Soundcraft Ghost pre's

  • Thread starter Thread starter NL5
  • Start date Start date
NL5

NL5

Unpossible!
How are they? I have heard rave reviews, and some not so-good reviews. I am trying to decide between a Peavey AMR 1600 console, or a Soundcraft Ghost. Mostly for the pre's, eq, and summing capabilities. The pre's will mainly be used as "overload" pre's, when all my outboard pre's are already being used (probably mainly on drums)

I am also tossing around the idea of just getting another Motu (896) and using those pre's and a Folcrom for summing.

Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks,

NL5

edit - here is what I am running now - http://www.nlrstudio.com/equip.html
 
Hum Peavey or Soundcraft Ghost. Thats hard - SOUNDCRAFT GHOST!!

Soundcraft has some of the best EQs you can buy and their pres are warm and full.

Peavey I can't saw the hiss is so loud I can't hear anything
 
The 1600 is actually an AMR console, it's not your typical Peavey. They are actually pretty decent consoles. I haven't had a chance to play with either, however, of those that have, they have been split about 50/50 on which sounds better.

Do the ghost pre's come close to say something like the rnp?
 
Farview - Tell the folks about your modified Ghost preamps... :)
 
Hey - wasn't there a discussion about them on here somewhere?!??!

It seems like several people were trying to convince Bear to trade his Mackie for a ghost. Since they killed the search function, I can't find it!!!

Were the modified pre's pretty kick-butt?
 
The modified pre's do kick ass. There are a couple different chip upgrades. Both make it quieter and more responsive (the pre's and the eq). One of the chips is really slick sounding, SSL-ish the other is thicker, more Neve like.
Not that the board sounds as good as either, it just goes in that direction.
The Ghost is much better than a Mackie stock. (Warmer sounding pre's and 2 bands of FULLY parametric mids) Modified, it just leaves it in the dust.
I have never heard the Peavey that you mentioned, but it is hard to imagine more bang for the buck than the Ghost.
 
Hey, can you post a link to what you did (if there is one), or explain what you did?

Thanks.
 
Farview said:
The modified pre's do kick ass. There are a couple different chip upgrades. Both make it quieter and more responsive (the pre's and the eq). One of the chips is really slick sounding, SSL-ish the other is thicker, more Neve like.
Not that the board sounds as good as either, it just goes in that direction.
The Ghost is much better than a Mackie stock. (Warmer sounding pre's and 2 bands of FULLY parametric mids) Modified, it just leaves it in the dust.
I have never heard the Peavey that you mentioned, but it is hard to imagine more bang for the buck than the Ghost.

is there a way to perform this modification on an M seriies soundcraft (I know the M-series have the ghost pres)? I have an M8 and would be VERY intrested in this.
 
NL5 said:
It seems like several people were trying to convince Bear to trade his Mackie for a ghost.
True - but I opted not to since IMO, moving from a Mackie to a Ghost is pretty insignificant compared to moving from a Mackie to a DMXR100 - which is in the cards next budget it looks like.
 
Yeah, I was playing with one all week this week - They suck! :eek:

No, I'm kidding - Silky-smooth from top to bottom. And those chrome faders... Bling-Bling, yo!

No idea why they brought that board in though... It was being used as an overblown speaker selector... A UB-602 and a patchbay would've been sufficient... Over-equipped...

Really! :eek:
 
My next major upgrade will either be the sony board or maybe a used amek. I think there is a big difference between the mackie and the ghost, but if you have the mackie already, you might as well wait for the big leap.
If you don't have a console yet, the ghost is a much better buy.
 
Farview said:
My next major upgrade will either be the sony board or maybe a used amek. I think there is a big difference between the mackie and the ghost, but if you have the mackie already, you might as well wait for the big leap.
If you don't have a console yet, the ghost is a much better buy.
Agreed! :)
 
sonusman said:
Really?

Try clipping the eq.
OK fine, but that's true of ANY digital mixer. You send any signal into clipping on a digital mixer and it will have TONS of "suck-ability!"
 
Getting back to the original post, the Peavey AMR series is NOTHING like the straight Peavey boards. Just cause it says Peavey doesn't mean anything. Its just like the Amek/TAC situation. Many people love to advertise their TAC equipment as having NEVE mic preamps in it just because spomewhere along the line Rupert was involved in the design process of some of the TAC gear. Personally, I liked the warmth of my old TAC scorpion and the softness of the EQ. I also loved the way it sounded when you pushed it well into the red (never try that on a Mackie or a ghost). However, the TAC does not sound remotely like any other AMEK or NEVE that I have ever heard. In the Peavey AMR case it's kind of the opposite. The AMR is really a different beast. It has a much warmer wider sound than any peavey, the EQ is much more versatile and usable, and the noise floor is WAY better. Also, the AMR consoles are setup pretty decent for studio use. They were designed to be large format knock offs at a better price point. Personally, if you feel ok about buying a used console, the Peavey/AMR line offers a lot of bang for the buck and in my opinion is a nice little step above the Ghosts. If you want to buy new though, the quality versus cost of a Ghost is a really good value.

As far as Ghosts having that "soundcraft" EQ, I don't buy that for a second. The ghost EQ sounds very stiff and mucky to me when you compare it to the EQ on an older TS24, or even a 6000. That, in my opinion, is the real "Soundcraft" EQ that gave Soundcraft their reputation. I have actually worked on a bunch of the newer Soundcraft Series 5 FOH consoles as well. The EQ on those is FAR better than that of a Ghost (it should be, it costs 20 or 30 times more).

I have not actually used a Ghost that has the IC mods, so I can't say anything about that. I do know though that changed IC's and op amps can change the sound of a circuit 180 degrees. Sopmetimes thats good, sometimes bad. However, it seems that a fully modded Ghost puts you in the same oprice range as a used Trident series 65, and maybe even series 24.

The good news for me is that I never have to worry about any of this again. I just bought a large format 10' long console with 98 new P&G faders, 12 auxes, 44 channels of 4 band sweepable EQ, 44 channels of 4 band with parametric mid's, 8 stereo channels, 24 busses, full patchbay, and on board routing and muting automation. All of that isn't costing too much more than a new SOny DMXR100. So for Blue Bear, the deals are out there;)
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
True - but I opted not to since IMO, moving from a Mackie to a Ghost is pretty insignificant compared to moving from a Mackie to a DMXR100 - which is in the cards next budget it looks like.


Won't that be digital summation?!?!? I though you were totally against digital summation?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Farview
My next major upgrade will either be the sony board or maybe a used amek. I think there is a big difference between the mackie and the ghost, but if you have the mackie already, you might as well wait for the big leap.
If you don't have a console yet, the ghost is a much better buy.


Thats what I thought as well. Especially when I found a all-but-new 24 LE for $2000. Couldn't pass it up. :D
 
I turned down a chance to purchase a Hill 800 large format analog console.... too much maintenance headaches for an older analog board AND more importantly, I need the ability of instant recall to switch configurations and projects quickly.

This is why I'm upgrading to the Sony DMXR100.... it is a serious board with a serious rep, used in many major production houses.
 
NL5 said:
Won't that be digital summation?!?!? I though you were totally against digital summation?
No - not totally against it... it's just that haven't been impressed with the summing inside my DAW (via Cubase SX)....

Not all summing is created equal - and I've heard stunning mixes out of Yamaha and Sony digital boards.

I could be wrong (since I don't have stats to prove it) but my IMPRESSION from what I've seen so far is that DAW-summing and summing via mid/large-format digital consoles are two completely different things from a sonic perspective.
 
Back
Top