Replace mixer with audio interface?

The Lounge General Discussion
1

I’ve done a search in this forum for an answer to this question, and have found a couple of threads that are adjacent to the topic I want to bring up, but not directly on point from what I could find.

I do not play live, ever. I have a home studio with probably 12 to 14 different devices, including synths, grooveboxes, keyboard and other controllers, and a few effects boxes. I’m currently using a Mackie VLZ 16 analog outboard mixer to send audio to my monitors and also to my push 3 which I am using as an audio interface for my M4 Mac studio. This has been my set up for the last 10 years or more (used to have Apollo interface before Push 3).

I am considering replacing the mixer with an audio interface and an adat expander which would allow me to have 24 line inputs. I am currently focused on the.Arturia Audiofuse 16 Rig due to its high number of already on board inputs and outputs. I am then thinking I will probably add an eight channel adat input expander.

I am wondering what others here think might be the advantage of going this new route with a much more robust audio interface set up as a replacement to my outboard analog mixer. What are other people’s experiences in doing this? I would like to be able to have the flexibility of routing all of my synths and other devices to my computer separately, and together, as I choose, which is currently not possible or, not easy, in my current setup. Also, the VLZ mixer is pretty limited in terms of alternative routing for each of the machines. For instance, I would like to be able to have many more aux sends so I can route machines through each other. I have an Octatrack, Iridium, Steampipe, and a few other synthesizes and groove boxes which can act as samplers and effects processors, in addition to the several Guitar pedal effects boxes.

What got me started down this road was wanting to upgrade my quad monitor set up, which currently uses two Yamaha HS8s as my “front” or primary pair and a very old set of Audix passive monitors running through an Alesis amp, all of which are probably 30 years old. I am using the main out from the mixer for the primary pair, and then using the control room outs for the secondary pair and I try to mix them as best I can to achieve balance. I do this because my current studio has controllers that face three different directions and I want a more immersive experience when playing my music. I’m not all that interested in production, but interested in creating sounds in my studio. I note that the audio interface I’m currently looking at has something they call “immersive“ mode, which is designed to work with multiple sets of monitors in the studio. This looks interesting to me and it looks like I can control the monitors all at once, once I calibrate them as a single destination for my audio sources.

Any thoughts or experiences would be greatly appreciated. Do you prefer to use an outboard mixer for strictly studio work, as I currently do, or do you prefer to use your audio interface as your mixer, or do you have a combined approach?

If I do get an audio interface with multiple inputs and outputs, I will then have to wonder is there any purpose in keeping the current outboard analog mixer that I have.

1 Like
2

SSL BiG Six get best of both worlds an awesome analog mixer with compressors and EQ plus audio interface.

1 Like
3

I was questioning the same as you a while back. I picked up some old stackable firewire audio interfaces for a dirt cheap 16 channel in / 16 channel out audio interface setup. It worked well and was nice and tidy.

But I missed the tactile feeling of a mixer.

So I’m back at my original setup where my gear goes into a 8 or 16 channel mixer (whichever I’m in the mood for) and then the main outs go into my computer if I want to record.

If I were to revisit the audio interface method again, I’d get a hybrid mixer/interface like a Tascam Model 16 or 24.

4

Great suggestion and might have made sense back when I bought the Mackie mixer, but at roughly three times the price of a comparable (in terms of i/o) audio interface without being a mixer, not really an option.

1 Like
5

I’ve been wanting a big console and researching and planning that for a long time. I have a lot of different instruments and fx that are not plugged in all of the time and only an 8 channel interface. The idea of having everything plugged in and ready to go at any moment and to route to anywhere else is the dream.

But I always eventually come back to why not just have enough interface inputs for everything and use the computer as a digital mixer? Either you use the direct outs of the mixer and you still need as many interface channels as mixer channels, or you get an 8 bus console and route selected tracks into your 8 channel interface which might not be the best workflow.

If you’re not using the mic preamps of a mixer because you’re only using line level inputs, then you’re really just buying a big multi-channel eq box. And is the quality of eq on the mixer you can afford really better than a plugin?

And how are you actually mixing? In the computer or going back into the console? Split or inline?

The hands on feel is great fun and really handy for monitoring when working with other people. But yeah it’s a tough conundrum to figure out.

2 Likes
6

I went the other way. I started with an audio interface, accumulated devices, got a more accommodating audio interface, accumulated more devices, started looking at ADAT expansion, then got distracted by MADI interfaces, realised I was leaving the path of reason for madness (and about to give myself the mother of all cabling headaches trying to have everything wired in all the time) and got myself a mixer.

I much prefer this setup.

I guess your decision is likely to be driven by several factors.

How large is your budget.
I’ve got a 16-channel mixer. Buying the equivalent audio interface + expander would likely cost me twice as much.

How much more your setup is likely to expand.
If you’re going to accumulate another 3 or 4 pieces of stereo-output gear you’re going to gobble up available inputs on your interface pretty quickly.
OTOH if the number of instruments you’re recording isn’t likely to change then this isn’t a concern.
If you’re basically a gear-head and the number of instruments you want to own and have plugged in knows no bounds, then I’d suggest looking at MADI (or equivalent) because it’ll be easier to add new pre-amps than it would be to keep shopping for new interfaces every couple of years.

How much space do you have.
Audio interfaces + ADAT expanders are smaller than mixers.

How many devices do you realistically intend to record all at once / how do you work
If it’s 32 then you will either need a 32 channel interface or some external mixing setup that permits 32 channels of audio. If you’re just going to build things up recording one instrument at a time then a couple of stereo pairs will do it unless one of those instruments is a drum kit, in which case 8 inputs is probably about right.

What are you likely to want to route, and where
The more gear you have plugged in all the time, the more methodical your patch-bay assignments have to be, and the more you have to start thinking about how things will work in practice.
If you want to run that synth through some effects how will that work in practice? A patch-bay can help here, but then there’s the question of where it will live in relation to everything else in the studio and in relation to the audio interface. You don’t want to give yourself an avoidable cabling headache.
In my case, running a synth through effects usually ended up either with a bunch of effects stacked on my desk, cluttering the place up and annoying the hell out of me, or with having to run longer cables and increasing noise in the signal chain.

Do you use the EQ on your mixer
There’s unlikely to be an equivalent on your audio interface. Sure you can do all that in the box: But do you want to? Because if you use an interface you’ll probably have to.

For me the answer ended up being that I didn’t really want everything plugged in all the time, I just thought I did. As soon as I started looking at cost, routing / patch-bay options, ease of use and how I was actually working, I realised I was headed in the wrong direction. Really what I wanted was something that was easily adaptable, and a mixer proved to be the cheapest and easiest option.

4 Likes
7

@michaeljk1963
If I am reading your post correctly, I would suggest the RME digiface USB and a ferrosfish 16 AE or any expander of your choice . Routing any source to any input, I currently use the UCX II with an 828ES as a stand alone expander. What the UCXII gives me is the ability to create routing templates that I can use without a computer/DAW.
AF 16 Rig , MOTU 16A also very nice choices

8

it’s a bit old at this point, but i’m quite the fan of allen heath’s qupac (mine is over a decade old at this point) replaced by the sq-rack now.

a thread on it from a bit ago: Finally, the perfect mixer? [Allen & Heath QuPac]

9

I stopped using a hardware mixer and run it all in the box, even when mostly using hardware. RME usb digiface, 2x ferrofish 16x16 converters, everything is always connected. I mix in Ableton. Works great!

1 Like
10

People have already touched on what has become my preferred approach - RME interface plus Ferrofish ADAT expansions… I’ve had numerous mixers, I still have an SSL Big Six (which is great, but nowhere near as powerful as the RME setup), but having RME’s Totalmix rules, IMO.

I often think about what RME Totalmix would look like in hardware form, and you’d be into SSL 9k territory, it’d be huge., and I still don’t think it would be as flexible.

2 Likes
11

I also only play in the studio. I had a Presonus AR16 that served as a mixer and sound card. I replaced it with an Audiofuse Rig 16 card over a year ago because some input channels and the master output burned out. There aren’t many analog mixers that also have a sound card, but there are some and they can be a good compromise. However:

  1. The quality of these mixers is medium-low; a card like the Audiofuse is significantly superior; you notice this immediately when you start using it.
  2. Even though it’s not a mixer, it has many audio outputs and allows you to route everything you want.
  3. This card in particular can be used as a real mixer even without a PC. It has an interface that allows you to manage all the channels, including the USB ones, and you can connect a MIDI controller to recreate a mixer.
    As you can see, I highly recommend it :smiley:
12

I’ve had a good experience with a Mackie Onyx 16. Analog mixer and multitrack audio interface. Also has built in effects, 2x sends and is very reasonably priced. Have absolutely no complaints to make about its sound quality either.

13

I went the opposite route recently and replaced the RME UCX II / Ferrofish Pulse8 AE combo on my PC setup with an Allen & Heath Qu-6, then punted the UCX/Pulse8 AE over to my MPC Live 3 setup, configured as ADAT expanders to a Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 acting as the primary audio I/O device (via USB) for the Live 3.

Really enjoying the hands-on experience with the Qu-6, which is a great board. Analog connections on the Qu-6 (28 in/16 out) are tied to a pair of patchbays cabled to hardware synths and effects boxes. 32 ins/32 outs via USB from the Qu-6 to the PC. The motorized faders are awesome, ability to work on 4 different layers per scene, routing is open ended and configurable, and scenes can be saved/recalled as needed per use preferences, song, etc. It’s my first time owning a digital mixer and with the incredible flexibility it provides, I’m hooked.

Over on the Live 3 setup, the Scarlett 18i20 + UCX II + Pulse8 AE really gets it done. I had been using a trusty old Mackie CFX12 for I/O needs there at first, but found recording and effects sends routing tedious given the ultimate limitation of a single stereo pair connection to the Live 3.

1 Like
14

I bought mine on sale so it was a good discount. Not cheap but out of the many mixers/audio interfaces I have had, the Big SiX is next level and feels premium.

15

Reading this, it sounds like what you actually want is a nice patchbay.

Then you can have everything all set up and ready to go and you can just tap whatever appeals to you in the moment and send that directly to your interface.

I get what you’re saying about mic pres but I sort of feel the opposite… What I like in a mixer is being able to use 2 hands at once and see what I’m doing (feels weird not to look at my hands, and a monitor is always too small to fit everything or too big for my eyes to find what I’m looking for quickly). Since I mostly use synths and have a separate preamp, 10 line inputs with knobs and faders sounds pretty good.

Honestly, I’d be happy with a big-format mixer with no pre’s at all if the knob and slider action was good. As much as I enjoy using the Model 12 and would like to upgrade to a larger Model, having more than 2 pre’s is totally wasted on me.

16

Absolutely patch-bays are great, and the need for a patch-bay was what I wanted to avoid and RME does this really well with a computer but also standalone ( with mixer snapshots) obviously specific to my needs as I have limited I/O with a UCXII /828 but as many have said it is truly an elegant system(TotalMix) especially paired with ferrofish expanders.

1 Like