which of these 3 mixers would you pick (and why)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter westermane
  • Start date Start date
ausrock.

I stated in another thread that until you have experience working with top end gear, you have little to draw on to make comparisons.

I have worked on a SSL, DDA, Trident, Soundcraft, Neve, API consoles before. Have you?

I am not slamming here, but how can most of you guys have a BIAS opinion unless you have worked with the stuff? You get what I am saying? If you have worked on a variety of consoles and had to get sounds a client wants out of them, and had a producer breathing down your neck because the vocal sound "brash and sterile! Fix it!".

Is not the advice to buy Mackie biased? I am assuming that all who give out "buy Mackie" advice have tried all the Allen and Heath consoles, all the Soundcraft consoles, and all the Mackie consoles, and been able to compare them to a variety of more traditionally used recording consoles, right? Forget paid advertisement, it doesn't count.

So, if my opinion is biased, thank the audio god's frequency heaven that I have heard the difference! ;)

Good day.
 
analogy time...

A-SSL neve API = Paganini Zonda
B-Soundcraft = corvette Z06
C-mackie = BMW M3

A-ok so you can splash out $100Ks out and have a car that is faster and can take corners like crazy.. good, but you are out a shitload of money, and when are you really going to use all that power and agility?

B-Ok this car is under a quarter of the Zonda and it can get over 200mph if you know what you are doing, it cant corner as well, but you can get more out of the potential then you could witht he Zonda.

C-Ok, so this is half the price of the Z06, it can get to over 150mph no problem. it can corner like hell, its comfortable, and you can really squeezt the usefulness out of it. in the city you will get higher mile/gallon, you wont get stuck on speed bumps. and it gets maintained at a pittance compared to the other two.

which car do you think the homerecordist is gonna buy?
 
Don't use the Mackie EQ for DAW Recording

This has been an interesting post. I disagree with Sound Cracker in his assessment of Mackies. Personally, I have not yet run across a "budget" mixer (Mackie, Soundcraft, Allen & Heath or otherwise) that I can "use" the EQs in recording. Many people on this board do hard disk recording. In such a setup, there really is NO need to EQ stuff going into the computer, since most all DAWs have parametric Equalization (which give far more control over the signal).

First of all, you really should NOT start automatically turning EQ dials before you listen to the sound (preferably, in Context to the rest of the material). Secondly, If you are using a microphone, there are a lot of ways to "naturally" EQ a signal, just by altering the mic position. Thirdly, if you are serious about mixing a good product, you would NOT risk destroying a perfectly good signal with EQ (especially w/ the shelving EQs that come in all budget mixers) before you even hear the signal with all of the other parts of the mix.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't ever EQ to tape. All I AM saying is that doing so is extremely risky, especially if you are a hobbyist or beginner to recording. Even the best of engineers practice subtle processing of a signal when recording to tape or "hard disk". The drastic stuff is done at mixdown.

I cannot understand all of this talk about Mackie's EQs for digital recording. The best use of this mixer is to simply use the preamps "as is". No EQing; clean signal. The EQs of the three smaller Mackies are NOT EVEN Semiparametric. There simply is NOT enough control over the EQ curve to EQ anything. Do your equalizing within the computer; put a clean, noise-free signal on tape/disk without the console EQ. Preamp to preamp, the Mackies compete with pres far more in price. I have used equipment from all levels of the spectrum and there simply is not enough of a noticeable difference in the Mackies and other SOLID STATE (read: non-tube) equipment to expain the bashing that Mackies have endured from some. Check out the 3D Audio Mic Pre CDs if you need proof. Or better yet, do a test for yourself and be man/woman enough to let US hear this drastic difference to explain much of this macho nonsense talk.

The Take Home Lesson: 1. DON'T GET INTO THE HABIT OF EQING STUFF TO TAPE (Use mic position as a first resort or WAIT till mixdown to EQ)
2. IF YOU INSIST ON EQING TO A DAW, for the love of God, Please DON'T use the console EQ of ANY Non-parametric budget mixer. Better yet, see Lesson #1 and don't use the console EQ.

Much success in recording.

Rev E

P.S. Any EQ (expensive or cheap) adds an amount of "distortion" to a signal when it is applied, which simply means that this signal is electronically changed in a minor way from its pristine original state. Expensive gear compensates by making the distortion sound "pleasing" to the human ear. This is why mic position is so important to the engineer who doesn't have all the money in the world. Mic position (with reasonably good mics and cable) gives you a way of changing the tonal color of the signal without introducing distortion. Have you ever noticed that some recordings have something "clean" and open about them. Some of this comes from NOT adding stages of distortion to the signal (read: natural processing of the signal). Truth be known, much of how something sounds can be fixed using good equipment AND good mic positioning WITHOUT stages of needless processing and over-EQing.
 
Could'na said it better myself Rev...

Amen...........

(and that's about as religious as I get!)

Bruce
 
I use a beringer for headphone mixes.... IT ROCKS!!

GO TASCAM!

xoxo
 
Sound Cracker: do, please, suggest an A&H or Soundcraft mixer in the price range of those in the original question. I don't recall much in that ballpark, myself. If you're so knowlegeable why aren't you helping?
 
I'm still waiting to see Sound Cracker take up the challenge and answer my first post here, (as well as other questions that have been directed to him), instead of issuing a reply that is tangental to the issue. After all this is the HOMERECORDING site and maybe in his opinion we are just too "low" to really bother with.

<------sits back making a mental note NOT to judge all Sound Engineering Profesionals by SC's example.
 
ausrock....

As soon as you are ready to research a bit, your "challenge" will be answered.

What more can I say friend? If you are thinking that Mackie preamps are the stuff hits are made on, you are very sadly mistaken.

If you are going to provide an example of the "exception", I would challenge YOU to listen to something like Heart's Dreamboat Annie LP and really ask yourself, did you ONE example of a whole national release CD where Mackie was the exclusive preamp and mixer used sound anywhere as good as it?

If you say yes, I cannot have any kind of discussion with you concerning tracking and mixing sound friend. Good sound is not THAT subjective.

I have probably worked on Mackies consoles in the last 10 years as much as anybody you can find. You think I would have such a "obsessive" opinion without experience? Well, in your defence, how could you know? But rest assure friend, I have done more then a fair share of frustrated mixing on a Mackie, and have even had the opportunity to mix the same material through consoles that are not that much more money. The difference is stunning at least.

In about mid March, I will actually post two mp3's, one mixed on a Mackie, and one mixed on a Soundcraft console and let YOU hear what I am talking about.

Peace, and Good day!
 
Sound Cracker............I will respond to your last post more or less in the order it is written.
1; Why and what am I researching?.....WHAT I am trying to do is get you to explain in a clear, precise and informative manner what it is about Mackie desks that you find lacking---- as I said in an earlier post "maybe we may learn something"
2; NO! I don't think Mackie are "the stuff hits are made on".....BUT I am hoping to find out exactly why this is so.
3; I am not providing an example, simply because so far I haven't I haven't said a word either for or against any make of desk. And for god's sake, where did anyone here say that Mackie was the exclusive pre-amp and mixer used?
4; You have worked extensively on Mackies and found them frustrating?...I repeat-: Why exactly?
5; I genuinely look forward to hearing the mp3s when posted.

Am I getting my message across? If you have had the opportunity to work on various desks (PARTICULARLY MODELS WITH RELEVANCE TO THE HOME STUDIO BUDGETS), PLEASE share this with us, BUT in a way that after reading it we can say that we understand the reasoning behind your opinions.

<-----wonders if SC is Damir Dokic..........just kidding.
 
Ill bring it up again.... "loser" by Beck. I dont think he had a Neve or a Neumann... and it was a huge hit. But I dont know what he used... so who knows, right? But SC, you're sounding like your talking out your ass to me, man, cuz its good songwriting that makes hits, not good consoles.

More good shit recorded on shitty gear...:

everything by Robert Johnson.

Bob Marley and the Wailers, "Live"

DMB, "remember 2 things"

Luscious Jackson, "natural ingredients"

SOTD, "4 feet high"

xoxoo

ps, some of these are just hunches that they used some weak gear. Some are confirmed knowledge.
 
Re: ausrock....

Sound Cracker said:
In about mid March, I will actually post two mp3's, one mixed on a Mackie, and one mixed on a Soundcraft console and let YOU hear what I am talking about.

Peace, and Good day!
Click to expand...

Hey SC.... Bullshit...

...not in the sense that you are lying about posting or that I think you're talking thru your hat, but in the sense that the comparison samples will mean or prove anything.... exactly how are you going to provide an identical mix done thru 2 consoles???

What will you be judging, the pre's? the EQ's?? The summing amps??? How will you isolate each element to distinguish which one is better???? The way you mix on a given console will be the way you mix it - it is likely that you will revert back to trying to acheive similar sounds for the tracks to match the "vision" you have in your head about how it should sound - you will adjust to each console to make that happen, regardless of the type!!!

C'mon man, cut the crap... what exactly makes the console "great"?? The quality of the pres and the usability of the EQ!!!!! All the other things found on the SSLs, Neve's etc... are gravy (nice gravy, but having 20 aux sends or 16 output busses will not "improve" sound quality.)

The bottom line in talking about consoles is the coloration or lack of coloration that they have, mostly due to the pres if the EQ is cut out of the circuit. When you say you have a preference for a high-end console, you are providing a very subjective opinion in that it is a coloration that appeals to YOU........... automatically, any console that doesn't have that coloration, will be substandard to your own ears... the Mackies pres are notorious for being colorless, (or sterile in some people's words), whereas some may listen to the Soundcraft for more warm coloration that sounds better TO THEIR EARS....

IF you bring in the subject of EQ into the picture, you end up talking more about the EQ's circuit design and its usability to color the sound to your personal taste........

If you post your clips, I'll absolutely listen to them, but they will be easily dismissed as an invalid comparison. There are too many variables to be conclusive to any degree....

Peace dude....

Bruce
 
Bruce, you're my hero!

Yeah, EXACTLY what Bruce said!!!!

(BTW Bruce, I was checking out your website and it looks like you play a pretty mean guitar! Nice pics! What kind of gits do you use?)
 
Hey thanks MQQ...

I've got a few guitars, but the main pair that I use are an American Deluxe Strat and a Guild Starfire IV (semi-acoustic)

Bruce
 
Bruce....

The two console I will use are very similar in their make up as far as eq, aux sends and busses.

I was just thinking today that I could also track the project through both consoles too. I have access to a splitter snake that is big enough to handle the inputs and enough recorders to run both at the same time.

I am without bias in approaching tracking and mixing. I cannot throw a mix one way or another just to prove a point. I have to try to get the best sound possible out of what I have always. I think that keeps me working eh? :)

What you will not know when I post these mixes is which mix was done on what console. I will just ask for everyone to post their preference, and just for fun, a guess at which mix on which console.

What that WILL prove, because I am certain that most will prefer the Soundcrafts mix over the Mackies is exactly what I have been saying all along here, that Mackies have a garbage can sound and are a compromise. Oh, did I mention that new, these two consoles were around the same price? The Soundcraft cost a bit more, but has a couple features which has little to do with sound quality that upped the price.

My point all along is that people are usually looking for gear that will produce the sounds that they are used to hearing. In addition, they are looking for gear that just outright sounds good too! With the benefit of this side by side comparison, you could be the judge yourself as to which console produces sound that emulates more closely sounds that you are used to hearing in recordings, and which sounds better to most.

You will see friend.

Peace, and Good Day!

pglewis. I actually asked the original poster a few posts back what they were looking to do with any of these consoles. 2 of the 3 only have two mic preamps, and the other has 6? 8? 10? Something like that, I didn't spend that much time looking it over. Anyway, I am assuming that the poster is looking for a preamp solution for recording to a DAW or some other type of "only two in" type of recording platform.

If that is the case, I would just recommend buying a ART dual preamp of either variety (the regular Dual MP being cheaper then the Pro, but not really sounding any worse) Without a doubt, if preamps are all that is needed, then the ART has a better sounding preamp then most any low end console to most peoples ears.

I could think of a few other scenario's in wanting only a two preamp 4 channel mixer, and even if those were the case, I would say just use the preamps you currently have and save up for a better recording solution.

So there, I was trying to be helpful, but didn't get an answer to my question. I supect many are going to have to go and read all the posts again to see that I actually asked that question. You missed it! :)

Peace and Good Day to you too!
 
Hey SC...

...but THAT'S exactly my point!!!!!

You will always try to get the sound in your head out of the console you're working with to the best that you can! So A/B mixes between consoles are going to automatically be biased because you will always work to the best of your ability, doing whatever signal processing is needed to make the mix sound right. The minute you start down the "ok, I added 3db@300 on that bass track on console A, so I need to do the same on console B..." you're fucked, because with console B's path and EQ, it may not be 3db@300 that is required to get that same sound as console A. (The EQs may be different).

And let's address the "garbage can sound" -- I tried to draw this out in my prev post, but let's try again....

What, specifically are you referring to??? The EQ?, the pres?, the summing amps???? It is relatively easy to make a neutral-sounding mic pre circuit that is flat from 20-20K and is fairly stable. The REAL difference between the SSLs, Neve's, etc and anything at a lower price point is features (high-quality comps and gates on each channel), number of auxes, number of busses, routing flexibility, automation, AND signal path circuitry that is extremely stable at a wide gain structure and frequency range. The lower-priced boards compromise on circuit stability at different gain structures, but the pres are still capable of a very un-colored, neutral sound.
On an aside - if anyone else reading this wants to understand what circuit instability is (or at least what it sounds like), try connecting an Alesis 3630 to a channel insert on a console running at a +4dbu gain structure... circuit chaos city...)

But back to the discussion at hand, SC.......
If you EXPECT that coloration and even more, LIKE the coloration, as I said, any board that you use that DOESN'T exhibit that same coloration will sound like "garbage cans". You're statement is biased to your particular liking of a certain board's coloration, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that the Mackie's are BAD, just that YOU don't like 'em!!!

SO......... again I repeat, can you please quantify your statement "garbage can sound"? What is it exactly that you think you are hearing?


Bruce :)
 
Last edited:
Bruce,

After all our repeated efforts to have SC qualify his statements, and his continual digressions from them, I think we ought to give up. (I'm trying to be polite in regard to his responses) but enough is almost enough.

Regards...........ChrisO :o)
 
I caught you Bruce!

side note: You changed "capability" to "capable"
right before my eyes! That was cool!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top