[sdiy] [OT] great little mixer?? (was: Behringer MX1804)

[media.nai at rcn.com]

At 9:36 PM +0300 08/18/02, Henri Kovalainen wrote:
>
>> Since we are already off topic (unless this leads me to building my own
>> mixer :)  I'm looking to buy a compact mixer with at least 10 channels,
>> tape/line switches, mutes, solo, 4 aux sends, four buses, and a decent
>> monitor section. Any suggestions??
>
>The Allen & Heath WZ14:4:2 (http://www.allen-heath.co.uk/WZ1442.asp).

Thank you :)  I've considered that.  As a club mixer, it's flexibility is
absolutely astounding.  It even has an option to add an RIAA pre-amp so you
can play vinyl between sets :)

While its monitor capability is better than most live boards four times its
size, its monitor capability for studio use seems lacking.  It doesn't have
a control room output, and the "solo" group only has a headphone output.
Have you used yours for recording??  Were you able to find a work around??

Are channel switches quiet?? Are they "FET" or do they click??

>I bought a WZ16:2 years ago and I must say I love it. It's built like a
>tank and it sounds great. The WZ14:4:2 is essentially the same but with 10
>mono + 2 stereo channels and with 4 groups.

Actually, for live use, it's even more flexible than that!!

>I'm also selling my Allen & Heath because the compact digital mixers are
>becoming very affordable and in a modern mixing environment with digital
>multiracks they are _very_ flexible.

I might consider buying yours if you were in the States.  I absolutely
agree that digital mixers are becoming very affordable and are very
flexible.  I simply don't want one.  Imho, a digital mixer cannot be
"played" like an analogue mixer.  Digital mixes don't bend -- they break.
I also find reassigning knobs and faders very confusing.  Beyond that, the
latest psycho-acoustic research shows that analogue mixing is still
superior to 24/96.  Yes, there are many advantages to using a digital mixer
-- the best, imho, is affordable automation.  However, I prefer to do
digital audio on a DAW, using a computer the way nature intended :)

>The only problem is that people
>compare this desk to a Behringer or whatever of the same size and find the
>secondhand price too high. So far it hasn't been much use writing them
>email saying that they simply can't compare the two.

Well, those people should be taken out and shot, along with everyone at
Behringer :)  I'm running into similar problems trying to sell my minty
Mackie 24*8 due to equally asinine comparisons.  "My friend bought a new
Behringer for a buck ninety-nine and he loves it"  "I bet what your friend
really loves is owning a mixer, because I'd bet it's his first one.  Ask
him what monitors he uses.  Then try waiting a year and asking him if his
mixer still works."

At 12:27 AM +0200 08/19/02, Rude 66 wrote:
>
>don't know about all the specs, but as mentioned allen & heath, hill make
>nice mixers too.. tascam.. but most of these might be too big for you,

I'll check out Hill, but I don't like Tascam (no flames, please :)

>though i remember the hill i used once as pretty small..
>with mixers it still seems to be 'the bigger the better'..

Unfortunately, this is true.  The analogue mixer market seems to be
polarizing -- there are huge megabuck consoles, and little inexpensive
utility mixers, with very little middle ground.  Sure, you can buy
rack-mounted board channels, or a "lunchbox" or "windowframe" taken from a
larger board, but it seems that there is no way to get anywhere close to
that quality combined with buses, auxiliary sends, and monitor controls.
Oram made a four-bus board, but I've heard rumors there were problems with
build quality.  Then again, I do not directly know anyone who has used one,
so perhaps I shouldn't say anything.