Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vocal levels at mixdown

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 7:04:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tech (More info?)

As a novice at mixing down, I struggle with vocal levels. I know that
a lot of the decisions on how loud to make everything in the mix are
part of the art behind mixing, but I'd like to learn some of the
fundamental rules. Can anyone guide me to a good website that covers
this?

But, specifically... In a song with great dynamic range, the singer
obviously sings a bit louder on the heavy chorus than on the quieter
verses. Once you've got that vocal track recorded, is it fundamentally
wrong to push it louder for the big choruses? I have trouble knowing
what to do with all the instruments and vocals when making a vast
dynamic transition. I'm not a huge fan of compression, but how else do
you mix a rock song with minimalist verses and big choruses and get a
final workable product that doesn't make listeners want to change the
volume knob throughout the song?

Thanks.

More about : vocal levels mixdown

Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:14:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tech (More info?)

you've basically asked somebody to tell you to go to college in a
production sound program and learn all of this stuff on your own as it
requires finesse and a gentle touch and years of experiance. not do
this do this do this. or you could find a geeky friend from the audio
visual club and say that youve got porno in it for him :p 


ps: seriously though, make sure youre using a good program for
starters, itll make it easier to learn. try adobe audition. email me
if you want the installer.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 11:23:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Good program is problem number 1. I've got an
old-totally-incompatible-with-everything digital eight track and that's
what I've got to mix to. Mixdown is a little nightmarish, what with
having to bounce tracks and turn knobs in real time like in the old
days. Maybe next project I'll go computer.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:02:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

ot7doc@yahoo.com wrote:
> As a novice at mixing down, I struggle with vocal levels. I know
that
> a lot of the decisions on how loud to make everything in the mix are
> part of the art behind mixing, but I'd like to learn some of the
> fundamental rules. Can anyone guide me to a good website that covers
> this?
>
> But, specifically... In a song with great dynamic range, the singer
> obviously sings a bit louder on the heavy chorus than on the quieter
> verses. Once you've got that vocal track recorded, is it
fundamentally
> wrong to push it louder for the big choruses? I have trouble knowing
> what to do with all the instruments and vocals when making a vast
> dynamic transition. I'm not a huge fan of compression, but how else
do
> you mix a rock song with minimalist verses and big choruses and get a
> final workable product that doesn't make listeners want to change the
> volume knob throughout the song?
>
> Thanks.

Have you tried listening to CD's of music you consider to have good
vocal production qualities? It's similar to musicians who play by ear,
in my opinion. Of course, it won't teach you every, single thing you
need to know but over time you'll learn quite a bit more by trying to
duplicate a reference CD than if you tried to recall productions
qualities based on memory and what you think it should sound like.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 5:30:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

ot7doc@yahoo.com wrote:
> As a novice at mixing down, I struggle with vocal levels. I know
that
> a lot of the decisions on how loud to make everything in the mix are
> part of the art behind mixing, but I'd like to learn some of the
> fundamental rules. Can anyone guide me to a good website that covers
> this?
>
> But, specifically... In a song with great dynamic range, the singer
> obviously sings a bit louder on the heavy chorus than on the quieter
> verses. Once you've got that vocal track recorded, is it
fundamentally
> wrong to push it louder for the big choruses? I have trouble knowing
> what to do with all the instruments and vocals when making a vast
> dynamic transition. I'm not a huge fan of compression, but how else
do
> you mix a rock song with minimalist verses and big choruses and get a
> final workable product that doesn't make listeners want to change the
> volume knob throughout the song?
>
> Thanks.

All the bg time mixers do things that could be considered wrong. You
can find guys who have equally good sounding mixes and they've used
opposite techniques to get there.

I think in another post you said you're using a digital eight track in
another post. not to be discouraging, but you're nit going to be able
to make recordings.mixes that you can compare favorably with a big
buget album. In addition to years of practice and learning how to use
gear, the sounds you hear sometimes can only come from really expensive
gear.

Rather than be discourage, however, let it be freeing. Assume that
everything you do and every idea you have is "right". Just do all those
things like mix with and without compression - push the vocals in the
choruses. Mix ou song as many differnet wa as you can and then take
them all somwhere to compare them to each other. Spend a some time,
months, developing your own mixing baseline, the start comparing to
albums and start modifying what you do. There are infinte options and
in mixing, the end justifies the means.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:34:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Yeah, I reference all the time. It helps, that's for sure. Still, I
wish I had a better knowledge base.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:35:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I'd like to go to computer recording sometime, but that's more cash.
And I'm not sure what I'd do with all my outboard gear. I don't
understand how you use auxilliary effects on outboard gear with
computer-recorded tracks.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 9:25:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

ot7...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'd like to go to computer recording sometime, but that's more cash.
> And I'm not sure what I'd do with all my outboard gear. I don't
> understand how you use auxilliary effects on outboard gear with
> computer-recorded tracks.

Have you looked at the Production - Mixing - Mastering with Waves
course? It's only $80 bucks. I don't know how many Waves plugins you've
got but there's a lot of very useful techniques in the course for sure.
Check it out:

http://www.waves.com/content.asp?id=677
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 9:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I just thought I'd also say I realize you're not doing computer
recording but nonetheless the course may help give you some really good
pointers for when you do finally get into that area.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 9:57:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

a few quick pointers:

1) rock music is drenched in compression. if you like rock music you
like compression. you probably have stinko compressors. if you had
$2500 compressors you'd have a different view of them.

2) a good thing to do is to record the verse and choruses on separate
tracks. then balance the volumes as individual entities during mixdown
3) you should get a computer. the 90's are over.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 11:37:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

genericaudioper...@hotmail.com wrote:
> the 90's are over.

Thank God!
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 7:07:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 12 Jan 2005 16:35:49 -0800, ot7doc@yahoo.com wrote:

>I'd like to go to computer recording sometime, but that's more cash.
>And I'm not sure what I'd do with all my outboard gear. I don't
>understand how you use auxilliary effects on outboard gear with
>computer-recorded tracks.

Same way you do on a tape-based system, if you want to. Get a sound
card with multiple output pairs, use an external mixer.

Though, mostly, it's all done in the computer these days. I kept a
rack of outboard FX for a long time but finally realised I just wasn't
ever using it so I trimmed down the system.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:08:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Thanks, that looks great. I love learning about recording and I'll
take that course once I go computer.


J.C. Scott wrote:
> I just thought I'd also say I realize you're not doing computer
> recording but nonetheless the course may help give you some really
good
> pointers for when you do finally get into that area.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:09:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

It does sound slick to not have to have all that extra stuff cluttering
up the desk. But I've come to love my mediocre equipment...
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 10:16:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

How do you reply to parts of a post?

Early on, it really bothered me to think that range gets limited all
the time. Probably b/c I started as musician (though a hack) first,
recording guy second. But the more I work on troublesome songs, the
more compression is so nice to keep the vocals afloat. Even if it does
damn their range and interest level.
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 10:17:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Four tracks? That makes me feel good.
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 3:26:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 17 Jan 2005 19:16:39 -0800, ot7doc@yahoo.com wrote:

>But the more I work on troublesome songs, the
>more compression is so nice to keep the vocals afloat. Even if it does
>damn their range and interest level.

Why are they troublesome? Maybe you need to go back and record a
better performance?

Unless you're doing this professionally, when advanced turd-polishing
is a necessary skill ;-)


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
January 19, 2005 11:13:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <csdrm8$68s$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> <ot7doc@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Eight tracks should be enough for anyone.

Have you floated the idea past Bjork?
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 8:46:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Date: 1/12/05 7:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1105576549.644960.95050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>
>I'd like to go to computer recording sometime, but that's more cash.
>And I'm not sure what I'd do with all my outboard gear. I don't
>understand how you use auxilliary effects on outboard gear with
>computer-recorded tracks.

I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get
a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
getting into recording now, you don't need a gazilion dollars to have a nice
sounding "basic" professional studio.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:13:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20050203124602.01063.00000522@mb-m04.aol.com> bruwhaha58097238@aol.com writes:

> I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get
> a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
> getting into recording now

It's also the reason why people have so many questions and fumbles
getting started in recording. With real hardware it's easy to
understand signal flow and easy to find a problem when something is
wrong.

A computer serving as a recorder and mixer is a tough way to start out
learning about recording for those without a lot of intuition and a
good bit of computer knowledge. We don't expect that of musicians.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Gotta disagree Hank. While it's true a bad room can be tough to work
in......here's just a few examples of non-professional studio rooms.
Sunn = gas station
Staxx = movie theater
RVG = home
Motown = basement

They all sounded fine. True throwing up some mics in a garage is going
to sound bad, but just about any space can be tweaked to work. Also,
that "mic shoved in the face of everything" is basically what you older
guys started in the 70s. Taking the bottom heads off the drums....come
on. That didn't start in a home studio. There are just as many
horrible things that have come out of very expensive, professional
rooms as there are home studios.

later,
m
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:48:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Raymond" <bruwhaha58097238@aol.com> wrote in message news:20050203124602.01063.00000522@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >Date: 1/12/05 7:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <1105576549.644960.95050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> >
> >I'd like to go to computer recording sometime, but that's more cash.
> >And I'm not sure what I'd do with all my outboard gear. I don't
> >understand how you use auxilliary effects on outboard gear with
> >computer-recorded tracks.
>
> I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get
> a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
> getting into recording now, you don't need a gazilion dollars to have a nice
> sounding "basic" professional studio.


But it probably won't sound like a good 24 channel mixer, either. And the
less of the industry bar that's lowered by amateurs, the more hope we have
of maintaining some semblance of quality in the industry. ;-)

DM
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:57:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Raymond wrote:

> That's the reason why so many people are
> getting into recording now, you don't need a gazilion dollars to have a nice
> sounding "basic" professional studio.

But they overlook the most important part of _a nice sounding "basic"
professional studio_: the room. The gear might sound good, relatively,
but the room is useless in the traditional sense, so we get folks
thinking a mic shoved in the face of everything is how music is supposed
to sound, because they can't let the room into the sound without
screwing it all up.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:09:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I swear... I *never* asked for a bottom head to be removed. I always
wondered who's idea that was, and always had a sneakin' suspicion
that it was WF Ludwig on LSD.


<mwood5nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1107484047.959079.23650@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Gotta disagree Hank. While it's true a bad room can be tough to work
> in......here's just a few examples of non-professional studio rooms.
> Sunn = gas station
> Staxx = movie theater
> RVG = home
> Motown = basement
>
> They all sounded fine. True throwing up some mics in a garage is going
> to sound bad, but just about any space can be tweaked to work. Also,
> that "mic shoved in the face of everything" is basically what you older
> guys started in the 70s. Taking the bottom heads off the drums....come
> on. That didn't start in a home studio. There are just as many
> horrible things that have come out of very expensive, professional
> rooms as there are home studios.
>
> later,
> m
>
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:16:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message news:znr1107463493k@trad...
>
> In article <20050203124602.01063.00000522@mb-m04.aol.com> bruwhaha58097238@aol.com writes:
>
> > I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get
> > a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
> > getting into recording now
>
> It's also the reason why people have so many questions and fumbles
> getting started in recording. With real hardware it's easy to
> understand signal flow and easy to find a problem when something is
> wrong.
>
> A computer serving as a recorder and mixer is a tough way to start out
> learning about recording for those without a lot of intuition and a
> good bit of computer knowledge. We don't expect that of musicians.


I know a lot of computer champions, gurus if you will, that haven't the
slightest clue about audio or processing... so all the intuition and 'puter
knowledge in the world isn't going to make them a recordist. Kinda'
works *against* the average Joe both coming and going. I mean, if
a bloke's never used any hardware, what difference does a choice of
plug-ins & emulators make if they don't know what they're supposed
to be emulating?
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 5:06:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I'd disagree with that. For the price of a good 24 channel mixer you could
get
a computer and basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
getting into recording now, you don't need a gazilion dollars to have a nice
sounding "basic" professional studio. >>




Maybe you mean basic "home studio". A professional studio doesn't just have a
computer and a basic interface. It also has a good recording space (or
spaces), an accurate mixing environment, and good cue system. A professional
studio should also have a mic locker stocked with professional quality mics.
It should also have amenities which allow the clients enough creature comforts
to relax and allow their best performance to be recorded. Good HVACV is
critical. So is soundproofing. Whether the facility uses a computer and a
basic interface as its primary recorder is not generally what tips the scale
toward "professional".


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:33:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2005-02-03 mrivers@d-and-d.com said:
>>price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get a computer and
>>basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
>getting into recording now It's also the reason why people have so
>many questions and fumbles getting started in recording. With real
>hardware it's easy to understand signal flow and easy to find a
>problem when something is wrong.
>A computer serving as a recorder and mixer is a tough way to start
>out learning about recording for those without a lot of intuition
>and a good bit of computer knowledge. We don't expect that of
>musicians. --
But in the old days a musician could figure this stuff out fairly
easy. IF you bought the Teac 3340 and its companion mixer (anybody
remember the TEac board went with that machine, an 8 x 4 with a stereo
cue mix?) you could figure it out.
SO no signal out the buses because the needles on the tape machine
weren't moving, change the patch cables, plug in the phones, see where
you had signal. Try troubleshooting the signal in your daw <g>.

I've still got one of those TEac mixers. USed it as my headphone
mixer for my studio for many years. HEll I could get two separate
stereo mixes for cue for musos recording. A separate mix for the
drummer and another for the rest. Even more if everybody would settle
for mono mixes. It's sitting in a storage unit waiting for me to get
time to bring it back out put it on the bench and go through it!!!

IT's midnight and I've finished playing a gig at a piano bar and had
too many highballs. SHould go to bed <g>.





Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



A good captain is one who is hoisting his first drink in a
bar when the storm hits.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 10:04:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<mwood5nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Gotta disagree Hank. While it's true a bad room can be tough to work
> in......here's just a few examples of non-professional studio rooms.
> Sunn = gas station
> Staxx = movie theater
> RVG = home
> Motown = basement

And they weren't run by starry-eyed newbies with little clue and
mediocre kit. Talk all we want about contemporary specs of cheap gear.
Now put that up against the headroom in an API or old Neve, etc. There
are big differences.

> They all sounded fine. True throwing up some mics in a garage is going
> to sound bad, but just about any space can be tweaked to work. Also,
> that "mic shoved in the face of everything" is basically what you older
> guys started in the 70s.

No, Mike, I didn't start that. And I avoided it back then and still do
whenever possible. Sometimes we need the separation; sometimes we don't.
I have recorded _lots_ of stuff straight to two-track. No "mixdown",
just _mix_, done, and often with less than one mic per source.

> Taking the bottom heads off the drums....come
> on. That didn't start in a home studio. There are just as many
> horrible things that have come out of very expensive, professional
> rooms as there are home studios.

Isolation does not come inexpensively. Intrusive sounds require shoving
mics right into the faces of instruments. You cannot inexpensively
"tweak" a space into strong acoustic isolation. My present space is
nowhere near as quiet as was the studio room at onion audio inside
Armadillo World Headquarters, but it happens to be next to the middle of
nowhere and as it happens can be used quite often without external sound
interference. However, the surrounding real estate was no less expensive
than proper treatment of a room in a noisier environment.

In those older classic spaces where such great music was recorded, they
didn't heap track upon track upon track. People played together all at
once, overdubbing was minimized, and noise captured aldong with a take
wasn't captured again and again with added tracks, to become a real
problem come mix time.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 10:30:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<0junk4me@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:KdPMd.13366$3W3.5198@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> On 2005-02-03 mrivers@d-and-d.com said:
> >>price of a good 24 channel mixer you could get a computer and
> >>basic interface system. That's the reason why so many people are
> >getting into recording now It's also the reason why people have so
> >many questions and fumbles getting started in recording. With real
> >hardware it's easy to understand signal flow and easy to find a
> >problem when something is wrong.
> >A computer serving as a recorder and mixer is a tough way to start
> >out learning about recording for those without a lot of intuition
> >and a good bit of computer knowledge. We don't expect that of
> >musicians. --
> But in the old days a musician could figure this stuff out fairly
> easy. IF you bought the Teac 3340 and its companion mixer (anybody
> remember the TEac board went with that machine, an 8 x 4 with a stereo
> cue mix?) you could figure it out.
> SO no signal out the buses because the needles on the tape machine
> weren't moving, change the patch cables, plug in the phones, see where
> you had signal. Try troubleshooting the signal in your daw <g>.
>
> I've still got one of those TEac mixers. USed it as my headphone
> mixer for my studio for many years. HEll I could get two separate
> stereo mixes for cue for musos recording. A separate mix for the
> drummer and another for the rest. Even more if everybody would settle
> for mono mixes. It's sitting in a storage unit waiting for me to get
> time to bring it back out put it on the bench and go through it!!!
>
> IT's midnight and I've finished playing a gig at a piano bar and had
> too many highballs. SHould go to bed <g>.

Yessiree... Teac Model 8. Up until about 6 months ago, I knew
where two working units were for sale... in the lobby of a tech's
place. Unfortunately, he closed due to some delinquent tax
issues, or you could have had them for a song.

D M
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 8:50:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2005-02-04 mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com said:
>> But in the old days a musician could figure this stuff out fairly
>> easy. IF you bought the Teac 3340 and its companion mixer
>>(anybody remember the TEac board went with that machine, an 8 x 4
>>with a stereo cue mix?) you could figure it out.
>> SO no signal out the buses because the needles on the tape machine
>> weren't moving, change the patch cables, plug in the phones, see
>>where you had signal. Try troubleshooting the signal in your daw
><g>. >
>> I've still got one of those TEac mixers. USed it as my headphone
>> mixer for my studio for many years. HEll I could get two separate
>> stereo mixes for cue for musos recording. A separate mix for the
>> drummer and another for the rest. Even more if everybody would
>>settle for mono mixes. It's sitting in a storage unit waiting
>>for me to get time to bring it back out put it on the bench and
>go through it!!! >
>> IT's midnight and I've finished playing a gig at a piano bar and
>>had too many highballs. SHould go to bed <g>.
>Yessiree... Teac Model 8. Up until about 6 months ago, I knew
>where two working units were for sale... in the lobby of a tech's
>place. Unfortunately, he closed due to some delinquent tax
>issues, or you could have had them for a song.
Damn that's too bad. I think mine was called a model three, but again
I've finished a mardi gras gig at a piano place, too many highballs
but I'm thinking mine was the model 3. Four bus board, 8 channels, 6
of the 8 had mic level ins if switched properly. FOur buses, stereo
cue mix. All the subsystems patched together with rca jumpers. DId
me quite wlel for many years as cue mixer for musos when recording.
Also allowed me to set up a cue mix for myself when recording people.

NO phantom power but if you've good mic amps no need. STill a
versatile little mixer. USed mine even on stage for minotir mixes for
a number of years.

Regards,



Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 9:41:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<0junk4me@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:7I7Nd.16999$qJ3.5118@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> On 2005-02-04 mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com said:
> >> But in the old days a musician could figure this stuff out fairly
> >> easy. IF you bought the Teac 3340 and its companion mixer
> >>(anybody remember the TEac board went with that machine, an 8 x 4
> >>with a stereo cue mix?) you could figure it out.
> >> SO no signal out the buses because the needles on the tape machine
> >> weren't moving, change the patch cables, plug in the phones, see
> >>where you had signal. Try troubleshooting the signal in your daw
> ><g>. >
> >> I've still got one of those TEac mixers. USed it as my headphone
> >> mixer for my studio for many years. HEll I could get two separate
> >> stereo mixes for cue for musos recording. A separate mix for the
> >> drummer and another for the rest. Even more if everybody would
> >>settle for mono mixes. It's sitting in a storage unit waiting
> >>for me to get time to bring it back out put it on the bench and
> >go through it!!! >
> >> IT's midnight and I've finished playing a gig at a piano bar and
> >>had too many highballs. SHould go to bed <g>.
> >Yessiree... Teac Model 8. Up until about 6 months ago, I knew
> >where two working units were for sale... in the lobby of a tech's
> >place. Unfortunately, he closed due to some delinquent tax
> >issues, or you could have had them for a song.

> Damn that's too bad. I think mine was called a model three, but again
> I've finished a mardi gras gig at a piano place, too many highballs
> but I'm thinking mine was the model 3. Four bus board, 8 channels, 6
> of the 8 had mic level ins if switched properly. FOur buses, stereo
> cue mix. All the subsystems patched together with rca jumpers. DId
> me quite wlel for many years as cue mixer for musos when recording.
> Also allowed me to set up a cue mix for myself when recording people.
>
> NO phantom power but if you've good mic amps no need. STill a
> versatile little mixer. USed mine even on stage for minotir mixes for
> a number of years.
>
> Regards,

OK... I'm double deslexic and saw the three backwards... wink, wink...

DM
!