So mackie sucks, what doesn't?

[Ptron]

I keep hearing about how "harsh" or "brittle" or whatever Mackie boards are and I guess I'm willing to believe it. But is there a similarly priced(to the 1604), compact board that does have nice warm pre-amps? This would be important for those like me, who are switching from tape to PC recording but can't afford 16 tube mic pre-amps. (Personally I don't have the time or access to do a bunch of taste tests so if anyone knows if such a board exists, I might at least know were to start looking.)

[This message has been edited by Ptron (edited 04-13-2000).]

[Treeline]

Yeah, I ran into the same thing. I think it's brand loyalty operating instead of intellect. Mackie doesn't "suck", or even close to it. No $500 board is going to sound like a BMF Allen & Heath, no matter who makes it. So you look for what is available for the market in which you happen to be at the time.

I've done that - and did the whole Tascam TM D1000 digital mixer thing; sent it back. You can't do much with a mixer unless you can figure the damn thing out. I like to look once and see what's there - and for now the only mixers that can do that are analog. So I looked around at Peavey, Carvin, Mackie, etc. And I think I'm going for the Mackie - check out the CFX 12 on their page. MF and lots of other retailers have this at about $579. www.mackie.com Ask me again when I've got an extra four grand to spend.

I'm hearing good things about the brand from people who own it. There are also lots of bad posts about it (and about everything else) from a few consistent sources. Kinda makes you wonder where they get their coffee.

[El Barto]

I was looking at the Mackie CFX's at Guitar Center before, I don't know a thing about which mixing boards are the best, or what to look for in general, but I liked what the CFX had. Those built in effects could probably really come in handy...when it comes time to get a mixer, I think I may go for that one.

[zerotosixty]

If someone did figure out the TMD1000, do you think it would out perform the mackie?

[camn]

I sold my makie and got a berhinger.. then dithced it when I got a TM-D1000, because the TM-D1000 Totally and completely outperforms any board it's size that ive used.
period.

and it's easy once you figure it.

xoxoxo

[Treeline]

I don't doubt that a bit about the Tascam; I realize my post looked like a bit of a slam. Didn't mean to do that, although I did get frustrated trying to figure out why nothing came out the business end.

I had received a bad board; the digital S/PDIF out was defective (so I'm told) and I never could get a signal out of it. So it went back, the retailer was gracious about it, and I'm happy with the experience.

But I learned something else in the process, about digital mixers and perhaps more to the point, about me. The Tascam (along with a bunch of other digital stuff) uses a menu system to "interface" with the user. It is quite efficient in terms of space; elegant in its use of multifunction knobs and buttons and so forth. It also means that you really have to know your settings cold if you have a live session and something wierd happens. I don't have that experience, so I need to scan the board to see what might be the problem. With the Tascam, you're always a few buttons away from the information on any of 16 channels. That's enough to make me crazy.

I'm just not a menu kind of guy. I need data when I look - not an invitation to search a little more. So the analog "user interface" - old fashioned as it is - feels good. The digital user interface makes me feel like someone else thinks it's o.k. for me to hunt for what I want - or to have to ask the machine for a given setting. It's not o.k. because I don't think that way. I really think it is a philosophical thing with people who design these kinds of products, especially when they're loaded with go fast stuff - look at Fostex or Roland products. Just try to figure one out without a manual. This mixer came with three manuals and a video tutorial!

Now, get past that stuff, and the TM D1000 is a real performer; I have no doubt whatever that it will outperform the Mackie I'm looking at. But I'll take the Mackie.

[camn]

I totally used to be that guy. And when doing reinforcement with a lot of inputs, I usually still am. BUT it is SO worth the time investment to get a feel for digtal boards, because they RULE!
MY first step used to be eliminating background noise on every track... Now ther is no background noise. I have the choice of doing mixdowns with onscreen envelopes OR running tracks through my board and its onboard effects... with NO loss of quality.

take advantage. we've got equipment that outperforms anything that existed in the 60s.

xoxo

[Treeline]

That's EXACTLY what led me to the Tascam in the first place.

Here's a thought. The TM D1000 is a pro board. It's not "prosumer" as the intermediate stuff is called. And I'm not a pro. I simply haven't gotten to the point in my own learning curve to properly take advantage of the Tascam's approach. So it drives me crazy.

When my wife was in college, she studied Russian - at the University of Nice, France. Hardly anyone spoke english (nobody would admit it). That's not what you take on if you're a beginner. Maybe I'm just finding my limits.

[Tapehead]

C'mon folks...We keep hearing nonsense about how bad the Mackie boards are. Sorry folks but that's rubbish. Within the price range of the Mackie board it's an excellent choice, well featured and reliable for home recording. Is it perfect...no. Is it an Otari or Neve or Midas...no.

But when I look up at the URL on my screen I see the word "homerecording" not "prostudio." It's time to stop propagating these myths about Mackie boards...unless someone on this list has concrete examples (and MP3s to back them up) I hope this train of thought goes back off the rails where it belongs.

And no I don't have a Mackie but rather a Soundcraft Spirit Studio board, which you could also find fault with. But for most home recording projects boards in these price range are an excellent value and getting better all the time.

[Treeline]

Well, Tapehead, we agree! Like I said earlier, I'll take the Mackie even if there are digital machines out there. By the way, I found out earlier today that the local dealer now has set up his CFX arrangements, and placed the first order. Mackie CFX 12.

[Ptron]

What I didn't quite get across in my original post was that if no one had ever told me my mackie board sounds like shit, I would never have thought twice about it. It is a supremely practical board. I use almost every feature on it, and want for little more (maybe individual channel meters but that's dreaming). But with mackies preamps (that's the core of the complaints, isn't it)getting dissed left and right, I can't help but wonder what I'm missing.
It's not like a lemon car that'll break down at every turn. Its a subjecive thing. But If the Mackie preamps are so bad, why don't they improve them a bit? Are they skimping on a few transistors? Are they conspiring to piss off professionals with well trained ears?
Anyways, if anyone makes a better sounding and as practical board as the 1604VLZ, in remotely the same price range, I'd love to give it a shot. But, where is it?

[Treeline]

That's the point, Ed.

This is a home recording forum. Most of us simply aren't in the market for a $4000.00 mixing board. And, at that price, it better be sure to blow the doors off a $500.00 board, or something is wrong with the picture.

I think my frustration is that your criticism doesn't take into account the market level we're at. Do I expect that a CFX 12 will have the same sound quality as your Soundcraft at eight times the price? Not likely. Sure hope not, for your sake, as the one who dished out serious cash for the Soundcraft board.

And how does a Mackie in that price range compete? What difference does it make to me? We're not talking about those boards. Find me a $500.00 Soundcraft board with the utility of a Mackie - and then let's do some comparisons (new to new - warranties matter, as I learned); they might be more meaningful. Frankly, the only board I know of that favorably compares with the Mackie in the same price range is the Tascam - and it has its detractors; not everyone likes its preamps, either. So I think context is important, and it has taken a back seat to brand loyalty. Can we agree on that?




[This message has been edited by Treeline (edited 04-18-2000).]

[Treeline]

Neat! Soundcraft and Spirit have nice products. I'm interested in the Mackie CFX 12. How much are the onboard effects on the Spirit?

And tell us all about the warranty. Does the board have to go back to Germany on my nickel for warranty work? Looks like it does.

This is a grey market board. What do I do if they don't agree that there's a warranty problem? Do I get to pay freight back to the states, as well? Should I consider this possibility when comparing the price?

By the way, what is the freight UPS to the State, Zone 4? Should I add that to the cost?

Oh, and one more thing. How much are the step up transformers? All this stuff is 230 volt. Is that included in the price?



[This message has been edited by Treeline (edited 04-18-2000).]

[MISTERQCUE]

And all this time I was content on making my
music on the Alesis studio 24 which I paid
about $500. But after listening to my friend's Mackie CFX12 mic preamps compared to
my lil ole' Studio 24; and after reading and
enjoying the comments here at this BBS in re
to several mixers previously mentioned, I think it is time to upgrade my board.
Wanna buy a Alesis s-24 N-E-1.
Thanks good people. You learn something new
everday! Peace 2-fingers!

[Ptron]

I don't know why Mr. sonusman put up the link to that German site (probably the first one he found), but at Full compass e.g., the spirit LX7 16x4, which has a has a MSRP of $1600, sells for $1121. I think Sonusman was comparing two boards w/similar features. The cfx look like a totally different bird. Probably designed w/small live gigs in mind. But for similar boards there really isn't a huge difference in price.
Personally, I'm thinkig of dumping my 1604vlz for a Spirit LX7, especially after I found out it has TWO sweepable mids. A dream come true!

[Treeline]

Personally, I think the CFX is a bit of an experiment. It's pulling the effects envelope out of their powered mixers (live performance bar boxes with a few hundred watts) and dropping them into a performance level mixing board. Not something you often find on boards in this price range. Along comes someone like me who needs a simple board, is learning a little about recording, and covers the occasional concert or bar gig even though I have a day job that has nothing to do with any of this. It's made to order!

That doesn't take anything from Spirit, either. I expect that I'll either have this board forever, or else will have developed my ear to a point where I simply HAVE to get a studio grade board. Then I'll do it. For now, I need something that does everything well, even if it isn't "the best" board ever made and even if I don't have to go to Germany to get it. I found it, and the local dealer works just fine.

[This message has been edited by Treeline (edited 04-20-2000).]

[MISTERQCUE]

I whole heartedly agree Treeline!

[timtraynor]

I just got a Studiomaster Classic 8-16
channel mixdown console that rocks! They aren't adverised as much as Mackie or Soundcraft,but
offer many more features and better sound
quality. ROCK ON!!!

[Ptron]

The Spirit Folio FX8 looks like pretty much the same thing as the Mackie CFX. The MSRP is $1 more. Plus, the fx are Lexicon which I've heard is usually a good sign. There may be differences. I haven't checked details or actually seen either of these boards in person.

[Treeline]

Sounds like a horserace where nobody loses. I kinda like that.