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  
Author Soundcraft Signature Series
r05c03
Any word on release? First hands on reviews, anything?
Paranormal Patroler
Not available yet according to Sweetwater but the look really cool.
tweakfilter
In Europe thomannn says 31.07. Was about to buy a Mackie onyx12 but then I saw those mtk12. I don't like beeing a guinea pig, but probably it will be the first time I'll buy gear without hitting the market and have read some reviews.
CF3
These look interesting, especially the MTK versions. One thing though, I don't see any "inserts" hmmm..... Maybe they're assuming you're gonna use effects and dymanics from your DAW? The price on these mixers are fantastic.
graphixsounds
does anyone see an alt 3/4 on this mixer?


how would this compare to a mackie vlz4?
r05c03
Yeah, regarding the lack on inserts, I would assume they excluded them because, at least with the MTK line, that folks would be using DAW plug-ins on the individual tracks. The non-MTK signature mixers are also missing insert though, that kinda sucks.
Morley
I think the concept is decent quality pre's for recording and analogue summing with EQ for mix down.
I can see this being perfect for a small studio based around a DAW.
So yes, if you want to work with outboard dynamics and EQ on mixdown, not for you, but if you want a good way to record your music and get some analogue EQ and summing on mixdown, pretty cool desks.
Of course, this is assuming they sound good, but I reckon for the money, they will be excellent.
Of course, as you have a couple of subgroups, you could assign a track to a subgroup (which has an analogue output) and send that to a compressor or whatever and then bring it back in on a different spare channel to kind of replicate an insert. Not ideal, but a workaround.
Even would work with a master compressor. Send 10 tracks to the 1-2 subgroups in stereo and bring the output of the compressor back into the other 2 channels and send them to the master which can be recorded in the DAW.
But this and a laptop is a pretty cool small location tracking and even mixing setup.
AdamJay
I think the 22MTK will be a great solution for anyone with a room full of synths. I'm intersted in the 12MTK as a techno live PA mixer for various Elektron, Nord, and Waldorf instruments. Hoping the USB class compliance works well for multi tracking the performance with an iPad.

But they need to ship them first. I've heard rumors of supply side issues in component pricing and manufacturing. Whatever, get these boards out, please, already.
r05c03
Yeah, I should really make myself wait for the release and the reviews that will follow. Multi-tracking over USB seems awesome, but how well it work across various software and apps is another thing all together.
fano
looks like a good alternative to the zed r16.
rockthomas
Do you mean the Zed FX series?
fano
no, the r16.
r05c03
r16 because like the MTK version, it records multi-track.
davidjames
Have there been any reviews done on the effects algorithms? The Lexicon brand is exciting but I wonder if they really sound as good as some of the famous Lexicon boxes.

Also, I'm wondering why there are only 2 stereo inputs (plus one FX return). I have an Elektron A4 and a drum machine, which would eat both of them up. Where would I bring in the stereo aux returns? Even the 22MTK only has 2 stereo inputs (and then the footprint is much larger). I like the Mackie Onyx 1220i, it has 4 stereo inputs, plus 2 extra stereo aux returns (albeit without the EQ, just levels really). It doesn't have multitrack output over FW like the Soundcraft, but I don't plan on using it for final mix downs, just want to multitrack record my jam sessions.
mmmotion
davidjames wrote:

Also, I'm wondering why there are only 2 stereo inputs (plus one FX return)..


I'm wondering the same thing confused
Why are they skimping on stereo inputs?
JosefK
Anyone got any news/updates/word-of-mouth on the 22mtk release date. I know it's been a moving target for some time. Frustrating cause I am serious need of a mixer and been waiting for a long time.
peachfuzzmcgee
I'm the same way I wanted to purchase one spring of last year when they said it was going to be first released but as you can see I gave up and went a whole different direction.

Thing is Vaporware I tell ya.
poppinger
When it comes out, I want to plug my Waldorf Stromberg into it.
deltaphoenix
I have one on the way. I pre-ordered from Sweetwater 6 months ago and it should be here on Wednesday.

I went with a MTK12, I plan to use it for recording and jamming at home.
JosefK
Sick! Hope the 22mtk is shipping soon! Should be if the 12mtks have left the station right...
dan_k
deltaphoenix wrote:
I have one on the way. I pre-ordered from Sweetwater 6 months ago and it should be here on Wednesday.

I went with a MTK12, I plan to use it for recording and jamming at home.


Please let us know how you like it. Been on the radar for a while, not that I immediately need a solution but this is likely in the future.
Kalerne
I have a Soundcraft Signature 12.
Something is really upsetting me is when I turn it off, after a few seconds, it sends to the loudspeakers a short and ugly noise. I looks like it comes from the onboard fx because at the same time the leds of the fx turn on. And actually those fx are quite crappy.
Otherwise I enjoy it, but still not sure if I prefer it to my old mackie 1402...
othermonkey
my friend has the Signature 22 MTK... seems to work fine, no issues so far.
JosefK
Does anyone have the 22mtk yet? What are your thoughts impressions. How is the multitrack recording working out for you?
Chromex
Seems to work , which is nice to have separate instruments on separate audio tracks without several expensive interfaces chained together but the documentation is poor ( they have a step by step for Logic which uses Logic nine and tells you to go to places that do not exist in Logic 10 or exist in different spots. More step by step is needed. Its early but I recorded some stuff last night and it worked.. have not tried the effects... more in a few weeks..
h4ndcrafted
Very tempted by these, wish there were more thunderbolt options available on mixers confused
JosefK
did you feel the signal level into Ableton or your DAW was very low. And you had to significatly boost the gain in order to get a usable level?
mousegarden
Kalerne wrote:
I have a Soundcraft Signature 12.
Something is really upsetting me is when I turn it off, after a few seconds, it sends to the loudspeakers a short and ugly noise. I looks like it comes from the onboard fx because at the same time the leds of the fx turn on. And actually those fx are quite crappy.
Otherwise I enjoy it, but still not sure if I prefer it to my old mackie 1402...


Mackie are still the default leaders in cheap small mixers, as far as audio quality is concerned, in my book anyway. Soundcraft lost the plot ages ago, I've tried, and owned a few of their mixers in the last few years, they have a sound similar to Behringer mixers, harsh, metallic, not good, may be OK for sub-mixing duties, but nothing more than that.
I'm just being honest here, if you want a good small format mixer, with great mic pre's, and a good no nonsense sound, you still can't beat Mackie.
peripatitis
Mackie are ok, but they are not allen heath, and indeed soundcraft stand a lot lower from these two (not that mackie or allen heath are mixers to write home about)
GovernorSilver
The new Allen & Heath ZED mixers look promising for my modest needs.

Except... only one send bus.
autopoiesis
Kalerne wrote:
And actually those fx are quite crappy.
Otherwise I enjoy it, but still not sure if I prefer it to my old mackie 1402...


Just curious, what are you comparing the FX to that led you to the opinion that they're crappy? And how would you say the preamps compare to the ones on your Mackie?
Kotteri
The price differential between the signature and the MTK is only $100! the multitrack functionality then must be an afterthought.
mousegarden
The routing flexibility and general facilities like aux send's etc on Mackie mixers beats the competition hands down, if that wasn't enough, they then still manage to deliver a good sound quality with no obvious issues. Allen and Heath are good, but lack facilities, Behringer have good facilities, but sound bad, Soundcraft have neither. It's a shame, because years ago I owned a Spirit Studio, and a RacPac, and they sounded superb, it's only lately that Soundcraft have begun to cut the cloth too thin.
Neo
Some other options for multitrack recording capable mixers...

Allen & Heath MixWizard WZ4 14:4:2
6 auxes, 4 subs, nice eq, 100mm faders and yes it has channel inserts
also has eq defeat
$1000

Mackie Onyx 1640i
6 auxes, 4 subs, a few more channels than the mixwizard
$800

Allen & Heath GS-R24
Has everything. Awesome but expensive
$9000
AdamJay
Careful on the Onyx.
Mackie has abandoned support past Windows 8 and OS X 10.8
http://mackie.com/live/onyx-driver-compatibility


Also, add $299 for the A&H WZ4s for the "optional" multi-channel USB 2 interface card
Zube
I don't mind Mackie products, they generally sound good. I prefer Soundcraft EQ and faders though. I went through all this the last few months. Tried a bunch of different things and I disliked both the newer Mackies and Soundcraft. I bought an older used Soundcraft and kept my current I/O. Unless you're getting into the deep nitty gritty of cabling quality and length, the differences are not that big and come down to personal preference. For my workflow I like to have the mixer separate from the io (so if a job requires 4 channels or less I am not required to bring a big board onsite)

I didn't notice much of a difference between them besides the EQ and onboard FX. I didn't notice much difference between the pres, There is something about older Mackie EQs that just sound poor to me. Just my preference. Mackie FX onboard though was much better sounding. Both are way better than anything Behringer makes. I stay far away from anything Mackie make that connects to a computer, or has motorized anything,though. There's a long history of non support and I wouldn't rely on one as a long term (5 year+) solution.
continuum
As a counterpoint, I have had a Soundcraft GB2R for a few years and it is very clean and quiet with far more features than any Mackie at the same price point. The closest competitor is the A&H 14:4:2 for hundreds more, and I've had a few of those, and would put them on equal level.
placidhouse
continuum wrote:
As a counterpoint, I have had a Soundcraft GB2R for a few years and it is very clean and quiet with far more features than any Mackie at the same price point. The closest competitor is the A&H 14:4:2 for hundreds more, and I've had a few of those, and would put them on equal level.


oh man, glad you sounded off. i absolutely love my gb2r. was a massive step up from the mackie i was using.
adolfgottmann
So, has anyone had the opportunity to check audio quality on a Soundcraft Signature MTK? Is it harsh and metallic as someone suggested?
Right now I'm trying to choose between a 12MTK or a Mackie Onyx 1220i .
To be honest my heart goes with the Mackie (soundwise, sure, but I like the look and size way better), but the lack of support scares me.
So, the obvious choice would be Soundcraft, but never tried one and I hear many saying that might not be warm or even transparent.. I'm stuck...help a guy out, will you? seriously, i just don't get it
Scot Solida
I've only done one proper mix wit hmy 22 MTK, as discussed in two other threads. I didn't find it to be harsh or metallic. It doesn't sound like a high end board, but neither does it sound bad to me. hmmm.....
autopoiesis
I have a SoundCraft 12MTK and was formerly using an A&H ZED 12FX. The preamps and EQ sound comparable to the ZED's, but I'm not an audiophile who can make extremely fine-grained subjective distinctions of warmth. I definitely have no sense of a metallic timbre imparted to any sound routed through it.

I think it's a really fantastic board for multi-tracking while having faders and EQs and pretty useable FX all at hand. Some of the pots feel a little wobbly to me and it's only there that I see the bargain cost of the product on display -- in all other regards it punches well above its $ class.
adolfgottmann
Thanks, really helpful!
mistershifter
I have a Soundcraft 12 MTK arriving tomorrow. I use Ableton Live, and I've been using a Focusrite Scarlett USB audio interface up until this point. I have a couple of questions that are really stressing me out, as I'm having trouble figuring it out on my own.

Should I completely remove my Focusrite USB audio interface from the setup now that I have the Soundcraft MTK 12? I'm currently running my powered studio monitors out of the monitor outs on the Focusrite Scarlett, and it's been very convenient in terms of controlling headphone and studio monitor levels for Ableton, and just my general computer audio from OS X (YouTube, iTunes, etc).

If having the Soundcraft 12 MTK makes keeping the Focusrite interface unnecessary, what is the optimal way of hooking up my studio monitors to the Soundcraft mixer to I can monitor my Ableton projects, and also hear my computer audio?
mousegarden
One positive thing about owning a Soundcraft is that you'll immediately have a much nicer EQ than any Mackie owner!

hihi
GovernorSilver
I'd been wondering how well these work with iPads. Apparently well enough to work with Auria:

http://auriaapp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13011

I'd been pondering how to eventually integrate my Octatrack, Cocolase, Moisturizer and string instruments into a mixer-based setup - with iPad FX and synths on top of all that. I could keep my humble Mackie with its single aux bus, and go with junction/splitter pedal and effects loop pedals.

Or I could get something like the Signature MTK 12 with 3 aux busses - put the OT on one, the Cocolase on the 2nd, and the Moisturizer on the 3rd, and not have a bunch of signal routing pedals to set up before every rehearsal/gig.
mousegarden
GovernorSilver wrote:
I'd been wondering how well these work with iPads. Apparently well enough to work with Auria:

http://auriaapp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13011

I'd been pondering how to eventually integrate my Octatrack, Cocolase, Moisturizer and string instruments into a mixer-based setup - with iPad FX and synths on top of all that. I could keep my humble Mackie with its single aux bus, and go with junction/splitter pedal and effects loop pedals.

Or I could get something like the Signature MTK 12 with 3 aux busses - put the OT on one, the Cocolase on the 2nd, and the Moisturizer on the 3rd, and not have a bunch of signal routing pedals to set up before every rehearsal/gig.


How do you get on with recording on the I pad? The thing that always puts me off is getting music off it.
GovernorSilver
mousegarden wrote:
GovernorSilver wrote:
I'd been wondering how well these work with iPads. Apparently well enough to work with Auria:

http://auriaapp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13011

I'd been pondering how to eventually integrate my Octatrack, Cocolase, Moisturizer and string instruments into a mixer-based setup - with iPad FX and synths on top of all that. I could keep my humble Mackie with its single aux bus, and go with junction/splitter pedal and effects loop pedals.

Or I could get something like the Signature MTK 12 with 3 aux busses - put the OT on one, the Cocolase on the 2nd, and the Moisturizer on the 3rd, and not have a bunch of signal routing pedals to set up before every rehearsal/gig.


How do you get on with recording on the I pad? The thing that always puts me off is getting music off it.


Most of my iPad recordings were the result of trying out stuff using Audiobus for inter-app audio routing, with Audioshare in the recording slot - just ideas that I liked and wanted to save for later.

I do have a couple of recordings using Cubasis, which works more like a desktop DAW. Love using finger touch to work the transport controls, faders, etc. - always disliked being forced to use a mouse w/ desktop DAWs. Roland Duo Capture EX was used as the audio interface.

Regarding the Soundcraft MTK, my interest is really more with integrating IOS synths and FX apps with my hardware for live shows. Apps that I like include Animoog, iSEM, iDensity. Also getting more into Audulus 3.
mousegarden
GovernorSilver wrote:
mousegarden wrote:
GovernorSilver wrote:
I'd been wondering how well these work with iPads. Apparently well enough to work with Auria:

http://auriaapp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13011

I'd been pondering how to eventually integrate my Octatrack, Cocolase, Moisturizer and string instruments into a mixer-based setup - with iPad FX and synths on top of all that. I could keep my humble Mackie with its single aux bus, and go with junction/splitter pedal and effects loop pedals.

Or I could get something like the Signature MTK 12 with 3 aux busses - put the OT on one, the Cocolase on the 2nd, and the Moisturizer on the 3rd, and not have a bunch of signal routing pedals to set up before every rehearsal/gig.


How do you get on with recording on the I pad? The thing that always puts me off is getting music off it.


Most of my iPad recordings were the result of trying out stuff using Audiobus for inter-app audio routing, with Audioshare in the recording slot - just ideas that I liked and wanted to save for later.

I do have a couple of recordings using Cubasis, which works more like a desktop DAW. Love using finger touch to work the transport controls, faders, etc. - always disliked being forced to use a mouse w/ desktop DAWs. Roland Duo Capture EX was used as the audio interface.

Regarding the Soundcraft MTK, my interest is really more with integrating IOS synths and FX apps with my hardware for live shows. Apps that I like include Animoog, iSEM, iDensity. Also getting more into Audulus 3.


Thanks, I'm also looking for a good compatible two channel interface for my pad. Have you checked out Thumb Jam, that's amazing, also TC-11.

thumbs up
GovernorSilver
ThumbJam is great. Still one of the best UI . The dev always seems to be on top of things. His DrumJam app is also good. TC-11 is also great.

There are some great effects apps as well - anything by Amazing Noises and Apesoft for example.

My current interface for iPad is a Roland Duo Capture EX - 2 audio channels, and MIDI I/O - so yes I use it as a MIDI interface too. It's stable and does what I expect it to do. However, to integrate iPad effects app with my hardware, I have to plug the Roland into my mixer's one aux send bus.

For example, if I want to run my Monologue through Gliderverb or iDensity and Cocolase (hardware sampling delay) at the same time, I'd need a splitter/junction box and a mess of cables - because mixer has only one Aux Send. The money I'd spend on the junction box, effects loop switchers, etc. would almost pay for a Soundcraft 12 MTK, which in theory should give me up to 12 channels of USB audio to the iPad. Of course if I use all 12, I'd have no analog channels available - but that's a fair design compromise.
mikmanner
Got the Signature 12 yesterday, plugged it in and set Cubase up and have realized that all the inputs via USB come in Pre-channel strip and fader, meaning panning, EQ, volume etc has no effect on the incoming recording. Is this a standard way of doing things? I was hoping to record multi-tracked performances for editing later.

I guess I can just take the master stereo out and record that as well as the multi-tracked inputs and edit between them all...
Sir Ruff
mikmanner wrote:
Got the Signature 12 yesterday, plugged it in and set Cubase up and have realized that all the inputs via USB come in Pre-channel strip and fader, meaning panning, EQ, volume etc has no effect on the incoming recording. Is this a standard way of doing things? I was hoping to record multi-tracked performances for editing later.


Can I ask what version of Cubase see you're using? Just got the MTK 22--Cubase 5 recognizes it, but I'm currently only able to access the first two channels; all remaining channels are set as "inactive" in the device panel. Not sure how to resolve.

(I with also surprised to see that it records everything pre EQ--not ideal.)
mikmanner
I'm using Cubase Pro 9.5 in the 'audio connections' panel you can add more audio channels. Confusingly called 'VST Connections' in Nuendo 7 or earlier version of Cubase Pro - it might be called something else in Cubase 5. In the 'connections' window you just click 'add bus' and create a bunch of mono / stereo busses and assign the port to the Signature. Channel 13 and 14 is a master stereo mix post-fader / strip but I can't seem to get that to make a sound yet.

I've gone too long without really understanding mixer basics, working as a sound designer for 8 years haha. Only figured out MIDI Thru the other week when I got a Digitakt.

Sir Ruff wrote:
mikmanner wrote:
Got the Signature 12 yesterday, plugged it in and set Cubase up and have realized that all the inputs via USB come in Pre-channel strip and fader, meaning panning, EQ, volume etc has no effect on the incoming recording. Is this a standard way of doing things? I was hoping to record multi-tracked performances for editing later.


Can I ask what version of Cubase see you're using? Just got the MTK 22--Cubase 5 recognizes it, but I'm currently only able to access the first two channels; all remaining channels are set as "inactive" in the device panel. Not sure how to resolve.

(I with also surprised to see that it records everything pre EQ--not ideal.)
GovernorSilver
mikmanner wrote:
Got the Signature 12 yesterday, plugged it in and set Cubase up and have realized that all the inputs via USB come in Pre-channel strip and fader, meaning panning, EQ, volume etc has no effect on the incoming recording. Is this a standard way of doing things? I was hoping to record multi-tracked performances for editing later.


When I first heard of the 12MTK model, I do recall some people saying pre-fader USB audio would be a nonstarter for them.

I'm so used to running the main outs of my Mackie into my audio interface, though that it wouldn't bother me. I'm also used to just managing panning and stuff like that within the DAW.
mikmanner
Yeah, I should just get a midi controller to handle panning and leveling and a soundcard with lots of inputs, I was hoping this could do both. However, there's probably a benefit to recording a performance master out and also having the multitracked raw recordings to work from when re-arranging after recording.

GovernorSilver wrote:
mikmanner wrote:
Got the Signature 12 yesterday, plugged it in and set Cubase up and have realized that all the inputs via USB come in Pre-channel strip and fader, meaning panning, EQ, volume etc has no effect on the incoming recording. Is this a standard way of doing things? I was hoping to record multi-tracked performances for editing later.


When I first heard of the 12MTK model, I do recall some people saying pre-fader USB audio would be a nonstarter for them.

I'm so used to running the main outs of my Mackie into my audio interface, though that it wouldn't bother me. I'm also used to just managing panning and stuff like that within the DAW.
Sir Ruff
mikmanner wrote:
I'm using Cubase Pro 9.5 in the 'audio connections' panel you can add more audio channels. Confusingly called 'VST Connections' in Nuendo 7 or earlier version of Cubase Pro - it might be called something else in Cubase 5. In the 'connections' window you just click 'add bus' and create a bunch of mono / stereo busses and assign the port to the Signature. Channel 13 and 14 is a master stereo mix post-fader / strip but I can't seem to get that to make a sound yet.


Awesome, that did the trick! (VST Connections is same in 5.) It wasn't initially clear that they were "there" waiting to be assigned. Next challenge will be getting that 13/14 mixdown channel to work--lemme know if you manage any success there; I will do the same.

GovernorSilver wrote:
When I first heard of the 12MTK model, I do recall some people saying pre-fader USB audio would be a nonstarter for them.

I'm so used to running the main outs of my Mackie into my audio interface, though that it wouldn't bother me. I'm also used to just managing panning and stuff like that within the DAW.


Was doing the same here. And I often printed stuff with a bit of EQ-ing as well as hardware effects sends straight to the DAW... So this is going to be interesting trying to find an alternate routing setup.

It's kind of a plus/minus situ--great if you want full hardware control of EQ/effects on playback, but bad if you want to print and forget. Also, since there are no effects returns, I'm kind of perplexed why they give you so many Aux sends! Especially given that you can't record anything post Gain. hmmm..... I guess the compromise will be having to dedicate some of the mixer channels to the effects returns, or continue to use my Mackie as a sub-mixer.
GovernorSilver
mikmanner wrote:


I've gone too long without really understanding mixer basics, working as a sound designer for 8 years haha. Only figured out MIDI Thru the other week when I got a Digitakt.


I actually learned how to use the aux send on my Mackie mixer just two years ago. I was whining to my friend about some of my struggles getting around this mixer and he gave me a little workshop on how to use it.

Before I got the Mackie, I was recording with a MOTU 828 MkII, which is still my only option at the moment if I want to record more than 2 tracks simultaneously. But because it's a Firewire device, I can't really use it with my iPad, whereas the Soundcraft is a usable option.

KMI's K-Mix is the other mixer in that price range that offers more than 2 simultaneous USB input channels, but I have yet to overcome my irrational fear of not having physical knobs/faders to quickly adjust master volume.
mousegarden
I finally got a Soundcraft EFX12, the EQ is really good, so are the effects.
The only thing that put me off the Signature series was that logo of the Union Jack, I know it's silly, but honestly, it would annoy me big-time, like, they're over-egging the pudding.
mikmanner
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can help me with an issue I'm having with the Signature 12 MTK.

While I can get an audio input from the mixer into a DAW - Windows does not pick anything up, so I've set my 'default recording device' to Mic/Line In 09/10, I have a microphone plugged into the channel. Phantom power is on and gain is up. In my DAW, I can record and mointor the channel no issue, but as a windows recording device (so I can use the microphone on Skype for example) I'm not getting any signal at all. Any ideas?

Cheers
mousegarden
mikmanner wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can help me with an issue I'm having with the Signature 12 MTK.

While I can get an audio input from the mixer into a DAW - Windows does not pick anything up, so I've set my 'default recording device' to Mic/Line In 09/10, I have a microphone plugged into the channel. Phantom power is on and gain is up. In my DAW, I can record and mointor the channel no issue, but as a windows recording device (so I can use the microphone on Skype for example) I'm not getting any signal at all. Any ideas?

Cheers


I think, you need to go into Windows, sounds, preferences, and select the MTK as a new input, you've done that in your DAW obviously, but your need to tell Windows what to do with its own sounds, devices.
mikmanner
mousegarden wrote:
mikmanner wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can help me with an issue I'm having with the Signature 12 MTK.

While I can get an audio input from the mixer into a DAW - Windows does not pick anything up, so I've set my 'default recording device' to Mic/Line In 09/10, I have a microphone plugged into the channel. Phantom power is on and gain is up. In my DAW, I can record and mointor the channel no issue, but as a windows recording device (so I can use the microphone on Skype for example) I'm not getting any signal at all. Any ideas?

Cheers


I think, you need to go into Windows, sounds, preferences, and select the MTK as a new input, you've done that in your DAW obviously, but your heed to tell Windows what to do with its own sounds, devices.


Hmm, yeah I've done that it's set as default device in sound preferences, both playback and recording device, just no signal coming through at all.
Sir Ruff
Can you make channel 23/24 the default input? That's the hidden stereo output from the mixer.
mousegarden
Is there a setting in Skype to select devices?
mikmanner
mousegarden wrote:
Is there a setting in Skype to select devices?


There is on Discord and I've set the right channel but still nothing coming through...
mousegarden
Sorry, but I'm as baffled as you are, being a new Windows 10 user myself meh
TXBDan
I picked up a Signature 10 a couple weeks ago and have been using it pretty much every day since. I'm running a few voices into it, iPad into it via USB, and have two external effects on two of the Aux loops. I'm using headphones and main outs to my stereo.

Overall its quite great. I like:
-having three aux sends
-fader feel
-USB interface is plugnplay on iOS and works/sounds good
-Having effects which sound pretty good, just not very tweakable or deep
-Lots of PFL/AFL spots

Annoyances:
-Only XLR outs (wish it had 1/4"s as well)
-No inserts
-No direct outs
-No FX return or extra stereo returns. stereo Aux returns are eating up my channels.
-No power switch
mousegarden
I've given up on mixers, none of these cheap modern things sound any good to me. I've tried them, and they all sound like a cheap Behringer, it's a generic horrible thin hard sound.
Except for MACKIE. They are still the only budget mixer that doesn't have this horrible sound, they are built better than the competition, and they sound better, not just different, but better.
Yamaha, Soundcraft, Behringer, A&H etc, no good, as I always end up getting my Mackie out of the basement if a mixer is needed. But now I'm going straight into my interface, I can't be bothered with mixers anymore, as I can use my interface "stand alone" and mixers always have tons of stuff I never use.
mykelmoss
mousegarden wrote:
I've given up on mixers, none of these cheap modern things sound any good to me. I've tried them, and they all sound like a cheap Behringer, it's a generic horrible thin hard sound.
Except for MACKIE. They are still the only budget mixer that doesn't have this horrible sound, they are built better than the competition, and they sound better, not just different, but better.
Yamaha, Soundcraft, Behringer, A&H etc, no good, as I always end up getting my Mackie out of the basement if a mixer is needed. But now I'm going straight into my interface, I can't be bothered with mixers anymore, as I can use my interface "stand alone" and mixers always have tons of stuff I never use.


As someone that is now in the market for a high quality mixer--what Mackie mixer do you feel would be the "best bang for the buck?"
mousegarden
mykelmoss wrote:
mousegarden wrote:
I've given up on mixers, none of these cheap modern things sound any good to me. I've tried them, and they all sound like a cheap Behringer, it's a generic horrible thin hard sound.
Except for MACKIE. They are still the only budget mixer that doesn't have this horrible sound, they are built better than the competition, and they sound better, not just different, but better.
Yamaha, Soundcraft, Behringer, A&H etc, no good, as I always end up getting my Mackie out of the basement if a mixer is needed. But now I'm going straight into my interface, I can't be bothered with mixers anymore, as I can use my interface "stand alone" and mixers always have tons of stuff I never use.


As someone that is now in the market for a high quality mixer--what Mackie mixer do you feel would be the "best bang for the buck?"


It has to be the VLZ4 series, the mic amps are very good on these, and something like a 16-4-2 VLZ4 is one of the most feature packed small mixers on the market at this "quallity point" Sure, an equivelant Behringer is the same regarding IO, but it doesn't have that Mackie quallity in any way whatsoever. They don't have effects, or USB fandango's, they are just good sounding, solid mixers.
mykelmoss
@mousegarden I found a solid deal available for a 1402 VLZ4 so I may have to go with that. Ive heard the high ends can be a bit shiny, but until I can afford more outboard pre-amps and what not....I'll take my chances fiddling with the Mackie.
bhinton
Weird. I slightly prefer the sound of my Signature 22MTK to my old Mackie, but it wasn't a VLZ. I was pleasantly surprised since the SC supposedly isn't built for recording.
The one exception is that the Mackie was a little quieter.
The Mackie was SO dust sensitive too. I bot the SCused (and it's a little beat up) but the pots and faders are quiet so far (knock on particle board).
dubonaire
bhinton wrote:
...since the SC supposedly isn't built for recording.


Where did you get that idea from? Of course it's built for recording.
mousegarden
mykelmoss wrote:
@mousegarden I found a solid deal available for a 1402 VLZ4 so I may have to go with that. Ive heard the high ends can be a bit shiny, but until I can afford more outboard pre-amps and what not....I'll take my chances fiddling with the Mackie.


I don't find any bumps or dips in the sound of my Mackie, it should just sound nice and full, I'm sensitive to high end problems, I hear them all the time on other cheap mixers, but not on this one. The preamps on the 1402 are amazing for the money, you've basically got four boutique mic amps, that makes the price worth it for those alone, the rest comes as a bonus! Unless you're going to spend a couple of grand on some high end stuff, these take some beating.
It is funny how we loose sight of how things should be, as I say, Mackie stick out as the best small budget mixers, we think they sound good, but, on the whole, standards have fallen greatly, listen to a few things that were considered "budget" or mid price from the 70's/80's and they sound incredible compared to stuff today, my old Studiomaster for instance, and you can pick them up for sod all these days.
bhinton
re built for recording - the marketing I saw for it before buying positioned it as a solution for live mixing and recording as opposed to studio, but my memory is fuzzy on whether that messaging was from SC or someone else so I could be wrong.
dubonaire
bhinton wrote:
re built for recording - the marketing I saw for it before buying positioned it as a solution for live mixing and recording as opposed to studio, but my memory is fuzzy on whether that messaging was from SC or someone else so I could be wrong.


It's designed as a multi-track (MTK version) and master recorder, live or studio.
mousegarden
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.
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  
Page 1 of 4
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group