The Soundcraft MTK can, yes 
1 Like
I find it hard to wrap my head around why people want a mixer in 2020.
I have an RME UFX2 & Ferrofish Pulse 16 which gives me about 30 analogue ins and 30 analogue outs. I have hardware synths plugged into the back and a patch bay to plug into the front as that will change a lot from my Eurorack depending on what I’m doing. That also makes routing out to fx etc very easy.
If I wanted hardware sliders I just add midi sliders. I don’t get it.
2 Likes
Always did it that way, never had a reason or need to use a totally integrated DAW. Just sticking to what ppl know.
My SSLSiX is smaller than my laptop.
4 Likes
Sure if you are not using a computer at all, makes sense.
But 99% of people are using a mixer with a DAW, which confuses me.
1 Like
Ahh, yeh. True.
Obviously they aren’t absolutely necessary
I see.
I had myself questioning whether I was totally missing the point.
Cheers
1 Like
I’m with you on that.
ditched mixer years ago. straight into I/O. much less hassle.
the idea of going through all the eq and comp and stuff on those all in one mixers seems cool tho. would werk the same as the I/O you just have hands on faders and EQ etc.
BUT…you probably aren’t getting the best sound quality unless you drop some heavy bucks. I mean look at that little A&H mixer. 2k for 4 channels. anyways…
I think they are cool looking. like the idea…but, pointless unless you have separate outs [especially from those that complain about that on their gear ha ha ha] [doesnt matter for live tho]
anyways, everyones got their own vibe. no one can tell how it was made unless you tell them. all that matters is that its good and you had fun, right?
1 Like
With a mixer, you don’t need to switch a computer on and launch an app just to hear your devices. I only use the computer for recording and then editing. I don’t need it for composing.
Also, if I had to monitor my guitar through Ableton or Logic or whatever, the latency would drive me nuts.
I use an analog mixer, with a separate 4-channel USB audio interface for connecting the computer.
For the OP: I use a Mackie 1202 VLZ4, because it has a ton of routing options that work great with both hardware and software.
4 Likes
The difference between having a physical mixer and mixing within your daw/audio interface is like using a knobby analog synth vs a synth without any knobs. Even if you can use midi controllers and such it will newer be quite the same. It is so much more fun using a physical interface for adjusting levels, aux sends and eq.
4 Likes
You are right in theory, though in practice most MIDI controllers are generic and are not specifically designed to control any one particular piece of software, so can end up being quite clunky in use. People who insist on mixers are looking for the most fluid workflow and are apparently willing to sacrifice quite a bit of functionality and even sound quality to get that fluidity.
Even something like Push, while designed specifically for Abelton Live, is a lousy mixer replacement. Unfortunately, there is no mixer available which is designed with people making electronic music in mind, with or without a computer.
2 Likes
I bought a mtk12 but ended up selling it; I record everything on ableton via a presonus studio 1810. At the end I bought a behringer x-touch that suits me way better, also added a patchbay for easy routing the presonus in/outs.
3 Likes
Depends how many aux sends you have available and what the routing options are on your mixer.
I have a Soundcraft EFX12 which is very light on auxes/subgroups (especially compared to the equivalent Mackies for example), and the aux send it does have is mono. However it also has built in FX (mono send as well) which you can use as a second aux buss with the FX turned off. So I usually have a stereo reverb unit (Space) with the L send coming from the aux buss and the R send coming from the fx buss. It comes back in on the stereo return. So generally on mono channels I feed aux & FX equally and when stereo is important I can use two mono channels panned hard L&R, one feeding the aux send and one feeding the fx buss.
It’s a compromise - you lose the internal fx entirely and you can only use one external effect unit (though of course if you’re happy with mono sends you can use two… but probably requires using channel inputs for the second unit) and it means using two mono channels instead of one of the stereo channels to have stereo instruments with stereo fx - but generally what I’m doing in that setup is pretty straightforward and indelicate so it’s fine for that.
1 Like
Yep my 2nd master out goes to my MPC, the problem is when you have more than 1 samplers. In my case I also have a DT and I can only sample via USB with OB but it’s not ideal.
1 Like
the DT will turn your samples into mono anyway, you can use a mono aux.
I’m gonna give this a try, thanks!
because it sounds better than daw 
3 Likes
Coz mixing down through a half decent desk sounds way better than bouncing down audio in a DAW
6 Likes
The PreSonus StudioLive concept addresses this in part. You get a pretty well specified desk in terms of I/O, routing flexibility and EQ/dynamics/FX per channel etc. It has a built in usb recorder and works happily as a stand-alone mixer. When it’s in DAW mode however it integrates with StudioOne, their DAW and becomes the Control surface. I believe it will work with other DAW’s too although as you saw, that might be a bit clunky?
1 Like
Hahaha I don’t go for that argument.
With a computer you don’t need to switch a mixer on to hear your music hahaha 
2 Likes