MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Soundcraft Signature Series
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 [all]
Author Soundcraft Signature Series
dubonaire
mousegarden wrote:
The MTK looks like it's geared up for live work, there's no Control Room output, which could be irritating, you can work around that, but why bother? It's not as though this mixer is so special in other ways that's it's worth putting up with niggles, just get another one that has all you want.


No one with a control room setup would use a Soundcraft MTK. It’s not meant for that. The Soundcraft MTK 22 is around US$800. It's cheap as chips and specifically designed as a mixer USB interface for DAW VST inserts and channel and master recording. It's ridiculous to say it doesn't meet needs it wasn't designed for.

It's a high performing low end mixer that enables people with bedroom studios. Which is 90% of the people on this forum.

Jorg Schaaf of Radikal Technologies, noted for high quality synth engineering, has a bunch of videos showcasing this mixer.

mousegarden
dubonaire wrote:
mousegarden wrote:
The MTK looks like it's geared up for live work, there's no Control Room output, which could be irritating, you can work around that, but why bother? It's not as though this mixer is so special in other ways that's it's worth putting up with niggles, just get another one that has all you want.


No one with a control room setup would use a Soundcraft MTK. It’s not meant for that. The Soundcraft MTK 22 is around US$800. It's cheap as chips and specifically designed as a mixer USB interface for DAW VST inserts and channel and master recording. It's ridiculous to say it doesn't meet needs it wasn't designed for.

It's a high performing low end mixer that enables people with bedroom studios. Which is 90% of the people on this forum.

Jorg Schaaf of Radikal Technologies, noted for high quality synth engineering, has a bunch of videos showcasing this mixer.



I was going to say, that you'd probably use the computer returns for monitoring with this mixer, via USB.
dubonaire
mousegarden wrote:
I was going to say, that you'd probably use the computer returns for monitoring with this mixer, via USB.


No you monitor through the master out.
Bath House
I think these are great mixers, packed with features, but it's maddening that they don't have inserts. I can even live with the lack of aux returns, but no inserts!!!
Sir Ruff
these are great mixers overall, but I have two qualms with them:

-the EQ/effects are only applied to the stereo USB master output, not individual USB channels, so forget about easily printing tracks via USB with effects/EQ in place. This is a huge oversight to me.

-the workaround for the above is to solo channels and record through the master USB out. Fine in theory, BUT then the Master out--the main monitoring level control--doubles as the stereo output volume control, which means that you really have to crank the volume to get sufficient gain levels in the DAW, and this is often too loud for comfort (one could turn the speaker volume down, but you really shouldn't have to do this every time you want to record the EQ/effects). So for me, the very nice EQ and effects go pretty much unused unless I really want that sound.

-QC seems to be an issue--I am on my third one of these. The first two both had channel gain malfunction issues.
mousegarden
dubonaire wrote:
mousegarden wrote:
I was going to say, that you'd probably use the computer returns for monitoring with this mixer, via USB.


No you monitor through the master out.


hmmm..... I guess the analogue master out goes to your monitors, and everything else, record/monitoring is handled by USB, so you monitor already recorded tracks through the master out?
dubonaire
Sir Ruff wrote:
these are great mixers overall, but I have two qualms with them:

-the EQ/effects are only applied to the stereo USB master output, not individual USB channels, so forget about easily printing tracks via USB with effects/EQ in place. This is a huge oversight to me.

-the workaround for the above is to solo channels and record through the master USB out. Fine in theory, BUT then the Master out--the main monitoring level control--doubles as the stereo output volume control, which means that you really have to crank the volume to get sufficient gain levels in the DAW, and this is often too loud for comfort (one could turn the speaker volume down, but you really shouldn't have to do this every time you want to record the EQ/effects). So for me, the very nice EQ and effects go pretty much unused unless I really want that sound.

-QC seems to be an issue--I am on my third one of these. The first two both had channel gain malfunction issues.


The real flexibility and point of the MKT mixer is that every channel can have multiple plugin inserts including channel EQ. It really should be thought of as a relatively cheap USB audio interface with the addition of a hardware mixer interface. It's not designed to do a lot of out of the box routing. I'd have to have a $100k+ studio to use all the inserts I use with this mixer if they were hardware. Normally if you were using outboard inserts you'd have to track individually anyway, unless you have 20 of each piece of hardware.

You can route to the Aux outputs or the Group outputs if you want to track using the mixer's EQ and FX, you don't need to use the master out if you are tracking. I don't use the mixer's FX much because I find them a bit noisy.

I always have my speakers turned down, so that my master fader is near 0db, that gives me sufficient volume on the master DAW channel, but all you need to do if you want more gain in your master DAW channel is use a gain plugin such as Utility in Ableton Live.
Sir Ruff
dubonaire wrote:
The real flexibility and point of the MKT mixer is that every channel can have multiple plugin inserts including channel EQ. It really should be thought of as a relatively cheap USB audio interface with the addition of a hardware mixer interface. It's not designed to do a lot of out of the box routing. I'd have to have a $100k+ studio to use all the inserts I use with this mixer if they were hardware. Normally if you were using outboard inserts you'd have to track individually anyway, unless you have 20 of each piece of hardware.


This is essentially what it is. But Soundcraft make mixers, not USB interfaces, so it's bizarre to me that they prevented use of even their much esteemed EQ as I would on a traditional mixer for basic sound shaping prior to recording. I realize you can do this if you feed the audio back into the mixer from the DAW, but I haven't quite advanced to mixing out of the box yet and that shouldn't be a requirement just to use the EQ.

Quote:
You can route to the Aux outputs or the Group outputs if you want to track using the mixer's EQ and FX, you don't need to use the master out if you are tracking.

Right, but then you can't record via USB, which is the main reason I bought it.

Quote:
I always have my speakers turned down, so that my master fader is near 0db, that gives me sufficient volume on the master DAW channel, but all you need to do if you want more gain in your master DAW channel is use a gain plugin such as Utility in Ableton Live.


yeah, I mean there are workarounds, but it feels really clumsy to switch from having immediate per channel recording via USB to the trad audio outs and the leveling issue + having to mute everything (which I invariably forget to do), etc.. Anyway, despite my gripes, it's worth it just to have the large number of direct to USB channels for recording so for that I'm happy with it.
dubonaire
Sir Ruff wrote:
dubonaire wrote:
The real flexibility and point of the MKT mixer is that every channel can have multiple plugin inserts including channel EQ. It really should be thought of as a relatively cheap USB audio interface with the addition of a hardware mixer interface. It's not designed to do a lot of out of the box routing. I'd have to have a $100k+ studio to use all the inserts I use with this mixer if they were hardware. Normally if you were using outboard inserts you'd have to track individually anyway, unless you have 20 of each piece of hardware.


This is essentially what it is. But Soundcraft make mixers, not USB interfaces, so it's bizarre to me that they prevented use of even their much esteemed EQ as I would on a traditional mixer for basic sound shaping prior to recording. I realize you can do this if you feed the audio back into the mixer from the DAW, but I haven't quite advanced to mixing out of the box yet and that shouldn't be a requirement just to use the EQ.


I think it is price. The Zed-R16 was 3 times the price.

Sir Ruff wrote:
Quote:
You can route to the Aux outputs or the Group outputs if you want to track using the mixer's EQ and FX, you don't need to use the master out if you are tracking.

Right, but then you can't record via USB, which is the main reason I bought it.


You can, you just need to steal another mono or stereo channel.

Sir Ruff wrote:
Quote:
I always have my speakers turned down, so that my master fader is near 0db, that gives me sufficient volume on the master DAW channel, but all you need to do if you want more gain in your master DAW channel is use a gain plugin such as Utility in Ableton Live.


yeah, I mean there are workarounds, but it feels really clumsy to switch from having immediate per channel recording via USB to the trad audio outs and the leveling issue + having to mute everything (which I invariably forget to do), etc.. Anyway, despite my gripes, it's worth it just to have the large number of direct to USB channels for recording so for that I'm happy with it.


You don't need to do that if you steal a channel. I agree it's a frustrating workaround. I tend to view it more as a live session mixer. Because I tend to do a lot of live dubbing stuff, it works for me most of the time. Actually I use two mixers, I use an A&H Zed 22FX which I then route into the Soundcraft.

I'll be honest, there are times when I wish I had one bigger mixing desk with more routing options and a conventional audio interface. And sometimes I think a digital mixer would be so much more convenient. But I'd be looking at a lot more $$.
TXBDan
I wouldn't want to record post EQ if i could. I like to record the most untouched track i can get and process in software. I always change my mind after sleeping on a mix and like to be able to tweak and tweak and tweak and undo and mess up and tweak and undo and tweak and tweak. for weeks at a time... d'oh!
Sir Ruff
dubonaire wrote:

You can, you just need to steal another mono or stereo channel.


Oh, yes, right, duh! This is what I do with external effects already; not sure why it didn't occur to me to do with EQ as well. thumbs up

TXBDan wrote:
I wouldn't want to record post EQ if i could. I like to record the most untouched track i can get and process in software. I always change my mind after sleeping on a mix and like to be able to tweak and tweak and tweak and undo and mess up and tweak and undo and tweak and tweak. for weeks at a time... d'oh!


haha... I guess that's the beauty of unautomated hardware. Set, record, forget. Hardware EQ is general useful for basic cuts, but in the case of the dual parametric EQ on the MTK you can really get pretty extreme peak shaping, which I feel holds up better in the analog domain sometimes. You can always tame it digitally afterward if needed.
mousegarden
TXBDan wrote:
I wouldn't want to record post EQ if i could. I like to record the most untouched track i can get and process in software. I always change my mind after sleeping on a mix and like to be able to tweak and tweak and tweak and undo and mess up and tweak and undo and tweak and tweak. for weeks at a time... d'oh!


I used to like recording with all effects/EQ etc, it can become part of a sound pre-record and inspire you. But lately it's been annoying me, I recorded a nice drum track with reverb, and went for a take, but now there are certain sections of the multitrack where I'd like no reverb on those drums, so I'm recording everything dry with no EQ from now on.
mafouka
Are the Ghost preamps on the Signature series only applied to the XLR inputs or are they also nurturing the 1/4" line inputs aswell???
dubonaire
mafouka wrote:
Are the Ghost preamps for the Signature series only applied to the XLR inputs or are they also nurturing the 1/8" line inputs aswell???


My guess is they've probably just used the same input circuitry as in the ghost series, but even for the ghost series they just talk about mic preamps. The line inputs are fine, although I do have one scratchy pot now.
naturligfunktion
Bumping this thread, but I have a question regarding the headphone output of these mixers:

When I mix I have two mono channels panned L & R on the mixer. I can hear it through the monitors, as they are playing the master out, and I can record it in the final mix as I print/record channel 13/14 - the master out.

But I cannot hear this in my headphones. I’ve noticed that the headphone out is not the same as the master out: it does not play changes in the EQ, if a channel is panned or the fader positions. The headphone out play the output from the computer, if you guys get what I mean. For example, if I instead take one of the stereo channels on the mixer, and pan the instrument left in Ableton, I hear this in the headphones (and in the master out, but a little bit more subtle). The same goes for volume, effects etc.

Usually I work around this, keeping everything on the desk flat (no panning, no EQ, every fader in the same position) and make all adjustments in the box. But this feels like a limitation.

Is there any way to get around this issue? That is, can I somehow get the headphone output to monitor the master out? Every suggestion is of interest.

Many thanks
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 [all]
Page 4 of 4
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group