I have a couple of 1073 style preamps which I want to run my analog drum machine and synths through. They all output at line level so my radial Stereo DI does the trick just fine.

I only have two preamps and constantly changing cables and patching in any of my analog Synths is somewhat laborious when trying to write music. I need the process to be faster.

I'm wondering if it's fine to buy a small 8 channel mixer and connect all my synths to that, then take the outputs of that mixer into my DI, back into my preamps. This way I can leave everything patched in and just mute/unmute the channels I want to record. Hell I could even plug my stereo compressor and reverb into this mixer for a little extra processing and use AUX sends so each synth can easily get compressed and reversed before hitting the preamps.

My question is simply, can you run a DI after a mixer and is this the right method for achieving this? Are there any impedance issues or should it be fine?

Also open to other suggestions about setting up a faster workplace...

Many thanks

bump

Yes a small mixer would suit your set up. You would have no need to DI out of a mixer though as the mixer should already have the output levels you need for anything it's going into. You would DI into the mixer for anything not at line level. How to make the best use of your 1073's I don't know as have never used pre's external to my console.

A mixer can make dealing with a bunch of devices that you use one or two at a time easier by being able to leave everything plugged in rather than doing a lot of patching of cables every time you want to use another device.

Keyboards generally don't even need a DI as they put out a pretty good level and have low to very low output impedances unlike passive guitar pickups that are very weak and have output impedances that are very high and are loaded down (resulting in loss of high frequencies and smoothing of transients when connected to something other than a DI or instrument input with an impedance of 60k -2meg.

However some people do use DI boxes with keyboards and if you were doing that and now you are going into a line input instead there may be slight differences in sound depending on the particular keyboard involved that you might or might not hear or care about.

Also if you play more than one keyboard simultaneously you will need to either run mono (one left and one right so you can have them on seperate tracks or make use of aux outs to be able to have seperate keyboards both in stereo going to four seperate record tracks.

You mentioned using aux send and return on mixer for compression. Keep in mind that if you run standard main outs on the mixer to your recording that the aux only part of the signal is added to the original channel. This is fine with reverb like effects where you want a mix of original signal and effected signal but with compression you usually want at a 100% unless you want parallel compression (sometimes called New York compression) which is exactly that... a mix of dry uncompressed and compressed signal. Large full featured mixers will let you deselect a channel from the mains which would then allow you to use an aux for 100% compression but few small mixers allow you to do this which would mean some different routing would be needed.

So if you haven't been totally confused or possibly bored to tears by all this I have written I will now give you the answer to your original question... No you don't need a DI between the mixer and your interface or whatever. 99.99% of mixers are going to have a low enough output impedance and a strong enough output to drive a line level input, totally unnecessary and can even be a negative depending what exactly you are you are connecting to.

Basic understanding of impedance and signal levels is a really useful skill in connecting gear up.

Sounds like you need a patch bay to me.

If you add a mixer to the chain, its going to bottleneck the signal with whatever fidelity losses it produces.
You'll then be using three preamps in series, the mixer, the 1073, and the interface preamps before it gets digitized.

If your problem is a lack of inputs running multiple pieces of gear, don't waste money on a mixer. Its completely redundant and can only add hiss and noise to the signal chain. (and any frequency losses) if you use a patch bay it will minimize your cable swapping issues. Wire all your gear to the back of the patch bay then use jumpers in front to swap your inputs and outputs. So lone as things are properly labeled its a no brainer and can be done using 1 hand.

I wouldn't spend any more then needed for a patch bay either. A low cost Behringer or Samson use the exact same jacks as your higer end patch bays with the exception of some custom made pro stuff that use vintage metal type telephone jacks.

The other thing to think about is investing in an interface that has more inputs. If you have 4 stereo keyboards, an 8 channel interface will allow you to keep the gear connected with no need to swap wires. You can actually swap keyboards or play more then one at a time during s single session and have them all come out on separate stereo tracks. Like many I started off using a windows sound card them moved to using a pro card then a 4/8/16/24 track card. I haven't had to swap cables in the studio is years. The most I may do is insert a piece of gear in the front end and that's simply a matter of moving a couple of jumpers on the patch bay.

In short you pay for convenience. A mixer is not nessasary at all. Even if you have hardware you want to run I'd still suggest a multi channel interface and patch bay. Something like the Tascam 16x08 allows you to record 16 channels at once, 8 mic inputs and 8 TRS line inputs You could run preamps into those TRS or keyboards, or loop any effects you want in and out and set up aux busses in the DAW itself which loop the channels through hardware effects. You used to need a hardware mixer recording to tape. It was an essential piece of gear for reamplifying and mixing. Recording digital, its a redundant piece of gear.

Back when I first switched to recording gear I thought the best method would be to use my mixer the same way as I did recording to tape. The Soundcraftsman mixer I used back then wasn't bad either. I got some amazing analog recordings using it. Within a week I was making audio comparisons recording with and without the mixer and there was no doubt, the fidelity was higher quality with a much lower noise floor recording direct without all that additional hardware.

In short the shortest path is the truest. Anything you put in series will bottleneck the signals and bring it down to the lowest quality components. If the quality of the gear is better then what you have in the interface, (like those 1073 preamps might be) then the gear may be transparent and only add whatever ambient noise and distortion every piece of gear adds.

Of course there are no rules on using gear to color the sound with its quality if you want. If I had a unique console that does amazing things, there is no doubt I'd find a way to incorporate that into my signal chain. There aren't many budget mixers which will substitute doing that job, especially PA mixers. PA mixers are designed to make mics loud and EQ's are chosen to minimize feedback in a live venue. Most are complete garbage for recording purposes.

If you wanted to combine a mixer and digital, your best solutions are a digital mixer. Presonus, Zoom Rolland, Tascam, Peavey and others make some excellent units. I've hears some live recording made on them which knocked my socks off. I'd have a hard time matching what I heard using state of the art analog. The nice part is they double as a recording or live mixer so its one less piece of gear you need to buy. Its also perfectly suited for both jobs. The quality of the sound effects in some of them is excellent too. Of course the price tag is what hurts but they are coming down all the time. What cost $2500 a few years ago is only $600 today so you need to keep that in perspective.

Some time soon I wouldn't mind selling off all my Passive PA gear. Cabs, Power amps, Rack effects, Mixers etc and buy a digital mixer and a good set of powered speakers. Life would be so much easier playing live without needing an entire road crew to haul and do setups. Best part I can record live or studio.

I use a mixer with my synths because I like to perform with it, pre-mix, add effects, etc., but if you just want to capture everything as-is, a patchbay is a lot cheaper.

What preamps are they?

Sound Skulptor MP573 and GAP 73mkii

I'm leaning more towards using a mixer and just taking the line outs direct to my interface. Might be beneficial to not have every sound run through the same 1073 style pre's.

A mixer seems like the best result, particularly with my drum machines along side my synths. I can easily record any of them with out needing to repatch them.

In case any one else reads this thread, I'm thinking a mixer with 4 sub groups (or two stereo) will be a good solution (in conjunction with either the master out and/or AUX sends 3 and 4. That way I can route what ever I want to record super fast with no repatching. Easily mute and unmute different synths or drums.

if you're going to get a mixer, you don't need a di for level matching: you can either turn aux/bus/main outputs down to match max. input levels of your preamps or use fixed-level attenuators (which would also allow for preamps to be used on inserts of the main bus)...

just make sure that the max. output before clipping of the desk isn't any higher than max. input before clipping of the preamps!

I would use a DI, for cleaning up the signal and getting it ready for the preamp. Especially if the mixer is cheap, as you would be amplifying the noise floor 30-40db. Your plan sounds good, but perhaps a patchbay makes more sense.

I just built a MP573 and I am glad I did.

I use something like that while I´m practicing. I don´t need to insert a DI between my console output and the preamps, because there is not impedance problems. BUT sometimes I insert there a stereo Telefunken DI, because the Tele box have two canhill transformers wich add some kind of color(roundy vintage) to the signal. I can use there a 51xaudio haufe transformer color box too, but as I said I do that only for colored the signal. So I can go from my basses to my mixer, from the mixer main out to my Amek(neve) preamps. OR I can insert the preamps in the main output insert. No impedance problems there in both cases. But that´s only my oppinion, and as everybody knows I just know that I don't know anything, and because somebody told me... Have a wonderful day boys and girls!!!!!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have been running my mixer into a DI for a couple of years now with no issues. I am a total beginner when it comes to recording, so I have just been going off of what sounds good to me.

I primarily just track synths and drum machines one track at a time, stereo or mono. I use a line mixer to inject the color and effects I want per tracking session.

I tried just running the mixer to the line level inputs on my channel strips at first, but I found that there was very little gain available. So I purchased the 2 channel DI and was able to get the levels that I wanted with the Mic inputs, not to mention what seems to me to be a much fuller/richer sound.

Would you agree with my configuration? Or am I just totally screwed up?

My setup is as follows.

Synths & Drum Machines into a 20 channel line level Analog Mixer.

Aux Effects = Delays and Reverbs
Group inserts = Filterbanks + Mono Compressors.
Main inserts = Mono/Stereo Tube Distortion.

Mixer Main out to Rupert Neve RNDI-S DI

RNDI-S DI to the Mic inputs on 2 Neve Portico II channelstrips.

I also have a Mono/Stereo Limiter strapped across that as an insert which has true bypass. The Neve Portico II has compressors, but I like to get more aggressive at times.

Then off to the converters.

Previous to this setup I struggled with getting my effects to line up with my dry tracks because I was looping back to all the outboard effects digitally (Cubase). Additionally, The effects did not blend well tonally as opposed to processing it through the same recording chain along with the dry signal.

I still have the digital connections to the effects if I need them, but find I prefer to just make the sound once and stick with it. If I do need them post recording or with samples, I just convert back to analog from the PC and process through the mixer again since it sounds superior to me doing it that way, and I feel I have more control.

Any tips would be appreciated. Like I said, I have just been winging it with no training whatsoever. So I figure sharing my experience for some feedback could be useful to all pondering this method.

Putting a DI between your mixer and your interface isn't needed but getting a nice transformer into your signal path can sometimes be a good thing.

If it sounds good to you and you don't have any noise issues more gain stages and/or transformers can help warm, thicken, or enhance stuff that can otherwise be a bit too clean and clinical sounding.

Plugging my bass straight into my interface sounds pretty good but running into an Alembic F2b tube preamp and then to a Golden Age Pre73 micpre and then a Comp2a sounds better.

Does it sound $2000 better? It depends I guess... but it is thicker with more harmonics and a more finished kind of sound.

I agree. It may not be useful to have the extra gain all the time. The added noise is a factor to consider. I do have to pay much closer attention to gain staging, and I had to go back and upgrade a lot of my cables, reposition noisy gear in the rack like my Eventide H8000, and even ended up doing ground lifts on the DI to decouple from the rest of my gear.

I have since added a Culture Vulture Super 15 to an insert on the Mixers main outputs to add more harmonics. So I may go back and see if I can achieve the same effect without the DI just using the line level inputs. The Neve Portico II manual says that both inputs share the same transformer, but the Mic inputs have more gain available. It even says that I could technically go strait into the mic inputs with line level if needed as an alternative input as long as I keep the phantom power off. Something about there being enough headroom to handle it.

I have experimented with running smaller pre-amps into larger pre-amps and can report that if overdriven is a sound you like to do, that method can get it done it its own way. The challenge with many pre-amps I have had is not having level meters on the outputs, so it is difficult to say just how hot they are pushing the next stage.

I picked up an old Furman PQ3 which I really liked initially, but found it to be too noisy so I sold it. I would like to find a more modern version of that style tube pre-amp with EQ. I really like the sound of those old noisy pre-amps like the Real Tube etc, but just not the constant noise. I got a hold of a Decimator ProRack G to tame the noise which was useful, but I sold off all my old guitar pre-amps in hopes of finding something newer. I still crave that crunchy guitar sound for my synths.

With a passive mixer/summer, the gain structure is set up to need say 6 db of make up grain where a 1073 can be used. You may consider a Vintage maker summer.

Really its a choice of how many transformers you want as part of your sound. The magic of a 1073 comes from the inductor EQ, not it's transformer in the preamp. Mixers add lots of transformers to the path.

If you go with a mixer, it then depends on the specific mixer. Some have a very good line in, like it's a DI. Good mixers are not cheap.

If you want a +15 mixer, I suggest the Soundcraft GB/GR line. Past that, you have to spend some cash to get a +24 mixer (Like $15K unless you get lucky used). Better off with summer and patch bay and converters to keep the quality (headroom) up.

Good DI's:
Radial JDI is the "Standard"
I recently picked up a pair of ZOD.
Firefly's are not as good as a ZOD at the same price.
The DI on a Vipre is very cool.

Using a DI after a mixer would just be adding another transformer assuming the gain structure works out. Can be a good artistic choice, but can't see wanting that all the time.

Good tips on the passive mixer, and I appreciate the confirmation that it is ok to DI the mixer outputs. I am going to experiment with running it both ways and see what works best. Initially I was really happy with the additional gain, and then I discovered compressors/Limiters, which is what got me rethinking my signal path. Plus taking up my Mic inputs on the pre-amps means I have to pull the DI out when I want to use the microphone. Lol

Since not being able to afford a high end console with nice preamps for each channel, I chose to just sum all my gear down to a single mono/stereo pair of good pre-amps using a Speck Electronics X.Sum summing mixer. I have liked that setup so I upgraded to the Speck Electronics Xtramix 6 which just came out. It has really opened up a lot of options for me since all my gear is line level analog stuff.

I am happy with the 2 channel recording path, and have no complaints with it so far. I can't afford nice compressors and converters for more than 2 channels anyways. I am more interested in having coloring options to punch in and out.

For anyone looking for a nice 4U rack mixer, check out the Xtramix 6. There is no EQ, but one could be added on the group inserts.