Mackie 1402 Mixer

[theattendance]

I currently do not have a mixer, but I find myself unplugging and plugging my instruments into my audio interface because I am trying to find the right sounds. I have the opportunity to buy a used Mackie 1402 mixer with rack ears for $100. Good idea? or would you suggest something different?

Thanks.

[nathanscribe]

Well, it seems cheap enough, so why not try it? If you don't like it, sell it and try another. I've been using a Mackie 1604 for a while, and there's plenty of scope for routing signals. I've had it set up in at least three different ways, and at the moment I'm plugging synths etc. in to channels 1-8 (7 and 8 come from a stereo mix of another mixer across the room where the rack is), audio interface outputs into channels 9-12 and effect returns to channels 13-16. Patching them into channels rather than aux returns means I can record them on separate audio channels to the dry sound, as well as EQ them etc. I've got the 4 busses routed to audio interface inputs, and the main mix routed to my monitors.

The worst I can say about the Mackie I have is that it's pretty uninspiring. But it does the job. Short of spending a four-figure sum on a Toft or something, it's probably going to stay around for a while longer. Same old story - you pays yer money....

Oh, nearly forgot: buy a mixer with more channels than you think you need. Otherwise you'll be back to square one, constantly repatching. Or at least arrange your patching so its easy and intuitive, and not a rat's nest of unmanageable proportions.

[theattendance]

Thanks for the advice.

Why run the Audio Interface outputs through the mixer? EQing? Don't you have the mixer running into the Audio Interface to record?

What effect returns are you using?

Can you explain the 4 busses routing to the Audio Interface inputs? What do the busses do?

[schmidtc]

Good idea. That's a good starter board at a fair price. Something to use until you sure of exactly what you want and need in the long term. A patch bay is also something to consider if you're going to be swapping out the channels a lot. Eventually through experimentation you'll probably end up with something more complicated like Nathan. I used a mackie 1202 for many years until I found a Mix Wizard, and I'm pretty sure I don't need any more than that no matter how much I want more. I just record stereo outs in 1 take so I can't give much advise, but you probably want the direct outs going into your audio interface, and your effects returns routed back into the mixer channels for starts.

[theattendance]

thanks schmidtc, my fellow bostonian.

[nathanscribe]

Why run the Audio Interface outputs through the mixer?

I need to hear what I've recorded My mixer and monitor speakers are what I listen to everything through - including playback from the computer.

What effect returns are you using?

Not sure what exactly you mean by this - if you mean effect units, I have two racks permanently patched - an Alesis Microverb IV, and Lexicon MPX1. These are mostly used for reverb.

Can you explain the 4 busses routing to the Audio Interface inputs? What do the busses do?

Absolutely.

I arrived at this setup after lots of messing around. It might sound strange at first, but it makes sense. I'll try to explain.

As described above, all my synths/drums go in to the first 8 mixer channels. I can set up a basic mix for messing about and getting ideas - nothing's being recorded at this stage, I'm just playing.

I have two pairs of aux sends set to feed the two effect racks. That is, sends 3/4 and 5/6 go to L & R inputs of the rack effects. The outputs of those effects are set to 100% wet (that is, no original signal comes through the output, just the effect sound on its own). That is beacuse I'm already hearing the dry sound from the mixer channel, so I just need to blend in some of the effect. Normally, these effect outputs would go to the dedicated "effect return" inputs on the mixer - and which have their own faders/knobs for level - but I don't do it that way, because that way there's no way to seperately record the effects. I plug my effects outputs into four mixer channels, so I can EQ them, pan them, re-route them back out again using those channels' aux sends (for example, add reverb to a delay).

The other reason for bringing fx back to channels is so the 100% wet sound is basically another 'instrument', and can be recorded alone, on a separate audio channel.

A mixer bus is a kind of mini-mix - each channel can be sent to any of the busses - for example, if I have three drum sounds on three channels, which I have EQd and level-set, I might want to record those as one track instead of three. So I select a Bus for them all (say, Bus 1) and then that Bus goes to the audio interface, and I can record all the drums together. Maybe the strings from two other synths go to Bus 2, the two different bass sounds to Bus 3 - you get the idea. Now, maybe I don't know if I really like the reverb I've got there - if I record the effects return channels together on Bus 4, I can listen back later and choose to replace it. But I don't have to re-record the original parts to do so. Say - for example, the bass needs a short smacky reverb with all the bottom end removed, but i've already recorded a mushy long reverb that doesn't work. The bass patch has been changed because I'm using that synth for something else now, and I lost the patch - that doesn't matter, I have the bass recorded as audio, which now I play back through the interface into a mixer channel, EQ it properly this time, add a better reverb, EQ the reverb on its own channel, record the reverb only - and now, in the computer, there's a seperate track for each of those things that I can then mix as I like.

So that's why the interface has 4 channels out to the mixer, why the effects are brought to channels, and how busses work. Hopefully.

[theattendance]

Why run the Audio Interface outputs through the mixer?

I need to hear what I've recorded My mixer and monitor speakers are what I listen to everything through - including playback from the computer.

That makes perfect sense I am so used to using headphones, What prevents loops from forming if you have the mixer outputting to the Audio Interface and then the Audio Interface outputting into the mixer?

[nathanscribe]

What prevents loops from forming if you have the mixer outputting to the Audio Interface and then the Audio Interface outputting into the mixer?

There's no direct connection between the inputs and outputs on the interface, and no direct link between a mixer channel and a record channel. Nor is there a fixed link between a record channel and a software audio track.

It's quite simple really:

If I play back a recorded track, it goes from the interface to the mixer. But in order to record a mixer channel, I have to switch that channel to a bus. If I don't route playback channels to a bus, no recording of the playback is made, so no loop. I can record other channels, because they can be routed individually to whichever bus I like. It's the busses, not the channels, that are linked to the interface inputs.

If I do want to record a playback channel (I could run a whole mix through a compressor that way, for example) I have enough channels in software, on the interface and on the mixer to play back on one channel and record it on another.

[theattendance]

Got it! Thanks.

[nathanscribe]

... and the thing is, as schmidtc mentioned, it's very simple to just record a stereo mix. I used to do that all the time - make sure everything was sequenced properly, EQd properly, the effects were in place - and just do a live mix to stereo tape. In a way, that hones your sense if discipline, as once it's down, it's down and you can't change it. The trouble with endless possibilites is that they're endless....

good luck anyway. I'm sure the 1402 will be useful.

[masstronaut]

Some good stuff in this thread.

I'm trying to decide on a new mixer or mixer / audio interface combination at the moment.
Right now I run synths direct into an E-MU 1616 (currently 8 inputs), but I want more ins and a hands on mixer.
Maybe I should start a new thread - but I have been looking at something in the region of a 1402, maybe along with an ADA800, but that does start to seem unwieldy, would be nicer to be able to do it all in one.

Options considered -

A&H ZED-14

Yamaha MG166C

Edirol M-16DX.

The A&H probably sounds best, the Yammy has the most 'features', but the Edirol seems like a great deal for 18 inputs to the computer. What's the catch with those? The fact that it's USB is also good as I don't think the Firewire on my PC is up to doing lots of tracks.

I suppose ideally I should be looking at an A&H R16 or a Yam N12... Need better firewire first!

[cartesia]

The yamaha MG series is good for cheap mixers - you need to make sure you use the pre-gains properly, rather than just crank the normal gain to +10 or else you will raise the noisefloor quite a bit, but if you know what you're doing it's easy to manage and keep it down.

the mackie VLZs are a bit better, but cost alot more.

I haven't tried the A&H and Edirols.

[masstronaut]

Thanks, I mean that's kind of what I expect from a cheap mixer tbh. A little noise isn't necessarily bad from my point of view either, as long as it has some 'character' or something. Most of my sources are line level so I wouldn't have to be pushing the gains too much if I balance right, which I do.

Still interested in the Edirol, I know it probably wouldn't be a very satisfying experience as a mixer but as an interface it seems like it could be a great option.

The little Mackie 1402 VLZ3s are £350 or so which seems OK.