Pro and Cons of digital mixers

[buzzardwhiskey]

Here's are two lists off the top of my head. Please feel free to comment, change, add more, etc.

Pros

1) Very flexible EQ's and effects
2) Aux sends (often more than 2) can have completely different mixes
3) Configurations can be saved and recalled, which might translate to faster setup
4) Wireless control is often possible (sometimes mandatory) and might even be done concurrently by multiple band members
5) Recording, sometimes of "every" channel, is often possible
6) If recording of every channel is possible, then remote mixing (such as standing in the audience) might be done using a "quickie" snippet
7) Flexible routing and GUI elements might make a complicated stage "simpler" or more "obvious"
8) Many units are smaller/lighter than their analogue counterparts
9) Periodic software updates

Cons

1) More expensive, although it might be difficult to make apples-to-apples comparison since many digital mixers offer more aux sends and more features.
2) Often have longer learning curves
3) Several wireless interfaces virtually "require" an external router, even then some have reported inability to control the mixer for some (often brief) period
4) If howling or other emergency occurs, it can take considerably longer to find and correct the problem

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by buzzardwhiskey

Here's are two lists off the top of my head. Please feel free to comment, change, add more, etc.

Pros

1) Very flexible EQ's and effects
2) Aux sends (often more than 2) can have completely different mixes
3) Configurations can be saved and recalled
4) Wireless control is often possible (sometimes mandatory) and might even be done concurrently by multiple band members
5) Recording, sometimes of "every" channel, is often possible
6) If recording of every channel is possible, then remote mixing (such as standing in the audience) might be done using a "quickie" snippet
7) Flexible routing and GUI elements might make a complicated stage "simpler" or more "obvious"
8) Many units are smaller than their analogue counterparts

Cons

1) More expensive
2) Often have longer learning curves
3) Wireless interfaces (so far) virtually "require" an external router, even then some have reported inability to control the mixer for some (often brief) period
4) If howling or other emergency occurs, it can take considerably longer to find and correct the problem

I don't have a lot to add but I will comment on some of the pros and cons you brought up. First, I honestly don't find digital mixers to be more expensive than analog mixers. I mean you can get an analog mixer for under $1000 but if you want a really good one, it will be close to, if not more than a digital board.

Secondly, the learning curve is definitely a bit of a challenge. I switched over to digital and I am not as fast at mixing now. However, because my mixer remembers where I set things last time, it actually speeds the whole process up.

Your last two cons might apply to some digital mixers but a lot, including the one I have (QSC TM16), have the router as part of the board. I would never buy one that needed a separate router. Also, even if it's digital, there should be a mute switch or some kind of screen to show which channels are feeding back. Actually I would argue this is a pro. With an analog board, you sometimes have to search for the channel that's causing the trouble where as digital boards show it immediately.

To be honest, you need to check out the QSC TM boards. Super affordable for what they are. You can mix out front, the router is plugged right into the back and drop outs never happen, you can record channels individually and mix them later and the flexibility offered is just unreal. Oh and not to mention, a huge pro is the weight. My TM16 is so light compared to all of the analog boards I have or used to have.

[buzzardwhiskey]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Your last two cons might apply to some digital mixers but a lot, including the one I have (QSC TM16), have the router as part of the board. I would never buy one that needed a separate router. Also, even if it's digital, there should be a mute switch or some kind of screen to show which channels are feeding back. Actually I would argue this is a pro. With an analog board, you sometimes have to search for the channel that's causing the trouble where as digital boards show it immediately.

To be honest, you need to check out the QSC TM boards. Super affordable for what they are. You can mix out front, the router is plugged right into the back and drop outs never happen, you can record channels individually and mix them later and the flexibility offered is just unreal. Oh and not to mention, a huge pro is the weight. My TM16 is so light compared to all of the analog boards I have or used to have.

From what I read on user forums from owners themselves, the routers in units from Behringer, Midas and Soundcraft are somewhere between semi-useful to terrible. Everyone recommends buying an external router. I don't know about the other manufacturers.

The QSC mixer look very cool and I will check them out.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by buzzardwhiskey

From what I read on user forums from owners themselves, the routers in units from Behringer, Midas and Soundcraft are somewhere between semi-useful to terrible. Everyone recommends buying an external router. I don't know about the other manufacturers.

The QSC mixer look very cool and I will check them out.

I think in a lot of cases you get what you pay for. Behringer doesn't have a solid track record.

One more pro is that digital mixers often gets updates as well. QSC updates their software every few months and the interface has gone from very good to excellent. Recording is so much easier now.

[midwinter]

I've got the Behringer Xair 16. The router is awful. Luckily, I knew that going in and just velcro'd an old router to it. Works like a champ.

While the analog mixers can be faster to troubleshoot, the digital ones massively shorten your setup time. I don't have to get levels or really soundcheck much. We plug it in and turn it on unmute the mains and we're live.

One thing about the Behringer: if I'd have known, I would have bought the 18. It does multitrack recording and can be used as an A/D interface. The 16 can only record the stereo out.

[Stratcat77]

I've never tried a digital mixer, so I can't comment as a user. I'm sure they offer a ton of bells & whistles my analog A&H doesn't have. And I've considered it, but keep talking myself out of it for the following reasons.

As a general personal observation (and maybe this is just me and my own issue!), when I think about digital devices with lots of deep flexibility, I think about my experiences with multi-effects guitar pedals and/or digital guitar amps. I have owned and used both when I was playing electric guitar in bands. I've come full circle after really getting into digital guitar stuff for a while. Not sure if that's a fair comparison, but what I found was extremely deep flexible features, but that actually became a negative for me in practical live use.

What happened for me was that I spent a ton of time tweaking in search for that illusive perfect tone and to make adjustments on the fly in a live setting was not nearly as easy as twisting an analog knob. With a great tube amp and a couple of nice analog pedals, it's simple and I don't have to tweak endlessly for that great tone - it's right there easy to find.

Same thing with my Allen & Heath board. It just sounds great right out of the box. But my needs for an acoustic solo or trio setup are simple and I recognize some have much more complicated needs!

[gfa]

Originally Posted by buzzardwhiskey

Here's are two lists off the top of my head. Please feel free to comment, change, add more, etc.

Pros

1) Very flexible EQ's and effects
2) Aux sends (often more than 2) can have completely different mixes
3) Configurations can be saved and recalled, which might translate to faster setup
4) Wireless control is often possible (sometimes mandatory) and might even be done concurrently by multiple band members
5) Recording, sometimes of "every" channel, is often possible
6) If recording of every channel is possible, then remote mixing (such as standing in the audience) might be done using a "quickie" snippet
7) Flexible routing and GUI elements might make a complicated stage "simpler" or more "obvious"
8) Many units are smaller/lighter than their analogue counterparts
9) Periodic software updates

Cons

1) More expensive, although it might be difficult to make apples-to-apples comparison since many digital mixers offer more aux sends and more features.
2) Often have longer learning curves
3) Several wireless interfaces virtually "require" an external router, even then some have reported inability to control the mixer for some (often brief) period
4) If howling or other emergency occurs, it can take considerably longer to find and correct the problem

Thanks for compiling this. Just a couple of comments. Regarding Con#3, not all digital boards require a wireless interface. Regarding Con#4, seems like it would depend on what the problem is.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by Stratcat77

I've never tried a digital mixer, so I can't comment as a user. I'm sure they offer a ton of bells & whistles my analog A&H doesn't have. And I've considered it, but keep talking myself out of it for the following reasons.

As a general personal observation (and maybe this is just me and my own issue!), when I think about digital devices with lots of deep flexibility, I think about my experiences with multi-effects guitar pedals and/or digital guitar amps. I have owned and used both when I was playing electric guitar in bands. I've come full circle after really getting into digital guitar stuff for a while. Not sure if that's a fair comparison, but what I found was extremely deep flexible features, but that actually became a negative for me in practical live use.

What happened for me was that I spent a ton of time tweaking in search for that illusive perfect tone and to make adjustments on the fly in a live setting was not nearly as easy as twisting an analog knob. With a great tube amp and a couple of nice analog pedals, it's simple and I don't have to tweak endlessly for that great tone - it's right there easy to find.

Same thing with my Allen & Heath board. It just sounds great right out of the box. But my needs for an acoustic solo or trio setup are simple and I recognize some have much more complicated needs!

A lot of digital mixers include "simple" or "standard" settings which I often use when I am in a rush. Basically, they get rid of some of the unnecessary bells and whistles, especially with the eq, and make it more user friendly. I can see where you are coming from but it's not really an issue with digital mixers. I mean I guess you could spend a ton of time tweaking the eq but I am not sure why anyone would when there's a time constraint on getting the band mixed and ready to go.

[TheJackal]

I just got the Behringer Xair XR18 and I'm in the learning curve.

Seems to be a quality unit with loads of flexibility. I haven't taking it out for use with the band yet as I'm still working my way around it.

I love the compact size (about the size of a loaf of bread) and, so far, the interface is intuitive and manageable. Most of the complications are in the depth of built in flexibility. I suspect that someone who is familiar with all of the nuances of mixing would have little issue managing this mixer. I'm still learning about busses, and pre- and post- stuff and routing channels to the mains and building monitor mixes etc. Once I get some of those things in place, I'll dabble with fine tuning the use of effects (there are loads of built in options). Though the written documentation is weak, there is a wide support base of online instruction, written and video.

The PC, Android, and Ipad apps are well designed, intuitive, and robust. The PC edit program is probably best for initial setup and fine tuning. I'll likely use my laptop the first time with the band at a rehearsal to get things in place and save the settings for the first live deployment. Based on reviews and suggestions I've read, the internal wifi is not great. I got mine running today with a router that I had on hand that I'll use when I go live. After I got the unit running through my external wifi, I was able to control it simultaneously with my IPad and Android tablet. I found it entertaining to "move" a slider on the Ipad and watch the corresponding slider move on the Android.

One feature that I think will be excellent is the ability to save settings and load them up. This will be handy for my group as there are three iterations of the group, as a four piece, as a five piece, and as a six piece and will shorten set up time.

For the money, this seems to a quality product. Behringer has upped their game and moved away from their el-cheapo reputation. It will be interesting to see how their products change as they are now a sister company to TC Electronics and TC Helicon. I won't be surprised to see some of the PlayAcoustic settings (like Body Rez) show up as effects options.

Anyway, I think that digital is the future of mixing.

[Andy Howell]

Without doubt digital is the future of mixing.

[varmonter]

Well i've used analog mixers all my life.
Just recently my bandmate has shoved a touchmix
down our throats. Now i like many features
this board has. I like that i can go out
in the audience and mix . my istruments are
wireless. i ike the very full feature set in the
touchmix. i like parametric eq . and i like the
fact you can separately eq the aux sends.
i dont like the fact that everything is hidden
in menus and submenues. if you want to
keep a setting you have to save it or lose
it even during the same gig. i dislike
that all band members now play with it.
Like most "full featured" things i think
the features are not that great just a lot of them.
I especially don't like the absence of "insert" inputs. i think this is very arrogant of QSC.
the effects and eq especially are meh compared to an outboard
unit. I think overall sonically it does not sound
as good (it's ok just not great) as the 16 channel mackie we used before.
You spend much more time tweaking this thing then playing music.
Now we've had this thing a year and i can honestly say i understand
it well and know how it works. And much against my pleading to return
to the mackie my bandmate insists on using this. We have made some decent live recordings
from it. but i feel our sound is compromised . And plus one on the "howling" comment above.
Thanks you've given me a place to vent on this thing.. ha my ears are sensitive to these things.
my bandmate can't hear well at all. I doubt our audience even notices the difference..

[Nymuso]

Having used digital mixers, for me it's only cons. Expense and complexity head the list. I don't want to go through menus and sub menus to make a slight adjustment to the bass on channel 3, I just want to reach over and do it.

Might be fine for the studio, but on a gig, give me analog.

[Andy Howell]

Originally Posted by Nymuso

Having used digital mixers, for me it's only cons. Expense and complexity head the list. I don't want to go through menus and sub menus to make a slight adjustment to the bass on channel 3, I just want to reach over and do it.

Might be fine for the studio, but on a gig, give me analog.

They are still evolving and the implementations of Soundcraft and A&H pretty much fit into an analog approach to the world. The new A&H SQ range operate at 24/96 and that looks like a game changer to me. I expect in 5 years time this'll be the norm and prices will have begun to stabilise.

But for acoustic guitar/instruments a decent — and cheap — mini mixer will do the trick if it is from one of the decent manufacturers.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by buzzardwhiskey

From what I read on user forums from owners themselves, the routers in units from Behringer, Midas and Soundcraft are somewhere between semi-useful to terrible. Everyone recommends buying an external router. I don't know about the other manufacturers.

The QSC mixer look very cool and I will check them out.

Hi bw

An outboard router only makes sense when running a digital system. You are not dependent on the mixer to provide WiFi in a room full of cell phones, and who-knows-what-other electronically interfering equipment.

Was at a conference with over 1000 musicians in attendance and tons of equipment on stage (not to mention the 4 line arrays and 8 subwoofers). All three mixers used for the week were digital, and there was a 4th in the wings in case one went south. They did have capability to run it from iPads, but there were at least 3 techs sitting at boards all day long running the hard-wired controls of the full-sized mixers.

For the small systems for bands, there often is no physical mixer, so an out-board router is doubly important. Even if the board is sitting on stage the outboard router will put out a better, stronger, and more reliable signal.

The conference I mentioned used a router and had a second powered-up, ready and waiting (and double guitar amps too) in case the first went south.

Routers are probably the least expensive part of a digital mixing system, and are as indispensable as direct boxes or snake boxes in a normal PA setup.

Back in the pre-digital era, even though we could have just string 4-5 XLR cables together and run them to the mixer at the back of the room for each mic, a snake box made more sense. Today outboard routers make more sense.

[troggg]

I also agree that digital mixers are not necessarily more expensive and that not all Behringer products are flimsy. I've run my Behringer Truth B3031A powered studio monitors 12 hours a day for going on 4 years with nary a problem(btw these are a nice way to fly for way less than comparable products).

But one of the reasons some digital mixers are not necessarily expensive is that they require or would greatly benefit from an iPad -- which can be expensive. As in Behringer does and QSC doesn't. So you'd have to factor that in.