Menu
I was reading some user reviews on a few home recorders (in
particular the Fostex MR8) and one guy suggested using a mixer in
front of the unit. Is he suggesting you mic your amp, run the mic
into the mixer, then send the mixer output to the recorder unit?
This is all new stuff to me, so what does this buy you? A chance to
control your levels better before the signal gets to the recorder?
Can't you control the level directly on the recorder?
If this is a good idea, I see they have cheap mixers for $50 US.
Would one of these units work for a first time amatuer who would
probably only record 2 tracks at once?
Thanks!
BN
I'm sure you can do decent home recordings in any number of ways,
depending on what you want to achieve, the equipment you have
available, and how prepared you are to experiment and learn and so
forth. But a mixer can give you additional flexibility in a number of
ways.
I use a pair of mixers with 4 channel inputs and 2 channel (i.e.,
stereo) outputs which I connect to the 4 inputs of my sound card. I
could put a microphone directly into each channel of the sound
card/recording software, but I find that, in my case at least, the
mixer offers more flexibility. As you point out in your e-mail, a
mixer gives you control of gain and volume for each channel, as well
as the level of the signal going to your recording device and/or
monitors. But even relatively cheap mixers ($50-75US) offer
additional features like phantom power, eq, filters, pan control etc
etc etc., which can be very helpful for live multitrack recording,
such as recording two guitars, or live drums, stereo guitar, or
capturing natural decay, reverb and "room sound".
If you have two inputs into your recorder, then a 4 channel mixer
will allow you to directly record three or more music sources (e.g.,
4 mikes on a drum kit), and control their levels, panning and other
sound characteristics.
You could probably do a lot of these same things without a mixer,
depending on what the rest of your equipment or software is like, and
how convenient or inconvenient the alternatives may be. But speaking
personally (and hey, I'm just a know-nothing rank amateur), it seems
convenient to have them all in one box or two, in front of the input
to the recording device.
I'm sure this is just scratching surface as to the possibilies, so
I'm interested to see what others have to say., "Brian Neal" <bneal@i...> wrote:
> I was reading some user reviews on a few home recorders (in
> particular the Fostex MR8) and one guy suggested using a mixer in
> front of the unit. Is he suggesting you mic your amp, run the mic
> into the mixer, then send the mixer output to the recorder unit?
> This is all new stuff to me, so what does this buy you? A chance to
> control your levels better before the signal gets to the recorder?
> Can't you control the level directly on the recorder?
>
> If this is a good idea, I see they have cheap mixers for $50 US.
> Would one of these units work for a first time amatuer who would
> probably only record 2 tracks at once?
>
> Thanks!
> BN
It also allows a mixdown prior to the tapedck. For
example, if you'd like to input 6 sources into two tracks
(say miked drums)a mixer can halp. Also, one can add board
effects, or beef up a weak signal (add distortion, add
headroom, add "tube effects") before hitting the tape deck.
dp
--- Brian Neal <> wrote:
> I was reading some user reviews on a few home recorders
> (in
> particular the Fostex MR8) and one guy suggested using a
> mixer in
> front of the unit. Is he suggesting you mic your amp, run
> the mic
> into the mixer, then send the mixer output to the
> recorder unit?
> This is all new stuff to me, so what does this buy you? A
> chance to
> control your levels better before the signal gets to the
> recorder?
> Can't you control the level directly on the recorder?
>
> If this is a good idea, I see they have cheap mixers for
> $50 US.
> Would one of these units work for a first time amatuer
> who would
> probably only record 2 tracks at once?
>
> Thanks!
> BN
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> .
> Visit for
> archived messages, bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
Here's another scenario:
how about "live-to-tape": capturing a live session.
you might have a plethora of simultaneous sound sources:
1. lead guitar
2. rhythym gutar
3. Bass: direct input
3. Bass: cabinet mike
4. drums highhat/snare/rim
5. drums: toms/ floor tom
6. drums kick
7. drums: ambient cymbal
8. ambient room mic right
9. ambient room mic left
10. ambient room mic center
this setup does not include a keyboard or any other sound
sources.
As you can surmise, a mixer might help in this situation.
Additionally, a mixer might help provide "phantom poewer"
for microphones...and a mixer can help balance and enhance
levels before the signal hits the recorder. So, in a way,
the mixer acts a a sort of signal buffer stage.
dp
--- Brian Neal <> wrote:
> I was reading some user reviews on a few home recorders
> (in
> particular the Fostex MR8) and one guy suggested using a
> mixer in
> front of the unit. Is he suggesting you mic your amp, run
> the mic
> into the mixer, then send the mixer output to the
> recorder unit?
> This is all new stuff to me, so what does this buy you? A
> chance to
> control your levels better before the signal gets to the
> recorder?
> Can't you control the level directly on the recorder?
>
> If this is a good idea, I see they have cheap mixers for
> $50 US.
> Would one of these units work for a first time amatuer
> who would
> probably only record 2 tracks at once?
>
> Thanks!
> BN
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> .
> Visit for
> archived messages, bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
