mixer vs audio interface

Get that song on tape! Errr... disk?
ugly casanova
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3880
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:50 pm

mixer vs audio interface

Post by ugly casanova » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:34 am

okay in the red corner we have an Alesis iO|26 with 16 analog inputs, audio interface via firewire ~ 398€
in the blue corner we have the Alesis MultiMix 16 with 16 inputs and via usb 2.0 ~ 319€

now tell me, why would anyone buy an audio interface instead of a mixer? ???
Last edited by Orang Goreng on Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Orang Goreng
Mods
Mods
Posts: 15876
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:56 am
Location: Amsterdam, NL - €
Contact:

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by Orang Goreng » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:40 am

I'm blissfully ignorant in these matters, but doesn't the number of inputs on an audio interface correspond with the number of tracks you can simultaneously record with your software, while on a mixer all tracks are mixed to stereo so you can only record a single stereo signal with your software?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man's a freak.

User avatar
northern_dirt
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 am
Location: Scarborough

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by northern_dirt » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:44 am

Audio interface

24Bit/192kHz
Audiophile Cirrus converters


Mixer

24-bit, 44.1/48 kHz


I wouldn't buy either.. but Id go for the interface.. for a couple reasons

1. (for tracking)I don't need to sum together 16 channels ( I only need 2.. maybe 3 max inputs)
2. (for mixing) Id rather mix inside the box with software, that way my mix can be saved, I can keep everything digital,
3. Its smaller and I can sitck it away from me so it doesnt clutter up my control surface area (id use alphatrack. a keyboard and a roller ball mouse  with it to control software)

This is why I would go interface versus dedicated mixer.. but Im not tracking bands, I only need 1-3 inputs at a time, I am screwed for space, and id rather have better audio than phycical contolibilty.

If I were doing bands it might be a consideration, However.. id go with an analoge desk, and bypass the EQ in the baord and do it all with plugins..
if its a decent desk, throw sub mixes back through it on mix down for EQs and inline dynamics (if its available)..
'cleanest, best pleasure'

User avatar
northern_dirt
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 am
Location: Scarborough

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by northern_dirt » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:45 am

Orang Goreng wrote: I'm blissfully ignorant in these matters, but doesn't the number of inputs on an audio interface correspond with the number of tracks you can simultaneously record with your software, while on a mixer all tracks are mixed to stereo so you can only record a single stereo signal with your software?
Depends on the bussing and direct outputs..

a 24 channel mixer with 8 busses can sum togther the 24 channels in any configuration into those 8 busses..
and if you have direct outs, each of the 24 channels can feed a track..
'cleanest, best pleasure'

User avatar
Orang Goreng
Mods
Mods
Posts: 15876
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:56 am
Location: Amsterdam, NL - €
Contact:

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by Orang Goreng » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:53 am

OK, let me rephrase that....when you have a mixer that can send multiple outputs, you'll also need an audio interface than can accept multiple inputs in order to be able to record more than the standard two channels at once. When you have an audio interface that can do that by itself, you don't need an additional mixer (although I guess in practise you'd want to have one anyway, otherwise it can be a bit hard to control...). Right? Or am I talking out of my ass again?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man's a freak.

ugly casanova
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3880
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:50 pm

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by ugly casanova » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:59 am

i might sound absolutly stupid but isn't the usb port for tracking?
i absolutly need tracking up to 10 inputs to mix them digitally.
a mixer would be the wrong solution, right?

User avatar
northern_dirt
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 am
Location: Scarborough

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by northern_dirt » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:52 am

Orang Goreng wrote: OK, let me rephrase that....when you have a mixer that can send multiple outputs, you'll also need an audio interface than can accept multiple inputs in order to be able to record more than the standard two channels at once. When you have an audio interface that can do that by itself, you don't need an additional mixer (although I guess in practise you'd want to have one anyway, otherwise it can be a bit hard to control...). Right? Or am I talking out of my ass again?
The digital mixer he is showing, has 16 dicrete digital outputs
'cleanest, best pleasure'

User avatar
Pingu
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5793
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by Pingu » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:04 am

I can't see any reason to get the mixer, especially since you get pretty much the same stuff plus a bunch of knobs you're never going to touch(unless you do live electronic music) for a much higher price. I have a small mixer that i really only for the phantom power which my cheap interface lacks and the little lights that tell me if i'm clipping, though all those knobs and sliders  do make me look kinda professional...
"Anything that doesn't take years of your life and drive you to suicide hardly seems worth doing." - Cormac McCarthy

User avatar
northern_dirt
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 am
Location: Scarborough

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by northern_dirt » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:13 am

Pingu wrote: I can't see any reason to get the mixer, especially since you get pretty much the same stuff plus a bunch of knobs you're never going to touch(unless you do live electronic music) for a much higher price. I have a small mixer that i really only for the phantom power which my cheap interface lacks and the little lights that tell me if i'm clipping, though all those knobs and sliders  do make me look kinda professional...
The mixer is cheaper than the inteface...
'cleanest, best pleasure'

User avatar
Pingu
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5793
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by Pingu » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:18 am

Oh, then i kindly ask you to disregard obvious parts of my last post.
"Anything that doesn't take years of your life and drive you to suicide hardly seems worth doing." - Cormac McCarthy

User avatar
northern_dirt
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 am
Location: Scarborough

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by northern_dirt » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:34 am

Killamangiro* wrote: i might sound absolutly stupid but isn't the usb port for tracking?
i absolutly need tracking up to 10 inputs to mix them digitally.
a mixer would be the wrong solution, right?
The way it sounds.. is that you can record multiple tracks simultaniously.. which I would assume meand more than stereo.. so you could multi track with the mixer.. though id make sure before buying.. alesis website is pretty stupid
'cleanest, best pleasure'

ugly casanova
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3880
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:50 pm

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by ugly casanova » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:51 pm

i thinnk i got the whole point!!
interface: sepwerated tracks
mixer: whole mmix output.....

.
okay so mqixer suxx0rs


hell i'm drunken. ich kann ja mal auf deutsch schreiben haahaaa+*~~

gin + tonic =  :-* °°°°°°°

User avatar
northern_dirt
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 am
Location: Scarborough

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by northern_dirt » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:12 pm

Killamangiro* wrote: i thinnk i got the whole point!!
interface: sepwerated tracks
mixer: whole mmix output.....

.
okay so mqixer suxx0rs


hell i'm drunken. ich kann ja mal auf deutsch schreiben haahaaa+*~~

gin + tonic =  :-* °°°°°°°
No no.. Im pretty sure you get dscrete trax with the mixer as well
'cleanest, best pleasure'

ugly casanova
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3880
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:50 pm

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by ugly casanova » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:47 am

really? but that would mean that the mixer has a build-in audiocard like every interface does.
how can we find that out because thats really important to me.

User avatar
fuzzjunkie
Expat
Expat
Posts: 7861
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Seattle

Re: mixer vs audio interface

Post by fuzzjunkie » Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:41 pm

mixers like this...Mackie makes a better one...or look at Yamaha...do have an analog to digital converter (which is what an audio card does) but this one accesses the computer via USB, which generally doesn't handle more than 2 tracks at a time well, and not more than 4 without choking. I don't know this device, but I would guess that although you can track and mix live with more than 2 tracks (up to the 24) it would be a stereo mix that goes to the computer...so all the above is partially correct :D

to have the full 24 track output from the mixer, you would need an audio interface that supports 24 inserts. Mackie makes a digital mixer with a Firewire connection that does this. To track more than 2 tracks with this mixer you'd need dedicated PCI or PCI-e audio cards that can be used in conjunction with each other...such as the Apogee Symphony or RME Hammerfall cards...or there might be M-Audio or other low end cards available.

or as Orang said "....when you have a mixer that can send multiple outputs, you'll also need an audio interface than can accept multiple inputs in order to be able to record more than the standard two channels at once. When you have an audio interface that can do that by itself, you don't need an additional mixer."
sleeping on a bed of fuzz and feedback

Post Reply