| Author |
Message |
jaynews
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is the quietest in
terms of background noise (and RF noise), as well as the most transparent in
terms of frequency response?
1) Yamaha MG 10./2
2) Behringer UB 1202FX (comes with 100 digital effects!)
3) Other under $100 behringer UB mixers without effects
4) Alesis Multimix MX6 (comes with 101 digital effects!)
5) Peavey PV6
Thanks,
J
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sylvain Robitaille
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
| Quote: | Don't be swayed by 100 built-in effects. You won't use them all.
|
In fact, given your specificiation, "quietest in terms of background
noise ... the most transparent in terms of frequency response" you
probably won't (or at least shouldn't) use any of the built-in effects.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca
Major in Electroacoustic Studies Concordia University
Faculty of Fine Arts / Music Department Montreal, Quebec, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
| Quote: | My advice: Look at the features, number of inputs and outputs, bands of
EQ, phantom powering, feel of the controls - stuff like that. For the
price, it's a miracle that these mixers work as well as they do, and
they really are pretty much the same. Don't be swayed by 100 built-in
effects. You won't use them all.
|
The first part of this is correct of course. You don't buy a mixer for
FX.
But in practice, at this price point, for something that is basically
cheap-ass and very tiny, the inclusion of a fixed range of
high-quality effects (all these are high quality compared to even a
short time ago) is in fact very useful.
I know I've used the effects in my UB1002 for live work.
There's a cheaper version of the Behringer without them, but for a few
extra bucks, why not have a free reverb/chorus/whatever?
-----
robin
noisetheatre.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonny Durango
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
jaynews wrote:
| Quote: | For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is the quietest in
terms of background noise (and RF noise), as well as the most transparent in
terms of frequency response?
1) Yamaha MG 10./2
2) Behringer UB 1202FX (comes with 100 digital effects!)
3) Other under $100 behringer UB mixers without effects
4) Alesis Multimix MX6 (comes with 101 digital effects!)
5) Peavey PV6
Thanks,
J
|
I'd go with the Yamaha personally.....they make great mixers for the $
Jonny Durango |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Morrison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
I bought the Yamaha to use in podcasting with a pair of RE20's, but the mic
pre's got too noisy when I got near max gain. If you have people who project
well or stay on mic, this mixer would have been perfect. However, I had to
go with a Mackie.
dave
"Jim Carr" <jim@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:Hbeaf.354$zu6.306@fed1read04...
| Quote: | "jaynews" <jaynews@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:THdaf.3313$5F3.1561@trndny03...
For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is the quietest in
terms of background noise (and RF noise), as well as the most transparent
in
terms of frequency response?
1) Yamaha MG 10./2
2) Behringer UB 1202FX (comes with 100 digital effects!)
3) Other under $100 behringer UB mixers without effects
4) Alesis Multimix MX6 (comes with 101 digital effects!)
5) Peavey PV6
I've been very happy with the Alesis model. The effects are top quality,
though I rarely ever use them for recording. For live projects it works
rather well.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
In article <THdaf.3313$5F3.1561@trndny03>, jaynews <jaynews@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is the quietest in
terms of background noise (and RF noise), as well as the most transparent in
terms of frequency response?
1) Yamaha MG 10./2
2) Behringer UB 1202FX (comes with 100 digital effects!)
3) Other under $100 behringer UB mixers without effects
4) Alesis Multimix MX6 (comes with 101 digital effects!)
5) Peavey PV6
|
Really, none of these are going to be particularly good... I mean, you
are talking about a consumer electronics product with around $10 worth
of total parts, whose mike preamp stage probably costs well under a
dollar. What do you expect? Just buy whichever is most convenient
and expect to throw it out in a year or two. This stuff is disposable.
It's consumer gear for God's sake, like a cheap VCR.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Rivers
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
jaynews wrote:
| Quote: | For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is the quietest in
terms of background noise (and RF noise), as well as the most transparent in
terms of frequency response?
1) Yamaha MG 10./2
|
That one.
If you want a better answer, it'll cost you more than the mixer.
My advice: Look at the features, number of inputs and outputs, bands of
EQ, phantom powering, feel of the controls - stuff like that. For the
price, it's a miracle that these mixers work as well as they do, and
they really are pretty much the same. Don't be swayed by 100 built-in
effects. You won't use them all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
"jaynews" <jaynews@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:THdaf.3313$5F3.1561@trndny03...
| Quote: | For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is the quietest in
terms of background noise (and RF noise), as well as the most transparent
in
terms of frequency response?
1) Yamaha MG 10./2
2) Behringer UB 1202FX (comes with 100 digital effects!)
3) Other under $100 behringer UB mixers without effects
4) Alesis Multimix MX6 (comes with 101 digital effects!)
5) Peavey PV6
|
I've been very happy with the Alesis model. The effects are top quality,
though I rarely ever use them for recording. For live projects it works
rather well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
"jaynews" <jaynews@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:THdaf.3313$5F3.1561@trndny03
| Quote: | For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is
the quietest in terms of background noise (and RF noise),
as well as the most transparent in terms of frequency
response?
1) Yamaha MG 10./2
2) Behringer UB 1202FX (comes with 100 digital effects!)
3) Other under $100 behringer UB mixers without effects
4) Alesis Multimix MX6 (comes with 101 digital effects!)
5) Peavey PV6
|
When I *had* to get a sub-$100 digital mixer with recording
in mind, I picked the Behringer MXB 1002. In retrospect, it
might not have been the best choice but it has been a good
choice.
First off, I find that the EFX in a cheap digital mixer is a
negative - given the tight budget that we're on, I want it
to go into into meat, not sizzle. Most recording and editing
software has EFX and/or the abilty to be a platform for
accessing external EFX - called plug-ins. It's best to add
EFX in a context where you can do it and then adjust to suit
with the actual music you recorded.
Secondly, if you get into recording its not like you can
have too many mic inputs. However, if you are recording with
a computer, accessing those mic inputs independent of the
mixer is important, and the ability to do that generally
comes in low end mixers with inserts. That's where my second
thoughts come from: while the MXB1002 has 5 mic inputs, only
two have inserts, while the Yamaha MG 10/.2 seems to have 4
mic inputs and 4 inserts.
As far as noise in the mixer goes, my experience has been
that the importance of mixer noise has a lot to do with the
how you are going to make your recordings. The toughest
situation for noise is something like a dynamic mic
positioned some distance from the acoustical source, such as
recording a chamber group or choir with 2 mics. Thing is,
most everybody who does this kind of recording uses
condensor mics, which typically have much larger signal
output, and this makes you far less critical of noise in the
mixer.
One other issue might be how amenable the mixer is to being
used casually. A mixer that runs off batteries matches up
nicely with many portable digital reocorders that also run
on batteries. That's one place where the MXB 1002 shines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaynews
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Rivers
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:01 am Post subject:
Re: TWO MORE MIXER CHOICES (Soundcraft and NADY) any good? |
|
|
jaynews wrote:
| Quote: | Are either of these as good as (or better than) the Yamaha MG-10/2 in terms
of signal to noise ratio and transparant frequency response?
|
Give it up and just go buy something. Or else look at the spec sheets
yourself. You're trying to decide which turd to pull out of the
punchbowl.
I don't mean to insult your choice of mixers or your limited budget,
but when you're scraping around at the bottom, there really isn't any
significant difference.
Oh, and "transparent" and "frequency response" don't usually go
together. You will probably find a specification for frequency
response, but not for transparency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pooh Bear
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: TWO MORE MIXER CHOICES (Soundcraft and NADY) any good? |
|
|
jaynews wrote:
| Quote: | Ok, I meant to say "flat" frequency response over a wide range.
|
It's hard *not* to get a flat frequency response over a wide range these days
unless the product is highly defective.
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaynews
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: TWO MORE MIXER CHOICES (Soundcraft and NADY) any good? |
|
|
<<Give it up and just go buy something. Or else look at the spec sheets
yourself. You're trying to decide which turd to pull out of the
punchbowl.
I don't mean to insult your choice of mixers or your limited budget,
but when you're scraping around at the bottom, there really isn't any
significant difference. >>
Ok, well I just bought the Yamaha and, to me, it's not sounding like a turd
yet!
Call me crazy but...I wonder if, in double blind tests, there would really
be many people who could actually tell the difference in the sound quality
between digital audio that was recorded with this mixer versus others
costing 5 to 10 times the price. Interesting fact: In double-blind tests,
most people can't even tell the difference between 128k MP3 files and 44.1
digital audio (especially those over 30 years old).
<<Oh, and "transparent" and "frequency response" don't usually go
together. You will probably find a specification for frequency
response, but not for transparency.>>
Ok, I meant to say "flat" frequency response over a wide range.
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWCunningham
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:37 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps (was: TWO MORE MIXER CHOICES (Soundcraft and |
|
|
"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:3t1r7dFqc8e7U2@individual.net...
| Ever tried to setup a proper double blind test of mic preamps? It's not
| actually do-able. I've put a fair bit of effort into this, and have
| concluded that *some* expensive preamps are worth their money.
|
If it's truly impossible to have an objective test, how do you justify your
subjective results?
I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
Leaving expensive tests aside, there are many other products which are flocked
to by so-called experts, and setting up a double blind test (or even single
blind) is quick and simple ... experiment and you will learn that quality is
often assumed in the case of impressive names and astronomical costs, but the
very people touting them can't spot them with a blindfold on.
Try it, it's fun.
--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:07 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps (was: TWO MORE MIXER CHOICES (Soundcraft and |
|
|
CWCunningham <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
Leaving expensive tests aside, there are many other products which are flocked
to by so-called experts, and setting up a double blind test (or even single
blind) is quick and simple ... experiment and you will learn that quality is
often assumed in the case of impressive names and astronomical costs, but the
very people touting them can't spot them with a blindfold on.
Try it, it's fun.
|
We did, and it was. Get a copy of the "Boston Pre Party" CD.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in