2x2 mixer w\ 2 level controls
December 5, 2005 9:14 AM Subscribe
AudioFilter: Looking for a mixer that does just enough to get by.
I am looking for a mixer that has an XLR (no phantom req.) input, and two stereo inputs, along with two stereo outputs. Here's the kicker: it needs to have seperate level control for each output, and it needs to be under $100.
I've looked at the baby EuroRacks and some Nady equipment, but I haven't come across anything that meets my requirements.
I am looking for a mixer that has an XLR (no phantom req.) input, and two stereo inputs, along with two stereo outputs. Here's the kicker: it needs to have seperate level control for each output, and it needs to be under $100.
I've looked at the baby EuroRacks and some Nady equipment, but I haven't come across anything that meets my requirements.
I've got the Behringer UB802 ($49.99) and I'm pretty sure it does everything you need. You could either use the FX send, as soplerfo suggested, or tweak the pan/balance on the various channels.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 9:47 AM on December 5, 2005
posted by Espy Gillespie at 9:47 AM on December 5, 2005
The Behringer UB802 and UB1002 EFX sends are mono, not stereo. You could use the headphone output, but the headphone fader picks up the main mix after the main fader. So changing the level of the main outputs will also affect the headphone outputs.
The Nady MM4 has a stereo EFX send which can act as a second, independent output. $60.
The Soundcraft Compact 4 has 3 balanced stereo outs and 2 headphone outs. If all the input channels are sent to the mix bus, and the mix bus is sent to the monitor bus, then you can have 2 balanced stereo outs and 2 headphone outs, each with an independent fader. The Soundcraft product page has a link to the User Guide [9MB PDF]. Take a look at the block diagram on page 48. Cost is $100.
posted by ryanrs at 11:36 AM on December 5, 2005
The Nady MM4 has a stereo EFX send which can act as a second, independent output. $60.
The Soundcraft Compact 4 has 3 balanced stereo outs and 2 headphone outs. If all the input channels are sent to the mix bus, and the mix bus is sent to the monitor bus, then you can have 2 balanced stereo outs and 2 headphone outs, each with an independent fader. The Soundcraft product page has a link to the User Guide [9MB PDF]. Take a look at the block diagram on page 48. Cost is $100.
posted by ryanrs at 11:36 AM on December 5, 2005
Response by poster: Let me rephrase my original question. Each INPUT needs to have independent level controls for each output.
So if I want more keyboard in one mix, then I just turn it up for output X, but not Y.
posted by mr.dan at 3:13 PM on December 5, 2005
So if I want more keyboard in one mix, then I just turn it up for output X, but not Y.
posted by mr.dan at 3:13 PM on December 5, 2005
Maybe a cheap dj mixer from Gemini would do the trick?
posted by starscream at 4:08 PM on December 5, 2005
posted by starscream at 4:08 PM on December 5, 2005
Behringer UB-1204PRO. Costs $108.
Connect your mic to ch1. Send ch1 to aux1 (pre-fader). Patch aux1 send to ch2 in. Set ch2 mute/alt3-4. Connect stero source A to ch5-6 and ch7-8. Set ch7-8 mute/alt3-4. Connect stereo source B to aux1 return L-R and aux2 return L-R. Set aux2 return alt3-4. Now the main L-R is your output A and alt3-4 is your output B. Whew!
Mic controls:
Ch1 pan & fader for output A. Ch2 pan & fader for output B. They are independent. Ch1 EQ affects both output A & B. Ch2 EQ affects output B only, in combo with ch1 EQ. You should probably leave ch2 EQ at nominal.
Stereo source A controls:
Ch5-6 for output A. Ch7-8 for output B. All settings (EQ, balance, fader) are independent.
Stereo source B controls:
Aux1 return fader for output A. Aux2 return fader for output B. No EQ or balance, sorry. You can use ch3 & ch4 instead of an aux return if you need those controls on one of the outputs (A or B, but not both).
The main mix fader is the master fader for output A. The alt3-4 fader is the master fader for output B. Use the source select buttons to monitor output A or B in your headphones.
posted by ryanrs at 6:09 PM on December 5, 2005
Connect your mic to ch1. Send ch1 to aux1 (pre-fader). Patch aux1 send to ch2 in. Set ch2 mute/alt3-4. Connect stero source A to ch5-6 and ch7-8. Set ch7-8 mute/alt3-4. Connect stereo source B to aux1 return L-R and aux2 return L-R. Set aux2 return alt3-4. Now the main L-R is your output A and alt3-4 is your output B. Whew!
Mic controls:
Ch1 pan & fader for output A. Ch2 pan & fader for output B. They are independent. Ch1 EQ affects both output A & B. Ch2 EQ affects output B only, in combo with ch1 EQ. You should probably leave ch2 EQ at nominal.
Stereo source A controls:
Ch5-6 for output A. Ch7-8 for output B. All settings (EQ, balance, fader) are independent.
Stereo source B controls:
Aux1 return fader for output A. Aux2 return fader for output B. No EQ or balance, sorry. You can use ch3 & ch4 instead of an aux return if you need those controls on one of the outputs (A or B, but not both).
The main mix fader is the master fader for output A. The alt3-4 fader is the master fader for output B. Use the source select buttons to monitor output A or B in your headphones.
posted by ryanrs at 6:09 PM on December 5, 2005
BTW, I should note that I'm not particularly fond of Behringer equipment. I used to be involved with an activist group that provided sound reinforcement for demonstrations and direct actions. We owned an assortment of Mackie and Behringer mixers. We used the Mackie mixers during large demonstrations and other less aggressive events. The Behringer equipment was for the times we expected to end up in jail.
The Behringer mixers were also nice in fast-moving situations where weight was a concern. The Behringer enclosures used a lot of plastic and were half the weight of a comparable size Mackie.
Once, while prepping for an event, I witnessed one of our Behringers mixers catch fire. Smoke exited the audio jacks in twenty seperate little streamers. But to be fair, that mixer had probably endured an unreasonable amount of abuse before it failed.
Overall, I'd say Behringer mixers were well suited to our needs. Given their low price, they are a good value. But a Mackie is a much better mixer (and should be, at triple the price).
posted by ryanrs at 8:40 PM on December 5, 2005
The Behringer mixers were also nice in fast-moving situations where weight was a concern. The Behringer enclosures used a lot of plastic and were half the weight of a comparable size Mackie.
Once, while prepping for an event, I witnessed one of our Behringers mixers catch fire. Smoke exited the audio jacks in twenty seperate little streamers. But to be fair, that mixer had probably endured an unreasonable amount of abuse before it failed.
Overall, I'd say Behringer mixers were well suited to our needs. Given their low price, they are a good value. But a Mackie is a much better mixer (and should be, at triple the price).
posted by ryanrs at 8:40 PM on December 5, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by soplerfo at 9:31 AM on December 5, 2005