Is a Mixer with Drect outs essential 4 use with An MPC & PC

You could go with a behringer.

Hmmm, If i got one of them, I'd shoot myself after an hour. They are a little to brisk and sound very hissy. Hence Y I narrowed my choices down to The M12 & the Yamaha.

When it comes to mixers, Im not keen on 2nd hand. If i get it BRAND new, Im fully aware of who it sounds and should sound.

"What about EQ? If you have a good mixer, the EQ will probably be better than the digital EQ in your software"

Does not matter since direct outs do not go through the EQ. Like I already mentioned, the only thing DI's are good for (and all they really pass through) are the pre-amps.

"What about EQ? If you have a good mixer, the EQ will probably be better than the digital EQ in your software"

Does not matter since direct outs do not go through the EQ. Like I already mentioned, the only thing DI's are good for (and all they really pass through) are the pre-amps.

Yo, you lost me now. What point does yours follow??

mpc3000 wrote:"What about EQ? If you have a good mixer, the EQ will probably be better than the digital EQ in your software"

Does not matter since direct outs do not go through the EQ. Like I already mentioned, the only thing DI's are good for (and all they really pass through) are the pre-amps.

I stand corrected.
Thanks for the schooling.

Ooooooooooh I'm with it now. That was a a post to Itchy from his previous comments. Cool.

All Is good

"Does not matter since direct outs do not go through the EQ. Like I already mentioned, the only thing DI's are good for (and all they really pass through) are the pre-amps."

That should say "the only thing DO's (direct outs) are good for"

And example might help:
1 mackie 1604
1 Alesis ADAT
1 standalone CDR
8 sound sources (mix of mics and synths)

8 sound sources are connected to the first 8 channels of the Mackie (the 1st 8 have direct outs). Those 8 input do not get connected to any busses! Very important.
Those direct outs connect to the ADAT's 8 inputs
The ADAT 8 outputs go to the 2nd set of 8 inputs on the Mackie. These 8 inputs get connected to the subs or main busses on the mixer.
The main or sub busses can get connected to CDR or other recorder (even another multitracker.

This type of setup passes the 8 signals to the ADAT and the returns from the ADAT get mixed on the Mackie for monitoring and mixing. You also add EQ and other effects on the 2nd half of the board during the plaback on the way to the other recording device. No one ever puts EQ while stuff is being recorded since you want the full dry signal on tape. You can always apply later. Not only do not want to, but this common type of setup does not even allow you to apply effects/EQ to the dry signal going in. It is possible to use an aux send to tap off the original signal to give the vocalists something to listen to (usually a slight reverb) and this can put put on a separate track (if one is free).

With the advent of PC systems and newer HD recording systems that have internal mixers, direct outs have gone by the wayside. Mixers in general are not as needed since one can now just jack 8 signals straight into their pro audio soundcard or HD recorder. The computer/HD recorder can take care of recording the dry signal, routing it to an effect/EQ and recording that on it's own separate track.

It is still nice to keep a large mixing desk around sometimes. At one of the studios I frequent, bands are recorded straight to 3 ADATs (32 channels). For the mixdown we send the 32 channels straight into the inputs of Tascam mixer and while doing so apply effects and EQ as needed and perform manual `automation`. Some signals are subgrouped that need to be controlled together (i.e. 8 drums signals can be faded on a signal subgroup slider instead of by 8 sliders). The result is recorded off the mains (which has a couple of insert effects (compression and EQ) and all is done. This is actually a pretty fast way to work. Faster than mixing it on the PC since rendering 32 tracks of EQ and effects takes a REALLY long time on even the fastest computer (multiply that times 8-10 songs). Plus only one person can work on the PC at a time. With a 5 foot mixing desk, 2 or sometimes 3 people can get their hands in there.

Good little write up there '3000

One thing tho.... In my case, if i had that 1604 Mixer and I had 4 of the outs of the MPC connected plus 2 outs each from modules all nicly EQ'd and ready to fly into my PC via a delta 1010 are you sayin that if I wanted to then Mix each track in Logic the signal would be dry (Bypass EQ) or your advising me to send it dry and EQ again?

I understand the ADAT thing but Im thinking of my PC as a harddisk recorder. So all that send and return stuff wont get done.
The reason I dont want to group all the drums to busses etc is because I may want to make an edit to them at a later stage. In simple terms, I want to transfer the layout of a track in the MPC to Logic without limitations of (or very little) Thats my requirment of Diretc Outs.

Am i making sense???

I don't record dry. I eq, record, then eq again if necessary on the computer.

"One thing tho.... In my case, if i had that 1604 Mixer and I had 4 of the outs of the MPC connected plus 2 outs each from modules all nicly EQ'd and ready to fly into my PC via a delta 1010 are you sayin that if I wanted to then Mix each track in Logic the signal would be dry (Bypass EQ) or your advising me to send it dry and EQ again?"

Depends on where the connections between the mixer and 1010. If you went from the direct outs to the 1010, then the signal would be 100% dry, no question and no choice about it. If you tap off the sub and main busses then you could record EQ/effects.

Recording your initial signal with EQ/effects is not suggested. I know of no pro engineers that record EQ/effects on the original signal. They ALWAYS, ALWAYS record the original source 100% dry. I have already explained this. We have gotten remix material from artists in which they recorded their sounds with EQ/effects and we have had to send it back. Most of time they did a horrible job with the EQ/effects and there is no way to get it out (well a few can be removed or worked around, but it is never worth the time or money).

I really do not understand people's desire to record the initial tracks with eq AND still want to record separate tracks. Kind of an oxymoron. The whole reason one records on separate tracks is so you can control the amount of effects you place on the track later on (and allow you to undo them). If one is going to irreversibly destroy the original sound during recording, then why bother recording on separate tracks. Instead just record as 2 tracks off the mains and be done with it. If you are going to change something then you are going ot have to redo the entire anyway.


"The reason I dont want to group all the drums to busses"

No one said you had to. I simply gave a few examples of other configurations.

I really do not understand people's desire to record the initial tracks with eq AND still want to record separate tracks. Kind of an oxymoron. The whole reason one records on separate tracks is so you can control the amount of effects you place on the track later on (and allow you to undo them). If one is going to irreversibly destroy the original sound during recording, then why bother recording on separate tracks. Instead just record as 2 tracks off the mains and be done with it. If you are going to change something then you are going ot have to redo the entire anyway.

The My reason behind this is because I use the MPC for its feel and influence it has over drums. Had this not be the case I might aswell just program in logic and this whole conversation wouldn't be needed.
Soooooooo, back to the point of recording tracks 1 by 1. This is so i maintain flexibility and control still. I.E Edits/Drop outs. 2ndly I want to use logic to rec vocals (obviously) and do the main Mixdown in there (add compression, perhaps a touch of reverb etc) The method you speak of almost suggest no need for a desk. if i didnt want the EQ setting used initially on the desk I may aswell just send all signals directly to the soundcard. This is not the way i work. I do it all in the MPC...EVERYTHING!
You see where im coming from now??

I think where I got it twisted was thinking Direct Outs will send an identical signal of the track striaght to my soundcard (Without by passing EQ etc - This is what your saying Direct Outs do right?? Send a dry/original signal?)

Hmmm, How confusing. Then perhaps this suggest that a Delta 1010 is perhaps not being used to its full potential if being used with a 4buss mixer...Suggesting a Delta 44 could suffice??

We'l get there in the end....3000 and all thos taking part in this thread, thanks for your part....TUTOR can you add a tad of info??

mpc3000 wrote:"
I really do not understand people's desire to record the initial tracks with eq AND still want to record separate tracks. Kind of an oxymoron. The whole reason one records on separate tracks is so you can control the amount of effects you place on the track later on (and allow you to undo them). If one is going to irreversibly destroy the original sound during recording, then why bother recording on separate tracks. Instead just record as 2 tracks off the mains and be done with it. If you are going to change something then you are going ot have to redo the entire anyway.

Sometimes there are just frequencies that you know you don't want and won't want later (like trying to ease hiss, or easing back extra-boomy low mids.) I know it alters the original signal, but I don't see it as "destroying" it. If you have it all on separate tracks, it's just easier to re-visit later for touch-up mixing, and it's easier to transport. I know it's kind of "against the rules," but I read of people who do this as a common practice...I'm talking pro producers.
To me, there's no "wrong way" of doing something if the end result is dope.
When it comes to art...I throw out the rule book.

yeah, I'm new at this, so I might not know better, but once shit is in my computer, It doesn't always sound the same all together as it did before.