Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-03-31 23:28 UTC

Thread

MOTM Mega-Mixer??

MOTM Mega-Mixer??

2002-09-16 by Paul Schreiber

a) here is the "highest-end" rack mixer that I know of:

www.speck.com

b) It's probably easier to get a used Samson 2404 mixer (~$175) and 'hot-rod' it.

c) I have always wanted to do high-end studio rack-mount stuff. Does a vocoder count??!? But a
"MOTM spec" mixer would be pretty expensive. I could do a decent job on say an 8 to 12-input one.
Since the Speck is $3500 with no EQ, maybe I could do a 12-in version with EQ for the *low* price
of $1899. I'd sell 3 maybe :)

d) Rather than that, maybe some VC Matrix Mixers/Routers/JH Interpolating Scanners would be more
realistic.

Paul S.

RE: [motm] MOTM Mega-Mixer??

2002-09-16 by John Loffink

VC Matrix Mixer – Yes! Great for controlling complex feedback loops or complex modulations.

VC Router – How different from the MOTM 700?

JH Interpolating Scanner – YES!

John Loffink
jloffink@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Schreiber [mailto:synth1@...]
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 10:33 PM
To: MOTM listserv
Subject: [motm] MOTM Mega-Mixer??

a) here is the "highest-end" rack mixer that I know of:

www.speck.com

b) It's probably easier to get a used Samson 2404 mixer (~$175) and 'hot-rod' it.

c) I have always wanted to do high-end studio rack-mount stuff. Does a vocoder count??!? But a
"MOTM spec" mixer would be pretty expensive. I could do a decent job on say an 8 to 12-input one.
Since the Speck is $3500 with no EQ, maybe I could do a 12-in version with EQ for the *low* price
of $1899. I'd sell 3 maybe :)

d) Rather than that, maybe some VC Matrix Mixers/Routers/JH Interpolating Scanners would be more
realistic.

Paul S.

Re: MOTM Mega-Mixer??

2002-09-16 by coyoteous

See also:

http://www.crestaudio.com/html/xr20.html

http://midas-venice.com

http://www.cranesong.com/spider.html

and my fave (go all the way to the bottom for prices):

http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/16_299.html

The Crest is the best "bang for buck" (for any new analog mixer,IMO)
and eats Mackies, et al for breakfast.

Barry

Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> a) here is the "highest-end" rack mixer that I know of:
>
> www.speck.com
>
> Paul S.

Re: [motm] MOTM Mega-Mixer??

2002-09-16 by groovyshaman@snet.net

I vote for d). Oh, and a sequencer!!

George K.

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
To: MOTM listserv <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 11:32 PM
Subject: [motm] MOTM Mega-Mixer??


> a) here is the "highest-end" rack mixer that I know of:
>
> www.speck.com
>
> b) It's probably easier to get a used Samson 2404 mixer (~$175) and
'hot-rod' it.
>
> c) I have always wanted to do high-end studio rack-mount stuff. Does a
vocoder count??!? But a
> "MOTM spec" mixer would be pretty expensive. I could do a decent job on
say an 8 to 12-input one.
> Since the Speck is $3500 with no EQ, maybe I could do a 12-in version with
EQ for the *low* price
> of $1899. I'd sell 3 maybe :)
>
> d) Rather than that, maybe some VC Matrix Mixers/Routers/JH Interpolating
Scanners would be more
> realistic.
>
> Paul S.

Re: [motm] MOTM Mega-Mixer??

2002-09-18 by media.nai@rcn.com

At 11:09 AM +0000 09/16/02, coats wrote:
>See also:
>
>http://www.crestaudio.com/html/xr20.html
>
>http://midas-venice.com
>
>http://www.cranesong.com/spider.html
>
>and my fave (go all the way to the bottom for prices):
>
>http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/16_299.html
>
>The Crest is the best "bang for buck" (for any new analog mixer,IMO)
>and eats Mackies, et al for breakfast.

Thanks for the links. I'm looking for a small mixer for my own studio use.
Unfortunately, almost all small mixers are designed more for live use.

The Crest doesn't have busses. The Crane is more like an overpriced AD
converter with faders, than a production mixer. The Manley is extremely
expensive and way too minimal.

Right now, I am leaning towards the Allen & Heath four bus (WZ14:4:2+).
The Midas 160 is another option, but the aux sends aren't switchable, the
faders are only 60mm, and the line inputs have "20dB of permanent
attenuation". It also has fewer features and fewer inputs. The A&H
WZ14:4:2+ uses a switched power supply -- it replaces the WZ14:4:2 which
used a linear supply. I do not know if I can to modify the monitor
section of the A&H to work in stereo. If I can't, I'll have to keep
looking.

At 10:32 PM -0500 09/15/02, Paul Schreiber wrote:
>
>a) here is the "highest-end" rack mixer that I know of:
>
>www.speck.com

Summit, Oram, etc. all make rack mixers. However, none of them have
monitor features adequate for a stand alone mixer. Neve, Amek, Focusrite,
SSL, etc. sell rack mounted "board channels". api will custom make almost
anything if you are willing to pay for it.

>b) It's probably easier to get a used Samson 2404 mixer (~$175) and
>>'hot-rod' it.

I don't think so -- you would have to replace the pots, jacks, power
supply, and almost all the electronics to get a decent mixer.

>c) I have always wanted to do high-end studio rack-mount stuff.

You already do!!

Show quoted textHide quoted text
>Does a vocoder count??!? But a "MOTM spec" mixer would be pretty
>expensive. I could do a decent job on say an 8 to 12-input one.
>Since the Speck is $3500 with no EQ, maybe I could do a 12-in version with
>>EQ for the *low* priceof $1899. I'd sell 3 maybe :)

Speck is sort of a "modular" mixer -- they also make multi-channel EQ's to
stack on top of their mixers.

Re: MOTM Mega-Mixer?? [OT]

2002-09-19 by coyoteous

--- In motm@y..., media.nai@r... wrote:
> The Crest doesn't have busses.

Well, a mixer without (summing) busses wouldn't be a mixer,
would it? :-) I count 13 (Mono, L, R, G1-G4 and 6 auxes). If you
mean subs, submasters or subGROUPS, there are 4. The Crest
is intended for live use, but don't discount the sonics - they are
top notch - way beyond the price point and it's built like a tank.

>The Crane is more like an overpriced AD
> converter with faders, than a production mixer.

We are talking about "high end" rack mixers and it does sound
real good. Perhaps the most analog sounding A/D available
(based on a proprietary dither scheme I heard was distributed
based on Fletcher/Munson rather than the typical noise shaping
curves).

>The Manley is extremely
> expensive and way too minimal.

Yeah, but it's a Manley, what did you expect? Hutch is an
absolutely brilliant designer.

> Right now, I am leaning towards the Allen & Heath four bus
>(WZ14:4:2+).

These are nice from my recollection, I almost bought one. I
ended up with a CAD (perhaps the biggest of all rack mixers)
that I eventually returned because of all of it's problems (mosty
mechanical, it sounded incredible - straight wire with gain and a
pinch of warmth - minimal caps in the signal path - lots of servo).

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> The Midas 160 is another option...

Haven't heard it yet, people like the EQ a lot. It's probably a little
warmer than the Crest based on their bigger consoles.

Barry

Re: [motm] MOTM Mega-Mixer??

2002-09-19 by Black_Man_Music@yahoo.com

--- media.nai@... wrote:
>
> Speck is sort of a "modular" mixer -- they also make
> multi-channel EQ's to
> stack on top of their mixers.

This is what I'm saving for. Rumour has it that Vince
is working on another mixer, but from the looks of
things, it has been put on-hold due to the economy. I
own an ASC... it's excellent - highly recommended.



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: MOTM Mega-Mixer??

2002-09-19 by phaeton777

This is a great thread but I'm going to burst some bubbles...

One thing that many people don't consider when buying gear is the
reliability/customer service factor. As a pro-audio tech I see a LOT
of new gear that is absolute CRAP. It gets worse every year. The
built-in disposability and utter lack of customer support on the part
of some manufacturers is ghastly. People are so bedazzled by features
and packaging. I think it's fair to say that one of the things that
we MOTMers appreciate about Pauls designs is the no-corners-cut
philosophy and the HumVee-like construction.

Beware of what you buy...

Z.



like --- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> a) here is the "highest-end" rack mixer that I know of:
>
> www.speck.com
>
> b) It's probably easier to get a used Samson 2404 mixer (~$175)
and 'hot-rod' it.
>
> c) I have always wanted to do high-end studio rack-mount stuff.
Does a vocoder count??!? But a
> "MOTM spec" mixer would be pretty expensive. I could do a decent
job on say an 8 to 12-input one.
> Since the Speck is $3500 with no EQ, maybe I could do a 12-in
version with EQ for the *low* price
> of $1899. I'd sell 3 maybe :)
>
> d) Rather than that, maybe some VC Matrix Mixers/Routers/JH
Interpolating Scanners would be more
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> realistic.
>
> Paul S.

Re: [motm] Re: MOTM Mega-Mixer?? [OT]

2002-09-19 by media.nai@rcn.com

At 1:55 AM +0000 09/19/02, coyoteous wrote:
>
>Well, a mixer without (summing) busses wouldn't be a mixer,
>would it? :-) I count 13 (Mono, L, R, G1-G4 and 6 auxes). If you
>mean subs, submasters or subGROUPS, there are 4. The Crest
>is intended for live use, but don't discount the sonics - they are
>top notch - way beyond the price point and it's built like a tank.

Yes, that's what I meant by busses. I didn't notice g1-g4 when I looked at
their webpage. Now I see they are above the main faders. I'm going to
download the pdf manual check to see if it has a "control room" or "FOH
monitor" output in stereo. I need to be able to monitor in stereo.

>> Right now, I am leaning towards the Allen & Heath four bus
>>(WZ14:4:2+).

Unfortunately, it won't monitor PFL (solo) in stereo. The PFL and AFL
busses are mono. So it's not an option. A&H are suggesting the Wizard
20S, but "at this price point we do not have stereo input channel PFL".
Price point isn't so much the issue as physical size.

>These are nice from my recollection, I almost bought one. I
>ended up with a CAD (perhaps the biggest of all rack mixers)
>that I eventually returned because of all of it's problems (mosty
>mechanical, it sounded incredible - straight wire with gain and a
>pinch of warmth - minimal caps in the signal path - lots of servo).

CAD??

>> The Midas 160 is another option...
>
>Haven't heard it yet, people like the EQ a lot.

Yes, people do like their EQ. However, according to their site, the
sweepable mid-low EQ only goes as low as 100Hz, and the fixed low is at
80Hz. Sufficient for correcting off-axis mics, but a bit lacking for
producing electronic music.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
>It's probably a little
>warmer than the Crest based on their bigger consoles.

FWIW, I won't make much use of the discrete mic pres.

I was wrong when I said it was too thick -- I had confused it with the TL
Audio. Now that I've taken a closer look it might be more flexible than I
thought as well. It is designed extremely well for live use, and seems
quite capable of running a PA much larger than one would typically connect
to a board its size. However, I'm planning on using it for my own studio
use, so at this point I am going to keep looking.

Re: MOTM Mega-Mixer?? [OT]

2002-09-20 by coyoteous

--- In motm@y..., media.nai@r... wrote:
Re: Crest

> I didn't notice g1-g4 when I looked at their webpage.

Okay, understood. They are smaller (60mm?) faders. :(

>I'm going to download the pdf manual check to see if it has a
>"control room" or "FOH monitor" output in stereo. I need to
>be able to monitor in stereo.

There is a stereo monitor section by the mono master and an
"alt" (pre-fade) out over the L-R masters. Better yet would be
monitoring with something from (or similar to products from) the
link below:

http://colemanaudio.com

>Unfortunately, it (WZ14:4:2+) won't monitor PFL (solo) in
>stereo. The PFL and AFL busses are mono. So it's not an
>option.

Sounds like you want "solo-in-place" or mute groups. I don't
know if you'll find that in a small format analog mixer. I'll check
the Midas again. Aren't AFL/PFL always mono? After Fader
Listen / Pre Fader Listen - you want After Pan (Balance) Listen. I
suppose this makes the most sense for stereo channels. On a
mixer without "solo-in-place", I do this manually by muting the
channels I don't want to hear. It is a PITA with lots of channels.

> CAD??

Conneaut Audio Devices, they only make mics now (out of the
old Astatic plant):

http://www.cadmics.com

http://www.astatic.com (check out the D-104 Silver Eagle)

I had a CAD Maxcon 16, now serviced by (no pictures, etc.):

http://www.qcables.com/cad_maxcon/

You can probably search out some more info if you're interested.
Excellent design, not so great mechanical construction. To wrap
this back to slightly more on topic: I still have one of their
modular effects units - single rack space with space for 8
modules. I have four modules: comp/gate, dynamic filter/exciter,
exp/gate and variable dynamics. The sound good and I like to
use them in modular synth patches.

Barry

[ANC] Electronic and Experimental Music

2002-09-20 by Tentochi

A new book just came out, or at least a 2nd. edition.

A pretty easy read. Personally, I am always looking for new things to read
about electronic music. The last decent thing to come out was Joel
Chadabe's book which is more in depth than this one.

Well, here is the info:

Electronic and Experimental Music: Pioneers in Technology and Composition,
2nd. ed.
Thom Holmes
Routledge, 2002 (1st ed. 1985)
ISBN: 0-415-93644-6 (paperback)
ISBN: 0-415-93643-8 (hardback)
paperback ~US$25
322pp.

Website: http://www.thomholmes.com There are not a lot of pictures in the
book. Thom said there are some on his website, but they are not there.

Review: http://www.thomholmes.com/thomholmes/assets/eem-review.html

I am not connected with Thom or this book in any manner.

--Shemp

Re: [motm] Re: MOTM Mega-Mixer?? [OT]

2002-09-25 by media.nai@rcn.com

At 3:28 AM +0000 09/20/02, coyoteous wrote:
>
>There is a stereo monitor section by the mono master and an
>"alt" (pre-fade) out over the L-R masters. Better yet would be
>monitoring with something from (or similar to products from) the
>link below:
>
>http://colemanaudio.com

I've seen those, and while they are inexpensive compared to similar
products for mastering, they are still pricey. It's a good option if you
are using a DAW without a mixer, but I need to use both. More importantly,
I am trying to do as much as I can in the least amount of space, so the
last thing I want to do is add another piece of gear.

>Sounds like you want "solo-in-place" or mute groups. I don't
>know if you'll find that in a small format analog mixer. I'll check
>the Midas again.

Yes, you can do that with the Venice 160. At this point, it looks like
that's the mixer I will buy. Even though the Crest seems to have adequate
monitor functions, there is no way I can consider it because the jacks are
on the opposite side of the controls. You simply cannot use it on a desk.

>Aren't AFL/PFL always mono? After Fader
>Listen / Pre Fader Listen - you want After Pan (Balance) Listen.

AFL are usually stereo for bus pairs.

>I suppose this makes the most sense for stereo channels.

Right, and all these boards have a number of stereo channel strips.
Unfortunately, the MixWizard can't monitor the stereo channels or the
busses in stereo. Which, imho, was a very bad design decision.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
>On a mixer without "solo-in-place", I do this manually by muting the
>channels I don't want to hear. It is a PITA with lots of channels.

Not only is it a PITA, but monitoring should not effect the main outputs.
While you can rewind tape, it would be useless live.