Mackie 1604 for monitoring (only)

[basslik]

OK here's the concept, I recently setup up my Mackie for monitoring only, track drums with 8 direct outs from the Mackie to the 8 inputs on the 003, meanwhile everyone is playing through the Mackie and loving the live verb sound I have going through sub outs 1+2 into my ensoniq ASR10 effects and returning into 2 open channels 15+16, I feed just the right amount of verb for everyone except of course the kic, bass. There is no latency this way since there is no monitoring from the 003, the few bands I recently recorded using this method say it gives them inspiration hearing the cool right amount verb. Then after drums are tracked then I will track everyone else. Is this good way to work without dealing with latency? thank you guys

[Darney]

Originally Posted by basslik

OK here's the concept, I recently setup up my Mackie for monitoring only, track drums with 8 direct outs from the Mackie to the 8 inputs on the 003, meanwhile everyone is playing through the Mackie and loving the live verb sound I have going through sub outs 1+2 into my ensoniq ASR10 effects and returning into 2 open channels 15+16, I feed just the right amount of verb for everyone except of course the kic, bass. There is no latency this way since there is no monitoring from the 003, the few bands I recently recorded using this method say it gives them inspiration hearing the cool right amount verb. Then after drums are tracked then I will track everyone else. Is this good way to work without dealing with latency? thank you guys

That's how I've been doing it for years. I don't use a Mackie, but have a 32 input mixer with direct outs on every channel which go to the 002 and the ADAT interface. I have 6 aux outs which I use for headphone mixes.
During overdubs, I take outputs from the 002 into the mixer, route them through the aux outs (low latency mode in PT) and voila! A very straight-forward and flexible cue/monitor system.
This also gives me some pretty good EQ on the in's, insert points for external comp/limiters/efx on every channel. I use the internal digital EFX routed to the auxes for adding 'verb to the vocals during recording (singers love it).

And, I have REAL knobs to play with during the tracking. Mixdown is strictly in the box, but I could use the mixer if I wasn't so lazy.

-Your results may vary-

[tribedescribe]

For years I used a Mackie vzl 1604 to track "live" bands with my m-audio 1814. It worked great because the set up is simple and give you enough tracks to mix for monitoring. You should try sending at least 4 of your mic's directly to the 003 and enable low latency monitoring and feed the outs back to the 1604. The 003 preamp's will sound much better than Mackie's(unless its the onyx series). For years I was also afraid of latency, thinking my Mackie set up was much better for latency. I was dead wrong. At a buffer of 128 you will not notice a difference. I record with berklee drummers, prof. jazz drummers and classical musicians. These guys have unbelievable timing and 128 does not bother them a bit. Now 256 it's a different story!

When I made the switch to adding a ADAT device (for extra preamp's) to my 1814 I heard a big difference in quality and stopped using the 1604. If it works for you than stick with it, but if you want better quality you may want to try an adat device. I am not saying you cannot make good recording with the 1604, you just might want to compare the two like I did.

scott

[basslik]

Originally Posted by tribedescribe

For years I used a Mackie vzl 1604 to track "live" bands with my m-audio 1814. It worked great because the set up is simple and give you enough tracks to mix for monitoring. You should try sending at least 4 of your mic's directly to the 003 and enable low latency monitoring and feed the outs back to the 1604. The 003 preamp's will sound much better than Mackie's(unless its the onyx series). For years I was also afraid of latency, thinking my Mackie set up was much better for latency. I was dead wrong. At a buffer of 128 you will not notice a difference. I record with berklee drummers, prof. jazz drummers and classical musicians. These guys have unbelievable timing and 128 does not bother them a bit. Now 256 it's a different story!

When I made the switch to adding a ADAT device (for extra preamp's) to my 1814 I heard a big difference in quality and stopped using the 1604. If it works for you than stick with it, but if you want better quality you may want to try an adat device. I am not saying you cannot make good recording with the 1604, you just might want to compare the two like I did.

scott

Man at least I'm not insane!, the concept is there,and I'm going to try it.

[SKI]

Originally Posted by tribedescribe

For years I used a Mackie vzl 1604 to track "live" bands with my m-audio 1814. It worked great because the set up is simple and give you enough tracks to mix for monitoring. You should try sending at least 4 of your mic's directly to the 003 and enable low latency monitoring and feed the outs back to the 1604. The 003 preamp's will sound much better than Mackie's(unless its the onyx series). For years I was also afraid of latency, thinking my Mackie set up was much better for latency. I was dead wrong. At a buffer of 128 you will not notice a difference. I record with berklee drummers, prof. jazz drummers and classical musicians. These guys have unbelievable timing and 128 does not bother them a bit. Now 256 it's a different story!

When I made the switch to adding a ADAT device (for extra preamp's) to my 1814 I heard a big difference in quality and stopped using the 1604. If it works for you than stick with it, but if you want better quality you may want to try an adat device. I am not saying you cannot make good recording with the 1604, you just might want to compare the two like I did.

scott

Originally Posted by basslik

Man at least I'm not insane!, the concept is there and I', going to try it.

Don't forget if your computer is strong enough you also have a 64 and 32 buffer setting that you can use.

[Bender]

Many people have been doing this for years with boards. Just remember if the mixing board you choose is at least as good as your PT interface. Otherwise you might not be getting the best signal chain you can.

[Bob Olhsson]

Beware that Mackie 1604 direct outputs are corrupted with DC.

[basslik]

Originally Posted by Bender

Many people have been doing this for years with boards. Just remember if the mixing board you choose is at least as good as your PT interface. Otherwise you might not be getting the best signal chain you can.

Thank you all so much, I really though I wasn't doing it right from the get go since a few post were stating to scrap the mixer and get a external adat pre?

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Beware that Mackie 1604 direct outputs are corrupted with DC.

Bob can you shed more light regarding the corrupted DC, thanks

[Bob Olhsson]

A DC volt meter tells the tale...

[basslik]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

A DC volt meter tells the tale...

Bob enlighten me bud!, is there an article or something that I can read?

Your basically talking riddles bro.