Mackie Vs soundcraft

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyanJaguar
  • Start date Start date
C

CyanJaguar

New member
we had a band here yesterday ,Fade2shade, and the soundman was using a mackie 24.8 .

I really loved the sound of it. Maybe its cos I am partial to the sound of the mackie pres.

I asked him how a more expensive mixer could sound better than the mackie, and he said it just sounded warmer and bigger.

SO today, the school is having another show and the soundman is using a soundcraft 400b. He said its an old model, that can be had for $2400(32 channels), so when I go to the show, I will make judgements to see which sound I prefer.

I have heard a little soundcheck , and so far I prefer the transparent mackie sound, but I have to sit through the whole show to make any final judgement.
 
It still wont be a fair comparison, mainly due to the age difference (ie; advances in circuit design). That is why the Ghost is so far ahead of the Mackie. Just a point of interest, I heard that Soundcraft have had the same guy doing their circuit design for about 20 yrs, which is why there has been continuity in their technical advances from model to model.

To my knowledge the nearest desk to a Mackie from Soundcraft is their Spirit Studio range, which has been superceded by the Ghost.

I have asked for opinions on these twice in forums and still haven't had a reply as such. Anyways I now own a Studio 24/8, so far it is sweet, smooth, warm and almost cuddly. I think it was a hot blonde in a past life.

Peace..............ChrisO
 
oh gosh,

I just got back from the concert, and was it rocking. THey had this drummer come in for three songs. THe guy was flaming. He was also the vice president of the school. This guy is making about 150 grand and jamming out on drums at the same time. How cool.

So my decision as to which I prefer.

Drum roll please.................

The mackie guy has been doing it for 4 years and the soundcraft guy has only been doing it for three years,
so I prefer the better engineer.
 
Home Recordist with tight budget: Mackie.
Home Recordist with $$$ to spare: Ghost.

Home Recordist seeking quality project mixes: MaCKIE.
Home Recordist seeking quality PRO performance:Ghost.

Home Recordist requiring excellent 'pres:Mackie
Home Recordist requiring Neve-like 'pres:Ghost

Home Recordist in need of 60mm faders:Mackie
Home Recordist in need of 100m faders:Ghost

Home Recordist wanting reliable construction:Mackie
Home Recordist wanting indestructible construction:Ghost

Home Recordist desiring multi-buss/aux options-Mackie/Ghost

Home Recordist wishing for a 24/48 channel Mixer for 150.00 and poor construction with hi s/n ratio: Behringer.

The opinions expressed by said author is based on actual A/B operation/comparison of Mackie and GHOST at his nearest musical-recording gear outlet.

N-E body wanna' but a ALESIS 32!!?? Real Cheap!!!
Peace
Mr.Q
 
misterqcue,

hahaha. But I beg to differ. The mackie sound was very pro

Without yet giving away which mixer I prefer, I will tell you this. THe pres on the soundcraft are thicker, while the pres on the mackie are tighter.

So which sound do you think I prerfer?
 
I think I'd rather have tighter than thicker...

oh... I'm sorry, we were talking about mixers. :D



I will soom be replacing my Mackie with the newest member to the Soundcraft/Spirt line. An M-12 (when they come out- so far only the M-8's are out i think)

-jhe
 
I think a few too many bottles of beer have fallen off the wall, Q......
 
Yo' CJ,believe me, I like MACKIE'S! Got me a used 1202.
But since recently I purchased 2 additional ADATS (for a total of 4) and my A-32 only handles 2 and the DESIRE
for Boooooooooo...GHOST...Me wantin' really,really bad
a GHOST after that A/B comparison.
Tighter or Thicker. Hmmmmmm..................
Homey, I like my sh#t TIGHT!,I mean REAL TIGHT!!!
Syncopated drum grooves vs either fingered or thumb
slap bass lines,fill-in Hammond B-3 chord progressions,
percussive/rhythmic elect git strumming with wah,horns climbing intricate scales and ending in staccato blasts,percussion instruments such as the conga's,cowbell or timbali's accentuating/puntuating/pulsating the overall rythmic color...... Yeah man,T-I-G-H-T!!!!!
Seemed to hear more of a clean,TIGHT,resolution of my
ADAT tapes during my A/B w/o any comp'ing or signal proc'ing (Bast#rds would'nt let me hook up 1 of those HHB,AVALON etc.).
SOooooo, Me thinks I will save for a GHOST!!!!!
Peace
Mr.Q
 
yesterday,
a select group of individuals went on a road trip, and the lecturer who was driving insisted on playing only funky music from the 70's and eighties.

This irritated me badly, because the music was crap. All but two of the songs.

ANyhow, its not because I don't like old music. I love elvis, the righteous brother, nat king cole etc, but this music was just plain bad. Noe melody. The singers were shouting etc etc.

not saying that todays music is better. One listen to madonna, and I almost want to puke.

Anyhow, I totally preferred the mackie sound. WHich does not say a lot becasue other factors come into play.

Also, this was an older 400b mixer and not the reverred ghost.

I also think that the better engineer won out. And in this case, the better engineer happened to be the guy in the mackie with his tight sound.

peace
 
yo jagman, i don't think you can accurately judge the mixers when there are two different engineers, and two different bands. i mean, it could just be their different mixing techniques, the different sound of the bands, or different amounts of talent in each band. you need a controlled environment to accurately judge both mixers. find someone (one engineer) to mix THE SAME song on both mixers. then compare that.

just my opinion
~the turtle
 
Q,

Your definition of tight has me wanting to hear some of your work...sounds sweet....
 
I have a Soundcraft Studio Spirit LC 16 - 8 - 2 and from almost every viewpoint it's an excellent mixer. Dead quiet, well featured (one plus would be more functionality on the Aux returns). I use it mainly as a recording mixer; it's quiet and versatile, good eqs (3 sweeps) plus fixed-frequency high. AND you don't need fingers the size of needles to operate it.

As for the discussion on comparing mixers at two different live shows using two different sets of everything, seriousturtle's right--it would take very highly controlled test, with everything else being exactly the same, before you start to hear differences beween mixers (unless one is so crappy that it's clipping, humming, spiking, etc.). Or the same operator using one in his system, then another--if he's used to one mixer he might hear differences.

In general these differences will present themselves sooner in a studio environment than in a live show. The more valid comparisons can be made on features, operability, reliability, etc.

Beyond that vague differences such as "warmer" or "punchier" could be due to 100 different things other than the mixer.
 
I do a lot of live sound and as a result I get to work on a lot of different boards in a lot of different environments, the way that I judge a board is usually by how much EQ I need to apply to get Drums, DI bass and vocals to sound good and how 'cooperative' the EQ is to this end. I tend to like a natural, open sound, where things sound close to their true acoustic sounds, I don't usually go for the 'super EQed, super compressed' sound.

My 2 cents on the whole issue is that in my OPINION , the Mackies have a very transparent and natural sound, they dont add 'warmth', but they dont add 'mud' either. I agree with Ed, if you have a harsh or tinny cymbals and bright high frequency drivers then the Mackie's high EQ can be a little unfriendly.

The more expensive Souncrafts, like the K2 and the Vienna have a very 'smooth' sound, they add a little warmth but I find that I usually have to reach for the eq a little more than with a Mackie, especially if there is a problem with 'muddiness' in a venue.

The Cheaper Soundcraft boards like the 'spirit', I don't really like, I have done some gigs where it took ridiculous amounts of eq to get the drums to sound right and the board had a 'feel' like something in the signal chain was compressing and distorting very slightly, even though my gain staging was fine.

Behringer boards ( when they are working :) ) tend to have a sort of 'boxy' washed out sound, I once did a gig where I was running the kick drum trimmed to about +5db into the channel, and the kick kept sounding like a paper plate, absolutely now low end or punch (through an 8 top 8 bottom EAW 850 rig!). It turns out That it came back to life when I reduced the trim to about 0db. The preamp was simply folding up!
Ok, I'll be fair, the AC voltage was about 105V, but still.

The all time least cooperative board that I have ever used in terms of EQ was an old 16 channel Yorkville board, no matter what the eq just sounded horrible.

DDA boards are solid workhorses, but once again I dont really like the way their EQ's sound, although they are far from bad sounding. It's just that they always make me have to work a little harder.

Once again this is just my opinion, and of course I'm actually a big nobody. :)
 
MISTERQCUE said:
Homey, I like my sh#t TIGHT!,I mean REAL TIGHT!!!
Syncopated drum grooves vs either fingered or thumb
slap bass lines,fill-in Hammond B-3 chord progressions,
percussive/rhythmic elect git strumming with wah,horns climbing intricate scales and ending in staccato blasts,percussion instruments such as the conga's,cowbell or timbali's accentuating/puntuating/pulsating the overall rythmic color...... Yeah man,T-I-G-H-T!!!!!
Mr.Q
Click to expand...

I would like to hear some of that Q.
I am a B3 freak and own at least 5 different ways of
emulating a B3. I almost have them all but the real thing.............some day............

Post something on the mp3 clinic for me to hear or a link were I can down loadsome stuff.
Have you ever heard any thing by Niacin?
 
the pre's on the 24-8 are excellent. ages ago, i worked with the chemical brothers. they use that desk for their live set, and they used it in my studio too. it's got a GREAT sound to it.
 
QUOTE:....................the pre's on the 24-8 are excellent. ages ago, i worked with the chemical brothers. they use that desk for their live set, and they used it in my studio too. it's got a GREAT sound to it....................

Longwave, which desk do u have, the Mackie or the Spirit 24/8?
 
sorry, the mackie.
and it's not me who has it, it's the chemical brothers.

although, i use 2mackie d8b's. mackie make quality stuff.i know that the 24/8 sounds amazing.

Believe by Cher, and some Ricky Martin stuff has been mixed on THAT desk.(mackie 24/8)
 
Yep Longwave, I've seen Mackie's blurb on who has used their 8 buss desks too, but what they dont say is exactly what was done on these desks............they would like us to believe that whole albums were produced on them, some how I doubt it!

Anyways, until someone actually does controlled A-B tests of a near laboratory standard on all these consoles we will never have a true picture of their various attributes and shortcomings and even that wont tell us if one is sonically "better" than the other cause it is ultimately a personal thang.

ChrisO
 
Both Mackie and Soundcraft are good boards. I have used both and have achieved similar results on both. For the price a Mackie is a great deal, but you end up sacrificing a few things for it. One of the things is that you only have phantom power switches on every 8 channels. When you turn on the switch it turns on all 8 channels. Where I think it’s the Spirit that has phantom power on every channel. I believe the outer Soundcraft boards are the same way. The outer thing that is nice about the Soundcraft is that you get a phase reversal switch on every channel. This is important if you are doing any stereo micing.

These are just a few of the differences I can remember of the top of my head between the Mackie and the Soundcraft (Spirit). I think with the right engineer both boards can sound great, but if you have a tight budget Mackie is probably the way to go. I have a Mackie 3208 and am very happy with the sound I get from it.
Andy
 
is all the junk about mackie wires going bad and electric problems seen in many of their boards? i'm just concerned that if i get the mackie 1604, there might be something wrong with it that i'd get stuck with. but if i get the spirit fx-16, i don't know if it'll introduce a ton of unwanted noise that people tell me about.

t
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top