I'm looking to replace my old, but excellent, Mackie 1202VLZ Pro 12-channel mixer. I bought it back in about 2001 and have used it for mixdown and recording with my DAW only. I'm looking to replace it with a mixer of similar size, but I'd like to get one of the new ones with onboard 24-bit (or higher?) effects and, most important, a USB out. Having the USB out will simplify my DAW's configuration.

When I bought my Mackie, I didn't realize it was an "economy model." But so it goes -- I have a certain budget I have to work with and I want to find the best deal within my budget -- which is about $250. So I guess I'll be looking at "economy models" again. Funny, when I read through the manufacturers' descriptions of these mixers, it sounds like they're the best things since the invention of the microphone as they run through lists of breathtakingly good specs. I know that one way to get to the bottom of the quality issues is to read reviews at Amazon, Guitar Center, and other sites. But it's a time-consuming and often confusing process.

So, first off, I began by looking at the Mackie ProFX12v2, which has all of the above and, typical of a 12-channel mixer, has only 4 separate channels and 8 shared channels. I won't bother mentioning all the other specifications here. I'll assume, for the sake of this thread, that you're probably already at least peripherally acquainted with the mixer.

Next, I took a look at Behringer models. One thing about Behringer is you always get more for your money, so I'm looking at the XENIX X1832USB. Despite its name, it has only 6 separate channels and 8 shared ones, for a total of 14. I can't find the other four that are intimated by the mixer's name, just by looking at photos. The Behringer has the same basic features as the Mackie -- onboard 24-bit effects and a USB out.

I also have looked at the Yamaha MG12XUK, which is much the same as the Mackie in terms of features. 24-bit effects and USB out. It doesn't have as many ins/inserts as either the Mackie or the Behringer has, though.

I've also heard the Soundcraft Signature 10 is good, but you're only getting 10 channels, at the higher price, same as the Yamaha. So it seems as if the two more expensive mixers also offer the least amount of features.

I understand that, nowadays, everybody's electronics gear is made in China, and what matters now is how closely the mother corporation keeps tabs on its Chinese manufacturing facilities. The more closely things are monitored, the better the resulting quality. At one time I regarded Behringer products as suspect because they were made in China and so much cheaper than their competitors'. But that was before I bought a couple of Behringer rack-mount effects -- a compressor and a multi-effects processor. They both have done an excellent job with no problems at all. And now that this Mackie is made in China, well maybe they're not that too far apart. I dunno where the Yamaha is made, but I suspect it is built in China also.

If we look at price, the Behringer has the best deal -- about $228, I'm finding, whereas the Mackie is $249 and the Yamaha is $299. The Soundcraft 10 is $299 also.

Basically, I'm going back and forth between the Mackie and the Behringer. The Behringer has the obvious advantage of 6 separate channels compared to the Mackie's 4. But there is a host of other differences as well. And then, of course, there is the matter of reliability, longevity. Well, my Mackie 1202VLZ Pro hasn't missed a lick, but neither have my Behringer effects. I think what it's gonna come down to is the quality and quantity of each mixer's components, like "headroom," EQ style, number of inputs/inserts/outputs/auxes, etc.

So is there anything else I should consider? Or possibly another mixer that might have equivalent price and features? And lastly, since it seems that my choices have been narrowed down to the Behringer and the Mackie, which would you choose?

It appears you've done sufficient homework at this juncture.

Personally...

I've had many mixers over the last (4) decades.
About seven years ago, during my downsizing/getting leaner, I picked up the Behringer 1622FX (not USB) for 220$ and GC.

I think it's a fine mixer for my purposes and I've had no 'quality/longevity' issues.
For me, I do all my mixing in the box and an analogue mixer is more of a glorified patch bay.
I do believe our expectations can get a bit too demanding when we're purchasing inexpensive gear.
I think you'll get some Behringer naysayers (for whatever reasons) chiming in but I'd suggest you not use their opinions as your sole deciding factor.
If Behringer was that bad they wouldn't be in business...allow your common sense to prevail.

With these somewhat budget price points I based my purchase on my personal needs/desires and not the manufacturer necessarily:
1) Routing abilities/flexibility for one's desired work flow
2) On board FX
3) Inserts on each channel input
4) Stereo FX send/receive + phono input
5) 4 stereo pair inputs for my keyboard controller/midi modules, etc.
6) Small footprint

Here's the Behringer manual should that help:
https://media.music-group.com/media/PLM/data/docs/P0A0K/X1622USB_X1832USB_X2222USB_X2442USB_M_EN.pdf

If your mixer purpose is to sit in your studio I'd recommend the Behringer as my experience has been very good.
If it's something you're taking on the road to gigs etc. then maybe more research for a truly road worthy mixer and review reading is in order. (?)
Of course, more buckaroos will be required.

That's my take on it.
Don't know if that actually helps you or not but good luck on your quest.

Back to topic....

I use Mackie mixers for live sound, but if it's for computer-based recording, I avoid any external mixer and use the Focusrite Scarlett audio interface. The mixer functions (and all digital effects and processing) are in the software.

A few years ago I would have said to avoid Behringer equipment. My early mixer from them had much internal noise / hiss. Newer Behringer equipment has greatly improved, however, and I own an X-Touch. From an ethical perspective, Behringer has a reputation for reverse engineering other people's designs, so if that's important to you, it's another reason to favor Mackie.

I haven't read all the post, but make sure you have multichannel USB not 8ch down to one stereo USB.
Something like UFX1604 UFX1204 can record separate 24bit channels to a USB 3.0 Memory stick or record to separate channels in the DAW.

I'm with Matt Finley on this.

I don't have a mixer, and haven't had one in well over a decade of digital recording. I attempted to use one, but ended up with an overloaded signal AND... it took up a lot of valuable desk top real estate. I unhooked it and plugged my mic directly into the Saffire Focusrite interface and just like that.... my signal was pristine and crystal. I sold the mixer and never looked back. With all the FX inside the box and in software, there's no need to have a mixer UNLESS you are recording more than 2 input channels at a time.

If you do record multiple inputs like you would for a band or a drum kit, then yes, I can see the purpose to having a mixer. However, for the typical one man studio, there's no reason other than because you like the look of the mixer in the room.

If I was running a commercial studio, of course I would have a mixer.

So what you are saying is that if I have channel 1 going to an electric guitar, channel 2 going to an electric bass and channel 3 going to a vocal mic all at the same time, the result would be 3 totally separated tracks (wav, mp3 or whatever) on the thumb drive all at the same time?

Yes, as Herb said if you are recording multiple inputs at a time it's good but if it's just you then you don't need a multichannel.
But with the Behringer UFX you can record to separate wav files for each input as well as the master to a stereo wav, you can also record them pre FX so they are dry for adding FX in the DAW.

EDIT: To record a guitarist direct input, you can input direct from the guitar then plug a lead just into the first "click" of the send socket then out to his pedal or use a di box and record with both di and fx (how RealTracks are done).

Yes. If you decide to purchase a mixer with USB, select a multitrack recorder rather than a stereo recorder. I have a Soundcraft Signature 22 MTK that will simultaneously record more than 20 tracks into a computer DAW through USB. It will return the tracks to the mixer using USB. The mixer is analog but has great digital Fx's and also record a stereo mix. It allows you to record without latency. Use the effects of the board and the physical faders and buttons of the board, the meters and the routing options without need of any of the computer CPU. Another advantage is if you are familiar with analog mixers, there is virtually no learning curve. You also get the advantage of analog summing which is very hot and very common in the recording industry today.

The most cost effective and also what I consider the best package for the money is more than your budget but also takes your home recording, stage recording and effects options light years ahead of where you are currently with the 2001 mixer you're using and very likely worth the investment. Because it's software based, you are also future proofing your setup against antiquating itself.

Check out the Behringer XR18 at street price of $499. It gives you multitrack capability into the computer of 18/18 using USB. It will record a stereo mix to flash drive and can be used as a desk interface or a stage box. The biggest benefit is all the Behringer X series digital mixers share the same X32 OS and software of their flagship digital X32 board. Some features such as the number of preamps, inputs and outputs are reduced but the core architecture is the same across the series. The effects are top notch and professional grade. All the preamps are the same midas design and quality. They are built like tanks and are future proofed because all the faders and buttons are software operated rather than physical the the unit is controlled by IPad/ Android or Computer. These are very versatile and powerful devices and worthy of consideration.

chulaivet, you common-sense approach is noted. This mixer will not be seeing any live gigs, so I won't have to worry about it getting banged around too much. I don't anticipate any needs for a mixer for live gigs, but should the need arise, I'll still have my "old" Mackie 1202VLZPro that should be able to handle most anything I would need it for.

Matt, yours would be a plan if I could afford one of the really big Focusrite Scarletts. I think. I'll have to think about that. I would need at least an 18i8, however, but it's out of my price range. I might could find a used one that would fit,though. At least there are clean used Scarletts available. So that's an alternative idea. I'll have to give this some thought vis-a-vis my rather involved DAW system. I currently own a 2i4 that I bought for use with my iPad, but it's too small for my needs with my DAW.

Pipeline, your multichannels across USB preference is noted, but even the Behringer UFX1202 is well beyond my reach at present. Well, technically it isn't, but I've budgeted a certain amount and I'm sticking to it. Besides, I don't have any desire nor need to have onboard recording capability. That's what my DAW is for.

Guitarhacker, I might need to handle more than two channel inputs at one time, but the way things are now, I can probably get by without it, although in the past I have often run more than one instrument at a time during recording.

It's probably worth noting that for almost all of my recording, I'm using Cakewalk by Bandlab, formerly Cakewalk Sonar Platinum for all my mixdown work and some of my composition work. When I do a final mixdown, I have everything running at once. If my tune has 10 tracks of instruments, then they're all playing at the same time, and that's the way I mix it down to a final stereo .wav file. Often tunes can have tracks that are a mix of MIDI and audio, sometimes all MIDI, rarely all audio. The way I have things set up right now, all my MIDI tracks have been created using soft synths, but I also have four outboard synths that I'm still looking to incorporate into the mix. Two are older and have the MIDI 5-pin plugs, two are newer and use USB to get MIDI into my DAW. But even these two older ones are being run through a MIDI to USB converter because this DAW no longer has any of the old 5-pin MIDI ports. And then there's still the matter of getting these four synth's audio into the mix, which is where the mixer becomes useful.

I'm gonna have to ponder this some more, I can tell right now. Time to do some more figurin'.

Charlie, sorry I missed your post. That Behringer is an interesting looking unit, but the price is a bit steep. I note that there is also a smaller 12-channel version of your mixer, which sells for the same price as the Behringer. I suppose you would recommend it as well.

I'm still trying to figure out the advantage of bringing multiple channels into my DAW's software as opposed to doing the mixing on the mixer and then bring a stereo signal to the DAW. The way my system is configured, I actually output the audio mix from my DAW's soft synth MIDI instruments to my Mackie, where it's combined with the audio signals from the outboard MIDI instruments (keyboard, rack synth, and guitar synth). I then send this mix back into the DAW to record to a .wav file, using my sound card's software mixer to keep track of the ins and outs. With this setup, I have to listen to the mix from the headphones out on the mixer. This has worked well enough and I'm wondering what the advantages are of doing it the way you suggest.

I'm guessing the chief advantage would be that I wouldn't have to export and import mixes, right? I can have everything mixed in the DAW, both internal synths and external modules. I can see how this would certainly simplify things. What other advantages to this method would there be that I'm not seeing?

If I'm understanding you correctly....that's how I do it.

Channel inputs:
Channel 1) Vocal mic Equitek E100 (condenser)
Channel 2) Vocal mic Shure Uniphere 1 (dynamic - 1973 Shure SM58 type)
Channel 3) Guitar
Channel 4) Open

(4) stereo input pairs:
Channel 5/6 (3) Midi modules out (chained)
Channel 7/8 Keyboard controller out
Channel 9/10 Delta 44 interface output 1/2
Channel 11/12 Delta 44 interface output 3/4

Control room out: KRK Rockit 8's
Stereo out: near fields Tascam S1010M's

All mixing is done in the DAW and sent to either the Delta out 1/2 or 3/4 depending on my routing needs for the song.
Of course....per one's preferred work flow there's many ways to route our processes and achieve the same desired end result.

Hope that helps a bit.....carry on.

I suppose you would recommend it as well?
Yes and No. Yes, because it shares the same Midas preamps, OS, FX and routing as all the other X series digital mixers. These
features have proven to be rock solid and are top rate in quality. No, because there are mixers with the 2X2 USB interface like
the XR12 that are easier and also fully featured that in consideration of staying within your budget, are simply better deals.

I'm still trying to figure out the advantage of bringing multiple channels into my DAW's software as opposed to doing the mixing on the mixer and then bring a stereo signal to the DAW.
Control and efficiency. I'm a big fan of using a real mixer in a recording environment. It doesn't matter if I'm capturing a
live performance, remote recording session or a studio setting. Properly setup, you can match the recording quality of high
dollar audio interfaces with an analog mixer feeding a dual channel interface at line level. Regarding multiple channels, a 24
channel mixer will be 3 times more versatile than an 8 input audio interface. Here's why. set channels 1-8 to output to 1-8
inputs to your DAW which allows you to use your DAW's Fx and VST, VSTi's features. 9-16 on the mixer as return signals from the
DAW for external processing through the mixer preamps and FX's
and 17-24 for external devices, monitor mixes, headphone sub mixes and external feeds such as sends to streaming, broadcast etc.
And you have Aux outs/returns to use.

You have the benefit of analog summing using a mixer. You can use multiple faders with the mixer in real time.

I have to listen to the mix from the headphones out on the mixer.
Which is good. It's latency free.

One feature found on the Behringer XR series digital stage mixers including the XR12 is the MIDI in/Out. This offers the benefit of MIDI controllers to transform the XR12 from a remote IOS/Android App to a physical MIDI Controller device such as a Behringer X-Touch. You can build a nice digital recorder for your studio a piece of gear by piece of gear over time.

Charlie, you've given my quite a bit to digest in a relatively brief note. I like that that Behringer can handle MIDI. I guess one main thing I can take away from it is simply that the more channels I have at my disposal, the better. With my 12-channel Mackie and my outboard instruments, I actually don't have enough channels if I want to run mics while I have everything hooked up. And while I realize there will be times when I don't need to have everything hooked up, I like to have my DAW set up that way.

I do have an escape valve of sorts. Back when I was putting together my DAW, I bought a little Midiman 6 channel mixer that never really got used much. It is dead quiet, so it can be used in a recording environment. So in a pinch, I can hook it up to my Mackie, which will give me a net gain of 4 channels. I dunno, that Mackie has so many auxes and ins and stuff, I might figure out a way to hook it up that way and come away with a net gain of 6 channels. Still, this is a stop-gap measure and not one I'd want to incorporate on a permanent basis.

I've never thought much of running things this way, but I certainly can: my Delta 66 card has four ins (two combo XLR and 1/4" phono) and four outs in addition to Auxes and effects routing and monitor sends, all balanced/unbalanced. Its Omni I/O "interface" provides easy access to all these features. I've never seen much point in running four ins or outs, but I guess with a big enough mixer, there may be advantages. Incidentally, it's called a "66" because it also has two SPDIF channels, which I've never used. I was just scanning through the Omni's manual and I see where it says the four AUX ins it has can be used for MIDI instruments. Since the Omni has no MIDI ports, I guess what they mean is the Omni can handle these instruments' audio through these inputs. Interesting, but I'd rather run my MIDI instruments' audio through my board's shared "stereo" channels (5/6, 7/8, 9/10, 11/12). But I guess that would be a way to free up those 8 channels.

chulaivet, cool, you're using a Delta 44! Glad to see another Delta user here. My DAW's setup is similar to yours, except I note you're running all four of your 44's outs to your board. Got a couple of questions, though. What are you doing to record your mix? And I see you have three MIDI devices daisy-chained, but you have a single stereo audio signal from the MIDI chain hooked into your board. I'll admit, I'm a bit fuzzy about MIDI these days, but I thought that daisy chaining only worked for the MIDI signals and any audio had to be handled separately? In other words, I didn't know you could daisy-chain your audio as well?

I've looked at your current setup and gear. Using your Delta 66 interface and just upgrading the mixer, the Behringer X-air 12 is the clear winner and I would not consider USB because you already have a better quality interface and converter with more ins/outs than offered in mixers in this price range including the XR12.

Considering the small footprint, that the device can be placed anywhere in your studio and that your use is primarily for the studio, the Control Program offers so much more of full featured channel control per channel, plus quality effects at 40 floating DSP, dynamics (gate, eq and compression per channel) and it is a full compressor rather than a preset one knob partially featured, design of the 1832usb

All of the controlling you can do from the Control Program Editor place zero load on your CPU, all the processing is done on the external unit. No other mixer in this price range comes anywhere close to the useful features of the XR12.

Here's a link you can review the Control Program - X Air Edit Control Program

With the XR12, you're getting a full-featured digital mixer at a very good price.

First of all....I'm STILL a bit "fuzzy" on the midi thing and I've been using midi devices since 1998 or so.
A reflection of my neuron deficiencies?....probably so.
Well...another Delta user.
Before my Delta I used my Gina20....I still have it packed away....somewhere.

As far as the 'daisy chaining' my perception is that not all midi devices have the in/outs necessary for the "chaining" to work.
The last unit in the midi chain is patched via stereo to one of the 'stereo inputs' on the mixer.
MIDI interface:
When I had a boatload of midi devices I used the Opcode 8 portSE (still have it) but now I use the Midisport 4x4 midi patch bay which may clear up some midi confusion.
https://m-audio.com/products/view/midisport-4x4-anniversary-edition

MarioD and Mountainside seem to have some good G2 experience with midi.
How it all just happens remains an enigma most of the time.
No...daisy chaining audio was not what I meant....sorry if I confused us.

I'm down to (4) midi module devices:
Roland MBD-1 - Bass/Drums module
Roland MVS-1 - Vintage Synth module
Proteus FX - (4) banks of good patches.
SGX Nitro - Guitar preamp/processor with (4) banks of patches but not in the chain.
(the Nitro STEREO outs are patched to the stereo FX send/return on the mixer but does have midi send/receive jacks)

For recording I assign the track output from the 1622FX to the 'Submix out L/R' of the mixer into Delta Input 1/2.
The mixer's sub mix out L/R has (2) faders.
For mixing I route/assign all tracks in the song (I use Sonar X3) to the Delta 1/2 outs.
I only use the Delta 3/4 in/outs for special monitoring which isn't often.

Hope that helps.....this stuff does get confusing.

My MIDI hub is a MOTU midi express 128:

https://www.amazon.com/MOTU-MIDI-EXPRESS-128-Express/dp/B0002J1PNK/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1546546387&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=midi+express+128&psc=1

I drag and drop my BiaB files into my DAW, Studio One Pro 4, then assign each track to a MIDI sound. Sometimes it is a hard synth but most of the time it is a soft synth.

As far as mixing audio I strongly suggest one uses the mixer that comes with your DAW and not an external mixer. This may mean that you have to purchase an audio interface. I have a Roland OctaCapture.

Each output goes on a separate track in my DAW. Using the DAW's mixer I can add effects to any track as well as adding busses. Much more convenient than using an external mixer, at least for me. YMMV

Mario,go for a Kenwood Cooking Chef every time.Will last a lifetime.
Wendy

I would but I can't use it on a grill. ALL of my cooking is on a grill.
I can't even boil water on a stove!

Hey Charlie, funny you should mention the XR12. I was investigating it at some length last night and you're right -- it seems as if there's a huge amount of stuff that can be done with that compact little unit. One thing I like about it is the app will run on my PC. I don't have to buy an iPad just to run it. Actually I do own an iPad, but it's like become permanently attached to my wife's stuff. I hardly get to use it anymore. Another thing I like about the XR12 is its price -- right where I'd like it to be.

I got to thinking though -- about sheer quantity. I've been browsing through the local Craigslist, and there are several large mixers there and folks aren't asking a lot of money for them. Like a Behringer Eurodesk SL2442FX-Pro 24 channel for $200, or a Mackie 32-8 32-channel for $350 or a Mackie 24-8 24-channel for $200 or a Behringer MX9000 24-channel for $350. So does quantity trump quality? (Assuming all mixers have quality mic pre's of course). That 24-channel Eurodesk and Mackie 24-8, either at $200, sure are tempting.



Well, I've been using them since about 2000. Got pretty good with MIDI configuratioms back then, but then I laid off music production and recording entirely for over a decade. Forgot a lot. Now I'm trying to re-acquire what I let slip away.



I dunno. I think that's like a fundamental property of MIDI -- least it used to be when all you had were the 5-pin connectors. Like SCSI, it was just part of the way things got hooked up. You have to make sure to complete the chain though. The last device that has an Out going to its In has to send its Out back to the original device's In.


Yeah, that's just straight analog audio.


I have two Midisport 2x2's. Amounts to the same thing. Only problem I find with them sometimes is the way the instruments are recognized. Say I have a Yamaha keyboard hooked up to Midisport's Channel A. Well, the DAW software sees it as Midisport A, not Yamaha. Fortunately this software has the capability to include a description file so you know what and where all the patches are. But not all devices have description files.


Good to know. Now I know who's brains to pick when I have questions I can't figure out the answers to.



Okay, your setup isn't all that different from mine then.

Mario, the fact that you're using a MIDI hub got me to thinking. Maybe I should look into getting one too. I have a couple of Midisport 2x2s and a Roland adapter, which might work okay, but to be honest, I've had some difficulty getting any of them to work in my DAW. Dunno what the problem is, but I suspect it's a configuration issue. Originally I thought that one of my instruments was defective, but when I had the same problem with another instrument, that indicated to me the problem lies elsewhere. One of these days I'll figure out where that elsewhere is.

<<< So does quantity trump quality? >>>

In the case of the XR12 and unless you intend or need to change the way you record, the answer this time is YES... The XR12 gives you more of Both....

1. All the used desks you found on Craigslist are big, bulky and heavy taking up a lot of studio real estate.
2. They are used and likely not from a studio environment and in every one of those models (and any others you find) are very suspect in regard to maintenance and dust/smoke and weather exposure. They require cleaning and Maintenance. Lots of knobs, buttons plugs, switches and faders (dust collectors!!!)
3. None of those models preamps are as clean and good as the XR12.
4. With the XR12, you have the equivalent of a studio having $10,000 or more of gates, compressors, eq's and Fx's. You can apply to each
channel and buss.
5. The Fx's Library is the same as their top of the line X32 and that is a desk used in commercial studios and pro tours. It would cost hundreds of dollars to purchase the library.
6. The XR12 is a digital mixer that does not rely on your CPU. Once you have Mute groups, Solo groups, digital routing, digital Fx and dynamics, full metering,
RTA, Auto Mix, pink noise, 12 graphic eq's in place to ring out your room and reduce or eliminate feedback, and scene, snippet and cue saves you will never look back. The XR12 is updating your gear and workflow, the analog mixers do not.

My current 'big' mixer is the Soundcraft Signature 22 MTK. It's a 22 out 24 return audio interface. I rarely use it. Each time I do, it requires quite a bit of setup time because I do not leave it out of its hardshell case. It requires too much space. I have tracked a 7 piece band with it. The preamps are clean, pristine sounding with a nice dynamic range and the Fx are top notch. It also has that 'WOW' factor when it's used and new artists come into my studio. But I rarely use it. 99% of the time whether in my home studio or field recording I record tracks with a Tascam DP24. It will record 8 tracks simultaneously. Only once in years, have I had the need to record more than 8 tracks at once using my equipment and that was with the 7 piece band. For live and recording, that band normally uses the Behringer X32 and on that one occasion, it was convenient to use my gear. I also have a Zoom H5 for field recording or as a 4 input interface in my studio. I have a Presonus 2 Channel Audiobox VSL interface and a single input USB Snowball mic I use for quick recording without the need of setup and syncing an interface. I could replace all my gear with the XR12 and have more studio gear 'in the box' (literally in the case of the XR12) than I have now.

Over time, I have owned the Behringer X32, a Presonus 16.4.2, a 32 channel Behringer, a 24 channel Behringer (true 24/32 input models), 12 and 16 channel Mackie's and several no-name boards. For a full time setup, any version of the Behringer X32 makes a great studio mixer. But it's big and bulky and needs to be permanently installed. If you use Studio One DAW, then one of their digital StudioLive mixers would be the best choice. The XR12 puts you in that category of quality. I will add also there are enough benefits and additional features between the XR12/XR16 units and the XR18 that from an investment in a studio upgrade and that you keep gear for a long enough period to get an adequate return on your investment, the XR18 (or X18 Desktop model) would be worth consideration. The XR18 provides a lot of additional digital software options, plus ultra net capability, plus additional physical Aux outs, and 18/18 audio interface. All in the same physical box size.... Each of these features alone are worth the upgrade price increase over the XR12/16.

To be honest, with your criteria in your first post, the XR12 is the closest thing to a no-brainer decision you will run into today in my opinion.

I agree with MarioD on this one. I run 5 "hard" snyths and lots of "soft" synths. All of the "hard" synths feed into a MOTU Midi Express. From my controller keyboard, I can access each "hard" synth and all of my "soft" synths through my DAW tracks with no wiring changes just by assigning each track to a synth. All audio feeds into my MOTU 828 MK3. No external mixer needed.

Jeff

Charley, I bow to your vastly superior experience in this arena, but honestly I expected such a response from you. One thing that I neglected to mention in my previous post is all those mixers save one came out of churches. So no smoke residue and probably fairly low dust environments. Makes me wonder what they upgraded to. Heh. Probably XR12/16/18/32.

My DAW is built around Cakewalk Sonar Platinum (now Cakewalk by Bandlab). I have a free copy of Studio One v3, which I actually like quite a bit. It has some distinct user-friendly advantages over Cakewalk. But I frequently use Cakewalk's musical notation window for composition and editing, whereas Studio One lacks any musical notation capability. Yes, one can purchase Notion v6 (or later?) and use it as a rewire device to export musical notation into SO, but why do I need to go to all the extra expense? And not only that, I don't find Notion particularly easy to use. So I'll keep muddling forward with Cakewalk, and hopefully I can fix this problem I'm having with it not wanting to play with my external MIDI devices.

I guess it's time to go get my ducats lined up and think about who and where to purchase the XR12 from.

Good luck with your decision. My guess is the channel count of those mixers in a church setting, the need was likely for more channels/routing than less so I'll guess the upgrade to X32. The X32 provides 16 busses/monitors as well as Matrix's for streaming and broadcasting. Use of the Scenes/Snippet/Cues are also a highly desired for churches that do a lot of productions. My X32 went to the Church I attend. I still get to program it and fix all the 'issues' with what button to push on occasion.

I think choosing the XR12 is a great choice for you and that you'll immediately see a noticeable improvement in the tracks you record. Being able to eliminate a guitar hum (gate) and compression to vocals as they're recorded, apply a de esser during recording, slight EQ - all without any latency or strain on your CPU will give you cleaner tracks to work with and help tame and control your ambient room environment. You'll not have to take time in your DAW working to fix things from the start before you even begin to mix because they will no longer be there. You'll continue to get the benefit of that great Delta interface and I think you're good for another 17 years of great recording in your home studio. I'm a bit jealous....

That was my thought when you had mentioned your issue.
I'm curious if using multiple midi patch bays is problematic more often then not.
I would think those configuration fur balls would be long addressed/resolved by now.
The 'chaining' of multiple midi patch bays is just another "fuzzy" factor for me.

EDIT: when I'd commented that all midi devices may not be able to be chained for some reason?
My currently chained modules have 1/4" stereo analog Ins & Outs which is how how I chain them up....I've never had luck using the 5pin din outs/thru's to chain my modules.
Manifestation of user ignorance and ability to configure correctly.....absolutely.

I also have a JV880 (not that I actually need it with what I currently use)that is not in the chain because it does not have 1/4" inputs.
I did give the 5pin din configuration path a try using the midi ins/outs/thru's when I got the JV880 but no luck and much frustration.

But....everything has been working well with my current system now so you won't find me trying to fix a working toaster.

Carry on....

chulaivet, actually I have only one Midisport 2x2 active at this time. The other is a spare, as is that Roland adapter. I bought the Roland because somebody convinced me that the Midisport was defective, but I have the same problem with it too. I'm pretty sure the Midisport is ok, because it used to work just fine. Which has led me to wonder if maybe a Windows update may have caused the problem I'm having. Cuz one day it was working fine and then the next day it wasn't.

If it is a windows compatibility issue, I don't hold out a lot of hope. M-Audio's most recent driver for the Midisports is already several years old. But I must also remind myself that I had the same problem with the Roland too. So I'm hoping it was user error of some unknown type. Just haven't figured out yet what it might be.

That got me slightly curious.

I'll hold out some hope that your issue is a configuration one that can be resolved.

DELETED LINK: that was not the M-Audio site....and I don't trust those third party driver sites....sorry for my haste.

My DAW is still on Win7 so I've had no PMO's (pvss me off's :))

Do update us on your quest....carry on.

chulaivet, download the driver for your Midisports. Then delete the current driver and install the one you downloaded.

https://m-audio.com/support/download/drivers/midisport-windows-driver-v6.1.3

Occasionally updates messes up drivers and you have to reinstall them.

In my DAW my MOTU midi express 128 shows up in the MIDI input and output listings as express1, express 2 etc. Each one is independent of the others. This should be the same in BiaB and RB. Yours may read midisport1, midisport2 etc.

Welp, I just ordered a Behringer XR12. Time to start making room for it in my rack and figure out the best way to wire it into my system.

MarioD
Thanks....appreciate the link.

cooltouch
Excellent....you do realize some pics will be in order.

Back to it....

XR12 or something similar (which everybody makes now) + control surface (say "Thank you, Mario.")


You just can't beat the price-features-routing-performance-footprint quotient for these mixers. If you already have a touchscreen system, you may not even need an additional control surface.


Paj
8^)

Hm, while this might be generally true, I did do quite a bit of research into these types of mixers and I found that the XR12 was rather unique in terms of value for its price point. The only other mixer I've found close to the XR12's price point is the Soundcraft Ui12, which actually costs more, and is one of those 12-channel mixers that really isn't. The XR12 has 12 inputs, all of which are available as 1/4" TRS, whereas the Soundcraft only has eight inputs near as I can tell, four of which are 1/4" TRS. I need those 12 TRS inputs.

I plan to rack-mount this mixer. The XR12 comes with rack ears. The Soundcraft has an odd-looking form factor and I doubt it is rack-mountable. Even if it were, this would make certain features, like its USB inputs, inaccessible.

Well, I just thought I'd post a follow up to all this. The XR12 arrived a couple days ago. I spent most of yesterday getting frustrated trying to set it up with my DAW, but today, with the helpful coaching from a couple of folks over at the Behringer forums, I was finally able to get it to sync with my DAW. I'm playing around with a mic -- one of my trusty Shure SM94 condensers -- on the four XLR channel inputs and it sounds pretty good, once I had the gate configured for vocals. Prior to that, it was way down in volume. Now the volume is great. Tweaked the EQ some for my voice to sound its best and I'm all set to record voiceovers! . . . or some such.

Ok, well I guess it's time to say goodbye to my trusty old Mackie 1202VLZ Pro. It's been good knowing ya old feller, but it's time to move on.

The true advantage of using an audio interface over a mixer is usually clarity. Also you mentioned mixing in the mixer and not the DAW. If you mix in the mixer and the send to the DAW a stereo mix you can’t change it as much. Maybe some overall EQ, or compression but if you record each track dry to he DAW then you can mix and master with greater options. Maybe the drum track or tracks need a certain fix the is different from the bass, or piano or guitar panning has far more options in the DAW.

If you Mike drums or have more than one guitar or several vocal tracks each group can have their own fax buss. But if you do all that in the mixer you are stuck with that. What ever our decide on make sure it gives you simple but many options for mix down and mastering. As Charlie said a good mixer with multiple in/out can rock. Here’s the $64 question is this to track just you or a group of players?

Hey Rob, this is getting hooked up to my DAW and, for the foreseeable future, at least, it's just gonna be me. I use my DAW for music composition primarily. Most of the time I use MIDI instrumentation to flesh out my compositions. The only reason why I'm even hooking up the external instruments I have is because they're all MIDI and I'll need to get their audio into the mix. I don't need to have them all hooked up at once -- this is just the way I'm used to doing it. In fact, I'm finding that I'm two channels short of 1/4" hookups to get all of them hooked up.

Just today I was kicking around the idea of keeping my 12-channel Mackie and using it for some or all of those instruments, so I'd still have some room on the XR12. But then I remind myself that I don't need them all hooked up at once.