is 1632 mixer sounding better than 2448/4896 ones ?

musurgio · Post by **musurgio** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:53 am

I have tried to audition both and I hear that 1632 sounds a little cleaner than 2448/4896 , anyone else sharing same thoughts ?
Dimitrios

Stige · Post by **Stige** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:23 am

I noticed the same thing... But then buried that thought as a bull$hit. Interesting that I'm not alone.
Has anyone compared that old blue mixer to the 2448/1632? By the way, where could I get (d/l)the Blue mixer? I only have it as pink, but that looks too agressive to my eyes.

Ricardo · Post by **Ricardo** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:35 am

I might have it somewhere. I'll have to rumage through some of my backups. Let you know!

Stige · Post by **Stige** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:14 am

On 2004-06-29 10:35, Ricardo wrote:
I might have it somewhere. I'll have to rumage through some of my backups. Let you know!

Hi Ricardo, thanks I'd appreciate that

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:38 pm

I've got the blue BigMixer. Send me an email and I'll send it to anyone that wants it.

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:06 pm

The BugMixer is unbearable in your collection. If only for its graphics memory usage: 12MB per 8channel panel, plus 8MB per Bus panel

Stige · Post by **Stige** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 am

On 2004-06-29 23:06, at0m|c wrote:
The BugMixer is unbearable in your collection. If only for its graphics memory usage: 12MB per 8channel panel, plus 8MB per Bus panel

Sounds great! I want it now

But back to the topic.. I made a little test with some acoustic drum tracks. Used 16 Asio channels to feed 2448 and 1632 at the same time. Both mixers had all faders at 0dB, no panning as I used stereo channels. Also phase comp. was on. I used 'Switch it' module to compare both mixers continuously.
It was late night when I did this test, so didn't sell my soul for it. I didn't hear any difference. Both mixer had equally dynamic and open sound. Then I inverted the output from 1632 and summed both mixers together. They cancelled eachother almost perfectly. The difference was below -100dB.
so, my conclusion is that with low track counts there is no difference. But I think this test should have been done with more tracks and instruments at the same time.

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:18 am

Well done Stige

The summing/cancelation of signals is a very good test method, IMHO

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:30 am

Hehe, BugMixer. I like that name.

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:32 pm

On 2004-06-30 06:33, Stige wrote:
Then I inverted the output from 1632 and summed both mixers together. They cancelled eachother almost perfectly.

Brilliant!

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:10 pm

Cool - this was a question niggling away in the back of my mind - thanks for resolving it....I wonder how the micro-mixer compares?

AndreD · Post by **AndreD** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:57 am

On 2004-06-29 23:06, at0m|c wrote:
The BugMixer is unbearable in your collection. If only for its graphics memory usage: 12MB per 8channel panel, plus 8MB per Bus panel

...moreover, the bm has real phase-problems on stereo-signlas..

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AndreD on 2004-07-01 04:34 ]</font>

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 4:28 am

yeah, but why bother ?
...reminds me on the old SBLive card which had a similiar design flaw on the front channels - over YEARS not one SINGLE review noticed it.
That said about reviews...

cheers, Tom