Why Mackie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mixman
  • Start date Start date
a clitoris ball??? huh?

I don't know. Ask a girl.

On a serious note: Whats your ideas on what makes a good EQ. How come the Mackies EQ sucks horse dick, the Behringers EQ sucks elefant dick but the Ghosts EQ sucks sonusmans dick?

I wanna know what to listen for. I'm hoping to get a new mixer maybe this autumn or next year, and when I do I'm gonna pester the sales guys with trying stuff out properly. :)
 
To A/B the boards you would need to use the same mics and room and source.
After Bruce posts his clips, perhaps I could try to A/B
2 or 3 boards in the studio and post the results.
I dont have a Mackie and hand but I have a Sprit Folio
laying around and could probably find a different board laying around the studio.

I'll wait for Bruce first. As I cant spend to much time on this, these days. If that proves a point then great if not then I will make a go for it.
 
sonusman said:
First off Bruce, I am "giving" the preamp a better rap then anything else about Mackies. Great, so you got some decent enough preamps.

Now lets hear those mixes you are going to do through that sterile, cold, low headroom 24/8 you got! I wanna hear them.

Eq's a matter of taste? Are you suggesting you like the flavor? Yes or No. Nothing in between. The eq's on a Mackie are mostly unusable!

The next deal I am going to approach is that the console makes a BIG difference, even in the tracking environment. You are possibly going to monitor back through that Mackie, and with how horrible it handles a lot of volume, you are going to make subjective decisions about mic placement, mics, source sounds, etc....based off of a flaw mixer! Who the hell cares how good the preamp is if you can't hear what is really there while monitoring!

I want to hear the tracks. I want to hear them MIXED through those great Mackie gain stages! And those "matter of taste" eq's that nobody seems to care for (okay, nobody I normally associate with!) :)

Give it up buddy. I have yet to hear your work. Sneak up a mp3 to xdrive or something with a bogus name. That way you don't have to worry about the artist knowing about it. Hell, send it to me via email and I will post it descreetly on my xdrive account. I will claim that I broke into your place and stole a copy! No excuses now. Back your claims! :D You should have long ago to end the debate. As it is, you only have words and no tunes.....Let all decide for themselves. That IS the nature of having strong opinions, that you can back them up...;)

Ed
Click to expand...

I plan to Ed - the minute I get my first final mix off of my own band's cd I'll provide you a link to a snippet... I'd appreciate your feedback...

We've bantered this back and forth before and I don't doubt your opinion. We all have our subjective slice of gear experience that we draw our conclusions on.

Let me get more specific with mine - When I track, if it's overdubs I'm using an external pre, direct to ADAT, bypassing the board except for monitoring (I'll get to that...) I use the busses only as needed for multiple sources. I may have been one of the lucky ones in getting a 24/8 that passed QA, but I have never experienced the summing distortion problems you mentioned - I've pushed the meters plenty (specifically to test out the console's limits) and never encountered this issue........ I am pretty picky about sound so I would have ditched the board ages ago if it were exhibiting such a basic problem.

Ok, monitoring - what can I say - what I hear thru the monitors sounds great to my ears. I don't have bad ears, my sense of sound quality is pretty high, so what can I tell ya - I'm getting good sound... my clients are getting good sounds from me... so as far as I can tell, the board's doing fine by me! I have no doubt I can do better -- if I upgrade to the Ghost it might make my engineering life easier. But I consider my engineering life's pretty good already!!! :)

EQ - I did mention the word "arguably" in my previous post only because everyone's idea of musical EQ is pretty subjective. Since I have no concept of your subjective EQ preferences, there's no point in trying to discuss it one way or the other except to say that I'm pretty spare using EQ at all unless needed... I'm bigger on getting the sound down to tape before reaching for the EQ knobs... When I have used it, I could make it work for me....

So what can I say! Everything you've pointed out is valid... and also I know from my own experience I CAN work with a Mackie.... will I do so forever, probably not. But there is a lot of other gear in my purchase queue (including a Great River pre...) before I get around to replacing the console! ;)

Are we talking about out-mixing each other with our respective gear lists there Ed?? :D (I'm kidding, but come to think of it, it actually could be an interesting exercise... if someone has ADAT tracks they want to provide for an engineer's mixing experiment, it could be fun and useful from a gear research point of view!)

Seriously, you know that I respect your opinion there SC (oops!, I mean Ed!! ;) ), there's no question you know your stuff cold.... but I do also have my own experiences to draw on that don't really depend on anyone else's opinions of my gear!

Think about that mixing experiment - I'd be up for it!

Cheers,
Bruce
:)
 
Actually, I do have 1 cut that is almost complete I could make a sample mix from... I'll try to get to it in the next week...

Bruce
 
Bruce and Ed,
you have both expressed your individual opinions on the Mackie and the Ghost, now can you tell me where you feel Soundcrafts' Spirit Studio 8 bus would fit in the equation.
OK, I know it isn't goin to match a Ghost but can you tell me.........does it sit below, on a par or above the Mackie.

Regards...........ChrisO.
 



The eq's are much much more musical sounding. The faders actually have some linear quality to them. The Master buss doesn't crap out at +7. The overall sound is much more musical and smooth. Meters on the master deck aren't jumping all over the place. A lot of that digital harshness is gone.

I am learning to like Mackie pre's for certain things. Overall, I still think they are sort of cold and tend to not take care of weird transient stuff. But to mix on one is just plain torture!

Ed [/B]
Click to expand...

I don't know about this stuff Ed.. You are giving me a good laugh today..I just came back from LA, and read this.. so it brightened my day after 4 hours on a goddam plane!.. My mackie's 32/8's eq's sound pretty "musical" (what a technical term!!) to me.. I have never had a problem with my meters "Jumping all over the place" (can be poor tracking or, maybe the board is showing what the real sound is, instead of messin' with it, and compressing it, so your meters look all nice, pretty and stable (soundcraft))... Oh, and When i track, I try and avoid recording "wierd and transient" stuff.. I stick basically to the music... Are they really "torture" for you to mix on... Sorry 'bout your luck... my mixes have been compared to Mike Shipley and Clearmountains work...and done at about 1 hour per song (typically)... By the way.. The recording studio that recorded Cher's believe.. (sold 1,000,000 copies).. tracked and mixed it on a 32/8.... According to you... everybody only monitors keyboards on these.. I don't know, but this side of the debate is starting to sound poo-pooish.. or should I say.. like CRAPISH:)
From: Mackie lover .......Get used to it!!!!!!!
 
I wouldn't bother posting any samples.. Whats the difference. Ed might hate it, and the rest of us may love it, then where would it get anyone.. Personally, I don't allow any critiqueing (spelling?) of my own music, cause I don't give a sht about anyones opinion, as long as I like it and my clients are happy (which they are).. I think Steely Dan's "AJA" is the best recording of all time, and A pal of mine who is a pro engineer, thinks it is rubbish... I think Pink floyd bites moose cock, but millions, thrive on their stuff.... so where does opinions about music really get us.. everyone likes what they like, and hates what they hate...... Oh and this is my opinion on the matter...VXVNDR
 
You could argue the point of what is better untill the cows come home.
The fact is ------ you buy something to a budget, use it, like it at the time, and you will be prepared to defend your choice and your investment ................. until you have more money, and then you will buy something better, hear that it sounds better, and the stuff you used to shout about has been reduced to rubbish in your own ears, you'll no longer defend it.

Just be a little objective - spend more time on perfecting your listening skills, your mixing skills, try and get the best out of what you've got.

When it comes down to it, you are all right - from your own perspective. I have worked for a good 20 years on Neves, SSL's and the like. For me - I don't like SSL, I don't like the way it sounds, I don't like the way its layed out, actually, I dislike them quite a bit, and those things cost hundreds of thousands!
I now mainly work in Pro Tools, and I like it. I've worked on Pro Tools free, and I liked it, I did a whole album on a Mackie D8B and a bunch of ADATs, and I enjoyed it and, whats more, it sounds bloody damn good. ok, that things costs 10 grand, not nothing, but closer to nothing than something with a lot of zeros.

Work with what you've got, and perfect your skills.

Oh one little thing, voxvendor, don't believe everything your hear. Just listen to that Cher track, listen to the effects, the edits etc. I'm pretty good at spotting what was used on what. I tell you one thing, I could recreate the exact sounds on PT, no problem, with certain plug-ins. With hardware?? Just listen to it
 
SJOKO.. I could make those sounds at my studio also.. Even without PT. Thats not the point I was posting... Ed said "Don't believe those ads".. (What ads by the way.. I have read this info in articles, not ads)...and he said that all the famous people who have used them only use them for monitoring keyboards, and That is the most unresearched opinion, I have heard this month. I think it was the studio "River Sound" who, in an article, they mentioned recording and mixing Chers believe album on the mackie 32/8 and for a dance song is does have a remarkable warm sound.. although this could be attributed to being stamped onto tape after mixdown, or being run through some tube amps ... This was an article.. not an ad... Nine inch Nails... (Trent Reznor) has 3... which he tracks and mixes with.... Graham Nash installed on as his main console, not long ago.. I didn't mention anything about the effects or sounds in the song. Those are irrelevent, what i said was, that it was used to reocrd and mix that song... (I actually don't even like the song personally, but was making a point to Ed that famous people DO use them as MAIN consoles......wooooohoooo this is fun... The vender loves a great debate.....nexxxxxxt!!!!!!!Step on up!:)
 
MACKIE SUCKS..........

...oh... no, waituminit... I LIKE Mackie...

Forget I posted anything!

Bruce

:D :D
 
I should Print this whole thread out, staple it together and release it as a book.. million dollar idea!:)
 
LOL The track has PT and Antares plug-in stamped all over it..... somehow, somewhere, sometime it must have accidentally been left alone with a hard drive and some converters, they took advantage of the darkness and and had an orgy!. Perhaps late at night, when nobody was looking..........:)

I'm not criticizing - I don't care what people record on as long as they do it as good as they can. When it all comes down to it, I have a damn lot more respect for someone who can get a killer sound / recording out of a mackie or something similar, that for anyone who can produce a mediocre product on a main frame console, and unfortunately these are plenty of those as well
 
sjoko,

i'm just amazing myself on your knowledge. how can you hear that? i mean i can imaging that every way of recording has it's unique character but you pick 'm out???

hmmm i guess thats just experience... but what is it that made you think that recordingh was done with PT? can you expain it?

thanks guhlenn
 
The sound of the effect, which is stereotypical for the Antares Auto-Tune plug-in , the TDM version, which is designed for PT.
The mix, the moves in the mix, indicates use of automation quite a bit.

How I know? I'm an engineer! If I couldn't hear things, I shouldn't be. Apart from that, its a sortoff a hobby. My friends know I can recognise stuff, so they constandly try and trick me with stuff they've recorded. I do get it wrong - sometimes - but unfortunately they don't take bets on it anymore the basterds!:(
 
yeah i get the effects, it's a very characteristic sound. but i thought you heard that pt was used out of the overall sound. thanks.

guhlenn
 
I own the outboard version of the Antares ATR-1 and I love it, and yeah that effect can be made if you bring the speed right up to zero, so it makes avery fluctuation in pitch turn into a characteristic "step" sort of sound..But for some strange reason, I remember in that same article, that they mentioned a vocoder was used... I don't know much about these things, im not even sure how to spell it.. But yeah SJOKO we can totally mimic the sound with our antares systems. I was working on a dance music project once.. (although didn't really like it very much) and I was so tempted to use that effect on the little vocal accents throughout, but that effect is be overused and made old very quick eh?:)
 
taht effect is definately soon "dated".

i think it's dated already. everytime i hear it i have to think of cher. so points for the guy who came up with it...

guhlenn
 
I checked out the link... I was wrong, it was a digitech pedal,,,,, but still can't believe I spelled vocoder right!:) Thanks for posting that link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top