$2500?

Pocket change





But yeah way too much technology for me. On the other hand, this soon to be shipping device seems to be in about the right cost/complexity range for me:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MM16USBFX/

If you are doing live sound that will work, but the USB cable only carries one stereo signal on the USB1.0 Multimix 16 FX model. So it will be roughly the same recording capabilities of your current interface...

If you wish to record full bands, the Tascam interface i poasted is about the best bang for buck out there, that will allow, right out the box, 16 individual channels to come into a computer.

As a point of reference, the comparable Alesis mixer product to the Tascam US-1800 (in recording abilities) would be something like this one:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ ... ltiMix16U2

Note the price is considerably elevated from the USB1.0 model.

The new Alesis multimixes are USB 2.0 (Unless SW listed it wrong), like the one I posted.

Or did I read your post wrong?

I just noticed this edit.

I don't know why Sweetwater doesn't list the US-1800 (which is tascam not alesis), but they do have the slightly bigger brother: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/US2000

It might be worth it to call them and see if they will get the 1800 in though. For the price, it is really a good feature set. And the US-2000, IMO, while nicer, isn't necessarily two hundred dollars nicer, certainly not for the basic purpose of bringing microphones in on separate channels.

I have an older sweetwater catalog that shows the older smaller US-1640 interface(which has been discontinued), so it is possssssible that they might get the 1800 in a a later time? Dunno.

There are two types they make, that look similar, but slightly different.

1. Multimix 16 USBFX - this is a usb 1.0 mixer, that only brings in one stereo signal. They go for about $300

2. Multimix 16 USB2.0 - this is usb2.0 and brings in sixteen channels across the usb connection. They cost about $600.

The liars say it is USB 2.0, twice on that page.

"16-channel Mixer with USB 2.0 Connection, 28-bit Onboard Effects, and 3-band EQ per Channel"

"Computer Connectivity 1 x USB 2.0 (48kHz/16-bit)"

That is the $300 model.

Or is it just one USB 2.0 stereo out, or am I reading it wrong? Or am I just plain wrong? I do that a lot.

I was looking at the Alesis page whilst typing and typo'd it, but yeah I saw the 2000 as well and kinda figured the same thing. I will have to call and ask about it.

Also, firewire, i don't think is really a requirement right now.

My theory is that lots of developers had lots of problems with firewire standards and hardware, drivers, and support. Because, most firewire interfaces seem to be disappearing, and most of the new ones that are coming out are based on the USB2.0 standard instead.

Firewire is technically better suited for recording data transfers, but it can also be a buggy pain in the dick. Chip and PC compatibility is always a huge issue.

Part of this is because a firewire interface has a lot of hardware to it, basically its own tiny computer that handles all of the bits and bobs of digital processing and movement.

USB is a little more like a simple language for any old device to speak in. It uses the more of the main computer's hardware instead of having as much of its own onboard biz in the interface.

As a result, the USB is technically more system-dependent. It uses the CPU, the RAM, etc. of the recording computer much more.

Firewire uses much less computer resources, and so can technically do more with less CPU, RAM, etc. The problem is that it is difficult with the standards in place, to ensure that different firewire hardware will work 100% seamlessly with the hundreds of different companies firewire chipsets. And they NEED to be able to. Unfortunately, what happens quite a bit is that they don't always play nicely with each other, and can either intermittently lose sync(and hence: data transfer) or in the worst case scenario, never be able to sync up in the first place.

Which is a long-winded way of getting around to: I think firewire is awesome, but i think it was too much of a headache for developers. And i think that though the technical specification of firewire makes it clearly superior for audio/recording use, USB2.0 is not actually that much behind it for reasonable track counts(for instance, 16 channels seems to be okay for it?) but it IS much easier to develop for, and cheaper. And possibly more reliable as well. USB busses are not without their problems honestly, but, they are different sorts of problems from the kind of infuriating inconsistency that some people get from their firewire ports.

I actually understand this.

Hmm, you are right, they do keep saying USB 2.0. But the main thing to pay attention to in that ad is this bit:



So basically, they would only need a 1.0 connection. They may have a new one now that uses a 2.0 connection, but it is still just using it for two channels(one stereo signal).

It is almost like they are trying to catch people out who are not super familiar with this shit or something. It would be nice if they were a little clearer in their product naming/design and advertisements that the two very similar looking mixers have very different capabilities.

As long as I know I am not crazy.

I figured it seemed strange they were coming out with a new model that pretty much beach the shit out of the same thing they sell for half the price. Tricky bastids.




Well, now I know!

As an aside, I'd like to state that I think in the next few years we're going to see an increase in devices like these- small to medium format mixers aimed at the home/project studio and live sound audiences with integrated interfaces. It's a practical solution; you get the routing options of a mixer- separate (latency free) monitor mixes, patch points for various whatnot, and probably varying levels of integrated DAW control, with enough inputs to track a live band with little/no compromise (ie. "I have eight channels so there's two mics on the drums" or there's a band where everyone does backups and you have to dump 'em down to one track sorta deal without overdubs). The functionality for those of us who don't bring in the bucks to throw down on an SSL AWS 9000 or Neve Genesys or the like is pretty hard to argue with versus trying to cobble together a piecemeal solution.

And like Chris mentioned earlier in the thread, having banks of controls that actually do things on their own in realtime is hard to argue with. And one of the things we're missing when we're all just running dedicated inyourfaces into our computers. Especially dealing with bands when the singer wants some reverb or the bassist wants more kick drum or what have you. Or patching in outboard, when you probably have no sends/returns and are lucky to have an insert point or two and have to fudge some workaround. Mixing, I want to turn the knob and not have to wait for the delay compensation to kick in and hear the thing chorus and phase and wonder "was it better the first time" or stop/start and A/B things.

Using hardware isn't about some sort of analog- or equipment-fetishism. Obviously it can and does become that for some people, but there's practical advantages in a lot of situations that are hard to overlook.





tl/dr: Dev should save up his ducats and pick up that Alesis that sends all the channels back and forth. Unless there turns out to be inherent issues with the device (as in "it doesn't work right").

I support this whole "we should put a multitrack interface into our mixer! " concept. It makes a lot of sense.

The $600 Alesis does have a bit going on feature wise, but it is all in the realm of my understanding. I might sell the when I get close enough in cash to make it worth it.

For the most basic porpoise of recording bands, IMO, a mixer like that Alesis is not really necessary. All you need are simple ass mic preamps, and some sort of digitalizer to feed them to a computer.

Something like that Alesis, even though that is basically what i am using(just, i have the little brother 8 channel version) is more than you need for a cheapo tracking solution. You won't need the EQ, or the built in FX, or any of that shit. All of it is available in higher quality forms via the DAW software/VST biz at that price range's offerings. For twice as much money as the simpler interface solution, i definitely don't think it is worth it.

If your price bracket climbs into the $2000-plus range, THEN i think the mixer/interface options become more attractive. At the low end of the spectrum though, the mixer is unnecessarily complex and pricey for what its actual relatively meager capabilities are going to be within the practical application of recording a band's worth of mics at once.

IMO.

Actually I found that Tascam at AMS, so I might be looking into that anyway.

I figure what I would do with a mixer, I would probably end up being able to do with whatever software I am using. I does not have mad mixing skillz, so it is not like I really need super flexibility. I am also picking up some HD280s, so in a live recording of a band situation I can still get all the levels figure out somewhat. Not perfectly, but I wouldn't really be getting paid anyway.

That interface would also give me a bit more options in the micing area. Considering I use a mixed-speaker cab, being able to mic both and put a room mic on there might end up being a nifty trick. Options are nice, and this interface pretty much does what mine does, but more of it. I won't get hit with a big learning curve, or a big bill ....

Re: necessary/quality- concurred, actually. The usefulness of a board whilst tracking if you have a few bucks to kick around is another matter entirely, IMO. The ability to use the auxes to create latency-free individual monitor/headphone mixes for the players I've found in the immediate past to be quite the help. I also think though, Chris, that you have a valid point re: spending some coin on the thing, because what having a mixer these days is really about is signal routing, at least in a studio/tracking situation (obviously, it's a necessity for live work).

For $600 though, two of those Tascam jobbers gives you sixteen mic pres, which is enough to cover most of what you're gonna encounter unless you're recording death metal live off the floor and want to mic all the kit pieces or you have a horn section or something equally stupid where you need an assload of mic ins.

Also: if you are punk rock about it, you can (probably, check the manual to be sure) get sixteen microphones into ONE of those Tascams.

Same way i get eight into the Alesis i use now, basically misusing the four line-ins with unbalanced mic cables that i popped 1/4" ends on. It sure isn't pretty or proper, but for dynamic mics on loud sources, it just barely works!

Touché. Would the Tascam box be able to see all those mics on separate tracks or would you be summing 'em down and hoping for the best, basically? Also, would having something plugged into the mic in and line in at the same time disable one or the other input so it would just default to the mic or line?

...and a lot of times the mic pre is just an additional gain stage anyhow (or the line amp is the same deal padded down 20db or so...); I can totally see that working for drums or loudass guitars where it doesn't matter if you have 70db of gain or the like. And I think anyone who grew up with cassette 4-tracks has plugged a mic into something with a 1/4" cable at some point.

Cheap handheld dynamic --> 1/4" cable --> DS-1 --> 4-track = bast vocal chain evar.

I have totally done exactly that. I might even have the results someplace. They were pretty terrible though, it was like 1998, and i was into some terrible things.

As for the Tascam, it actually brings in a full sixteen channels. It has 8 proper XLR pres on the front, plus another two line-ins on the front that have trim/level controls. Theennnn, on the back it has four more line-ins, meant to be used as two stereo pairs, but like, they are separate. They have a switch per pair that i believe either cuts like 10dB, or boosts 4dB.

So, it looks very much like it would do the trick.

The 1800 also has MIDI in/out to boot.

More than likely, this is the device that i will eventually aim to score, if i ever get unbroke. They had some ghetto cheap busted/nonfunctional ones at MF in the used section, and if they have any more when i can afford the experiment, i might say try a gamble and see if i could fix one of them... That sort of thing.