Mixer & Effects Questions

Posted on

Member Since: Jun 20, 2003

Hey I'm back. I posted in the Home Recording forum & got some good answers -- thanks -- been digesting since. I'm strongly considering picking up an M-Audio Audiophile & a Begringer UB1622FX-PRO mixer. Can I do reverb & compression with this mixer at the same time? Which order would I want apply the effects for vocals and would the order be different for instruments? Also I see that the 1622 has a tube amp simulator -- can I plug an electric guitar directly into this board, and would the distortion effect be decent for recording & moinitoring? I'm also trying to figure out the possibilities for bringing the guitar into the sound card clean and using a plugin with Sonar 2.2 XL(also on my shopping list -- going whole hog here) to get just the right amount of grunge. If I do that, I'm wondering how easy is it to monitor that effect in real time?
Zillions of questions - Bob

[ Back to Top ]


Bohemian
Member
Since: May 04, 2003


Jun 24, 2003 02:27 am

i don't know if the tube amp sim will be decent...
but for as far as I know you can't run 2 effects at the same time on the UB1622FX-pro What i don't really like is that it's all only presets
Then again I don't really use effects from the 1622 because I use Plugins

nice mixer though:D

hope this was usefull :S :D

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Jun 24, 2003 02:42 am

I have that same card AND mixer. No only one of the onboards can be used at a time as far as I know. BUT there is a second effects loop that you can used for another outboard effect.

For the order of the effects, a week or so ago there was a thread about that very subject, and it was very interesting, basically everyone did stuff however they needed to to get the sound they wanted. Try both and see what ya like.

To run an electric guitar in you should preamp or amp sim it first. Some folks like the ampsim software. I perosnally don't, but try it, maybe you will.

Member
Since: Jun 20, 2003


Jun 24, 2003 09:18 am

Alright thanks Presley - & dB - Do you use the UB1622FX-PRO compression for most of your inputs? I was thinking that if I could only get one effect at a time out of the UB1622FX-PRO onboard processor, that I might use my Alesis Nanoverb for the outboard reverb (is the quality of a Nanoverb up to this?) I've seen your comments in other posting that you don't use much reverb until after you've got the track recorded. One thing I'm trying to figure out is : does some reverb on the monitor mix help to make a singer sound better, ie the perceived vocal quality is better so the singer is enjoying what they are doing - or are they better-off listening to their input going in dry?

dB still another question on your last reply, you said that with an electric guitar "you should preamp or amp sim it first". Does the UB1622FX-PRO not have enough gain to accept a guitar directly? -Bob

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Jun 24, 2003 09:22 am

No, I don't use the onboard compressor, I have a dbx266xl that I use for compression, I like the 1622 for some of it's other effects, chorus, reverb and some others. Some of them are pretty good.

You can try running the guitar right into the board, but it's not the right signal to do so with. I know people that do it, it usually winds up to be a thin sound and the effects are not as good sounding on that weak of a signal.

Bohemian
Member
Since: May 04, 2003


Jun 24, 2003 10:17 am

well as far as i can say about reverb
It makes a singer feel more confident when you have a reverb around you :D but I don't record the reverb when singing. I apply the rest of the effects when it's all recorded

so conclusion:

I record with reverb ( but not recording it)!, to make myself feel more sure of myself...
And adding effects or reverb later when it's recorded

hope you understand what i'm saying cuz i'm hardly understanding myself:S whaha
just say so and i'll try to explain better

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002


Jun 24, 2003 12:53 pm

Most of the effects on mixing boards are only really useful in "Live Sound Situations" - or for caputing performances. It is very rare that you would actually record the "wet" signal (ie: with the effects) - you should instead record the signal "dry" (aka flat) and then add on any effects afterwards, this way you can easily change your mind on certain settings (that is one of the main "plus" points of using a computer based system).

As for the Nanoverb - it's a very good little unit and got some great reviews - this would be very useful in an "effects loop" when you need to use a decent quality reverb.

As for recording guitar's directly into your mixing desk - well you can, but you should really use a DI box to lift the impedance of the signal or the results are far from satisfactory.

jues.

Member
Since: Jun 20, 2003


Jun 24, 2003 02:27 pm

Thanks dudes - good stuff. As I've mentioned, I'm on the verge of upgrading some gear & S/W. As far as the S/W goes, I'll probably transistion from Music Creator 2002 to Sonar 2.2 XL. Do you think this Sonar package will have most of the plugins I would need to create & master a recording? My impression is that one of the main advantages to Sonar (over MC) is higher quality plugins. The ASIO driver support may be another big benefit to me. Anyone agree/disagree as far as these being the main benefits of Sonar vs Music Creator? I am starting to learn my way around in Music Creator (although there's still much more I could learn about it). Is there a big learning curve going from Music Creator to Sonar?
Thanks for the help - Bob

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Jun 24, 2003 02:32 pm

I have no idea what "Music Creator" even is but it sounds like a low-budget music maker ya get at Best Buy Company or CompUSA. I can say, since I use Sonar 2.2 that it is the most intuitive multitracking app I have used. I have worked with Cubase, Vegas and a few others from time to time and Sonar is awesome. The bundled plugins are pretty nice, and it does allow you to use any 3rd party DirectX plugin as well, so you can upgrade any ol' time you want to. Waves Native Power Pack is awesome (Link in The Gear bag section), but not necessary.

Sonar has made HUGE strides in the v2 version, I would put it up against any other multitracking app out there.

ASIO is a huge advatage, it provides much higher performance, and much lower latency than MME or WDM. Since you have a some MIDI gear in your profile I can also say that Sonar's MIDI support is great as well.

Member
Since: Jun 20, 2003


Jun 25, 2003 02:11 am

Yes Music Creator is fairly low-end I guess. It is a Cakewalk product and I have been amazed at what all it will do, but I haven't come close to producing a professional quality recording yet, and probably never will with this product. So, I went onto the Cakewalk web site to see about ordering Sonar 2.2 XL, when still another low-end (or shall we say medium-end) product caught my eye. That's Home Studio 2004 XL. Looks like I can get that for $149 (price for a Cakewalk customer). That's $100 cheaper than Sonar 2.2 XL. Any opinions on Home Studio 2004 XL?

Also, on another subject you guys know what the typical output level is from an electric guitar vs. a dynamic mic vs. a keyboard? I thought a mic was fairly low-level, so if I can plug that into a board, why can't I do the same with an electric guitar? Obviously I've got a lot to learn on this stuff.
Thanks for the expertise - Bob

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002


Jun 25, 2003 08:35 am

You can plug an electric guitar straight into a mixing desk, but ideally you should first go through a DI box to match the impedance levels.

However, the sound of an unprocessed guitar (DI'd or not) is pretty thin and weak, you will ideally want to use an amp simulator or better yet, mic up your amp.

jues.

Member
Since: Jun 20, 2003


Jun 26, 2003 01:34 am

OK dB & jues you've both provided some great commentary on this issue of running an electric guitar directly into the recording system. By the way, does DI stand for Direct In? Part of the problem here is I'm not a guitar player, I'm a keyboard player; however, I do have some guitar and bass players I want to record. Problem is their amp equipment is pretty marginal quality. I guess what I'm still grappling with is: Why can't some piece of S/W perform the same algoritm inside my computer as what is done in say a POD? Trying to avoid the $150 - $200 investment in another external box. I'm hoping there is some relatively inexpensive preamp that gets me from the guitar to the right level and impedance to go into the mixer. Am I on a wild goose chase here?
- Bob

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Jun 26, 2003 05:44 am

Well, here is the issue, actually, there are those pieces of software. BUT, the problem is that by the time you can do something with software, it's to late, the signal is already in your PC, so your original signal is already weak. You can add effects but your effecting a weak signal.

One of the tricks to getting a decent recording is making your original recording of any instrument as good as possible, and just making it better from there with the software. Don't fall in to the "fix it in the mix" mentality.

Does that make sense?

And don't forget, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" :-)

Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002


Jun 26, 2003 02:31 pm

also, don't forget, sometimes even "marginal quality" amps can be mic'ed up and you'll get a decent sound from them. Many things affect how a guitar amp will sound mic'ed up, including distance and position of the mic, equalization, and even the room you are in.

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002


Jun 26, 2003 06:14 pm

Most amps will sound good with a 57 shoved near the cone...

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.