mixer advice

[Freddie]

I reckon the Mackie equivalent to the desks mentioned would be the CFX-20. Very intuitive and easy to use, I first saw one (my first desk!) a few weeks ago at school tech club, I'd got the basics within 1/4 an hour.

 

16 mono mic/line channels, 2 stereo line channels, 2 AUX sends, onboard FX, external FX send/return, Tape (record) out, tape (interval entertainment?) in, utility out, 4 subs, XLR subwoofer out, XLR and TRS main outs etc

 

Mackie site (deep linked)

Manual

 

The next model down id the CFX-16, the same but only 12 mono MIC/line channels.

[djw1981]

Drifting ever so slightly from the main topic, what's the general opinion on Mackie desks?  A mate of mine reckoned they were as good as you were going to get without forking out for A&H but I don't know how much he knows!

 

Opinions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wuldtend to disagree. I prefer the soundcrafts (even the spirit folio and LX7) to the equivalent Mackies. Yes there is an issue with some of the solder joints, but I prefer working with XLR where possible, and I find the consistent layout of Soundcraft gear to be intuitive when scaling up or down the range from say Church gigs up to big venues. The subgrouping is logical and its easier to follow your signal path (ie subgroups, matrix outs etc.

 

the soundcraft EQ is different but in my opinion better.

 

Like I said, its only IMHO.

[Mr.Si]

Don't Mackie tend to skimp on the fader length? I seem to remember that on some of their smaller desks, they only had 60mm faders rather than the nice 100mm that one should see on a console.

 

Though having said this, I think they argue that their faders are truely linear instead of logarithmic. Dunno how much difference this would make, but the dB scale is logarithmic, so that could be a bit of a pointless design by mackie.

 

Dunno.

 

Also, I don't like the physical layout of Mackie's stuff either (the aux's being above the EQ), although the pre-amps are supposed to be v. good, and the desks are well made too - British

[Freddie]

Yeh, the CFX has 60mm faders but they are log. now.

[Bobbsy]

Definitely NOT a fan of Mackie desks. I find the preamps brittle, the power supplies under-rated for the job and the EQ the most un-musical on the market today. Frankly, I would consider Mackie to be of similar quality to Behringer, but at least Behringer is cheap.

 

...and, as said, most Mackie boards have 60mm faders which are a pain as well.

 

If you want quality, buy Soundcraft or A&H; if money is the issue, buy Behringer but be aware of the shortcomings. Don't touch Mackie with a bargepole.

 

Bob

[Mr.Si]

I would consider mackie for recording, If I was on a 3 grand budget for a console, but I have an MX9000 by behringer which I love (apart from the leakage as I've said before). It's laid out better too.

 

And it's soooooo much less money

 

But yeah - A&H or Soundcraft are much better.

[Ed_N]

Thanks for the tips re: the Mackies. I have a Folio SX which I'm looking to switch for something bigger, my uses are both live (musical theatre) and recording. The SX has been pretty good however I was a little dissapointed at the quality of the mic preamps, also some of the (plastic!) jack sockets have gone a bit dodgy, however I'm sure I could replace them easily enough.

 

Having said that I guess the Folio SX is somewhat at the lower end of the Soundcraft range.

 

I shall continue my search!

[Mr.Si]

I have a Spirit SX, which I have gone back to using more now, because I never seem to need all the channels on my MX9000, and the SX is soooo much lighter too!

 

Shame it only has 3 band EQ though

 

Get an Allen and Heath GL2200 are a nice step up I think

[Bobbsy]

Thanks for the tips re: the Mackies.  I have a Folio SX which I'm looking to switch for something bigger, my uses are both live (musical theatre) and recording.  The SX has been pretty good however I was a little dissapointed at the quality of the mic preamps, also some of the (plastic!) jack sockets have gone a bit dodgy, however I'm sure I could replace them easily enough.

 

Having said that I guess the Folio SX is somewhat at the lower end of the Soundcraft range. 

 

I shall continue my search!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you don't like the mic preamps on the Spirit SX, then I wager you'll hate the ones on the Mackie or Behringer. The SX amps are actually not bad (not great, but not bad).

 

Bearing that in mind, I'll be another one to suggest you try an Allen & Heath....the mic pres (to my ear at least) are the nicest sounding in the "economy" range and you'll need a major jump in price to better them.

 

Bob

[Solstace]

My money would go to Allen and Heath every time - I've played with the ML3000, GL3000 and the ML4000 (my regular desk) and I love them all. I find the preamps to be neutral enough for the "c**p in = c**p out" theory to apply, and to my ear (at least in the gigs I do most regularly) the EQ's are second to none - easy, effective and relatively subtle.

 

Soundcraft are for me a necessary evil - the K1's and K3's just won't go away, but they sound good with easier or more musically-skilled material. I don't like their stereo imaging, but that's just the audiophile talking.

 

Mackie are for me a bit of a no-go. I cut my teeth in live sound using a Mackie SR24:4 - a good enough desk perhaps for many a church, but the sound was always a bit to "fragile" - the slighest movement on a 60mm fader gives a huge shift in balance. Preamps were great in terms of bandwidth but were always sounding "cold" or "brittle" - perhaps they don't have as much headroom as has been claimed. Their EQ was next to useless, but it taught me a thing or two about getting mic selection and placement right in the first place!! Also, the pots were a little "fragile" in their operation.

 

Behringer do some good outboard kit, but I wonder if the mixers are little more than cheap Mackie clones. Their imaging and sonic balance are actually pretty good, but as with Mackies, the EQ, pots and faders leave much to be desired. I've mixed many a successful show on the Euromixer equivalent to the Mackie SR24:4, but none of these were confortable experiences.

[Shaun Foster]

Soundcraft are for me a necessary evil - the K1's and K3's just won't go away, but they sound good with easier or more musically-skilled material.  I don't like their stereo imaging, but that's just the audiophile talking.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is the stereo imaging not more to do with your mix than the desk?

[paulears]

I suspect the 'imaging' problem is really the way the panpot law is followed. With near field loudspeakers, pan pots work reasonably well, but the effect is much weaker with wider spaced PA speakers. Tweaking the knob doesn't really shift the image much, and the central perceived placement remains pretty well where it was. Different manufacturers play with the law in slightly different ways, I like A&H panning a little more than Soundcraft, but in a room with closer speakers, Soundcraft to me is more locatable.

 

Note, I didn't say either is better - just different.

[Solstace]

All fair points Paul and Lightboy - was just giving the impression I've formed based both on live gigs and studio-based work (and yes, I've used both in each scenario!) Have made a mental note to take a listen to the action/interaction of the pots in future.

 

Using the same mics, speakers, amps and headphones, I just find that the image feels a bit "squashed" when using the K1 or K3, whereas the A&H mixers seem to retain more of the original depth and character of any given source. I guess at least it means I'm hearing what's going on!

 

C.