Mackie and Shure Mics: Truth or Fiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bgavin
  • Start date Start date
B

bgavin

New member
I've read here that Mackie mixing consoles sound crappy with Shure SMxx series mics.

I've been pretty much talked out of a Mackie in favor of Soundcraft if/when the time comes, so I'm just curious about what the experienced folks have observed about Mackie and Shure.
 
I've used a 1604XDR mixer with SM57s in a remote situation quite successfully........

Remember - much of what you hear is opinion, sometimes founded in solid experience that you can rely on and other times founded in conjecture, assumption, and/or personal biases (with or without cause). The key skill is to learn how to tell the difference!

I wouldn't take much stock in someone making a blanket statement such as that -- there are too many variables as to why in that particular application it didn't work for them to dismiss it as "SMxx's don't work with Mackie mixers."
 
Last edited:
since everyone says an sm7 and sm57 are similar i would agree that the mackie pre's do not bring it to its full potential(i use the sm7) i plugged it in to the rnp whoa what a difference, upper mids aren't grainy lower mids are fuller...not saying the mackie ain't sound decent(actually it sounded more like an efx on vox) but with a better pre the sm57(dynamics mics usually) get a new 'personality' in different pre's especially high end ones...
 
I don't think it would be very accurate to say that a 57 sounds bad through a Mackie board . . .

just different.


Keep in mind a lot of it has to do with Mackie's non-linear response as you approach the extremes of it's gain-staging.

In layman's terms, it likes to be set at about 12 o'clock or so, and as you turn it way up or down, it starts to sound thin and sometimes grainy. The Mackies have a sweetspot, gainwise, where they have good, solid, low-noise, linear response. Venture outside of that range, and the sound changes -- sometimes for the better but sometimes for the worse. Unfortunately, a lot of dynamics like the 57 either need a lot of gain due to their wimpish output, or they need very little gain because you've got it right up on a kick, snare, or a hairsplittingly-loud guitar amp.

A lot of this also has to do with the loading characteristics of a given mic pre. Admittedly, Mackie boards aren't necessarily ideal in terms of loading . . . which often means a less-than-ideal match on low-output dynamics, ribbons, and condensers with transformer outputs.

The good news is that I hear very little difference between a transformerless condenser running through a Mackie at modest gain and the very same through a Sytek, for example. Most modern transformerless condensers just aren't as sensitive to loading . . . and will often find themselves well within the Mackie's sweetspot (and if they're not, a good -10 db pad should rectify the situation).
 
Have you tried an AKG C1000S or C3000B through your Mackie yet?

Boy! Are you in for a treat :D
 
I agree with Chessrock, as I own a use 1202vlz and prior to purchasing additional outboard pre's, used the 1202 solely for it's
tonal characteristics in conjunction with a 57.
 
Mustafa Salaam said:
I agree with Chessrock, as I own a use 1202vlz and prior to purchasing additional outboard pre's, used the 1202 solely for it's
tonal characteristics in conjunction with a 57.

Did you bomb it after that?
 
I've used sm 57's, 58's, through a CFX 16 and Have had good results. I'd say it wasn't true ......
Jason
 
Truth!

Well, really the "truth" is my taste agrees with Scott Dorsey at RAP who also thinks it. Although to be fair, he said that it's surprising how good the Mackie's sound, considering it's less than $5 worth of "pre" components per channel. They sound thin and shrill to me in any case, like a Behringer's.
(haven't tried new UB series though)

Chris
 
Back
Top