More i/o needed for synths

[richkeyworth]

Hi all,

In short, I'm looking for something which will allow me to have all my synths plugged in and audible/recordable simultaneously, as I've exhausted most of the i/o on my interface (Scarlett 18i20) already on other things.

I've been looking into getting something like the Heritage Audio Synth Buddy, but hoping to get suggestions of units that can do similar but without its major limitation (ie only being able to hear/record one synth at a time).

I know getting a small mixer could be an option but seems a little OTT.
At the moment I'm plugging in the synths as needed but it's a little tedious, and it'd be much easier to have everything ready to go at any one time.

I suppose something which could give me more I/O options for a better workflow is ultimately the goal. What's the best way of simply adding more to an interface, ideally without going down the mixer/patchbay route? I've read about ADAT expansion, but I was considering getting a 500 series chassis with ADAT connectivity, in which case my interface's ADAT connection would be used for that.

Thanks!

[Sam Inglis]

I'm curious as to why you think a small mixer is OTT? It does seem like the obvious option, especially if you can find a rackmounting mixer with only line-level I/O. There are not too many of those around these days but they're readily available secondhand and won't cost you much.

[fatbenelton]

Although you seem to dismiss it, a patchbay is probably the simplest and cheapest option. Have everything connected (well up to 24 inputs on most!) and you can have any 8 at a time going into the Scarlett. I doubt you’ll ever really need to record more than 8 at any one time. Failing that a cheap ADAT expander?

[richkeyworth]

Thanks for the reply Sam. I suppose I was just thinking that the features you get with a mixer (as I understand it) would be overkill for my purposes. EQ etc. Also, wary of introducing noise/unwanted colouration to the signal.

Hadn't considered a rack mounted mixer. Is something like this, what you mean?

https://www.thomann.co.uk/behringer_rx1 ... #bewertung

Thanks again

[richkeyworth]

Although you seem to dismiss it, a patchbay is probably the simplest and cheapest option. Have everything connected (well up to 24 inputs on most!) and you can have any 8 at a time going into the Scarlett. I doubt you’ll ever really need to record more than 8 at any one time. Failing that a cheap ADAT expander?

Thanks for the reply. I've got a bit of an aversion to patchbays to be honest. I know it's silly but whenever I've tried to get my head around them and how I'd integrate one into my setup, I end up more confused than before.

ADAT expansion would be good, although my interface's ADAT port would be in use already with a 500 series chassis I'm looking to get.

[The Elf]

There's nothing wrong with a mixer for monitoring and a patchbay for recording. But that's a 'do as I say, not as I do' response.

Personally I felt the same as you and bit the rather expensive bullet of installing a MADI system to give me oodles of I/O and the capability to record any synth as I work, with zero patching required. For me that's ultimately been a cost-effective solution.

So my system is an RME MADIFace XT and a pair of Ferrofish A32 (and patchbays too, for added flexibility - you really should re-think your aversion). Not cheap, and maybe more overkill than a mixer and patchbay(s) but a system I'm thankful for every time I power up.

[richkeyworth]

There's nothing wrong with a mixer for monitoring and a patchbay for recording. But that's a 'do as I say, not as I do' response.

Personally I felt the same as you and bit the rather expensive bullet of installing a MADI system to give me oodles of I/O and the capability to record any synth as I work, with zero patching required. For me that's ultimately been a cost-effective solution.

So my system is an RME MADIFace XT and a pair of Ferrofish A32 (and patchbays too, for added flexibility - you really should re-think your aversion). Not cheap, and maybe more overkill than a mixer and patchbay(s) but a system I'm thankful for every time I power up.

Thanks Elf. You're right, I probably should rethink my aversion to patchbays. Seems it would make things simpler, once arranged logically.

Have to admit I'd never heard of MADI, will investigate!

[Martin Walker]

Hadn't considered a rack mounted mixer. Is something like this, what you mean?

https://www.thomann.co.uk/behringer_rx1 ... #bewertung

Paul White reviewed the mark 1 version way back in 2005, and bought one, which must be a recommendation

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/behringer-rx1602

Paul's only real grumble at the time was the lack of balanced outputs (to avoid possible ground loop problems), but this limitation has been removed in the Mk2 version.

I was also pleased to see the individual channel pair mute buttons, so even if you end up only recording one synth at a time, you can remove any background noise coming from the other inputs.

[richkeyworth]

Hadn't considered a rack mounted mixer. Is something like this, what you mean?

https://www.thomann.co.uk/behringer_rx1 ... #bewertung

Paul White reviewed the mark 1 version way back in 2005, and bought one, which must be a recommendation

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/behringer-rx1602

Paul's only real grumble at the time was the lack of balanced outputs (to avoid possible ground loop problems), but this limitation has been removed in the Mk2 version.

I was also pleased to see the individual channel pair mute buttons, so even if you end up only recording one synth at a time, you can remove any background noise coming from the other inputs.

Thanks, Marton- looks like a pretty good unit. Especially the mute buttons, that seems very useful

[ajay_m]

I am a convert to "replace the audio interface with a modern digital mixer" approach, which I have blathered on about at length elsewhere and won't bore everyone going on about it again. I have to say that given the extraordinary amount of local I/O (24:8) and a large touchscreen, I could see things like the Wing Rack being a good solution if you can live with 48KHz and don't need 96.
You might think this is overkill but I can attest that having things like noise gates on every channel is rather handy for stuff like older synths, which aren't always as quiet as you might like. Also provides very flexible monitoring and tons of other benefits.

[James Perrett]

My solution isn't as sophisticated as The Elf's but it will work out cheaper for you. Use an RME Digiface USB as your interface, use your Scarlett in stand-alone mode, use the 500 rack on another ADAT connection which then leaves you 2 more ADAT inputs for ADAT expanders. A Behringer ADA8200 will give you 8 ins and outs for not too much money and there are also quite a few used 8 channel preamps at reasonable prices too. You may also be able to find an old Firewire interface that will work in stand-alone mode which is what I do with my Saffire Pro26io.

[richkeyworth]

Thanks all for your suggestions; I've got ideas for a few different options to look into now.

Thanks again

[Arpangel]

I know getting a small mixer could be an option but seems a little OTT.

I'm in a similar situation, a mixer isn’t in any way OTT, it’s actually essential.

[richkeyworth]

I know getting a small mixer could be an option but seems a little OTT.

I'm in a similar situation, a mixer isn’t in any way OTT, it’s actually essential.

Fair enough - think I'll go for that Behringer mixer as mentioned above, seems a solid option. Thanks

[Arpangel]

I know getting a small mixer could be an option but seems a little OTT.

I'm in a similar situation, a mixer isn’t in any way OTT, it’s actually essential.

Fair enough - think I'll go for that Behringer mixer as mentioned above, seems a solid option. Thanks

If you’re talking about the 1602, maybe give it an audition first, they didn’t sound very good at one point, but that may have changed.

[Eddy Deegan]

I used to use a StudioLive Series III 32R as my interface with 32 physical inputs but when I needed more I added a StudioLive Series III 64S desk as I could then use the 32R as a stagebox for it, providing 64 analogue inputs between them, which has served me well since.

A big bonus for me is that the Series III desk also does a great job of acting as a DAW controller, and it transformed my workflow for the better.

[N i g e l]

Fair enough - think I'll go for that Behringer mixer as mentioned above, seems a solid option. Thanks

If you’re talking about the 1602, maybe give it an audition first, they didn’t sound very good at one point, but that may have changed.

Theres a V2 now, i dont know what the difference is apart from its shorter front to back.

[N i g e l]

.. I added a StudioLive Series III 64S desk ...

thats sampling at 48k ? Is that ok with synths ?

Ive had this feeling for a while, that todays 48k is a lot better than 48k of old and that 96k is excessive.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Theres a V2 now, i dont know what the difference is apart from its shorter front to back.

It has a switch-mode universal power supply instead of the originals region-specific linear supply.

The schematics I saw for the V1 model showed it had impedance-balanced main outputs, the same as the V2 model (but I know the V1 manual says unbalanced).

The circuitry appears to use Jrc4580 opamps which are a slight quality step-down from the venerable NE5532, but they are widely used in semipro gear.

[Eddy Deegan]

.. I added a StudioLive Series III 64S desk ...

thats sampling at 48k ? Is that ok with synths ?

Ive had this feeling for a while, that todays 48k is a lot better than 48k of old and that 96k is excessive.

It will do 48 but I use it at 44.1 - it's fine for me. All hardware on the Jamuary tracks linked in my sig was recorded using the StudioLive.

[N i g e l]

thanks Eddy I ll give that a listen later

[BillB]

RX1602 V1 The manual’s spec for the main outputs is
Main Out L/R 1/4" TRS connector, unbalanced.
I have a couple and have not tried balanced cables on the outputs… I might give it a go!

They are OK semi-pro mixers, some noise audible on outputs at high level. It is important to drive the inputs hot enough to prevent noise ageing an issue. In reality, the synths are probably generating more noise than the mixer so, yes, the mute buttons are very helpful.

Haven’t tried a V2, but if the do have balanced outputs, that’s an obvious benefit, although I haven’t had any ground noise issues with my two V1’s.

[Martin Walker]

Theres a V2 now, i dont know what the difference is apart from its shorter front to back.

The schematics I saw for the V1 model showed it had impedance-balanced main outputs, the same as the V2 model (but I know the V1 manual says unbalanced).

The circuitry appears to use Jrc4580 opamps which are a slight quality step-down from the venerable NE5532, but they are widely used in semipro gear.

Yes, I also tracked down a partial schematic of the output section on the GroupDIY forum (it didn't specify whether this was v1 or v2), showing the 4580 opamps and impedance balanced outputs.

[The Elf]

Thanks Elf. You're right, I probably should rethink my aversion to patchbays. Seems it would make things simpler, once arranged logically.

Sources on the top row, destinations on the bottom row, and set up such that you need no patch cables in the front to work 'normally'. Job done.

[BillB]

RX1602 V1 The manual’s spec for the main outputs is
Main Out L/R 1/4" TRS connector, unbalanced.
I have a couple and have not tried balanced cables on the outputs… I might give it a go!

So, I did plug in a pair of TRS cables between the RX1602 main outputs and UA-101 balanced inputs and, as far as I can gauge, they work perfectly fine. They seem to register about 3db lower, on my DAW input level meter, than the unbalanced cables (not done scientifically, just synth tones). Does that seem about right? If so, that suggests that the original RX1602 has balanced main outputs, in line with its spec of having ‘TRS’ connections but despite the spec saying that the outputs are unbalanced.

I have now picked up an RX1602 V2 and, apart from it being about 50mm shallower front to back, and the spec stating that the main outs are ‘impedance balanced’ (were they all along?) I don’t see any difference in the tech specs at all. Neither have I seen any marketing bumph to explain how V2 differs from V1.

It’s a very handy, economical little mixer, but Behringer’s tech specs lack clarity.