Mixer Recommendations

I'd like a bit more flexibility with my home setup. I use a load box and my axefx into an interface and I have a set of monitors.

The monitors currently plug into the interface as that is what the load box plugs in to. I'd like to put the monitors into a mixer then have the outputs from the interface going to the inputs of the mixer then connect out 1 of the axefx into the mixer.

Can anyone recommend a simple mixer that will do this? I have a decent interface to don't need a mixer that has an interface built in, I just need a decent small mixer but don't really have a clue what to look for

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I use the same approach using an Ashly LX-308B... 8 channel stereo in just 1U space, driving both my monitors and headphones. Everything gets an input, even Alexa ;-)
 
I'd like a bit more flexibility with my home setup. I use a load box and my axefx into an interface and I have a set of monitors.

The monitors currently plug into the interface as that is what the load box plugs in to. I'd like to put the monitors into a mixer then have the outputs from the interface going to the inputs of the mixer then connect out 1 of the axefx into the mixer.

Can anyone recommend a simple mixer that will do this? I have a decent interface to don't need a mixer that has an interface built in, I just need a decent small mixer but don't really have a clue what to look for

Thanks!

I kind of ended up going that route, too. Way more flexibility than using the Fractal as an interface.
 
Potentially silly question....

If I hook up to my interface with SPDIF, would I still need a mixer? (i.e. try and find a way to use the interface as a mixer)
 
Potentially silly question....

If I hook up to my interface with SPDIF, would I still need a mixer? (i.e. try and find a way to use the interface as a mixer)
That would be configuration #5 in the recording guide. That configuration does not require a mixer. You could also use configuration #3 which uses a mixer instead of an audio interface (substitute your load box for the microphone in the routing diagram).

Configuration #3 is less expensive than #5 since you buy a mixer instead of an audio interface. #5 makes it easy to add a microphone if you decide you want to record that in the future. Both configurations allow you to record your load box.
 
Honest question....is there a reason you want to do this with a desktop mixer rather than monitoring through a DAW?

If you've already got an interface and a reasonably powerful computer, latency is going to be minimal-about on par with any digital mixer, and quality is going to be higher than any analog mixer/console (though probably not noticeably so if you go super high-end).
 
I wouldn't recommend monitoring through a DAW if at all possible.

First is the latency. Even with a powerful computer, getting the buffer size small enough to be usable can be a challenge if you've got a lot of plugins in use in your project. Even under the best of circumstances though, the latency will be noticeable compared to monitoring direct through an analog mixer. One of the most important features of the Axe-FX is the low latency. It would be a shame to lose that key feature by monitoring through a DAW.

Second is the issue of audio quality. Even modest analog mixers like the ones described in the recording guide have excellent audio quality. Remember, this is just for monitoring. The record signal path does not go through the mixer.

Third is convenience. Monitoring through a DAW would mean turning on the computer, launching your DAW and loading a project suitable for monitoring purposes. That can be a factor in those moments when you want to quickly pick up your guitar and play immediately when inspiration hits.

That's not to say there aren't times where it is appropriate to monitor through a DAW. For example, if you have plugin that you want in your monitoring signal path, then you should monitor through your DAW. That's why there's a section in the recording guide to cover that scenario. But otherwise, there's really no reason to monitor through a DAW. A good mixer for this purpose costs less than $60, so you're not going to save much money by not using a mixer.

P.S. If you look at configurations #3 and #5 in the recording guide, note the mixer and interface are mutually exclusive. You would use one or the other. In other words, if you already have an interface, you can use #5 and there's no need for a mixer.
 
Thanks again folks. In true more money than sense, yes, I have an interface. I had a 2i2 for years that I used before deciding I fancied a treat and wanted to upgrade. Now I don't do a lot of recording so it was mostly about playing back high res mp3s from my Mac with the option to record a little here and there using the output from the load box. For capturing the odd riff idea (and for practice) I like to just use the axefx USB interface.

My goal is just to have my monitors accessible to both my axefx and interface. Interface for playback and the odd recording, axefx for jamming when I do want use my monitors rather than power amp). I want minimal hassle and I'm not too worried about cost.

I've just started looking at the manual for the interface and it does look possible to do direct out without hitting the daw. I've ordered a SPDIF cable and converter and am going to have a fiddle when it arrives.
 
Thanks again folks. In true more money than sense, yes, I have an interface. I had a 2i2 for years that I used before deciding I fancied a treat and wanted to upgrade. Now I don't do a lot of recording so it was mostly about playing back high res mp3s from my Mac with the option to record a little here and there using the output from the load box. For capturing the odd riff idea (and for practice) I like to just use the axefx USB interface.

My goal is just to have my monitors accessible to both my axefx and interface. Interface for playback and the odd recording, axefx for jamming when I do want use my monitors rather than power amp). I want minimal hassle and I'm not too worried about cost.

I've just started looking at the manual for the interface and it does look possible to do direct out without hitting the daw. I've ordered a SPDIF cable and converter and am going to have a fiddle when it arrives.
The 2i2 has no spdif. So, instead of buying spdif cables, I'd recommend buying an inexpensive mixer and use configuration #3 (you'll substitute the microphone in the diagram with your load box). That will give you a rig that allows you to achieve your goal of using and recording both your Axe-FX and your amp/load box. This configuration has the advantage being both simple and flexible.
 
Last edited:
The 2i2 has no spdif. So, instead of buying spdif cables, I'd recommend buying an inexpensive mixer and use configuration #3 (you'll substitute the microphone in the diagram with your load box). That will give you a rig that allows you to achieve your goal of using and recording both your Axe-FX and your amp/load box. This configuration has the advantage being both simple and flexible.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, the 2i2 is past tense. The 2i2 was upgraded ages ago and replaced with an interface that has SPDIF and a lot of other features and functionality I'll probably never use.

It was bought with good intention but ultimately it looks nice and sounds absolutely fantastic when playing back music
 
I see. In that case, yes, configuration #5 is what you want (substitute your load box for the microphone in the diagram).
 
I have used MAckie Mixers for monitoring for over 2 decades. Presently have the 1202vlz4. They have an 8 channel one also.
I use it to monitor my DAW recordings and also to play and learn. I have always found it better to try and get something with good components. I also use to use them to play out solo gigs.
 
I wouldn't recommend monitoring through a DAW if at all possible.

First is the latency. Even with a powerful computer, getting the buffer size small enough to be usable can be a challenge if you've got a lot of plugins in use in your project. Even under the best of circumstances though, the latency will be noticeable compared to monitoring direct through an analog mixer. One of the most important features of the Axe-FX is the low latency. It would be a shame to lose that key feature by monitoring through a DAW.

Second is the issue of audio quality. Even modest analog mixers like the ones described in the recording guide have excellent audio quality. Remember, this is just for monitoring. The record signal path does not go through the mixer.

Third is convenience. Monitoring through a DAW would mean turning on the computer, launching your DAW and loading a project suitable for monitoring purposes. That can be a factor in those moments when you want to quickly pick up your guitar and play immediately when inspiration hits.

That's not to say there aren't times where it is appropriate to monitor through a DAW. For example, if you have plugin that you want in your monitoring signal path, then you should monitor through your DAW. That's why there's a section in the recording guide to cover that scenario. But otherwise, there's really no reason to monitor through a DAW. A good mixer for this purpose costs less than $60, so you're not going to save much money by not using a mixer.

P.S. If you look at configurations #3 and #5 in the recording guide, note the mixer and interface are mutually exclusive. You would use one or the other. In other words, if you already have an interface, you can use #5 and there's no need for a mixer.
You know...that's fair enough.

And I did that for a long time. It's not an option for me now if I want to use my good speakers, and maybe I just got used to it. But, to explain my position...

I literally always have a Reaper session running. None of my audio gets to my main speakers without it. Because it's doing an active multi-way thing. All the crossovers and routing happen in that reaper session, which is essentially a monitor controller. System audio goes through S/PDIF (because Windows is stupid and won't send system audio through ASIO), and the audio applications I actually use go through ReaRoute (or I import the track group that does the routing/XOs to a reaper project if I'm working in Reaper). I have a version of it that's all linear-phase filters for super-accurate playback and one with all zero latency filters for low-latency monitoring. The FM3 inputs (and a few others) are only in the low-latency version of my standard monitor controller session. And the linear-phase version runs higher buffers because the linear phase filters incur about a second of latency anyway. So, at that point, it doesn't matter. And I just don't use that for anything that requires live monitoring.

The PC is an i7 8086k with the 5GHz boost clock set to affect all cores, a bunch of ram, all NVMe and 10GbE storage, and it was "tweaked" to not run a lot of the windows bloat (cortana, telemetry, xbox, windows store....all gone) and for prioritizing background processes (which include audio for some reason). I certainly can't game on it like this, but I don't do that anyway. And I can run a 32-sample buffer at 44.1 or 48k easily. I don't actually lose timing until I get over 128 samples @ 44.1 or 48. So, there's some room left if I need it.

Despite all the plugins that I normally have running (14-28, depending on what I'm doing), the zero latency version shows 0 samples of latency session-wide for processing with about 2-5% CPU usage as standard (web browsers take more resources, because modern web is all bloat). The IO buffers account for under 1.5ms total latency. There's a bit more than that in real life because of how long my converters take to actually do things, but it's still under 4ms round-trip, no DPC latency spikes, and no dropouts.

Reaper is a big part of it. It's just plain more efficient with computer resources than every other DAW. I've done this kind of setup before using Ableton Live and Pro Tools, and they couldn't really handle this kind of a setup without a bigger buffer. Switching to Reaper made a bigger difference in "feel"/capabilities of the DAW than the first time I tried UAD cards or the first time I used Pro Tools HD. The difference is not subtle, though obviously YMMV.

If you use a digital mixer at any point (which you do if you play live...I haven't seen an analog FOH or monitor console in at least a decade), you can set up something similar at home, and you probably already have the hardware you need to do it. This kind of a setup will work with a relatively cheap Focusrite audio interface. You can do even better with Thunderbolt or PCIe. And even with as good as it is, Reaper is $60 unless you make enough money from music to buy the more expensive license and are honest about it.

Maybe your setup/needs are different. If you're running a bunch of heavy plugins for synths, drum machines, etc. on the same computer, I could see that causing problems. But if you're doing that, it's not hard-in any DAW-to freeze tracks while you're recording or print to audio as you need to while you need low-latency monitoring. If your setup is very "big" and you want the flexibility of waiting a long time to print to audio, there are a lot of ways to offload that processing that can wind up "better" than running through a budget mixer and then-essentially-having to do a monitor mix separate from your rough.

It's all different strokes, in the end. But, unless the setup causes you problems....don't discount just monitoring through a DAW. Low-latency monitoring isn't nearly as hard as it was just a few years ago. And a few milliseconds really isn't a big deal. It's one of those things that will bother you only if you obsess over it.
 
It's all different strokes, in the end. But, unless the setup causes you problems....don't discount just monitoring through a DAW. Low-latency monitoring isn't nearly as hard as it was just a few years ago. And a few milliseconds really isn't a big deal. It's one of those things that will bother you only if you obsess over it.
I'll be the first to admit there is no one configuration that works best for everybody. That's why the recording guide lists so many options and why it mentions there are other options that might work better in particular situations. I absolutely agree there are times where it makes sense to monitor through a DAW. That's why that topic is covered in the recording guide. But, I wouldn't recommend it as a way for Layer8cake to work. There simply aren't any advantages for him to work that way...there are only disadvantages. I'm not saying monitoring through a DAW can't be done. Obviously it can be done, and it sounds like it's a great way for you to work.

P.S. I do performance testing routinely with all the major DAWs. Aside from contrived cases, it's pretty hard to find a distinct performance advantage in Reaper over other DAWs. The fact is performance is dominated by plugins, not the DAW. The threading policy of the DAW can have an impact, but these days I don't see much difference between DAWs.
 
I have NO LATENCY issues, track count issues, etc, etc, . Using a mixer to monitor has always paid benefits for me.
Been using Cakewalk since the early 90's. Each person has to find what is right for them....Defiitely true!
But I definitely cannot imagine recording without external monitoring thru a mixer.
 
One thing to bear in mind with a cheap and easy mixer is that the preamps in
it will be colouring everything that goes through them. Might behoove you
to get more than a tiny, mediocre mixer if you have quality in every other part
of your chain.
 
Back
Top Bottom