motorised faders, they don't have scribble strips to make it clear exactly what's plugged into what. Yes they have metering but the desk metering is really high resolution with peak hold making it really easy to monitor levels without firing up the DAW.

In general they don't also allow you to just record the stereo mix (or indeed any other bus) to a thumb drive either. Or play back from the thumb drive. If I'm sketching out ideas, rehearsing a part or just playing along to stuff, this is really handy. If I had a couple of people in the studio we could just work through something and record a scratch mix and never touch the DAW at all. Or we could have just left the DAW recording for the session and see afterwards if there's anything we want to use later, but not fiddle with it during the creative process.

Some interfaces may have scene memory but this is standard on a digital mixer, allowing me to have a scene for getting stuff into the DAW and a separate one that routes each of the USB outs back to a channel on the desk, allowing me to do quick 'scratch' mixes without faffing around in the DAW (and I can of course save these on the desk as well).

And of course you can easily set up submixes so that your main monitor level and mix and EQ can be different to what you're listening to on headphones. Yes, you can do some of that with the computer software that comes with a high end audio interface, but in this case the desk is the audio interface, the DAW control surface AND a mixer. You never need to touch the computer.

As for the "digital vs analogue" sound, well, I don't know. The preamps have a huge range (up to +64dB) and they take anything from line level up, they're dead quiet, I don't want them to sound of anything. If I want that, I'd insert something into the channel on the DAW. Otherwise they're just a 'wire with gain' which suits me fine.