Original Message 1/29                 Date: 07-Nov-00  @  01:45 PM   -   Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

default

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

I'm a little confused by one of my friends buying a mixer with 32 inputs, so basically 16 stereo channels. He writes music with lots of swirly, panning sounds, from leads to basic blips and abstract sounds, and probably uses quite a few stereo channels. I realise that you don't need stereo for certain sounds, like maybe bass lines, or a kick drum, but I'd imagine using stereo channels for the majority of other sounds, such as general fx and other percussion sounds.

My question is, would it be worthwhile to buy a mixer with more channels than you think you'd need so that you have the option of using all stereo channels? Are there any disadvantages to having all stereo channels?

Ta much,

Si.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 2/29                 Date: 07-Nov-00  @  04:36 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

Defector Z

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

Defintely buy more than you need because it will surprise you how quickly you use them all up. When I bought my mixer, I was a little disappointed that it didn't have more stereo channels. However, now that I am trying to produce a good sounding cd, I have found that I only use 1 stereo on the board. I have found that there is just too much going on when you have more than a couple of stereo sounds. Makes the mix muddy. VERY muddy.

If you buy a big mixer with lots of mono channels (which I would advise), you can plug the L out from your gear into Channel 1 on the mixer. Plug the R out from your gear into Channel 2 on your mixer. Pan channel 1 ALL the way to the left, and channel 2 ALL the way to the right, and vio-la, you have stereo. I have a couple of pieces doing that and it works great.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 3/29                 Date: 07-Nov-00  @  04:46 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

teemu

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

Of course, if you can afford it. You can never have too many channels. I only need 16 at the moment but if I buy any more gear I would need to get a patchbay that would complicate things quite a bit. And I am planning to buy more gear. 16 channels is not enough, get at least 24 =)

Disadvantages of stereo channels? The stereo-only channels that the Behringers have are no good, having 2 mono channels with the option of linking the controls to one channel strip is much better and more versatile.

Oh and remember: If you need x amount of channels now doesn't mean that x amount of channels is enough for you in the future so always buy a bigger mixer than you need. =)

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 4/29                 Date: 07-Nov-00  @  06:41 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

99devils

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

Using a patchbay doesn't confuse things all that much. And it's a lot cheaper than a bigger mixer  

The number of channels you need in a mixer is really a function of how much stuff you have going on in any given track, not necessarily how much crap you could theoretically plug into it  

-Craig

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 5/29                 Date: 07-Nov-00  @  07:23 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

damballah

Posts: 1675

Link?:  Link

File?:  No file

If you've got the cash and studio real-estate to spare, 32-channel console would be cool, but unless you're recording bands I really can't figure out why you'd need that many. Shit, I've managed to record an 8-piece band with a full drum kit using a 16-channel board (and a couple outboard preamps). If you're mostly routing keys and modules into a soundcard, there's probably better places to invest.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 6/29                 Date: 07-Nov-00  @  07:43 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

default

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

Why are the stereo channels on the Behringers crap?

What about this mixer........

http://www.behringer.de/eng/products/eurorack/mx3242x.htm

I presume on this that it has 32 mono channels, which can be set up for 16 stereo, or am I wrong? When you say 32 channel console, do you mean 32 seperate channels, each with their own faders and EQ?

Thanks for the help guys,

Si.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 7/29                 Date: 07-Nov-00  @  07:50 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

teemu

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

Well, if you got the gear then why not? With a big mixer you could put all the drums through different channels (which could easily take like 10 channels), have lots of FX returned to channels (and back to FX to do dub delays and stuff).

24 or 32 is good. 16 is not enough, imho (well, not enough for me anyway and my music isn't THAT complicated).

And if you can't afford a Spirit Ghost you can always buy a Behringer Eurodesk MX3282, it's damn cheap (and not THAT bad although the EQ is kinda limited but that's why you have the external parametric equalizers for =)

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 8/29                 Date: 08-Nov-00  @  10:00 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

99devils

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

Yes, yes... But look at the price difference between 16 and 32 channel mixers! It's $1000 between a 16-channel Mackie 8-bus and a 32 channel Mackie 8-bus... You could get a patchbay, required cabling, an FX box, and a second-hand synth for that much dosh... I mean, really, have any of you ever used that many channels? I can see where you might want to spend a little extra cash for a 24-channel board but anything bigger is a waste IMHO unless you intend to set up a pro studio and start recording swing bands.

-Craig

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 9/29                 Date: 09-Nov-00  @  06:44 AM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

damballah

Posts: 1675

Link?:  Link

File?:  No file

Amen, Craig. God, I hate those Behringers. Get your hands on quality British console with the master section in the middle for a couple of hours and you'll know why. Control and musicallity. Oh, whatever, get one of those 'Eurodesks' and be like all the other sheep.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 10/29                 Date: 09-Nov-00  @  10:02 AM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

teemu

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

I know that Behringers aren't that great, but they are about half the price of the Mackies and such. Price is an important issue to most people in here, we can't all afford Spirit Ghosts...

I would sure like one though =)

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 11/29                 Date: 09-Nov-00  @  04:41 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

Defector Z

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

buy a used Mackie. They hold their value. You could sell a Mackie that is 2 years old for the same price as one that is 6 years old. It doesn't matter with those. Or, you could get a Behringer that has more broken parts than working ones after that same time period.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 12/29                 Date: 09-Nov-00  @  05:26 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

GT

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

Mackie

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 13/29                 Date: 09-Nov-00  @  08:14 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

swanofnever

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

definitely -- i've got a cr1604 (mackie) and and mx1604a (behringer -- hey, i needed a few more ins and was broke) and definitely, if it's your only mixer get a mackie... SOOOOOO much better. my cr's one of the old-school non-vlz type, and it definitely beats the mx hands down -- input trims an every channel (mx only has em on the mono chs), 6 mono aux. sends and 4 stereo returns (mx has 2/2), inserts (the mx has NONE... wtf?!), etc. etc... none of that stereo channel crap (what a cost-cutting rip-off that is), just quality.

the cr is WELL used, the mx is almost new... but the cr still feels better, more solid or something.

you can find used cr1604s for $300-400US, that's only ~$150 more than the mx but is more than worth it, for sure.

and yeah, if you need more than 24ch at once something's not right.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 14/29                 Date: 10-Nov-00  @  01:53 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

default

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

Wow, I didn't know people felt so strongly against Behringers!! I've no intention of buying a mixer for ages yet, but I was just curious to see if the extra channels are worth it.

Is it the sound quality of the Behringers that gives them a bad name, or the build of the units? Are they prone to breaking and generally being unreliable?

Cheers again,

Si.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 15/29                 Date: 10-Nov-00  @  05:19 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

.

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

Both

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 16/29                 Date: 10-Nov-00  @  06:38 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

damballah

Posts: 1675

Link?:  Link

File?:  No file

worked a show last night where they'd always had a Behringer. walked in and to my surprise there sat an Allen & Heath. can someone say 'hallelujah'.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 17/29                 Date: 14-Nov-00  @  06:27 AM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

influx

Posts: 7627

Link?:  Link

File?:  No file

and also..default...

that MX3242X is only a SIXTEEN channel mixer.

it has 16 tape returns that you can switch to, for monitoring off say ADAT or whatever. YES they can be used for inputs but no EQ, no Aux sends, naught.

16 channels really should be enough, but whats always struck me as funny was that companies like behringer say "16 inputs" when 2, or 4 of the channels are dedicated stereo. thats pretty cheesy.

I recommend the alesis studio32. its actually similiar to that behringer youre lookin at (which isnt even available yet btw, im pretty sure) and goes for about $500.

has a very nice sounding EQ, 4 aux sends, 2 monitor sends (can be used as aux sends) 4 returns, and bussing as well.

Ive had TWO and had very little problems with them

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 18/29                 Date: 14-Nov-00  @  12:53 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

default

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

So that means that you would really have to use all the channels in stereo mode to use it properly? Like, you couldn't use say 12 stereo channels but you could only use mono channels without EQ's and stuff?? Hmmm, that's pretty shite and not what I expected at all - thanks for pointing it out  

I'll check your recommendation as well.

Cheers,

Si.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 19/29                 Date: 14-Nov-00  @  01:38 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

Defector Z

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

Mackie did that on the CFX20 that I have and I agree, it's shite. However, you can use your stereo channels as mono channels by setting up the panning in your stereo source. For instance, I can pan the patches in my XT hard left or hard right, and get a total of 4 mono outs. True, you lose the individual eq, but grouping sounds and mixing on the fly ain't all that hard to do. I mean, if you change bass patches in the middle of the song, you may want to alter your eq slightly, but not radically so grouping can work. I don't actually use it for that (I don't run enough patches at once out of the XT to make 4 sep outs necessary) but I do have one stereo and one mono out set up.

The point is, stereo channels can be manipulated effectively to mono.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 20/29                 Date: 14-Nov-00  @  01:39 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

default

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

Also influx, did you recently get hold of an 01v? If so, how would the above compare in terms of quality? Does the 01v (in your opinion) improve that much over its analog equivilants??

Cheers,

Si.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 21/29                 Date: 14-Nov-00  @  10:31 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

default

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

Ahhh, it's alright. I saw the other threads about the 01v. Looks nice.

And thanks DZ, though I'm still a little confused there. If I use some channels as mono, I presume that I don't get individual EQ's on them? Would this be right?

Cheers,

Si.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 22/29                 Date: 15-Nov-00  @  03:56 AM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

influx

Posts: 7627

Link?:  Link

File?:  No file

if you got something that had SIXTEEN individual channels (not pre-paired as stereo links where ONE strip runs L/R)..you just pan em left and right for a stereo sound.

and..the O1v, well..it sounds very good. a LOT of page flipping, gets a little annoying, but for what you get for the bucks you spend...mmm hmmmm!

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 23/29                 Date: 15-Nov-00  @  02:09 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

Defector Z

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

default - that is correct. If you look at a mono mixer channel, you have one set of eq's. If you look at a stereo mixer channel, you have only one set of eq's. But that's what I mean about grouping sounds. Keep like sounds together, and you can turn your 2 stereo into 4 mono.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 24/29                 Date: 16-Nov-00  @  12:09 AM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

default

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

Nice one DZ  

Cheers for the info guys,

si.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 25/29                 Date: 22-Nov-00  @  06:03 AM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

Ron

Posts:

Link?: Link

File?:  No file

Influx: Where did you see an Alesis Studio 32 for $500? The best I've seen is $799, at 8th Street. Or do you mean buying one used?

Speaking of stereo pairs, I currently have a Mackie LM3204. After using it for a year, I think I'd be better off with a mixer with more flexible EQ, and real subgroups. I've done some research, the Alesis Studio 32 seems my best bet. Never mind the channels, I can move a plug. Never mind the stereo, I can use a pan pot.

- Ron.

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 26/29                 Date: 23-Nov-00  @  04:26 AM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

influx

Posts: 7627

Link?:  Link

File?:  No file

used.

Ive bought three of them so far for that price.

try www.recycler.com

the EQ is a little more flexible..but..if you wanna really go, why not look at a 24/8 with a fully parametric eq. well..2 bands are para.

but the alesis..it sounds good, man.

and actually..I can beat that price new for ya, too if you really want one

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 27/29                 Date: 23-Nov-00  @  08:36 AM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

teemu

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

800 dollars for a Alesis Studio 32? They cost 1300 here in Europe and that's a low price...

I hate America ;)

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 28/29                 Date: 23-Nov-00  @  04:29 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

k

Posts:

Link?:  No link

File?:  No file

but does that alesis mixer use that surface mount technology?

[ back to forum ]               [quote]

Message 29/29                 Date: 24-Nov-00  @  11:56 PM   -   RE: Any point in having 16 stereo channels??

influx

Posts: 7627

Link?:  Link

File?:  No file

and which surface mount technology would that be kilo? something mackie does?

[ back to forum ]               [quote]